At the Culham Fete last Saturday, the Save Culham Green Belt group had a stall.
South Oxfordshire District Council are looking where to put some more houses in their local plan, and are considering the new option of putting 3,500 on the Green Belt near Culham. It might even finance a bridge over the River Thames.
The red areas on their map shows areas of new housing. If the scheme did make it into the local plan then the development would dwarf those in North Abingdon. They told me that 3500 houses would mean 8,000 to 10,000 people and 2000+ cars. The Culham population was 453 in the 2011 Census.
The green circle bottom left is a small part of the new reservoir being proposed again. Thames Water did a presentation on the reservoir proposal at Trinity Church two weeks ago. Not a lot of people knew that or they would have gone. I was told there were as many people doing the presentation as in the audience.
They really won’t stop until they’ve messed up the whole area and spoiled a nice part of England.
That’s quite grim isn’t it? Sadly Abingdon is not the only place this is happening. In my travels every village and town seems to have lost it’s surrounds to housing.
All the major political parties seem committed to vastly increasing housing stock, to turning the whole of England’s once green and pleasant land into one vast, faceless and globalised housing estate. We live in desperate times.
We have had promises of infrastructure before and nothing has come of it. The bridge over the Thames was promised years ago. This is the ploy now. Planning permission is given on the dubious promise of infrastructure. The developments are built and guese what? The promised infrastructure does not materialise. We have only to see the promised diamond interchange at North Abingdon. The houses will be built and no interchange will materialise. Abingdon is very limp wristed when it comes to standing up for infrastructure before development. Make the most of the green belt because it will all disappear.
“They told me that 3500 houses would mean 8,000 to 10,000 people and 2000+ cars”
Who are “they”? 3500 houses would be nearer 7000 cars. How many families have 1 car or less these days?
“It might even finance a bridge over the River Thames”
Might? It HAS to. Without this the whole area will be gridlocked, as if it isn’t bad enough already.
I know we need houses, but these need to be thought through properly, and not just thrown in based on putting a finger in the air and guessing numbers.
Not the least of the difficulties here is that Culham has 9at least) two conflicting factors.
1. It is a delightful and unspoilt village. So: don’t build
2. It is the site of the Joint European Torus research centre – a place of international scientific significance which post-Brexit is going to need major support in attracting and retaining muclear fusion physicists of the very highest calibre. So: build.
If you choose option 1 (it is suggested), you may have serious recruitment problems.
If you choose option 2, then you might as well include any development within the additional need for more housing.
You’re damned if you do; you’re damned if you don’t….
…my understanding is that Brexit will result in 750,000 people leaving the UK across the South East. So…who are all these houses for anyway?
Daniel – that reminds me of the old Sun headline: ‘If Kinnock wins today will the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights.’
Disaster is frequently predicted and equally frequently survived. Of course, some disasters don’t happen.
If 750,000 leave the region, house prices will drop – and we could move to Culham…..
Have a good day!
Culham has a raiway station next to the JET research centre, and so the physicists could travel to work by train. It would be acceptable to use the remainder of the aerodrome site on the east side of the railway line for housing development.
This is also true. Any day now the bottom is going to fall out of the housing market, so that will end that crises. Except we’ll all be poor…so we’ll be stuffed again.
Daniel – you are beginning to do a very good impression of John Harvey-Jones’s definition of a politician.
A politician is someone who, when he [sic] sees a light at the end of the tunnel, goes out and orders some more tunnel.
Very entertaining on the blog. Hugely frustrating in the outside world. But I do enjoy your comments – and the flowers.
Thank you ppjs; this, along with “Daniel, why don’t you shut-up you boring turd”, will go on my list of ‘favourite replies’.
Most of the younger generation (Myself being included in this) welcome the housing stock with open arms. Maybe when all these houses are built, we might be able to afford a house without having to save for a stupid amount of time, or waiting for one of our own older generation to die so that we inherit.. it’s a joke. You all sit here and moan about traffic, and losing the greenbelt… Yet do nothing in the real world to appease your troubles.. I mean I don’t even live in Abingdon anymore and I knew of this meeting. I suggest maybe people get out and about more!
Ciao
Oh to be young and free and able to get out more…i remember being mortgage free too…
Unknownelement, ya just don’t get it do you? Building more 3 & 4 bed detached houses (which is predominantly is what the developments consist of) will do nothing to improve the younger generations chance of buying a house and as one commentator said today on the radio this generation is spending the next generations money and livelihoods ?
Yes there will be a housing crash, negative equity and all of that will be upon us and bring ruin and heartache to many, but it still won’t help you get on the housing ladder.
Mind you, when you think of it you may well be better off not on it? You bust your gut and save for a deposit, ride a roller coaster of a mortgage that you may pay off at 70 only to find the property you worked your nuts off for all your working life in the hope of leaving your kids an inheritance is snatched away by social services to pay for you care in old age!
Rent, they can’t take it away from you and you won’t have the responsibility! Happy days !!
CK2, what a patronising response to a heartfelt post from a concerned young person!
Surely ya get that the essence of the housing market is that people move through it as their needs and finances change? I’m also sure that ya understand that housing developers are not in the business of building houses no-one will buy?
