Rushy Bank-The Facts

Thu 1 Oct 2015, 10:43

I have to add my thanks to Bill for putting this into context. I am an unashamed supporter of Rushy Bank and have had some great debates with some of my closest friends about the arguments on both sides but there is no way we would allow it to get in the way of us sharing a drink in the Rose and Crown. I am deeply concerned that the debate is descending into the realms of tabloid journalism in a bid to garner support. I was interested to note how many of the letters posted to the planning website are from commentators from Germany, London and even Chipping Norton (!). Surely, this is a debate that should be influenced by the views of the residents of Charlbury. I would ask anyone, whatever their views, not to encourage support from people who, to be frank, have nothing to do with the project other than knowing someone who holds a viewpoint!!

Mon 28 Sep 2015, 17:59

Hello fellow Rosemary, yes I agree, the possible bus situation is not good, that and the fact that the train service is now far more expensive (unless you want to stay in London till late).

Mon 28 Sep 2015, 14:03

I've just had a cursory glance at the RB Plan alluded to in a previous comment that states that WODC considers Charlbury sustainable in terms of transport links,and I wonder that no one seems to have raised the issue of our impending transport review in which it is evident that the town is about to lose the only bus that even ventures near the site, not to mention the threat to cut the X9 services.

Mon 28 Sep 2015, 07:48

Bill, I too am grateful to you for highlighting the need for people to consider the need to maintain and nurture our relationships. I have been very disappointed at the tenor of some of the exchanges on the forum which impugn the integrity of others. The town council spent a lot of time considering Rushy Bank. The pros and cons are finely balanced and we set these out carefully to assist the Planning Committee in making its decision.

Mon 28 Sep 2015, 07:41

Thankyou Bill Wood

Sun 27 Sep 2015, 19:42

Bill

Well said Bill - its a fantastic post and puts this all into perspective. I had a beer with Mark Sulik tonight and it is fair to say that we are probably at two different ends of the spectrum regarding Rushy Bank. We debated it, talked about our children and then arranged a trip to Paris! Some of my closest friends are either for or against the development but we will remain friends after. I hope it goes ahead, but i am respectful of the views of others and whether it is developed or not, it won't be at the cost of my friends and colleagues! Lets all be civil and respectful.

Sun 27 Sep 2015, 12:14

These are very useful and very informative exchanges. This is a yes/no issue and almost all of us have a strong view.
But am I alone in thinking that the discussion away from this forum is starting in places to become extremely bitter? This kind of issue can eat people up if we are not careful. In my 30 plus years of living in Charlbury this is the most divisive issue I have encountered.
It's not just that we need to keep the debate civilised. Even more we need to remember that we will all have to live in this town when in a few months time permission for the development is either granted or denied. Bluntly winners will have to live side by side with losers..
Now you may say that grudges and gossip are all part of life in a small town. People should be passionate about these issues. But I have some experience of mediating planning disputes in communities elsewhere and I have seen how rapidly these problems can escalate
My two penn'orth is that the community might do itself more harm by the way it deals with these issues than could ever be done by developing or not developing Rushy Bank. Anybody else worried?

Thu 24 Sep 2015, 15:19

Dear Steve
Thank you for your very clear response. Like you I really feel affordable housing is needed here, my son who, if asked, would say that Charlbury is home, recently had to move out of Charlbury as he could not get the space he needed for the amount he could afford (and that was renting). I obviously would love it if he were back here.

Thu 24 Sep 2015, 15:09

Hi Rosemary,
Not at all, if truth be told, i don't care on the location, I simply support the need for more affordable homes and have an understanding that times change, as do villages, towns, cities and the like. I would support the development if it was in Ticknell Piece, Woodstock Road or anywhere else in or around Charlbury.

Thu 24 Sep 2015, 14:41

I don't think Steve is saying that at all, like many people on modest incomes he would support any development in Charlbury that may give people the chance to buy their own homes. Personally, I don't see how Rushy Bank would spoil our beautiful town......

Thu 24 Sep 2015, 14:00 (last edited on Thu 24 Sep 2015, 15:29)

Dear Steve L
Am I right in understanding that you feel that only if houses are built at Rushy Bank that then will "give the people of Charlbury on a modest income the chance to buy their own home and bring up their children in this beautiful town." You don't feel that can happen if the houses are built elsewhere in Charlbury, so that it remains a beautiful town?

Thu 24 Sep 2015, 12:45

Superbly put, Phil. I will also be supporting Rushy Bank. Give the people of Charlbury on a modest income the chance to buy their own home and bring up their children in this beautiful town.

Thu 24 Sep 2015, 12:37

Come on Phil!
Faced with the amount of spin they have had to deal with, at least they are driven by care for Charlbury and not financial gain. If you want clear facts please read Rod Evans, his long post on 22nd September at 14.59.
Do you honestly think that with the inevitable rise in the value of the surrounding land, if RB is granted, that the owners of that land will not be rushing to sell to any developer willing to take on the, by then, much easier task of getting planning?

