‘Village is at risk of losing its identity’

Herald Series: Harwell Parish Council chairman David Marsh Harwell Parish Council chairman David Marsh

MORE details have been unveiled for a long-awaited 2,550-home development on the edge of Didcot.

Developers behind Valley Park, near Harwell, will hold an exhibtion on its masterplan at Didcot Civic Hall next Tuesday.

The plan – mooted since 2009 – also includes three schools, a neighbourhood centre, shops, a community centre and sports pitches.

Yet there are concerns Harwell will lose its identity as work is underway on 3,300 homes at nearby Great Western Park, to be finished by 2026.

Harwell Parish Council chairman David Marsh said work on Valley Park should not start until work is completed at Great Western Park.

He said: “The parish is roughly about 1,000 homes, with 900 in the village itself, but if all the housing proposals are allowed to go ahead there will be 6,000 additional houses in and around the parish.

“We will lose our village status and become a quaint little suburb of Didcot. That will put more pressure on Didcot because people will then use its services.

“With 3,300 homes at Great Western Park, 2,500 at Valley Park, and another 2,000 north of Didcot (at North East Didcot estate) there is bound to be additional traffic coming through the village.

“I don’t think it makes sense to start building Valley Park until Great Western Park is finished.”

He added that he was hopeful that a Harwell link road, from the A4130 east of the Milton interchange to the A417, would eventually be built despite funding concerns.

Taylor Wimpey and Persimmon Homes aim to submit a planning application later this year for Valley Park after a public consultation. It is part of Conservative-run Vale of White Horse District Council’s local plan on where future estates will go.

A study ordered by the county council – the Strategic Housing Market Assessment – reported in March the Vale needs 20,500 new homes by 2031 rather than the 13,000 planned.

Planning agent RPS spokesman Nick Mannering said it is an “urban extension”, adding: “We are also looking to prepare a planning application over the coming weeks and months to submit to the council.

“The scheme we are consulting on includes two primary schools, a special needs school, a neighbourhood centre including shops, a community centre and multi-functional green spaces, artificial pitches, tennis courts and green corridors. We would like as many people as possible from Harwell parish, and the Didcot area, to attend the exhibition.”

Liberal Democrat group leader Richard Webber said he had “an awful lot of sympathy” with Harwell residents.

He said: “There is a big danger that Harwell will lose its village identity and that Harwell and Didcot become joined.

“New homes do need to be built to keep the lid on house price inflation but there still needs to be a grown-up conversation about how this should be done.”

Tuesday’s public exhibition will take place at the Britwell Road hall from 2pm to 8pm.

  • Our top stories:

Comments (21)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:08pm Wed 4 Jun 14

EMBOX2 says...

The same can be said for Appleford, Sutton Courtenay and Long Wittenham - all of whom are getting these houses dumped on them with not a thought for the impact on villagers.

The traffic on the A4130 and B roads is already horrendous - and another traffic light failure like yesterday at Clifton Hampden or Culham will snarl up most of S. Oxon.

Why don't planners think about this stuff? It is so bleeding obvious.
The same can be said for Appleford, Sutton Courtenay and Long Wittenham - all of whom are getting these houses dumped on them with not a thought for the impact on villagers. The traffic on the A4130 and B roads is already horrendous - and another traffic light failure like yesterday at Clifton Hampden or Culham will snarl up most of S. Oxon. Why don't planners think about this stuff? It is so bleeding obvious. EMBOX2
  • Score: 16

2:17pm Wed 4 Jun 14

yabbadabbadoo256 says...

yawn... these houses should have been built years ago but for the nimbies. With a better availability of SUPPLY to match the DEMAND we might actually see affordable houses.
yawn... these houses should have been built years ago but for the nimbies. With a better availability of SUPPLY to match the DEMAND we might actually see affordable houses. yabbadabbadoo256
  • Score: -12

2:51pm Wed 4 Jun 14

BML says...

In 2010 big Eric, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, announced what he called, the start of a ground breaking new era, the Localism Act. Decision-making powers would be devolved from central government and control would go to individuals and communities. New building, big Eric stated, will be approved with less control than before, local people will be given control over it. It will be a "triumph for democracy over bureaucracy” which would "fundamentally shake-up" the balance of power in England shifting power away from Whitehall to individuals, communities and councils. It will revitalise local democracy and put power back where it belongs - in the hands of the people."

I was impressed, but shame on me for being so stupid because since then for week after week one report followed another in the “Abingdon Herald” of yet another rural community having yet another housing estate imposed upon them with unfailing regularity.

So what has happened? Well, it’s quite simple. The Government has done what politicians do with such regularity, they have lied to us. On the one hand they gave us Localism and on the other hand they took it away by introducing changes to planning law that gave carte blanche to speculators to impose a housing development, however inappropriate and destructive it might be, onto one community after another.

