Tony H Merry |
👍
Sat 22 Sep 2018, 17:49 I am sure you will all be interested to know that this development is now coming up again before the uplands planning committee next Monday see drive.google.com/file/d/0B67OfH41hZf_bmRVOEFadEZwOTNuSzRTN0trVW5DRzVYWDJZ/view?usp=sharing The application has changed somewhat and so they are now asked if they need to consider it again. There is also the point that now West Oxfordshire are about to adopt a new local plan with more restrictions on development in the Cotswold AONB and there is also a new National Planning Policy Framework document which also supports the status of an AONB |
Chris Tatton |
👍
Mon 22 Jan 2018, 12:08 Bye, Bye Tony. |
Tony Morgan |
👍
Mon 22 Jan 2018, 11:37 Bye Bye Chris |
Chris Tatton |
👍
Mon 22 Jan 2018, 11:27 This debate is becoming rather repetitive and just a rehash of the arguments that were presented by both sides over the last year or so,which resulting in planning committee resolving to grant this application permission last December. As you must be aware party politics does not and should not have any involvement in the planning process So it is a good night from me, and hopefully a good night from you and Tony on this matter. |
Jim Clemence |
👍
Mon 22 Jan 2018, 10:43 (last edited on Mon 22 Jan 2018, 10:52) I think you can look a bit closer to home to find the inconsistency Chris. No sign or you or district councillors at planning committee this month about the scheme for 6 x £1m (estd) houses at the Grange. Planners refused this development in June because it was beyond the town's built up area and impacting the AONB and Conservation Area. Apparently now the edge of the town's moved. Sound familiar? We can talk about Hixet Wood and the Grammar School Hill proposals too if you like. Or others. I'll leave the politics of social justice to you and others but I think I'm being pretty consistent. With national policy and planning law too by the way. You can build in appropriate locations in the AONB to meet identified local need but conservation of landscape and scenic beauty is a major priority, as is cultural heritage and ecology. Whether it's Affordable Houses or market houses. The Rushy Bank argument is not just about the inappropriateness of this development but planning officers' willingness to bend every policy, assessment and sinew to and beyond breaking point to approve a scheme that officers have decided behind closed doors they want to get approved. Ditto the Grange. That's just wrong and no surprise this approach ends up with bad planning decisions. Maybe I'm an idealist to think the planning system can work in the way it's designed to but I'm sure you can forgive me that Chris.
|
Chris Tatton |
👍
Mon 22 Jan 2018, 08:26 Total over reaction to an imaginative scheme for those living with dementia, and including more economical housing for local families and residents, and considerable community benefits. |
Tony Morgan |
👍
Sun 21 Jan 2018, 22:24 Increase in tuition fees bad/increase in tuition fees good |
Jim Clemence |
👍
Sun 21 Jan 2018, 17:45 OK Chris - consider your email entitled "Proposed Rushy Bank Development" sent in response to a leaflet titled Proposed Rushy Bank Development, about the proposals in early 2015 for a housing development and care home scheme on Rushy Bank, now archived. |
Chris Tatton |
👍
Sun 21 Jan 2018, 17:10 Yeah Jim, archive that e mail, that referred to a scheme for a development which was proposed for the other side of the road, which was totally the wrong location. As regards the planning permission, my understanding is that the planning committee resolved to grant permission in December and that the legal documentation is being concluded prior to the planning permission being issued. That is what was indicated in the leaflet from Rushy Bank delivered before Christmas. |
Jim Clemence |
👍
Sun 21 Jan 2018, 13:19 Good to see you back Tony |
Tony Morgan |
👍
Sun 21 Jan 2018, 12:28 My my Chris! |
Jim Clemence |
👍
Sun 21 Jan 2018, 11:54 Chris, move on by all means. I'll archive the email from you back in 2015 in which you said that you totally supported opposition to this development which was "a good idea, but in totally the wrong location". And Hans is right, it doesn't have consent as things stand. |
Hans Eriksson |
👍
Sun 21 Jan 2018, 09:26 As far as I can determine the project has not had planning permission. |
Chris Tatton |
👍
Sun 21 Jan 2018, 07:49 Interesting question Philip. I guess on Brexit, things will only change from the current course if a significant number of leave voters decide that they do not much like the terms of the final deal. |
Philip Ambrose |
👍
Sat 20 Jan 2018, 22:03 Chris, Do you hold the same view about Brexit? |
Chris Tatton |
👍
Sat 20 Jan 2018, 20:25 Hasn't this project obtained planning permission? Move on ........it's getting boring. |
Jim Clemence |
👍
Sat 20 Jan 2018, 15:15 I have heard that West Oxfordshire planning used to be good, and presumably less political, but things obviously change. The local plan inspector has concluded their approach to AONB planning over recent years has been wrong. Though others are better placed to answer your questions, they don't seem keen. I think there is a bit of confusion between the Affordable Housing and the Beacon Project housing. The 7 Affordable Housing units are all for rent. The 8 Beacon Project houses are 'discount market housing' for sale and it was said at the planning committee (for the first time) that the discount will be secured into the future. But it's hard to see how that works, and there's no detail. No disclosure either of how much the discount is. Or as Tony says who (other than Ali who spoke up at the committee) is to be offered the houses. I think it's clear they're not people who would qualify for social housing. To me that would make the discount a private benefit. Others obviously think differently. |
