Store stays silent over plan row

THERE is still no word from Sainsbury’s over its plans for the future of Bicester town centre’s redevelopment, due to open this summer.

Earlier this month the supermarket giant was left fuming after Cherwell district councillors approved plans to relocate the Pingle Drive Tesco and double its size.

Co-ordinated planning applications by Tesco and Bicester Village, to expand the designer outlet, move Tesco opposite its current site, and carry out £11m of road improvements, were approved.

Sainsbury’s said that would undermine its investment and the vitality and viability of the town centre.

Both planning applications have now been referred to the Secretary of State for Local Government and Communities in a bid to force a public inquiry.

If the minister ‘calls in’ the decision, a public inquiry would take place and that could delay any start of work by about six months.

Sainsbury’s said the proposals should be discussed at an inquiry, but has yet to comment further on whether it will stall work in the town centre.

Comments (70)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:52am Sun 3 Feb 13

Myron Blatz says...

Oh dear! One nasty big supermarket chain getting all 'huffy-puffy' over a competitor's plans to challenge a monopoly scenario for which Sainsbury's gad obviously thought Cherwell har sold Bicester's heart and soul for, only to find Tesco proving that their is indeed no planning and retail 'honour' left amongst anyone! The only 'missing ingredient' to the whole sorid fiasco being a shop honestly selling 'horseburgers' or a petrol station selling diesel and petrol without customers having to spend £hundreds to get a 5p discount - which isn't 'cheaper' for customers, but built-in to the profits on the extra food and other products bought. Just remember that the supermarkets aren't fighting over Bicester for social or philanthropic reasons, but simply to make fat profits and take people's money. At least with Waitrose and John Lewis the shareholders are also the employees, local, and benefit the local economy more directly.
Oh dear! One nasty big supermarket chain getting all 'huffy-puffy' over a competitor's plans to challenge a monopoly scenario for which Sainsbury's gad obviously thought Cherwell har sold Bicester's heart and soul for, only to find Tesco proving that their is indeed no planning and retail 'honour' left amongst anyone! The only 'missing ingredient' to the whole sorid fiasco being a shop honestly selling 'horseburgers' or a petrol station selling diesel and petrol without customers having to spend £hundreds to get a 5p discount - which isn't 'cheaper' for customers, but built-in to the profits on the extra food and other products bought. Just remember that the supermarkets aren't fighting over Bicester for social or philanthropic reasons, but simply to make fat profits and take people's money. At least with Waitrose and John Lewis the shareholders are also the employees, local, and benefit the local economy more directly. Myron Blatz
  • Score: 0

9:49am Sun 3 Feb 13

Severian says...

Sainsbury's are quite rightly angry. They had done a deal with Cherwell District Council to establish a monopoly in Bicester so they could charge what they wanted and make a fortune out of us locals.

Now Tesco has come along and thrown their plans into disarray.

Meanwhile we are left with an undersized and under stocked supermarket (the current Tesco) that Cherwell constantly refuse permission to extend, and a half finished town centre development.

The only people losing out are we locals. Cherwell Councillors really haven't got a clue what they are doing.
Sainsbury's are quite rightly angry. They had done a deal with Cherwell District Council to establish a monopoly in Bicester so they could charge what they wanted and make a fortune out of us locals. Now Tesco has come along and thrown their plans into disarray. Meanwhile we are left with an undersized and under stocked supermarket (the current Tesco) that Cherwell constantly refuse permission to extend, and a half finished town centre development. The only people losing out are we locals. Cherwell Councillors really haven't got a clue what they are doing. Severian
  • Score: 1

10:31am Sun 3 Feb 13

steve1955 says...

Is council policy set by sainsburys wheh the got planning permission for the town centre did they tell the council that they wanted planning permission or like everone else did the apply you have to wonder what they expected.
Is council policy set by sainsburys wheh the got planning permission for the town centre did they tell the council that they wanted planning permission or like everone else did the apply you have to wonder what they expected. steve1955
  • Score: 1

11:43am Sun 3 Feb 13

to ny w says...

Nice relationship Sainsburys have with the entrusted 'partner' Cherwell D C!!!!!
Nice relationship Sainsburys have with the entrusted 'partner' Cherwell D C!!!!! to ny w
  • Score: 0

12:48pm Sun 3 Feb 13

dragonma5306 says...

I just want somewhere decent to do my shopping that is preferably away from the nightmare that is Bicester Village! Thank goodness for Ocado....
I just want somewhere decent to do my shopping that is preferably away from the nightmare that is Bicester Village! Thank goodness for Ocado.... dragonma5306
  • Score: 1

4:37pm Sun 3 Feb 13

faatmaan says...

this happens a lot, the coop is a main suspect, any sign of real opposition, they up sticks and go (eg Didcot town centre). In one area the locality in question was redeveloped by the council and the coop would only trade there if it had exclusivity, unopposed, so much for anti competitive practices.
this happens a lot, the coop is a main suspect, any sign of real opposition, they up sticks and go (eg Didcot town centre). In one area the locality in question was redeveloped by the council and the coop would only trade there if it had exclusivity, unopposed, so much for anti competitive practices. faatmaan
  • Score: 0

6:45pm Sun 3 Feb 13

Grunden Skip says...

I don't understand why Sainsbury's are upset. If they offer a better product, or are better value than their competitors, then customers would shop there and not Tesco. Or is this at last, an admission from Sainsbury's that they actually now sell inferior products at a higher price than Tesco. EG Sainsbury's loose tomatoes, cold stored, tasteless, and good for nothing £2 kg. Tesco on the vine Tomatoes, tasty, and you can smell the freshness £1.99 kg, just for starters.
I don't understand why Sainsbury's are upset. If they offer a better product, or are better value than their competitors, then customers would shop there and not Tesco. Or is this at last, an admission from Sainsbury's that they actually now sell inferior products at a higher price than Tesco. EG Sainsbury's loose tomatoes, cold stored, tasteless, and good for nothing £2 kg. Tesco on the vine Tomatoes, tasty, and you can smell the freshness £1.99 kg, just for starters. Grunden Skip
  • Score: 1

8:19pm Sun 3 Feb 13

Nick Mawer says...

Severian, I think you will find that Cherwell has previously approved plans for Tesco to expand, only for those plans to be rejected by the Secretary of State. Tesco also came up against a landowner who held a ransom strip who would not sell whatever price they were offered.
Severian, I think you will find that Cherwell has previously approved plans for Tesco to expand, only for those plans to be rejected by the Secretary of State. Tesco also came up against a landowner who held a ransom strip who would not sell whatever price they were offered. Nick Mawer
  • Score: 0

7:37am Mon 4 Feb 13

Myron Blatz says...

Surely 'someone' must keep voting for what appears to be all these inane and inept Councillors, who pass planning requests, sit on endless committees and charge expenses or allowances to take and make such impotent decisions - time a few 'heads' were 'rolling' out the door at Cherwell? As for the Coop, it also likes to monopolise wherever it trades - one reason it can then charge whatever it likes to the punters, to help fund Labour and its own political Party. So, maybe not quite so 'ethical' as it likes to portray, and that this may become increasingly true, as the Coop fights its way up the 'greasy pole' of banking and finance.
Surely 'someone' must keep voting for what appears to be all these inane and inept Councillors, who pass planning requests, sit on endless committees and charge expenses or allowances to take and make such impotent decisions - time a few 'heads' were 'rolling' out the door at Cherwell? As for the Coop, it also likes to monopolise wherever it trades - one reason it can then charge whatever it likes to the punters, to help fund Labour and its own political Party. So, maybe not quite so 'ethical' as it likes to portray, and that this may become increasingly true, as the Coop fights its way up the 'greasy pole' of banking and finance. Myron Blatz
  • Score: 0

7:59am Mon 4 Feb 13

Nick Mawer says...

Myron - it is really easy to sit on the side lines and take cheap shots at councillors, but you really don't have much of a clue. You may have an opinion, but that does not mean that it is shared by the majority, although clearly you hold your opinion to be the only one that matters. If you disagree with me, then I would welcome the chance to vote for or against you.
Myron - it is really easy to sit on the side lines and take cheap shots at councillors, but you really don't have much of a clue. You may have an opinion, but that does not mean that it is shared by the majority, although clearly you hold your opinion to be the only one that matters. If you disagree with me, then I would welcome the chance to vote for or against you. Nick Mawer
  • Score: -1

10:03am Mon 4 Feb 13

steve1955 says...

Nice to hear from Mr Mawer as a councillor when did he last ask the people who pay for him to talk and make decisions what they thought of all this development i dont know if hes my councillor i think he may be but he never asks my opinion and i like otheres pay for him,Hows the eco development going nick?
Nice to hear from Mr Mawer as a councillor when did he last ask the people who pay for him to talk and make decisions what they thought of all this development i dont know if hes my councillor i think he may be but he never asks my opinion and i like otheres pay for him,Hows the eco development going nick? steve1955
  • Score: 1

10:03am Mon 4 Feb 13

1957 says...

