Cornbury

Fri 11 Jul 2008, 21:03

I’d like to begin this post by saying in the clearest possible terms that I am not having a go at the Cricket Club, at Paul Jenkins, at T-Mobile, or at the Riverside Festival which has now got its act together very nicely, for two years in a row. I do have some serious concerns and I don’t want to let any flak from anyone who has sensitivities in any of those areas to detract from or to interfere with what I have to say.

It’s fairly clear from the postings on the subject of Cornbury that quite a few people have been at least irritated by the noise. I’m also fairly sure that there are people who ether don’t have access to the Forum, or who are intimidated by the (sometimes) ferocity of posters’ reactions haven’t made their views known.

I also feel that the parameters within which Environmental Health have to work are less than perfect. Obviously, they monitor noise levels on site, though it’s hard to understand how noise levels that would probably not be tolerated under workplace legislation can be acceptable in the name of entertainment. One flaw is that they don’t measure sound levels where the noise is going – I think that they measure from the nearest residential property, and that doesn’t account for the very peculiar acoustic properties of the river valley. The second flaw is that the real nuisance is the bass thump, which may not be major in terms of decibel levels, but it carries. That was the problem with the after-hours music – it was the irregular bass that kept one awake. (That went on until 2.00a.m., by the way). Furthermore, I completely agree with Chrissie’s point – Environmental Health can’t achieve a healthy balance between the interests of the Festival and the interests of local residents unless people tell them what’s going on – and, yes, that does mean picking up the telephone.

Hugh Phillimore has shown that he can run this Festival in a non-contentious way. In 2006, it was no problem at all. It was tolerable in 2007, until the last 30 minutes of the Sunday, when someone turned up all the amps to maximum volume. It’s only this year that it’s been a problem, and that was nothing to do with wind direction – my guess is that it was to do with the fourth stage and the orientation of the speakers.

Now, to the real point. On page 18 of today’s ‘Oxford Times’ there is an article headlined ‘Cornbury is here to stay’. I’d really like Hugh Phillimore to respond to what I have to say. I accept that he has made a number of token financial gestures to good causes in Charlbury, and I don’t for a moment suggest that they have been anything other than beneficial to the recipients. That has obviously been effective and relatively inexpensive PR. Hugh Phillimore is an astute businessman. He asserts that he is continuing to lose money. No good businessman does that unless he can see a long-term payoff.

In the article, he uses some very interesting language. For example: ‘Cornbury is a very successful brand’. ‘My job is to pick the people who are going to respect the Cornbury brand and not mess with it’. This is pure business-speak, and it doesn’t sit well with the image Hugh Phillimore has so far managed to project in the weekend broadsheet media – ‘Poshstock’ says it all.

‘We have eight offers of partnership…’ Obviously, we can’t enquire about who these partners might be, but we can speculate – and we can assume that any prospective partner will be looking to maximise profit, with the interests of Charlbury residents as a minor consideration. Will we have more than one Festival every year?

I’m definitely looking to the Town Council to take a position here – I’m not talking about Glenna’s denial that they have taken inducements from Hugh Phillimore, which is an allegation that I just cannot believe. I want to know that they have thought this through, thoroughly, and that they are going to look after the ordinary Charlbury person who is bothered by the Festival.

They might like to take a Green position. According to the Guardian, a middle-sized Festival – 40.000 attendees – generates 200 tons (tonnes?) of CO2. That’s going to take a lot of low-energy light bulbs to bring into balance.

To sum it up – I think there’s a real possibility that Charlbury has been, and will continue to be, with increasing intensity, royally exploited for personal and, possibly, corporate gain, and that it’s time it woke up.