Homes planned on the Fiveways allotments?

Thu 25 May 2017, 09:48

Co-ordinated travel arrangements to Witney. As we can see the enquiry will be in Witney would it be possible to either hire a bus or at least have a register of car drivers who can give lifts, thereby reducing the number of parked cars.

Wed 24 May 2017, 09:31

On the possibility of a Charlbury venue the response from WODC is:

"There are a number of considerations, including: suitable access for the disabled; a large enough room to accommodate participants and public; other rooms for use during breaks and adjournments; a PA system; availability of a venue over a number of days; availability of printing and copying facilities; convenience for Officers to access files and information quickly when required; sufficient parking etc.

On this basis, we use our building here because we know that it meets all the requirements. Whilst I appreciate that Charlbury would be convenient for residents, last year when we were forced to decamp from our offices because of rooms being needed for the EU referendum, it proved to be a logistical nightmare and the inquiry didn't run as smoothly as it should. I hope the locals will understand the position."

Mon 22 May 2017, 12:58 (last edited on Tue 23 May 2017, 10:48)

Unfortunately, the land is owned by Blenheim Estates, and Vanderbilt Homes is owned by the late Duke of Marlborough's son.

Mon 22 May 2017, 11:58

Another point:
Whoever owns the land at the moment will presumably have to sell it to Vanderbilt in order that their proposal can be put into action. Is there any way in which a number of people could get together and each buy a square foot of the land (or a square yard, or a square metre)?! If there were enough individuals willing to do this, maybe the land could then be held in perpetuity for the good of Charlbury.
I would most certainly put my name - *and* my money - forward for such a proposal.

Mon 22 May 2017, 11:50

Looking forward to the public inquiry into this absolutely outrageous proposal, I'd like to relate a tale (no names):
Many years ago, I attended a council meeting where a proposal for Charlbury was being discussed, as part of a group against the proposal. We had a speaker, who was allowed 3 minutes (I think it was) to address the council. At the time, I remember urging that the speaker time their speech beforehand to ensure that they did not exceed the time limit. They obviously did not do so, because they were cut dead by the council chairman when the 3 minutes were up. It *ruined* the effectiveness of the speech, leaving the speaker - as it did - "hanging in mid-air". I know it is not yet directly relevant, but please folks, if you intend to speak at the inquiry in October, make sure you get your act together!

Sat 20 May 2017, 14:12

In our view, the inquiry should be held here in Charlbury, not at WODC's offices, and we will be writing to the planning officer to request a change of venue. We urge everyone else who objects to this application to do so as well, and will be seeking the support of the Town Council for the inquiry to be held here.

Sat 20 May 2017, 12:28

We have received a letter today regarding the 34 new homes proposed on Land South of Grammar School Hill from West Oxfordshire District Council stating that there will be a Public Inquiry at the Council Chamber on 10 October at 10am.

Fri 19 May 2017, 11:35

Thanks Tanya - we have not been told!

Fri 19 May 2017, 08:06

Little Lees development (site clearance) is starting on Monday. Those of us who live there have had a letter.

Thu 18 May 2017, 21:38

Vanderbilt are appealing against the decision to refuse this application and an examination will be held in October
The Neighbourhood Plan Steering committee is going to make a representation and if anyone has information that could be used then we would like to hear from them

Fri 9 Dec 2016, 18:28 (last edited on Fri 9 Dec 2016, 18:44)

I believe it was the fact slow-worms had been seen there I'm sure I read in a post on here sometime back.

Fri 9 Dec 2016, 18:14

Its just over some technicalities but they will ceratinly start construction next year

Fri 9 Dec 2016, 17:35

The Little Lees development is still showing as awaiting a decision on WODC planning website last time I checked.

Fri 9 Dec 2016, 16:42

I have been looking at the letters in support of this application which deal with building affordable housing in Charlbury
As a point of information the latest figures from West Oxfordshire show that on the waiting list there are 17 with Charlbury Connections living here and 3 with Charlbury connections who would like to transfer so a total of 20

The development at Little Lees which will start next year will provide 11 new affordable dwellings and the one off Sturt Road if approved will provide 13 new affordable dwellings so a total of 24 new affordable dwellings

There will therefore be no unmet need for new affordable dwellings for those with Charlbury connections who are the only ones I think we should be concerned with and the argument on housing need does not apply to the Vanderbilt proposal

Fri 25 Nov 2016, 10:02

I was a guest on a show on Radio Bicester yesterday and managed to get a plug in objecting to the proposed development.

Tue 22 Nov 2016, 17:36

A late reply to Miles Walkden's question. It's certainly possible to argue that the application is premature pending adoption of a Neighbourhood Plan (and I have done!) but because that is still being prepared it won't carry a lot of weight - yet. Better to concentrate on what you see as the objections to the scheme at present - you don't need technical planning knowledge to say what you think its impact would be or problems it would cause. So if you haven't already - go to!

Mon 21 Nov 2016, 23:36

Planning meetings (on Mondays) are 8pm, unless there's an invited speaker in which case they're 7.30pm. Full council meetings (on Wednesdays) take longer and start at 7.30pm. We have to be out of the room by 10pm!

Mon 21 Nov 2016, 21:36

Richard: so it was 8pm today for planning applications, but 7.30pm Wednesday for discussion of the WODC draft Local Plan?

Mon 21 Nov 2016, 18:36

Thank you, Richard.

Mon 21 Nov 2016, 16:25

Jackie - yes, it will, although the Town Council is just a consultee on these matters and it's the DIstrict Council that makes the decision. (I'm sure you know that, I just wouldn't want people to read this and turn up expecting a binding decision to be made!) The meeting is at 8pm in the Corner House.

Mon 21 Nov 2016, 12:40

Will this proposed development be discussed at the Town Council meeting this evening?

Mon 21 Nov 2016, 10:23

Quick reminder ... you have just THREE DAYS to get your comments in on this!

Sat 12 Nov 2016, 11:05

There has already been a test case in Charlbury for an inappropriate planning application being approved, and that is the Pooles Lane conservation area development. Despite many rational objections, it was fully approved, with almost no amendment or adaptation. This is a lot bigger but with exactly the same objectve (making a lot of money). In Pooles Lane at least there are no paddocks on either side, as there are in this case, which will no doubt be the subject of further planning applications at a later stage.

