Letters of objection and comment
have been received from Rapleys LLP on behalf of Malthurst
Petroleum Ltd, London Road, Mr N
Rose of Wychwood House, 31 London Road, Ms Maia e Silva
of 23 High Street, Mr J Parker of
Oak Underwriting, Cromwell Park, Mr G Simmonds of 22a High
Street, I Pickering of Oats
Health Food Shop, Mr Mathieson of 19 Cotshill Gardens, and Mr A
Corfield of 15 Norton Park. Their
comments can be summarised as follows:
The site is allocated for
employment use not for retail; People will be employed providing a service much like a
manufacturer unlike town centre traders masquerading as employers.
The use of the site would be
contrary to Policy E1 and E6 of the West Oxfordshire Local Plan;
The exceptions to Policy E6
have not been demonstrated in the supporting evidence;
Given the limited employment
allocations in the District it would be short sighted of the
Council to consider any potential
loss without a robust case being put forward by the
applicant; West Oxfordshire District Council does not
consider Chipping Norton a high priority for employment.
It would be an unwelcome
precedent for employment uses to be lost;
The proposed retail store would
be located well outside of the town centre boundary and as
such is an „out of centre‟
location; Chipping
Norton already has "out of centre" retail units on Station Road and
Worcester Rd Ind Est, indeed AutoSpares have recently relocated to this estate,
clearly some businesses are unsuitable for town trading, the national trend
shows "edge of centre" shops particularly supermarkets are desirable
and necessary to relieve town centres of pressure.
The NPPF details that retail
development should be within town centres; Not in Witney it doesn't,
Lidl is "out of centre".
The application does not
demonstrate that there would not be a significantly harmful impact on
in-centre trade and
turnover; Irrelevant, that is like trying to prove a
negative.
The applicant infers there is
potential for linked trips as part of the proposals, however, the
site is over 600m from the town
centre so this is unfounded;
There is not a robust case
against sequentially preferable food store sites and hence it is
contrary to saved Policy SH1;
There is no justification for
the need for this scale of retail development in an out of centre
location; The public's use of the "out of centre" Aldi store in Banbury shows there is a
desire for such a store.
The proportion of convenience units
in Chipping Norton is above the national average; Says who?
The signage at the boundary of
the site should be significantly smaller; Irrelevant.
The tree lined approach along
Banbury Road should be maintained; And it is.
In the medium term, hoardings
advertising the vacant sites on the adjacent business park
should be removed and not used as
a precedent for larger permanent signs for ALDI; Irrelevant
The comments that most of the
town want the shop or other verbal assertions have no
documentary evidence behind them; Incorrect WODC has
had 353 letters of support for the proposal.
The plans are smaller than the
Sainsburys application, but ALDI would not sell a smaller range
of products. It would also have
the same negative impact on the town centre; Ridiculous! how can it sell the same range in a smaller store?
The new store would be better
stocked and selling more products than older existing ALDI ????
stores. The agent is also the
same for both the previous Sainsburys application as for this
ALDI application; No, anyway so what!
The view from the Banbury Road
would not be the frontage but the side warehouse type wall; So! Any type of business on that site would be of similar construction, besides the building is set
back from the road.
Refrigeration units and the bin
area will be overlooked by persons living in Cotswold Gardens
who currently enjoy a leafy view;
Aldi will have to
accept being overlooked by people living in Cotswold Gardens
Delivery lorries would have to
drive across the car park for the loading bay and across the
parking area specifically
allocated for disabled people and those with children; No.
The loading bay is in full view
of a residential area and the noise and movements would be
disruptive;
One delivery a day does not
seem realistic and it is shown that this tends to increase once an
approval is in place;
The entrance/ exit to the site
is on a slight hill which is a concern in safety and visibility; Everywhere in Chippy
is on a hill.
The information at the open day
and now within the application has changed in terms of the
peak period traffic; ???????????????
They have suggested 4 car
movements per minute, even if we only take 2 in and 2 out per
minute, this is still 240 car
movements in 1 hour driving in and out of the town. This would be
on top of normal traffic; Where are these 240
cars coming from??
The traffic increase would
disrupt residents of Cotshill Gardens and Norton Park as well as
Chipping Norton High Street being
unable to withstand such traffic levels; Whatever is developed on that site will increase traffic.
Pollution levels will be
aggravated; So
will I if we don't get it!
Vitality and viability of the
town centre is a major issue and cannot help but be affected by an
out of town retail unit; Like in Banbury you
mean?
There are many times and other
examples of other market towns where out of centre
shopping kills the centre; Like Banbury and
Witney???
Chipping Norton is a small town
and would be affected all the quicker; It's called inbreeding!
No one will invest in a town
where everything can be bought out of centre; No one is investing in Chippy anyway, haven't
you noticed? PEOPLE KEEP TURNING IT DOWN!
Only if the co-op store
expansion does not proceed should sites such as these be considered; Chippy town centre needs
the Co-op expansion like it need a hole in its head.
The access to Cromwell Park is
close to the proposed access and is busy several times of the
day and this would present an
additional barrier to clear vision and an increased hazard for
staff leaving or entering the
park; Whatever is
there will.
The town already includes two
supermarkets and specialist food shops; And???
The proposed store is on the
eastern edge of the town and the main customer catchment is
on the west; Someone is assuming the store is for Chipping Norton
only, what about the villages like Hook Norton and Rollright??
The only plus of this site over
Sainsburys is that it is not next to a Primary School with its
dangerous traffic implications.
However, it is not on a frequent bus route;
So!
Many more jobs would come from
employment uses over retail and this site should be kept
for that purpose; Like a previous
objection, prove it!
Think of all the jobs lost
already from Parker Knoll and Bliss Mill; They're producing jobs not losing them, strewth!
Is the same data being used for
the retail assessment as with the Sainsbury application?
Why is there such haste for
this application? ??
The store should be altered so
that the refrigeration and delivery bay are adjacent to the
Business Park not the retail
area, or they should commit to noise mitigation work;
The arguments for noise in the
report submitted seem to refer to incorrect addresses;
The opening of a pedestrian
access from London Road to the site should be made a condition. Land between the site and london road is privatly owned.
of approval and would increase
footfall and use by public transport; Are you objecting or agreeing??
The route from the Banbury Road
by foot is not suitable with uneven surfaces, narrow
footpaths. A level crossing
should be provided to the other side of the road. Why? Are they laying a new railway track too?
Access should logically be from
Cromwell park not directly from the Banbury Road. Cromwell Park is privately owned.