Proposed development at Rushy Bank, Forest Road

Mon 6 Apr 2015, 11:03

Or as Joni said
"Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got till it's gone,
They paved paradise and put up a parking lot"
And a 14 m roundabout and a residential unit and some streetlights ...

Sun 5 Apr 2015, 20:37

Thanks for your comment Rod and yes this is from the WODC planning website where you can and should make comments.
My point is just that this is a planning application and will be considered as such.
Rightly or wrongly it is about the effect of a development on the landscape that it is concerned with and not about social need or the worthiness of the aims of any proposal.
I do feel very strongly that we are lucky to have such planning regulations to limit development in and around Charlbury which is of course what preserves the special character of the Town and its surroundings.
This is why a lot of us chose to live here and why so many more want to live here as well. The challenge is to enable those who have strong family or work connections to be able to afford to do so without destroying the very things which make it special.
To quote a famous sang from the Eagles
'They call it paradise
I don't know why
You call someplace paradise,
kiss it goodbye'

Sun 5 Apr 2015, 14:48 (last edited on Sun 5 Apr 2015, 19:14)

The Little Lees application is for 22 homes, of which 4 two bedroom flats, 5 two bedroom houses and 2 three bedroom houses are designated as affordable. Amongst the related documents online is a memo from WODC's senior planning officer mentioning that there are 'at least 12' households who have a local connection to Charlbury.

It's hard to justify an entire satellite estate on the basis of perhaps one local household though the objection, if I may be forgiven repeating myself, is not to building more houses but to them being built on this particular site, with all its negative consequences, immediate and long-term, for the character of the town and its landscape.

Of course we have a responsibility when it comes to affordable housing, and I have two children for whom that is currently a dream, but we also have to accept our responsibility towards the landscape in which we live. No amount of gloss and spin from the developers can disguise the simple fact that to bung a large estate into the open countryside outside Charlbury would be fundamentally irresponsible and destructive.

Sat 4 Apr 2015, 21:02 (last edited on Sun 5 Apr 2015, 08:44)

Hello Paul, yes thank you I did spot that. There are only 7 houses and 4 apartments so be very lucky to get one of those as I'm sure there are more than that number on waiting list. The Private Market houses are 4 Bedroom and 5 bedroom which I would think will be costly,I can't imagine who will be able to buy those it certainly wont be young first time buyers, if I read it correctly they are not for shared ownership. Apologies if I've got that wrong.

Sat 4 Apr 2015, 19:48 (last edited on Sun 5 Apr 2015, 11:26)

Liz (Leffman)- thanks for that info on the '5 year supply of housing land' - I thought they must be getting close but sometimes it's hard to keep up from the sidelines! I'll say no more on the implications for the Rushy Bank proposals, but refer anyone interested to their Planning Statement and the 'Friends' Assessment, both on the WODC website.

Tony (H Merry) - Hope you mind my commenting on the list of things the Council can take into account. I appreciate it's lifted from their website but with all due respect to you and them, it's more accurate on things they can't have regard to but imho, is over simplistic on things they can. It makes no mention for example of issues like sustainability, housing supply, heritage (not just buildings), impact on landscape, planning policy or designations like the AONB. Some might be covered under the 'catch lots' of character and appearance and some might appear technical - but that is no reason for people not to comment on them. Planning may sometimes get complicated but it ain't rocket science and you (meaning anyone reading this) don't need a professional qualification to have an opinion on such matters. So I'd pay more heed to the 'not relevant' list than the 'relevant' - if you think something not on the former is 'material', it probably is so whatever you think about the Rushy Bank scheme, if you haven't already, get writing - the 9 April deadline looms!

Sat 4 Apr 2015, 16:58

Absolutely right, Paul.

We should not, and must not, push aside the usual reasons for not allowing development on a site just because there are good reasons for more houses being built.

It just makes no sense to me to develop a satellite estate in that area simply because of a need for housing, be it "affordable", or for the requirements of YDUK.

Fri 3 Apr 2015, 21:52 (last edited on Fri 3 Apr 2015, 23:04)

No-one is suggesting that no new houses be built in Charlbury. The application for a further 22 homes in Little Lees, a mixture of 'affordable' and market-rate housing, is already likely to be approved. The question that keeps being asked is what justification there is for building a large satellite estate on a green field site previously designated by WODC as too remote.

Fri 3 Apr 2015, 20:28 (last edited on Sat 4 Apr 2015, 12:01)

I agree Helen, there most certainly were,I was waiting to sign the book and make a favourable comment and several young people were ahead of me very excited to think they may have the opportunity to finally have a home of their own, and I personally know of such a family. I do hope their hopes and dreams are not shattered, how cruel would that be that our families cannot stay in their home town.

Fri 3 Apr 2015, 20:12

They were there - my son is one of them.

Fri 3 Apr 2015, 19:31

I was at the Corner House exhibition but no I did not see any excited young people. I must have missed them.

Fri 3 Apr 2015, 18:00

Ann Harper clearly wasn't at The Cornerhouse for the exhibition a couple of weeks ago when I saw several Charlbury people showing huge interest. Most of them were young and excited about the prospect of being able to find somewhere they could potentially buy in Charlbury, their home for many years and in some cases, from birth.

Fri 3 Apr 2015, 14:24

I congratulate the Rushy Bank Partnership on their choice of PR consultants; they have done a brilliant job. No mention of the fact that the development is in the Green Belt and in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. However, we are told by the developer that this is a…

Long post - click to read full text

Fri 3 Apr 2015, 13:27

Rod, the latest version of the local plan which was approved by council last month does demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply

Fri 3 Apr 2015, 10:59

Just as a point of information I think it is worth looking at what West Oxfordshire take into account when considering planning applications. Comments on other issues are not likely to be considered in judging an application

Overlooking and loss of privacy
Overshadowing and loss of light
Car parking
Traffic generation
Scale of development
Conservation of buildings
Noise and disturbance
Character of the area
Design, appearance and layout

Wed 1 Apr 2015, 21:06 (last edited on Wed 1 Apr 2015, 22:43)

As per my last post, the Friends of the Evenlode Valley group has sent a detailed planning assessment to wodc (am being censored here for too many capitals - I do my best not to shout! Except maybe when caught at third slip...). Below are the conclusions it reaches. The…

Long post - click to read full text

Wed 1 Apr 2015, 18:56

What is 'an open book basis'? Is this meant to be a good thing or a bad thing! For the residents of Charlbury, I mean?

Wed 1 Apr 2015, 17:33

West Oxfordshire's Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) Report (June 2014), states that the site was "not taken forward to detailed site assessment stage ?" too remote from settlement". What has changed?
If the WODC Planning Department now turn round and say 'sorry - that was incorrect' what value do any of their statements have?

Wed 1 Apr 2015, 17:05

Rushy Bank Facts

The first of a series of informative postings.

Number One - Affordable Housing

The Rushy Bank Partnership are working on an open book basis with the WODC planning and housing officers to finalise the mix, tenure, values and affordability levels for all of the housing to ensure that these meet their requirements. WODC have the mechanisms to ensure that the various levels of affordability are fair, reasonable and in line with their policy aspirations to enable self build as a means of bridging the affordability gap that other forum contributors have pointed out exists in Charlbury. A legal agreement would form part of any planning consent and this would ensure that their requirements are binding on the development and its participants.

