Rushy Bank development in Witney Gazette

Sun 20 Aug 2017, 17:57 (last edited on Sun 20 Aug 2017, 17:58)

Thank you very much Jim for answering my questions. You have made things very much clearer than they were, to me. I think that others will also appreciate your comments. I'll be interested to read up from the link.
Having read through again, it would appear, therefore, that nothing can be done by 'us' to discover who 'they' are, unless they want to tell us. It's a bit odd, because the conflict of interests is firmly based right here in Charlbury, and powerful 'winds of change' have swirled around this conflict, blown in by we know not whom. It really is interesting - one of those puzzles that can be solved in a way by noticing the absences, not the presences.
As to the Pooles Lane decision, I don't know whether to scream or laugh uncontrollably. Probably both would be appropriate. I'll forget the screaming, there's no point as the building is ongoing. On the other hand, if no extra weighting was given for harm to the Conservation Area, or even if it was, but then it was decided against... that really does make me want to laugh incontrollably with a hint of hysteria thrown in. No-one in Charlbury will benefit from the houses (except obviously the developers and the original owner) and I say that because I believe that no local young family will be able to afford one.
Thanks again for the insights.

Sun 20 Aug 2017, 16:03

Rosemary - on your questions:
So charities. If your organisation has a purpose that coincides with one or more prescribed charitable purposes, your organisation can be deemed charitable. There's a list of them here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/charitable-purposes/charitable-purposes. The Friends of Evenlode for example is "concerned with conservation of a particular geographical area".

The Friends of Evenlode Valley and West Oxfordshire Cotswolds is a company. It has directors and members, like any company, and supporters. If you're a shareholder or member of a company you can't find out who the other shareholders or members are. In fact most of our supporters are not formal members, for no particular reason.

As for Pooles Lane and Conservation Areas, planning law and government policy requires that "great weight" / "considerable weight and importance" is attributed to harm to a Conservation Area in planning decisions. My read of the Pooles Lane assessment (and I am not a planning lawyer) was that no additional weight was given to the harm to the Conservation Area, and without the additional weighting the harm was deemed not so great as to offset the benefit of more housing. As I said there is nothing to say that even if WODC had given it great weight, they would have reached a different decision.

Sun 20 Aug 2017, 13:34 (last edited on Sun 20 Aug 2017, 13:37)

Jim. it is interesting, and the whole affair of the WODC being put under the microscope and finally conceding is very interesting indeed. What would have been even more interesting, had there been an opportunity, would to have been a chance for the Charlbury Conservation Society and their supports, should…

Long post - click to read full text

Sun 20 Aug 2017, 09:42

Sorry I meant to add that the Rushy Bank application will be reconsidered by WODC maybe as early as September and WODC will have an opportunity to get its law and policy right and make a balanced assessment. Is that an unfair outcome? Of course it would have been better for everyone if that had happened 2 years ago.

Sat 19 Aug 2017, 21:12

Phil, I have been quite clear previously on another thread that the names of the supporters of the charity are confidential. As a director my name is public. Obviously if anyone like Paul wants to declare their support that is very welcome but a matter for them personally. I am not quite sure frankly why this is so interesting.

I am surprised by the suggestion on this thread that there is something wrong or underhand in challenging decisions by public officials to properly apply law and government policy. That is the core of planning officers' work and responsibility. This case did not get heard in the High Court: WODC conceded that it had made an error applying national policy before the claim was issued. The High Court issued a confirmatory order.

The error was not just some technicality (or vagary) - if it had been, WODC would not have needed to concede. The applicant could have defended too but didn't.

As far as finances go, yes, a reasonable amount of money was needed to back the judicial review but as WODC conceded, it will have to pick up the cost. This is very unfortunate but we did everything we could to explain to the officers and committee where they were going wrong before and at the planning committee, and they chose not to listen. At least the costs of a court case have been avoided.

The 'glossy', by which I assume you mean the letter sent to all households in the town about the judicial review application, was kindly run off by a supporter and was distributed by other supporters. Most of the money we have raised has been used to commission expert reports to give some balance to the reports which developers provide to support their applications. Given those efforts the news this week that the Grammar School Hill appeal has been withdrawn is very welcome.

Sat 19 Aug 2017, 17:14

Well Paul, I am glad that you have emerged with a real name. I have been asking for months for a list of membership of the 'Friends of the Evenlode Valley'.
You say that you don't know who these 100 people are. Nevertheless they have managed to fund a whole town glossy letter and all the legal costs of Judicial Review. That must have cost 'a few bob'.
Does anyone want to come clean on this?

