Rushy Bank - just facts please

Thu 24 Sep 2015, 11:10 (last edited on Thu 24 Sep 2015, 12:23)

'Facing the station and the small industrial estate which was originally the site of Charlbury gasworks, with the sewage works as a near neighbour.' Is that what we can expect to read in the marketing brochure? Or is that just for a local audience, along with the blithe assertion about precedent? Surely the truth is quite evidently the reverse: that a development at Rushy Bank would inevitably lead to wide-scale development on the scale to which Stuart refers. The main historical objection from WODC to development on the site has been that it has been 'too far from the settlement' of Charlbury. A development at Rushy Bank would remove their ability to object on those grounds. To claim otherwise seems, frankly, willful.

Wed 23 Sep 2015, 11:01

Rod Evans has outlined the current position vis-a-vis the Neighbourhood Plan; the absence of which explains the reason for the current debate over development. In fact, hundreds of communities throughout the country have already either completed or are finalising their Neighbourhood Plans and in Charlbury we have the necessary experience and talent and could have completed the main elements of the process some time ago. This would have allowed us to avoid the current painful discussion over Rushy Bank as the community could have identified through a referendum and with the agreement of the local authority any land which could be developed in line with local needs. However, the talking and the argument continues and this together with the absence of a 5 year land supply and an unapproved Local Plan leaves all of us open to large scale development as has happened at Woodstock. In similar future circumstances, the Rushy Bank Partnership might well find itself allied with the Friends of Evenlode Valley to oppose this scale of development as unless we move ahead with planned small scale, locally-supported proposals, we leave ourselves vulnerable!
I understand the sentiment behind the objections to this project, but Rushy Bank is a modest, socially-innovative and well supported proposal for a site which in reality is a scrubby and very wet bit of low grade pasture, facing the station and the small industrial estate which was originally the site of Charlbury gasworks, with the sewage works as a near neighbour. It is neither in any sense, a precedent as it has natural boundaries, nor is it a pristine piece of the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty!

Mon 21 Sep 2015, 14:01

There is something more important than the merits of the Rushy Bank proposals. We are currently at a crossroads in the future development of Charlbury. If the principle is established that it is acceptable to build on a green field beyond the edge of town, it will be inevitable that the adjacent fields will follow suit, and really too late then to object. This is exactly how new settlements are planted. If you do not believe that it is right to develop west of the railway now is the time to make your views known on the WODC website.

Wed 16 Sep 2015, 18:27

We will be issuing more details on this aspect of the project in the near future. These will meet with both West Oxfordshire District Council and the Government Homes and Communities Agency requirements. The Rushy Bank Partnership will enter into a legal agreement with the Council to ensure the delivery of all of the affordable and community benefit aspects of the scheme.

Wed 16 Sep 2015, 17:37

Chris, can you confirm how long the lock-in is that is being proposed for the Beacon Project houses, or at least what you are proposing to WODC subject to their agreement? A previous post suggested 5 years.

Wed 16 Sep 2015, 15:34

Thanks Chris

Wed 16 Sep 2015, 15:13

Thanks Emma, I will send you a message directly with further information.

Wed 16 Sep 2015, 14:33

How do I get on the list of the social housing proposed please ?

Wed 16 Sep 2015, 11:44

Thanks Rob. I answered the first of your questions in the original forum thread on 26 March where I said that there is a proposal by the Beacon Project for a lock-in for any discount so that it can be passed on to the next local person wanting to buy a house. The mechanism for passing on discounts will be wrapped up in the section 106 agreement that will accompany any planning consent and the team are liaising with the planner and housing officer to finalise this. On the second point, we have a list of some 25 local families who are strongly interested in the different forms of housing proposed and allocation would be based on a range of criteria, with local connection and housing need right at the top.

Wed 16 Sep 2015, 10:00

On the point about information sharing, (forgive me if I am wrong) but I think that Rushy Bank proponents have not answered Glena Chadwick's question -- on a related thread -- about how you hope to prevent the resale of affordable houses and non-affordable prices. Neither has there been a public reply to Nigel Rosser's important question about how the discounted non-social housing will be allocated. Who qualifies to apply for that?