All Sainsburys need to do is offer Free Car Parking and they will receive their fair share of business
All Sainsburys need to do is offer Free Car Parking and they will receive their fair share of business 1957
  • Score: 1

10:44am Mon 4 Feb 13

to ny w says...

steve1955 wrote:
Nice to hear from Mr Mawer as a councillor when did he last ask the people who pay for him to talk and make decisions what they thought of all this development i dont know if hes my councillor i think he may be but he never asks my opinion and i like otheres pay for him,Hows the eco development going nick?
Careful, I bet you wont get an answer on that one!!
[quote][p][bold]steve1955[/bold] wrote: Nice to hear from Mr Mawer as a councillor when did he last ask the people who pay for him to talk and make decisions what they thought of all this development i dont know if hes my councillor i think he may be but he never asks my opinion and i like otheres pay for him,Hows the eco development going nick?[/p][/quote]Careful, I bet you wont get an answer on that one!! to ny w
  • Score: 1

11:02am Mon 4 Feb 13

steve1955 says...

i bet to
i bet to steve1955
  • Score: 1

12:46pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Severian says...

Nick - if a landowner was blocking Tesco (no matter how much they offered) how come Bicester Village can now get the land? Presumably it wasn't money because, as you said, the owner wouldn't sell no matter what.

Given that no-one in Bicester was asked their views by our councillors, on what basis did they decide to give permission to Tesco to move over the other side of the road?

It must have been a difficult decision - torn between supporting Sainsbury's who have paid to rebuild our town centre, or give Bicester Village whatever they want (which has always been the default position for Cherwell District Council).
Nick - if a landowner was blocking Tesco (no matter how much they offered) how come Bicester Village can now get the land? Presumably it wasn't money because, as you said, the owner wouldn't sell no matter what. Given that no-one in Bicester was asked their views by our councillors, on what basis did they decide to give permission to Tesco to move over the other side of the road? It must have been a difficult decision - torn between supporting Sainsbury's who have paid to rebuild our town centre, or give Bicester Village whatever they want (which has always been the default position for Cherwell District Council). Severian
  • Score: 0

1:09pm Mon 4 Feb 13

to ny w says...

Right pin ios now withdrawn, wait for the explosion!!!
Right pin ios now withdrawn, wait for the explosion!!! to ny w
  • Score: 0

3:47pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Nick Mawer says...

Severian, Bicester Village has not got the land between the store and the A41 held as a ransom strip, to my knowledge, and as shown on the plans. You can clearly see this strip on Google maps, and it appears undeveloped in the proposals that I have seen.
You don't seem to understand the difference between "representative" and "direct" democracy. Anyway how could I ask you what you think if you hide behind a pseudonym and I don't know who you are? Furthermore, come election time, I am sure that someone will be knocking on your door to canvass your opinion. Finally my contact details are published all over the web - if you want to contact me to give me your opinions, feel free.
Personally Severian - I am opposed to the move of Tesco in particular because I believe that this is the thin end of the wedge of a new out of town retail park and because I am not convinced that this will solve the traffic issues that blight the town, but over on "Ihatebicestervillag
etraffic" they are mostly in favour. I understand that under the new planning guidance there were no planning grounds on which to refuse Tesco’s application. Cllrs on the planning committee always have to remember that a legal challenge to a decision, if upheld, would land the taxpayers of the district with the costs of both the council and the successful plaintiff. Any planning decision based on anti-Tesco prejudice would therefore be sure to end up in front of the planning inspector, and land the taxpayer with the bill. Sainsbury’s can challenge this decision with the Secretary of State as they are playing with their own money, and for all I know might deploy this tactic as a delaying tactic, or revenge for Tesco holding out on the compulsory purchase orders that enabled the Town Centre to go ahead. Those on the planning committee had to balance the needs of the Town Centre traders, the needs of those residents who are affected by traffic problems round the current Tesco store and Bicester Village, the few people like me who did not feel that the traffic problems would be solved, and a planning environment that is more heavily skewed towards what are perceived as “growth” projects than ever before.
As regards the Eco-town, well it is clearly going more slowly than I would have hoped. Meantime last year Leda properties had a planning decision to refuse 140 properties on land adjacent to Talisman overturned. Gallagher Estates have submitted a new application to build on Gavray Drive after the recent planning inspectors decision to refuse their last application. The MOD have submitted plans for large amounts of housing at Graven Hill. There is the potential for more houses to be built alongside the current SW Bicester development and there is the potential for a fight with housing developers who would wish to build on RAF Bicester’s technical site and flying field against the wishes of many. I don’t know if you are getting the picture, but you can stand up Canute like and demonstrate your impotence in the face of the incoming of the tide, or you could set your hand to making the best of the situation. You may not like idea of houses being built in NW Bicester, but if they were not there, you can bet your bottom dollar that other housing developers would be putting in applications for much more dense housing and with no benefits “Eco or otherwise”– you only have to look at the fiercely opposed (by residents)plans for Network Bicester to see what I mean.
Severian, Bicester Village has not got the land between the store and the A41 held as a ransom strip, to my knowledge, and as shown on the plans. You can clearly see this strip on Google maps, and it appears undeveloped in the proposals that I have seen. You don't seem to understand the difference between "representative" and "direct" democracy. Anyway how could I ask you what you think if you hide behind a pseudonym and I don't know who you are? Furthermore, come election time, I am sure that someone will be knocking on your door to canvass your opinion. Finally my contact details are published all over the web - if you want to contact me to give me your opinions, feel free. Personally Severian - I am opposed to the move of Tesco in particular because I believe that this is the thin end of the wedge of a new out of town retail park and because I am not convinced that this will solve the traffic issues that blight the town, but over on "Ihatebicestervillag etraffic" they are mostly in favour. I understand that under the new planning guidance there were no planning grounds on which to refuse Tesco’s application. Cllrs on the planning committee always have to remember that a legal challenge to a decision, if upheld, would land the taxpayers of the district with the costs of both the council and the successful plaintiff. Any planning decision based on anti-Tesco prejudice would therefore be sure to end up in front of the planning inspector, and land the taxpayer with the bill. Sainsbury’s can challenge this decision with the Secretary of State as they are playing with their own money, and for all I know might deploy this tactic as a delaying tactic, or revenge for Tesco holding out on the compulsory purchase orders that enabled the Town Centre to go ahead. Those on the planning committee had to balance the needs of the Town Centre traders, the needs of those residents who are affected by traffic problems round the current Tesco store and Bicester Village, the few people like me who did not feel that the traffic problems would be solved, and a planning environment that is more heavily skewed towards what are perceived as “growth” projects than ever before. As regards the Eco-town, well it is clearly going more slowly than I would have hoped. Meantime last year Leda properties had a planning decision to refuse 140 properties on land adjacent to Talisman overturned. Gallagher Estates have submitted a new application to build on Gavray Drive after the recent planning inspectors decision to refuse their last application. The MOD have submitted plans for large amounts of housing at Graven Hill. There is the potential for more houses to be built alongside the current SW Bicester development and there is the potential for a fight with housing developers who would wish to build on RAF Bicester’s technical site and flying field against the wishes of many. I don’t know if you are getting the picture, but you can stand up Canute like and demonstrate your impotence in the face of the incoming of the tide, or you could set your hand to making the best of the situation. You may not like idea of houses being built in NW Bicester, but if they were not there, you can bet your bottom dollar that other housing developers would be putting in applications for much more dense housing and with no benefits “Eco or otherwise”– you only have to look at the fiercely opposed (by residents)plans for Network Bicester to see what I mean. Nick Mawer
  • Score: 0

4:12pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Severian says...

Nick - I can assure you that on Bure Park I haven't been canvassed by any political party for years.
Nick - I can assure you that on Bure Park I haven't been canvassed by any political party for years. Severian
  • Score: 0

4:20pm Mon 4 Feb 13

steve1955 says...

No expences paid when you talk to the ratepayers in your ward i remember last election Mr mawr or his buddies came to me on Bure park i still would like to know why he and the others are so mad keen on the eco town all we know is they got around 1o million for the house in garth park now its coming down
No expences paid when you talk to the ratepayers in your ward i remember last election Mr mawr or his buddies came to me on Bure park i still would like to know why he and the others are so mad keen on the eco town all we know is they got around 1o million for the house in garth park now its coming down steve1955
  • Score: 0

4:22pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Severian says...

No planning grounds to refuse the application? What about the fact that this is not in the local (draft) plan?

Personally I am in favour of a bigger Tesco - we have been getting poor service for far too long - but like you I think the proposals as they stand will do absolutely nothing to improve the traffic problems caused by BV.

