A Cotswolds National Park?

Tue 21 Mar 2017, 17:41

Sticking to Tony's thread, I can't see the point in having an AONB Management Plan developed with public money and the hard work of people like Tony if the planning authorities within the AONB don't want to implement its policies. I can't recall a WODC planning assessment that considers compliance with the AONB plan policies (which WODC officially endorses) and there are several where the decision ignored strong AONB board objections. At the same time the AONB board appears to be helpless to police compliance because the planning districts are the board's major funders. I've signed the petition but if others want to start another one to do away with AONBs or their management plans, fine, it's the status quo that makes no sense.

Mon 13 Mar 2017, 20:24

Yes Paul I think it is time to return to the original thread which had little to do with the the building
To answer Alice it is true that some members of the Board are nominees rather than being elected but in my experience they are always very good and although not elected they come as independents rather that in a political group. In my opinion this is preferable to the party structure and rivalry in District and County Councils.
Being a National Park does not mean you are not in a county and as Richard says the county Town is still Oxford

As far as funding goes comparison on funding is interesting The Cotswolds AONB: which covers 2,038 sq kms has a 2017 budget of £425,600 but the Yorkshire Dales National Park covering 2,178 sq kms has a budget of £ 4,074,000

So there isprobably lots to discuss if we keep to this topic

Mon 13 Mar 2017, 20:23

Lots of comments here about the size and the look of the building that is being constructed. The size, is the same as the drawings and the application for planning. The look- why are people so quick to comment, when the building is constructed from a twin skin cladding system ? the inner sheet is installed and the outer skin to the walls is yet to be installed. The one thing worthy of comment, at this stage , is the line of 32 black solar panels - awful looking - should have covered the whole roof or not bothered. Let the building be finished , then comment - give it a chance - anyway....its too late to change anything , move on and invest all that negative energy and create something positive, as many people do for the greater good of the town.

Fri 10 Mar 2017, 11:13

Excellent summary Paul. I guess other groups will now think twice about giving their time & expertise free to bring something new to Charbury!

Fri 10 Mar 2017, 10:30

I have read with interest the contents of the thread that now appears to focus on the size the building and materials used at the new community centre. These are my comments as an active community member in Charlbury, and do not necessarily represent the views of the Trust, although…

Long post - click to read full text

Fri 10 Mar 2017, 09:54

www.ebay.co.uk/itm/New-Italian-LAGENLOOK-Pleat-Smock-LINEN-TUNIC-3-4-SLEEVE-2-POCKET-Flared-Dress-/142141327325?var=&hash=item21184887dd:m:mBN8q5_uIaMVas8xSLrURdw

Would these be ok or should we go strictly unbleached cotton?
I'm thinking we could all dress up and bring our pitchforks and other rustic farming tools for the big launch photos..
Cornbury park have nearly completed a virtually identical structure btw ;-)

Fri 10 Mar 2017, 09:39

Perhaps people should wait until it has been clad before they criticise the cladding?

Fri 10 Mar 2017, 08:42

The original planning application with all documents is here: publicaccess.westoxon.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=NLCKIVRKHGR00 .

It seems to me a little premature to be declaring open season on an unfinished, unlandscaped building. Building sites don't generally look pretty and right now the Spendlove is a building site.

Harriet, I thought you were on the Town Council at the time the planning application was considered in spring 2015 (not, of course, that it's the Town Council's decision!) - have I misremembered?

And Russell is, as ever, the voice of reason. Can anyone recommend a good source for linen smocks?

Fri 10 Mar 2017, 08:34

This thread seems to have drifted away from the original topic and at times is veering dangerously close to the Grease Pit! Anyway, as a matter of interest where will all the sponsor bricks go? Also, what is the material please and will it rust?

Fri 10 Mar 2017, 07:07

Has any one got a copy of the original architect's drawing of the finished article? Have we been misled?

Thu 9 Mar 2017, 21:40

If things should be in keeping with a C17th vernacular style for the town, should we pull up the railway, destroy our cars and wear linen smocks. Surely the biggest impact on the town is the motorist, who's cars litter the streets and vulgar colours detract from the golden hue of the house they are parked outside. The Morris Traveller would clearly be acceptable for Charlbury though, as long as the timber cladding came from a sustainable source.

Thu 9 Mar 2017, 21:09 (last edited on Thu 9 Mar 2017, 21:10)

I also have to agree with the eye sore argument. It is terrible. It needed to be in keeping with the rest of the town centre. I agree the facilities might be good for the community and was very much in favour of the community centre until I saw it. Now I have to say I am less sold on the matter and if asked would probably vote against it. Why couldn't it be done in Cotswold limestone or at least something similar? Has anyone seen Finstock village hall? What a great job they have done compared to us!