Speculating developers grow rich by exploiting this new legislation and farmers whose families have lived in a village for generations, show their contempt for their neighbours’ by imposing housing developments that they know are neither needed or wanted.
In 2010 big Eric, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, announced what he called, the start of a ground breaking new era, the Localism Act. Decision-making powers would be devolved from central government and control would go to individuals and communities. New building, big Eric stated, will be approved with less control than before, local people will be given control over it. It will be a "triumph for democracy over bureaucracy” which would "fundamentally shake-up" the balance of power in England shifting power away from Whitehall to individuals, communities and councils. It will revitalise local democracy and put power back where it belongs - in the hands of the people." I was impressed, but shame on me for being so stupid because since then for week after week one report followed another in the “Abingdon Herald” of yet another rural community having yet another housing estate imposed upon them with unfailing regularity. So what has happened? Well, it’s quite simple. The Government has done what politicians do with such regularity, they have lied to us. On the one hand they gave us Localism and on the other hand they took it away by introducing changes to planning law that gave carte blanche to speculators to impose a housing development, however inappropriate and destructive it might be, onto one community after another. Speculating developers grow rich by exploiting this new legislation and farmers whose families have lived in a village for generations, show their contempt for their neighbours’ by imposing housing developments that they know are neither needed or wanted. BML
  • Score: 12

3:32pm Wed 4 Jun 14

yabbadabbadoo256 says...

BML wrote:
In 2010 big Eric, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, announced what he called, the start of a ground breaking new era, the Localism Act. Decision-making powers would be devolved from central government and control would go to individuals and communities. New building, big Eric stated, will be approved with less control than before, local people will be given control over it. It will be a "triumph for democracy over bureaucracy” which would "fundamentally shake-up" the balance of power in England shifting power away from Whitehall to individuals, communities and councils. It will revitalise local democracy and put power back where it belongs - in the hands of the people."

I was impressed, but shame on me for being so stupid because since then for week after week one report followed another in the “Abingdon Herald” of yet another rural community having yet another housing estate imposed upon them with unfailing regularity.

So what has happened? Well, it’s quite simple. The Government has done what politicians do with such regularity, they have lied to us. On the one hand they gave us Localism and on the other hand they took it away by introducing changes to planning law that gave carte blanche to speculators to impose a housing development, however inappropriate and destructive it might be, onto one community after another.

Speculating developers grow rich by exploiting this new legislation and farmers whose families have lived in a village for generations, show their contempt for their neighbours’ by imposing housing developments that they know are neither needed or wanted.
think you find the housing developments ARE needed and have to be built somewhere if we are to be able to find housing for our children.

Remember a lot of children live with their parents into their 30's because they cannot either find or afford a house to live in. With more housing, the SUPPLY will match the DEMAND for a change and lead to more affordable houses
[quote][p][bold]BML[/bold] wrote: In 2010 big Eric, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, announced what he called, the start of a ground breaking new era, the Localism Act. Decision-making powers would be devolved from central government and control would go to individuals and communities. New building, big Eric stated, will be approved with less control than before, local people will be given control over it. It will be a "triumph for democracy over bureaucracy” which would "fundamentally shake-up" the balance of power in England shifting power away from Whitehall to individuals, communities and councils. It will revitalise local democracy and put power back where it belongs - in the hands of the people." I was impressed, but shame on me for being so stupid because since then for week after week one report followed another in the “Abingdon Herald” of yet another rural community having yet another housing estate imposed upon them with unfailing regularity. So what has happened? Well, it’s quite simple. The Government has done what politicians do with such regularity, they have lied to us. On the one hand they gave us Localism and on the other hand they took it away by introducing changes to planning law that gave carte blanche to speculators to impose a housing development, however inappropriate and destructive it might be, onto one community after another. Speculating developers grow rich by exploiting this new legislation and farmers whose families have lived in a village for generations, show their contempt for their neighbours’ by imposing housing developments that they know are neither needed or wanted.[/p][/quote]think you find the housing developments ARE needed and have to be built somewhere if we are to be able to find housing for our children. Remember a lot of children live with their parents into their 30's because they cannot either find or afford a house to live in. With more housing, the SUPPLY will match the DEMAND for a change and lead to more affordable houses yabbadabbadoo256
  • Score: -11

6:39pm Wed 4 Jun 14

Feelingsmatter says...

yabbadabbadoo256 wrote:
yawn... these houses should have been built years ago but for the nimbies. With a better availability of SUPPLY to match the DEMAND we might actually see affordable houses.
Nothing to do with Nimbies and everything to do with people being entitled to enjoy the way of life they have worked hard to buy. Do you seriously believe that the supply and demand theory will lower house prices? Developers will charge as much as they can get and more people from out of the area will move in, not the locals who need the housing.

