Rushy Bank reconsideration by West Oxfordshire

Sun 30 Sep 2018, 21:20

But still many unanswered questions from developers and supporters

Sun 30 Sep 2018, 19:25

OK so lots of opinions expressed here which is why I started this thread
Thank you all for contributing and many valid points raised. It will be interesting to see what the Uplands Planning Committee decide tomorrow
I agree with Rod that most people have not changed their opinion but this post has allowed areas on concern or reasons for support to be expressed
At least this time it has stayed out of the greasepit!

Sun 30 Sep 2018, 14:00

Liz what is the financial definition of affordable for RB houses

Sat 29 Sep 2018, 22:16

That sounds like a move in the right direction, Liz! Thanks for that inrormation.

Sat 29 Sep 2018, 19:46

Regarding the affordable housing at Rushy Bank,the planning application was approved in December 2017 subject to discount market housing being discounted in perpetuity, not just for five years

Thu 27 Sep 2018, 20:45 (last edited on Thu 27 Sep 2018, 20:47)

The 7 affordable rent houses should remain "affordable". Until they are subject to a right to buy.

There was opposition to the Grange (Woodstock Road) application too. Peter Kenrick and I both spoke at the first planning committee. FOWOC made a submission to the second about failure to meet the new AONB local need requirement but Committee was happy with a £120k contribution to the district affordable housing pot. Not obvious how that complied...

Thu 27 Sep 2018, 20:44

Exactly, Glena. And, so-called affordable houses are too expensive for people who do not earn tons of money, so the term 'affordable houses' is in fact very condescending and entirely inappropriate. In a kinder society there would be housing that was affordable to everyone, to rent or buy.

Thu 27 Sep 2018, 20:02

Surely the main problem with the affordable housing is that it will not stay affordable. I was told at one of the first Rushy Bank meetings that the affordable housing could not be resold at market price for five years. Well, five years, for someone as ancient as me seems like the blink of an eyelid. What is the point of them becoming unaffordable in such a short time. We need social housing that remains a community asset.

Thu 27 Sep 2018, 19:06

Dave! You know there was a lot of opposition to Pooles Lane.....

Thu 27 Sep 2018, 09:55

I opposed this development because I felt the negatives out weighed the positives, there were too many unanswered questions and WODC's approach to planning was unacceptable.However I 'understood' those people who thought that providing affordable housing for charlbury residents & connections out weighed the other points. Now that it is clear that the development will not provide affordable housing for charlbury people I think we have the worst of all worlds and not what we were led to believe. What do supporters think of the position now?

Wed 26 Sep 2018, 20:10

Dave, sorry to be the bearer of bad news but as it stands the Affordable Housing in this development will be allocated to people across West Oxfordshire based on their assessed need with no regard to connection to Charlbury. At Wilkins COurt they have just allocated 13 homes with (we are told) no locally connected tenants. FOWOC has been pushing hard (doing analysis, corresponding and attending meetings with helpful people like Phil Shaw) together with Tony Merry (wearing one of his many hats) and others to get the allocation rules changed to take local connection into account but last week Councillors voted to keep it as it is. I seem to recall that you had some unfavourable comments to make on here some time back about FOWOC but I hope you think this was worthwhile.

Wed 26 Sep 2018, 19:43

Having read through all the posts below, I am saddened that this debate is still raging. As far as I know, 13 of the 24 planned homes at Rushy Bank are classed as affordable (54%!) and will put at least a small dent in the need for properties that can be bought either by Charlbury residents or ex-residents who have been priced out of their home town. This is something that is desperately needed as most of the recent new builds have been priced well out of reach of those buyers. Interestingly, I saw virtually no opposition to the projects on Pooles Lane, Ditchley Rd and Woodstock Rd where the prices were in some cases, north of £1M. Far be it from me to say that out of sight is out of mind and I would never use the word NIMBY, but...............!
Isn't it time to move on to a new debate? BREXT, anyone?

