Local Democracy (Debate)

Tue 23 Jan, 01:33 (last edited on Tue 23 Jan, 01:34)

I heard tale, that towards the end of the 19th century there was - in reality - something called the Know Nothing Party or movement in the USA. Not inclined at this time on a sleepless night of discomfort to want to Wikipedia to see if my hazy recollection is true.

But it's an, err, enlightening concept...

Wed 17 Jan, 18:27

From How to be an Alien by George Mikes (s1948) in the chapter "How not to be clever" "In England it is bad manners to be clever, to assert something confidently.  It may be your personal opinion that two and two make four, but you must not state it in a self-assured way, because this is a democratic country and others may be of a different opinion."

Mon 15 Jan, 19:21

Well thank you Nigel!

I'm sure that you are just as clever as me, if not more!

It's simply that I'm in my 70's and have had a strange interest in Politics, Philosophy, and Economics, for decades.  It's passed the time but I don't think I've gained anything from it.

Hannen.

Mon 15 Jan, 19:00 (last edited on Mon 15 Jan, 19:01)

Gosh. I just wish I was as clever as you, Hannen. Oh well.

Mon 15 Jan, 18:14

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”

― Isaac Asimov

I think that this applies in England as well.

Sun 14 Jan, 08:44

Does "Government by WhatsApp - end to end encrypted" pass as democracy?

Sun 14 Jan, 00:53

Or there's this from Voltaire:  

'An ideal form of government is democracy tempered by assassination.'  

Sat 13 Jan, 19:14 (last edited on Sat 13 Jan, 19:19)

If we are counting beans, then I'm very interested in the new financial information that Jim Clemence has added to the details of the FOWOC website in response to some of the queries on this thread. (See his long post on 5 January.)

We are told that since its founding 10 years ago, FOWOC has raised £47,000 from over 100 donors. Also that the new legal action is funded by 56 donors pledging over £21,000.

That's a lot of money for concerned private individuals to provide, and I would be really interested to know  if any of that funding has been provided by businesses and also who the major donors have been. The Charity Commission website does not give details, although it does list a loan advance of over £19,000 during the 2022/2023 tax year, with £15,000 repaid.

Sat 13 Jan, 15:10 (last edited on Sat 13 Jan, 15:11)

Sat 13 Jan, 13:16

Hey, we all love the thumbs up emoji that Richard’s put on. Maybe we should use them to reach a decision? 
Over to the bean counters…

Sat 13 Jan, 13:12

'No-one believes more strongly than comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal.   He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves.   But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?'

(George Orwell,  Animal Farm, of course).

Sat 13 Jan, 11:51

Alternatives Rod.

Well, I would be the Dictator, and if you were nice to me I would make you a Minister for whatever you chose.

I'd also abolish Parliament, and make all those Lords who have bought their peerages pay the equivalent to the Exchequer. 

Sat 13 Jan, 11:17 (last edited on Sat 13 Jan, 11:46)

Blimey Hannen, that's opening it up a bit!  OUR democracy is slowly 'dying from a thousand cuts', not least from the present government, but if you think it's flawed as a system, try the alternatives!

Sat 13 Jan, 08:00

Democracy is a flawed system.  Read Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates.

Aristotle, listed democracy as the failed version of rule by the multitude.

Democracy is inherently flawed, being the rule of people with little economic and other knowledge, who are easily influenced by charlatans.  Brexit is a classic example.

Fri 12 Jan, 16:16 (last edited on Fri 12 Jan, 16:34)

Anything said by Jed Bartlet must be right and true (we are enjoying a binge re-visit to The West Wing at the moment)

Fri 12 Jan, 09:00 (last edited on Fri 12 Jan, 09:19)

Charlie WODC ‘asked’ for comments and the vast majority of Charlbury residents who expressed an opinion are against the development and for very sound reasons

It is also a matter of record that WODCs planning proposals have been rejected by the courts three times already at great expense to public funds

‘In my opinion’ this merits some consideration and acknowledgement from our elected officials which was the original basis for my post

Fri 12 Jan, 00:00

'Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but also his judgement; and he betrays you instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion'.     (Edmund Burke). 

