60 day pop-up Camspite - The Slade

Mon 14 Jul, 17:29

One can of course write to one's MP and ask for a chance. I did that in the spring of 2022 and that resulted in that the then prime minister said he wanted to do that change I was asking for (redesign the merit order for wholesale electricity prices). Unfortunately he resigned shortly after. 

I think it's unlikely the current gov would find space in their in-tray to change the camping law, article 4 sounds like a much better plan. I won't ask for it though as I am not impacted.

Mon 14 Jul, 16:45

Looking at the guidance about temporary campsites in the Lake District, it seems that simply complaining about dangerous access, unneighbourliness, litter or pollution won't work. What does count is a breach of Planning Legislation or an Article 4 Directive. 

As well as the New Forest, Cornwall is another area of England where Article 4 directions have been used to limit the areas where temporary camping is permitted. 

Their webpage about planning issues relating to temporary campsites is here: https://www.cornwall.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-enforcement/temporary-pop-up-camping-sites-planning-guidance/

There's also a link there to a map of Cornwall which can be toggled to show quite how extensive the Article 4 exempted areas are.

Liz Leffman seemed to suggest that the only way forward might be to approach our MP about possible changes to the legislation. But any such changes are likely to be slow, even if they worked at all.

More immediate changes could be introduced by WODC by looking into Article 4 directives, as Hans indicates. And, as far as Cornbury Rise  campsite is concerned, what needs  investigating is also whether it should have qualified in the first place, if WODC's Planning Committee had indeed previously stipulated that the field could in future only be used for agricultural purposes. 

Mon 14 Jul, 15:00

A layman looking at the 60 day campsite permitted development law would probably conclude that the legislation could need firming up a fair bit. Liz Leffman appears to say that she thinks the legislation could be improved but as it stands WODC has to agree to the campsite. Not if there is an article 4 as we now know. 

I asked Charlbury Towncouncil CTC to ask WODC for an article 4 ruling out permitted development rights for the Charlbury Conservation Target areas in April last year. CTC agreed to do so, however the then head of planning at WODC refused to consider this "becase the Secretary of State for levelling up would never agree to it". Turns of Govie did just that for the New Forest in Hampshire as I pointed out in response to his statement... That head of planning was replaced shortly after.

A politician looking for voter support might take that baton and encourage WODC for an article 4... Just saying. 

Sun 13 Jul, 12:28

In answer to Steve's post on buying a house for the view I would like to say that over 40 years ago that was not the reason. It was of course a bonus. We have never been under any illusions that one day the land may be developed.

Our garden is very much lower than the field so it is only visible from upstairs. Of course beyond the field there is still a lovely view. We have a hedge which grows above the height of the dividing stone wall. From the garden we will see nothing but do not enjoy the thought of vehicles tents and people just over our garden wall. If only Fabia had talked to us all I think we might feel more at ease.Safety is a real issue especially as we are both OAPS.A reasonable space to allow some privacy would seem appropriate.

Sun 13 Jul, 12:01 (last edited on Sun 13 Jul, 12:08)

If there was a stipulation by the Planning Committee when the houses on Grace's Court were built that the rest of the field should only be used for agricultural purposes (as Austin claims), it's certainly worth investigating whether WODC could revisit the question of whether this should qualify as a pop-up site, at least in respect to future years. 

As Hans Erikkson points out below, the 60 day camping rules would not apply if an Article 4 restriction were placed on the site. In other areas (e.g. the New Forest) local authorities have taken this step.

Fabia is correct to say that the previous Government introduced the 60-day rule in order to give farmers a means of producing additional income from the land that they own. It does not follow, however, that turning a field into a temporary campsite is itself an "agricultural purpose".  In responding to the Government Consultation to the 2023 law, the NFU supported the proposals overall, but expressed some reservations about whether the proposed legislation might lead to an eventual loss of agricultural land. So I certainly think it would be worth investigating this. 

Sun 13 Jul, 10:36

One buys a property not the view or ones neighbours. Surely due diligence is time specific to the time a deal/purchase is made. Flow with the times - 'times they are-a-changing'. Keep up.

Sun 13 Jul, 09:41 (last edited on Mon 14 Jul, 20:43)

Alan, thank you for understanding. I think what Johan is saying is that looking into is not the same as doing something. Fabia could very easily just ask new arrivals to go to the upper field which is nicely secluded and allows privacy to both the campers and the residents. It's a decent sized field, plenty of room for the 20 tents advertised. An easy and quick solution to building bridges and trust with us, her neighbours. Instead, she directed the camper vans to the back of our gardens when they arrived (to a tents only site, mind). 