Ian Cox
On behalf of The Rushy Bank Partnership

Wed 1 Apr 2015, 16:31

Jon, many thanks for the introduction, although I do hope some maybe already be aware of the work I do. Please note as well as providing landscape design services locally, I do work nationwide and I also design private gardens, education/ healthcare and commercial projects.
Please don't hesitate to get in contact for any landscape related queries, I'm always happy to discuss ideas or projects.
Website follows: www.clewsla.co.uk

Wed 1 Apr 2015, 16:18

Liz, surely any such application is 'speculative' if the outcome is uncertain? Rushy Bank is speculative: that doesn't make it wrong. Just that 'the people' have to decide one way or the other.

Wed 1 Apr 2015, 15:36 (last edited on Wed 1 Apr 2015, 15:51)

I said I would look into how many of the 22 households that are on the Charlbury housing list also have connections with other parishes. The answer is 4.

And while I am on the Forum, I really must correct what you have said, Jon, about other sites increasing in value because one field gets planning approval. It simply does not work like that. The Local Plan ensures that and the Charlbury Neighbourhood Plan would also be additional protection against speculative planning applications.

Wed 1 Apr 2015, 15:04 (last edited on Wed 1 Apr 2015, 16:24)

Rushy Bank is a property development, and like all such ideas, it is primarily designed to earn a living for those who develop, design and build it, not to mention those who own the land.

To get approval for a housing estate in a green field outside the town and…

Long post - click to read full text

Tue 31 Mar 2015, 21:50 (last edited on Wed 1 Apr 2015, 10:55)

I started this thread - it feels like a long time ago! - with a post on behalf of the Friends of the Evenlode Valley.

The group has now sent a detailed planning assessment to WODC which should be up on their website soon. I will post its conclusions separately…

Long post - click to read full text

Tue 31 Mar 2015, 18:59

Err, no! Sorry. The Rushy Bank proposal is not being presented as about the rights and wrongs of a development location. In Rushy Bank's leaflet we were told that this is the "only suitable, viable and available location for them in Charlbury. The site is viable because the landowner has agreed to sell the land at a value that meets the affordability needs of these groups. Other sites have been looked at but are either not available, not suitable or too expensive." Rushy Bank is asking the town to choose between this development in this location or not at all and so of course it is right to consider its merits to justify the use of a location which does not meet local planning criteria.

Self-build does have merit enabling some people to own a house more cheaply by avoiding paying a developer. But what is being proposed here is allowing a group of residents to buy plots at a discount on which to self build and the social benefit of that is being argued to justify the development of a planning exception site.

I think it's reasonable to ask the Beacon Project to make a clearer case.

Tue 31 Mar 2015, 15:51 (last edited on Tue 31 Mar 2015, 15:51)

Exactly Chris.

Tue 31 Mar 2015, 13:38

Well said Chris.

Tue 31 Mar 2015, 13:16

I'm concerned that the agenda has shifted from debating the rights and wrongs of a development location in our town to questioning the motives and needs of a charity and a community group trying to address housing needs and affordability. Please see the Beacon Project blog for the back story on why self-building is increasingly recognised as one solution to such issues nationally, not an opportunity to make profits at the expense of the countryside.

Mon 30 Mar 2015, 17:02

I totally agree, Arthur.
The paragraph on the Beacon Project web-site says:-

" But this project is innovative in having another 10 out of the 29 houses proposed as being custom-built for Charlbury people at below market value, probably at least 25% below! And those enjoying this discount won't sell it on at a profit as soon as it's built, as there is a proposal by the Beacon Project for a phased lock-in for this discount so that it can be passed on to the next local person wanting to buy a house. The mechanism for passing on discounts will be wrapped up in the section 106 agreement that will accompany any planning consent and the team are liaising with the planner and housing officer to finalise this."

This is also very worrying to me.
10 houses at a discount of approx £150,000 each means that there will be families who are receiving a "bonus" between them of £1.5 million. Who is actually giving that figure, even if only in kind rather than a real donation?

None of this seems to add up to a plan that is fair to everybody, nor sustainable, but which is being thrust upon us all by what appears to almost be emotional blackmail; if we don't accept it we are considered to be unsympathetic to those with early onset dementia.

Very worrying!

Mon 30 Mar 2015, 15:12

With reference to Chris Morton's full posting below:

Last year the average detached house price in Charlbury, according to 'Rightmove' was £625,000.

If the Rushy Bank custom built houses are sold now for £468,750 (25% off) even with a phased lock-in they will at some point be worth full market value. That is a clear profit of £156,250 per family and a lower mortgage monthly payback.

Which Charlbury families will get these ten custom built houses?

Are they for members of the Beacon Project or can anyone apply?

Is it a coincidence that the Early Onset Dementia Unit chose this green field site out of all the sites in Southern England, and that their architect for the past several years is also the Charlbury-based founder of the Beacon Project?

Affordable housing does not need to be subsidised by the low land costs of a green field site but is a planning requirement for all sites including market value sites. The Little Lees proposals include for 11 affordable and 11 market value houses.

The Rushy Bank Partnership has portrayed this as a caring development for the benefit of Charlbury.

The reality is that 10 families will benefit enormously at the cost of irrevocable damage to the rural setting of the town,

and this worries me greatly.

Sun 29 Mar 2015, 16:12 (last edited on Sun 29 Mar 2015, 22:19)

I have just read through the Charlbury Neighbourhood Forum leaflet which is emphasising to me, once again, that Charlbury is "the place to be" living!

In this modern day and age of the individual "just being a number" for the banks we use, food shopping and even the NHS, it is refreshing to see that we have the friendly Post Office as our avenue to banking, the Good Food Shop, the Newsagent, and even the Lent Talks and Churches Together in Charlbury, for adding an, old-fashioned, personal touch.

I have also clicked on the Beacon Project Charlbury website and found it reassuring in many ways

beaconprojectcharlbury.blogspot.co.uk/

There is every evidence here I feel of projects that are going to show Charlbury as leading the way towards a healthy future.

I say thank you, to you all!

Fri 27 Mar 2015, 19:08

This extract from the just published WODC Local Plan covering the period 2011 ?" 2031 might be interesting to followers of this topic
9.6.27 At Charlbury, capacity for further housing within the town is also limited.
There are no large previously developed sites and the historic core forms
a tight settlement with little potential for new housing, even on small
sites. Even within the post-war housing estates, there are few possibilities
for intensification of development. The sensitivity of Charlbury's strong
landscape and environmental setting mean that significant development
on the fringes of the town is unlikely to be acceptable.

Fri 27 Mar 2015, 08:48

Don't worry Katrina lots of people didn't actually get one, including myself!
Regardless, I still support Rushy Bank even after having read it at my Daughters house.

Thu 26 Mar 2015, 21:24

We never received a leaflet about Rushy Bank because we live on the wrong side of the river! i.e. The same side the Rushy bank development will be so they can join the in Charlbury but not really club... Not eligible to vote etc....

