Yours truly ventured into the lower Town Hall yesterday to see the housing proposals, also there was the Mayor Mike Tysoe and Town Councillor Mark Walker along with members of the public showing an interest, expecting those taking part to take-in, make notes or register any concerns people might have, no chance! The whole excercise was to bat away any objections without admitting the whole purpose was to get their own views over irrespective what people thought. The purpose of the proposed 1450 homes was to build houses, they had squeezed in what they can in Witney and Carterton the two areas of business and commerce in West Oxfordshire with the rest where they can. Clearly from the diagrams and presentation there was no consideration given to the development of the town during the same period NO infastructure included necessary for successful growth, NO roads, NO employment areas, NO additional shops for a population increase, NO additional schooling, NOTHING! When pressed this detail was addressed by saying it had been addressed in the report (somewhere) Mike Tysoe found the paragraph which basically said yes to infrastructure if and when it was needed, clearley not important meaning just that it would get done if needed hardly decisive in the future growth of the town. One of the question was asked about the houses and who would get them meaning local people first, local people would get first choice, yes? not necessary so! EU (yes them again) says the needy must come first whatever nationallity) Quite simply the whole intention is to dump more homes on Chippy solely to meet the governments housing targets nothing more.

There was a "consultation " in Kingham earlier in the year & the agent acting for the developer even handed out questionnaire forms for the public to raise any concerns. As the proposed entrance to the site is at the exact point where the road floods every time there is heavy rain, I asked what provision has been made for drainage. Despite several e-mails, they have declined to answer - so much for consultation

Many years back when some bright spark decided to alter top side with additional paved and paved areas there was a 'consultation in the town hall, I spoke to one of the 'representatives' saying about the Mop Fair and traffic flow meaning there would be traffic travelling the wrong way down a one way street at the northern end, she said ' no one told us about that' another case of being economical with the truth or uninformed and treating us like mushrooms.

Regarding the curren housing developments in Chipping Norton, like many others, one of my concerns, particularly with the developments in Cornish Road, is/has been, the lack of parking space and/or garages. At the moment, particularly during evenings & weeknds, there are no parking places available in large parts of the estate, so, unless adequate provision is being included in the new developments, there will be increased pressure on the limited spaces available.
That having been said, there is obviously a demand for more housing due to increased population. A comment on a radio programme last weekend (which was to do with the price of petrol at 33p a Gallon in 1971 compared to about £5.94 now)led me to think about house prices & rents in relation to inflation. Over that time, based on the above figures, petrol is about 18 times the price, average wages have maybe risen by about the same amount, whilst house prices are perhaps 50 times greater than in 1971, meaning that, in real terms, a house costs almost 3 times as much as 40 years ago. I read somewhere that houses now are about ten times earnings, meaning that many people can't afford to buy. Surely supply & demand is the main factor here, and the only way to address the problem is to build more homes, both for sale and rental, and space has to be found for them somewhere.

You are quite right mikegee houses has to be built for a growing population but at what cost? So far most people I have spoken to does not disagree with more housing however the exhibition showed a clear lack of infrastructure necessary to support such a huge increase in population.

Another concern is the proposed 500 new homes east of the town, clearly from my time as town concillor the planning applications are not what they are meant to be, take for example the new flats in West End/ Churchill rd, one house was demolitished to be replaced by four semi's, once pp was obtained a new application for flats was made and eventually 13 flats was built, not necessarily wrong but a three fold increase, I fear the '500' east of the town will eventually be 550 or 600.

As for your/my neck of the wood's the proposed development behind Cots Cres and Walterbush rd showns one entry/ exit off the Burford rd with another exiting where the football club is. It does not take a great deal of thinking that those residents near that junction will chose the short way into town along Walterbush rd rather drive through the estate onto Burford rd, certainly with a resurfaced Walterbush rd it would be a better option, what a price to pay?

Their plan also showed the land beyond Cornish rd areas concidered for more housing development.