Sat 12 Jul, 23:19

Johan, I'm sure I would be equally upset if this happened next to me (and it might - I live next to a field!).  But I don't really understand your complaint about Fabia not listening to the idea of an exclusion zone between campers and gardens.  I read her reaction as showing explicitly that she listened to the idea and thought it a good one that she would look into.

Sat 12 Jul, 20:45

Never buy a house next to a field.  All sorts of things can happen, whether its a pop up camp site or land that will eventually be sold to developers. 

Sat 12 Jul, 20:33

Fabia your point about a once open field is irrelevant because we bought and paid for these properties and followed all due diligence. The whole of Charlbury was once an open field. I understand you have a strong family connection with the land but why don't you live here then like farmers often do on their land. I know all my direct neighbours apart from you. The decent (neighbourly) thing to have done is to visit each property bordering your land to tell them what is going on and answer any concerns. 

It has now become apparent that you do not care about the comments or concerns of people directly affected by this development and completely disregarded our asks and needs to try to accommodate you. Several residents have asked you to keep campers to the western side of the hedgerow for privacy concerns with a 30 yard distance between private gardens and campers. Did you listen to them? No. There is a safeguarding issue here especially for people with young children. How do you know campers are not on the sex offenders register for instance, which very well might be the case? You have no control over this. You do however have control over logical neighbourliness by establishing an exclusion zone for pitching up. This has less to do with what is legal and everything to do with what is decent and asked of you and local residents will be far more inclined to support your ventures if you show willingness to listen to their concerns and not simply blanking them and forging ahead anyway. 

Fri 11 Jul, 17:38 (last edited on Fri 11 Jul, 17:46)

Although I am fortunate to not be directly impacted by this campsite, I do completely understand the upset that this has caused. Reading through this thread, what strikes me most, is the lack of thought about your neighbourhood. As the local that you are keen to point out that you are, are you surprised by the response? Talking in advance (proactive engagement) to those that could be impacted would have seemed the most obvious and sensible action to have taken. If people had had the chance to raise some of these concerns BEFORE, then the comments on this thread would not have been so necessary and some of the helpful suggestions could have been enacted in advance assisting in a more harmonious situation. You quote WODC in one of your responses on the forum stating that you had ensured that the site met requirements as early as June 2024. A whole year wasn’t enough time to engage with the community then?

Fabia, I sense your irritation in some of your replies, but I do believe that this could have been handled better.

Fri 11 Jul, 16:25

Hi Austin,

Thanks for another comment on the forum!

As I posted before you, I am indeed looking into keeping campers the other side of central hedge etc - please read my post.

Regarding CCTV legislation - be assured that I am fully aware of all points you raised - thanks for flagging however.

In regards to your final paragraph - the 60-day rule was introduced for reasons such as generating income on rural land on a temporary basis! The fact it functions so commonly alongside those ‘agricultural purposes’ is pretty much the whole point of it - so again, I don’t see your point?

As much as I’m intrigued as to what exactly is irrelevant about my young business points and what exactly is relevant of the ‘£800k- 1m’ info, I will not be posting any further.

But, I appreciate you taking the time out your working day to offer such support Austin. Cheers!

Fri 11 Jul, 15:55

Thanks, Fabia, for the insurance certificate. While the liability coverage is standard for a typical campsite, it might be insufficient if campers are close to the houses on The Slade due to potential risks to those properties. For the benefit of both insurance protection and good neighbour relations, I suggest only positioning pitches on the far/back/east side of the field.

Regarding the CCTV installation, please be aware that you must register with the Information Commissioner's Office, pay the annual fee, and complete a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) before capturing images of residents or campers as they pass the site entrance. This is a legal requirement under UK GDPR, regardless of land ownership. Your data processing must be clear and proportionate, and you'll need to be prepared to show your DPIA and respond to Subject Access Requests for footage. I'm assuming you've already addressed these obligations; otherwise, individuals caught on CCTV could claim unlawful surveillance.

Finally, as you mention Graces Court, prior to the construction of the five houses (which incidentally sold for £800k-£1m each) the planning committee explicitly stated that the rest of the field must only be used for agricultural purposes. The argument for your local enterprise isn't particularly relevant in this context.