Thu 9 Mar 2017, 20:58

I think it's interesting - when I was on the council various plans came up which had things which were considered to not be in keeping with the vernacular, and they got passed on the condition that those things were done in more appropriate materials. Now we have a large building almost in the centre of town, in a publicly viewable place which is not at the moment fulfilling that condition. It'd be a bit hypocritical to tell someone wanting to build an extension or new build what the materials have to be, unless it's do as we say, not as we do, which isn't a good basis for a council. Perhaps I'm missing something?

Thu 9 Mar 2017, 20:37 (last edited on Fri 10 Mar 2017, 07:30)

Perhaps a discussion on visual aesthetics could be run by the Charlbury Society? I for one, but not a vast minority of one, think the tin shed is great. Possibly not challenging enough in my opinion but at least we're not getting another faux Cotswold sports hall. But hey ho I wont have to use it so my views have no validity.

Thu 9 Mar 2017, 19:43

Tony, I think you will find that the vast majority of people in and around Charlbury will take Tim's view about the appearance. OK, the material may not be tin but he's not far off with his other word. That the appearance is disliked has absolutely nothing to do with anyone's views of the value of the facility nor their appreciation of the efforts of those who have striven to bring it about.

Suggest you accept that the vast majority of people think it is unattractive and move on.

Thu 9 Mar 2017, 16:54

Tony I think it is possible to be appreciative of all the hard work that has gone into fundraising for what will be a great asset for the town whilst being dismayed at the appearance of it. I'm with Tim, it looks like a tin shed. It is an eyesore and an extremely large one !

Thu 9 Mar 2017, 15:26

I also agree. It is a much needed resource, but it is not very pretty at all and the lack of windows is surprising.

Thu 9 Mar 2017, 14:53

It is awful. Hardly any windows, so even though it has solar panels lighting will be needed almost all the time. I do appreciate that people have funded and waited a long time for this, but honestly couldn't it have been a little more in keeping with the Surgery and the Spendlove Offices. I am sorry but it really is awful. I am sure the inside will be lovely and those who wish to enjoy it will I don't doubt that, but I am with Tim on this one, it really is an awful tin shed on a gigantic scale.

Thu 9 Mar 2017, 14:22

Tony I do apologise if i offended anyone with my comment on it being a "Tin shed" I'm sure there are some people in Charlbury who think its beautiful.

Thu 9 Mar 2017, 13:56

Tim your description of the new community centre as a tin shed is an affront to the group who have devoted a vast amount of time & intellectual effort in changing a derelict piece of land into a fantastic community facility. Large amounts of money have been raised & previously underutilised community funding has at last been put to good use. Suggest you accept that the vast majority of people think this is great for Charlbury & move on

Thu 9 Mar 2017, 13:24 (last edited on Thu 9 Mar 2017, 13:48)

National Park sounds a great idea but i think Charlbury will of blown its chances of being included as part of a National park area especially as you say Richard they can act as a sort planning authority and we now have that eyesore of a tin shed at Spendlove it will also be a miracle if we don't get kicked out of the ANOB Society as well.

Thu 9 Mar 2017, 12:34

National Parks are planning authorities so they'd take the planning function away from WODC (or the new unitary, should it come to pass). But we'd still be part of Oxfordshire and the county town would still be Oxford.

To take a typical National Park (the Peak District), "there are 30 members of the National Park Authority; 16 are appointed by county, district, city or borough councils and 14 are appointed directly by the Secretary of State; of these 8 are appointed because they are specialists in the issues that affect the national park, 6 are parish councillors."

Thu 9 Mar 2017, 09:35

I know National Park's have appointed not elected members and administrations. How would such a body sit within our current structure of Town Council, District Council, County Council, Oxfordshire Local Enterprise Partnership & central Government? Would our 'county town' become Cirencester?

Tony - I'm sorry I don't understand where the difference is in funding. They both seem to be funded by DEFRA. A quick look at the internet suggests that National Parks have had their funding cut by a quarter from 2011 to 2016. They are also big users of EU grant funding. Oh dear.

Thu 9 Mar 2017, 08:45

I've just signed. There are just 153 signatures and to trigger a debate we need 100,000. Please sign!

Wed 8 Mar 2017, 21:36

This a splendid idea and very timely given the prospect of many large scale and unsuitable developments in the area. It is surely very encouraging to know that other AONBs have been converted to National Parks. The more people who support the petition the better chance there is of this excellent proposal succeeding.

Mon 6 Mar 2017, 17:11

National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty have many similarities. They share the same national landscape status and are recognised as landscapes of particular significance and beauty and that should be protected. The original thinking in 1949 was that although certain areas might not be suitable as National Parks…

Long post - click to read full text