BML says: "Speculating developers grow rich by exploiting this new legislation and farmers whose families have lived in a village for generations, show their contempt for their neighbours’ by imposing housing developments that they know are neither needed or wanted." I completely agree with him. If you want to build new housing, build a new town, complete with the infrastructure needed to support it rather than cramming more people into an area with inadequate provision for schools and GPs as it is.
[quote][p][bold]yabbadabbadoo256[/bold] wrote: yawn... these houses should have been built years ago but for the nimbies. With a better availability of SUPPLY to match the DEMAND we might actually see affordable houses.[/p][/quote]Nothing to do with Nimbies and everything to do with people being entitled to enjoy the way of life they have worked hard to buy. Do you seriously believe that the supply and demand theory will lower house prices? Developers will charge as much as they can get and more people from out of the area will move in, not the locals who need the housing. BML says: "Speculating developers grow rich by exploiting this new legislation and farmers whose families have lived in a village for generations, show their contempt for their neighbours’ by imposing housing developments that they know are neither needed or wanted." I completely agree with him. If you want to build new housing, build a new town, complete with the infrastructure needed to support it rather than cramming more people into an area with inadequate provision for schools and GPs as it is. Feelingsmatter
  • Score: 12

9:00pm Wed 4 Jun 14

TobyB1960 says...

yabbadabbadoo256 wrote:
yawn... these houses should have been built years ago but for the nimbies. With a better availability of SUPPLY to match the DEMAND we might actually see affordable houses.
Planning permission was given for 2,500 new homes in Grove over ten years ago. It's only now with house prices going up that the builder is now considering building them. The SUPPLY problem is not down to available land but to greedy builders wanting to make the maximum profit.
[quote][p][bold]yabbadabbadoo256[/bold] wrote: yawn... these houses should have been built years ago but for the nimbies. With a better availability of SUPPLY to match the DEMAND we might actually see affordable houses.[/p][/quote]Planning permission was given for 2,500 new homes in Grove over ten years ago. It's only now with house prices going up that the builder is now considering building them. The SUPPLY problem is not down to available land but to greedy builders wanting to make the maximum profit. TobyB1960
  • Score: 15

9:09pm Wed 4 Jun 14

TobyB1960 says...

yabbadabbadoo256 wrote:
BML wrote:
In 2010 big Eric, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, announced what he called, the start of a ground breaking new era, the Localism Act. Decision-making powers would be devolved from central government and control would go to individuals and communities. New building, big Eric stated, will be approved with less control than before, local people will be given control over it. It will be a "triumph for democracy over bureaucracy” which would "fundamentally shake-up" the balance of power in England shifting power away from Whitehall to individuals, communities and councils. It will revitalise local democracy and put power back where it belongs - in the hands of the people."

I was impressed, but shame on me for being so stupid because since then for week after week one report followed another in the “Abingdon Herald” of yet another rural community having yet another housing estate imposed upon them with unfailing regularity.

So what has happened? Well, it’s quite simple. The Government has done what politicians do with such regularity, they have lied to us. On the one hand they gave us Localism and on the other hand they took it away by introducing changes to planning law that gave carte blanche to speculators to impose a housing development, however inappropriate and destructive it might be, onto one community after another.

Speculating developers grow rich by exploiting this new legislation and farmers whose families have lived in a village for generations, show their contempt for their neighbours’ by imposing housing developments that they know are neither needed or wanted.
think you find the housing developments ARE needed and have to be built somewhere if we are to be able to find housing for our children.

Remember a lot of children live with their parents into their 30's because they cannot either find or afford a house to live in. With more housing, the SUPPLY will match the DEMAND for a change and lead to more affordable houses
Looking at the evidence of house building since the 1980's, house builders will only build if they can make a massive profit. If house prices fall or stagnate they don't build. During the recession house prices didn't rise, so builders didn't build even though there was a huge demand for new housing.

These new developments will not make housing more affordable. As soon as the local house markets starts to slow down in price they will stop building until prices start to rise again.

What is needed is for more social built homes and land released for self builds.
[quote][p][bold]yabbadabbadoo256[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BML[/bold] wrote: In 2010 big Eric, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, announced what he called, the start of a ground breaking new era, the Localism Act. Decision-making powers would be devolved from central government and control would go to individuals and communities. New building, big Eric stated, will be approved with less control than before, local people will be given control over it. It will be a "triumph for democracy over bureaucracy” which would "fundamentally shake-up" the balance of power in England shifting power away from Whitehall to individuals, communities and councils. It will revitalise local democracy and put power back where it belongs - in the hands of the people." I was impressed, but shame on me for being so stupid because since then for week after week one report followed another in the “Abingdon Herald” of yet another rural community having yet another housing estate imposed upon them with unfailing regularity. So what has happened? Well, it’s quite simple. The Government has done what politicians do with such regularity, they have lied to us. On the one hand they gave us Localism and on the other hand they took it away by introducing changes to planning law that gave carte blanche to speculators to impose a housing development, however inappropriate and destructive it might be, onto one community after another. Speculating developers grow rich by exploiting this new legislation and farmers whose families have lived in a village for generations, show their contempt for their neighbours’ by imposing housing developments that they know are neither needed or wanted.[/p][/quote]think you find the housing developments ARE needed and have to be built somewhere if we are to be able to find housing for our children. Remember a lot of children live with their parents into their 30's because they cannot either find or afford a house to live in. With more housing, the SUPPLY will match the DEMAND for a change and lead to more affordable houses[/p][/quote]Looking at the evidence of house building since the 1980's, house builders will only build if they can make a massive profit. If house prices fall or stagnate they don't build. During the recession house prices didn't rise, so builders didn't build even though there was a huge demand for new housing. These new developments will not make housing more affordable. As soon as the local house markets starts to slow down in price they will stop building until prices start to rise again. What is needed is for more social built homes and land released for self builds. TobyB1960
  • Score: 8

8:03am Thu 5 Jun 14

paddy173 says...