'That was just before the voters of Bristol threw him out ...'  (Jed Bartlet).  

Difficult, isn't it? 

Thu 11 Jan, 23:08

"A policy of revoke when the majority had voted to leave is similar elitist ‘I know best’".

Absolute balderdash!

In terms of the referendum to leave the EU, 51.9% voted to leave against 48.1% who voted to remain. And many of thise who voted to leave were convinced by the famous "lie on the side of the bus" about an extra £350m per week for the NHS, as well as other lies promulgated by the idiot Johnson, Mogg, and their other cronies.

Of course we are wiser now. And a new referendum has been shied away from by all areas of the political spectrum. But in view of those monstrous lies, a new referendum is the only way - in my view - that Brexit will ever be validated.

To those who wish to continue with their "bean counting", what would you have your representatives do? Do we all queue up outside the Memorial Hall every Saturday morning and vote for or against all that our representatives will be voting in in the following week? NO! We elect these people who overall represent our various and varying opinions most realistically. 

The term we use comes from two Ancient Greek words for People and Power. It's called DEMOCRACY. 

Thu 11 Jan, 21:07 (last edited on Thu 11 Jan, 22:29)

Liz 134 against 13 for suggests to any rational person that there is not a great deal of variety and you and Andy Graham are ignoring the view of the vast majority and telling us what you think is best for the town so I think my repeated comments are justified

Following on from your dog walking conversation I have had many approaches from locals saying I am representing their views against the establishment

A policy of revoke when the majority had voted to leave is similar elitist ‘I know best’

A policy for a second referendum would have at least acknowledged democracy 

Thu 11 Jan, 17:55 (last edited on Thu 11 Jan, 18:08)

https://www.whatukthinks.org/eu/. ; See the poll of polls on current views on Brexit, Tony. 

There are a variety of views about Rushy Bank, as in virtually every aspect of life.  If we all agreed with each other all of the time it would be a very dull world. However, I must take issue with your repeated statement that Andy Graham and I act as if we "know what's best" for the town.  That really is quite unjustified. 

Wed 10 Jan, 22:10 (last edited on Wed 10 Jan, 22:16)

Chris I realise that our elected representatives know what’s best for us despite our clearly expressed views!!😁

Helen the LibDems wanted to ignore the referendum result as well✌️

Wed 10 Jan, 19:01

Oh you bean counter Tony,  you think it’s all about numbers, but the rest of us realise it’s about quality. 😂

Wed 10 Jan, 18:56

This is not an election or a referendum….

Wed 10 Jan, 13:49

134 public objections and 13 comments in support registered

Wed 10 Jan, 12:06

I seem to recall someone questioning whether the trees on site are ancient woodland. Well they are.

Sun 7 Jan, 12:49 (last edited on Mon 8 Jan, 12:11)

I'm all for Rod's idea of bringing in an objective planning inspector. But I believe the current system only gives this option to developers when planners or planning committees refuse their development. And developers only exercise it when they have some chance of winning. Seems little chance of that happening here.

Sat 6 Jan, 13:13 (last edited on Sat 6 Jan, 14:03)

This is by way of an addendum to my last post, for the benefit of the dozen or so who’ve read it!  Just that otherwise I’d be writing a book…

First, to acknowledge that it is much easier to object to housing proposals on what might loosely be termed environmental…

Long post - click to read full text

Fri 5 Jan, 16:07 (last edited on Fri 5 Jan, 16:13)

Purely for information (and not to prompt controversy), some updates about the breadth of FOWOC’s activities and fundraising has been added to the charity’s website which you will find at Home – About us and about the Rushy Bank development and challenges

To put comments below about the nature…

Long post - click to read full text

Fri 5 Jan, 12:27

I note that the site in question consisted of grassland and many trees prior to tree felling in about 2020 and the subsequent site clearing in 2021-22.