Fri 11 Jul, 15:34 (last edited on Fri 11 Jul, 15:35)

Hi Katie E - you’ve inputed 8 guests although I can’t tell fully from a low resolution image, please check twice before commenting - it’s £30 per night for 2 people. 

Please could you also fully read my previous correspondences on this thread -there will never be anything close to ‘50 motorhomes navigating The Slade’ - I have already written re reducing capacity and website mistakes have been amended to show this - but thanks for flagging nonetheless, again I urge you to double check before further comment. 

Moving on, Jazz - thanks for you post and concern - I’ve sent you a message.

Charlie that is a fair idea and I will be looking into communicating a fair boundary with campers to ensure this - I know some chose to be this side of the central hedge for shade reasons so far, so please allow me some time.

Thanks!

Fri 11 Jul, 15:18 (last edited on Sun 13 Jul, 14:14)

Edited as requested by Fabia.....the camping website has now been amended from 50 motorhomes/tents to 20 tents. 

Hi Fabia, thanks for your reply to my comment. I got the £70 per night figure from your own link, see below:

Fri 11 Jul, 14:41

Reading Hans' comment and looking at Jazz's picture, it would seem that a reasonable restriction that they could make would be to ban camping within 30 yards (say) of the edge of the field. That would maintain a degree (at least) of privacy for those living alongside it.

Fri 11 Jul, 14:26 (last edited on Fri 11 Jul, 15:53)

For everyone to understand why neighbouring properties are so upset about this pop-up campsite, here is an image for your reference. 

This is our garden on The Slade, the field sits at a near 2 metre elevation that is completely open. So yes, when we then have campers pitching up right next to our boundary it does feel a little intrusive...

Fri 11 Jul, 11:22 (last edited on Fri 11 Jul, 11:24)

Thanks for your comment - Anna H, as I wrote in my forum reply yesterday they would have been using the raised solid iron fire pit I provided as a much safer alternative to regular campfires, which I have strongly banned.

If this wasn’t the case and the fire was…

Long post - click to read full text

Fri 11 Jul, 09:59

It is my understanding that while WODC cannot refuse 60 day permitted development right campsites, it is within their remit and duty to impose conditions on the campsite operation so as to minimize the impact on the locale, biodiversity, local population, traffic and transport matters and all other relevant matters.

As an obsever I have to doubt this has happened in this case given the concerns raised by others on this thread. 

Does anyone know?

Fri 11 Jul, 07:37 (last edited on Fri 11 Jul, 09:37)

"Unfortunately, this legislation was brought in without consultation by the Conservative government"

Just to point out this isn't correct - there was a consultation in 2023 which was quite widely publicised, certainly to all planning departments, and 79 local authorities responded - as well as 63 neighbourhood planning bodies, parish or town councils.

Thu 10 Jul, 23:23

Hi Fabia,

Just after 10 pm today, I noticed a campfire at your campsite through my window, and it's still burning. Do you have a contact number or any way for residents to report safety concerns or other issues? I’ve recorded a video of it if you want to see.

Thanks,

Thu 10 Jul, 16:27

Martin Belmont: It's all very well supporting an initiative that looks to benefit local youth, local owners or local residents, but it's not clear this benefits or employs anyone except the site owner(s), given that presumably the only significant labour in this endeavour (waste and waste water removal) will be outsourced.

Your comment about fostering community is unfair: given the lack of notice, this news was bound to ruffle feathers and cause alarm.

And as for assuming residents of the Slade expect to own a view, I imagine from what has been said (though I don't know the views – I live half a mile away) that residents are most concerned about the sudden arrival of campers over their back fence, an unknown quantity that would concern anyone wishing to enjoy the peace and quiet of their back garden in the summer months.

Anyway, it is legal and going ahead, so let's hope it all turns out to be completely stress-free for everyone.

Good luck to residents on the Slade. Hopefully campers will notice if they are close to people’s homes and camp on the eastern side of the field.

Thu 10 Jul, 16:26

Fabia, can you elucidate regarding your ownership of the Slade? (In your long post: "In regards to The Slade, a road which we own personally - similarly to my fire and noise rules - speed limits and extra caution warning on both The Slade and the junction will be sent before every arrival.") Thanks.

It is perverse that it would be impossible to build homes on the land, presumably because of overlooking but also perhaps because of vehicular access(?), yet presumably a three-month presence can be expected every summer? But as Liz L and Fabia say, nothing legally wrong with it.