On the subject of development of Bicester, and particularly the NW development, I am not standing like Canute trying to turn back the tide. What I (and others) are doing is highlighting the disgraceful way in which "our" councillors have ridden roughshod over planning regulations and public opinion, and completely abandoned any attempt at urban planning, merely to satisfy the political lunacy of a few senior councillors. (I assume this is the underlying reason for pressing ahead with the eco-town, because I can't think of any rational one - unless of course you can enlighten us further). Not only that but you are committing local people to tie up millions of pounds of our council tax money in a white elephant scheme with no realistic prospect of seeing it for many many years, if at all.

What Bicester actually needs is someone in charge of planning (from Bicester, not Banbury) who is able to see the whole picture and draw up and execute a proper local plan, not some rough sketches of the Eco-town, and a few dotted lines marked "cultural quarter" and think that that makes for a coherent 30 year strategy for Bicester.

On a final point - if Cherwell DC is so committed to Bicester being an Eco beacon, why are ALL developers not being required to build to the same environmental standards? If you TRULY believed in the whole eco agenda you would make sure that all developments from now on were sustainable. But I see no sigh of that in the draft local plan.
No planning grounds to refuse the application? What about the fact that this is not in the local (draft) plan? Personally I am in favour of a bigger Tesco - we have been getting poor service for far too long - but like you I think the proposals as they stand will do absolutely nothing to improve the traffic problems caused by BV. On the subject of development of Bicester, and particularly the NW development, I am not standing like Canute trying to turn back the tide. What I (and others) are doing is highlighting the disgraceful way in which "our" councillors have ridden roughshod over planning regulations and public opinion, and completely abandoned any attempt at urban planning, merely to satisfy the political lunacy of a few senior councillors. (I assume this is the underlying reason for pressing ahead with the eco-town, because I can't think of any rational one - unless of course you can enlighten us further). Not only that but you are committing local people to tie up millions of pounds of our council tax money in a white elephant scheme with no realistic prospect of seeing it for many many years, if at all. What Bicester actually needs is someone in charge of planning (from Bicester, not Banbury) who is able to see the whole picture and draw up and execute a proper local plan, not some rough sketches of the Eco-town, and a few dotted lines marked "cultural quarter" and think that that makes for a coherent 30 year strategy for Bicester. On a final point - if Cherwell DC is so committed to Bicester being an Eco beacon, why are ALL developers not being required to build to the same environmental standards? If you TRULY believed in the whole eco agenda you would make sure that all developments from now on were sustainable. But I see no sigh of that in the draft local plan. Severian
  • Score: 0

4:25pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Severian says...

* sign
* sign Severian
  • Score: 0

4:29pm Mon 4 Feb 13

to ny w says...

Boom the bombs have been detonated.

For ECO TOWN read ECO CON or relevant WOODS FOLLY!!!
Boom the bombs have been detonated. For ECO TOWN read ECO CON or relevant WOODS FOLLY!!! to ny w
  • Score: 0

5:34pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Nick Mawer says...

Hi Severian

sadly - just not being in the local draft plan is not sufficient grounds. I am sure that, for different reasons, we both wish that that was not the case.

I really wonder if it makes a difference whether someone is based in Banbury or Bicester when it comes to planning what is right for the district. In consultants WYG and the officers at Cherwell we have as good a team as you are likely to find. You may not like the plans for the area, but that does not make them incoherent. I am sure that you have made your views known during the consultation processes for the master planning.

On your final point, the town council and as far as I know the district council have been as keen as possible to emphasize to developers of all sizes the importance of green and energy saving design, however, apart from at NW Bicester where there is the specific and unrepealed PPS1 we can not yet compel developers to follow higher codes. So it was really pleasing to see the emphasis on energy saving and other eco features in the planning application for the new hospital.
Hi Severian sadly - just not being in the local draft plan is not sufficient grounds. I am sure that, for different reasons, we both wish that that was not the case. I really wonder if it makes a difference whether someone is based in Banbury or Bicester when it comes to planning what is right for the district. In consultants WYG and the officers at Cherwell we have as good a team as you are likely to find. You may not like the plans for the area, but that does not make them incoherent. I am sure that you have made your views known during the consultation processes for the master planning. On your final point, the town council and as far as I know the district council have been as keen as possible to emphasize to developers of all sizes the importance of green and energy saving design, however, apart from at NW Bicester where there is the specific and unrepealed PPS1 we can not yet compel developers to follow higher codes. So it was really pleasing to see the emphasis on energy saving and other eco features in the planning application for the new hospital. Nick Mawer
  • Score: 0

5:49pm Mon 4 Feb 13

steve1955 says...

No comment Mr mawr on the 10 million given for a house to be built in garth park your answers to posts on here is rather selective for someone representing us whats the problem?
No comment Mr mawr on the 10 million given for a house to be built in garth park your answers to posts on here is rather selective for someone representing us whats the problem? steve1955
  • Score: 0

6:40pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Severian says...

Nick

If the draft local plan represents the best that we are going to get, then we are royally screwed.

For many years Bicester has played second fiddle to Banbury. Planning decisions appear to be made at a distance with no consideration for the people of Bicester - I will give you two examples:

1. Bicester Village. CDC has been happy to see this expand out of all proportion for a town of our size, local residents' lives have been totally blighted by the massive amounts of traffic, and the best our planners could come up with was a yellow grid on the roundabout (which isn't enforced and everyone ignores). No-one at CDC seems to give a stuff about the residents of Bicester.

2. Lloyds Pharmacy
The chemists has a new shop front and the "best we can get" planners are considering making them rip it out because it isn't in keeping with historic Bicester. Yet they happily gave permission to Tesco, M&S, Iceland etc. for shopfronts which are considerably worse eyesores.

For years our town centre was left undeveloped while Banbury had shops and parking galore. And now that Sainsbury's is priming the pump in Bicester our planners have done the dirty on them, because BV wants more rent and more traffic. And what BV wants, BV gets.

It's ironic that CDC removed permitted development rights on Bure Park, so you need to submit a full planning application before you can erect a shed in your garden, yet our planners are happy to see a 400 house estate being built without the slightest idea of whether the eco town will ever be built.

I restate my case - we need some planners who can actually think about Bicester people and what WE need, not what property developers WANT. The current draft local plan is woefully missing any consideration for the current people of Bicester.
Nick If the draft local plan represents the best that we are going to get, then we are royally screwed. For many years Bicester has played second fiddle to Banbury. Planning decisions appear to be made at a distance with no consideration for the people of Bicester - I will give you two examples: 1. Bicester Village. CDC has been happy to see this expand out of all proportion for a town of our size, local residents' lives have been totally blighted by the massive amounts of traffic, and the best our planners could come up with was a yellow grid on the roundabout (which isn't enforced and everyone ignores). No-one at CDC seems to give a stuff about the residents of Bicester. 2. Lloyds Pharmacy The chemists has a new shop front and the "best we can get" planners are considering making them rip it out because it isn't in keeping with historic Bicester. Yet they happily gave permission to Tesco, M&S, Iceland etc. for shopfronts which are considerably worse eyesores. For years our town centre was left undeveloped while Banbury had shops and parking galore. And now that Sainsbury's is priming the pump in Bicester our planners have done the dirty on them, because BV wants more rent and more traffic. And what BV wants, BV gets. It's ironic that CDC removed permitted development rights on Bure Park, so you need to submit a full planning application before you can erect a shed in your garden, yet our planners are happy to see a 400 house estate being built without the slightest idea of whether the eco town will ever be built. I restate my case - we need some planners who can actually think about Bicester people and what WE need, not what property developers WANT. The current draft local plan is woefully missing any consideration for the current people of Bicester. Severian
  • Score: 0

8:28pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Nick Mawer says...

Steve1955, as you know, setting up the demonstration house was a requirement of the Eco Town. It has allowed all sorts of people to come and learn about the types of technology that will allow for more sustainable living including grey water recycling, rainwater harvesting, MVHR etc. I have no idea where you get your figure of £10m from or where you think it has been spent, but the demonstration house did not cost £10m. The demonstration house is a temporary structure time in the future. Negotiations between the Town Council and the District Council are taking place about this very subject.