Sat 12 Nov 2016, 10:28 (last edited on Sat 12 Nov 2016, 10:36)

To preserve the heart of Charlbury please send your objections NO LATER than 24th NOVEMBER - publicaccess.westoxon.gov.uk/online-applications search for application 16.03494/OUT or Grammer School Hill
Please act now to save the heart and soul of this beautiful & unique RURAL town.

Fri 11 Nov 2016, 10:34

Sorry if I missed the answer to this, but shouldn't the main objection be that we are waiting for our Neighborhood plan?

Thu 10 Nov 2016, 21:39

Well said Stephen Andrews. The best location for a larger housing development would have been where the solar farm is now being built. Charlbury simply does not have the infrastructure and is not the right place this or any other large development. Ps Park Street is actually busy for a minor rd into the town. I would also add that every day my family and I encounter reckless drivers zooming up or down the narrow road where the pavement is very narrow and where my house is. I oppose this development.

Tue 8 Nov 2016, 16:43

Comment on this Planning Application. WODC /Planning,
Planning Application 16/03494/OUT. Send your comments via their web site where you can see those already sent. It is very simple.

Tue 8 Nov 2016, 15:44

Following on from Jim's comment, don't worry about communicating with me. I have just met with the developers and told them that I cannot support this application. However you should still send your objections to WODC via the website.

Tue 8 Nov 2016, 15:17 (last edited on Tue 8 Nov 2016, 15:18)

Harriet, thanks for the update: although good that they might try to preserve the snail numbers by relocating them, it's sad that it wouldn't be a reason to stop the development altogether. Still worth mentioning in objections I would think.

Tue 8 Nov 2016, 14:39

I've just finished doing a slow worm rehoming survey for the little lees site and asked the ecologist if a similar thing was done for snails. Unfortunately it is, so what will happen is that they will try to get as many moved as possible and build over the rest. The snails won't stop the development going ahead.

Tue 8 Nov 2016, 13:13

Everyone in the town should receive a leaflet shortly from the Friends of Evenlode Valley alerting them to this development and the harm it will cause. We hope this will spur people to have their say on the Westoxon website and to communicate with our local and district councillors. We are doing as much as we can with limited manpower and resources, and support for the charity including financial would be very welcome. There are some very deep pockets and expertise lined up on the other side. Contact friendsofevenlodevalley@gmail.com

Sun 6 Nov 2016, 11:04

If you are objecting, mention the Roman Snails. These are a highly protected species found all over the area near the Evenlode, preschool and the proposed building site.

Sun 6 Nov 2016, 08:07

Everyone needs to submit an objection as there are few on the WODC site at the moment, it's very simple to do.

Sat 5 Nov 2016, 23:23

Can you not apply for the allotments to be classified as a community asset (maybe not quite the correct legal term) assuming the've been used as such for 30 years.

Sat 5 Nov 2016, 22:35

Most links on the WODC planning site seem to have a fairly short lifespan - I presume the hamster on the wheel that powers it gets tired now and then. It's usually easiest to go to the link for the application itself (the ones on the Monday morning news postings seem robust) and then click through to the document from there.

Sat 5 Nov 2016, 20:43 (last edited on Sat 5 Nov 2016, 20:48)

Tony. Your link to the plan is dead at present. I don't know if this is permanent or just a temporary glitch. Can you check it for us please.

Oh sorry. It's working now!

Sat 5 Nov 2016, 15:59

I think potentially the situation for further development is more serious

Looking at the plan at publicaccess.westoxon.gov.uk/online-applications/files/1FF4B1ED8B08E2F6C6913F03F7310D9D/pdf/16_03494_OUT-RED_LINE_PLAN-463438.pdf
Where the red lined area is the current development there is a blue lined area indicating land also owned by Vanderbuilt and if the current application were to get through it would be more difficult to stop further development which as you can see is either side of the drive to Cornbury

Sat 5 Nov 2016, 12:54

Once a development is established , the surrounding land belonging to the same owner will then look to infill and with the land opposite the pre school being the next logical progression - it would be my guess that the allotments are quite significant and offers to relocate these to an alternative location will be logical in their thinking ?

Sat 5 Nov 2016, 10:39

Then join Friends of the Evenlode - see post on grammar school development- and help take direct action to oppose it

Sat 5 Nov 2016, 09:00

Like many others, we received the letter but have heard nothing further. We have one of the allotments. The proposals include narrowing and extending the allotments to allow space for the footpath. So established plants/trees will have to be removed and also structures e.g. sheds, greenhouses, raised beds.
Then there will be the intrusion of pedestrians walking through the allotment site.
I am also concerned that, as the allotments are owned by Blenheim Palace, if this development goes ahead it is only a matter of time before it is extended to cover the allotment area as well.

Fri 4 Nov 2016, 18:04

Hi I received a letter and responded but no-one had contacted me. I have contacted friends of evenlode valley too

Fri 4 Nov 2016, 11:39 (last edited on Fri 4 Nov 2016, 11:47)

We received a letter from Walsingham Planning, the 'purpose' of which was stated as 'to introduce Vanderbilt Homes and give you more information on its proposals for a new housing development in Charlbury'. It then goes on to state the intention of a planning application for up to 40 new homes, and to 'invite you to take part in our consultation on our plans' by way of the website, as Jackie Hague details below. It says the website should provide the information needed, but that there would also be a representative visiting homes in the area on 3 October between 12 and 7pm - an appointment for a visit was to be booked via their information line or by displaying the letter in your window. However, I'm not sure how this would have worked for those of us in more tucked away locations and no one appeared to visit my property on that day. There was no suggestion that in order to be counted as an objection to the proposal you had to respond to the letter, i.e. that the planner would base the general local response on this - indeed, given the letter only came at the end of the preceding week, it would no doubt have been difficult for many to be available to receive a visit at such short notice or have had time to consider the implications by that date!

