Many objectors to the plans

The planning application for the "Eco" town which was considered on 11 August 2011 drew many many objections, and can be studied in detail here. This is a very long document, so we have summarised some of the main objections that various organisations said in their comments on the plans:

Objectors:
Oxfordshire County Council - Many pages of concerns, but these boil down to: Economic strategy light on detail, public sector expected to pay for the Eco-Business Centre and recover the money later, site for the proposed school is unacceptable, no funding for the school, temporary educational arrangements or transport, no commitment to when the community space will be delivered, proposed bus service not sufficient, no net bio-diversity gain.
OCC commented "It is the County Council's clear policy that additional service needs arising from a development need to be funded by the proposal.
In addition to leaving a substantial funding shortfall for services that are needed to support the application, the failure of the applicant to make an appropriate contribution towards those services sets, in our view, a dangerous precedent not only for future negotiations associated with any development in Bicester but more widely across the County...
... The discussions of the last few days with the applicant have served only to reinforce earlier concerns as to the financial soundness of what is being proposed"

Commission for Architecture of the Built Environment (CABE) - No masterplan, eco-credentials of the scheme are limited, little deviation from the standard suburban housing model, housing density far too low, lack of variety of house types.
Bucknell Parish Council - on grounds of traffic, light pollution, noise,  no master plan.
Middleton Stoney Parish Council - not consulted, no master plan, no public consultation and site chosen by a small group of councillors, no public examination, lack of infrastructure to serve the development, location of the development, loss of agricultural land, alternative brownfield sites should be used, financial viability.
Caversfield Parish Council - Unclear where new jobs will come from, traffic rat-running through the villages, building on greenfield site, top-down approach with no consultation, long-term sustainability of the bus route, traffic safety concerns.
Sport England - development doesn't include any playing field land, no information on sporting provision.

Comment or concerns:
Chesterton Parish Council - did not object but comments included: no public consultation and there should have been, alternative sites should have been investigated, private car usage, need to consider alternative brownfield sites, the Exemplar will have parking for 600 cars, financial viability questioned.
Natural England - The application does not have the feel of an exemplary Eco town site, not least in terms of biodiversity, concerned with the lack of clarity in the calculations of the green infrastructure within the development.
Berks, Bucks & Oxon Wildlife Trust (BBOWT) - extensive list of wildlife issues, including the comment: "the biodiversity enhancements within the scheme design remain uninspiring and there is little to justify the scheme’s billing as an exemplar of eco-town development."
Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) - Main concern is loss of 850 acres of greenfield land currently being farmed, overall strategy needed before agreeing the plans, need for far more certainty over financial viability and delivery of the whole eco town before embarking, need to review alternative sites, not clear how local job formation will occur, the "Exemplar" won't have houses built to the highest bulding code standard and therefore won't be exemplary. The report comments: "They (CPRE) are strongly of the view that the Exemplar scheme should not proceed before a viable Masterplan for NW Bicester Eco –development has been agreed in the context of a plan for all of Bicester."
The Environment Agency - Bicester sewage treatment works won't be able to cope if the whole development goes ahead, bridge design needs modification, assessment of risks to nature conservation is incomplete.

Supporters:
Bicester Town Council - but they raised many concerns, including: improvements promised for whole of Bicester are not considered, master plan should dovetail with a wider blueprint for the whole of Bicester, want to see opportunities for sustainable "self build" in NW Bicester, the promised jobs are normal building jobs not high skilled or green technology, application includes a site for a primary school but no plans or money to pay for it, no medical facilities or services in the application, transport problems.  They stated "Bicester Town Council is concerned that the ‘eco concept is being diluted to satisfy the commercial viability of the development and will only continue to support the project if the eco concept remains strong."

No Objections:
Network Rail - The developer has promised a contribution of £186 per household to rail infrastructure.
Chiltern Railways - no objections but the rail contribution should be provided to them.

Planning Committee "notes" progress on the "Exemplar"

Cherwell District Council's planning committee met on Thursday 22nd March 2012 to consider a number of planning matters, including one item on the progress of the Eco-town "Exemplar" which is what they are describing the first 400 house proposals as.

You can read the full report which the planning committee considered here.

In essence the report stated that some progress has been made towards finalising the legal agreement which was a condition of the planning permission, and some progress has been made towards creating a "Master Plan" for the site. 

At the meeting the Councillors agreed to "note" the contents of this report.

We still haven't been shown a Masterplan for the site, and the Section 106 agreement (which the developer and other interested parties have to sign for the development to go ahead) hasn't even been fully agreed.