Wed 16 Sep 2015, 09:41

Paul - welcome back. The revised planning application certainly takes a number of constructive comments from our community into account, such as the concerns expressed about the roundabout (which I think was actually a highways suggestion as a traffic slowing measure), as well as the removal of proposed housing along Forest Road. There are a number of other changes all detailed in the revised plans. Obviously these changes aren't going to convince you but I hope you agree that the Rushy Bank team including Young Dementia have put a lot of effort over a long period into community consultation and information sharing.

Tue 15 Sep 2015, 20:40

Arthur has misinterpreted my statement by which I intended to make clear that there is no prospect of YD being able to use the land at the end of Ticknell Piece. Thank you Liz Leffman for stating it again.

Tue 15 Sep 2015, 19:54 (last edited on Tue 15 Sep 2015, 21:06)

I've just returned from a holiday to find that the Rushy Bank application has come back faster than a Scottish referendum. It is claimed that the original 'planning event' was attended by 115 people and that 'there was a lot of support for the scheme at the public event'. I…

Long post - click to read full text

Tue 15 Sep 2015, 12:04

www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/13719523.Fears_that_social_housing_may_be_bought_for_private_rentals/

OK - this is about the Barton development, but it doesn't take too much imagination to visualise a comparable situation here.

Tue 15 Sep 2015, 10:38

Agree Alan. With a c £5.5m value as developable land and a £30k value as a field, there is around £5.47m of planning gain in this development of which the landowner would presumably get a significant share. Obviously without the details we don't know how the gain is going to be shared between Cornbury and the other participants in the scheme.

Tue 15 Sep 2015, 09:15

I don't think you will find the landowner is being quite that generous, though, Helen! I think they are hoping to sell it for more than its market value, because of course it doesn't currently have the market value of a housing site since no normal developer would be allowed to build houses there.

Tue 15 Sep 2015, 09:14 (last edited on Tue 15 Sep 2015, 11:13)

To be 100% clear, (and factual) there is no offer on the table from OCC nor has there ever been. All there has been is a discussion based on an idea, which has come to nothing. And the land in question is not currently designated for housing.

Mon 14 Sep 2015, 17:55 (last edited on Mon 14 Sep 2015, 19:26)

Arthur, the fact that there have been discussions does not mean that there is 'an offer on the table' as you put it. The land at Ticknell Piece is part of the assets of OCC and as an authority my guess would be that they would have to get best value for ratepayers if they chose to sell it; they would also choose the timing of any such disposal. Council tax payers should be rightly concerned if they disposed of an asset at less than what could be obtained, particularly in times of cut backs to council services. If a local landowner is prepared to make land available at less than the market value to make such a worthwhile project viable, we should get right behind it.

Mon 14 Sep 2015, 17:37

Thank-you for this Liz. So you confirm that Oxford County Council have in fact been in discussion with Rushy Bank and Young Dementia regarding the land at Ticknell Piece. This would seem to be the perfect solution. A site that is within the town, designated for housing, safe for the residents of YDUK and not creating a precedent for massive further development. If this offer is on the table why are Rushy Bank and YDUK pursuing land that is contrary to policy in both the existing and emerging Local Plans and the National Planning Policy Framework and that constitutes new development in the open countryside and the AONB?

Sun 13 Sep 2015, 23:31 (last edited on Mon 14 Sep 2015, 08:03)

Philip, thanks. I have re-read your post and it has thrown usp a few more ideas. Yes, the proposed development is valuable but nobody seems to want it in their vicinity and I still don't see why it can't be built by the station.
As for Witney, it's already been over-developed and the prospect of hundreds(?) more people driving into Charllbury to get the train in years to come seems preposterous. It wouldn't take long before there would be need for a dual carriageway to be built between the two towns, and then the station car park would have to be greatly enlarged, probably taking up more land than the proposed development for Rushy Bank. The thought of becoming a service area for the satellite town of Witney seems much more pressing, in fact, than the development of a tiny, greatly needed and socially responsible housing development down by the tracks!