Fri 4 Nov 2016, 10:49 (last edited on Fri 4 Nov 2016, 10:52)

Yes, I think it does merit a public meeting. I was rather surprised when reading the papers that were submitted with the application to see a letter that was apparently sent to me as part of the pre-application process, which I never received, promising a follow-up call, which never happened. According to their documentation, the planning consultant sent out consultation letters to people in the general vicinity of the site - did anyone receive such a letter, and if so did you respond? I would be interested to know as they are using the result of this consultation in support of their application, but they don't say how many responses they are basing this on.

Fri 4 Nov 2016, 08:25

Philip, perhaps contact Friends of Evenlode Valley? friendsofevenlodevalley@gmail.com. The Friends are a diverse group who want to protect our heritage landscape. They are keen to oppose the plan, and will take practical action by commissioning a landscape report which the planning committee should take into account.

Thu 3 Nov 2016, 05:21 (last edited on Thu 3 Nov 2016, 06:23)

Hello I live in Wellington Cottages and have been reading the posts on this site. I am extremely upset as are my neighbours about the plan. We have written to various people with our objections including Vanderbilt homes and have received no reply. I would be interested in a public meeting and advise on how we can defend this beautiful area of Charlbury.

Wed 2 Nov 2016, 23:09

Anybody think this planning application warrants a public meeting to discuss further?

Wed 2 Nov 2016, 21:50

"There will also be the potential for habitat creation and strengthening of local landscape character through the judicious selection of appropriate tree and shrub species..." Well that's alright then.

Wed 2 Nov 2016, 12:32

Apologies to all who have contributed - I have started a new thread on this as the title is a little misleading

Mon 31 Oct 2016, 22:00

Tony will the neighbourhood plan organisers be giving an official response to this application?

Fri 28 Oct 2016, 18:42

Thanks for that Christine
It is interesting that they put on the full application before waiting for the response of the Town Council to their letter but not so surprising as I think they want to get this on before the new WODC local plan and our own Neighbourhood Development plan are in place but in similar other applications they have been rejected due to non compliance with emerging locator neighbourhood development plans

Fri 28 Oct 2016, 10:52

Here it is:
publicaccess.westoxon.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OF8EG8RKHKB00

Fri 28 Oct 2016, 10:39

Please could you post a link to this application, Christine, so that everyone can find it easily? (I couldn't!)

Fri 28 Oct 2016, 09:59

I see the formal planning application for this development is now in: 16/03494/OUT | Erection of up to 34 new dwellings, including affordable homes; formation of new pedestrian and vehicular access from Grammar School Hill. | Land South West Of Wellington Cottages Charlbury Oxfordshire

Sorry if everyone but me already knew this, but I hadn't spotted this in Richard's listings of latest planning applications, & I thought those affected might like plenty of notice. The key date is listed as 24 November.

Wed 19 Oct 2016, 08:42

Tony - Thank you for the clarification

Wed 19 Oct 2016, 08:28

Hi Mark
You may remember that the survey was in two versions an individual and a household one and I was referring to the total of the two

Tue 18 Oct 2016, 21:08

I'm am a little confused as the link to the published October update for the neighbourhood plan states that 951 responses have been received ? Have I missed something ?

Tue 18 Oct 2016, 19:29 (last edited on Tue 18 Oct 2016, 19:35)

I would just like to reassure everyone that the Neighbourhood Forum is well aware of all the issues and objections raised in this post
As Lucy has said the task of analysis over 1500 responses from over 150 questions is now well underway and the Forum will hold a public…

Long post - click to read full text

Mon 17 Oct 2016, 20:00

K Harper.
Thank you so much for spending (a lot of) time responding to my question. I shall be following your suggested links - with interest. To put it bluntly, I am astonished by all this. It has been hard enough to come to terms with the negative attitude towards Rushy Bank, and the acceptance of the planning department to support executive homes in Pooles Lane Conservation Area (I have to express a personal interest in this one), the (ugly) Ditchley Lane concrete development, and now this one.
I see the town and surroundings being torn up for the sake of simply making as much profit as possible with not a care, for example, for the ecology, climate, safety, aesthetics, infrastructure, history, existing residents' views, and so on, and very importantly, provision for young people. It feels to me that this area has been thrown into a whirlwind of opportunistic chancers with no interest in the town, who are doing whatever they decide they want to do with little chance of being stopped.
I can't wait to see what comes from the town survey; I am hoping for starter homes for local people. Does Charlbury have an opportunity to do something new and different if there is the collective will to fight for it? I hope so....

Sun 16 Oct 2016, 21:16 (last edited on Mon 17 Oct 2016, 17:13)

Rosemary, yes the council did accept £71,000; if you want to read of this go to WODC planning simple search and look at the Ditchley Road application this will show the application for the first six houses applied for; look for document number L15043DB entitled affordable housing offer. This letter…

Long post - click to read full text

Sun 16 Oct 2016, 14:28

K. Harper.
This is interesting - did this happen? "...offer the council a £71,000 fete accompli..." And was the money accepted?

Sat 8 Oct 2016, 14:23

Susie It would take about a year for the full process. However there have been several cases where planning applications have been turned down due to a neighbourhood plan being prepared (emerging local plan) but not fully in effect especially where there is no adopted local plan in place at the district authority as is the case for West Oxfordshire

Fri 7 Oct 2016, 19:32 (last edited on Sun 9 Oct 2016, 10:18)

Vicky, You are right; you can expect no better from developers as they are just business people doing what they think is right; the greater good is not necessarily something that would occur to them. What we need is people from the community with the same drive and determination as the developers; having said that as was seen with the Ditchley Road site it is not difficult with the right paid expertise to legally circumnavigate the rules; for example divide the site up into 2 separate applications for planning and from 2 different people; but don't submit the second application until the day after the first application has been approved otherwise it would show that the first applicant calculations for viability were flawed and incorrect if the development had been taken as a whole; keep the housing density low to avoid having to build affordable houses; offer the council a £71,000 fete accompli whilst ignoring rule 3.3 of the Affordable Housing Supplement Plan which says that you will be refused planning permission if you deliberately minimise housing density in order to avoid building affordable homes. Most of the new houses being constructed on Ditchley Road have over 3,000 square feet of floor space; this is more than 3 times the national average for a 3 bedroomed house; the maths are easy to work out as to what could have been achieved on the site. Whilst the planning system is in such disarray don't be surprised when more applications are submitted for Ditchley Road.