Sat 19 Aug 2017, 11:28

What I object to in recent threads about Rushy Bank is the degree of slur, innuendo, and misplaced chippiness. Those of us who opposed the development are inevitably accused of nimbyism. Frankly, such a complaint comes better from those contributors who have not vocally opposed some development that directly affected them, whether that's the solar farm, Poole's Lane, or somewhere else. One commentator below had earlier worried that the field that backed on to their house might be built on and complained that the low cost housing in Little Lees had been totally unnecessary: 'the thin end of the wedge and we will personally object to any efforts to build on the area.'

Fair enough, but let's consider the issue of Rushy Bank. Almost a hundred people came together to oppose the development, regarding it as precisely a matter of 'crossing the Rubicon'. I don't know my fellow Friends of Evenlode Valley, nor do I know where they live, though I suspect they're distributed throughout Charlbury. The one thing we share is the view put most recently and concisely by Arthur Smith, on June 7th. Contrary to suggestion, it is a concern with something rather larger than our personal fiefdoms. I couldn't agree more with Tony Morgan's post of Aug 17th, in which he writes: 'I feel that even those in favour of the Rushy Bank development would want to know that WODC are acting legally in deciding future developments, particularly those that they might disagree with!'

Sat 19 Aug 2017, 08:39

Delighted to see more voices against Charlbury nimbyism. Always depressing to read the blanket opposition to any new building particularly from those who live in (for Charlbury) recent developments. Well done to the folk prepared to voice the other side of the debate, it's appreciated.

Fri 18 Aug 2017, 21:22

I totally agree with Dave Oates. Who are these people who think they talk for the majority, as someone who has lived in Charlbury for over37 years I can assure the so called friends of the Evenlode Valley that they dont

Fri 18 Aug 2017, 19:00

I am sure the Friends of the Evenlode Valley are very happy that after hurling personal (and to my mind, slanderous) insults at someone who has given more than most to this town; discrediting a project that would have allowed several young families to buy property in the place they were born; destroying a very worthy charitable venture; taking no account of the wishes of the majority and then very kindly suggesting the Evenlode Valley would be enhanced by putting the overflow car park on the Rushey Bank site, they have used the vagaries of the legal system to win such a monumental victory. Interesting how they had no views on the monstrosity that is the development on Pooles Lane. How ungracious would I be to suggest they couldn't see it from their bedroom windows?? I have lived here for almost 25 years and have never been so disgusted with any section of this once-welcoming and understanding community. I guess that some of the people that have moved in in more recent years have far more sway on our future that those that were born here or grew up here (and yes, I know I am still an incomer!)

Fri 11 Aug 2017, 11:49

I also agree with James, Rosemary, John, Phil, and Miles. The Rushy Bank development would give an opportunity for a charitable institution (I think) and some more affordable housing for locals. People need to live somewhere. It's a good job The Friends Of The Evenlode Valley weren't around when OWW wanted to push a railway through Charlbury towards Wolverhampton!

Fri 11 Aug 2017, 11:16

I agree with Rosemary, John, Phil, and Miles.
I was in the pub the other night and someone was telling me about the People's Front of the Evenlode Valley. The People's Front say that the High Court ruling has undermined the democratic process and the true will of the people, which was that Rushy Bank should get built. The People's Front say that other groups purporting to support the Evenlode Valley have lost sight of the fact that it is a place where people are trying to live. The Evenlode Valley isn't just a view.
Anyway, I am just the messenger. Some heavies from the Friends of the Evenlode Valley come over or maybe they were the Evenlode Valley Popular People's Front, I'm not too sure, it was late, and anyway I had to go bcos of the babysitter.
I just wanted to let the Forum know that there is a power struggle behind the leafy scenes and various groups seem to be vying to have their voice heard above the others. So keep your eyes peeled.

Wed 9 Aug 2017, 16:04

Yes, I agree with Phil. Some of the young families I know in Charlbury were very optimistic about the affordable homes aspect of the development, only to be disappointed once the 'Friends of the Evenlode' and their legal representation fundraising business kicked in. At least one lovely family I know has had to move right out of Charlbury because there was nothing affordable for them here. This is just one example of a local family with a history going back for generations.

Wed 9 Aug 2017, 14:40

Agreeing with Miles and John. This site might well be within the AONB but it is certainly not a beautiful site. The proposal offers an opportunity for a significant number of local people to continue to live in their own community.

Wed 9 Aug 2017, 11:00

Nimbyism. I think people are confusing the Evenlode with the Rubicon. There are already buildings on that side of the river and does anyone really think planning decisions are made on the basis of "Well there are already some houses there - lets build more?" The fight against this proposal has not cast us in a good light. I could just imagine the Daily Mirror headline...

Wed 9 Aug 2017, 10:58

I thought most people thought the Rushy Bank was a pretty good development, and not a bad location. Is it because the people who opposed, who's view would be impaired perhaps, are quite influential? Or were people against it more generally?

