Ancient woodland under threat

Tue 9 Nov 2021, 10:11

Ok, folks, that’s getting a bit personal now. The Debate board is that way ——>

Tue 9 Nov 2021, 09:43

I refer to me earlier contribution. I was finding the earlier information useful now I am not.

Tue 9 Nov 2021, 09:05 (last edited on Thu 18 Nov 2021, 07:48)

Thanks for the advice Phil and sure you won't expect me to take it.  [ ]

Sorry I didn't know that all planning involved taking out woodlands and I must have misunderstood condition 12 to this approval:

12. A scheme of hard and soft landscaping of the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before above ground development commences. The scheme shall include the retention of any existing trees and shrubs and planting of additional trees and shrubs.

But of course that just applies to the site, it doesn't mean you can't rip out an entire woodland next door, which happens to be a highly protected habitat, because the trees are a bit too tall and close.

[Edited with apologies for being drawn on this obvious bait, and so that important information about these developments can continue to be shared with people in the town]

Mon 8 Nov 2021, 17:25

Jim, it's time for this to go into the Debate page. You are losing the argument. The approval of Rushy Bank was the result of very lengthy consideration by all parties. As Liz points out, tree felling is necessary in any development. Get over yourself. 

Mon 8 Nov 2021, 12:36

Tony, apologies, I was only leg pulling about the solar plantation.  Of course poplar plantations get felled but identified ancient woodlands have to be protected from development and this is development driven felling and will be replanted with an eye to that development.

Mon 8 Nov 2021, 11:17 (last edited on Mon 8 Nov 2021, 11:18)

Harriet has more recent experience of the Boundary Walk route than I do, but if I am correct about the poplars she refers to, it was not possible for them to have any shading effect on the solar panels, being on the other side of the railway embankment. It is therefore quite wrong to imply any ulterior motive on that score by South Hill Solar (or anyone else) who were very thorough in their assessment of the impact on the surrounding area. 

If another precedent is needed regarding removal of Poplars planted as a crop: I am sure many others will remember the grove of trees which stood beside the river just downstream of the North Lodge Drive until felled some 10 years or more ago also generating a vociferous protest. Plus ca change. .  .

Mon 8 Nov 2021, 09:06

So there is a direct linkage between the felling and the development, never disclosed in the planning process.

Mon 8 Nov 2021, 08:21

They are doing this ahead of the development starting because to do so afterwards would have health and safety implications.  And please note - they are replanting the site with native species.

Sun 7 Nov 2021, 22:22

Well Harriet that might be an interesting precedent even though it's not a protected ancient woodland habitat, occurring just as the solar farm was developed.  I don't know the exact site but were the trees so close that they might have been shading the solar panels?!

Sun 7 Nov 2021, 21:32 (last edited on Sun 7 Nov 2021, 21:32)

Jim cornbury have already felled an area of poplars in exactly the same way, so you can't assume they're doing this because of the development. It'd only have been noticeable to people on the boundary walk as it's within the estate, and it was done about 5 years ago near the Fawler river bridge just across the river from where the solar farm is now. So there's a precedent within the estate for clearing that type of tree that way.

Sun 7 Nov 2021, 19:07 (last edited on Sun 7 Nov 2021, 19:53)

Liz, thank you for passing on the Cornbury view which I have also been sent.

You have said it is not the ancient woodland being felled.  Are you sure?  I understand there are felling markings on trees all over the woodland, in both the ancient woodland and non-designated sections.  If…

Long post - click to read full text

Sun 7 Nov 2021, 13:59

Thank you Liz.  The voice of reason.

Sun 7 Nov 2021, 10:45 (last edited on Sun 7 Nov 2021, 14:04)

I feel it is necessary to draw a line under this debate as it is founded on false information.

The trees that are being felled are not part of the ancient woodland, nor are they being felled by the Rushy Bank developer.

I have found out what is happening and confirmed it with Cornbury who own the land and these are the facts:

1. The trees are poplars that were planted relatively recently as a crop  designed to be felled and turned into matchsticks.  This didn't happen and the trees have reached the end of their life so they are being taken down by Nicholson's who are employed by the Cornbury Estate

2. The work has been approved by the Forestry Commission

3.  The area will be replanted with native species.

This information has been given to me by Paul Allen who manages the estate.

I hope that this will set everyone's minds at rest.  Of course we need to protect ancient woodland but woods also need to be managed and this sometimes means that trees need to be felled and replaced which is what is happening here.

Sat 6 Nov 2021, 15:20

I had completely lost sight of the Rushy Bank development - when was it first put on view in the Corner House - 6/7 years ago? this thread has brought me back up to date. Thank you to the contributors on this thread. Let it not degenerate into exchanges which would cause it to fall into the debate section.