One of the many problems that young people have in trying to get on to the housing ladder is that their property needs in terms of space and proximity to town centres and transport are much the same as those at the other end of the cycle who are downsizing and thus cash rich and able to pay inflated prices. In addition any site suitable for small scale developments of flats and apartments is snapped up for retirement property, sold at prices first time buyers might be able to afford but only available to those over 55.
The result is, our town centres become predominantly populated by the older generation who are not so interested in a vibrant evening economy leading to town centre decline, another recurring theme here. I know I often site Scandinavian countries as some sort of utopia but there are schemes there that jointly house the old and the young to the enormous benefit of both groups as well as the whole community.
Finally, I’m sure I’ve said this before but if people here genuinely believe that those who work on their behalf, both those elected and those not, are acting unlawfully and not in the best interest of those they represent, then crowd fund a judicial review and do something about it. Just moaning about it on here, fun though it is, changes nothing.
It’s a strange feeling… but I agree with Reductio’s point on Scandinavia and the housing market. Sadly for us, in my experience they appear to have a general social cohesion we lack that allows the old to not want to gate themselves off alone, and also allows a ‘sensible’ planning system that takes in a lot of factors. They also have some quite innovative ideas on how to house people, not relying solely on the same homogenous oldie compounds and the 2-4 bed units coming to field near everybody soon.
Reduction, you’ve just reiterated (without knowing) exactly my point! ”Tis the older (my generation) that are calling all the shots, when we down size and take our big chunk of equity out of our property not only are we affecting the affordablity of the cheaper properties but the equity we take gives us a chunk of disposable income, both examples highlight how this generation is spending the next generations livelyhood.
There is a massive imbalance between the older generations of today and what the younger generations can expect to achieve.
The country’s sick to death of austerity and it’s not because of interest rates and stuff like that it’s because this and the previous generations were busy giving themselves final salary pensions and 6 weeks holiday without a care in the world how it was going to be paid for!
30% of our council tax is spent on ex employees pensions, on that basis one could assume a currant wage bill of at least 40%, so that’s a whooping 70% of council tax gone on pensions & salary, no wonder the town is falling to bits, the councils skint because the previous generation cared not for the next
Also ( I’m on a roll now) I’ve just been talking with a recently retired vwhdc employee, not in a big job, just a fairly meanial role, he did 30 years and said with his council pension along with his oap pension he now takes home several hundred pounds a month more than when he was working! That’s unsustainable!
And another thing !! We’ve just walked into town from Wilsham road, the Margaret Brown garden is overrun with rats mostly because of the rich pickings of bread left over from well meaning duck feeders, but also because of the chap Robinson who drives a blue tractor and works for Christ Hospital who each lunch time deposits grain and bread for the pigeons! ( Ian you’re to do with CH, can you stop him?)
Sat outside at ASK the taxis are still running a mock there, not content with breaking all the paving and obstructing the path/fro kerb they now park 2 abreast completely blocking the road, Q1, where are the police and PCSO’s and Q2. Why isn’t the vales taxi licensing department more pro active in ensuring licence holders abide by their terms?
One more, just past the lebonese restaurant and there are people outside smoking those glass things through a tube, what’s all that about?
I’m not (I was) so no, plus I”m not even Ian
Scandinavians pay far higher taxes than we do in order to fund their infrastructure. Taxation is the money tree (which the Prime Minster seemed to forget during the election campaign).
Nobody likes paying tax, but without it no government has any money. If we choose low tax rates, then we choose low expenditure. Of course, this self-evident truth is frequently avoided when parties campaign for our vote.
Are councilors voted in by the electorate to represent the developers?
I really don’t understand why South Oxfordshire District Council are prepared to see hundreds/thousands of new homes built in places like Culham and Chalgrove, but will fight to the death to prevent new homes on the very edge of Oxford, south of Grenoble Road.
Is culham the right site to build houses? They are for oxfords unmet housing stock – will people who want to live in Oxford want to live in culham? It would be better to develop Grenoble road? Then they can bike, walk, use buses to commute / travel. The arguments that there is 1 power line at Grenoble road (there are 2 lines at culham)
Does Abingdon want a New Town, the size of Wallingford, so close to Abingdon, between 2 villages? Would it not be better to grow every village, town and city accordingly to our growing population?
I oppose building in the Green Belt and to more traffic in the area that is already at its maximum capacity. It makes more sense to grow cities, not the countryside in protected areas. This is part of the Didcot Garden Town project, Culham and nearby areas should not be part of this scheme
I don’t agree with building in the Green Belt and to more traffic in the area that is already at its maximum capacity. It makes more sense to grow cities, not the countryside in protected areas. This is part of the Didcot Garden Town project, Culham and nearby areas should not be part of this scheme
As Toby P says everyone should be aware that the newly released ‘Didcot Garden Town Proposed Delivery Plan’ (closing date for objections 31 July) is not just about Didcot. It includes 500 houses on Culham No 1 site and ‘potential opportunity to increase the number of homes at this site to be explored further through SODC’s emerging Local Plan’ (i.e. the 3500!). This is underhand. In Culham our postal town is ABINGDON, not DIdcot. We do not want to be part of Didcot Garden Town.
Culham is clearly not the right place to locate a town of 8-10,000 people. Straddling the parishes of Clifton Hampden and Culham it will create a ribbon development which is exactly why Green Belt was set up initially. Join our campaign at: http://www.saveculhamgreenbelt.org