Rushy Bank -- sinking feeling

Mon 7 Sep 2015, 21:56 (last edited on Tue 8 Sep 2015, 07:57)

Following on from Rods email this is a copy of the section of the minutes of the June Uplands Area Planning Sub Committee recording the committee members views of the previous application. The current application is essentially the same as the previous application. There are four fewer houses but the roundabout is still a possibility as noted in the Rushy Bank Planning Statement 1.

'The Planning Officer then presented her report and the Chairman reminded Members that the application was not before Members for determination.

Mr Owen indicated that he believed the project was worthwhile and was generally in favour of the application. He acknowledged that there were concerns over its location but did not consider these to warrant refusal.
Mr Graham recognised that there was a balance to be achieved and advised that he would need reassurance that approval would not set a precedent for further development outside the town.
The Area Planning Manager acknowledged these concerns, indicating that they would be addressed fully in any subsequent report.
Mr Robinson noted that the application was contrary to policy in both the existing and emerging Local Plans and the NPPF in that it constituted new development in the open countryside and the AONB. It was a commendable project in the wrong location and the applicants would be better advised to identify a better location within a strategic or policy acceptable site.

Mr Haine and Mr Colston concurred, both recognising the intention of the scheme but retaining concern as to the location. Mr Cotterill agreed, expressing concern over potential precedent, location and the safety of future residents. Mr Morris and Dr Poskitt concurred.

Mr Saul expressed his support for the self-build and young dementia elements of the scheme and indicated that he would be happy to consider a full application.'

Mon 7 Sep 2015, 09:15 (last edited on Tue 8 Sep 2015, 21:14)

Andy I think you should stay on the committee...

Sun 6 Sep 2015, 21:42 (last edited on Sun 6 Sep 2015, 23:24)

Andy Graham is quite right in saying that the WODC planning committee did not reject the previous RB proposal - because they were not asked to make a decision on it but to defer it. They were also invited to express a view about it in principle, so that the applicants might have a 'degree of comfort' (or not) in deciding whether to proceed with the scheme at all. As witnessed by several opponents and supporters, a clear majority of the committee thought the location unsuitable. Their planning officer advised them against a show of hands but made it clear the Committee's view had been heard.

Some revisions may now have been made to the scheme, but the location remains the same. Whatever the wisdom of pursuing a new application where those who will make the decision have given such a clear 'steer' on it, I find it sad that one of the town's elected Councillors now feels he cannot take part in the substantive debate because of what some might call a 'terminological inexactitude' about the procedure.

Sat 5 Sep 2015, 16:03

it has been drawn to my notice an error in my reporting of the Rushey Bank discussion at the planning meeting which appeard in the Charlbury Chronicle. I made reference to Rushey Bank being rejected which is not true as it was presented to the committee not for decision but discussion. I apologise unreservedly for this inaccuracy which was made inadvertently made and was not intended to mislead but only to reflect the discussion that took place. I will let the committee chair know and will not take part in any future debate on the matter.

Thu 3 Sep 2015, 14:18

"Rolling out the Rushy Bank model of developing land which is cheap because the planning framework deems it unsuitable for development is obviously absurd."
I think that's a rather powerful insight into the current situation actually, Jim.

Thu 3 Sep 2015, 12:03

I think it goes back to the difference between providing more Affordable Housing, and providing more affordable housing, which the Beacon Project's website describes as one of its social benefits. Not many would disagree that more affordable housing in the UK would be a very good thing but to be a social benefit that has to be more affordable for all not just a few. Rolling out the Rushy Bank model of developing land which is cheap because the planning framework deems it unsuitable for development is obviously absurd.

Russell's hit the nail on the head. It seems someone dropped Charlbury in the Cotswolds AONB by mistake. How are you proposing to phase the move Russell?

Wed 2 Sep 2015, 15:45

Re the affordable homes---I am confused. At the Rushy Bank exhibition I asked if/when the affordable could be sold at a non-affordable price (which I very much disagreed with). I was told that they could not be sold at the market price until five years had elapsed. Personally I still think that's wrong---affordable homes should stay affordable. However, the WODC document that Liz gives a link to says just that---affordable homes will stay afforcadble in perpetuity. Which is right in this case ???

Mon 31 Aug 2015, 14:48

Hi Graham. In answer to your first question Young Onset Dementia occurs in people under 65 years old.
Sorry I can't answer your other questions.

Fri 28 Aug 2015, 13:49

Hi Nigel, I have replied to your email and have given you the details you have asked for using the email address you gave me earlier in the week. Best wishes, Ian

Fri 28 Aug 2015, 11:39

Thanks Liz. It doesn't seem to address the discounted no-social housing issue though, just the affordable housing issue.

Fri 28 Aug 2015, 10:58

Nigel, this document will answer your question. www.westoxon.gov.uk/media/89305/Affordable-housing-in-rural-communities.pdf.

Fri 28 Aug 2015, 10:23

I am still unclear as to who gets the affordable housing and who gets the discounted non-social housing. And what the selection criteria for these obviously much-desired homes actually is. I assume the other houses will be sold at market rates to whoever can afford them.