Thu 26 Mar 2015, 18:40 (last edited on Thu 26 Mar 2015, 18:43)

The 22 are described as households, and as regards other connections, I don't know but I will ask.

Thu 26 Mar 2015, 17:41

Liz, thanks for clarifying the Little Lees situation. Is that 22 persons or households (or both) on the Affordable list with a Charlbury connection? I don't know the detail about the way these lists work but I believe that you can state local connections to a number of different towns and parishes. Can you say how many of these 22 persons have local connections to other towns/parishes too? Thanks

Thu 26 Mar 2015, 16:54

Perusing previous contributions to this thread, I see that some questions have been asked about the need for affordable housing in Charlbury, with particular reference to the uptake of houses on the Little Lees development. So I decided to check the facts with WODC officers.

All of the houses on Little Lees have been allocated to people with a Charlbury connection. That includes the shared ownership properties. These were a bit more difficult to fill, because in between the plans being approved and the properties being built, we had a banking crisis, and people couldn't easily get mortgages for the part of the home they were buying. However, although these houses were empty for a while, they are now occupied by people with a Charlbury connection.

At the moment there are 22 people on the WODC housing list who want a property in Charlbury and who qualify for that. So we do have a need, and the proposed sites if approved would go a long way towards providing for that.

Thu 26 Mar 2015, 16:14

Prior to these there was a "Pill" factory, and before that the Town Gas works,so who knows what will be unearthed once digging starts,may be a sourse of all sorts of nasty things. John (resident for 73yrs)

Thu 26 Mar 2015, 13:50

Does anyone know how long the small industrial unit next to the station has been there?

As far as I know there is the Nursery, One Village and House and Carriage.
No one seems to have commented on their location, with so many children right next door to one of the busiest stations on the Cotswold Line.

Thu 26 Mar 2015, 12:55

Very well said Chris.

Thu 26 Mar 2015, 11:39

Chris Morton's posting is a must read for anyone really interested in understanding the reasons for and benefits of this project.

Thu 26 Mar 2015, 10:24

Everyone in Charlbury has received a leaflet from the "Friends of The Evenlode Valley" and a number of people have submitted public planning comments on the basis of the information contained within it. It does however contain some misleading information, which should be taken into account.

There are three main…

Long post - click to read full text

Tue 24 Mar 2015, 12:54

I would completely agree with Richard's summary which presents the essence of what was a very long discussion last night concisely and correctly.
In a way it is nice to know that differences in opinion evident in post on this topic here was reflected in the views of the Town Councillors but in my view I think this does mean that as a Council we can neither support or oppose the development.
In any case the decision is not ours but the Uplands Planning Committee at WODC

Mon 23 Mar 2015, 22:19

As an informal postscript (and I'm posting this in a personal capacity only), the Town Council considered this and two other major planning applications tonight, together with a number of smaller applications. The Town Council has no powers of its own to decide or refuse applications, but its views are (in theory!) among those that West Oxfordshire District Council, the planning authority, takes into consideration.

As the meeting was, of course, a public meeting, I'm not jumping any guns by posting this but please bear in mind that it has no official status and I may have got things wrong or omitted details - this is a broad-brush sketch only.

On Rushy Bank, the councillors were not able to come to a consensus view either for or against the application. The Town Clerk is preparing a summary of both the concerned and supportive viewpoints raised and that summary will be considered at Wednesday's full council meeting.

On the Little Lees housing development, the Town Council asked for full public consultation to take place, and that the application should not be progressed until it has done; for the road access to be revised; otherwise, no objection.

Finally, on the Community Centre, the Town Council was supportive.

Mon 23 Mar 2015, 00:14

Andrew, are you suggesting that further development at Little Lees would never have taken place if those original 15 had not been permitted? That's not my understanding.

Sun 22 Mar 2015, 22:01

Mike, you say in your last post:-
"As for "setting a precedent", that is simply not how an application like this works as a few minutes perusal of the planning process will show."

Counter to that argument, when the previous development at Little Lees was presented to the WODC Planning Dept two or three years ago for the 15 dwellings which are now built, the site was accepted as an exception site. Fears that if it was approved it could be the "thin end of the wedge" were cast aside with the comments from WODC that as an exception site, no further development would be allowable on that site.

So what has now happened at Little Lees? Guess what; it has become part of that very wedge that you say does not exist in planning and a precedent obviously was set with the first development.

Sun 22 Mar 2015, 21:03

I am certainly in favour of the principle of affordable housing. The trouble is that, apart from the vagueness as what exactly the houses will cost, they will only remain 'affordable' for five years. After that they can be sold at market price. Only the ones that are rented (which is a small proportion of the whole) will go on being truely affordable.

Sun 22 Mar 2015, 18:54

I too support the current planning application.

Issues like traffic are easily fixed and apply whether the development takes place or not. I'm happy to leave these to the professional planners rather than expect a good solution to emerge from a discussion on a forum.

As for "setting a precedent", that is simply not how an application like this works as a few minutes perusal of the planning process will show.

Sun 22 Mar 2015, 18:37

I recognise that for some people the arguments against the Rushy Bank development are a fuss about nothing. They find nothing un-ideal about placing a home for young people with dementia in a satellite estate close to a busy road, train line, and river. Nor do they believe that the entire estate will become a precedent for further development in the Evenlode Valley. Hope is admirable but it's no form of guarantee.

With the greatest respect, Stephen, your remark that you are 'finally swayed by a social conscience' reflects the point that I was trying to make. My objection is not with the development of Charlbury, it's to being sold a development in what some of us regard as an unsuitable site, under the mantra of 'affordability' but without any information as to how much the houses will actually cost and therefore for whom they are supposedly affordable. In the absence of any figures and with no analysis of what 'affordable' might mean in the context of Charlbury, I'm not sure we're left with anything more than what politicians describe as 'an aspiration'. I would hope that we all had a social conscience. My concern is that it be effective.

Sun 22 Mar 2015, 16:58

Whilst the specific arguments might be finely balanced, can someone who is a planner, comment on what opportunities might open up for redevelopment of the commercial area, should the Rushy Bank application be granted? I understand that new, permitted development rights, allow light industrial, storage and distribution buildings to change to residential use. Who owns the land?

Sun 22 Mar 2015, 10:11

Well said Stephen.

Sun 22 Mar 2015, 09:44

I came away from the Rushy Bank presentation confirming my previously held support for the project. I thought that they had satisfactorily replied to the concerns raised by 'Friends of Evenlode Valley'. I was particularly pleased to learn that the depiction of the red roofs is incorrect! I have already expressed my views on the AONB issue: I do not believe in the 'thin edge of the wedge' argument: I do not understand the 'inappropriate site' - it is very close the rail station and large car park, it is at the entrance to a commercial area and the sewage works! Earlier postings have assured me that 'affordable housing' is a requirement not a sweetner and that affordable is relative to local housing costs. I was re-assured by the steps being taken in relation to access and supply of utilites. Weighing the pros and cons I am finally swayed by a social conscience which says that as a community we should be inclusive rather than exclusive. I wonder what my near neighbours were saying when the property in which I live was being built 20 years ago?