Sat 6 Nov 2021, 12:17

To pick up on Helen & Clive’s posts, the arguments in the planning case were never about whether the dwellings would be ‘close to net zero’ but whether Rushy Bank was the right place to build them (along with the care home).  This is now a bit like Brexit however – at least in the sense that the main decision has been made and is final.  I for one have no wish to see old wounds reopened over it (though we’ll probably come back to Brexit in ooh, 20 years??!). 

That equally doesn’t mean that damage should be caused to an area of ancient woodland where (at a guess) that might be avoided either by greater protective measures and/or changes in the site layout.  It comes as no surprise to me that WODC officers aren’t interested but it might help finally to heal those wounds – if still sore - if the new developers were more public about their actions and intentions, especially if as Christine says, they hold themselves out as being ‘socially responsible’. 

Sorry also (for once!) not to agree with Christine but in locational and planning policy terms, Charlbury is not comparable with Witney or Chipping Norton.  There may be a discussion to be had there but not the time or place!

Sat 6 Nov 2021, 11:13 (last edited on Sat 6 Nov 2021, 11:18)

As far as I can see the particular planning issues relating to trees raised in the most recent Rushy Bank planning application 21/03266/CND have yet to be decided.

Jim Clemence of the Friends of the West Oxfordshire Cotswolds put in 3 separate objections: the last dated only a couple of days ago. Much of what was put forward as an objection is similar to what he stated on 30 October in this thread. What remains disputed is primarily about a 10 metre or 15 metre buffer zone between the development and the ancient woodland area. CPRE has also put in some objections about trees and also other matters.

Charlbury has been lucky in the sense that very little development has been allowed under Oxfordshire's 2033 development plan -- how we will fare under Oxfordshire's 2050 plan remains to be seen. 

The Rushy Bank development includes a dementia facility (12 bed), 25 for self-build/ custom build for locals, market housing and social housing. As such, it is not simply for the developer's gain as some of those who have not looked at the plans seem to suppose. And HarperCrewe also promotes itself as a socially responsible developer. Really, we could have done much, much worse -- think the huge amount of housing planned for Chipping Norton or Witney.

I think there are a number of other things that we will still need to keep an eye on with regard to these revised plans, including whether or not a play area is included in the development. I simply could not work out from the plans whether or not this recommendation from Charlbury Town Council had been taken into account. Perhaps others know. 

I am not, by the way, linked to Charlbury's Beacon Co-housing Project which is the grouping of locals who are linked to the self-build/custom-build aspects of the development. 

Fri 5 Nov 2021, 21:39

Any plan that approves the destruction of ancient woodland is a travesty.

Fri 5 Nov 2021, 19:03

Clive, Helen, I understand both your sentiments, but presumably building low energy homes without felling an ancient woodland is possible too.  If West Oxfordshire had followed its policies it would have required a 15m new woodland buffer for development next to an ancient woodland, but they did not, and knowing this mistake they were not prepared to attempt to revisit.  Planting that woodland would have been a positive contribution but for the sake of that 15m the whole woodland has to be tamed.  Just for that reason alone (not the many others previously debated) I'm not sure about the "due" process.

Fri 5 Nov 2021, 18:15

Completely agree with those sentiments Helen.

Fri 5 Nov 2021, 15:50 (last edited on Fri 5 Nov 2021, 16:18)

This was a planning proposal that divided opinion in Charlbury - to say the least. It has, now finally been granted permission after due process. I am going to stick my head above the parapet - and risk getting shot at. We have hoped to build a house for our retirement that will suit our future needs and be as close to net zero as possible. It is possible  that we might get a chance to do this and be able to stay in Charlbury at Rushy Bank. 

We would not be heating our home with a gas boiler as we do at the moment. By some calculations you would need to plant over 100 trees per year to offset one year of heating with a gas boiler. We have to start doing something about our inefficient homes. I am sorry that some people are so negative about this innovative planning proposal. Take the longer and more balanced view of the environment…

Fri 5 Nov 2021, 11:59

The head of the planning department isn't a Mr. Bolsonaro by any chance?

Fri 5 Nov 2021, 11:03

How very sad to see. Destruction of our natural habitat for developer's gain.

Fri 5 Nov 2021, 08:34 (last edited on Fri 5 Nov 2021, 08:59)

And so yesterday the chainsaws started domesticating the Rushy Bank woodland for its prospective neighbours.  What a great day for Charlbury and West Oxfordshire's sustainable development.  About 12 trees down on day one I am told. Many more to follow no doubt.

Sat 30 Oct 2021, 08:39

A few years ago Charlbury didn’t have any identified ancient woodland.  As luck wouldn’t have it the parish's only piece of known ancient woodland habitat appears as if it is going to have a 37 dwelling housing estate butted up against it and it will be selectively felled to facilitate…

Long post - click to read full text