Severian, there is a perception that Bicester has played second fiddle to Banbury but at least coinciding with the time that I have been on Cherwell there has been a much greater emphasis on Bicester. You are absolutely wrong when you say that nobody at CDC gives a stuff about Bicester, all my elected colleagues both current and past, and that includes members of the opposition have all cared passionately about Bicester. Unfortunately sometimes a decision that is welcomed by one group is anathema to another - so for example the joint application for Tesco to move and BV to expand is welcomed by many local residents who believe that they will have better access to the store of their choice, and with less hassle by inconsiderate BV shoppers. If you are in the anathema group you will employ all the arguments regarding competency that you have employed. That does not make the argument right.
On the point of the street scene in Sheep Street I am sure that like many people I would like to see a more traditional feel to our town, and I am equally sure that the traders see large plate glass windows as being important to their appeal to the "modern" customer. Sadly there are very few towns in the UK where you can find this ideal, and most including Bicester are an imperfect compromise.
Steve1955, as you know, setting up the demonstration house was a requirement of the Eco Town. It has allowed all sorts of people to come and learn about the types of technology that will allow for more sustainable living including grey water recycling, rainwater harvesting, MVHR etc. I have no idea where you get your figure of £10m from or where you think it has been spent, but the demonstration house did not cost £10m. The demonstration house is a temporary structure time in the future. Negotiations between the Town Council and the District Council are taking place about this very subject. Severian, there is a perception that Bicester has played second fiddle to Banbury but at least coinciding with the time that I have been on Cherwell there has been a much greater emphasis on Bicester. You are absolutely wrong when you say that nobody at CDC gives a stuff about Bicester, all my elected colleagues both current and past, and that includes members of the opposition have all cared passionately about Bicester. Unfortunately sometimes a decision that is welcomed by one group is anathema to another - so for example the joint application for Tesco to move and BV to expand is welcomed by many local residents who believe that they will have better access to the store of their choice, and with less hassle by inconsiderate BV shoppers. If you are in the anathema group you will employ all the arguments regarding competency that you have employed. That does not make the argument right. On the point of the street scene in Sheep Street I am sure that like many people I would like to see a more traditional feel to our town, and I am equally sure that the traders see large plate glass windows as being important to their appeal to the "modern" customer. Sadly there are very few towns in the UK where you can find this ideal, and most including Bicester are an imperfect compromise. Nick Mawer
  • Score: 0

9:00pm Mon 4 Feb 13

steve1955 says...

Nick
Have the developers actually purchased the land?
How many more start times will there be for this eco town?
What has all the grant money gone ?
I and others can respect you for coming onto here to answer questions any reason why the other Bicester councillors dont join in the debate,
There will always be arguments for and against local development here and everywhere i for one only want one thing that is openess and infomation especially from those who represent us
Nick Have the developers actually purchased the land? How many more start times will there be for this eco town? What has all the grant money gone ? I and others can respect you for coming onto here to answer questions any reason why the other Bicester councillors dont join in the debate, There will always be arguments for and against local development here and everywhere i for one only want one thing that is openess and infomation especially from those who represent us steve1955
  • Score: 0

10:29pm Mon 4 Feb 13

Jayne Doe says...

We need a bigger tesco and sainsburys to offer more choice ?

With Bicester getting bigger what's the problem?
We need a bigger tesco and sainsburys to offer more choice ? With Bicester getting bigger what's the problem? Jayne Doe
  • Score: 0

12:59am Tue 5 Feb 13

caversfield says...

People from Southwold, Bure and Langford need not comment on the future of Bicester. You're all outsiders to me. I remember when Langford was first built. it all went down hill from there :( Why are new houses 25% smaller than those built in the rest of Europe?

I'm sure food at Tesco will smell yummy when the winds blow north from the sewage works and chicken farm.
People from Southwold, Bure and Langford need not comment on the future of Bicester. You're all outsiders to me. I remember when Langford was first built. it all went down hill from there :( Why are new houses 25% smaller than those built in the rest of Europe? I'm sure food at Tesco will smell yummy when the winds blow north from the sewage works and chicken farm. caversfield
  • Score: 0

8:14am Tue 5 Feb 13

Nick Mawer says...

Steve, clearly, as reported in this paper there appear to be some details to be finalised in the purchase of the land. I am not privy to this information. As for your second question I can't answer, but I hope that there are not many more. The grant money is sitting in special bank accounts waiting to be spent - or it has been spent on projects such as the John Paul II centre, which if you have not visited, I would urge you to visit; the Cooper School 6th form - (over and above what OCC put in); and the 23 new homes at Bryan House, and of course the infamous demonstration building at the Garth.
Steve, clearly, as reported in this paper there appear to be some details to be finalised in the purchase of the land. I am not privy to this information. As for your second question I can't answer, but I hope that there are not many more. The grant money is sitting in special bank accounts waiting to be spent - or it has been spent on projects such as the John Paul II centre, which if you have not visited, I would urge you to visit; the Cooper School 6th form - (over and above what OCC put in); and the 23 new homes at Bryan House, and of course the infamous demonstration building at the Garth. Nick Mawer
  • Score: 0

11:08am Tue 5 Feb 13

Arkright says...

Well done Nick for taking part .. as for the others you're clearly asking the wrong guy .. You might as well get used to the fact that CDC have no time for opinions from you .. They will as always do want they want regardless.
Well done Nick for taking part .. as for the others you're clearly asking the wrong guy .. You might as well get used to the fact that CDC have no time for opinions from you .. They will as always do want they want regardless. Arkright
  • Score: 0

1:16pm Tue 5 Feb 13

Nick Mawer says...

Anyway - as reported elsewhere, there is still a challenge to the Tesco BV move. We will have to wait to see how this plays out, whatever the result is, there will be some people who will be upset, and some who will be happy, and some who will have mixed feelings.
Anyway - as reported elsewhere, there is still a challenge to the Tesco BV move. We will have to wait to see how this plays out, whatever the result is, there will be some people who will be upset, and some who will be happy, and some who will have mixed feelings. Nick Mawer
  • Score: 0

1:39pm Tue 5 Feb 13

Severian says...

Nick Mawer wrote:
Steve, clearly, as reported in this paper there appear to be some details to be finalised in the purchase of the land. I am not privy to this information. As for your second question I can't answer, but I hope that there are not many more. The grant money is sitting in special bank accounts waiting to be spent - or it has been spent on projects such as the John Paul II centre, which if you have not visited, I would urge you to visit; the Cooper School 6th form - (over and above what OCC put in); and the 23 new homes at Bryan House, and of course the infamous demonstration building at the Garth.
Wouldn't it have been a good idea for the so called developers to actually OWN the land before Cherwell committed millions of pounds of OUR money to this white elephant?

This whole project has been beset by politicians driving through their own party agenda with absolute disregard for commonsense or due process.

And STILL no-one from the Tory party is willing to tell us why they are SO determined to push ahead with it.
[quote][p][bold]Nick Mawer[/bold] wrote: Steve, clearly, as reported in this paper there appear to be some details to be finalised in the purchase of the land. I am not privy to this information. As for your second question I can't answer, but I hope that there are not many more. The grant money is sitting in special bank accounts waiting to be spent - or it has been spent on projects such as the John Paul II centre, which if you have not visited, I would urge you to visit; the Cooper School 6th form - (over and above what OCC put in); and the 23 new homes at Bryan House, and of course the infamous demonstration building at the Garth.[/p][/quote]Wouldn't it have been a good idea for the so called developers to actually OWN the land before Cherwell committed millions of pounds of OUR money to this white elephant? This whole project has been beset by politicians driving through their own party agenda with absolute disregard for commonsense or due process. And STILL no-one from the Tory party is willing to tell us why they are SO determined to push ahead with it. Severian
  • Score: 0

1:41pm Tue 5 Feb 13

Severian says...

Nick Mawer wrote:
Anyway - as reported elsewhere, there is still a challenge to the Tesco BV move. We will have to wait to see how this plays out, whatever the result is, there will be some people who will be upset, and some who will be happy, and some who will have mixed feelings.
Spoken like a true politician Nick. You will no doubt go far in the Cherwell Tories. Perhaps you could get off the fence and tell us why you are in favour of an Eco development for NW Bicester, and non Eco developments for everywhere else in Bicester?
[quote][p][bold]Nick Mawer[/bold] wrote: Anyway - as reported elsewhere, there is still a challenge to the Tesco BV move. We will have to wait to see how this plays out, whatever the result is, there will be some people who will be upset, and some who will be happy, and some who will have mixed feelings.[/p][/quote]Spoken like a true politician Nick. You will no doubt go far in the Cherwell Tories. Perhaps you could get off the fence and tell us why you are in favour of an Eco development for NW Bicester, and non Eco developments for everywhere else in Bicester? Severian
  • Score: 0

2:03pm Tue 5 Feb 13

to ny w says...

A2Dominion told me and I quote' A2Dominion are not responsible for the ownership or management of the demo house within Garth Park.


The house was not designed by A2Dominion nor envisaged as a show home for the first exemplar phase of NW Bicester, and while the facility shows a range of the latest eco technologies, some may not be the technologies proposed for the first phase of the eco town.


The design and appearance of the homes within the exemplar phase are different to that of the demo house in Garth Park. For more details and images of the homes to be constructed in the exemplar please visit our website:


So when Nick Mawer says it was ' a requirement' to build this demo house, it obviously didn't mean it had to reflect what will be built on site in the end.

Another Con in the ECO CON fiasco.
A2Dominion told me and I quote' A2Dominion are not responsible for the ownership or management of the demo house within Garth Park. The house was not designed by A2Dominion nor envisaged as a show home for the first exemplar phase of NW Bicester, and while the facility shows a range of the latest eco technologies, some may not be the technologies proposed for the first phase of the eco town. The design and appearance of the homes within the exemplar phase are different to that of the demo house in Garth Park. For more details and images of the homes to be constructed in the exemplar please visit our website: So when Nick Mawer says it was ' a requirement' to build this demo house, it obviously didn't mean it had to reflect what will be built on site in the end. Another Con in the ECO CON fiasco. to ny w
  • Score: 0

2:14pm Tue 5 Feb 13

Arkright says...

As a business owner in the town for 12 years I think I should get more than an 'anyway' Nick.

As I said, you're all wasting your time, this is happening whether we like it or not. The new councillor for Bucknell, Jon O'Neill, has clearly been told to keep quiet over the 'Eco' development, even though he campaigned that he was against it. Nick has clearly been given the same instructions to support it regardless.

I was told unofficially by a councillor that once the exemplar is built, the rest will either not happen or will not be 'eco' at all. It's just a con to get the cash from the government !!
As a business owner in the town for 12 years I think I should get more than an 'anyway' Nick. As I said, you're all wasting your time, this is happening whether we like it or not. The new councillor for Bucknell, Jon O'Neill, has clearly been told to keep quiet over the 'Eco' development, even though he campaigned that he was against it. Nick has clearly been given the same instructions to support it regardless. I was told unofficially by a councillor that once the exemplar is built, the rest will either not happen or will not be 'eco' at all. It's just a con to get the cash from the government !! Arkright
  • Score: 0

2:31pm Tue 5 Feb 13

Grunden Skip says...

Severian wrote:
Nick Mawer wrote:
Anyway - as reported elsewhere, there is still a challenge to the Tesco BV move. We will have to wait to see how this plays out, whatever the result is, there will be some people who will be upset, and some who will be happy, and some who will have mixed feelings.
Spoken like a true politician Nick. You will no doubt go far in the Cherwell Tories. Perhaps you could get off the fence and tell us why you are in favour of an Eco development for NW Bicester, and non Eco developments for everywhere else in Bicester?
That is why he is a good politician sevvy, he avoids answering THE pertinent questions, but can write 200 words and say nothing.
[quote][p][bold]Severian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nick Mawer[/bold] wrote: Anyway - as reported elsewhere, there is still a challenge to the Tesco BV move. We will have to wait to see how this plays out, whatever the result is, there will be some people who will be upset, and some who will be happy, and some who will have mixed feelings.[/p][/quote]Spoken like a true politician Nick. You will no doubt go far in the Cherwell Tories. Perhaps you could get off the fence and tell us why you are in favour of an Eco development for NW Bicester, and non Eco developments for everywhere else in Bicester?[/p][/quote]That is why he is a good politician sevvy, he avoids answering THE pertinent questions, but can write 200 words and say nothing. Grunden Skip
  • Score: 0

5:27pm Tue 5 Feb 13

Nick Mawer says...

Look I've told you all the reasons why I support the Eco town. I have also told you that I would prefer all the developments round Bicester to be of the same high standard; however, unlike with NW Bicester which falls under a PPS, there is no compulsion on developers to build to these standards. NW Bicester will be a better place to live, with more open spaces and with houses that are cheaper to run than anywhere else in Bicester, though they may be more expensive to buy - I don't know. I have also made it abundantly clear that if NW Bicester with all its advantages of Central Government cash was not built, you would have unscrupulous housing developers putting in applications for much less appealing developments and I have given you examples of same.

Arkwright - I am sorry if you were upset by my "anyway" - if you have been reading this thread you will know that I have not been for the move and expansion of Tesco, because I fear that it will not solve traffic problems, and will be the thin end of another out of town retail park. Just imagine what might happen next say - M&S put in an application for an out of town store and close their town centre unit - this may not be welcomed by town centre traders such as yourself - although I don't know who you actually are.
Look I've told you all the reasons why I support the Eco town. I have also told you that I would prefer all the developments round Bicester to be of the same high standard; however, unlike with NW Bicester which falls under a PPS, there is no compulsion on developers to build to these standards. NW Bicester will be a better place to live, with more open spaces and with houses that are cheaper to run than anywhere else in Bicester, though they may be more expensive to buy - I don't know. I have also made it abundantly clear that if NW Bicester with all its advantages of Central Government cash was not built, you would have unscrupulous housing developers putting in applications for much less appealing developments and I have given you examples of same. Arkwright - I am sorry if you were upset by my "anyway" - if you have been reading this thread you will know that I have not been for the move and expansion of Tesco, because I fear that it will not solve traffic problems, and will be the thin end of another out of town retail park. Just imagine what might happen next say - M&S put in an application for an out of town store and close their town centre unit - this may not be welcomed by town centre traders such as yourself - although I don't know who you actually are. Nick Mawer
  • Score: 0

5:52pm Tue 5 Feb 13

Arkright says...

Nick, you have taken some flak and I admire the fact you keep coming back.

However, I'm not sure traders like me would be so anti out of town stores, if we were given a level playing field i.e Free first hour or two parking. (After all if we're honest, we all use out of town stores for something). My personally gripe is the amount of illegal parking in the town that goes unpunished.

Also I was told by the Phipps family that the only reason they sold land for the 'Eco' development, was the fact they feared compulsory purchase which would not have given them such a good deal financially. I was unaware that unscrupulous housing developers could force compulsory purchase on land they wanted.

For the record I am personally not against the expansion at BV or the new Tesco. I am against the way Bicester Town traders are ignored.
Nick, you have taken some flak and I admire the fact you keep coming back. However, I'm not sure traders like me would be so anti out of town stores, if we were given a level playing field i.e Free first hour or two parking. (After all if we're honest, we all use out of town stores for something). My personally gripe is the amount of illegal parking in the town that goes unpunished. Also I was told by the Phipps family that the only reason they sold land for the 'Eco' development, was the fact they feared compulsory purchase which would not have given them such a good deal financially. I was unaware that unscrupulous housing developers could force compulsory purchase on land they wanted. For the record I am personally not against the expansion at BV or the new Tesco. I am against the way Bicester Town traders are ignored. Arkright
  • Score: 0

6:45pm Tue 5 Feb 13

Severian says...

Arkright wrote:
As a business owner in the town for 12 years I think I should get more than an 'anyway' Nick.

As I said, you're all wasting your time, this is happening whether we like it or not. The new councillor for Bucknell, Jon O'Neill, has clearly been told to keep quiet over the 'Eco' development, even though he campaigned that he was against it. Nick has clearly been given the same instructions to support it regardless.

I was told unofficially by a councillor that once the exemplar is built, the rest will either not happen or will not be 'eco' at all. It's just a con to get the cash from the government !!
Err. No. It's just a con to get planning permission for green belt land, so that the developers and Cherwell District Council can share in the increase in the land value. If you don't believe me read this letter which was written by P3Eco following a meeting with the Strategic Director Planning at Cherwell DC on 2nd June 2009:

http://www.cherwell.
gov.uk/media/pdf/o/r
/P3Eco_letter.pdf

The key bullet point is the first, which reads: "We agree that it would be only right for the Council and any other interests, including the land owning interests, to join with the private sector in enjoying the benefits of the long term growth in value which we expect to achieve if the development were to proceed."

In black and white P3Eco admitted that one of the key aims is to help the council and "other interests" to "enjoy the benefits of the long term growth in value".

What has never been made clear is who these "other interests" are. They aren't the landowners, and they aren't the private sector, and they aren't the District Council. So who are they?

From Day 1 this whole eco proposal has been about helping the "other interests" to make money by getting planning permission for open farmland which miraculously increases the value of the land from a few thousand pounds a hectare to a million a hectare or more.

It's just that none of our Tory councillors are willing to admit that this was the plan all along.
[quote][p][bold]Arkright[/bold] wrote: As a business owner in the town for 12 years I think I should get more than an 'anyway' Nick. As I said, you're all wasting your time, this is happening whether we like it or not. The new councillor for Bucknell, Jon O'Neill, has clearly been told to keep quiet over the 'Eco' development, even though he campaigned that he was against it. Nick has clearly been given the same instructions to support it regardless. I was told unofficially by a councillor that once the exemplar is built, the rest will either not happen or will not be 'eco' at all. It's just a con to get the cash from the government !![/p][/quote]Err. No. It's just a con to get planning permission for green belt land, so that the developers and Cherwell District Council can share in the increase in the land value. If you don't believe me read this letter which was written by P3Eco following a meeting with the Strategic Director Planning at Cherwell DC on 2nd June 2009: http://www.cherwell. gov.uk/media/pdf/o/r /P3Eco_letter.pdf The key bullet point is the first, which reads: "We agree that it would be only right for the Council and any other interests, including the land owning interests, to join with the private sector in enjoying the benefits of the long term growth in value which we expect to achieve if the development were to proceed." In black and white P3Eco admitted that one of the key aims is to help the council and "other interests" to "enjoy the benefits of the long term growth in value". What has never been made clear is who these "other interests" are. They aren't the landowners, and they aren't the private sector, and they aren't the District Council. So who are they? From Day 1 this whole eco proposal has been about helping the "other interests" to make money by getting planning permission for open farmland which miraculously increases the value of the land from a few thousand pounds a hectare to a million a hectare or more. It's just that none of our Tory councillors are willing to admit that this was the plan all along. Severian
  • Score: 0

7:49pm Tue 5 Feb 13

Arkright says...

Err, yes ! .. I'm not in the business of lying about the conversations I've had.

You seem to have more knowledge than most regarding the 'Eco' development, what have you done with it ? ... Is there an outlet to do more ?
Err, yes ! .. I'm not in the business of lying about the conversations I've had. You seem to have more knowledge than most regarding the 'Eco' development, what have you done with it ? ... Is there an outlet to do more ? Arkright
  • Score: 0

9:07pm Tue 5 Feb 13

to ny w says...

Arkright wrote:
As a business owner in the town for 12 years I think I should get more than an 'anyway' Nick.

As I said, you're all wasting your time, this is happening whether we like it or not. The new councillor for Bucknell, Jon O'Neill, has clearly been told to keep quiet over the 'Eco' development, even though he campaigned that he was against it. Nick has clearly been given the same instructions to support it regardless.

I was told unofficially by a councillor that once the exemplar is built, the rest will either not happen or will not be 'eco' at all. It's just a con to get the cash from the government !!
Rather like the previous councillor Mrs Fulljames who resigned over this issue after the Tories sent her to Coventry.
[quote][p][bold]Arkright[/bold] wrote: As a business owner in the town for 12 years I think I should get more than an 'anyway' Nick. As I said, you're all wasting your time, this is happening whether we like it or not. The new councillor for Bucknell, Jon O'Neill, has clearly been told to keep quiet over the 'Eco' development, even though he campaigned that he was against it. Nick has clearly been given the same instructions to support it regardless. I was told unofficially by a councillor that once the exemplar is built, the rest will either not happen or will not be 'eco' at all. It's just a con to get the cash from the government !![/p][/quote]Rather like the previous councillor Mrs Fulljames who resigned over this issue after the Tories sent her to Coventry. to ny w
  • Score: 0

9:15pm Tue 5 Feb 13

steve1955 says...

I think my conclusions are right tell us the truth CDC and the councillors
FAT CHANCE
I think my conclusions are right tell us the truth CDC and the councillors FAT CHANCE steve1955
  • Score: 0

11:27pm Tue 5 Feb 13

Severian says...

Arkright wrote:
Err, yes ! .. I'm not in the business of lying about the conversations I've had.

You seem to have more knowledge than most regarding the 'Eco' development, what have you done with it ? ... Is there an outlet to do more ?
Arkright - I wasn't denying that that was what you were told by a councillor. I was raising the possibility that what they told you might not be the whole truth. In their initial meetings between P3Eco and Cherwell District Council it appears to have been discussed and agreed that one of the main aims of the "Eco" plans was to ensure that all those involved would get a share of the uplift in the land values once CDC granted planning permission for the site. The letter I refer to is available on the CDC website for anyone to see - it clearly shows that there is considerably more at stake than some measly few million quid grant from the government.

Let's do some basic maths:
- 850 acres of planning approved land at £1m an acre = £850m
- 850 acres of agricultural land at £7,000 an acre = £5.95m.

Even if they only build on 60% of the site (keeping the rest as open space) the increase in land values is of the order of £500m - that's an awful lot of cash to share out.

The big problem of course is that Eco houses cost considerably more to build than ordinary houses, so that uplift in value could be eaten away. Far better would be to include the 850 acres in a local plan as housing land, use the exemplar to prove that eco houses will never work while everyone else is building ordinary houses and then scrap the whole eco plan. Then grant permission for the remainder of the site to be ordinary houses - overal result? BINGO! Doubles all round.
[quote][p][bold]Arkright[/bold] wrote: Err, yes ! .. I'm not in the business of lying about the conversations I've had. You seem to have more knowledge than most regarding the 'Eco' development, what have you done with it ? ... Is there an outlet to do more ?[/p][/quote]Arkright - I wasn't denying that that was what you were told by a councillor. I was raising the possibility that what they told you might not be the whole truth. In their initial meetings between P3Eco and Cherwell District Council it appears to have been discussed and agreed that one of the main aims of the "Eco" plans was to ensure that all those involved would get a share of the uplift in the land values once CDC granted planning permission for the site. The letter I refer to is available on the CDC website for anyone to see - it clearly shows that there is considerably more at stake than some measly few million quid grant from the government. Let's do some basic maths: - 850 acres of planning approved land at £1m an acre = £850m - 850 acres of agricultural land at £7,000 an acre = £5.95m. Even if they only build on 60% of the site (keeping the rest as open space) the increase in land values is of the order of £500m - that's an awful lot of cash to share out. The big problem of course is that Eco houses cost considerably more to build than ordinary houses, so that uplift in value could be eaten away. Far better would be to include the 850 acres in a local plan as housing land, use the exemplar to prove that eco houses will never work while everyone else is building ordinary houses and then scrap the whole eco plan. Then grant permission for the remainder of the site to be ordinary houses - overal result? BINGO! Doubles all round. Severian
  • Score: 0

11:29pm Tue 5 Feb 13

Severian says...

* overall.
* overall. Severian
  • Score: 0

8:42am Wed 6 Feb 13

Arkright says...

Severian - Isn't that basically what I said, but with added facts and reasonable argument.

I will speak to the councillor again and see what light he can shed on this.
Severian - Isn't that basically what I said, but with added facts and reasonable argument. I will speak to the councillor again and see what light he can shed on this. Arkright
  • Score: 0

1:05pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Severian says...

Arkright wrote:
Severian - Isn't that basically what I said, but with added facts and reasonable argument.

I will speak to the councillor again and see what light he can shed on this.
I agree it will certainly not go any further than the Exemplar. My point was simply that getting a government grant wasn't anywhere near a big enough incentive to push this through.

Perhaps Cllr Mawer would be willing to comment on whether increased land values was an underlying reason for Cherwell DC to be so supportive, as the published letter suggests.
[quote][p][bold]Arkright[/bold] wrote: Severian - Isn't that basically what I said, but with added facts and reasonable argument. I will speak to the councillor again and see what light he can shed on this.[/p][/quote]I agree it will certainly not go any further than the Exemplar. My point was simply that getting a government grant wasn't anywhere near a big enough incentive to push this through. Perhaps Cllr Mawer would be willing to comment on whether increased land values was an underlying reason for Cherwell DC to be so supportive, as the published letter suggests. Severian
  • Score: 0

2:05pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Arkright says...

Well if he does I'll donate £100 to a charity of his choosing.
Well if he does I'll donate £100 to a charity of his choosing. Arkright
  • Score: 0

12:33pm Thu 7 Feb 13

Nick Mawer says...

Severian, Tony W has been feeding you a conspiracy theory. I can honestly say that I believe he is drawing false conclusions.

Tony - why don't you set out in black and white all the reasons that you oppose the Eco Town. Why don't you leave aside the pointless characterisation of the Eco Town as "Woods Folly" which does you a disservice and enter a serious debate on the facts. Come to think of it - if you think that there is some dark conspiracy going on why don't you write to the council, publish the reply and then we can put an end to this wild rumour mongering.
Severian, Tony W has been feeding you a conspiracy theory. I can honestly say that I believe he is drawing false conclusions. Tony - why don't you set out in black and white all the reasons that you oppose the Eco Town. Why don't you leave aside the pointless characterisation of the Eco Town as "Woods Folly" which does you a disservice and enter a serious debate on the facts. Come to think of it - if you think that there is some dark conspiracy going on why don't you write to the council, publish the reply and then we can put an end to this wild rumour mongering. Nick Mawer
  • Score: 0

1:19pm Thu 7 Feb 13

steve1955 says...

No answer MR mawr perhaps you can give 100 quid to charity for not answering what are you frightened of?
Remember we pay your allowances
answer that then
No answer MR mawr perhaps you can give 100 quid to charity for not answering what are you frightened of? Remember we pay your allowances answer that then steve1955
  • Score: 0

1:33pm Thu 7 Feb 13

Arkright says...

steve1955 wrote:
No answer MR mawr perhaps you can give 100 quid to charity for not answering what are you frightened of?
Remember we pay your allowances
answer that then
I knew it was a safe bet !
[quote][p][bold]steve1955[/bold] wrote: No answer MR mawr perhaps you can give 100 quid to charity for not answering what are you frightened of? Remember we pay your allowances answer that then[/p][/quote]I knew it was a safe bet ! Arkright
  • Score: 0

1:40pm Thu 7 Feb 13

Severian says...

Nick Mawer wrote:
Severian, Tony W has been feeding you a conspiracy theory. I can honestly say that I believe he is drawing false conclusions.

Tony - why don't you set out in black and white all the reasons that you oppose the Eco Town. Why don't you leave aside the pointless characterisation of the Eco Town as "Woods Folly" which does you a disservice and enter a serious debate on the facts. Come to think of it - if you think that there is some dark conspiracy going on why don't you write to the council, publish the reply and then we can put an end to this wild rumour mongering.
Nick

Tony doesn't need to feed any conspiracy theories. The whole project speaks for itself.

I refer you back to the letter from P3Eco to Cherwell District Council which summarised what was discussed and agreed in a meeting very early on in the project - in that letter P3Eco make very clear that one of the key benefits of the project is that P3Eco, Cherwell District Council, landowners, and "other interests" would get to share in the increase in land values from the development.

At no point to date have I seen any credible explanation from our politicians as to why they are hell bent on pushing ahead with a massive housing development on the wrong side of Bicester, with ABSOLUTELY no idea what its effect will be on the town. There is no masterplan, so no-one knows what the eventual outcome will look like.

Yet all our Tory councillors insist that this is the best thing since sliced bread (except the one from Bucknell who is saying nothing at all) without any explanation of why they think it is wonderful.

The party line appears to be:
"I'm in favour of it."
When asked why the answer is "Because it will be great for Bicester."
When asked how the answer is "Because it will."
[quote][p][bold]Nick Mawer[/bold] wrote: Severian, Tony W has been feeding you a conspiracy theory. I can honestly say that I believe he is drawing false conclusions. Tony - why don't you set out in black and white all the reasons that you oppose the Eco Town. Why don't you leave aside the pointless characterisation of the Eco Town as "Woods Folly" which does you a disservice and enter a serious debate on the facts. Come to think of it - if you think that there is some dark conspiracy going on why don't you write to the council, publish the reply and then we can put an end to this wild rumour mongering.[/p][/quote]Nick Tony doesn't need to feed any conspiracy theories. The whole project speaks for itself. I refer you back to the letter from P3Eco to Cherwell District Council which summarised what was discussed and agreed in a meeting very early on in the project - in that letter P3Eco make very clear that one of the key benefits of the project is that P3Eco, Cherwell District Council, landowners, and "other interests" would get to share in the increase in land values from the development. At no point to date have I seen any credible explanation from our politicians as to why they are hell bent on pushing ahead with a massive housing development on the wrong side of Bicester, with ABSOLUTELY no idea what its effect will be on the town. There is no masterplan, so no-one knows what the eventual outcome will look like. Yet all our Tory councillors insist that this is the best thing since sliced bread (except the one from Bucknell who is saying nothing at all) without any explanation of why they think it is wonderful. The party line appears to be: "I'm in favour of it." When asked why the answer is "Because it will be great for Bicester." When asked how the answer is "Because it will." Severian
  • Score: 0

1:50pm Thu 7 Feb 13

Severian says...

Nick Mawer wrote:
Severian, Tony W has been feeding you a conspiracy theory. I can honestly say that I believe he is drawing false conclusions.

Tony - why don't you set out in black and white all the reasons that you oppose the Eco Town. Why don't you leave aside the pointless characterisation of the Eco Town as "Woods Folly" which does you a disservice and enter a serious debate on the facts. Come to think of it - if you think that there is some dark conspiracy going on why don't you write to the council, publish the reply and then we can put an end to this wild rumour mongering.
Nick - the reasons people are against the Eco town have been clearly laid out on the BaECON website for two years: http://www.baecon.bl
ogspot.co.uk/p/main-
objections.html

The facts were also laid before the electorate last May, when BaECON candidates ran a close second to two Tory candidates in local elections.

I find it hard to believe that as an interested councillor you didn't read any of the election literature from BaECON last year either, which also laid out all of the objections. Again this is available on the website.
[quote][p][bold]Nick Mawer[/bold] wrote: Severian, Tony W has been feeding you a conspiracy theory. I can honestly say that I believe he is drawing false conclusions. Tony - why don't you set out in black and white all the reasons that you oppose the Eco Town. Why don't you leave aside the pointless characterisation of the Eco Town as "Woods Folly" which does you a disservice and enter a serious debate on the facts. Come to think of it - if you think that there is some dark conspiracy going on why don't you write to the council, publish the reply and then we can put an end to this wild rumour mongering.[/p][/quote]Nick - the reasons people are against the Eco town have been clearly laid out on the BaECON website for two years: http://www.baecon.bl ogspot.co.uk/p/main- objections.html The facts were also laid before the electorate last May, when BaECON candidates ran a close second to two Tory candidates in local elections. I find it hard to believe that as an interested councillor you didn't read any of the election literature from BaECON last year either, which also laid out all of the objections. Again this is available on the website. Severian
  • Score: 0

2:13pm Thu 7 Feb 13

to ny w says...

Nick Mawer wrote:
Severian, Tony W has been feeding you a conspiracy theory. I can honestly say that I believe he is drawing false conclusions.

Tony - why don't you set out in black and white all the reasons that you oppose the Eco Town. Why don't you leave aside the pointless characterisation of the Eco Town as "Woods Folly" which does you a disservice and enter a serious debate on the facts. Come to think of it - if you think that there is some dark conspiracy going on why don't you write to the council, publish the reply and then we can put an end to this wild rumour mongering.
O k Nick, hopefully you have read the BaECON blogspot and you have become enlightened to the professionals side of the argument.

I have NEVER suggested a conspiracy theory and I take exception to you saying so. What I have highlighted is that what the politicians, who act as amateur developers, seem to display an abundance of commercial ineptness. I would be thankful for an apology.

1. I have written to the Chief Exec and Leader of the council before. Mr Wood diverted it to Jenny Barker. He did not reply to me.The Chief Exec wouldn't meet me in person.
2. WOODS FOLLY is what it will end up, See the Baecon blogspot as to why.
3, As for a debate, we would welcome it. In fact on another thread in this journal, I challenged you to a debate, and you ignored it.
So wise up Mr Mawer there are development and planning professionals out there, not NIMBY's, looking at your councils every move. What we have seen so far odes not impress on many counts.
[quote][p][bold]Nick Mawer[/bold] wrote: Severian, Tony W has been feeding you a conspiracy theory. I can honestly say that I believe he is drawing false conclusions. Tony - why don't you set out in black and white all the reasons that you oppose the Eco Town. Why don't you leave aside the pointless characterisation of the Eco Town as "Woods Folly" which does you a disservice and enter a serious debate on the facts. Come to think of it - if you think that there is some dark conspiracy going on why don't you write to the council, publish the reply and then we can put an end to this wild rumour mongering.[/p][/quote]O k Nick, hopefully you have read the BaECON blogspot and you have become enlightened to the professionals side of the argument. I have NEVER suggested a conspiracy theory and I take exception to you saying so. What I have highlighted is that what the politicians, who act as amateur developers, seem to display an abundance of commercial ineptness. I would be thankful for an apology. 1. I have written to the Chief Exec and Leader of the council before. Mr Wood diverted it to Jenny Barker. He did not reply to me.The Chief Exec wouldn't meet me in person. 2. WOODS FOLLY is what it will end up, See the Baecon blogspot as to why. 3, As for a debate, we would welcome it. In fact on another thread in this journal, I challenged you to a debate, and you ignored it. So wise up Mr Mawer there are development and planning professionals out there, not NIMBY's, looking at your councils every move. What we have seen so far odes not impress on many counts. to ny w
  • Score: 0

2:13pm Thu 7 Feb 13

to ny w says...

Apologies it is Cllr Mawer, not Mr.
Apologies it is Cllr Mawer, not Mr. to ny w
  • Score: 0

8:43pm Thu 7 Feb 13

steve1955 says...

i think the councillor who represents and is paid for by US does not want to answer a question poor show
i think the councillor who represents and is paid for by US does not want to answer a question poor show steve1955
  • Score: 0

8:47pm Thu 7 Feb 13

Nick Mawer says...

Apology accepted.
Apology accepted. Nick Mawer
  • Score: 0

8:47pm Thu 7 Feb 13

to ny w says...

Plus ca change.
Plus ca change. to ny w
  • Score: 0

8:49pm Thu 7 Feb 13

to ny w says...

Nick Mawer wrote:
Apology accepted.
I am waiting on mine,,,,,,,,,
[quote][p][bold]Nick Mawer[/bold] wrote: Apology accepted.[/p][/quote]I am waiting on mine,,,,,,,,, to ny w
  • Score: 0

8:51pm Thu 7 Feb 13

Nick Mawer says...

Steve1955, I have told you that you are tilting at windmills. I will get back to you more fully shortly when I have a bit more time. Anyway, even when I do give you an answer you choose not to believe me, so I have to say, I wonder whether I am wasting my time on here.
Steve1955, I have told you that you are tilting at windmills. I will get back to you more fully shortly when I have a bit more time. Anyway, even when I do give you an answer you choose not to believe me, so I have to say, I wonder whether I am wasting my time on here. Nick Mawer
  • Score: 0

8:55pm Thu 7 Feb 13

to ny w says...

Nick Mawer wrote:
Steve1955, I have told you that you are tilting at windmills. I will get back to you more fully shortly when I have a bit more time. Anyway, even when I do give you an answer you choose not to believe me, so I have to say, I wonder whether I am wasting my time on here.
Well you dont waste it apologising!
[quote][p][bold]Nick Mawer[/bold] wrote: Steve1955, I have told you that you are tilting at windmills. I will get back to you more fully shortly when I have a bit more time. Anyway, even when I do give you an answer you choose not to believe me, so I have to say, I wonder whether I am wasting my time on here.[/p][/quote]Well you dont waste it apologising! to ny w
  • Score: 0

9:45pm Thu 7 Feb 13

steve1955 says...

how much of you time is paid for by the council tax payers some of whom are posting comments on her?
be honest for once,as for me tilting at windmills all i am saying is the people want the truth and answers who do you represent?
how much of you time is paid for by the council tax payers some of whom are posting comments on her? be honest for once,as for me tilting at windmills all i am saying is the people want the truth and answers who do you represent? steve1955
  • Score: 0

11:03am Sun 10 Feb 13

to ny w says...

to ny w wrote:
Nick Mawer wrote:
Steve1955, I have told you that you are tilting at windmills. I will get back to you more fully shortly when I have a bit more time. Anyway, even when I do give you an answer you choose not to believe me, so I have to say, I wonder whether I am wasting my time on here.
Well you dont waste it apologising!
Folks, you can see who we have representing us.
I have not received an apology nor an acceptance for a public debate. Still not surprised there.
Please visit our blogspot. which is ---
www.baecon.blogspot.
co.uk for more info.
[quote][p][bold]to ny w[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nick Mawer[/bold] wrote: Steve1955, I have told you that you are tilting at windmills. I will get back to you more fully shortly when I have a bit more time. Anyway, even when I do give you an answer you choose not to believe me, so I have to say, I wonder whether I am wasting my time on here.[/p][/quote]Well you dont waste it apologising![/p][/quote]Folks, you can see who we have representing us. I have not received an apology nor an acceptance for a public debate. Still not surprised there. Please visit our blogspot. which is --- www.baecon.blogspot. co.uk for more info. to ny w
  • Score: 0

11:28am Sun 10 Feb 13

steve1955 says...

Someones to busy helping to run a school into special measures to answer
too busy talking instead of doing?
Someones to busy helping to run a school into special measures to answer too busy talking instead of doing? steve1955
  • Score: 0

12:59pm Sun 10 Feb 13

Severian says...

Nick Mawer wrote:
Steve1955, I have told you that you are tilting at windmills. I will get back to you more fully shortly when I have a bit more time. Anyway, even when I do give you an answer you choose not to believe me, so I have to say, I wonder whether I am wasting my time on here.
Nick

Is it true that you are a Governor of BCC? Difficult to know because all info on their governors has been removed from their website.

At least in a few weeks you will have more time to concentrate on local planning issues. I wouldn't mention BCC on your CV though.

Cheers
[quote][p][bold]Nick Mawer[/bold] wrote: Steve1955, I have told you that you are tilting at windmills. I will get back to you more fully shortly when I have a bit more time. Anyway, even when I do give you an answer you choose not to believe me, so I have to say, I wonder whether I am wasting my time on here.[/p][/quote]Nick Is it true that you are a Governor of BCC? Difficult to know because all info on their governors has been removed from their website. At least in a few weeks you will have more time to concentrate on local planning issues. I wouldn't mention BCC on your CV though. Cheers Severian
  • Score: 0

1:32pm Sun 10 Feb 13

steve1955 says...

Governors info has been removed so it appears was there yesterday,looks like another bunch of talkers not doing the job strange how so many or on a couple of councils and are governors do they have time for a full time job?
About time things changed speak to those they represent after all thats what they beg for at election time .
Mr mawr as for me tilting at windmills as the definition is chasing imaginery enemies i neither support or oppose the eco town tescos or any other local development all i and others ask is that our councillors answer the question posed by the electorate after all you represent us
Governors info has been removed so it appears was there yesterday,looks like another bunch of talkers not doing the job strange how so many or on a couple of councils and are governors do they have time for a full time job? About time things changed speak to those they represent after all thats what they beg for at election time . Mr mawr as for me tilting at windmills as the definition is chasing imaginery enemies i neither support or oppose the eco town tescos or any other local development all i and others ask is that our councillors answer the question posed by the electorate after all you represent us steve1955
  • Score: 0

1:32pm Sun 10 Feb 13

steve1955 says...

Governors info has been removed so it appears was there yesterday,looks like another bunch of talkers not doing the job strange how so many or on a couple of councils and are governors do they have time for a full time job?
About time things changed speak to those they represent after all thats what they beg for at election time .
Mr mawr as for me tilting at windmills as the definition is chasing imaginery enemies i neither support or oppose the eco town tescos or any other local development all i and others ask is that our councillors answer the question posed by the electorate after all you represent us
Governors info has been removed so it appears was there yesterday,looks like another bunch of talkers not doing the job strange how so many or on a couple of councils and are governors do they have time for a full time job? About time things changed speak to those they represent after all thats what they beg for at election time . Mr mawr as for me tilting at windmills as the definition is chasing imaginery enemies i neither support or oppose the eco town tescos or any other local development all i and others ask is that our councillors answer the question posed by the electorate after all you represent us steve1955
  • Score: 0

1:32pm Sun 10 Feb 13

steve1955 says...

Governors info has been removed so it appears was there yesterday,looks like another bunch of talkers not doing the job strange how so many or on a couple of councils and are governors do they have time for a full time job?
About time things changed speak to those they represent after all thats what they beg for at election time .
Mr mawr as for me tilting at windmills as the definition is chasing imaginery enemies i neither support or oppose the eco town tescos or any other local development all i and others ask is that our councillors answer the question posed by the electorate after all you represent us
Governors info has been removed so it appears was there yesterday,looks like another bunch of talkers not doing the job strange how so many or on a couple of councils and are governors do they have time for a full time job? About time things changed speak to those they represent after all thats what they beg for at election time . Mr mawr as for me tilting at windmills as the definition is chasing imaginery enemies i neither support or oppose the eco town tescos or any other local development all i and others ask is that our councillors answer the question posed by the electorate after all you represent us steve1955
  • Score: 0

12:12pm Thu 21 Feb 13

Severian says...

Nick Mawer wrote:
Steve1955, I have told you that you are tilting at windmills. I will get back to you more fully shortly when I have a bit more time. Anyway, even when I do give you an answer you choose not to believe me, so I have to say, I wonder whether I am wasting my time on here.
Nick

If you were one of the Governors who were sacked from BCC today because of the woeful Ofsted inspection, you will presumably have a lot more time on your hands!

Perhaps you could spend more of it on thinking about planning issues instead of just spouting the Cherwell Tory Party line.
[quote][p][bold]Nick Mawer[/bold] wrote: Steve1955, I have told you that you are tilting at windmills. I will get back to you more fully shortly when I have a bit more time. Anyway, even when I do give you an answer you choose not to believe me, so I have to say, I wonder whether I am wasting my time on here.[/p][/quote]Nick If you were one of the Governors who were sacked from BCC today because of the woeful Ofsted inspection, you will presumably have a lot more time on your hands! Perhaps you could spend more of it on thinking about planning issues instead of just spouting the Cherwell Tory Party line. Severian
  • Score: 0

12:31pm Thu 21 Feb 13

to ny w says...

Severian wrote:
Nick Mawer wrote:
Steve1955, I have told you that you are tilting at windmills. I will get back to you more fully shortly when I have a bit more time. Anyway, even when I do give you an answer you choose not to believe me, so I have to say, I wonder whether I am wasting my time on here.
Nick

If you were one of the Governors who were sacked from BCC today because of the woeful Ofsted inspection, you will presumably have a lot more time on your hands!

Perhaps you could spend more of it on thinking about planning issues instead of just spouting the Cherwell Tory Party line.
Cheeky .
[quote][p][bold]Severian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nick Mawer[/bold] wrote: Steve1955, I have told you that you are tilting at windmills. I will get back to you more fully shortly when I have a bit more time. Anyway, even when I do give you an answer you choose not to believe me, so I have to say, I wonder whether I am wasting my time on here.[/p][/quote]Nick If you were one of the Governors who were sacked from BCC today because of the woeful Ofsted inspection, you will presumably have a lot more time on your hands! Perhaps you could spend more of it on thinking about planning issues instead of just spouting the Cherwell Tory Party line.[/p][/quote]Cheeky . to ny w
  • Score: 0

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