Sat 21 Mar 2015, 16:42

As others have already commented, the problem with the term 'affordable housing' is that it's hopelessly vague. What price constitutes affordable, and for whom? The reason that only a proportion of the Little Lees development attracted local buyers was presumably that they were too expensive for their alleged target. Charlbury will inevitably grow; the claim that there's nowhere else for houses to be built is surely undermined by the example of the application for a development north of Little Lees. What I think a lot of people object to in the case of Rushy Bank is the flag of 'affordable housing' being waved as a justification for a satellite estate being plonked into an area long viewed as unsuitable for development. If I was a developer, I would use the same forms of disingenuous spin as are being used in the case of this proposed estate; they appeal to the heart rather than the head. It is the very unsuitability and consequent cheapness of the land that is driving the proposed development on that site. Tellingly, I was unable to find anyone at the Rushy Bank presentation, at the Corner house this morning, who could tell me how much the 'affordable housing' would actually cost.

Fri 20 Mar 2015, 19:45

Glena, several of the 15 houses in Little Lees built in the last two years were shared equity, (6 of them I think), and still there was a problem filling them with people from Charlbury.

Whilst nobody wants to see these houses stand empty, I think it does point out that housing costs in Charlbury can be too high for many potential occupants, even those given the "affordable" title.

Fri 20 Mar 2015, 14:52

Thank you Reg.The question of affordable housing is complicated and there are many ways of delivering and safeguarding the future of these imoportant assests.As has been said several times in this thread it is understood that some of the houses in the Little Lees development could not attract buyers---perhaps they should have been built as social housing ? Perhaps the shared equity scheme would have been more practicable ? If afforfable housing is built in Chatlbury, wherever it is, care needs to be taken to set up schemes which will allow local people to participate.

Fri 20 Mar 2015, 10:59

For those whole want definitions of affordable/Social housing please check out this link.
https://www.gov.uk/definitions-of-general-housing-terms

Thu 19 Mar 2015, 20:01 (last edited on Thu 19 Mar 2015, 20:04)

Grahame, if you look at the Application Form in the available documents on the WODC web site for the Little Lees development, it is for, and I quote:-
11 "Market Housing - Proposed" and
11 "Social Rented Housing - Proposed".

So "affordable" or "social" seem to be interchangeable, perhaps as far as WODC are concerned, or is this just that central government and local government have the same ideals but simply describe them in different ways.

Also, while it is true that developers have to make an allocation of affordable houses in any new development, it is certainly not 50% as is proposed in Little Lees.

Thu 19 Mar 2015, 19:31

Developers are required to allocate a number of 'affordable' houses when building a new development. Some get round it by giving a donation to a housing association.

The Government has recently reduced the number of affordable houses the developers are required to build.

Thu 19 Mar 2015, 17:39

Do not be under any misapprehension

''affordable housing'' is not ''social housing''

There have been several comments on this site, though not this thread, that ''affordable houses'' built recently in Charlbury were beyond the reach of local people and were, in fact, mainly rented to, dare I say it, to people not from the town.

Thu 19 Mar 2015, 17:35

I'm just wondering whether there could be an arrangement made for the properties to be leasehold rather than freehold. If this could be done, then the leaseholders could take some control. Just an idea?

Thu 19 Mar 2015, 15:47

While this is a laudable aim, I don't think it is as simple as it sounds. First, what happens if the developer cannot find a local person willing to buy? Do they have to keep on lowering the price until they do? And even if you think this is reasonable, what happens when one of the original buyers wants or needs to sell it on to someone else? Are you still going to impose restrictions on who they can sell it to, even if it means selling at a loss? For how long afterwards do such restrictions apply?

Thu 19 Mar 2015, 15:22

Could the new houses (wherever they are built) be earmarked for local people only, and definitely not for 2nd homes?

Wed 18 Mar 2015, 12:09

Just in case anybody has missed this, there is now another application for new housing in the field to the north side of Little Lees, alongside the houses that were built over the past two years along the existing road.

Of great interest in relation to the Rushy Bank site is a comment which I copy here exactly as written; make of it whatever you wish, but as I live in Little Lees I admit to some uncertainty and conflict of interest over these two applications.

"The significance of the countryside
Particularly to the west of the historic town there are extensive views to and from the historic town over the open countryside. This creates an important and distinctive relationship between the historic town and the countryside and is an essential element of the character of the Conservation Area. The absence of any estate development and the juxtaposition of traditional buildings and walls to the countryside, including the River Evenlode and the partly wooded hills of the Cornbury Park Estate, create a tranquil character and atmosphere that is of exceptional quality. In my opinion the landscape setting in this part of the Conservation Area is of considerable significance."

I accept that this comment must be read in the knowledge that the writer is making a separate application for dwellings on the opposite side of the town and is therefore making stronger positive remarks about the site he is dealing with, but it certainly gives us all things to consider.

I shall now continue perusing all the documents that are online for the Little Lees application which you can get to from publicaccess.westoxon.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=NJYPQBRKH3F00

Wed 18 Mar 2015, 07:19

Come and meet the Rushy Bank Partnership members this Saturday. We are holding an event at the Corner House, details are on the Events page of the Charlbury website and on all Town notice Boards. Details were posted several weeks ago but we want to make sure that Forum participants are aware of the event.

Ian Cox on behalf of The Rushy Bank Partnership.

Mon 16 Mar 2015, 18:24

Affordable housing is not a "sweetener", it is a requirement on commercial developments and the number of houses is stipulated by the council, not by the developer.

Mon 16 Mar 2015, 15:59

It is my impression that landowners and developers always see affordable housing as a sweetener to help push through potentially unacceptable proposals, and are indeed encouraged to do so by planning regulations and local planning authorities. I'm not sure that is necessarily a bad thing, provided those being "sweetened" still have their eyes open.

Mon 16 Mar 2015, 14:06

Can we look more closely at the affordable housing question as it seems to an enticing part of the Rushy proposal (which, by the way, I'm undecided on)? Andrew Greenfield said in a previous post that quite a few earlier affordable homes have not sold to local people. I'd be interested to know the numbers before we make up our minds. Why not wait for the Local Plan to examine the long term need for affordable housing? Otherwise, builders and landowners may see affordable housing as a sweetener to push through potentially unacceptable developments.

Mon 16 Mar 2015, 12:08 (last edited on Mon 16 Mar 2015, 12:09)

Couldn't agree more, Pearl. We have a housing problem here in West Oxfordshire as we have everywhere in southern England.

Mon 16 Mar 2015, 12:07 (last edited on Mon 16 Mar 2015, 19:47)

Exactly Liz, but I doubt the actual Rushy Bank would fall in to that category, hopefully it will allow some of our young people in Charlbury to be able to rent or part buy one of those homes as they have no chance of getting an affordable home at the moment, and private rental is too expensive.

Mon 16 Mar 2015, 11:52 (last edited on Mon 16 Mar 2015, 12:06)

Being in an AONB does not mean we should not be building new homes. But of course development must be proportionate. That is why in the new Local Plan there is provision for 800 houses to be built over the next 15 years in the Charlbury/Burford area, which encompasses the Oxfordshire part of the Cotswold AONB. We need more affordable homes if people who have grown up here are going to be able to stay here. I would hate to think of the Charlbury/Burford area only being inhabited by second home owners at weekends as has happened in much of the Cotswold AONB. That is neither conservation nor preservation.