Thu 24 Sep 2015, 11:27

Dear 'Friends of the Evenlode Valley'. Thank you for your anonymous leaflet. I will certainly use the contact details you provide to record my support for Rushy Bank and I hope others might do the same.
As for the planning debate,I agree that this is not the place to discuss the finer points.
Nevertheless, in my understanding as mere citizen, a Planning Approval does not represent a precedent as it might do in the High Court. Each new application must be considered on its own merits.
Anyway, as an English teacher, I appreciate the wonderful use of emotive language in your leaflet: "housing estate", "satellite community", "urbanise", "blocking traffic around Charlbury", "threat to Charlbury", etc. This is precisely the language that I have taught my pupils to identify as propaganda. Let's hope some of them who live here recognise it for what it is.

Thu 24 Sep 2015, 10:59

We could always amend the application and make it more dismountable Arthur, something like trailer homes. Would FEV support that?

Thu 24 Sep 2015, 09:04

There is a very clear distinction here. Southill Solar is dismountable and unlikely to be followed by further solar farms on the neighbouring fields. Commercial forces will ensure that Rushy Bank will be followed by further residential development on its neighbouring fields, and the neighbouring fields after that.

Wed 23 Sep 2015, 14:46 (last edited on Wed 23 Sep 2015, 15:04)

Rod, I merely ask since I am curious to know what a key objector to the Rushy Bank proposal would find acceptable there. I just fail to see why a field full of solar panels would be acceptable visually as a 'necessary evil' but housing for those who need it wouldn't be.

Wed 23 Sep 2015, 11:18 (last edited on Wed 23 Sep 2015, 11:19)

Chris - am not sure of your motive in asking, but quite possibly, yes! I regard wind and solar farms in principle as 'necessary evils' in much the same way as the station is - and as the gas works were in their day. But everything is 'site specific' and I couldn't give a definite answer until I'd seen exactly what was proposed. As I said, Southill is a very different type of development (to a housing scheme), with different visual and functional impacts, different considerations (climate change being imho the most serious challenge our children will face) - and it has a time limited permission where housing is permanent. I'm not expert on the technicalities but RB might not be suitable because of its orientation and overshadowing from the 25m high poplar trees on its western flank - as the occupiers of the houses close to them would very quickly discover if they are ever built. I came late to the Southill project (and am not involved in it) but saw no reason to oppose the revised proposal on planning grounds.

Tue 22 Sep 2015, 17:00 (last edited on Tue 22 Sep 2015, 17:21)

I notice that Liz has said that it's 'perfectly possible' for the proposed area to be re-developed for housing therefore would it not be a sensible idea to support the Rushy Bank plan rather than another developer come along with much bigger plans. Rushy Bank is a very modest application.

Tue 22 Sep 2015, 16:20

Rod, could you confirm whether you would have also supported the solar farm proposal if it had been at Rushy Bank?

Tue 22 Sep 2015, 14:59 (last edited on Tue 22 Sep 2015, 15:16)

I'm not sure the Forum is the right place to go into lengthy planning arguments so for now, and to correct one or two misunderstandings, here are some facts:

The 'Friends of Evenlode Valley' group now has over 100 supporters, drawn from various parts of the town. I haven't counted…

Long post - click to read full text

Tue 22 Sep 2015, 11:54

Can someone kindly remind me when we're going to have a Neighbourhood Plan and why we haven't already got one, given the number of times it's been referred to in the forum over what seems like years?

Tue 22 Sep 2015, 11:33 (last edited on Tue 22 Sep 2015, 11:44)

To reply to Stephen's post in a little more detail, there are now some limited 'permitted development' rights to change the use of some commercial premises to residential - but hedged around with detailed provisos etc. You can find more info on the Planning Portal under 'Do I need permission?' - useful bedtime reading if you have trouble sleeping!

Beyond those provisions, yes, the small employment area next to the station is a 'brown field' site (and was when redeveloped from the former gas works, though the phrase may not have been in use then)- but to protect the supply of employment land, planning policies may legitimately take a restrictive approach to changes of use, as at Policy E1 of WODC's new Local Plan. So while anyone can apply to re-develop they'd probably have quite high hurdles to jump, especially where employment land is in short supply.

Otherwise, I agree entirely with Liz about the importance of having a Neighbourhood Plan in place to address such issues at neighbourhood level - which could include the identification and allocation of housing land as well.

Tue 22 Sep 2015, 08:17 (last edited on Tue 22 Sep 2015, 08:23)

It is perfectly possible for that site to be re-developed for housing, as a brownfield site, with or without the existence of Rushy Bank. We can, however, state in our Neighbourhood Plan that we want that site to remain an employment site, which is why the plan is important.

Mon 21 Sep 2015, 19:06 (last edited on Mon 21 Sep 2015, 19:07)

Ian's weblink states that approval of this project will not create a precedent for further adjacent development. I posted a comment the last time around (which went unanswered) about what was to stop a 'change of use' application being lodged for the existing commercial/industrial units site adjacent to the station, should the Rushey Bank application be approved. I understand that such an application would be in line with current Government policy. Perhaps someone can put me straight?

Mon 21 Sep 2015, 17:49

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.

Mon 21 Sep 2015, 17:35

Please see the attached link for an information update on the Rushy Bank development proposal.

www.charlbury.info/files/1/rushy_bank_sept_2015.pdf

Fri 11 Sep 2015, 22:07

Please join us at The Corner House tomorrow to see the exhibition of our current proposals. Facts not fiction.