I believe affordable housing used to be provided/built by local authority (I am putting all councils under this label). Now they expect privately owned companies to do this for them. Fair enough, you want to built here do something for the local community.
I believe that it would be better to build new housing estates etc near where people work.
Also before new houses are built the local infrasructure needs to be improved maybe at the expense of social housing.
Social housing- Why if you are someone who has worked hard do you want to live next to someone who does not get off of their backside ( I know that not everyone is like that)( My mam was a single mother).
NIMBY's- wherever you live the person who lived on/in the farm/village/country town had to sacrifice their peaceful existence so your house could be built- apologies to the person who owns the first house ever built- Rant over coffee time
I believe affordable housing used to be provided/built by local authority (I am putting all councils under this label). Now they expect privately owned companies to do this for them. Fair enough, you want to built here do something for the local community. I believe that it would be better to build new housing estates etc near where people work. Also before new houses are built the local infrasructure needs to be improved maybe at the expense of social housing. Social housing- Why if you are someone who has worked hard do you want to live next to someone who does not get off of their backside ( I know that not everyone is like that)( My mam was a single mother). NIMBY's- wherever you live the person who lived on/in the farm/village/country town had to sacrifice their peaceful existence so your house could be built- apologies to the person who owns the first house ever built- Rant over coffee time paddy173
  • Score: 1

9:48am Thu 5 Jun 14

yulelog says...

I am in my late 30's and brought my first house 3 years ago in Didcot. It is almost impossible for young people to buy. I had to move away from my home town Abingdon, as I just could not afford the prices. I become increasingly frustrated with these stuck up villagers and their arrogant attitude towards housing needs in towns. Yes it is a shame that we are building in rural (its not that rural to be fair, with the power station and Harwell Labs, Milton Park all VERY close, it's hardly Cornwall) areas but there is little choice, There is a housing need, and an affordable one at that. You should be giving young people a chance, your children. Its needed and will be good for the local economy too. Wake up and stop this selfishness.
I am in my late 30's and brought my first house 3 years ago in Didcot. It is almost impossible for young people to buy. I had to move away from my home town Abingdon, as I just could not afford the prices. I become increasingly frustrated with these stuck up villagers and their arrogant attitude towards housing needs in towns. Yes it is a shame that we are building in rural (its not that rural to be fair, with the power station and Harwell Labs, Milton Park all VERY close, it's hardly Cornwall) areas but there is little choice, There is a housing need, and an affordable one at that. You should be giving young people a chance, your children. Its needed and will be good for the local economy too. Wake up and stop this selfishness. yulelog
  • Score: -1

9:55am Thu 5 Jun 14

Diddyman says...

yulelog wrote:
I am in my late 30's and brought my first house 3 years ago in Didcot. It is almost impossible for young people to buy. I had to move away from my home town Abingdon, as I just could not afford the prices. I become increasingly frustrated with these stuck up villagers and their arrogant attitude towards housing needs in towns. Yes it is a shame that we are building in rural (its not that rural to be fair, with the power station and Harwell Labs, Milton Park all VERY close, it's hardly Cornwall) areas but there is little choice, There is a housing need, and an affordable one at that. You should be giving young people a chance, your children. Its needed and will be good for the local economy too. Wake up and stop this selfishness.
But that's the problem. You had to move from Abingdon yet the Vale are building nearly all of the houses it needs around Didcot. Abingdon is hardly getting any!! Yes we need cheaper houses but please spread them around the Vale not just around one town!!
[quote][p][bold]yulelog[/bold] wrote: I am in my late 30's and brought my first house 3 years ago in Didcot. It is almost impossible for young people to buy. I had to move away from my home town Abingdon, as I just could not afford the prices. I become increasingly frustrated with these stuck up villagers and their arrogant attitude towards housing needs in towns. Yes it is a shame that we are building in rural (its not that rural to be fair, with the power station and Harwell Labs, Milton Park all VERY close, it's hardly Cornwall) areas but there is little choice, There is a housing need, and an affordable one at that. You should be giving young people a chance, your children. Its needed and will be good for the local economy too. Wake up and stop this selfishness.[/p][/quote]But that's the problem. You had to move from Abingdon yet the Vale are building nearly all of the houses it needs around Didcot. Abingdon is hardly getting any!! Yes we need cheaper houses but please spread them around the Vale not just around one town!! Diddyman
  • Score: 7

9:57am Thu 5 Jun 14

Diddyman says...