Sun 15 Mar 2015, 18:41

I have been looking at the AONB website. Part of the definition is "They are living, working landscapes much loved and valued by all who enjoy them" They are to"Support the economic and social well being of local communities in ways which contribute to the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty" I think that we should be conscious of the difference between Conservation and Preservation. Conservation infers that changes and development should occur. Preservation infers resting in the past. I note that more than 10% of England is designated to 46 AONBs. That is a big chunk of the Country to exclude from accepting responsibility for helping people to find housing.

Sun 15 Mar 2015, 15:30 (last edited on Sun 15 Mar 2015, 17:27)

It has already been pointed out in a previous post that the proposed 1500 in Woodstock the Rushy Bank proposal is extremely modest in comparison.

Sun 15 Mar 2015, 14:29

Yes indeed Mark Woodstock and Hanborough are not in the AONB and if you see the development planned now in Woodstock against their wishes and how upset they are I think we are all be grateful that we are part of the Cotswold AONB

Sat 14 Mar 2015, 18:54 (last edited on Sat 14 Mar 2015, 19:15)

Our town is 'precious' to the extent that it stands in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, in other words one of a very small number of places of England which have been designated by Parliament as meriting special protection. To the best of my knowledge neither Hanborough or Woodstock are in the AONB, so the comparison between development there and here isn't entirely apt. I'm not entirely sure what I think about the proposals as yet, but I have a lurking feeling that the socially-worthy aspects might be a kind of bribe designed to persuade us all that a greenfield development which stands to make those involved a great deal of money is a good thing. I shall be watching discussions here with interest while I continue to think about it.

Sat 14 Mar 2015, 11:59

Hans, I do agree with your analysis of how the London property price bubble affects the southern shires and Oxfordshire in particular.
Megan, I also agree with your views about urban sprawl and the need for investment in infrastructure.
Nevertheless, we are where we are. In a parallel universe, I would support a popular revolution to establish a benign dictator who would repossess all long-term uninhabited dwellings in southern England and return them to the state (probably revealed too much of my politics there).
Anyway, in our real world, there is virtually irresistible pressure for housing development in our county. Compared with our neighbours in Hanborough and Woodstock, this is such a modest application.
I still pose the question: why is our precious town so "precious" that it cannot accept building beyond the river?

Sat 14 Mar 2015, 08:58

I think it sets a precedent as it widens the residential area of Charlbury and infilling as well as building on other surrounding fields will likely become much easier. This would be a shame and spoil the tranquility of the town. Look at the urban sprawl (as well as the hideous traffic jams!) around Hanborough for one nearby example. New housing is pending there despite the road capacity already being unable to cope.

Sat 14 Mar 2015, 08:05

Tony I do believe that you are (trying?)to be somewhat disingenuous with your question!

Fri 13 Mar 2015, 18:39 (last edited on Thu 10 Nov 2016, 22:01)

Fri 13 Mar 2015, 14:49 (last edited on Fri 13 Mar 2015, 14:50)

Andrew, of course that's occurred to me, which is why I'm asking for suggestions. That's fair enough isn't it?

Fri 13 Mar 2015, 12:19

Thank you Wendy, well said.

Fri 13 Mar 2015, 11:47

I agree with Pearl on this. I would add that those not so keen on the proposal should think how they might feel if one of their family needed this facility.
A settlement has to grow if it is to be sustainable. We are justly proud of being a caring community, are we not? Somebody will make a profit is neither here nor there - at least they are trying to offer our community something positive.

Thu 12 Mar 2015, 23:22

Has it occurred to you Mike that perhaps it's possible that there are no sites suitable in Charlbury for a development of the type envisaged at Rushy Bank. When we say that we believe that the site is unsuitable, for a variety of different reasons already mentioned, it does not mean that we can somehow magically produce another site that is suitable.

At this stage I am certainly not going to get involved in an argument over the suitability of the other other sites suggested as I do not know them well, nor am I going to be persuaded that Rushy Bank is the right spot for this type of development just because I can not find somewhere else that is.

I also agree with Alan Wilson that a degree of nimbyism isn't necessarily totally bad. Without it, we could be living in a concrete jungle rather than the delightful small market town with its village feel that we have now. Just because there is an accepted need for housing in an area does not mean that any site can or should be chosen and used without consideration of the facilities that will be needed by that development.

Thu 12 Mar 2015, 22:44

Nimby is loaded word used to belittle what may be legitimate objections to a planning proposal, by the people who may be most affected by it. Nothing useful is achieved by using the word.

Thu 12 Mar 2015, 22:10

My post was a straightforward request for information . At the moment I am neutral on this and having seen several arguments against I wanted to understand the logic behind the proposal.

Thu 12 Mar 2015, 14:24

I wrote on the 4th March

"Please could people that think the Rushy Bank site is unsuitable for this development suggest a local site that they think IS suitable. This would help counter any possible impression of nimbyism. Thanks."

Since then, I've only seen Wychwood Paddocks and Shilson Lane field suggested, and I'm not sure how serious they are.

Thu 12 Mar 2015, 11:26

We should be very careful about the n word. Nimbies want to protect their back yard. This application isn't about a back yard, but a hitherto protected site in a sensitive location in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Thu 12 Mar 2015, 00:46

Tony: I'm not saying you are a 'nimby' yourself but, since we have had Planning Authorities and public consultation, isn't this precisely the question that 'nimbies' up and down the country ask every time they get notification of an application on their patch?
Surely the question has to be reversed: why are Charlbury and this particular site NOT suitable for development?

Wed 11 Mar 2015, 19:08

Perhaps I missed something but can someone please briefly explain why Charlbury and this particular site is considered to be so suitable for this dvelopment

Wed 11 Mar 2015, 08:58 (last edited on Wed 11 Mar 2015, 11:35)

I'm still hopeful people will support the Rushy Bank development as you say it's 'extremely modest' and with excellent well thought out plans and every consideration. They are 'ready to go' is the term I believe subject to being accepted obviously.

Wed 11 Mar 2015, 08:33

Be careful what you ask for with Blenheim. They are proposing to build 1500 houses in the fields outside Woodstock, which would literally double the size of the town. The Rushy Bank proposal is extremely modest by comparison.

Wed 11 Mar 2015, 06:53

Well said Ben, me too.

Tue 10 Mar 2015, 22:48

I wasn't even going to bother to comment on Mark Sulik's suggested alternative site (Shilson Lane, field with black sheep) as I honestly thought he was joking or trying to be controversial. But he actually means it! You couldn't really pick a more prominent site, loved by all the parents who walk their children to pre-school and the many walkers who pass by. I hope his suggestion won't encourage Blenheim to consider making big bucks from another beautiful spot in Charlbury, as seems to be happening elsewhere.

Tue 10 Mar 2015, 22:09

Blenheim, but you would be making sheep homeless!