The planning application is for among many other things tarmaced roads, 37 separate houses and a sewage treatment plant.

I have read Ecological Assessment 2023 prepared by BSG Ecology, where it is stated there will be a 16.89% net gain for area habitats, a 34.66% net gain for hedgerows.

I cannot see how it is possible that there can be ANY biodiversity net gain, instead there as to be considerable NET LOSS of biodiversity.

I note NPPF 186. When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the following principles:

a) if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused;

I see no proposal for biodiversity compensation.

Therefore, the local planning authority must refuse the application, otherwise NPPF guidelines are not followed.

Fri 5 Jan, 11:52 (last edited on Fri 5 Jan, 12:06)

Oh I do so agree with the sentiments expressed in Liz’s post of 1 Jan!

I know some of the people involved on both ‘sides’ who, guess what – mostly have the best intentions in mind but disagree over how they should be achieved.  It is perfectly possible to hold…

Long post - click to read full text

Tue 2 Jan, 14:49 (last edited on Thu 4 Jan, 10:32)

My view of democracy is that it is based on those people who vote or express an opinion, not politicians 'opinion' that the majority support them

Also I believe challenges which resulted in the courts rejecting WODCs proposals three times are entirely democratic in bringing legal accountability to politicians

The other developments referred to are within the town boundary

I'm not sure the objective for this development was just to secure a small development outside the town boundary. Maybe a trojan horse!

I live on the Woodstock Rd so not motivated by the view!

Tue 2 Jan, 13:01

Rushy Bank has been supported by a lot of ‘ordinary’ long time residents in Charlbury, who have seen this development as a very positive contribution to the housing stock in the town, enhancing the chances of both young people getting on the housing ladder and older residents downsizing. Recent open market new build in the town has generally been aimed at the top end of the market. 
I have looked at the documents available on the Charity commission website, and it is noted that only three names are listed as trustees and no other supporters names are shown on the Friends of the Evenlode Valley website. The charity’s funds run to tens of thousands of pounds - deep pockets indeed.

I trust that council will stick to their guns and that this development will eventually be passed and that the opponents will finally give up their fight to thwart local democracy. It is the actions of the nimby opponents that has forced the Council to spend money.

The development should be taken forward with sensitivity and due regard for the environment, but let’s get real, it’s a piece of not high quality agricultural land, behind a railway station and industrial estate and close to a sewage works! I am sure, given time, the principle opponents will get used to a modification to their view (which is NOT a valid planning objection)

Tue 2 Jan, 12:43

Tony, The amount of people who are against the development do  not make up the majority of the town. Unless, of course, Charlbury has suddenly shrunk in its population size overnight. 

There were no objections regarding the newer houses up Ditchley Road, or the houses being built by the Old Police House from FOWOC. I cannot think why!

I don’t believe there were objections to Little Lees or the low-cost housing in Ticknell Piece when it was being built either. It makes one wonder whether it is because you cannot see the houses from The Slade or Dyers Hill

Some of the misinformation was that there is ancient woodland where the houses are proposed. The only trees that were grown there I believe belong to Cornbury Estate and were all Poplar trees. If any of the objectors had taken the time to read the new development plans, they would see that the developers are going to plant a variety of indigenous trees around the site.

I wonder if all the objectors have even bothered to go and look at the small piece of land where the proposed housing development. The 37 homes, just over half are low-cost houses and are desperately needed. Some are bungalows for people with health problems including dementia with a warden.

I have looked at all the objections and most are based on out-of-date information.

If you are going to object, then it is best to have your facts straight. Unless facts have little meaning in this case…

Tue 2 Jan, 12:27 (last edited on Tue 2 Jan, 12:27)

The vast majority of comments - not of residents.  That is an important distinction. 