Sat 12 Sep 2015, 14:53 (last edited on Sat 12 Sep 2015, 14:53)

I can't answer Mark's questions about OCC and Ticknell Piece but the Rushy Bank site has already been rejected for development through the Local Plan process, being considered "too remote" from the town. That means its value now is as agricultural land. Only if there is a prospect of development would it have a higher value. It may be offered at less than the value it would have as housing land - but it's already been rejected for that. So any price paid above agricultural value would be a (potentially big) bonus for the landowner - we don't of course have the figures. That of itself isn't a criticism (nor I believe, can it be controversial) but may help to understand why the site is presented as 'affordable'.
As to the number of dwellings, it seems to be the affordable element that's been reduced.

Sat 12 Sep 2015, 12:03

Like Arthur, I prefer to have the facts. The land at the top of Ticknell Piece is owned by OCC. Young Dementia waited 18 months for OCC's initial response to their request for being able to acquire that land. Rodney Rose, the county councillor for this area, recently took a positive interest in helping YD but was able only to confirm that OCC would be unable to respond in the timescale need by Young Dementia and that full market value would be required. This makes the site unviable for YD.

Sat 12 Sep 2015, 09:21

Can someone answer the following questions
1. What is deemed to be "market price " for land at Ticknell Piece ? As the council have responsibility to support local housing requirements and demand
2. How much is the cost of the land to be sold for at Rushy Bank - (in financial terms ) and how does the equate in to " per plot cost " for self build ?
3. How does the revised application, reducing the number of plots benefit the application , which will make the plot cost more expensive

The current land owner will be changing the financial value of this land , which may be at a reduced market rate ? ( please can someone confirm this information ), with the long term plan for further development to compensate this.

New housing and affordability of new homes , which should be starter homes as well as larger Family homes to stimulate the housing market and make low cost homes available. This will allow children who have grown up in the Town , to have the ability to purchase houses here.

The application has changed , but the location is the same. Is the land at Ticknell Piece a suitable alternative, as it is located in the Town .

Fri 11 Sep 2015, 14:46

Philip, in reply to your post, there has been talk that OCC's land at Ticknell Piece has been offered at a fair market price with the potential for YDUK to be accommodated within the affordable housing obligation. It would be helpful if someone from the Rushy Bank Partnership would confirm if this is not true.

Fri 11 Sep 2015, 10:13

Rosemary,

Please re-read my post. I am not opposed to the idea, on the contrary I support it, but preferably not in this location which I believe should be retained for future development of the station.

Cycle parking seems a bit irrelevant to this thread, certainly as regards the growing number of folk from Witney area now using the station.

Tue 8 Sep 2015, 21:26

Philip - How is commuter parking more important than people having a roof over their head... . Why not plan to build an underground bike shed below the existing car park so that the commuters (who love the countryside so much) can cycle to the station?

Tue 8 Sep 2015, 19:41

I can see the benefits of this project, but would prefer land around the station retained for the inevitable expansion of Oxford / London commuter parking (after a slight pause for Water Eaton).

Why will OCC not make land it owns elsewhere in the vicinity available for this worthwhile project? (Factual query)

Tue 8 Sep 2015, 15:53

The new planning application is up on the WODC website here:
publicaccess.westoxon.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=NTDW5YRKJIZ00

Wed 26 Aug 2015, 16:38

Hello Alan - I've been told further info will be up in the next week.

Wed 26 Aug 2015, 12:09

I just wanted to support Andrew's request for some facts to help the fence-sitters. I couldn't find the application on the WODC site yet, and 12th Sept is some way off, so a brief summary of how the proposal has been revised from the one the developers withdrew earlier would be helpful.

Wed 26 Aug 2015, 09:23

Yes, I read that - perhaps not everyone can make that specific meeting...?

Wed 26 Aug 2015, 09:05

It does say Andrew in Charlbury News section there will be a meeting on 12 Sept.in Corner house by Rushy Bank to explain.

Wed 26 Aug 2015, 08:53

For those of fence-sitters who can see both the pros and cons of the Rushy Bank development, can someone summarise the changes in the revised application? It doesn't seem to be up at the West Oxon planning site yet.