Hixet Wood and Police Houses - 8 houses to be built

Wed 13 Sep 2017, 09:50

Helen, I don't think that the traffic flow has been taken into account. If you consider that the building plus renovation of 5 houses taking place in Pooles Lane is continuing to stretch the traffic management to its limit, it is difficult to imagine how a larger project in an even tighter corner of Charlbury would be manageable, without causing havoc at times.
Andrew, as I can see on the downloadable Charlbury map how much ground there is all round Lee Place, it is obvious that you have spotted the most obvious, logical and simple solution to the shortage of houses in Charlbury. The grounds cover almost half of the area of the centre of Charlbury. Looking at that map, you can see just how cramped the rest of Charlbury is, in comparison. You're a genius!

Thu 7 Sep 2017, 17:49

While we're discussing the aristocracy, I'd like to suggest the perfect development site in Charlbury: the grounds of Lee Place. Vanderbilt could gorge themselves on new house-building hidden behind the giant hedges, on a large plot, within the town's bounds, and without inconveniencing ordinary people. An easy way to meet housing targets, and only at the expense of the view of one person.

Thu 7 Sep 2017, 15:54

Tony, this kind of scenario is already being demonstrated in Pooles Lane now, which had the same kind of objections - the loss of a rare garden and orchard, total demolition of stone barns, and the nature of the builds (executive). It is ongoing, ugly, and completely unaffordable to young local families. It has been ongoing since last November.

Thu 7 Sep 2017, 14:27

"How the aristocracy preserved their power"
(slight spoiler alert: "remarkably indifferent to the welfare of the nation")
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/sep/07/how-the-aristocracy-preserved-their-power#img-6

Thu 7 Sep 2017, 08:17

I was deeply disappointed despite having spoken against this development taking place the committee failed.
This was not a decision about houses it was a decision against the preservation of our green lung of open spaces!
(We need affordable houses-these are anything but)

Wed 6 Sep 2017, 21:36

Jean, so having checked with the other Charlbury representatives I think the voting was as follows:

Councillor Party Ward Vote
Beaney Cons Kingham, Rollright and Enstone Abstained
Colston Cons Kingham, Rollright and Enstone Abstained
Cotterill Cons Burford Supported
Cottrell-Dormer Cons Stonesfield and Tackley Opposed
Bishop Cons Stonesfield and Tackley Opposed
Haine Cons Milton under Wychwood Supported
Postan Cons Brize Norton and Shilton Supported
Simcox Cons Ascott and Shipton Opposed?
Virgin Cons The Bartons Supported?
Saul Lab Chipping Norton Supported
Poskitt LD Woodstock Abstained

Wed 6 Sep 2017, 10:45

is it possible to know who voted which way and who abstained?

Tue 5 Sep 2017, 22:36 (last edited on Tue 5 Sep 2017, 22:37)

Maybe this will demonstrate to charlbury residents that WODC make decisions contrary to the best interests of charlbury and against sensible arguments . Their failure to challenge the judicial review on rushy bank demonstrates clearly their flawed decision making process It appears that only the threat of having to defend themselves in court has any effect on this! Maybe residents now realise what is required to stop them

Tue 5 Sep 2017, 21:48

Despite over 100 objections from Charlbury residents, objections from the Town Council and Conservation Committee and, during two hearings, when a total of 6 speakers all gave reasons for objections, the WODC Planning Committee has passed this development, in a previously designated Conservation area, by 5 votes to 3, with up to 4 abstentions. One wonders whether the duty of an elected representative should surely be to make a decision (even if it goes against what one wants) rather than sit on the fence, This means this application was actually passed by a minority of voters. Meanwhile, since we are at the moment unable to ascertain if a Traffic Management Plan has been proposed, residents of Hixet Wood, Fishers Lane and Sheep Street should be prepared for an increase in heavy building traffic, more parking spaces taken up by builders' cars, and the continuation of large lorries getting stuck in all three of these streets. Amazingly, the Highways Dept of OCC offered no objection either, although they gave details of traffic data in Market Street. Did they realise that traffic in Sheep Street goes in the opposite direction, so Market Street traffic has no bearing on this problem.
Helen Bessemer-Clark