yulelog wrote:
I am in my late 30's and brought my first house 3 years ago in Didcot. It is almost impossible for young people to buy. I had to move away from my home town Abingdon, as I just could not afford the prices. I become increasingly frustrated with these stuck up villagers and their arrogant attitude towards housing needs in towns. Yes it is a shame that we are building in rural (its not that rural to be fair, with the power station and Harwell Labs, Milton Park all VERY close, it's hardly Cornwall) areas but there is little choice, There is a housing need, and an affordable one at that. You should be giving young people a chance, your children. Its needed and will be good for the local economy too. Wake up and stop this selfishness.
But that's the problem. You had to move from Abingdon yet the Vale are building nearly all of the houses it needs around Didcot. Abingdon is hardly getting any!! Yes we need cheaper houses but please spread them around the Vale/South Oxon not just around one town!!
[quote][p][bold]yulelog[/bold] wrote: I am in my late 30's and brought my first house 3 years ago in Didcot. It is almost impossible for young people to buy. I had to move away from my home town Abingdon, as I just could not afford the prices. I become increasingly frustrated with these stuck up villagers and their arrogant attitude towards housing needs in towns. Yes it is a shame that we are building in rural (its not that rural to be fair, with the power station and Harwell Labs, Milton Park all VERY close, it's hardly Cornwall) areas but there is little choice, There is a housing need, and an affordable one at that. You should be giving young people a chance, your children. Its needed and will be good for the local economy too. Wake up and stop this selfishness.[/p][/quote]But that's the problem. You had to move from Abingdon yet the Vale are building nearly all of the houses it needs around Didcot. Abingdon is hardly getting any!! Yes we need cheaper houses but please spread them around the Vale/South Oxon not just around one town!! Diddyman
  • Score: 4

10:09am Thu 5 Jun 14

yulelog says...

Diddyman wrote:
yulelog wrote: I am in my late 30's and brought my first house 3 years ago in Didcot. It is almost impossible for young people to buy. I had to move away from my home town Abingdon, as I just could not afford the prices. I become increasingly frustrated with these stuck up villagers and their arrogant attitude towards housing needs in towns. Yes it is a shame that we are building in rural (its not that rural to be fair, with the power station and Harwell Labs, Milton Park all VERY close, it's hardly Cornwall) areas but there is little choice, There is a housing need, and an affordable one at that. You should be giving young people a chance, your children. Its needed and will be good for the local economy too. Wake up and stop this selfishness.
But that's the problem. You had to move from Abingdon yet the Vale are building nearly all of the houses it needs around Didcot. Abingdon is hardly getting any!! Yes we need cheaper houses but please spread them around the Vale not just around one town!!
But Didcot also provides to my needs, and other people (except for the lack of DYI shops). I commute regularily to London and Oxford and use the rail network. I could not live without it. There a growing number of young people living in Didcot and commuting to London, Reading and Oxford. They probably would not want to live in Abingdon or a town that does not have a train station. I agree Abingdon needs to sort its housing out but historically it has always been more expensive to live there and the villages anyway, and that is unlikely to change even with more housing.
[quote][p][bold]Diddyman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yulelog[/bold] wrote: I am in my late 30's and brought my first house 3 years ago in Didcot. It is almost impossible for young people to buy. I had to move away from my home town Abingdon, as I just could not afford the prices. I become increasingly frustrated with these stuck up villagers and their arrogant attitude towards housing needs in towns. Yes it is a shame that we are building in rural (its not that rural to be fair, with the power station and Harwell Labs, Milton Park all VERY close, it's hardly Cornwall) areas but there is little choice, There is a housing need, and an affordable one at that. You should be giving young people a chance, your children. Its needed and will be good for the local economy too. Wake up and stop this selfishness.[/p][/quote]But that's the problem. You had to move from Abingdon yet the Vale are building nearly all of the houses it needs around Didcot. Abingdon is hardly getting any!! Yes we need cheaper houses but please spread them around the Vale not just around one town!![/p][/quote]But Didcot also provides to my needs, and other people (except for the lack of DYI shops). I commute regularily to London and Oxford and use the rail network. I could not live without it. There a growing number of young people living in Didcot and commuting to London, Reading and Oxford. They probably would not want to live in Abingdon or a town that does not have a train station. I agree Abingdon needs to sort its housing out but historically it has always been more expensive to live there and the villages anyway, and that is unlikely to change even with more housing. yulelog
  • Score: -4

10:50am Thu 5 Jun 14

EMBOX2 says...

"Wake up and stop this selfishness."

It is not selfish to not want an extra 2500+ cars a day travelling down already congested B roads. The problem is, housing developers DO NOT CARE about you, me, or anyone else. They want to build 'em and flog 'em - infrastructure (roads, SHOPS - remember Ladygrove?) are someone else's problem.

Most villagers are not against more housing, we have the same problem with house prices and young people, but just dumping another few thousand houses on one town is not the answer, as Ladygrove proved.
"Wake up and stop this selfishness." It is not selfish to not want an extra 2500+ cars a day travelling down already congested B roads. The problem is, housing developers DO NOT CARE about you, me, or anyone else. They want to build 'em and flog 'em - infrastructure (roads, SHOPS - remember Ladygrove?) are someone else's problem. Most villagers are not against more housing, we have the same problem with house prices and young people, but just dumping another few thousand houses on one town is not the answer, as Ladygrove proved. EMBOX2
  • Score: 11

2:36pm Thu 5 Jun 14

piper2011 says...