Thu 27 Aug 2015, 16:57

Or perhaps it shows that people have become less aware of the impact of their actions on others, or simply less interested in taking any account of it. [/Grumpy old man mode off]

Thu 27 Aug 2015, 15:38

Quite frankly Charlbury is in the "wrong" place. I'd suggest demolition and we are all moved to a brownfield site on the Reading fringe.

When do you draw your devpment line? C17th, C19th, 60s, 70s?!

What this site shows is that we are more, or less, a community that likes objecting to others. Incomes, drivers, dog walkers, publicans,landowners, homeowners, developers, local authorities, festivals, to name a few.

Wed 26 Aug 2015, 22:07 (last edited on Thu 27 Aug 2015, 06:58)

Andrew, yes I do know the facts but it still meant the application was deferred which is what I was pointing out, anyone can read the reasons for themselves on the application in WODC web site. Sorry if I annoyed you.

I have amended my previous post appropriately.

Wed 26 Aug 2015, 21:48

Pearl, you say in your post:-
"The reason I say that John is because quite recently the homes that were to be built in 'Little Lees' the application was also deferred because of objections."

You do, however, need to get your facts right. There were few objections to the houses being built; the objections were simply to the access road that was to be used. The deferment was to allow the plans to be adapted to use a safe access instead of what was agreed by the planning committee to be unsafe.

Do you wish all plans for affordable homes to be accepted whatever the developers have in the plans, and no matter how safe it might be to existing and new residents?

That, I'm afraid, would make a nonsense of the planning regulations in the UK. I know there is now a presumption of agreement to development plans, particularly for affordable houses, but that does not mean they can not be changed where it is necessary to make them safe and appropriate for where they are.

Wed 26 Aug 2015, 17:23

Who decides who gets the discounted, non-social housing proposed by the Beacon Project, or have they already been earmarked for people?

Wed 26 Aug 2015, 17:06

• ****Breaking News*****
  South London to be razed. Opportunities for gardeners and landscape designers.
• ****Also**** Herrings seen swimming against the tide in the River Thames!
  :)

Wed 26 Aug 2015, 15:04

I would be grateful if someone would clarify a couple of questions for me.

What age group is affected by ''Young onset dementia''

Would the developers be prepared to guarantee that the so called 'affordable' homes will be affordable.

With respect to the figures just released by 'Shelter', which state that the government initiative to build and sell starter homes will be 'affordable' in only 42% of local authorities by families with the 2020 average income forecast of £48,919 pa.
I doubt that West Oxfordshire will fall within that 42% and indeed Shelter goes on to say that 'those on the national living wage will be priced out of all but 2% of all areas'.

Wed 26 Aug 2015, 12:13

Boundaries may be political, physical but also psychological. The land beyond the river and railway feels much more like Walcot and the Wychwood Forest than it does feel like the town. We need to protect wild places rather than build on them. I am sure more development can take place within the town if the will is there to find brown-field sites.

Wed 26 Aug 2015, 11:58

Again; sorry John(mate)but who decrees that a river or a railway line form the limits to a settlement/community?

Wed 26 Aug 2015, 11:34

"Outside the town" means beyond the boundary created by the railway line and the river.

Wed 26 Aug 2015, 11:17

So, here we go again... This was and still is a good application.
Sorry John but what does "outside the town" mean? 10 minutes walk from the centre - just the same as from the top of Ticknell or The Green.
A number of local families have their hopes pinned on this site.

Wed 26 Aug 2015, 10:14

Have to say it does look like a good site.

Wed 26 Aug 2015, 09:26

Seriously. Where would people like this to be built if its not good enough to go alongside the railway station and industrial estate?

Wed 26 Aug 2015, 09:10 (last edited on Thu 27 Aug 2015, 06:50)

The reason I say that John is because quite recently the homes that were to be built in 'Little Lees' the application was also deferred because of objections to the access road.

Wed 26 Aug 2015, 09:04

I seem to have missed out on this one, people may say "What's new?", but where is Rushey Bank and how many houses were proposed?

Wed 26 Aug 2015, 08:54 (last edited on Wed 26 Aug 2015, 09:01)

I'm not objecting to homes for "Charlbury people".I'm objecting to those homes being built outside the town. There is a very clear difference between development within the town and outside it.

Wed 26 Aug 2015, 08:47 (last edited on Wed 26 Aug 2015, 08:51)

It would appear that anywhere is the wrong place in Charlbury if you don't want homes for our Charlbury people.
Let's all be more willing to help others who are less fortunate than ourselves and don't have a home of their own.

Wed 26 Aug 2015, 07:56

Because it's the wrong place.

Tue 25 Aug 2015, 22:38

Rushy Bank. A proposal to provide affordable homes for local people and supported housing for those with young onset dementia. Why the sinking feeling?

Tue 25 Aug 2015, 21:36

It is with a heavy heart that I see the Rushy Bank proposal has returned. On June 1st the WODC uplands planning committee said this was a bad idea. Sadly, we will have to go through all the arguments again.