Rushy Bank-The Facts

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 how many have direct views of the site but no-one lives adjacent to it.

Southill Solar is a completely different kind of development in a different place with very different considerations applying to it. Personally, I support it.

The District Council rejected Rushy Bank in 2014 even for detailed assessment for development via the Local Plan process, because in their assessment, it is "too remote" from the town.
A majority of the Planning Committee made clear they considered it the wrong location when asked about it in June; some revisions have been made but the location remains the same.

Community benefits (financial payments) can flow from housing development wherever it is located (though may vary).

The old Local Plan (to 2011) is out of date. The new one is not yet adopted (meaning it is not definitive to this decision). It currently sets a housing target for the period 2011-2031 of 800 dwellings for a large area encompassing Burford, Charlbury and several villages. Over 300 have already been provided or have permission (source: WODC) - so 3/8+ of the area target already achieved in less than 1/4 of the 20 year period. 450 or so to go over the next 15 years, not in Charlbury alone but across the whole area - even I can do the maths.

Since February of this year, the Council have said they can now meet their '5 year housing land supply' requirement - but that is indeed an issue that will be examined shortly (as will the overall targets).

Where there is no definitive development plan against which to assess an application, national guidance says permission should be granted for 'sustainable development', but with provisos. Whether the Rushy Bank proposals are 'sustainable' is a matter for debate, not fact (see eg Highways Dept's response last time). But even if they are, one of the provisos is that the presumption there would otherwise be in favour of them does not apply in AONBs (National Planning Policy Framework para 14 & footnote).

There are many other planning policies and considerations to be taken into account - including the need for balanced communities, but also the need to conserve and enhance the AONB, to which "great weight" should be attached (NPPF para 115).

With no prospect of development (as of now) the value of Rushy Bank is as agricultural land. So it is misleading to say it is offered at less than market value. It would only have a higher value if deemed suitable for development. Which it never has been. Well, not since the Medieval village buried underneath part of it was deserted.

Every planning application has to be considered on its merits. But those merits can be changed by what's gone before. So in my experience (in 20+ years in planning), commercial developers invariably insist their proposal won't set a precedent for another one on the land next door - but in some way pray in aid the one(s) granted before theirs. As Rushy Bank do with Southill Solar and Walcot Top Barn. Wedge, thin, end of. OK, sorry, that's not a fact. Yet.

Finally, if not quite so incontrovertibly, I expect the vast majority of us, myself included, fully respect the aims and objectives of both YDUK and the Beacon Project - and understand the affordability issue. But being a 'worthy cause' with limited resources doesn't give an automatic entitlement to build in an unsuitable location. And of course, it's the fact that the site has been found to be unsuitable that makes it affordable. At the risk of stirring the pot, would any of us be here otherwise?