Unfinished Housing Sites

Thu 29 May, 18:20

No references to Rushy Bank please. I have edited two comments and deleted one. If any of the three posters do so again then their accounts will be disabled. If you want to talk about it then go do so on Facebook so that Zuckerberg gets the threats of lawyers and not me. 

Thu 29 May, 12:01

Given Charlie's question as to why the application was allowed to proceed, people can look at the documents submitted for the Hixet Wood development back in 2018 by searching the WODC Planning portal and the reference number 17/00889/FUL 

Permission is reported as granted here https://publicaccess.westoxon.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OMWEDTRKJRX00

Some of the details of Minutes have been severely redacted. However, the documents clearly show Charlbury Town Council's and Charlbury Conservation Area Committee's strong opposition to the proposed development. The development was nevertheless allowed to go ahead by WODC, albeit with a large number of restrictions, for reasons that don't seem either very clear or at all persuasive. 

I would have thought that it would indeed be a case where the proposed new laws relating to the  confiscation of land and hefty fines for unfinished development might well be used to bring the land back into public ownership. 

Thu 29 May, 10:18

To summarise.  The law is only for people with deep pockets.  Today, housing is  only for people with deep pockets.  Our system of election is not democratic.  We are all agreed.

Look at the plans for the Hixet Wood abandoned development.  They are all called "cottages".  Then go to the former community of Kingham and walk around all the new "cottages" that have in-filled the back alleyways.  The ones in Kingham are all part of Daylesford's short-term letting.  These 'cottages' in Hixet Wood were never intended to be anything other than short-term lets to reduce the tax burden.  They're not housing, they're business and when business circumstances don't look healthy then businesses hold back.

I wouldn't want our Council, starved of funding for essential services, to touch this abandoned site with a barge pole.  Leave it well alone and let nature take its course.  Maybe we could ask for a row of trees to be planted to hide the dereliction? 

Thu 29 May, 09:03 (last edited on Thu 29 May, 18:17)

I find it interesting that it is implied by some that people of wealth can play by different rules than us mere mortals. Doesn't sound democratic to me. It is also interesting that WODC sometimes decide to fight cases in court and paying for it using tax payer's money. Doesn't sound democratic to me either. 

Wed 28 May, 16:45

Would this site or part of it make a suitable car park?

Wed 28 May, 14:56 (last edited on Thu 29 May, 18:18)

Just to throw in my pennyworth...

I can't recall the date of approval offhand but the present Local Plan was adopted in September 2018 - and even before that would have been a major consideration in planning decsions, given that the previous Plan was well out of date by then.  I'm surprised - Clare! - at talk of something being 'forced through' on appeal.  That is theoretically to the Secretary of State, not the courts, if in practice the vast majority are decided by Planning Inspectors -  who genuinely (!) do their best to reach independent, balanced and well informed decisions. 

Also worth mentioning that a strip of land immediately to the south and west of the old Police houses was nominated for inclusion in the Neighbourhood Plan as Local Green Space but dropped in the final version for reasons I don't now recall (but I know a man who will!).  Whether or not this scheme should have been allowed, some steps to prevent land banking would be most welcome - but don't hold your breath that they'll get it right.  Far more worrying are the proposals in the Planning & Infrastructure Bill that have been described as including 'licence to trash provisions' in relation to nature conservation, the Habitat Regulations etc.  Growth overrides everything apparently...

Wed 28 May, 09:37

I think possibly the original application was approved at a time when WODC did not have a Local Plan in place. That meant that if they rejected the application and it was appealed it would likely have been forced through anyway.  So it was probably approved not because anyone thought it was a good idea but because they didnt feel it was worth fighting in court.

Tue 27 May, 22:00

Are there any councillors still serving who can shed light on why this application, so detrimental to Charlbury's nature, was allowed to proceed? 

I think that it would be interesting to know the makeup of the council at that time too. 

I have to repeat my original "observation" that excessive "reverence" appears to have been given to what I shall refer to as "The Blenheim Family".

Why? What have they ever done for us?!

Tue 27 May, 21:19

I was a District Councillor for Charlbury from 1994 to 2002 and felt  it very important to be on the Uplands Planning Committee to protect Charlbury and its natural environment from overdevelopment, whilst encouraging business and small scale housing projects for local families. Therefore I was able to object and stop a previous development on this site which was an important “Green lung”in the centre of Charlbury. I find it very sad as to what has been allowed to happen here since. 

Tue 27 May, 18:56

Planning permission should never have been given. Blenheim Estate could have taken any other part of their enormous estate to play with, but it had to be the tail-end that just happened to be in this little neck of the woods. Handy that the common people wouldn’t therefore have to drive through the Golden Gates to get off to work, or go to Aldi.