Tue 2 Jan, 12:18

Liz I don't consider my posts to be 'shouty & personal' unlike the developer who has spayed unsupported & inaccurate accusations around like confetti, without any comment from you or other elected officials who support him

Rushy Bank has taken its 'legitimate' course three times and been rejected by the courts on each occaision

Attacks on FOWAC for holding elected councillors to account have also passed without comment

Helen it is WODC who have deep pockets having spent over £100,000 of public money on supporting 3 proposals that were rejected by the courts

Finally I go back to the original point of my thread which is that the vast majority of responses on the WODC website opposed the development, a position replicated on this thread, and yet our councillors have ignored their electorate and followed their own agenda

Mon 1 Jan, 11:42 (last edited on Mon 1 Jan, 12:23)

Tony, given that you have referenced the " local Lib Dem hegemony" I would like to point out that Andy Graham and I have been consistently re-elected with large majorities for the past 8 years during which time the storm over Rushy Bank has raged. So it may not be quite the issue for the majority of people in Charlbury that you think it is. There is of course a way of testing this as I am up for re-election in May!

I was walking the dog yesterday and someone met me and sighed and said "Can't those people going on about Rushy Bank on the Forum just get on with each other and the rest of us? I know all of them and they are individually really nice people."   

So how about a New Year's resolution to let the Rushy Bank application take its legitimate course.  Put in your objections, as forcefully as you wish, and your support if you wish to, go to the planning meeting and speak, then let the (elected and by no means all Lib Dem) planning committee decide what they think is the right way forward. Getting shouty and personal on this Forum will change absolutely nothing, other than possibly to alienate some people who might otherwise agree with you

Sun 31 Dec 2023, 17:19

I have posted a support comment on the WODC planning portal for this application.

It has not yet appeared on the list of documents, presumably due to the holiday period.

 There was a great deal of support for the previous application.

Opponents appear to have deep pockets and are very organised in their opposition -  supporters in the community less so. There are many families in the town who have been hoping for years now that this development will finally add some much needed diversity to the available housing stock. 
I continue to support this development and urge others to add their support by entering this on the planning portal.

Sun 31 Dec 2023, 12:13

So personal abuse by certain individuals is OK on the main board, but not challenging the local Lib Dem hegemony

I'll finish my involvement by referring people back to Nicolette Letbridge's post on Dec 23rd

at the next election we need lots of people to stand so that we get a Council which thinks through rather than rubber stamps decisions

and to add my comment

and represents the clearly expressed views of Charlbury residents

Happy New Year

Sat 30 Dec 2023, 13:43 (last edited on Sat 30 Dec 2023, 13:43)

I started this thread before Christmas because when I reviewed the WODC website the vast majority of Charlbury resident’s comments were against the Rushy Bank development

Having returned to the thread, and the accompanying one today, I note that this also applies to the postings

Despite this Liz Leffman (OCC), Andy Graham (WODC) & now the town council are supporting the development

My question was shouldn’t local democracy involve councillors representing the views of the people who elected them and not their own ‘I know best’ agenda

The Lib Dem policy of revoke at the last election involved ignoring the majority view of the electorate, & resulted in the party being wiped out!

In terms of the tone of the debate, it was quite civilised until Ian Cox adopted the ‘Harry Meghan’ strategy of accusing a group of people without naming names or providing evidence

This cast aspersions on the characters of anyone opposing the development without giving them the chance to reply!

WODC’s planning permissions were challenged 3 times in court cases financed by local donations, and in each case they were rejected by the judge

Are local councillors saying that they shouldn’t be subject to legal oversight!

Obviously I don’t have direct information on how much these cases cost WODC, but from my business experience I estimate it will have been more than £100,000.

Back in the New Year!

Fri 29 Dec 2023, 13:20 (last edited on Fri 29 Dec 2023, 13:58)

What irks me about some of the debate over Rushy Bank is the recurrent hum of slur and innuendo, as if it was a matter of individual personalities rather than principles. Principles that on one side have been backed up by the courts, and the Campaign for Rural England, who you perhaps also have your eyes on. The suggestion that objecting to Rushy Bank, and therefore supporting FOWOC, is thereby ‘preventing those who are on low incomes from being able to live in Charlbury’ hits a new low in the debate.  I won't comment on the subject any further.  