Thu 10 Jul, 12:37

(Admin note – because we have lots of first-time posters in this thread, a few postings have been caught up in the automated moderation and so have only just appeared further down the thread. I’d suggest re-reading so you don’t miss any. –Richard)

Thu 10 Jul, 11:45

I completely understand your concerns, Michael.  About 10 years ago a planning application was rejected on this same site because of overlooking existing houses on The Slade, so it is perverse that a campsite is allowed here, but unfortunately, this legislation was brought in without consultation by the Conservative government, and local councils are obliged to allow temporary campsites regardless of location or proximity to housing.  I am very happy to come and see how this progresses with you and other residents and to lobby our MP to see if we can get some changes made to this legislation.

Thu 10 Jul, 11:27 (last edited on Thu 10 Jul, 14:00)

I’m sorry Liz, but your post does nothing to alleviate the concerns of those local residents who are affected by this campsite.

You may be right in reciting the law as it stands but it doesn’t mean a law is right or can’t be challenged. Should we just roll over and say ‘oh that’s fine then’ and do nothing about it!?

Most pop up campsite are rurally situated with no surrounding houses and accessed by a road/track owned by those running the campsite.

Yes, we will be monitoring noise, access, parking issues and privacy violations and we will be in touch with the WODC.

On another note Liz, do you feel it’s right that this campsite is allowing BBQ’s and campfires during the current hot, dry climate.

And finally, on a personal level, would you like to visit our property to see for yourself how our privacy will be impacted to see if you would be prepared to accept something like this, plonked right at the end of your back garden!!

Thu 10 Jul, 10:59

Having read this thread over the past few days, I have been in touch with the head of planning at WODC to confirm my understanding and I have written to some residents who have contacted me directly to explain why this campsite is permitted. I can also confirm that Fabia has followed the correct procedure.

Any landowner can establish a campsite for 60 days under permitted development rights. This is legislation which was brought in during the pandemic, originally for 28 days in one calendar year, but it was subsequently extended to 60 days. The local council have no say in this and the landowner is simply required to notify the council of their plans which I understand Fabia has done.

There is nothing that I or WODC can do to alter this, but if you are disturbed by noise or other nuisance you can notify the council. This is the link which gives all the information about how to do this   www.westoxon.gov.uk/environment/noise-pests-pollution-and-air-quality/noise-and-other-nuisances/

Thu 10 Jul, 09:23

It’s completely fair to raise questions when something new appears in the community, but let’s not lose perspective. This is a small, temporary, fully legal campsite, run by a young local who’s gone through the proper channels, insurance, council notification, the lot. It’s operating under nationally permitted development rules that exist for a reason.

Frankly, we’re lucky to live in a place people want to camp. Charlbury is beautiful, and that’s not something to resent. If anything, many of us have lived here long enough to start taking the surrounding nature and calm for granted. New visitors don’t. They come because they see the value in what we have.

Instead of reacting with hostility, maybe we should be asking what it says about us if we can’t support someone from our own community giving something a go, especially when they’re doing it the right way. A short-term, well-managed venture like this isn’t going to destroy Charlbury. But shutting down local initiative and treating young people with suspicion might do more harm than good in the long run.

We talk about wanting to foster community? Well, community starts with a bit of understanding, a bit of generosity, and remembering that we don’t own the view.

Good luck Fabia, I hope it goes well for you!

Wed 9 Jul, 22:45 (last edited on Thu 10 Jul, 16:49)

Evening all,

Thank-you for your replies on my post about the pop-up campsite in our field - I hear and appreciate your concerns and comments.

My apologies some feel earlier notification would’ve been better - with its temporary nature, no WODC objection and legalities adhered to it didn’t spring to…

Long post - click to read full text

Wed 9 Jul, 12:04

Hi Fabia, and thank you for posting this information. We are also disappointed that no direct communication was made with neighbouring residents ahead of the site opening. Given the proximity to our home, some discussion would have been appreciated. We agree with many of the other comments already posted here.

Our house is on the (only) narrow access road to the site and we have concerns about the significant increase of traffic and pedestrians using the road directly in front of our house. At present cars sometimes swing into our driveway to let other cars pass and with more traffic this will only increase. We have young children and it’s not suitable to be used as a passing place. Another worry is the junction onto the Slade: it’s already tricky with parked cars obscuring the view onto the main road. This will become more dangerous.