There is no reason why ideas put forward in previous posts should not come to fruition as WODC has the power to grant permission but this will not happen unless the town shows a united front in favour of such a scheme.

Fri 7 Oct 2016, 19:32

Simon if you can do a site visit and provide evidence of the Roman Snails that would be great. Presumably you'd need to wait for the actual planning application to submit the evidence - or would you be able to send it to WODC in advance of that?

Fri 7 Oct 2016, 19:26

So when will the Neighbourhood Plan come into effect, so that applications such as these can be stopped?

Fri 7 Oct 2016, 17:12

I would just like to say that the Neighbourhood Development Plan steering committee discussed this development proposal this morning and we feel this development really emphasises the need for our plan as pointed out by many of you. The plan would mean that developers will have to consider much more carefully the diverse issues such as those raised in posts about this proposed development.
There have been a number of cases recently where developers have been forced to take account of such neighbourhood plans even when they are in the stage of being produced as is the case in Charlbury.

Fri 7 Oct 2016, 12:05 (last edited on Fri 7 Oct 2016, 12:06)

"Might I propose we refer to the developer as VANDALBUILT Homes?"

An excellent idea!😀😀

Fri 7 Oct 2016, 10:49

Andrew's heartfelt account emphasises the biodiversity and landscape value of the site. Vanderbilt is too grand a name to be associated with this destructive scheme. Might I propose that we refer to the developer as VANDALBUILT homes?

Thu 6 Oct 2016, 21:07

Friends of Fiveways: Save the Snail!

(Romin Roman: In their Back Yard!)

Thu 6 Oct 2016, 19:23

As a retired Police Wildlife Crime Officer i can indeed confirm that the Roman Snail (Helix Pomatia) is a very protected and rare species and has the highest level of protection under Schedule 5 Section 9.2 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act ( the same as the Red Squirrel and Swallowtail Butterfly). They will now being going into hibernation until April-ish. I am happy to do a site visit.

Thu 6 Oct 2016, 19:08

This is turning in to the most interesting thread I have ever read on the forum!

Andrew Shaw; your comments are poetry to my ears! I really got in to it! 'Never been interested in snails before (nasty things that destroy my hostas!) but now I'm all for visiting these special Roman ones. Cider with Rosie sprang to mind..
K. Harper:Thank you for sharing your succinct thoughts with us all and I agree completely.
You obviously know quite a bit and I'm eager to listen.
I'm not all in favour of building in this particular location at all. I can't speak for the ecology nor obscuring the view but I can speak for safety and as we all know; five ways is hazard enough as it is. Any significant increase in traffic demands significant investment in traffic management (the demand is there now).
My point is that we need to accept some housing growth somewhere around Charlbury. I would love to see the kind of ideas K.Harper actually come to fruition. Is there actually any mechanism for this though? I believe that sustainable housing is only built when sanctioned and the drivers for such have come from the EU. With the majority of people in this country voting to leave the EU, how can developers (who are trying to make the most profit just any other commercial enterprise) be expected to build in anything other than the most profitable way?

Thu 6 Oct 2016, 18:41

I wasn't so much wanting to see the snails myself - I already see plenty of them on my commute along the footpath - as suggesting that you might be in a very good position to gather evidence that could be used as part of a reasoned objection to this housing development.

As for eating snails I was put off that by a very unpleasnt attack of food poisoning last time I tried (about 15 years ago!) :)

Thu 6 Oct 2016, 18:06

I have visions of Mesolithic dwellings on stilts from Kate or Ken's last post. Shed Field 3 as Smiths Gore described this field in 2001 is not a wetland ?" however you do prompt me to mention something else ?" the field is not a wetland except that in periods of heavy rainfall natural springs do spontaneously erupt from this grassland. Like winterbournes and run out over the surface towards the river. The limestone brash (which is why the protected snails thrive) is only about 18" to 2' below the surface. You would have to ask a geologist the exact reason but I sense the substrate undulates somehow and as the aquifer fills up in wet conditions particularly in the winter spring squirt up where the substrate is closest to the surface. So perhaps a house built on piles wouldn't be such a bad idea!

Helen - As for the Roman snails they are indeed a protected species and are very numerous here and around this site. This is not the best time of the year for Helix spotting, however if you are passing Robert Collery (Spud) who is almost a permanent fixture at the allotment site and is chairman of the allotment association will let you have some actual samples. These are of course wild but are exactly the same guys farmed in Burgundy that you see on a menu stuffed with garlic parsley butter. To my lasting shame, finding these were so numerous on a couple of occasions when I was much younger I took a good number home, purged them in a cage in the garden for 10 days on oatmeal and lettuce and enjoyed a Romano Charlburyites delicacy a la provencale. This was before they were protected. Excellent.

Thu 6 Oct 2016, 17:14

Andrew (Shaw), do you think you could photograph some of this diverse wildlife, particularly the roman snails? I believe they are a rare species, so providing evidence to the planners that they inhabit that field could help the case against building in that spot.

Thu 6 Oct 2016, 16:20

With a Lord, an Hon and a knight in the list of Vanderbilt's directors (not to mention Charlbury's general situation wedged between Blenheim, Cornbury and Ditchley land), is there any doubt the feudal system is alive and well?

Thu 6 Oct 2016, 15:12

Andrew, it sounds as though you have a really good and convincing case, from the environmental point of view, as to why this land should not be built on or developed; I sincerely hope that all your good work has not been wasted but like you I suspect your lease will not be renewed. To be honest the best land to be built on is arable land recently used for modern agriculture; this tends to be a totally sterile environment with no biodiversity and only kept productive by use of chemicals.

Having said that i would expect any new eco site to achieve a very light touch within its environment; for example houses built off the ground rather than on concrete pads, ponds being introduced to the habitat and biodiversity being positively encouraged.