Fri 29 Dec 2023, 12:09

Paul - no biscuits have been taken on this occasion. 

FOWAC is a registered charity, is it not? 

Therefore they are held to a higher level of scrutiny by the Charity Commission than that of a private company. I would be interested in knowing who has contributed to the charities efforts of preventing those who are on low incomes from being able to live in Charlbury. I would also like to know what other financial interests these donors have in Charlbury and whether they have previously tried to invest in the land or have inquired about building a car park in the Rushy Bank area.

According to the government, "accurate, clear and publicly available information about charities' finances and activities is essential to ensure public confidence in both individual charities and the charitable sector as a whole."

The money the WODC has used to defend numerous High Court battles come from the "public purse" as you put it, but that does stop me from asking the questions of FOWOC. If they would rather not be scrutinised in this way, then they should have set themselves up as private company rather than a charity. 

Fri 29 Dec 2023, 11:56 (last edited on Tue 2 Jan, 16:26)

Paul Russam - “it’s the private purse that’s relied upon rather than the public one.”  Your words - not mine.

Wherever the “friends of West Oxfordshire Cotswolds” get their money from - and sunlight is always helpful when it comes to understanding such things - I do not recall them challenging other applications for greenfield development in the AONB such as the current ones at Spelsbury Road and Bevis Farm, or housing applications at Woodstock Road or Ditchley Road.  Perhaps we should be told what their criteria are for launching legal actions against public bodies, at public expense?  That would be helpful in enabling us to form our own conclusions about their charitable purpose.

(Personal capacity)

Fri 29 Dec 2023, 11:32

Gareth, I wasn’t suggesting for a moment that there was no cost to the public purse. I was responding to Emily’s remark that she 'would be questioning where FOWOC got its money’ by explaining that it came from individuals who regarded it as a civic responsibility.

I gather you regard the High Court debacles as their fault, bringing up issues of planning policy and guidelines, rather than that of WODC. That’s one way of looking at it, of course. Regardless, I share your outrage at the amount of money that WODC have wasted on it.

However, you then take the rather odd route of suggesting that if they object to Rushy Bank, they should also object to every other development? Sorry, what logic are you following there?

Fri 29 Dec 2023, 10:38 (last edited on Tue 2 Jan, 16:28)

Paul Rassam - it is misleading to say there is no cost to the public purse.  Presumably WODC has not received private donations to deal with the multiple and seemingly endless lawsuits.  That’s money that comes from our taxes (disproportionately from those on average incomes), and money that won’t be spent on improving bin collections, sports and leisure facilities or car parks.

(A better question would be to ask why WODC has clearly made errors that have exposed it to such cost)

I don’t seem to recall the applications for executive housing, or the huge and largely unauthorised excavations currently taking place between the Fawler and Woodstock Roads, being subjected to the same scrutiny.

Of course, were WODC to refuse an application on spurious or unfounded grounds, a developer could not only appeal the application but attempt to recover costs from the Council to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds.

(Personal capacity)

Fri 29 Dec 2023, 10:22

Even for a post about Rushy Bank, I think Emily’s last contribution really does take the biscuit. Rather obviously, all those people who consider Rushy Bank to be a singularly ill-considered and injurious project, and who feel able to contribute to what they regard, rightly or wrongly, as the greater good, dip into their own pockets. To put it simply, it’s the private purse that’s relied upon rather than the public one.

Fri 29 Dec 2023, 09:22 (last edited on Fri 29 Dec 2023, 09:41)

The Town Council does not decide whether planning permission is granted or not (one of a number of points misunderstood by some here).  
It has not spent a penny on legal fees relating to this application,  Nor should it.

If you had read the Town Council’s comment on the application in question, you would know which three Neighbourhood Plan policies the application needs specifically to address (and may not do at present).  It is for the planning authority (for the avoidance of doubt, that is West Oxfordshire District Council and not Charlbury Town Council) to determine whether an application conforms to planning policy which now includes the Neighbourhood Plan).