We also have concerns about the mention of campfires and barbecues. With the dry weather and surrounding trees and vegetation, this feels like a potential fire risk, and I hope safety measures are in place to manage this.

In general, it seems surprising that this is legal and can happen with such short notice and no consultation. Is Christine correct in the link she provides? The local council’s passivity is somewhat perplexing. The increase in people, cars and noise will affect the daily lives of the many residents who live in close proximity to this new campsite in Charlbury.

Wed 9 Jul, 10:53

So there's every chance of this site being full of unsupervised minors (as long as they have a letter of authorisation from their parents or guardian) having BBQs and campfires. 

Oh and no on-site reception, just a phone number.

I'm struggling to understand how this is allowed? 

Wed 9 Jul, 10:47

There appears to be legislation allowing a camping operation of up to 60 days in a calendar year, but there are lots of restrictions. Details here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2023/747/pdfs/uksiem_20230747_en_001.pdf

The 60 day camping permitted development can be ruled out if there is what is called an Article 4 restriction for this on the site. Only WODC can do this here. Charlbury Towncouncil asked WODC for this a year ago https://charlbury-tc.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/240624Planning-meeting-minutes-docx.pdf. ;

It appears WODC did not do this even though they should have - The New Forest district council did just that for the whole of the new Forest 100,000 acres.

Lastly, in terms of Environmental Impact Assessment EIA. Yes, WODC must screen for for this as the site is larger than 1 hectare, the legislation is clear on this. The screening must result in that an EAI is required. I have legal advice on this.

I won't get involved further publicly. Do message me if you need more information. 

Wed 9 Jul, 09:04

Hipcamp being American likely refers. to camping units common in California but tents are specified here.
I’ve used “PitchUp” run sites many times and their use of language always borders on hyperbole. No one could really call this pleasant spot “spectacular scenery” or “forest”)

50 is the maximum number allowed within the remit, but may well not be taken up.

Wed 9 Jul, 08:19

An ecological assessment will not have been made, as it is a "pop-up" site that is allowed without planning permission. But under WODC rules this is only for sites operating for a maximum of 42 consecutive days or 60 days total in a calendar year (not what is advertised online at Hipcamp).

It also is only for tent-only sites. However on Hipcamp it states that the site is open to Trailer tents and Vehicles under 5 metres, also Pull-in unit and Slideouts. Whether this is consistent with WODC's stated policies is not altogether clear to me.

Traffic for up to 50 camping units turning into and out of The Slade into Cornbury Rise is certainly going to add to the chaos of the annual Wilderness traffic queues. 

Wed 9 Jul, 08:06 (last edited on Sun 13 Jul, 13:28)

Three days notice of this is a bit rich and suggests that controversy was perhpas anticipated. I note campfires and bbqs are permitted. I hope a proper risk assessment has been completed for this given the current weather conditions and that there is indeed proper emergency vehicle access as mentioned by a previous poster. Wasnt there a fire recently in the Blenheim nature reserve? 

Still £70/night during Wilderness for a camping pitch for 6 people-I'm sure it will be full in no time....

Wed 9 Jul, 06:05 (last edited on Wed 9 Jul, 07:10)

"If all 50 pitches (as advertised on your website) are taken, that is potentially at least 50 vehicles accessing the land on any given day"

Don't forget the trucks to service the portable toilets and to do rubbish removal.

I wonder if an ecological assessment has been carried out in accordance with wildlife protection laws, given the site’s proximity to the Blenheim Farm Nature reserve. Is there likely to be an impact on the nesting birds from the noise, traffic, blown rubbish, dogs etc.?

Tue 8 Jul, 23:13

Well isn’t this fascinating – a capsite called Cornbury Rise Camping already has glowing 5-star Google reviews before it’s even sprouted a single tent peg. Must be magic! REAL reviews are locked, along with honest consultation.

Because let’s be clear: plonking a campsite in a built-up area on amenity land isn’t exactly a recipe for community harmony. People living nearby have these pesky little things called *lives* – you know, sleep, peace, and privacy.

Sure, I understand the owner wants to make the land pay its way, but forging ahead without caring what your neighbours think is not community spirited.

Tue 8 Jul, 23:05

If all 50 pitches (as advertised on your website) are taken, that is potentially at least 50 vehicles accessing the land on any given day. How is this ‘low-impact’? 

Tue 8 Jul, 22:05

Having emailed Charlbury Town council today (Tues 8th July), it would appear that they only became aware of the campsite yesterday, Monday 7th July, but still had not received any official information or detail from WODC!