Thu 6 Oct 2016, 14:51

I have occupied this land for about 15 years and during that time have restored the wild flower meadow to a state arguably better than that before Blenheim's intensive farming activities had reduced it to the mono culture green swathe that I took over. This was caused by their use…

Long post - click to read full text

Thu 6 Oct 2016, 14:27 (last edited on Thu 6 Oct 2016, 14:54)

Thank you for your support Hannen, I was not though necessarily agreeing that the allotment site in particular should be developed having said that if it was developed with low profile, south facing, sedum roofed houses then it might not look that out of place and could actually instil a…

Long post - click to read full text

Wed 5 Oct 2016, 08:42

Still doesn't solve the traffic problem though.

Tue 4 Oct 2016, 18:16

Agree with K Harper whom I thank for putting forward a constructive solution. Even though my view will be lost forever, I'd rather it was lost to eco-homes and needy families.

Tue 4 Oct 2016, 17:58

Actually Alan, I was meaning if my surname was was to be exploited by developers! Sorry, bad joke...

Tue 4 Oct 2016, 17:32

Yes, of course you will be, Matthew. Accusations of nimbyism are always used by developers and their supporters as an easy way to score points over objectors. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't object, though!

Tue 4 Oct 2016, 16:05 (last edited on Tue 4 Oct 2016, 17:59)

Hi K Harper - if I object (to my surname being developed), will I be accused of NIMBYism?

Tue 4 Oct 2016, 13:22

Hello Matthew, Yes you could be right! A name change might be prudent! It is good to keep a sense of humour amid serious discussions. Talking of which being a greenfield maybe you should make yourself available for the possibility of future development!

Tue 4 Oct 2016, 12:48

Will Fiveways have to change it's name to Sixways?

Tue 4 Oct 2016, 12:21 (last edited on Tue 4 Oct 2016, 12:22)

You are quite right Rachel, and there is no excuse for local councils not to ensure that there are school placements available for local children. All residential developments over a certain size currently have to contribute to a local community payback/schools/services infrastructure; whether or not this is used appropriately is unknown to me. Although this is a local issue to Charlbury there are also national issues which need to be considered.

As with many other countries United Kingdom has a predicted serious "birth gap"; (this occurs when you have a shrinking working age population which is unable to support longer living older members of society).

Several generations have now decided to not start their families until into their 30's or even their 40's; part of the reason for this could possibly be the lack of affordable housing making it near impossible for couples to feel financially secure enough to start a family at an earlier age. It is quite easy for us to feel content cocooned in our quintessential Cotswold town but action we take here and the decisions we take makes a difference both locally and nationally. Germany has less than 8.2 children born per 1,000 inhabitants which is why they are having to allow a high level of immigrants into their country, which I personally don't feel is a solution the UK should adopt. So I think the answer could be to supply truly low cost housing to allow our community/society to grow in a sustainable way to suit all. Our local planners have the power to grant permission for such a development (as suggested by me in my previous post) on brown or green field sites; there just needs to be a change of mindset for all involved. Maybe everybody just needs to be a bit more altruistic!

Tue 4 Oct 2016, 10:17

The primary school intake does fluctuate quite a lot though. Although the last two years have been oversubscribed, prior to that, classes were undersubscribed with many places taken by children from out of catchment area. For example, the current year 5 class at Charlbury has only 21 pupils. I think this really highlights the importance of long-term planning. It must be possible to predict the likely intake in any given year from the number of births registered four years previously. It would then be possible to see whether the oversubscription in the last two years is a blip or part of a general trend, although this is clearly no consolation to families in Charlbury that didn't get a place in the last two years. Surely, this kind of planning must go on and be part of the planning decision-making process?

Mon 3 Oct 2016, 21:31

I understand this years primary school admissions were at an all time high, with local Charlbury children not getting a placement. The infrastructure needs improvements before allowing developments surely?

Mon 3 Oct 2016, 20:58 (last edited on Mon 3 Oct 2016, 21:01)

Mon 3 Oct 2016, 18:41

I agree entirely with K Harper and would love to see an end to the stranglehold that wealthy landowners and greedy builders have on 'ordinary town folk' around here. Enough is enough, surely. We now have the latest insult in the form of the ugly Ditchley Road development; all concrete-based, with particularly horrible concrete roof tiles, and concrete 'stone' wall cladding. Unbelievable. There could be another way forward for Charlbury, and now is the time to start thinking and planning for it. I would love to see a shake up in the planning department with which I have no faith at present, and the local and district councils to look forward to a better environmental future here, making commitment for starters to the injection of some worthwhile and visionary concepts, as outlined so well in the post below. I wonder what has happened to the Town Plan, is there any news anywhere, please?

Mon 3 Oct 2016, 09:54 (last edited on Tue 4 Oct 2016, 12:18)

Dear Forum,
I would just like to say that I am in favour of more houses being built in Charlbury but not being built by a developer whose target up to now seems to have been the £500,000+ market. Small towns and villages need to maintain a local housing stock…

Long post - click to read full text

Sun 2 Oct 2016, 19:36

Thanks, Hannen, I hadn't spotted that the allotments are being retained and extended.

Sun 2 Oct 2016, 18:18

Well, they gave us the chance to tell them what we think about their plans, so I've told them. My words included some of my favourite ones such as selfishness, greed, speculative, inappropriate, ridiculous, boring, old fashioned, Architects' Guide for Dummies.... for starters. I look forward to a response.

Sun 2 Oct 2016, 15:54

The allotments will be retained and indeed extended slightly to compensate for the proposed footpath that will run between them providing pedestrian access from the development to Fiveways.

Sun 2 Oct 2016, 10:01

For clarity - how many allotments are there at Fiveways ? Is this development in the field behind the allotments thus retaining them What is being destroyed

Sun 2 Oct 2016, 09:43 (last edited on Sun 2 Oct 2016, 09:51)

I will be opposing this if the homes that are planned are not affordable in the true sense of the word - if they are not then this will be yet another example of a speculative proposal for "executive" houses that risks being allowed to go ahead because West Oxfordshire District Council has failed to get a Local Plan approved. The location is, as many have said, dangerous from a traffic perspective. It will also destroy the allotments which are an important local amenity.