A similar test exists for the application for a campsite in woodland off Spelsbury Road and for any other planning application in the town.

Fri 29 Dec 2023, 06:49

Now a new application - should the plan be followed ?

What is the cost in financial terms spent on legal fees ? 

Fri 29 Dec 2023, 00:04 (last edited on Tue 2 Jan, 16:26)

Mark - Rushy Bank already had planning permission when the Neighbourhood Plan was adopted, as several people have pointed out.

(Personal capacity)

Thu 28 Dec 2023, 21:23

Mark, it hasn't been ignored. Both Gareth and Claire, and the TC's comments on this application explain that the new application for Rushy Bank does not ignore the Neighbourhood Plan. If you look at the other thread as well as reading the literature you can see that. 

Regarding legal proceedings, I would be questioning where FOWOC got its money to finance solicitors and barristers. 

Thu 28 Dec 2023, 21:04

Forty Two Thousand Pounds - !  To be ignored ?
What is the cost of the legal fees paid in defending these decisions ?

Are the subsequent applications new ones and submitted after the date of issuing the neighbourhood plan of 14 th June 2021 ?

The Oxford Mail reports: 
https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/24015738.conservation-charity-takes-oxfordshire-council-court/

Thu 28 Dec 2023, 17:14

My thanks to everyone who answered my question regarding a quorum. I appreciate your time.

Thu 28 Dec 2023, 12:58

And just to respond to Mark's question the Town Council has previously told me that the Neighbourhood Plan cost £42k of which £27k came from Town Council budget, the balance from a grant.

Thu 28 Dec 2023, 12:45 (last edited on Thu 28 Dec 2023, 13:34)

I’m sorry as little as I want to wind this back I apparently need to respond directly to the allegations which without naming me, were directed at me, by Ian Cox on Christmas Eve, in particular asserting that I was “given a police warning for threatening District Council staff”. 

This is untrue. I have never received a police warning or caution either at all or specifically for threatening either district council staff, former staff or anyone else. 

As for Ian's other assertions, I would like the town to be in a position to deliver additional station parking, when needed, in line with its Neighbourhood Plan Policy (ECT8). We will see how that evolves with or without Rushy Bank. I don't feel I need to respond to the suggestion that I might have genuinely wanted to invest in a housing development at Rushy Bank.

In light of the above I leave it to Ian to consider if he wishes to revise his post. If in return for my clarity he could clarify his ongoing role and financial interest in this development, that would be useful context for his posts and other information which we are going to receive. 

Thu 28 Dec 2023, 12:40

The Town Council Standing orders state:

“No business may be transacted at a meeting unless at least one-third of the whole number of members of the Council are present and in no case shall the quorum of a meeting be less than three.”

At this planning meeting we had five of the twelve members of the council present and even with myself declaring an interest in this application and therefore not able to comment or vote we still easily had a quorate meeting.

Wed 27 Dec 2023, 21:25 (last edited on Wed 27 Dec 2023, 22:56)

There was five of us at the planning meeting, including the Chair of the planning committee and the Chair of the council. 

Wed 27 Dec 2023, 21:15

I think the number is four.  Planning meetings have been held with the main council meeting at times; on this occasion , I was one of those who had pre-Christmas appointments.  Most town council planning meetings are better-attended and less contentious!

Wed 27 Dec 2023, 21:04

Incidentally, town counsellors, do we have a by-law that allows a minority to be a quorum?

Wed 27 Dec 2023, 18:36

Thanks, Charlie. 

Wed 27 Dec 2023, 16:44

Rosemary, all is freely available here (assuming, of course, that they have kept it up to date):

https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search/-/charity-details/5104230/trustees

Wed 27 Dec 2023, 15:56

The self-bestowed entitled  ‘Friends of…….’ etc, I seem to remember, remained personally anonymous in the first stages of debate around Rushy Bank. Am I right about that?  Did we ever know who the people were/are?