Wed 26 Sep 2018, 18:14

The latest draft local plan appears to be issued with tracked changes. Chapter 9.6.31 table 9.5 page 312 has this development in strike through font (as has Jefferson Piece and many others). Last time I used MS word tracked changes strike through meant the person editing the document had deleted the text. So it appears that this development has been removed from the local plan. I could of course be wrong...

Wed 26 Sep 2018, 13:27

Sorry if I'm unclear. All I can suggest is that you read the relevant section of the Local Plan, 9.6.29a to 9.6.32. The key word is "anticipated". Rushy Bank might have been anticipated to have been part of the delivery of 774 dwellings, but nothing says that it needs to be. As I said below there are now around 844 commitments in the sub-area so Rushy Bank is certainly not essential to the soundness of the plan as our Planning Officer is trying to argue in his report.

Wed 26 Sep 2018, 11:24

Jim, I simply don't understand your post.

It was the Planning Inspector who blocked the Jefferson Piece development, & who also made it difficult (but not impossible) for new development to go ahead in the Charlbury/Burford area. I don't think this was at all what the officers wanted. And both the officers and also the Councillors also have had to adapt their views to the reality of the Inspector's veto - a veto that was made, moreover, on the premise that Rushy Bank development would go ahead.

It's all very well for you to argue in your earlier post that Phil Shaw is writing "rubbish" about what would be likely to happen if the 37 units of Rushy Bank are withdrawn from the total for this sub-area, as calculated by the Inspector. But the fact that you are opening up so many issues that the 2031 Plan was supposed to have closed down shows precisely the dangers ahead.

Wed 26 Sep 2018, 08:25 (last edited on Wed 26 Sep 2018, 08:35)

David and James, two views which show the compelling need for a planning system run, as it is designed to, on the basis of expert and balanced assessment by officers and contributing consultees and good non-political judgement by councillors.

While I obviously feel pretty strongly about the choice of location…

Long post - click to read full text

Tue 25 Sep 2018, 23:05

You're all missing the wider issues here: the type/variety/location of housing is of secondary importance if the town's infrastructure cannot accommodate them. Period. Schools, shops, traffic, etc, etc. all must be addressed before ANY additional houses are contemplated.

Tue 25 Sep 2018, 21:21

Tony Morgan describes the Rushy Bank planning application as apparently "the most divisive issue in Charlbury since the Spendlove". But it's not really divisive is it? I mean, Brexit is divisive. Failing to provide affordable homes for locals is potentially divisive.

The Rushy Bank planning application is supported by a number of people in favour of affordable housing being built in a hidden corner behind an industrial unit, and opposed vocally for various reasons by a number of other people, some of them members of The Friends of the Evenlode Valley. But no one has voted in a referendum on this, so we don't really know how welcome or unwelcome it is vs any other application, and it certainly isn't the talk of the town, i.e. divisive.

Tony Merry ?" in my opinion (and you did ask), way too many completely unaffordable homes have been and are being built. Bring on Rushy Bank! And why stop there: if as the government says homes "have to be built" there is a lovely field on the left up the Burford Road past the line of polars, right behind Rushy Bank. What a great place to build (affordable only) homes, much closer to the centre of town and the station than any of the developments littering (for example) Woodstock Rd, and more conducive to a walkable town. Charlbury is lopsided to the north and east. Some rebalancing to the south would make it a more rounded place (in more than one sense).

Tue 25 Sep 2018, 21:12 (last edited on Tue 25 Sep 2018, 21:14)

It won't surprise you that I think this argument Phil Shaw is making is nonsense. The Rushy Bank site is not an approved allocation in the Local Plan. Had it been put forward as one it would have been removed like the ones in Burford, Stonesfield and at Jefferson Piece. There is an allocation in the Local Plan of 774 houses to the Burford Charlbury sub-area derived from the number of approvals from 2011 to 1 April 2017 which was in the Local Plan which the inspector was handed to approve. By my calculation since 1 April 2017 that number has risen to about 844. So even without Rushy Bank's 37, the sub area is already delivering more than its allocation for the whole plan period 2011-31. So how would a refusal of this application undermine the soundness of the Local Plan?