Tue 8 Aug 2017, 20:58

I was idly wondering why the station car park needs to be doubled in size if Charlbury is not a satellite town.

Tue 8 Aug 2017, 20:55 (last edited on Tue 8 Aug 2017, 20:59)

It's not the first time that I've been patronised on this forum, but I wouldn't have expected to be quite so insulted by the administrator.

Tue 8 Aug 2017, 20:43 (last edited on Tue 8 Aug 2017, 21:08)

Sorry Richard but I think your a bit off with your guess of hundreds of years , maybe twenty to twenty five.

Tue 8 Aug 2017, 20:38

You can get bakers' goods (bread), butchers' goods (meat) and greengrocers' goods (veg) from the Deli. You can get a whole bunch of stuff from the Co-op. I'd venture that you can buy a greater variety of food now in Charlbury than you have been able to for hundreds of years.

Charlbury is certainly not a satellite town. There are hundreds of people working in the town: you just don't see old-style frontages because most of them work from home offices. Turns out that, quietly, Charlbury has adapted to the 21st century astonishingly well. If you choose to see it and its shops through a 19th century prism then you may be disappointed, but the rest of us have moved on.

Tue 8 Aug 2017, 20:27

Yes, I meant shops in the old-fashioned meaning of the word. The places where you got your daily food from (butchers, baker, greengrocers, etc.), the place that you got a few nuts and bolts if you were doing DIY, the place you got your paper from, your knitting needles from, flowers. ... I mean no disrespect whatsoever to the new Deli, Tim, or anyone hanging in there. But, Charlbury shops... what happened over the last 20 years is that many brave souls took on premises, worked very hard, and then failed. We all know that, and maybe I should have mentioned Sheep Street, not Market Street.

Tue 8 Aug 2017, 20:00

No shops on Market Street? There's Cotswold Frames, the new Deli and Cafe, the Pharmacy, the Post Office, plus the barbers and hairdressers. It's looking healthier than it has for at least 20 years, I'd say.

Tue 8 Aug 2017, 19:47

John, yes, I was referring only to the residential home, as a specific part of the development, and it wasn't in my mind that I was summing it up - I'm sorry, but I was assuming that everyone had seen the overall plan from the leaflets that were meticulously posted to all of our homes and the ensuing discussions, etc. that took place thereafter.

Tue 8 Aug 2017, 19:35

Thanks Susie. I don't agree that those reasons are justifiable. The first thing is that I don't see the proposed site as being out of town. There are several businesses on the site of what I would have called the old railway yard, including the nursery, right on the roadside (presumably there was no opposition to that). Secondly, I don't see the area as being so super-special that it could not be the site of a mixed community. Surely, we in Charlbury are not disabledist, are we. In a mixed community people support each other. This could be good for Charlbury, for as as it stands, there are groupings of fairly specific types of houses (or enclaves) and quite segregated in some ways. In fact, I've just remembered that that was my first thought about the rejection of Rushy Bank. Additionally, as for the site opening up the possibilities for more development later, who is really worried about that? There have been many different developments that have extended the town of Charlbury over the last decades; how is this any different? Charlbury is a satellite town - look at Market Street now, no shops left - I would have thought that the people who can afford to move to Charlbury now would welcome living by the station!

Tue 8 Aug 2017, 16:50

Unfortunately, whatever you think of the location, 'a small residential home for young dementia sufferers' doesn't really sum up the proposal as submitted.

Tue 8 Aug 2017, 16:36

I dont think people were opposed to the idea Rosemary - just the situation. It was too far out of Charlbury and would be the thin edge of the wedge, with developers trying to carry along that road.

Tue 8 Aug 2017, 15:20 (last edited on Tue 8 Aug 2017, 15:21)

I'm referring to paying lawyers to fight a corner for you. It's no big secret, is it, Simon?

Tue 8 Aug 2017, 15:15

I'm not sure if the inference there - in relation to 'buying in' to the High Court - is maybe getting close to Richard feeling the need to get his red pen out again.

Tue 8 Aug 2017, 14:49

If you have enough money and influence, you can buy in to the High Courts. If you haven't, you can't.
My main sickener though was the recognition that I live in a place where the sort of housing that we don't need, i.e. the executive homes, can not be afforded by most local young families, and the fact that there was so much opposition from people living here to the provision of a small residential home for young dementia sufferers. That says a lot about Charlbury, doesn't it.

Tue 8 Aug 2017, 13:53

That's a bit enigmatic. Care to expand on your gastric response?

Mon 7 Aug 2017, 20:13

This makes me sick.

Wed 2 Aug 2017, 13:52

Council's plans for 37 homes on edge of Charlbury are defeated in High Court.
Read all about it here www.witneygazette.co.uk/news/15440874.Council__39_s_plans_for_37_homes_on_edge_of_town_are_defeated_in_High_Court/