Speaking to Mark Walker I made the point that a possible 2000 more jobs need to be found locally, on the basis PK employed around 500 this means an area 4 times the size of PK needs to be found yet nothing has been earmarked or thought of.

I can never understand why all the development has to take place in the Town, very little takes place in the villages - could it be the wealthy that live there have all the right connections to "protect" their investments from incomers. I am sure if supply and demand was the sole concern then the villages would have to take a more equal share.

I see earlier that Kingham (or Banford Town) was mentioned , the population of Kingham is around 1,000 and the population of Chippy is around 6,000 so in proportion Kingham should have 1/6 the number of new houses as Chippy ie
233.

So shall we start a campaign "Fair Housing For All - 233 new homes for Kingham"

The main reason for the development is these areas proposed along with the nursing home/s, hospital, doctors surgery in the London rd/ East of the town is because the land is owned by OCC themselves, even though they still have to apply for planning it is a formality, I know not of any council turn themselves down. Asking the public for their views in such circumstances is a complete waste of everyone's time.

As for not building in the villages, strangely the general public can take a share of the blame. It is they who shout about Green Belt and Areas of Outstanding Beauty and how it should remain untouched, who for? Certainly residents of Dean, Chadlington and Spelsbury benefited from the closure of the RC, I remember reading one paragraph supporting closure which basically said 'the reclamation site should be nearer the mass of people who use it most' meaning it should be nearer the peasants.

So while we all object to new-build, fracking, HS2, airport runways and the like on green belt land or greenfield sites then the only place left to develop is near us knocking down garages and buildings to squeeze more in.

we're well on the way already, with a new estate already built off of New Road, further new houses being planned on the gardens reclaimed by WODC from existing houses in New Road,a planning application in for 16 new houses, with access onto the narrowest point of Church Street ( already a rat run to the station), & the clandestine conversion of outbuildings at another property in Church St - I'm guessing none of them will be "affordable" to any of the endemic young people

its the "affordable" tag I find annoying, I have two sons, both paying £800 a month rent plus, but no one will give them a mortgage because they don't have a deposit, why? because they cannot save one because they are paying such high rents!

I think that as I said earlier more development should take place in the villages. Where I live down this end of Chippy I have to catch a bus into town as its too far to walk and the bus will also continue up to the new Doctors surgery. If I lived in Kingham or Churchill I could catch the same bus to get into town, so what's the difference none except that Churchill and Kingham would be a more peaceful place to live. Ed is right when he says that we are crammed in down here and its getting worse and rather than just talk about affordable houses there should be many more social houses flats and bungalows in the villages. I would like the option of living in a rented social property in a village and I am sure so would many others so why cant our representatives oppose vested interests and provide more houses in the villages for us "normal" people, the way things are going places like Kingham are becoming virtual gated communities for the privileged.

Problems is Chippy Senior the masses frequently cannot be bothered to turn out and make their views heard or felt, as a previous 'representative' it was dissapointing to see the support or lack of it at the annual parish meeting which usually amounted to little more than 20 members of the public out of the towns nearly 3000 elegable voters. Representatives need the public support and I have to say experience has shown it is wealthier incomers who turn out and make the most noise when objecting to chages to the lovely little town they have moved to.

That said since council's take little effort to provide houses for the masses instead pass laws ensuring developers do the work for them, the downside is these developers then have to make up any shortfall in profits by loading the cost onto the other properties.

Don't think so Chippy Senior - I grew up in Hailey Avenue & proud of it. Just worked hard from the age of 13(part-time) & full time from 17. Hardly privileged

Hailey resident, don't know if it helps your boys, but there is a 2 bed bungalow in Bledington for rent at £650 / month advertised in Kingham shop window. If they shared that, they could bank £500/ month each towards a deposit

thank you for the thought annas sister, but one of them is married with three children and the other one has a partner, it would be rather cosy