Tue 10 Mar 2015, 22:07

I personally think that the Rushy Bank proposal is well thought through, innovative, and the suggested location unobtrusive. I run, cycle and walk extensively in and around Charlbury, and can't see that it's situation, in a low position behind the existing developments of the industrial estate and station, is going to be particularly visible from any publicly accessible vantage point. I support the proposal.

Tue 10 Mar 2015, 19:31

Pearl, there are a lot of things posted that people don't like or agree with !

Good that you acknowledge that the site is suitable and I hope that others do as well a "beautiful spot " So, we have in principle a site, now it's to see who owns in ( same owner as Rushy bank ....hope ?) and how much it will cost. It could be on a long term lease of 999 years.

Looks like a possibility

Tue 10 Mar 2015, 18:27 (last edited on Tue 10 Mar 2015, 18:28)

Thank you Mark , yes I was going to put that having read it in your previous post but then I thought you may not like it. That would be a beautiful spot but then there will probably be even more complaints I'm sure and more costly to buy the land. It's very difficult isn't it as seems to be impossible to please everyone but Charlbury definitely needs more homes.

Tue 10 Mar 2015, 18:14

As mentioned before.......Off Shilson Lane. Land, a road , on the edge of the Town and walkable .

Tue 10 Mar 2015, 13:08 (last edited on Tue 10 Mar 2015, 13:18)

I had no doubt you would object Susie, but then please tell me where would be suitable? ......

as I said in my post that wherever is suggested I suspect someone will object to it.

Tue 10 Mar 2015, 09:52

Personally I would object to this plan on the basis of its situation. This would extend the town past the railway line and river, which are the borders of our lovely town. I agree that more housing is needed but not there. And we do have to take into account the amount of school places - or lack of them. If this was to go ahead, there would be no way that these children would get a place at Charlbury School, if people who live in Nine Acres did not manage to!

Tue 10 Mar 2015, 08:31 (last edited on Tue 10 Mar 2015, 09:23)

In answer to your final comment, what we do want for Charlbury are homes for our young people who have lived here all their lives from families going as far back as great grandparents, instead of having to move away. How unkind is it of people to deny others the chance to live in their home town by constantly objecting to any application or idea put forward, no matter where it might be.

Mon 9 Mar 2015, 22:16

One of the points which is being missed is that the Rushy Bank Housing Estate is predominantly a commercial development in the middle of an AONB which hasn't been subject to the consultation of a neighbourhood plan. It is also a commercial venture from which someone is going to make an awful lot of money.

I had thought, hearing the hype about affordable housing for Charlbury people and reading the glossy Rushy Bank Housing Estate brochure that was dropped in all of our letterboxes, that there would be significant affordable housing on the Estate. However counting the number of bedrooms I find that only about 10% is affordable (not including the 12 dementia beds) ?" hardly sufficient I'd have thought to justify it becoming a rural exception site.

I'm also concerned about parking and traffic. The 29 houses plus cooks, carers and support staff for the dementia home will likely increase the demand for parking in the centre of town as the highways people have already said that "it is likely that residents of the site would be dependent on car travel ". I am not sure about pressure on school places but it may be reduced if a large proportion of the new residents school privately or are merely weekenders.

The field is indeed a beautiful, rushy bank of the Evenlode today but it will be a busy, muddy building site next year if we sit by and allow the plans to be approved ?" is this what we want for Charlbury?
James

Sun 8 Mar 2015, 14:31

The planning application has now been made and can be seen at publicaccess.westoxon.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=NJYPPPRKH3900
You may comment on this application until 9th April
It will come before the next Town Council Planning and Correspondence Meeting on Monday 23rd March when members of the public may observe the meeting

Sat 7 Mar 2015, 13:47 (last edited on Sat 7 Mar 2015, 13:54)

Russell, you have some fantastic ideas posted on the various topics , if you came come up with these solutions during daylight hours, I am sure that with 6 pints of strong beer ( purchased and consumed in the Bull ) everything in town would be sorted. You get my vote.

I wondered if we dug up the playing close and put underground parking and reinstated it as is, with a link path to a hidden line of specialist shops selling, sweets, imported fruit and veg ( from less than 10 miles from the centre of the town- where ever this is deemed to be ), hot pies and e cigarettes .....and anything else that gets people agitated............
Then, when all sorted and a larger school to take the children of Charlbury , build away.

Sat 7 Mar 2015, 12:50

Can't go opposite the preschool. It might spoil my view! However one of the bests locations in town for development.

As is Wychwood Paddocks. Sell the paddocks, get a 106 agreement, provide a flood lit 4G pitch on Nine Acres and link to the Community Centre.

Develop Wychwood Paddocks for housing and the Dementia Centre. Meaning people can walk to the station, school and coop and won't ad to the one street parking in the town.

Sat 7 Mar 2015, 09:48

In response to Phil's posting , I have been and viewed the site and walked the route on a number occasions, as I would not be wanting to make comment without doing so. I wonder how many other people posting have done this. .

Firstly, the walk along a narrow pavement , having to cross the road from the site to access , over the railway bridge to the access to the station junction ( busy junction ) having to cross the road again to get the pavement located on the other side of the road. Not ideal and quite dangerous. This route is dark and not that suitable for the type of use intended , so would additional street lights then be wanted ?

Secondly,Family houses, outside the catchment area of the school .Not a great plus point.

Third, I do not see that this" Remote location " being suitable for either of the groups that it intended for. And as for the foot traffic that will result , I think that it's an accident waiting to happen. On an elf and safety issue, and assessing the
Risks, in the day and age it won't score highly.

No offence taken Phil....but it is in a field outside the town.

How about the field opposite the pre school as a option , access of Shilton Lane.

Thu 5 Mar 2015, 20:38 (last edited on Thu 5 Mar 2015, 21:06)

What me Andrew?

Sorry, it's too late now :(

Thu 5 Mar 2015, 20:20

Don't tease us Pearl!

Watch what on ITV, and when?

Thu 5 Mar 2015, 19:38

Might be worth watching ITV about shortage of housing!

Thu 5 Mar 2015, 13:35 (last edited on Thu 5 Mar 2015, 14:34)

Jim, the SSI in the quarry is not the only reason that Charlbury quarry has been unacceptable to WODC as a development site. The other main reason is difficulties in achieving acceptable access.

To quote from a report from WODC in 2011: the site was excluded from the development plan because of "the need for significant improvements to Quarry Lane outside the highway to serve development; the severe adverse impact upon the Conservation Area and AONB of achieving access from the narrow, densely vegetated Ditchley Road; and there being no need to allocate the site in order to meet the Structure Plan targets".

In addition, if there are archaeological remains at the Forest Rd site relating to the abandoned medieval village of Walcot (as I am told there are), there are also other significant remains (geological and fossil) at the quarry site, as well as landscape features that mean that WODC concluded that "Development of the site could not be achieved without a severe adverse impact on the immediate environment.