EVERYONE'S house has been built in a field, EVERYONE'S house has added to the population of a village. Although i agree villages showed grow slowly, please remember we all have to live somewhere and when your house was built wether 1 year, 10 years or 100 years ago someone wouldn't have been happy about it
EVERYONE'S house has been built in a field, EVERYONE'S house has added to the population of a village. Although i agree villages showed grow slowly, please remember we all have to live somewhere and when your house was built wether 1 year, 10 years or 100 years ago someone wouldn't have been happy about it piper2011
  • Score: -5

3:40pm Thu 5 Jun 14

BML says...

Simon Jenkins recently wrote an article in the in the “Guardian” which destroyed the Government’s myth that a shortage of housing exists which can only be met by covering the country in concrete.
The claim that we need more house ignores the fact that although there may well be demand for houses they are not houses to live in but houses to use as an investment somewhat like the tins of Sardines joke, “They are not for eating but for buying and selling.”
The claim that, “We need more houses” never identifies “who the amorphous “we” are. It’s certainly not the people who are going to move into these thousands of houses being built by speculators because they are just moving from one house into another,
Neil Monnery's “Safe as House” compares Britain's boom and bust with experience elsewhere in Europe. He states that, Germany is much richer than Britain, with ever rising wealth and immigration and not only has their house prices actually fallen in real terms but their housing stock, "is a stable, functional and affordable asset".
Danny Dorling states quiet clearly in his “All That Is Solid” that the central failing of British housing is not a shortage of housing but chronic under-occupation, which is getting worse concluding, "We cannot build our way out of the disaster of our current housing system."
The economist Rebecca Tunstall Joseph Rowntree Professor of Housing Policy at York University stated, “In 1981 the richest 10% of Britons had three times as many rooms as the poorest, while by 2011 the gap had widened to five times. The issue is wealth, not housing supply.
Yet we still read the nonsense of Britain "needing" to build 250,000 more houses a year. The “need” bears no reference to demand, price, migration or anything else but it suits the gold rush mentality of speculators, builders greedy farmers and estate agents. Britain has a huge stock of empty and underused residential space, public as well as private.
With many thanks to Simon Jenkins.
Simon Jenkins recently wrote an article in the in the “Guardian” which destroyed the Government’s myth that a shortage of housing exists which can only be met by covering the country in concrete. The claim that we need more house ignores the fact that although there may well be demand for houses they are not houses to live in but houses to use as an investment somewhat like the tins of Sardines joke, “They are not for eating but for buying and selling.” The claim that, “We need more houses” never identifies “who the amorphous “we” are. It’s certainly not the people who are going to move into these thousands of houses being built by speculators because they are just moving from one house into another, Neil Monnery's “Safe as House” compares Britain's boom and bust with experience elsewhere in Europe. He states that, Germany is much richer than Britain, with ever rising wealth and immigration and not only has their house prices actually fallen in real terms but their housing stock, "is a stable, functional and affordable asset". Danny Dorling states quiet clearly in his “All That Is Solid” that the central failing of British housing is not a shortage of housing but chronic under-occupation, which is getting worse concluding, "We cannot build our way out of the disaster of our current housing system." The economist Rebecca Tunstall Joseph Rowntree Professor of Housing Policy at York University stated, “In 1981 the richest 10% of Britons had three times as many rooms as the poorest, while by 2011 the gap had widened to five times. The issue is wealth, not housing supply. Yet we still read the nonsense of Britain "needing" to build 250,000 more houses a year. The “need” bears no reference to demand, price, migration or anything else but it suits the gold rush mentality of speculators, builders greedy farmers and estate agents. Britain has a huge stock of empty and underused residential space, public as well as private. With many thanks to Simon Jenkins. BML
  • Score: 13

12:52pm Fri 6 Jun 14

Adrian1 says...

I think a return to the government inspectorate telling you how much you could charge in renting out rooms and houses is called for, that would end the soaring prices, likely upset that top few percent at the expense of the masses though. What was it the market did when that central setting was removed, trippled in price in a short space of time didn't it? I suspect a massive number of houses would suddenly be available for purchase, to live in, not profit from at others expense. And they'd be affordable, yes, lot of negative equity around too, yes it is posted by a home owner who bought at bottom of last big crash. Remember to this day the tears of the spotty faced youth crying he'd gone bakrupt having leveraged his stock to maximum in the ever rising bubble, being the cause of the problem I ought to have haggled him down further, wasn't quite so vicious back then though.
I think a return to the government inspectorate telling you how much you could charge in renting out rooms and houses is called for, that would end the soaring prices, likely upset that top few percent at the expense of the masses though. What was it the market did when that central setting was removed, trippled in price in a short space of time didn't it? I suspect a massive number of houses would suddenly be available for purchase, to live in, not profit from at others expense. And they'd be affordable, yes, lot of negative equity around too, yes it is posted by a home owner who bought at bottom of last big crash. Remember to this day the tears of the spotty faced youth crying he'd gone bakrupt having leveraged his stock to maximum in the ever rising bubble, being the cause of the problem I ought to have haggled him down further, wasn't quite so vicious back then though. Adrian1
  • Score: 1

6:49pm Sat 7 Jun 14

CtrlAltTab says...