Sun 2 Oct 2016, 09:25 (last edited on Sun 2 Oct 2016, 09:33)

The letter we have from from the developer is very carefully worded: 'Although plans are yet to be finalised, it is currently thought that around 50% of the new homes will be suitable for first time buyers ...'. Key phrases being 'yet to be finalised', 'currently thought' and 'around'?

Sun 2 Oct 2016, 09:16

A quick look at the website shows 50 % as being put in to the affordable bracket. Much greater % than any other recent scheme proposed in Charlbury. They have the land and this has been a long term plan as they say that this has been b ought forward.

Sat 1 Oct 2016, 23:24

"Affordability" is a defined term with respect to new housing - it's 80% of market value for an equivalent property.

Sat 1 Oct 2016, 22:34

Blenhiem are building some AFFORDABLE homes in Bladon nice 3 bed terraces a snip at £455,000
Risc disk, Vanderbilt Homes I don't think they really need the money !!!!!!

Sat 1 Oct 2016, 20:16

Great idea Vicky! ;-)

Sat 1 Oct 2016, 20:06 (last edited on Wed 5 Oct 2016, 11:02)

Nothing unreasonable about that Hannen. So far only a handful of people have commented though. Is this enough to constitute a concise opinion? I'm all for forming "Friends of Fiveways" ;-)

Sat 1 Oct 2016, 19:55

I agree with you Vicky. Apologies for the social history rant! My position is that we need more housing in Charlbury, and this development might be good. But I'm worried about the impact on the infrastructure. I should also like to see more detailed CAD drawings and be informed about the height of the houses, and what material will be used for the roofs.

Sat 1 Oct 2016, 19:49

As do I Hannen, so if we can get a reasonably united opinion; objectives can be achieved. I have nothing to gain from this proposal but I am am aware that Charlbury as every town around here must grow. So lets stop objecting in principal and start campaigning for what we need with the addition of more housing. Town planners must consider this.

Sat 1 Oct 2016, 19:42

So what we have is a capable military commander, who was thanked for his victories by a "grateful nation". In other words his friends in Parliament. I doubt whether ordinary men and women had any idea of or cared about the war, battles, politics. They would have all just been trying to catch a hare for the pot.
I can find no record of the "grateful nation" supporting the widows and the families of the soldiers who died or were maimed in the battles.
So the Churchills never worked for their wealth. It was given to them.
Now, over 300 years on the Duke is helping his son make more money. I'd be very interested to see how much Vanderbilt Homes pays for the land (the true cost, not what the lawyers put on paper). Because for a property developer, one of the major overheads is the cost of the land. No doubt the knock down price will be reflected in the cost of the houses.

Sat 1 Oct 2016, 19:33

I don't know Vicky, but I respect your opinion and those of others.

Sat 1 Oct 2016, 19:32

Yes Hannen. So how do we make this work for the greater good? Its not about where people shop and the distance nor their mobility is it!

Sat 1 Oct 2016, 19:25 (last edited on Sat 1 Oct 2016, 19:32)

I'm always amazed at the avarice of the Aristocracy, and the (already) wealthy. Here's some stuff I've pulled off Wikipedia:
"The building of the palace was originally intended to be a reward to John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough, from a grateful nation for the duke's military triumphs against the French and Bavarians during the War of the Spanish Succession, culminating in the 1704 Battle of Blenheim. However, soon after its construction began, the palace became the subject of political infighting; this led to Marlborough's exile, the fall from power of his duchess, and lasting damage to the reputation of the architect Sir John Vanbrugh.
For his victory at Blenheim, Marlborough was given the former royal manor of Hensington (situated on the site of Woodstock) to site the new palace, and Parliament voted a substantial sum of money towards its creation.

Cutting rates of pay to workmen, and using lower-quality materials in unobtrusive places, the widowed Duchess completed the great house as a tribute to her late husband.
Almost from the outset, funds were spasmodic. Queen Anne paid some of them, but with growing reluctance and lapses, following her frequent altercations with the Duchess. After their final argument in 1712, all state money ceased and work came to a halt. £220,000 had already been spent and £45,000 was owing to workmen. The Marlboroughs were forced into exile on the continent, and did not return until after the Queen's death in 1714.
Following the palace's completion, it became the home of the Churchill, later Spencer-Churchill, family for the next 300 years, and various members of the family have wrought changes to the interiors, park and gardens. At the end of the 19th century, the palace was saved from ruin by funds gained from the 9th Duke of Marlborough's marriage to American railroad heiress Consuelo Vanderbilt."

(Hence "Vanderbilt Homes").

Sat 1 Oct 2016, 19:19

Agree Michael, but I think it is now obligatory for all new developments to have a percentage of "social housing". This is usually managed by the local authority or a housing association, and can be rented out to those who are lucky enough to be on the waiting list. There's also the Government's "Help to Buy" scheme. But all that does is make people jump through hoops so that they can get a 5% deposit instead of a 10%. I'm not aware of any restriction on the developer to reduce the cost of housing. Ultimately it's us, the taxpayers, who subsidise the element of "affordable housing", whilst the developer makes a profit - as you would expect.

Sat 1 Oct 2016, 19:13

No Vicky. I'm only saying that we have no idea who the purchasers will be. You raised the idea of owners shopping at the Co-op. Who knows where they will shop?

Sat 1 Oct 2016, 19:09

Hannen: Your assumption is that the people are mostly elderly and that they are doing their main shopping at the co-op?

Sat 1 Oct 2016, 19:05

Its time this country had really good think about all of this.... Unfortunately they probably won't as its not seen to be a vote winner.

The majority of people over 40 own their homes in this area and have bought them relatively cheaply.And seen their value rise masively.
There is very little chance of young local people getting on the property ladder.All the council houses were sold off and the money not reinvested into new homes. Council /housing association homes become an asset after about 30 years but this country has such short term views.

I agree that these homes if they go ahead will almost certainly be unaffordable. All very sad and unfair.

