The Eynsham Society - The 1974 Inquiry

As told by Robin Mitchell, who represented The Eynsham Society at the Inquiry. The story also appeared in the Eynsham Record 40 (2024), to mark The Society’s 50th anniversary.

It was a bright cold day in April 1974 and the clocks were striking ten, as the Inquiry Inspector, Mr. W.G. Onslow, entered the main hall of the Bartholomew School and took his place at the head of an open square of tables. Around those tables were already seated the supporters and opponents of a plan to build up to 1,200 houses to the West of Eynsham. It would be the Inspector’s task to recommend whether it should go ahead, or be denied. The Eynsham Society was one of the principal objectors, having been formed in 1972 to oppose the scheme, and by the time the Inquiry took place the Society had many members from all parts of the village. As a member and (at the time!) a young lawyer, I was asked to present the Society’s case to the Inquiry. There was a week of evidence from both those for, and those against. Then, after a lengthy and anxious wait, the Inspector’s report was received. The objectors had won: permission was refused.

The plan was linked to a proposal for a Western bypass to alleviate gravel traffic through the village. This would have run from the A40 near to the Evenlode, in an arc extending out and passing in front of Newfield Cottages at the top of Chilbridge Road, down to a junction with the Stanton Harcourt Road near the present Station Road roundabout. Almost all of the 127 acres enclosed by the road were to be built over.  If the plan had been approved, it would have resulted in a rapid increase in the population of the village, from under 5,000 to around 7,000. The scheme made no provision for any new infrastructure or the development of community facilities.

The Society’s objections were not based on outright opposition to any kind of development, but that the plan that was being put forward would be bad for the village in many ways. The Society proposed an alternative concept, and pressed for this to be accepted during its evidence to the Inquiry.

It believed that Eynsham needed time to settle, to absorb the rapid changes that had already occurred, stabilise the population structure, and diversify the housing stock. Organic growth was wanted, over an extended period, not the imposition of another vast estate. Jobs were wanted to provide local employment. Larger homes were needed for growing families, and bungalows and sheltered accommodation for older residents, to enable them to downsize. None of this would be satisfied by the implementation of the developers’ plan.

The background was that up to the 1950s Eynsham had been a small market town with many trades, farms, shops, pubs, and a very stable population of around 2,000. Between the 1950s and the early 1960s growth had been slow, mainly by ribbon development stretching along the main roads. In order to restrict this kind of development from extending further into the rural hinterland, the planners had ‘red-lined’ the ‘village envelope’, but the unforeseen result of this was to create a space within the redlined area which was attractive to developers, and the late 1960s became a period of rapid infilling, three new estates being built, resulting in the population surging to getting on for 5,000.

All the new estates focussed on first homes, and the provision of infrastructure lagged well behind housing development. At that time the village had twice the national birth rate and there were long waiting lists for the local playgroups. The primary School had been obliged to put up temporary classrooms.

One issue driving development policies at the time was the ‘South East Region Strategic Plan’. This actually dated from 1964, but some of the population predictions it used dated as far back as 1961. The period up to the 1960s saw a steadily growing rate of population increase in the South East, and the Plan assumed that this would continue indefinitely into the future. Between the date of the statistics used in the study and 1974, however, the rate of increase had gone into reverse – the 1960s were the high point. Instead of an expected increase of 3 million, the prediction was eventually reduced to one million. In addition, the official definition of ‘The South-East’ had changed during the period, so the earlier figures were doubly unreliable. However, they were still official policy, and acted as a justification for developers to put forward plans to satisfy the expected inflated population increase.

From its inception the Society had been affiliated to CPRE (the Campaign to Protect Rural England), and the Oxfordshire branch provided two very experienced expert witnesses to assist our case – one on traffic, and one on planning. The planning expert, I remember, was one Karl Lichtenstein – a colourful character who was a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute. The Inquiry also saw the beginnings of Eynsham Planning Improvement Campaign, led by Brian Jones and Max Wallis, who both gave evidence at the Inquiry – Brian Jones (who was a civil engineer) on the inadequacy of provision for additional sewage treatment (shades of things to come!) and the difficulties presented by the water flow profile of the site. In addition, there were a number of personal objectors who made their own representations to the Inquiry.

The traffic problems of the village at that time were a separate but related issue. Everyone knew that some kind of bypass was needed. The traffic evidence presented to the Inquiry was based on a series of observations that had been carried out by members of the Society, sitting at the entrances to the village and recording the numbers and type of vehicle passing. This revealed the fact that there were over 200 gravel lorries passing through the centre of the village every day. Most of these turned right out of the village on to the A40 for developments to the East of Eynsham. During the Inquiry the Inspector observed the situation for himself, as lorry after lorry negotiated the dangerous turn from Station Road into Acre End Street, and then from there into Mill Street, and so out of the village at the top of Hanborough Road. The plan’s proposal for a bypass around the West side of the development would involve the East-bound lorries in a longer route, and also would expose the village to fumes brought in on the prevailing wind. The Society proposed a shorter bypass route to the East of the village – which was later officially adopted and built.

After the Inspector’s decision had rejected the plan, it was called in by the Secretary of State. He overturned the Inspector’s decision, thereby providing for the development to go ahead, but stipulated that the Western Bypass should be built first, and that ‘No more than 850 dwellings shall be built on the site’. But by then the inflated population predictions had been updated, so the need for additional housing had been reduced, and the commercial case for a development of the size proposed had become far less attractive. The developers were unwilling to take on the expense of building the relief road before the housing, and the plan was quietly abandoned. The delays to the scheme caused by the objections, leading to the Public Inquiry, and the subsequent referral to the Secretary of State, had resulted in the ‘population growth’ rationale for a new development of up to 1,200 houses dissolving. And it would be nearly another fifty years before any similar large development to the West of the village would be undertaken.

The Eynsham Society has remained active throughout all the years since 1974 and its aims today remain the same: to protect and improve the village we live in.