Wed 27 Dec 2023, 12:52

Just had a letter from "Friends of the West Oxfordshire Cotswolds" through my door which repeats some of the misinformation which is also found on this thread.

It's claimed that any development on the Rushy Bank site, the other side of the railway lines near to Charlbury station, contravenes the 2021 Neighbourhood Plan. That's not how I read it ...

The plan includes the following statement: "For the sake of certainty, only land which genuinely adjoins the existing built up area (as at the date of the Plan’s adoption) will fall within the provisions of [the neighbourhood plan]. Outlying elements such as the station complex or the Rushy Bank development will not therefore be regarded as part of the built up area for future planning purposes."

Development of the outlying areas was not ruled out in the plan, but was not covered by the main planning policies. What's more, the fact that Charlbury was given an exemption from higher numbers of new housing starts and estates was only possible because plans for the Rushy Bank development had already been passed. If Rushy Bank does not go forward, we are likely to see a much higher level of new developments elsewhere in the town. 

The "Friends" don't speak for everyone in Charlbury, as the response of the Town Council also shows.

Tue 26 Dec 2023, 10:36 (last edited on Tue 26 Dec 2023, 12:45)

Interesting that all the comments address the core points without personal attacks apart from Ian Cox whose post was personal, unpleasant & inaccurate, but that's just par for the course!. I was expressing my personal view and it is a matter of record that 3 proposals have been rejected by the courts at considerable cost to WODC. The number of objection comments and support comments are also a matter of record. If Ian Cox personally confirms that the current development includes a dementia centre or significant assisted living I will happily withdraw my comment on this However as Jim Clements post points out this does not change the objections to the development

Happy Boxing Day!

Tue 26 Dec 2023, 09:50

We will be issuing an update on Rushy Bank, early in the New Year. 

Mon 25 Dec 2023, 08:45

John! Happy Christmas

And Happy Christmas Ian.

So much for my promises to myself and my most important people not to post on the Forum. At Christmas?!?! But with this thread and some thinly veiled and pretty significant personal accusations perhaps heading to the ‘Debate’ area soon do I have…

Long post - click to read full text

Sun 24 Dec 2023, 13:04

Rushy Banks subject never disappoints😆Great festive season to all parties involved😆

Sun 24 Dec 2023, 12:14 (last edited on Sun 24 Dec 2023, 12:41)

Emily. I don't know of any property developers or builders in Charlbury either. However there are very many builders in West Oxfordshire. I would have thought that local employment should be of consideration when deciding on a planning matter. A cynical view could be that an investor with no local connection stands to profit for something that appears to not be particularly wanted by the local population, at least when looking at the planning portal.

How about a local vote on this one? After all we had that on the Neighbourhood plan and also if the Charlbury Town Football & Sports Club should be funded by an increase in the council tax...

Sun 24 Dec 2023, 11:23

I am one of the local people who has tried to deliver a development at Rushy Bank that  includes many of the objectives of the Neighbourhood Plan. The fake news and misinformation that Tony Morgan has been given by his masters will be dealt with in an informative update on the Rushy bank development, early in the New Year. 

Forum participants may wish to ask the Fiends of West Oxfordshire whether a founding Director was given a police warning for threatening District Council staff, whether this organisation previously promoted the Rushy Bank land for a station car park extension and whether a founding Director previously asked, in writing, if there was an opportunity to invest. This may all be hearsay but clarity and honesty would be useful. 

The FOWOC home page states that “FOWOC is committed to fighting for a fair and consistent planning system in the West Oxfordshire Cotswolds AONB”. The people of Charlbury may question whether this is a vendetta rather than the commitment that FOWOC purport to have.

Sun 24 Dec 2023, 10:42

Hello all and Merry Christmas,

I'm aware that you all have made up your minds re the Rushy Bank development and I will not be attempting to try and convince you of a different perspective. However, I will be responding to the misinformation from some of you.