Thu 5 Mar 2015, 11:09 (last edited on Thu 5 Mar 2015, 11:11)

Mike, my own objection is as much about the bad process which has led to the bad site choice as it is about the site itself. A planning decision to breach an established hard boundary (the river) should surely only be made through a proper strategic planning process not an…

Long post - click to read full text

Wed 4 Mar 2015, 17:02

Without wishing to take sides in the current debate, I would like to suggest that believing the site being proposed is unsuitable does not necessarily imply belief in an alternative suitable site in the local area. I would also like to suggest that nimbyism isn't necessarily a bad thing. Without a few nimbies, there is a risk that those who care less about the impact of development on the local environment could undermine the attractiveness of the area for a significant number of its inhabitants and visitors.

Wed 4 Mar 2015, 11:51 (last edited on Wed 4 Mar 2015, 16:28)

Please could people that think the Rushy Bank site is unsuitable for this development suggest a local site that they think IS suitable. This would help counter any possible impression of nimbyism. Thanks.

Wed 4 Mar 2015, 10:36

Paul, you say

"My understanding is that it is being developed for local people by local people and it has my support as well as offering a fantastic home to people less fortunate than the majority of us."

What a fantastic idea in theory. The situation is the same as it was for the new houses in Little Lees which were all originally for Charlbury people or those with a link to Charlbury, and that was a condition of the planning agreement. It was, however, not possible to fill all those properties, particularly the part-ownership houses with families from Charlbury and so they were then offered to families from the wider WODC area.

I accept that people need houses, of course they do, but nevertheless I feel the argument that Rushy Bank is for Charlbury people only could turn out to be rather spurious and difficult to achieve in view of past happenings.

Like a lot of other respondents to this thread, I am fully in sympathy with the wishes of YDUK to find somewhere that is appropriate for sufferers, I am simply concerned that this site is not the right place.

Wed 4 Mar 2015, 10:35

Paul

You do not believe that Rushy Bank will set a precedent for further development.

Agricultural land in this area is worth £6,000 - £7000 per acre. If this proposal receives planning approval each of the 29 house plots would be worth roughly £200,000, increasing the value of the Rushy Bank field to approx £5,800,000, the equivalent of £1,200,000 per acre.

With this sort of increase in land value available why wouldn't all landowners with fields ? mile from the edge of town put in similar applications.

How could the planning department refuse those applications if they approve this one?

Wed 4 Mar 2015, 08:45

Phil, this site is as greenfield as you get. It happens to bound the old gasworks site but that is a commercial development, not a settlement.

Paul, while I know you are a recognised real estate authority now, residential development and planning is a particular field and people who have spent their careers in this in the district and seen the settlements expand have said it is 100% certain that the Rushy Bank development will make further development in the valley more rather than less likely. It is common sense I think. The planners will look at the development on its merits anyway as you know.

The Rushy Bank argument that this is by Charlbury people for Charlbury people is not a planning argument either nor does it excuse bad planning I'm afraid. If local bad practice were OK you could circumvent the entire planning and conservation system. Does a development have more merit if it is Charlbury residents moving into new homes and 'newcomers' moving into their old homes rather than 'newcomers' moving directly into the new homes? 5 minutes after this is built democratically at least the newcomers would be Charlbury people too, wherever they live in the town. And there's no guarantee that the developer who has made his profit will still be a Charlbury person rather than happily retired somewhere quieter…

Wed 4 Mar 2015, 00:30

I did not intend to re-join this conversation but I feel I must respond to Mr Sulik.
Have you walked down there and looked at the proposed site? Hardly "a field in the middle of nowhere". It is easily walkable on pavements to the town centre.
Furthermore, it is a brownfield site - the demolished old Charlbury Gasworks. This is probably why the vendor could sell at a price which allows this application to be submitted.
Your stuff about the school and car parking are not very relevant to this specific proposal.
No offence Mark, but please go and look....

Tue 3 Mar 2015, 15:59

I will NOT be objecting to this development

Tue 3 Mar 2015, 11:23

I have to say that I agree with Phils post. It seems a reasonable location, not intrusive and there is a real need for affordable housing. I also think the arguement that it will lead to further development in the Evenlode area is misplaced and I am basing this judgement on working in the Real Estate industry for the last 25 years. My understanding is that it is being developed for local people by local people and it has my support as well as offering a fantastic home to people less fortunate than the majority of us.

Sun 1 Mar 2015, 21:52

Charlbury needs affordable housing , this is without question for this and many other Towns and Villages in West Oxford.
Any new development should be in a suitable location and constructed from materials in keeping with all of the other properties . Other factors to consider . The school is not big enough to take all of the children that currently live here in Charlbury. The co op car park......always full. Not enough parking at the Station . Some of the shared ownership houses recently built were not taken by local people if I recall on a precious subject.
Build , but get the infrastructure in place first and put any new development on the edge of the Town in a more suitable location linking to the existing roads and access points,not in a field in the middle of nowhere creating a Hamlet , where they will be excluded from being able to attend the local school. Where everyone will need to travel by car to get anywhere and will then allow further infill and development. Nice idea, wrong Location

Sat 28 Feb 2015, 09:39

I have nothing against new development in and around this wonderful town but we must be very very careful of rapid expansion leading to insufficient and inadequate infrastructure (Power, sewage water, schools etc etc.). This may also lead to other developments being put forward in other areas around Charlbury. This is where I also support this idea as even my son has had to move out of the town to Abingdon as he found that local property was to expensive. We do need a balance.

Thu 26 Feb 2015, 15:16

I do have a question for debate here: Why is a development proposal beyond the line of the river Evenlode or the Cotswold rail line such an objectionable thing?
Have not most valley settlements expanded across their rivers? Lechlade would be an exception because of the huge Thames flood plain.
The proposal as it stands seems intelligent and meets planning regs. Other locations around the town would seem much less likely to gain permission. This site is inconspicuous if not invisible (unless you look from the top of St Mary's tower).
The Section 106 benefits to the school and/or the new Community Centre should not be overlooked.
So, my question hovers: What is really wrong with this proposal?

Wed 25 Feb 2015, 12:09 (last edited on Wed 25 Feb 2015, 12:10)

My original post on this string was put up on behalf of several people concerned about the proposal, who made up the informal group known as the Friends of the Evenlode Valley. The group now has over 80 'signed up' supporters and will be making formal representations to WODC once we have studied the full plans.

In the meantime, and on my own account, I'd like to re-iterate that we wholeheartedly support the provision of a range of housing to meet local needs. I think I can safely say that our objection centres on the choice of site, while the YDUK project, however welcome in other respects, is a county if not wider provision. It remains the case that WODC rejected the Rushy Bank site for development as recently as last year without even a detailed assessment (which perhaps explains why it's said to be 'affordable'). Our group takes a similar view.

But whatever any of us might think now about these proposals, let's look carefully at the plans and the supporting evidence once the application is formally registered, rather than relying on vague statements and a purely illustrative, not to scale drawing in a publicity brochure (I might have put that more strongly!). And then think carefully about the possible impacts and implications for the future - which I believe are many.

Mon 23 Feb 2015, 23:08

I think that the development looks very nice ... However I am just concerned on where it is intended to be. In my opinion I feel that the outskirts of Charlbury are marked by the railway line, and that any development further than that would act as a precedent.

Mon 23 Feb 2015, 22:48

Brochure received through our door states "A planning application has just been made....."