So WODC, why is it that Charlbury Town Council had still not received any official detail of the proposed campsite, with just two days to go before it’s ‘official opening’?

And Fabia, why didn’t you contact local residents to make them aware of your plans, thus giving them the opportunity to air any questions or concerns they may have had?

While entrepreneurship is generally supported, you’ve lost much of the local understanding and support you sought by announcing this venture so late, and as a matter of courtesy, failing to inform those directly affected!

Tue 8 Jul, 20:51 (last edited on Tue 8 Jul, 21:33)

Following on from my last post: 

I have now found the WODC page about permitted campsites. It's here: https://www.westoxon.gov.uk/business-and-licensing/apply-or-renew-licences-and-permits/caravan-and-campsites/

It states: "A site for tents only can be used for a maximum of 42 days consecutively or 60 days in a 12 month period. (Planning consent is required for use of land on more than 28 days.)"

The wording is not very clear (at least to me), but certainly suggests that the 60 consecutive days camping that is proposed off The Slade is not allowed without planning permission.

Tue 8 Jul, 20:18 (last edited on Tue 8 Jul, 20:30)

I'm not really understanding how up to 60 days camping is allowed in these circumstances.

The link that Fabia has provided states:

 "Currently under Class B of the [GDPO] until 25 July 2024, the temporary use of land for camping is permitted but from that date will apply only when in connection with a festival and the provision of any moveable structure for the purposes of that use, is also permitted for up to 28 days in total in any calendar year without the need to apply for planning permission. Any moveable structures must be removed when the land is not being used for camping."

I'm not a lawyer, but to me this suggests that camping is not permitted in the field off The Slade, unless it is in connection with a festival and then for not more than 28 days. I realise that the link is for the Peak District, and perhaps it is different in the Cotswolds. But those affected might well check whether permission is needed and whether the plan has actually been approved  by WODC.

It would help if Fabia could provide a more relevant link.

Tue 8 Jul, 18:51

Grateful if you could make sure those using the entrance to the site respect the speed restrictions and take extra care as young children play out on spur road joining The Slade to the campsite. 

Tue 8 Jul, 16:54

Very much agreed Stuart. 

Tue 8 Jul, 16:11

I completely agree, Stuart. It's fairly shocking to only now discover that a campsite will be set up right outside our open windows this summer, exposing us to the various noises and smells that come with it. This demonstrates a blatant disregard for residents, making clear your uncaring and inconsiderate instincts.

Fabia, you stated that "all other requirements have been met." If that's the case, I assume you can readily provide your third-party insurance liability certificate. I have serious doubts about emergency vehicle access to the site, especially for a fire appliance. Not to mention the campers inevitable clash with resident access. This is not a two way street, literally and metaphorically.  You're asking for our support, but offering very little in return. I'm genuinely unhappy to learn about this, and in this way. 

Tue 8 Jul, 15:31

I have to say it's a bit disappointing that those of us living on The Slade are only just hearing about the campsite now, especially as our gardens back directly onto the field.

While I appreciate that the District Council was notified well in advance, it feels like a missed opportunity that none of the immediate neighbours were contacted. A conversation beforehand could have gone a long way in building local goodwill and trust.

Given the elevated position of the land, the setup will naturally impact the privacy and day-to-day peace of those living below. You've asked for the community’s support and understanding, but support really starts with open, early communication, especially with those most directly affected.

Mon 7 Jul, 16:44

Post to notify that from 10th July a simple pop-up campsite will be open on our land off of The Slade in Charlbury.

Cornbury Rise Camping is a fully permitted site functioning under the 60-day rule, details of which are readily available online with documents such as this: https://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0029/99137/Full-details-of-60-day-campsite-rules.pdf

The site will be open from 10th July 2025 - 8th Sept 2025 - the District Council was successfully notified well in advance and all other requirements have been met.

Bookings are made through sites such as this: 

https://www.pitchup.com/campsites/England/Central/Oxfordshire/charlbury/cornbury-rise-camping/ ;

As a young local, I look forward to the understanding of the community to support this low impact temporary business venture and will encourage the financial input to the wider area through the many local recommendations I will be making to campers!

I will be visiting everyday to make sure everything is running smoothly. Around 4 tents should be there enjoying the sun this weekend - please note this is private and surveyed land.

I appreciate any support - have a lovely week 😊🏕️