Sat 1 Oct 2016, 18:33

Vicky - according to my Google Maps it's more likely to be 0.8 to 1 mile, depending on which house your walking from. Don't forget the development is on the valley slope so the initial walk (to Fiveways) will be uphill. 12 minutes or so if you are fit, much longer if you are elderly or a family. And that doesn't deal with my concern that, after all, people are going to the Co-op to get shopping, which they will then have to carry home. Let's be realistic, most will drive, to avoid the slog and for convenience. Londis might do quite well out of it though!
As for the target market, who knows? I should imagine that many retirees would jump at the chance to sell their houses in Oxford or London, and snap one of these up, pocketing the surplus cash.

Sat 1 Oct 2016, 18:17

According to googlemaps it's 0.7 of a mile to the co-op. A 10 minute walk! That's not an unreasonable walking distance. This housing isn't aimed at the elderly who may be less able to walk that far.
Do we know if any of the houses will be passed to a housing association? As far as I am aware; the only way locals could get a "first dibs" would be if they were on a housing list or part own part rent via a housing association. Am I wrong?

Sat 1 Oct 2016, 18:11

Extract from the draft WODC SHLAA 2011:
Draft SHLAA Settlement Summary ?" Charlbury January 2011
West Oxfordshire District Council 5
Conclusion
27. Charlbury has a very strong landscape and environmental setting, lying as it does
in the Cotswolds AONB, the Wychwood Forest Project Area, an area rich in
biodiversity and within a large Conservation Area. These features, together with
the River Evenlode and its associated flood land and the railway line, are
fundamental to the character of the town and impose real constraints on the
possibility of large scale development. There are no sites on the edge of
Charlbury suitable for significant housing development.

Sat 1 Oct 2016, 17:22

Good stuff Hans and Helen. Yes, Helen, I agree. I can't see anything going for less than £300,000. I suppose what is "affordable" to the Duke and his family is not, for the hoi polloi.

Sat 1 Oct 2016, 16:59

Hans, I like your thinking. On a serious note I understand Charlbury needs affordable housing. But I don't for a moment believe that any of these proposed homes will go for anything under £300,000. The train station is always going to push prices up above those for villages around. And if we must build more housing I believe there are better sites around the town to build. A view is and should be a good reason not to build homes. Every beautiful spot you take away, this town loses something of what makes it such a special place to live.

Sat 1 Oct 2016, 15:03

The CEO of Vanderbilt Homes is Edward Spencer Churchill, son of the Duke of Marlborough and his second wife Rosita, who happens to live at Lee Place. Blenheim owns Lee Place. If Vanderbilt wants to build in Charlbury they could use part of the land at Lee Place. That would be much closer to the amenities, and a more sensible way of extending housing in Charlbury. Tell me I'm wrong?

Sat 1 Oct 2016, 14:21

Oh and as to "but Park Street isn't the busiest road in Charlbury.". It may not be now, but if this development goes ahead it will. See Stephen's comment. Don't forget, also, that buses use it.

Sat 1 Oct 2016, 14:18

I know Vicky, and I see your point. But just on the walking aspect - can you really envisage a family or an elderly person walking a mile each way to the Co-op, and on the return journey carrying their shopping? It's not going to happen.
Agree re: Fiveways, even more so when we have an extra 80 or so cars using it. I exit from the Wellington Cottages bit every morning to go to work, and sometimes I have to wait between 5 and 10 minutes until it's safe to turn right to take the road to Woodstock.

Sat 1 Oct 2016, 13:56 (last edited on Wed 5 Oct 2016, 20:20)

Where in this county is not "full to capacity"? Why wouldn't people have to walk in to the centre of Charlbury? It's not far to walk!
I would love to see the countryside stay as it is but the fact is that we have an increasing population and not enough houses.
Am I wrong in thinking that a vast percentage of the cars parked in the car parks and a fair amount of those parked on the roads, belong to commuters using the train station? Of course safe access and egress must be assured but Park Street isn't the busiest road in Charlbury.
Five ways is pretty dangerous already due to the speed of cars zooming though. How about some sort of traffic management at this hot spot anyway?

Sat 1 Oct 2016, 13:47

As we have touched on the Spendlove Centre/car park is there anything that can be done with the footpath that runs along the back of the tennis courts and comes out on Nineacres road. The foot path has been closed/diverted due to the Community Centre works, but a number of the elderly people I know have found it too far to walk and quite dangerous if they were to go round by the road. Can a fenced pathway leading to that footpath be made for these people, in particular Patrick Sullivan who regularly goes shopping at the coop and is elderly and uses two crutches.

Sat 1 Oct 2016, 12:34

The town council is aiming to work with all new developers in Charlbury to make clear what we want to see in terms of benefit to the community including walking and cycle paths and many other things that the community may like to start thinking about and suggesting.

Sat 1 Oct 2016, 12:33

Also, the station car park and Spendlove car park are already full to capacity.

Sat 1 Oct 2016, 12:32

Well said Stephen. Totally agree. 40 houses means about 80 cars, plus visitors cars and delivery/tradesmen's vans. Madness!
Michael, I sympathise, I really do, but I would be very surprised if the larger (family size) houses will be affordable. Vanderbilt is a commercial organisation - it wants to make a good return on its investment.

Sat 1 Oct 2016, 12:01 (last edited on Sat 1 Oct 2016, 13:33)

Bruce; "many friends and family who could not afford to live in Charlbury and have had to move away. So they are not part of the issue".
Why are your many friends and family not part of the issue?

Sat 1 Oct 2016, 12:01 (last edited on Sat 1 Oct 2016, 12:07)

I take issue with the developers comments concerning the impact of the development on traffic and specifically on the entrance proposals to the site. In my experience any future residents will not walk to the Town centre as it is too far, and the pavements are too narrow (particularly in front of Lee Place). This will result in more car journeys through the constricted length of Park Street (and in front of the Grammar School) both of which require cars to give way at various pinch points. The same is true for access out of town in front of Wellington cottages. There will also be an inevitable consequence of the development on the limited parking in the town. IMHO, the proposal for the vehicle access to the site will also be too dangerous. Whilst the sight-lines might be acceptable for the residents leaving the development, they are very poor for other users and will become worse if this development proceeds as outlined. Road users traveling in out and of Charlbury cannot see approaching vehicles (particularly buses which have to straddle the road) as the bend is so sharp and effectively blind on either of the existing road approaches. Having to take account of an additional junction and traffic will make matters much worse. If this development were to proceed, I suspect that there will need to be either three-way traffic lights or a significant roundabout instead of a simple 'give-way' arrangement.