glena chadwick |
👍
Fri 19 Jan 2018, 19:33 I'm not sure I'm completely clear about every point you are making Jim (slightly befuddled by flu) but I do think we seem to be on the same side re the 'affordable' housing. However, over 12 years I saw many applications which were supported by the local council;;or turned down. |
Jim Clemence |
👍
Fri 19 Jan 2018, 12:33 Glena, you can certainly add committee's approval of this application to the Lib Dem list if you wish. Having been to a few planning committees now I have yet to see a scheme rejected while being supported by its councillor. Despite the reduced role of the Young Dementia charity, concerns… |
glena chadwick |
👍
Thu 18 Jan 2018, 19:35 Thank you Tony for your response. No, the situation about the affordable houses being able to be resold after five years was as I said. It was told me at one of the RB exhibitions. |
Tony Morgan |
👍
Thu 18 Jan 2018, 14:43 (last edited on Thu 18 Jan 2018, 14:50) Glena I agreed to reply only if posts were directed at me & I feel your post deserves a response. I fully accept your point about the Lib Dems, my reply was meant to be a flippant response to what I considered an unnecessary contribution. In terms of Rushy Bank I do not know the terms of the deal and they might well be affordable houses in perpetuity. My posts were aimed at clarifying the position on this and other matters so that concerns I had heard expressed could be put to bed. I believed that the town councillors who supported the development would know the answers to these fundamental points |
glena chadwick |
👍
Thu 18 Jan 2018, 14:10 Oh dear---I am rather nervous about entering this minefield ! However, two points--firstly, please Tony don't blame the Lib. Dems. for Chris' remark. I've been a Liberal for sixty years and in my experience they do take serious things seriously (apart from that one comment) and have achieved much, especially in local government. Secondly--surely affordable houses are not really affordable if (as in RB) they can be sold after five years at market prices. They do provide housing, that's true, but housing which will quickly become out of reach of a great many. Let's go back to social housing. |
Jim Clemence |
👍
Wed 17 Jan 2018, 21:37 Sorry David, not sure that WODC publishes Cotswold Link. And your point about the WODC planning site? |
David Prudence |
👍
Wed 17 Jan 2018, 15:47 My point was that it was disingenuous of WODC to publish the article in January, inviting comments from the public as though the planning application was still being considered, when conditional approval had been given on 4 December. |
Jim Clemence |
👍
Wed 17 Jan 2018, 14:21 Tony, just to prove to you that you can never retire from forum posting. David as no one else is replying to you, the committee's not the decision, they have to agree the new section 106 and then formally issue the consent. We all have wait to see what 106 they agree this time. |
David Prudence |
👍
Sat 13 Jan 2018, 10:13 (last edited on Sat 13 Jan 2018, 10:15) A copy of the January/February edition of the Cotswold Link was delivered with our post on Thursday 11th. Page 8 has an article about Rushy Bank by WODC which says the Council wants to let as many people as possible know that the application is going to be reconsidered and invites comments. If you go on the WODC site it says the application is still awaiting a decision!
|
Rosemary Bennett |
👍
Fri 12 Jan 2018, 19:18 Monty who? |
Tony Morgan |
👍
Fri 12 Jan 2018, 11:22 Richard thanks for the clarification |
Richard Fairhurst
(site admin) |
👍
Fri 12 Jan 2018, 11:07 I haven't seen any racist remarks. The one about the Judean People's Front is a reference to Monty Python's Life of Brian (language not suitable for work or with children in the room, obviously!). As stated in the forum rules (see link on left: rule number 3), if you want to raise concerns about a posting with an admin, use the dedicated link rather than raising it publicly in the thread. Tony, if you or anyone had already posted clearly actionable comments I wouldn't have asked you to stop posting, I would have already removed them and very possibly the poster's account too! My concern is to stop such comments being posted in the future, and past experience of threads like this shows that they can very quickly drift into such allegations. I try to run the site generally consensually, but I'm afraid that, given that I'm legally responsible for the site and I don't particularly want to be made homeless after being sued by a council, a property developer or whoever, I have to be cautious rather than consensual in this area. If you want somewhere where you can post without fear of being moderated for such reasons, you can of course either set up your own site, or post on a site run by someone with deeper pockets than me. (I believe Mr Zuckerberg is worth $74 billion so he probably endures fewer sleepless nights about being sued than I do.) (Admin note: I may move this thread to the Grease Pit before long depending on how it develops, so if it suddenly disappears, that'll be where to look.) |
Rosemary Bennett |
👍
Fri 12 Jan 2018, 10:48 Shame on those posting juvenile and racist remarks. I would like to see those remarks removed, please. |
Tony Morgan |
👍
