text version

Homepage

Removal Centre

History

Photos

Other Bits

Village Hall

Parish Councillors

Council Minutes

Wish List

Garden Association

Contacts

Local Businesses

The IRC Detailed Planning Application was approved by Cherwell District Council in January 2010. The Immigration Office has confirmed that a decision on which Site to Develop first (Yarlswood or Piddington) will be made in the new financial year (post April 2010)

ARNCOTT PARISH COUNCIL CONSIDERATIONS OF AN OPEN MEETIING REGARDING THE IMMIGRATION REMOVAL CENTER – A-SITE An Open Meeting was held on Tuesday 3rd February to discuss the Planning Application for the Immigration Removal Centre (A-Site Arncott/Piddington/Blackthorn) at which all Arncott residents were invited 15 residents attended and all comments were noted. The Parish Council considered these comments at a Planning Sub- Committee Meeting and our Planning considerations are below: • The report states that the area is now classified, according to ‘Cherwell District Landscape Assessment, as ‘within degraded urban fringe type landscape area where the influence of built development is unmistakably urban’, yet later says ‘A Removal Centre is not a use that is suited to an urban location’ – The area around Arncott/Ambrosden/Piddington/Blackthorn is unmistakably rural, we seek assurance that the District Council supports this view. If not then the building of an IRC in an ‘urban’ environment needs to be challenged. • Traffic: o Construction – Need to be assured will not use villages at all. o Secure Vehicles – Routing Order must enforce use of A41-B4011. o Staff – Will undoubtedly use villages to get to work, including Arncott. Arncott PC need to be engaged to plan traffic calming measures at all access/exit points to the village, and throughout. To include:  Ploughly Road - humps need to be replaced with something that works.  Vehicle Activated Signs deployed  30mph speed limit signs throughout village  Extension of 30mph zone to include new development south of Upper Arncott, including humps/chicane. • Planning Gain – what planning gain funds are available and how will they be distributed. • Broadband – The Planning Applications states ‘High-speed Broadband is achievable for Arncott’ – We need an assurance that we will get high-speed broadband. • What assurances are given that the IRC will not be downgraded from a secure unit to an open centre in the future? • Bicester Garrison has plans to expand into some of its disused sites, possible creating a super- Garrison. Will CDC consider this when considering the IRC Planning Application? How many villages/towns are expected to have an expanding Army Garrison, a Prison and an Immigration Centre in a rural location? • There will undoubtedly be activists outside the centre, like Campsfield, what consideration has been given to funding of extra police/ambulance service etc. • What assurances can be given over the security of the buildings and possible breaches of security? • The IRC is to be included on the existing (S5) bus route. What plans are there to increase the frequency of this service to cope with the increased usage to avoid a decrease in service to villagers? • The junction of Palmer Avenue and A4011 is dangerous now, with the increased traffic it will be an even worse – a condition of planning must be to create a roundabout at this junction. • The junction of the A41/Ambrosden turn is extremely dangerous now and is likely to receive more traffic with the increase in staffing at the IRC. A condition of planning must be to create a roundabout at this junction. Conclusion Whilst the Open Meeting and the Parish Council have no reason to Object to the Planning Application, the impact on this rural area will be immense, primarily from an increase in traffic. We respectfully request that CDC considers our points above and supports our concerns. Arncott Parish Council February 2009