Friends of the Evenlode Valley, etc

Mon 12 Jun 2017, 12:25 (last edited on Mon 12 Jun 2017, 12:27)

A few responses needed:

Concerning the judicial review, anyone has a right to challenge the legality of decisions made by public bodies. If this decision is proven to be contrary to law I would have thought everyone will be pleased for that to be identified.

Regarding the letter, Liz (or others), please take issue with any of it here on the forum or privately with me if you wish. The factual content has been checked. If you cannot identify factual inaccuracy please don't allege it. Disagree with any opinions by all means.

It is entirely untrue to suggest there is any "threat", implicit or otherwise, against the Sports and Social Club. Members of that club were entitled to submit the responses they did. We do however question whether the developer was entitled to try to influence the allocation of s106 monies to the club and whether WODC responded appropriately.

Regarding Phil's personal views on the future of Charlbury, I of course disagree. More importantly they don't appear to be well reflected in our consulted draft local plan. Obviously some don't place much value on our Conservation Area and AONB designation, but others do and regard for these and the local plan is legally required in planning decisions.

West Oxfordshire's proposed local plan will cover the period 2011-31. Nowhere in the draft does it say that the west of the Evenlode in Charlbury is going to be developed, let alone that that would be desirable. When WODC looked at the Rushy Bank site it was dismissed as "too remote from the settlement" and was not taken forward for detailed consideration. The current draft plan also says that "the sensitivity of Charlbury's strong landscape and environmental setting mean that significant development on the fringes of the town is unlikely to be acceptable". Its policies, which for example require that potential sites "adjoin" the built up area of a settlement and "form a logical complement to the existing scale and pattern of the development and/or character of the area", as well as protecting AONBs and Conservation areas generally, rather suggest this site is not a good one. The judicial review will provide clarity on whether any misapplication of these policies in this case involved a legal error.

As mentioned twice here already the names of directors of the charitable company (of which I am one) ARE public. Supporters' names are not and I fully agree with Paul and Hamish that there is no reason why they need to be, and the charity is certainly not going to disclose these without express consent. As an aside there was never any disclosure of those that would financially benefit from the development.

The charity will complete annual reports as and when due and I will be happy to flag to anyone who is interested when these are available. Nothing is due imminently.