The loss of the natural environment was criminal in my view, and certainly morally if not legally. As for the reason given by Anu for this delay - is that true? That is beyond Yes Minister 😅

There was always going to be the ghastly encroachment of the endless growling heavy vehicles and machinery, reversing difficulties, noise, mud and general misery for all surrounding neighbours, but the upside would be that the aristo’s would have no need to lay down their capes for the ladies to step on.

Tue 27 May, 14:43

A little birdie told me that plot was being bought by a local enterprise…

Tue 27 May, 13:48

It's a building site? I was under the impression it was a Charlbury Art Weeks installation - "Marlborough's Folly"

Tue 27 May, 09:38

Theoretically, the local council can revoke planning permission for the site but there is a serious risk of a claim for compensation and the owner of the site has deeper pockets than WODC when it comes to instructing lawyers. If it were as simple a matter as some on this thread seem to think it is, then we would have done it before now.  I agree, this was never a suitable site for development, should never have been given planning permission, and is an eyesore in the centre of the town.

Mon 26 May, 21:00

Why not just occupy and improve the site? If that had been done when the building work stopped, it could be viewed as adverse possession; perhaps it's not too late for that, although it does take ten years. Although I suspect the current owners lawyers are aware of that, they perhaps won't think it could happen here.

Mon 26 May, 20:33

As a reply to Charlie M; one word “Crantock”.

Mon 26 May, 17:53 (last edited on Mon 26 May, 19:44)

Alice raises a number of points ...

It is my personal; belief that the attitude of WODC over the years to the originator of this project has been one of ... how shall I say ... bowing and scraping. I very much doubt that if the likes of "you and I" had left such an eyesore for nearly ten years in the middle of a historic Oxfordshire town, we would have been allowed to get away with it. 

Tim mentions the destruction of some lovely green space in the centre of Charlbury. To my mind this was little short of criminal. Again ... would "we" have been allowed to do this? 

The question of "sewer capacity" is ironic, coming as it does in an area where water and sewage is controlled by a company whose first thoughts, after being loaned £3bn by the government, were to use some of that money to pay "bonuses" to some of its board. 

The question of access to this "estate", if it is ever completed, was - again in my view - bypassed. All it will ever do is to cause yet more congestion on Hixet Wood, requiring the removal of yet more parking spaces. Since OCC's recent farcical waste of money in "improving" (not my word!) parking in central Charlbury, people have now "created" 2-3 parking spaces across the fenced-off entrance to the building site. I remember suggesting back in the day that as the family behind the original plan own a substantial property (Lee Place) adjacent to the site, access could be made via there rather than Hixet Wood. 

Finally the question of Respect. I would suggest that a company/family that leaves the site in the condition that it is in for 8 or so years has very little respect for the people of Charlbury.

Something must be done!

(Edit addition in bold.)

Mon 26 May, 16:09

This was given planning permission in 2017.  Nearly 10 years ago now.  Given that the electricity sub-station was mentioned in the application and that the Environmental Planning officer picked this up as a potential problem, how did overhead cables get ignored?   Is this a problem of too little and light touch planning control?

In the last years we've had regular torrential rainfalls.  Living a bit further up the same stream we see this is beginning to result in flooding.  Does the developer need to reconsider the whole plan in the light of a warmer, wetter world?

Significant lack of capacity in the sewer system - this too is a newly accepted and acknowledged problem, even if most people knew about it for years.  New houses will just add to the river pollution.  There's certainly no capacity in the sewer system.

Given the lapse of 9 years and significant changing circumstances affecting the original application, can the Housing Authority WODC compulsorily purchase the site at a rate reflecting the need for considerable extra cost and re-design and build houses for local demand such as Charlie describes?  Or, should this valley have ever been considered a housing site and the public sector shouldn't touch it with a barge pole?  

Mon 26 May, 11:13

The reason why this site has been unfinished for so long is because SSE hasn’t come to do the overhanging electrics on the site. They’re aware that this needs to happen before works can commence due to health and safety reasons but it’s obviously not a priority to them.

Sun 25 May, 21:36

My understanding is that no houses could ever be built there without significant investment due to a lack of capacity within the sewer systems. I have no idea where i heard that from so that maybe wrong. It is a shame that with all that destruction to that green space that it will now be left in the state it is now.  

Sun 25 May, 09:42

Agreed Charlie. This would be wonderful! 

Sun 25 May, 09:21

I saw this on the BBC News site. How wonderful it would be if this happens to the site on Hixet Wood, which has been abandoned for years! Maybe also it could lead to some reasonably-priced housing which would benefit those in Charlbury who actually need housing, instead of being purely a profit enterprise aimed at those with deep pockets!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj42wz92rl0o