Mon 23 Feb 2015, 22:41

Jean - there hasn't been a planning application yet. The Rushy Bank promoters have been posting leaflets through people's doors, but maybe they might consider posting a PDF here as well?

Mon 23 Feb 2015, 17:56

I apologise if I have offended anyone by using the wrong terminology "newcomers" is better.I have only been here in Charlbury for 25 years so I am still a newcomer, that previously lived 7 miles up the road and like Jody over the years has got involved with Community events and projects and I'm very proud to say that I am from Charlbury as I have actually lived here longer than my previous town.I am not against the ideals of the dementia project either, however I am against its proposed location and this opinion is not based merely on my speculation of the potential impact to Community events but about the loss of beautiful landscape.

Mon 23 Feb 2015, 17:21

Where can one see the proposals? I cannot find them on WODC website

Mon 23 Feb 2015, 09:08 (last edited on Mon 23 Feb 2015, 17:17)

Isn't development in that area largely at the mercy of Cornbury Park? (i.e. major development around the station in the future would need the estate's support)

Mon 23 Feb 2015, 00:03

I hope people can see past the gloss and spin and realise that if this development goes ahead it will pave the way for future planning proposals that side of the river. Once the river is breached, there is every possibility that in the future, the centre of Charlbury will become the station and the essence of such a special small Cotswold town will be lost. If you think this is okay then by all means support the proposal. If you don't, please email friendsofevenlodevalley@gmail.com

Sun 22 Feb 2015, 22:56

I really like the look of the proposed design. It is modest and fit for purpose, and in my opinion is not a violation of the landscape. It would be barey noticeable from the road, I imagine. It would be a really fantastic opportunity for some of the local young people to build their own homes, which is something that is desparately needed, and a superb opportunity for integrating the Rushy Bank community as a whole. I welcome the scheme and shall be happy to support it through the planning process.

Sun 22 Feb 2015, 20:55 (last edited on Sun 22 Feb 2015, 21:05)

Not wanting to add any more fuel to the fire, however, to describe new folk coming to the town as 'Outsiders', in my opinion, is pretty harsh and unfair.

Sun 22 Feb 2015, 20:11

It is surely unfair to say that the possible residents of a future development in charlbury- wherever it may be - will object and stop things like the beer festival or riverside. How can we possibly know what a newly arrived person or family in our town will do or be like? I was new to charlbury four years ago. I participate here on the forum, I have sung with the community choir, volunteered for the beer festival, street fair and pre school, signed up for an allotment and picked litter on nine acres. Perhaps the new residents will all participate as much or more than I have. Perhaps a new owner of one of our town centre heritage properties will commute to london but all their groceries online and boycot the street fair while complaining about the bells. It seems rather ungenerous in the extreme to assume all newcomers to the town will automatically be bad for it.

Sun 22 Feb 2015, 18:41

We all know as well that Riverside and the beer festival will be stopped by the residents of rushy bank and that would be a tragedy so many local community events are halted or stunted because of outsiders moving in and disapproving of church bells, fairgrounds on greens and noisy music festivals,let alone removing the spectacular views forever. Surely there must be an alternative venue for this project???

Sat 21 Feb 2015, 12:29

I have just gone back and read the full posting by Rod Evans on Jan 24th. I found it very clear and helpful. I received through the door this am a pamphlet regarding Rushy Bank which I felt was very misleading. I urge anyone reading this posting who has also received the pamphlet to read the Rod Evans posting. Rosie

Fri 20 Feb 2015, 18:57

Just to add to Rod's note above ... we now have over 70 'Friends of the Evenlode Valley'. Thx to all those who have signed up and are ready to express their concern and/or opposition to the proposed estate on Forest Road. We would still like to hear from those who haven't got around to contacting us yet. Please email friendsofevenlodevalley@gmail.com.

Sun 8 Feb 2015, 22:01

Thanks to everyone who has given their support. The Friends of Evenlode group has grown to 52, spread across the town. friendsofevenlodevalley@gmail.com

Thu 29 Jan 2015, 18:42

Just to pick up Alan's point about 'precedent'...

There is indeed a mantra in the planning world of 'each case on its merits'. But as well as a general need for consistency in decision making, the merits of a case can be affected by other decisions. So if one or two decisions lead, for example, to a change in the character of a particular area, it may be argued that another development nearby - which would not have gained permission before - would no longer be unacceptable because of those other decisions.

It's that which is a concern here, particularly where WODC have yet to adopt a new Local Plan and - apparently - cannot demonstrate a '5 year supply' of housing land. Hope that helps!

Wed 28 Jan 2015, 11:47

I know what you mean, Rob, when you say that arguing against dementia care facilities and affordable housing is like arguing against motherhood and apple pie. I have sometimes felt the same when arguing against the proposed site for a solar farm. But in both cases the key question is whether it is right for the proposed site, not whether it is a good idea in general. I also agree with you about the risks of setting a precedent, which seems to me an important consideration when development is proposed in an otherwise protected area. But I am not sure how to reconcile this view with what the planners say about every proposal having to be decided on its own merits alone.

Wed 28 Jan 2015, 09:46

Rod's posting is long because it is balanced and thoughtful.Rushy Bank's proposals pose a dilemma for many: arguing against dementia care facilities and affordable housing is like arguing against motherhood and apple pie. But that doesn't mean that the proposed site is the best one. In relation to the care facilities, consider the distance from the town's shops, the absence of a pavement, and the many vehicles that thunder down Forest Rd at far above the speed limit. In relation to the housing, consider that the affordable homes envisaged at the moment amount to 22 beds in total while the commercial market housing element amounts to 53 beds. And then there is the almost irresistible precedent such a large scheme sets for speculative development up Forest Rd and on the other side of it. Plenty of food for thought here.

Tue 27 Jan 2015, 21:07

Fair enough Jim, but, your short post invited people who shared your group's views, who do *not* support the Rushy Bank development, or *other development* in the valley, to join the group. That did appear to be a call to people who support only your views. I agree that the more comments and varied views, the better.

Tue 27 Jan 2015, 20:16

Sorry Rosemary, just to be clear the post by Rod was a joint posting by the 25 people listed, not a statement of Rod's or my own. Needless to say there are numerous others who share the views expressed but who don't want to take a joint or public position. Neither is the group exclusively people who live within view of the proposed site. The planning process is open to democratic influence, we can all choose whether to participate or not and as far as I am concerned the more that do the better, regardless of whether they share our concerns and views or not.

Tue 27 Jan 2015, 15:00

Ooooh, take care Jim, you're showing your true colours too easily here!

Mon 26 Jan 2015, 09:18 (last edited on Tue 27 Jan 2015, 20:18)

Apologies for our long post and thanks for emails already received. As mentioned at the end if anyone shares this group's views, does not support the development at Rushy Bank or other development in the valley and would like to get in touch or join the group, please email friendsofevenlodevalley@gmail.com.

Sat 24 Jan 2015, 14:13 (last edited on Sat 24 Jan 2015, 14:15)

I am posting this on behalf of the....

Friends of the Evenlode Valley

Who are we? A group of Charlbury residents and others who wish to see the open western setting of the town and river valley preserved for the benefit of residents, visitors ��" and future generations.

Why have…

Long post - click to read full text