Tue 25 Sep 2018, 21:10 (last edited on Tue 25 Sep 2018, 21:13)

I decided some time ago not to continue posting on the forum about this application partly because I doubt anyone is going to change their views about it, partly because its readers (with all due respect etc) are not the people who will make the decision - and not least because I'd need several pages to do it justice!

What I will say is that by referring it to the Committee again (because of changes in the considerations relevant to it), the officers have indeed 're-opened the debate' even though they have chosen not to opt for formal public consultation. So if on reading the new report, you think there is more to be said on it, I'd urge you to write to WODC, whether for or against, in the limited time available before the Committee meeting.

Tue 25 Sep 2018, 17:18

I read Phil Shaw's report in much the same way as did Hans Erikkson -- at least, if I understand correctly what Hans wrote.

What Shaw points out is that if Rushy Bank does not go ahead, the Charlbury and Burford area will be 37 units short of the housing development total allowed by the Inspector. And if the Rushy Bank numbers are withdrawn from the total, then developers will be able to open speculative bids for other areas in Charlbury, Burford and the surrounding countryside. And, indeed, that is what I understood from the time that the Inspector withdrew various other local sites in Charlbury from being zoned for development.

I don't envy anyone trying to decide how to represent local interests on this issue, since it's not one that can be considered in isolation. It was from the start a divisive issue, and is probably even more so now that the 2031 plan is agreed.

Tue 25 Sep 2018, 16:11

Jim, it seems Phil Shaw is of the view this development is part of the local plan. That's how I interpret his paragraph 3.3. It'll be interesting to see how this all pans out!

Tue 25 Sep 2018, 14:14

Phil, appreciative as I am of your experienced assessment of Phil Shaw's paper, I'm more persuaded by the views of a former planning inspector who told me he has never seen such a manipulation of both the facts and a Council's own policies in order to try to seek an approval.

If you want to get up to speed with a debate that has unfortunately not finished after more than 3 years, have a read of the Local Plan which is almost certainly going to be adopted on Thursday to give it statutory status. Don't miss 5.34aii which says:

"Within the Cotswolds AONB, windfall housing proposals on undeveloped land adjoining built up areas will be particularly closely scrutinised and will only be supported where there is convincing evidence of a specific local housing need such as needs identified through a neighbourhood plan or affordable housing needs specific to a particular settlement, for example through a rural exception site."

Hopefully you can then explain how Affordable Housing which will be allocated to meet district wide need and a care facility intended to meet a county wide need fit in with this new policy. A policy which, incidentally, the Planning Inspectorate imposed because WODC was seeking to consent development in the AONB to meet district wide need. Presumably the answers are in Phil Shaw's report. It's a mute point of course because neither has Phil Shaw ever explained how, in policy terms, this site adjoins the built-up area in the first place when the Local Plan (9.6.21 when you get there) says the built up area and its immediate setting is within the Conservation Area i.e. this side of the river.

Not quite sure what you're saying about lobby groups / bodies of opinion. That their views should be discounted? That would be an interesting democracy.

Tue 25 Sep 2018, 10:05 (last edited on Tue 25 Sep 2018, 10:06)

A perfectly acceptable answer to my conflict question would be
'At all meetings at which the council's approach to Rushy Bank was discussed any councillor with a conflict of interest absented themselves from the discussion'
This is my experience of how this type of situations is managed
However as my aim is not to cause offence but to clarify the actual situation re Rushy Bank I will omit this point from any further list of questions that might be appropriate as matters progress

Tue 25 Sep 2018, 09:37

Liz I have never accused any group or individuals of having a conflict of interest I have consistently asked a number of questions which the developers and supporters have failed to answer If this divisive development does proceed against the majority views then I think it's important that there are no further surprises

Tue 25 Sep 2018, 09:20 (last edited on Tue 25 Sep 2018, 09:24)

Tony Morgan, please would you explain why you are raising the question of "conflicts of interest" on the part of town and district councillors? Are you insinuating that there is something that we are hiding? If so I would appreciate you telling us precisely what you think that is, so that we can explain or defend ourselves against this rather unpleasant slur.