Fri 12 Jan 2018, 09:25 (last edited on Fri 12 Jan 2018, 09:54) Chris & others thanks for your constructive comments, nice to see you take this important charlbury issue seriously, and are contributing to the debate in a mature manner! I can now see where the Lib Dems got their grown up approach to politics from
|
David McCutcheon |
👍
Fri 12 Jan 2018, 08:13 Have you been bought? |
Jaime Le Bouton |
👍
Thu 11 Jan 2018, 19:30 Are you leaving the Friends of the Charlbury Forum, the Charlbury Forum Partnership or the Judean People's Front? |
Rosemary Bennett |
👍
Thu 11 Jan 2018, 17:20 What! |
Chris Tatton |
👍
Thu 11 Jan 2018, 17:15 Bye, bye Tony. |
Tony Morgan |
👍
Thu 11 Jan 2018, 17:01 (last edited on Thu 11 Jan 2018, 17:04) Phil I will respond as you have posted directly
|
Phil Morgan |
👍
Thu 11 Jan 2018, 15:55 Tony, please do not stop posting on this Forum. You have a legitimate point of view and you should continue to make it so that others can respond - that is the spirit of the thing! |
Tony Morgan |
👍
Thu 11 Jan 2018, 07:59 (last edited on Thu 11 Jan 2018, 13:05) Richard having slept on the matter I feel I need to make one further post for clarification before withdrawing from the forum
|
Tony Morgan |
👍
Wed 10 Jan 2018, 22:00 Richard I resent the inference in your comments. Several town councillors and local district councillors supported this application which must have had sway with WODCs decision I believe I am entitled to ask them straight forward questions which I believe they should have known the answer to before they supported the application These are points that I have heard raised and without straight answers they will continue to be a source of concern In view of your tone I will not post on the forum again |
Richard Fairhurst
(site admin) |
👍
Wed 10 Jan 2018, 21:46 The planning application was approved by a committee of West Oxfordshire district councillors, none of whom are from (or represent) Charlbury, on the advice of their officers, none of whom (as best I know) live in Charlbury. I very much doubt if any of them have read this thread, I'm afraid, which is probably why they haven't answered the questions! (I've just done a quick skim through the user list and none of the Uplands Planning Committee members are registered users of the site.) As for the Town Council, it doesn't have any formal power over planning applications, it just makes representations to the District Council, just like anyone else can (which the District Council frequently ignores). When the Rushy Bank planning application first came up, the Town Council response was neither for or against, because the town councillors themselves were spilt. (Personally I abstained, for the stated reason that I think this is a terrific development... and I dearly wish that it had been possible to site it somewhere else. My views on preserving the Evenlode valley as Charlbury's "front garden" are well enough known that they have been used against the Town Council in planning representations!) I would say, however, that of the people I know from both the Rushy Bank Partnership on one side and the Friends of the Evenlode Valley on the other, I have absolutely no reason to doubt their probity. It is possible to disagree on something without any implication of underhand or corrupt dealings. I see no evidence that there has been anything here which isn't 100% above board, and if you do have any such evidence you should probably go to the relevant authorities with it. I'm sure everyone is aware that, as the site owner, I have some degree of legal responsibility for whatever's posted here, so I would ask people to refrain from vague allegations without absolute factual backup. Thank you. |
Tony Morgan |
👍
Wed 10 Jan 2018, 21:08 It does seem strange that the town and district councillors who supported this development against major 'local' opposition seem unwilling or unable to answer straight forward questions on points that I believe charlbury residents deserve clarification. I hope that adverse ' answers' do not 'emerge' during the development as this would only serve to escalate the divisiveness |
Rosemary Bennett |
👍
Wed 10 Jan 2018, 18:29 Quite right Tony, I did not object to it. Since you posted your questions there have been no responses. It is very curious, and I am beginning to wonder why this is. |
Tony Morgan |
👍
Tue 9 Jan 2018, 11:14 Thanks Rosemary, as you have supported RB in the past your intervention is 'useful' in suggesting to others that there 'might' be more to this development than we have been led to believe |
Rosemary Bennett |
👍
Tue 9 Jan 2018, 10:25 (last edited on Tue 9 Jan 2018, 10:27) I think you have many valid questions there that should be answered. He-lloooooo ......! |
Tony Morgan |
👍
Mon 8 Jan 2018, 19:59 (last edited on Mon 8 Jan 2018, 20:04) No it seems our elected representatives believe glossy brochures, post cards and good news posts are sufficient information for one of the most divisive issues in charlbury
|
Rosemary Bennett |
👍
Mon 8 Jan 2018, 18:22 No response? |
Tony Morgan |
👍
Sun 24 Dec 2017, 13:05 (last edited on Tue 26 Dec 2017, 11:58) Tony I agree that this has been & will continue to be a divisive issue and I think that is compounded by the lack of clarity on a number of areas Maybe the developers or the town & district councillors who supported them could clarify these issues and possibly remove some of the divisiveness Happy Xmas! |
Tony H Merry |
👍
Sun 24 Dec 2017, 09:46 You are not quite correct on numbers Tony
|
Tony Morgan |
👍
Sat 23 Dec 2017, 18:35 I am starting a new thread seperate from the good news thread |
You must log in before you can post a reply.