Sat 1 Oct 2016, 11:52

"Affordable"? Really? Pull the other one.

Sat 1 Oct 2016, 10:51

The developers' website, www.homesforcharlbury.com, gives answers in its FAQs bit to some of the matters raised here - not very convincingly, I think. They do claim that the allotments will remain, though, and that 50% of the houses will be 'affordable'. Affordable to young locals with families? I wonder. What is really hard to believe is that the arrangements for access are OK. When I recently asked a local builder if the council would accept a plan for a new house in the Woodstock Road with access on the bend by Stonesfield Lane, and good visibility up and down (just what the developers claim about the Park Street bend) I was told there wasn't the faintest chance of its being allowed. However I presume that the land in question is Blenheim land and no doubt deals could be done between the developer and the Blenheim Estate to get round the objections concerning access. - Incidentally what happened about the plans for the factory site on the opposite corner? Years ago we were told that houses were to be built there. A much better idea in my opinion than the Vanderbilt Homes (!) plan.

Sat 1 Oct 2016, 10:44

Out come the pitch forks again........
Development is going to happen all over Oxfordshire and a nice view isn't a reason not to build houses. This is just my opinion.
If you own a property in Charlbury or have lived here for many years then obviously your opinions are going to differ from those saving to buy first time or those renting.

Sat 1 Oct 2016, 10:37

I fear no one but Vanderbilt is really going to gain from this proposed development. The wording in the letter that's come round recently and language on the website is all very vague when describing how it will provide much needed affordable housing. Worth looking at their past developments to get a sense of the market they are currently targetting.

vanderbilthomes.co.uk/developments

But more importantly it's about the location. That is such a beautiful view and one that, I feel, defines the town. Worth noting their application for outline planning permission goes in this month.

Sat 1 Oct 2016, 10:32

I cannot help but agree with Bruce, in that much as we need more low cost housing, unless there is some sort of in built guarantee that those who are local get first 'dibs' at those houses bringing in more families from outside is madness since Charlbury amenities are already full to capacity.

I must say I doubt that this is always the case when allocating properties & for young families on low incomes trying to save for a deposit for a house in this area, as Mike Youngston stated is nigh on impossible!

I cannot believe that on such a small space of land in such a rediculous position they are even considering building houses. Just greed & madness!!

Sat 1 Oct 2016, 10:23

Unfortunately Charlbury DOES need more affordable housing. I have lived in Charlbury all my life (28 years), have a young family and all our family are in the area. At the moment there is no suitable houses that we could buy that are affordable and the right size. We've been saving for a deposit for the last couple of years because we'd love to buy our own home in the town we grew up in. At the moment the cheapest family homes are in the region of £300,000. This is an unrealistic cost for a young family trying to buy a home. I, therefore, support the new development plan as houses are desperately needed in Charlbury that are reasonably cost so families like ours can get on the property ladder. Surely you should be supporting people that want to buy their own property?
Of course it would be great to keep Charlbury how it is, but as the population is expanding how are we meant to keep up with the housing demands? I'm sure there was a lot of opposition to previous new developments in Charlbury (such as Ticknell), but these have now become a part of the community just as any further ones would.
At the end of the day, people need somewhere to live, and I think this development gives the young families of Charlbury a chance to stay in their own town and at a reasonable price.

Sat 1 Oct 2016, 08:12

I'd question, where are the increasing numbers coming from, would it be people who are already in Charlbury that haven't got anywhere to live or people moving into Charlbury from surrounding areas. I for one have seen many friends and family who could not afford to live in Charlbury and have had to move away. So they are not part of the issue.
Another point is to question the sustainability of continued development, in terms of places at the local school, increased traffic on the roads and local services such as refuse collection and policing.
Further to the above I went to voice my opinion to the "LOCAL DEVELOPER" where I have to address my letter to Manchester.

Fri 30 Sep 2016, 22:00

Having now seen the site plan for the development, it is the field immediately behind the allotments, still obscuring the view, and with access onto the RH bend in the road to Lee Place. Madness.

Fri 30 Sep 2016, 21:50

I can't belive that they are considering building there - right on the allotments. It's not just a beautiful view from Charlbury out to Cornbury - it's also pretty stunning looking back from Cornbury towards those fields. How soon is the neighbourhood plan going to be implemented? Is part of it going to include a means of protecting certain open spaces that are deemed valuable by the community, as I understand can be possible? I have a suspicion the developers are deliberately trying to get in before the neighbourhood plan is implemented.

Fri 30 Sep 2016, 21:30

Ok, so I am hearing the "no more housing built in or around Charlbury " vibe; has anyone got any sensible suggestions about how to house the increasing numbers of people that need somewhere to live? (I for one will scoff at any NIMBY responses)

Fri 30 Sep 2016, 20:57

What is it with this obsession with continuously building on land around Charlbury. Charlbury is a lovely place to live, because of how it is. Not because it is the size of Witney or Banbury.
Keep building and pretty soon you'll lose the community as it will grow beyond the size of anyone caring about it.

Fri 30 Sep 2016, 20:57

Just used their website to tell them, politely but in no uncertain terms, that Charlbury is not open for this kind of greedy business. Good point re the Neighborhood Plan.

Fri 30 Sep 2016, 18:26

There should be a complete moratorium on ALL housing developments of this type until the Charlbury Neighbourhood Plan is agreed and formally adopted.
The developer is being disingenuous with the location of the site. It states '40 new high quality homes on land beside Fawler Road'. Their website, www.homesforcharlbury.com shows the access point to be on the Park Street bend, surely creating a truly dangerous junction. I trust our Town Council will vigorously oppose this speculative plan which, if it went ahead, would destroy one of the loveliest views in Charlbury and would mean the loss of the well used and much loved allotments at the Five Ways junction.

Fri 30 Sep 2016, 13:58 (last edited on Fri 30 Sep 2016, 16:54)

How to destroy one of the finest views in Charlbury
It is Vanderbilt Homes land grabbing.