Mon 24 Sep 2018, 17:46

Ruth the type of people you describe would be considered to have a local connection. However under the way West Oxfordshire allocates social housing unless they were in very great need (the gold level on Homeseeker Plus) we were told at a meeting last week they would be extremely unlikely to be considered

I am just pointing out the when they talk about affordable (social) housing they mean for the whole of West Oxfordshire unless there is a special condition in place.
This is something we aim to address in the neighbourhood plan

Mon 24 Sep 2018, 17:16

Phil as I explained previously I was merely asking if everyone involved has declared any conflict of interest, a normal way to conducting business.
I have always made it clear I am a member of The Friends of the West Oxfordshire Cotswolds and why.
I was not reopening the debate I was responding to Tony Merry's request for views & indicating that I feel there are many unanswered questions
If my questions have been answered maybe you could post a summary as you have done the research

Mon 24 Sep 2018, 16:31 (last edited on Mon 24 Sep 2018, 16:33)

Oops, here we go again! Tony M, the published papers are not an invitation to re-open the debate. That is done and dusted.
I took 20 minutes to fully absorb Phil Shaw's assessment of the current position and I think he has been very even-handed. Some of the old objections that you raise have been answered.
When you mention the matter of "conflicts of interest", just who are you referring to?
Is being a member of a registered lobby group not also a conflict of interest?

Mon 24 Sep 2018, 16:14

Then it will be interesting to see the answer to Tony Merry's concern about whether those with Charlbury connections will be given preference. Also the answer to my question about the 'nature'of this 'affordable' housing.

Mon 24 Sep 2018, 15:28

Tony Morgan - Perhaps the reason some support comments are from 'non Charlbury residents' is because they couldn't afford to buy a house in Charlbury? Precisely one of the main reasons this development should go ahead. Just because they currently don't live in in the town does not mean that they didn't grow up here, or have strong links with the community.

Mon 24 Sep 2018, 13:00

Tony I don't know how you're going to represent what appears to be the most divisive issue in Charlbury since the Spendlove money filled the coffers of Beechcroft & Hartwells 20 years ago
As you pointed out some time ago there was a majority of opposition posts against support comments on the WODC planning site and a significant majority if you exclude non charlbury residents from the support comments, so in the interests of democracy town & district councillors should oppose the development
However some Town & District councillors have supported the application but declined to answer direct questions about
Implication for future development outside the town
Registration of any conflicts of interest
Nature of 'affordable housing' and allocation process
WODC's apparent unwillingness to defend their position re development in an ANOB
Young Dementia Centre or Cottsway Housing
Identical support comments on pre printed cards

Good luck with your representation!!

Mon 24 Sep 2018, 07:53

OK try this
drive.google.com/file/d/0B67OfH41hZf_bmRVOEFadEZwOTNuSzRTN0trVW5DRzVYWDJZ/view

Mon 24 Sep 2018, 00:40

Tony the link doesn't work

Sun 23 Sep 2018, 18:29

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 the Uplands Planning Committee 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
I am also concerned that West Oxfordshire have confirmed that on such sites affordable housing would be offered across the whole District with no preference for applicants with a connection to Charlbury. As we know there are a number of such applicants and the neighbourhood plan will say that there should be conditions to allow those with Charlbury connections to be given preference and also to limit the resale of such properties to similar conditions. It is not clear whether this revised application will have similar conditions attached to it.

As the parish council representative on the Cotswolds Conservation Board I would be interested to know peoples' views on this matter