TobyB1960 wrote:
yabbadabbadoo256 wrote:
yawn... these houses should have been built years ago but for the nimbies. With a better availability of SUPPLY to match the DEMAND we might actually see affordable houses.
Planning permission was given for 2,500 new homes in Grove over ten years ago. It's only now with house prices going up that the builder is now considering building them. The SUPPLY problem is not down to available land but to greedy builders wanting to make the maximum profit.
Really? So why was the planning permission granted last year? Please show us your sources because you need to read this:
http://www.whitehors
edc.gov.uk/java/supp
ort/Main.jsp?MODULE=
ApplicationDetails&R
EF=P12/V0299/O


Developers are their to make a profit like any other business, they need to develop based on profit margins etc. Stating that ANY developer had agreed planning permission for 10 years waiting for the housing market to pick up, shows you really do not understand what you are talking about.

I live in Wantage, I used to live in Grove, not ALL people who live around that area is against it, I personally think it can only be of benefit to the whole community.

Roof over my head, or worrying about other people, hmmmmmm let me know what is important to me!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]TobyB1960[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yabbadabbadoo256[/bold] wrote: yawn... these houses should have been built years ago but for the nimbies. With a better availability of SUPPLY to match the DEMAND we might actually see affordable houses.[/p][/quote]Planning permission was given for 2,500 new homes in Grove over ten years ago. It's only now with house prices going up that the builder is now considering building them. The SUPPLY problem is not down to available land but to greedy builders wanting to make the maximum profit.[/p][/quote]Really? So why was the planning permission granted last year? Please show us your sources because you need to read this: http://www.whitehors edc.gov.uk/java/supp ort/Main.jsp?MODULE= ApplicationDetails&R EF=P12/V0299/O Developers are their to make a profit like any other business, they need to develop based on profit margins etc. Stating that ANY developer had agreed planning permission for 10 years waiting for the housing market to pick up, shows you really do not understand what you are talking about. I live in Wantage, I used to live in Grove, not ALL people who live around that area is against it, I personally think it can only be of benefit to the whole community. Roof over my head, or worrying about other people, hmmmmmm let me know what is important to me!!!!!!!!!!!!! CtrlAltTab
  • Score: -3

6:56pm Sat 7 Jun 14

CtrlAltTab says...

EMBOX2 wrote:
"Wake up and stop this selfishness."

It is not selfish to not want an extra 2500+ cars a day travelling down already congested B roads. The problem is, housing developers DO NOT CARE about you, me, or anyone else. They want to build 'em and flog 'em - infrastructure (roads, SHOPS - remember Ladygrove?) are someone else's problem.

Most villagers are not against more housing, we have the same problem with house prices and young people, but just dumping another few thousand houses on one town is not the answer, as Ladygrove proved.
And these 2500+ cars are coming from where?
Again with no source of information your argument is invalid!

You do actually realise that this is over 10 years and within a week or so??
Also housing developers don't care about you, me or anyone???? THEY ARE A BUSINESS, shame you can't realise that, you really must have a big chip on your shoulder about this, because you are the one being selfish!

This is just like renewable energies, everyone wants solar, wind etc. but not where they live, guess what, get used to disappointment, because its all coming - solar, wind, housing, roads oh yeah and MORE PEOPLE!

Times change, either move with the change or not.
[quote][p][bold]EMBOX2[/bold] wrote: "Wake up and stop this selfishness." It is not selfish to not want an extra 2500+ cars a day travelling down already congested B roads. The problem is, housing developers DO NOT CARE about you, me, or anyone else. They want to build 'em and flog 'em - infrastructure (roads, SHOPS - remember Ladygrove?) are someone else's problem. Most villagers are not against more housing, we have the same problem with house prices and young people, but just dumping another few thousand houses on one town is not the answer, as Ladygrove proved.[/p][/quote]And these 2500+ cars are coming from where? Again with no source of information your argument is invalid! You do actually realise that this is over 10 years and within a week or so?? Also housing developers don't care about you, me or anyone???? THEY ARE A BUSINESS, shame you can't realise that, you really must have a big chip on your shoulder about this, because you are the one being selfish! This is just like renewable energies, everyone wants solar, wind etc. but not where they live, guess what, get used to disappointment, because its all coming - solar, wind, housing, roads oh yeah and MORE PEOPLE! Times change, either move with the change or not. CtrlAltTab
  • Score: -4

2:09am Sun 8 Jun 14

The New Private Eye says...