Nicolette - only two councillors on this council were co-opted, myself and David Green. David Green was not present at the planning meeting that approved the development; I was. The majority of councillors on the council were voted by Charlbury residents. Co-option is a perfectly legal channel to admit residents to a town council. 

Also, it is perfectly legal that 5 councillors were present at the meeting and voted. It would have been much better had we all been there but we weren't. 

I can also assure you that though some of us agree on certain topics, there is probably more things were disagree on than agree on. 

I am concerned by your comment about being "beaten up" given that politicians, local and national, already experience reprehensible violence and abuse, both online and in-person. This development has already seen planning officers be threatened.

Tony - the Chair does not need to explain to you why we as a council voted for the development. If you would like an explanation, please write to the Clerk. 

Rob - you asking us or rather demanding us as a council to withdraw our support is not very democratic, which I find ironic given the title of this thread. At the time of writing, those in opposition to the development, are in the minority. 

Hans - I don't understand your point. I don't know many local Charlbury property developers. Correct me if I'm wrong. 

One final comment, just because the 5 councillors who voted for the development don't represent your individual views on this development, doesn't mean we don't represent the people of Charlbury.

Sun 24 Dec 2023, 09:36

How much was the cost in time and financial terms to create the neighbourhood plan ? To be ignored and a limited number of votes to approve such a hot potato of a topic ! 

Sat 23 Dec 2023, 23:51

I was in favour of the original Rushy Bank proposal. But this…? Sickening.

Sat 23 Dec 2023, 16:24

It is certainly unsatisfactory that the Town Council's comment supporting the Rushy Bank scheme runs contrary both to its own painstakingly developed Neighbourhood Plan and to the expressed opinion of those the Council exists to represent. One way to resolve this is for the Council to withdraw its comment. Failing that, councillors opposed to the housing development (who may well be a majority) should record a dissenting opinion. 

Sat 23 Dec 2023, 16:00

It's interesting to note that the site has been sold to a property investor based in London.

Sat 23 Dec 2023, 13:52

I understand that only 5 Town Councillors attended the meeting which made the appalling decision to approve the plan to ruin charlbury by allowing development on the Burford side of the river. (Much needed affordable housing should be off theWoodstock road where an opportunity to do so has recently been missed).  However a problem lies that the present COuncillors, although they seem very pleasant people also seem to be to a certain extent coopted and not elected and have group views which possibly do not represent the people of charlbury. Not many people would want to be " beaten up" at Council meetings but at the next election we need lots of people to stand so that we get a Council which thinks through rather than rubber stamps decisions. Please don't shoot this messenger who has tried to be polite and who wishes the Town Council and every one in charlbury a Very Happy Christmas.

Sat 23 Dec 2023, 12:35

Maybe the Town Council are trying to solve the parking problem, by providing a new set of roads within walking distance of the station?

Sat 23 Dec 2023, 12:22

Actually my concern with the Town Council is their rejection of the Neighbourhood Plan, voted for by the good people of Charlbury which clearly opposed development on Rushy Bank.

Sat 23 Dec 2023, 11:31

Over the last 8 years WODC has approved three iterations of the Rushy Bank planning application, all of which have been rejected by the courts, at considerable cost to the public purse.

A 4th application has now been filed on the WODC planning website for the erection of houses, without the dementia centre or any assisted living, which was one of the main ‘selling points’ of the previous applications.

There are currently nearly 40 objection comments, some consultee comments and one supporting comment, from Charlbury Town Council!

I might be naïve, but I thought one of the main elements of local democracy was that councillors represented the people who elected them, rather than adopt the ‘elitist’ policy that ‘they know best.’

I therefore think the Chair of the Town Council should explain to Charlbury residents why they are ignoring the views of those people who have taken the trouble to comment.

I also think that the locally elected Chair of WODC should explain why they are continuing to spend time and money on a three times rejected proposal.

Finally, maybe the original ‘local’ developers would like to comment on the current situation with this flawed & divisive planning proposal.

Happy Christmas!