{"id":977,"date":"2010-01-15T13:16:32","date_gmt":"2010-01-15T13:16:32","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ihbconline.co.uk\/newsachive\/?p=977"},"modified":"2010-03-24T13:17:02","modified_gmt":"2010-03-24T13:17:02","slug":"sos-rejects-cherwell-dc%e2%80%99s-cold-war-heritage-protection","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/?p=977","title":{"rendered":"SoS rejects Cherwell DC\u2019s Cold War heritage protection"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The Secretary of State for Communities  has approved proposals for the redevelopment of the former USAF base at  Upper Heyford, including overturning refusal of 24 Conservation Area  Consents.<\/p>\n<p>The fate of the site, near Bicester in Oxfordshire, had  become a planning saga lasting more than a decade while the North  Oxfordshire Consortium (NOC), the former owners of the base, and  Cherwell District Council wrangled over its fate. NOC, which involves  house builders Taylor Wimpey and Persimmon Homes, wanted to build 1,075  homes, a primary school and a number of retail and business units at  Heyford Park, as the site is now known.<\/p>\n<p>Redevelopment of the site  poses conservation issues as the former military base is regarded as of  historical significance by English Heritage because of its key role  during the Cold War.<\/p>\n<p>The site is currently owned by Dorchester  Group, which welcomed Mr Denham\u2019s decision, which safeguards hundreds of  existing jobs at the site in businesses located in former military  buildings. A spokesman for the council said: \u201cCherwell District Council  is disappointed by the decision and has maintained a consistent position  to ensure the long-term conservation of the nation\u2019s Cold War heritage,  in line with guidance provided by English Heritage, while balancing the  delivery of sustainable economic and housing growth.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The  decision was in line with the recommendation of an inspector who held an  inquiry into the recovered appeals. In granting consent, the decision  letter concluded that &#8216;the proposals in the lead appeal strike a  sustainable and reasonable balance between securing the long-term future  of the appeal site and retaining its built and natural heritage&#8217;.<\/p>\n<p>The  letter summarised the conclusions of the Secretary of State as follows:  &#8216;&#8230;when assessed against SP policy H2, the \u00a0lead appeal proposals  would substantially accord with the development plan. He \u00a0acknowledges  and has given due weight to the extent to which the proposals fail \u00a0to  comply with the SPD. He has carefully considered the requirement in  PPS15 \u00a0for the objective of the preservation or enhancement of the  character or \u00a0appearance of a Conservation Area to be given high  priority, with a presumption \u00a0against granting planning permission which  would conflict with that objective \u00a0unless there are exceptional  overriding circumstances. \u00a0Overall, however, he concludes that the  proposals in the lead appeal strike a sustainable and \u00a0reasonable  balance between securing the long-term future of the appeal site and  \u00a0retaining its built and natural heritage. He is satisfied that the  proposal will \u00a0achieve a high quality of design in the New Settlement  Area and provide a level of employment that is appropriate and  proportionate within the context of the site\u2019s location and its limited  access to services. He considers that the balance \u00a0lies in favour of the  lead appeal proposals and that there are no material \u00a0considerations of  sufficient weight to justify refusing planning permission. He also  \u00a0concludes that allowing the lead appeal proposals justifies allowing  the appeals \u00a0against the refusal of the 24 Conservation Area Consents.  satisfied that the proposal will achieve a high quality of design and  provide a level of employment that is appropriate and proportionate  within the context of the site\u2019s location and its limited access to  services&#8217;. The letter added: &#8216;He considers that the balance lies in  favour of the lead appeal proposals and that there are no material  considerations of sufficient weight to justify refusing planning  permission&#8217;. He also concludes that &#8216;allowing the lead appeal proposals  justifies allowing the appeals against the refusal of the 24  Conservation Area Consents&#8217;.<\/p>\n<p><a title=\"http:\/\/www.planningportal.gov.uk\/england\/government\/news\/\" href=\"http:\/\/www.planningportal.gov.uk\/england\/government\/news\/\">Link to  Planning Portal News Item<\/a><br \/>\n<a title=\"http:\/\/www.communities.gov.uk\/planningandbuilding\/planning\/decisionsplanning\/secretarystate\/recentsecretary\/heyfordpark\/\" href=\"http:\/\/www.communities.gov.uk\/planningandbuilding\/planning\/decisionsplanning\/secretarystate\/recentsecretary\/heyfordpark\/\">Link  to Planning Decision<\/a><br \/>\n<a title=\"http:\/\/www.ihbc.org.uk\/news\/docs\/Heyford_Park_SOS_  letter150110.pdf\" href=\"http:\/\/www.ihbc.org.uk\/news\/docs\/Heyford_Park_SOS_%20letter150110.pdf\">Download  the letter<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Secretary of State for Communities has approved proposals for the redevelopment of the former USAF base at Upper Heyford, including overturning refusal of 24 Conservation Area Consents. The fate of the site, near Bicester in Oxfordshire, had become a &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/?p=977\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-977","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sector-newsblog"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/977","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=977"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/977\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":978,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/977\/revisions\/978"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=977"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=977"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsblogs.ihbc.org.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=977"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}