The real problem IS a lack of council housing (i am old school and still call them that) My wife and I both work and still manage to fully take care of our three children, but on our income cannot get a mortgage even on an ex-council house in Barton or Blackbird Leys. As a result we have to rent privately and because our wages do not even cover the rent we get just over £1,300 a month in Housing Benefit, and £86 in council tax benefit. This goes to our landlord who has eleven properties and is currently building 3 more. If there was council houses for us to rent then we would be able to pay the rent and council tax without benefits. Now we come to the real problem, there are many families like me that the council are happy with because we are securely housed and all they have to do is pay our rent out of your money and forget about us. This bill runs into £Billions across the councils in England, and it is all wasted money, surely it would be better to spend those £Billions building their own houses which would create assets, and a regular income for themselves (the councils) rather than throwing money down the drain to make a few landlords very rich? Is that too simple or am I missing something?
The real problem IS a lack of council housing (i am old school and still call them that) My wife and I both work and still manage to fully take care of our three children, but on our income cannot get a mortgage even on an ex-council house in Barton or Blackbird Leys. As a result we have to rent privately and because our wages do not even cover the rent we get just over £1,300 a month in Housing Benefit, and £86 in council tax benefit. This goes to our landlord who has eleven properties and is currently building 3 more. If there was council houses for us to rent then we would be able to pay the rent and council tax without benefits. Now we come to the real problem, there are many families like me that the council are happy with because we are securely housed and all they have to do is pay our rent out of your money and forget about us. This bill runs into £Billions across the councils in England, and it is all wasted money, surely it would be better to spend those £Billions building their own houses which would create assets, and a regular income for themselves (the councils) rather than throwing money down the drain to make a few landlords very rich? Is that too simple or am I missing something? The New Private Eye
  • Score: 6

12:27pm Sun 8 Jun 14

TobyB1960 says...

CtrlAltTab wrote:
TobyB1960 wrote:
yabbadabbadoo256 wrote:
yawn... these houses should have been built years ago but for the nimbies. With a better availability of SUPPLY to match the DEMAND we might actually see affordable houses.
Planning permission was given for 2,500 new homes in Grove over ten years ago. It's only now with house prices going up that the builder is now considering building them. The SUPPLY problem is not down to available land but to greedy builders wanting to make the maximum profit.
Really? So why was the planning permission granted last year? Please show us your sources because you need to read this:
http://www.whitehors

edc.gov.uk/java/supp

ort/Main.jsp?MODULE=

ApplicationDetails&a
mp;R
EF=P12/V0299/O


Developers are their to make a profit like any other business, they need to develop based on profit margins etc. Stating that ANY developer had agreed planning permission for 10 years waiting for the housing market to pick up, shows you really do not understand what you are talking about.

I live in Wantage, I used to live in Grove, not ALL people who live around that area is against it, I personally think it can only be of benefit to the whole community.

Roof over my head, or worrying about other people, hmmmmmm let me know what is important to me!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Get a grip!

The Grove Airfield development was in the 2002 Local Plan, which is 12 years ago! But it still took the developer another 11 years to put forward an outline planning permission, where the Crab Hill development has only taken 18 months!
[quote][p][bold]CtrlAltTab[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TobyB1960[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yabbadabbadoo256[/bold] wrote: yawn... these houses should have been built years ago but for the nimbies. With a better availability of SUPPLY to match the DEMAND we might actually see affordable houses.[/p][/quote]Planning permission was given for 2,500 new homes in Grove over ten years ago. It's only now with house prices going up that the builder is now considering building them. The SUPPLY problem is not down to available land but to greedy builders wanting to make the maximum profit.[/p][/quote]Really? So why was the planning permission granted last year? Please show us your sources because you need to read this: http://www.whitehors edc.gov.uk/java/supp ort/Main.jsp?MODULE= ApplicationDetails&a mp;R EF=P12/V0299/O Developers are their to make a profit like any other business, they need to develop based on profit margins etc. Stating that ANY developer had agreed planning permission for 10 years waiting for the housing market to pick up, shows you really do not understand what you are talking about. I live in Wantage, I used to live in Grove, not ALL people who live around that area is against it, I personally think it can only be of benefit to the whole community. Roof over my head, or worrying about other people, hmmmmmm let me know what is important to me!!!!!!!!!!!!![/p][/quote]Get a grip! The Grove Airfield development was in the 2002 Local Plan, which is 12 years ago! But it still took the developer another 11 years to put forward an outline planning permission, where the Crab Hill development has only taken 18 months! TobyB1960
  • Score: 3

10:07pm Wed 11 Jun 14

EMBOX2 says...

"And these 2500+ cars are coming from where?
Again with no source of information your argument is invalid!"

EPIC FAIL, my old mate.

2000 homes with 1.5 cars each (the average for Oxfordshire based on the 2011 census - see the ONS website) is 3000 cars. Given that ~80% of jobs will be in or around Oxford, Abingdon and Milton Park/old Didcot A site (from the local plan) that means around 2500 cars travelling on those B roads I mentioned.

Consider yourself corrected.
"And these 2500+ cars are coming from where? Again with no source of information your argument is invalid!" EPIC FAIL, my old mate. 2000 homes with 1.5 cars each (the average for Oxfordshire based on the 2011 census - see the ONS website) is 3000 cars. Given that ~80% of jobs will be in or around Oxford, Abingdon and Milton Park/old Didcot A site (from the local plan) that means around 2500 cars travelling on those B roads I mentioned. Consider yourself corrected. EMBOX2
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree