Eynsham Village - Character

A group of local residents undertook this assessment in 2023, as a guide to future development. We quartered the village into the expansion areas indicated in this housing map (2012), making special reference to residents’ responses on local history (2015) and a list of recent developments. Our template for each era focused on ‘spirit of place’, historical connections, views into and out of the village and access routes between the village and new developments. 

Community First has since drawn out a set of common themes - including our recommendations for creation of an independent design review panel and the commissioning of a professional traffic study - that will in turn inform the design policies in the emerging Neighbourhood Plan.

To 1914 | 1914-1960 | 1960-1980 | 1980-present

From the earliest times to 1914

Eynsham village sits in an elevated position on the gravel terrace overlooking an early crossing of the River Thames at Swinford. The first mention of the name is in the 9^th century Anglo Saxon Chronicle; the fact that it is mentioned under the year 571 perhaps reflects a memory of something very important having happened many years before the Chronicle was compiled. 

The area is rich in pre-historic remains and possibly settlement on the site of the village has been almost continuous. By 1005 a Benedictine abbey had been established and its monumental buildings and economic control of local life greatly influenced how the village developed. In 1215 the abbey built a completely new area – Newland Street, which today contains Eynsham’s oldest domestic building, The White Hart public house.

SPACES: gaps between built elements – streets, gardens, etc.

The built area in the centre of the village has a distinctly urban feel probably due to the abbey’s attempts to run the settlement as a town, encouraging trade with markets and fairs. There is little or no space between any of the houses. The narrow streets are dominated by traffic and wheelie bins. There are several ancient alleyways joining different parts of the built area both old and new.

BUILDINGS: The older buildings are of local stone interspersed with later red and black brick. Houses line the streets with few front gardens (and, of course, no garages). There are scores of listed buildings in the Conservation area. Nearly all the larger houses are not visible from the streets. Most houses are 2-storied but there are some 3-storied houses dotted around the central area.

To the north of the medieval church is a small square containing an 18th-century building now used as a museum but originally built as a market hall with schoolroom above. This Square well illustrates the lack of building space in the village centre as some of the properties that line it are built at very sharp angles, presumably respecting already existing roads. One retains an old Oxfordshire name – the Tuer – used for narrow passageways and spelt with great variation throughout the county.

Despite the intrusion of some 20th-century building, the preservation of historic features in the centre of the village is of paramount importance: the church, the Bartholomew Room and entire Square with its medieval cross, Lord’s Farm threshing barn, the alleyways, Newland forge, and the malting chimney at the Jolly Sportsman public house (probably the last one left in West Oxfordshire) are all vital to maintain the character of the village: not all are listed or even in the Conservation area.

GREENERY & LANDSCAPE FEATURES: The only green open space in the older part of the village is the graveyard, this is home to several magnificent trees. Other important trees line Conduit lane and the car park. One small cottage in the centre gives a home to a wonderful magnolia in its tiny front garden. A large house in Newland Street, presently Beech Court, has some very important mature trees in its front garden (one magnificent beech recently lost and not replaced by anything). There are 4 trees in the Square and 9 planters which give the area a pleasant green, calm atmosphere, but overall the most important trees are in private gardens.

The views down Mill Street and Oxford Road all end with good trees.

It should be noted that on the southern side of the village the medieval fishponds area provides much needed green space.

VIEWS: The street views are charming (or would be but for traffic and wheelie bins). From the oldest part of the village there are no views out to countryside. The few visible trees are extremely important.

NOISE & SMELL- man made or natural: Traffic noise and smell dominate the central area accompanied by smelly wheelie bins and the smells of food cooking emanating from various pubs and restaurants. This can and should all be addressed.

SPIRIT OF PLACE: Eynsham is a busy, happy place with a great sense of community. Lots of pubs and clubs. Lots of sports and activities.

From 1914 to 1960

The population of Eynsham declined from a peak of 2,177 in 1871 to only 1,644 in 1921; this included a few houses outside the village at Barnard Gate and Freeland. Growth began in the 1920s and new houses were built along existing unbuilt up roads mainly on the outskirts of the village (Wytham View being an exception). Many people began to work outside the village (in Witney and Oxford) and by 1931 the number of houses had risen from 406 to 483. By 1951 though Freeland had been removed from the parish there were 588 houses and the population had risen to 2,373. There was only a modest increase in population in the 1950s.

Intensive housebuilding from the 1960s more than doubled the population.

The houses of this period used completely new materials, roughcast and pebbledash, no stone or brick; they have larger windows and thinner walls and are consequently less well insulated than the traditional buildings. They are the same or very similar to those built everywhere else in the country at this date – generous sized rooms and generous gardens (homes for heroes); though Eynsham does contain one particularly mean development of this date.

Many were council houses (now mostly privately owned).

The most dramatic change perhaps was north of the village where the A40 was built in the 1930s, and to accompany it, a road-house inn, The Evenlode.

The buildings of this date have no visual relationship to the original housing in the village centre so there is nothing to guide any new developments.

1960-1980 and 1980-present: PLEASE SCROLL DOWN

From 1960 to 1980

Between 1960 and 1980, there was a large expansion of the village which led to a doubling of the population. However, because the plot sizes were much smaller than pre-1960, the increase in area covered was not as great. Most of the houses were grouped in two main areas to the north of the village taking advantage of vacant areas lying between the 1914-1960 developments.

SPACES: gaps between built elements – streets, gardens, etc.

Much of the development was planned around gently winding roads and culs-de-sac with open plan front gardens often giving attractive views down the street. However there seems to have been little enforcement of the original open plan aspect with many people having constructed fences and planted hedges giving a bitty look to many of developments built in this era. This coupled with the common paving-over of front gardens for parking and the presence of cars now parked on these “drives” as well as wheelie bins permanently placed in front gardens gives an untidiness much removed from the architect's original vision. However, when designed, the explosion in car ownership and the move towards waste recycling was not of course envisaged. There are in fact a few groups of garages including two blocks in Evans Road and Hanborough Close but their size is inadequate for most modern cars. The tarmac footways alongside the roads and neat kerbstones seem appropriate, though sadly neglected now.

BUILDINGS: Most houses are two-storey semi-detached and terraced constructed in light coloured brick relieved in many cases by white weatherboarding. Roofs are shallow pitched in interlocking concrete tiles and for the most part the chimneys are non-functional serving only as boiler vents.

There are occasional blocks of 3 storey town houses (John Lopes Road and Evans Road) as well as a few barely detached houses and bungalows although higher prices of the latter limit their potential for aging / less mobile residents. There are also a surprising number of “chalet bungalows”. Most of the houses are visually quite similar, although there were efforts by the builders to vary the building line and trim details as well as the occasional house constructed “gable end on”.

As land values had increased by 1960, plot sizes are quite small for a family home, apart from the houses in Spareacre Lane which back on to the A40, presumably to give the residents some distance from the traffic noise. However, the ends of some of their gardens are earmarked for future widening of the A40.

In addition, there is a block of flats for senior citizens at the corner of Mill Street / Spareacre Lane, begun in 1967 and expanded when the water tower came down in 1972.

The architectural style of this period is only now beginning to be appreciated and has therefore over the years been debased by haphazard alterations carried out under permitted development such as replacement of doors and windows in upvc, replacement of boarding in a variety of materials and probably most significantly the conversion of garages to habitable rooms and the construction of filled-in porches. As each alteration has been done to the owner’s taste and budget there is a huge variation of styles and any cohesion in the streetscape has been lost.

PUBLIC BUILDINGS: This period also saw the construction of 4 major public village buildings -

• Eynsham Primary School (built 1967 with a footpath connecting to earlier and later developments)
• Bartholomew School (main building built 1958 but later extended)
• Eynsham Medical Centre (built in 1978 on part of the garden of the former Vicarage)
• St Peter's Church (built in 1968)

The schools and medical centre have little architectural merit but the schools benefit from spacious grounds and playing fields which as well as being a benefit to the school’s themselves make the schools appear more visually attractive. Bartholomew School also incorporates an attractive listed building constructed in local stone (1877) fronting the Witney Road.

There is also a small parade of flats and shops on Mill Street, and another in Spareacre Lane which includes a Spar minimarket. This is a particularly unattractive area with featureless walls alongside the Spar and an unloved area used for bins and fly-tipping.

VIEWS: Some of the planting has been beneficial and mature trees such as the magnificent beech tree in Beech Road and trees opposite Spar shop, in John Lopes Road and the top of Falstaff Close and Shakespeare Road all contribute significantly to the views and vistas. Unfortunately, the elms on Spareacre Lane succumbed to disease before they could benefit the new houses.

GREENERY & LANDSCAPE FEATURES: There are a number of “left over” green spaces such as the small area of green at the end of Hawthorn Road and the larger one behind The Spar which are an asset to the residents and could become more so if the community could be engaged in their use. There is also an ancient bridleway running west east which provides a useful short-cut as well as a green lung.

SPIRIT OF PLACE: The presence of the two schools brings a vitality and youthfulness to the surrounding areas at least twice a day as well as providing a rhythm to the day

EVIDENTIAL VALUE: There is little reminder of the past in these areas of Eynsham. There is the ancient bridleway and Spareacre Lane hails back to an agricultural past but in general street names have been chosen by developers and the Council rather than reflect an earlier history. Beech Road for example is built on the site of a former quarry which few residents will now be aware of - the opportunity to call it Quarry Road having been missed. John Lopes Road is named in honour of Eynsham’s first catholic priest but there is no particular link to the location.

OTHER REMARKS: As noted, the architectural style of this period is now becoming more appreciated. However, the 1960-1980 developments in Eynsham were constructed in an “Anywhereville” style and do not exhibit any sense of “Eynsham-ness”, an issue common to many (though not all) developments in the periods before and after. There is little therefore that can be carried forward to designing the expansion of the village.

The area has already been developed quite densely and it would be desirable if any remaining open areas could be safeguarded. Any limited one-off infill developments that do take place should respect their immediate surroundings in scale and character. It is also to be hoped that as the architecture of the 1960s and 1970s becomes better respected, householders’ alterations will begin to respect the buildings’ heritage much as has happened with Victorian homes.

1980-PRESENT DAY

SPACES: gaps between built elements – streets, gardens, etc.

The sites developed since 1980 are very varied in size (ranging from 4 units to 160 units) and location (including infill, brownfield & greenfield sites).

Plot sizes ranged from townhouse format to large detached 5 bedroomed houses and gardens affecting layout and in their impact on village character. Where pedestrians are given priority in the layout, it resulted in better designed schemes (e.g. Orchard Close), in contrast to those which are car-oriented (e.g. Abbey Green).

Several recent developments at the edge of the village asserted that they are in keeping with the local vernacular of the conservation area, but this is not reflected in the standard suburban layouts used (e.g. Abbey Green).

Imaginative layout also helps integrate what are traditional house forms, for example: Star Close which has sought to reflect the character of the older parts of the village (e.g. Acre End Street); Bartholomew Close has a diversity of building form and therefore roofline and frontage, although being traditional suburban housing style; and in the Fruitlands the layout and streetscape help create a sense of neighbourhood.

In the case of St Leonard’s House, the form has been determined by the existing properties on the site.

BUILDINGS: Those developments that involved existing buildings especially within the Conservation area had sought to retain the village character e.g. the value of existing buildings (e.g. St Leonard’s House), or house detailing (e.g. Orchard Close window detailing and frontage variation)

Elsewhere, building types in the main are detached and semi-detached family houses. These were ‘standard house designs i.e. with a lack of detailing and features that would reflect the village setting (e.g. with very plain house frontages, fenestration and roof lines and pitches).

Although mostly private developments, they include a high proportion of affordable houses in line with policy. In some cases, these are well integrated in design terms (e.g. Hazeldene Close) in contrast to others. For example, Thornbury Green is a traditional suburban layout dominated by the contrasting styled 3-storey flat roofed blocks.

VIEWS: Views are not an issue on infill schemes but are now increasingly important in the western sites (e.g. Fruitlands, Merton Close and Thornbury Green).

GREENERY & LANDSCAPE FEATURES: Except for Star Close which has a very hard landscape environment, most schemes are more suburban form with street landscaping, or open plan or walled front gardens, in contrast to just having grass verges. The quality varies greatly in the extent to which these various approaches enhance the street scene. Good example of each include: the use of existing mature trees in Orchard Close; and winding road layout to create character, tarmac broken by cobbling to define road hierarchy in Fruitlands; and enclosed front gardens in Hazeldene.

Non-linear layouts of streets and use of structural landscaping contribute to sites being well designed. For example, the significant open spaces in Hazeldene along the drainage channel and floodable area, and the open space to the south of Thornbury adjacent to the Chilbridge. Similarly, in Fruitlands the mature tree and hedge and other landscaping are integral to the layout and not just peripheral and create character and offsets the flat facades and roof lines and brick choice – softening the lines and contrasting colours.

‘Fluid’ street layouts which give priority to the pedestrian, reducing speed and creating communal places and visual interest are noted, for example, in Fruitlands and Orchard Close.

Some developments have no structural landscaping except along their boundaries (e.g. Abbey Green). Nor do they have any public realm such as in the northern part of Thornbury. This also reinforces the impact of house design on the streetscape, for example, the roofscape.

LIGHT/DARK: shading, time of day / night: Not a significant issue generally. It may become and issue on schemes which have developed tight to boundary Treelines (e.g. Abbey and Cobbetts Closes).

NOISE & SMELL - man made or natural: Low level constant noise from A40 traffic and Brize Norton aircraft, especially during the summer months.

Few post-1980s developments front main roads in the village such as Witney Road, Oxford Road or Hanborough Road/ Mill Street allowing easier neighbourhood interaction.

SPIRIT OF PLACE: There is varying success in creating or retaining a sense of place, for example:

• Orchard Close’s linkage to its historic orchard.
• Hazeldene by its use of diversity in housing types and styles.
• Dovehouse Close in the street layout.
• Blankstone Farm through the integration of existing and new properties

HISTORICAL VALUE: The peripheral sites have little relationship to the Village, especially where they serve out onto peripheral roads (e.g. Abbey Green), except where they have established pedestrian links to the village to the established network (e.g. Dovehouse Close to Newlands, Hazeldene to the Bitterell & Thornbury to Chilbridge Road)

The approach to design of developments since 1980 has not treated the village as a single unit. For example, the quality of design that has been accepted for developments outside the conservation area tends to be poorer. Back-land infill site designs have missed opportunities to add to the village character (e.g. Woodlands Place).

COMMUNAL VALUE: Linkage to community facilities and services is important in developments. This is easier for the developments at the core of the village (e.g. St Leonard’s House and Orchard Close). It has however been integral to the success of several peripheral schemes, For example, Dovehouse Close. This is well linked to the primary school and children’s play area.

Community value is also enhanced where schemes reflected the wider community goals, for example in giving priority to the local pedestrian over traffic or to the integration of the community. Schemes such as Orchard Close and Star Close use shared pedestrian-vehicular spaces which are seen as reinforcing the need for traffic management of the village, now being prioritised by the parish council through its 20 mph policy.

Integrating affordable with market housing is an important principle in planning new developments.

Although the developments since 1980 are mainly private, they include a high proportion of affordable houses in line with policy. In some cases, these are well integrated in design terms (e.g. Hazeldene Close) in contrast to others (e.g. Thornbury Green).

The level of community involvement in design of schemes has varied enormously and invariably affects the quality, for example, in Hazeldene and Cobbett’s Close. As a corollary, some of the poorest schemes are where the Parish Council’s views have not been accepted.

It is also relevant that the character of a new development and its acceptance by the community is higher in those that were in accord with the local plan in contrast to those that were given approval before the new Local Plan was adopted or were departures from the plan (e.g. Abbey Green).

OTHER REMARKS: Apply existing policies and guidance to new developments. They are too often not followed by developers or enforced by District Council planners. This means discussing plans with developers at an early stage. An example of the Parish Council’s views that were not accepted include the para below:

“The parish council has already assessed this development as follows ’The Design and Access Statement at 5.1.3 proposes up to three storey development on the middle to high ground of the Site (see also Indicative building height zones drawing). This, and a density of 35 dph would have an adverse visual impact upon the soft western edge of the village that would stand out as a hard, incongruous urban extension contrary to BE2, BE4, H2 and H7 of LP 2011 and OS2 and EW2 of draft LP 2031”.

Why was this advice based on published official guidance ignored?