News RSS Feed


Without new housing, firms will fail, it is claimed

Town needs homes built 'to survive' Town needs homes built 'to survive'

A LEADING Wallingford businessman says hundreds of houses must be built in the town — or firms will go bust and young people will leave.

In a broadside to local politicians and pressure groups opposing development in the town, David Bosley, 39, who last year set up the Wallingford Enterprise Centre, said opponents of the new housing developments risked “loving Wallingford to death”.

He said he was speaking out because shopkeepers were scared to voice their fears in case it alienated customers.

Mr Bosley, of Kennedy Crescent, Cholsey, said: “Many towns throughout the county would be delighted to have the opportunities currently on the table for Wallingford.

“But local politicians and the local council are so immersed in their blinkered, middle-England, ‘We’re alright Jack’ attitudes that they are much more concerned with opposing any sort of change, rather than embracing any opportunities.

“In reality, opposition to housebuilding will cause businesses to fail, jobs to be lost and Wallingford to decline further from its historic past as a thriving market town.”

He said: “Development is the lifeblood of a town — it brings money, jobs, commerce, facilities, infrastructure and people. It is extremely irresponsible to be so resistant to this great opportunity.”

But Wallingford’s mayor, Bernard Stone, said he rejected Mr Bosley’s characterisation of the town council’s stance, saying it welcomed limited development in the town.

Mr Bosley, who is a beneficiary of the family trust that owns the Winterbrook development site, said he was increasingly frustrated by widespread opposition to housebuilding while firms in Wallingford were struggling to survive.

He said: “Most of the retailers in the town are not really drawing any salary or making money from their businesses any longer, and they have not done for some time.

“There is no doubt, whatsoever, that unless we can reinvigorate the town, we will lose the independent retailers.”

He said businesses had tried to reduce their rents to stay afloat, but big institutional landlords had refused to negotiate. Meanwhile, young people were being priced out of the housing market, he added.

Shopkeepers told the Wallingford Herald that speaking publicly about the need for houses could harm their trade.

One said: “Wallingford has remained with the same population for 35 years, while all the neighbouring towns have expanded enormously.

“Every retailer is in favour of expanding their customer base.

“Wallingford has stood still for too long and the critical mass needed to sustain business has gone up as rents and rates have gone up.”

Another added: “The retail situation started to decline when the new Waitrose was built, but now we need more housing to bring more people here.

“We need to look to the future and build houses so people born and bred in Wallingford actually have a future here.”

Mr Stone said: “It has always been the town council’s view that we would welcome some expansion of Wallingford and some new housing.

“The only issue is the scale. Wallingford has limited infrastructure, and it has to be the correct balance.”

He said the town council believed 350 new homes was suitable, which when added to developments in Cholsey, Benson and Crowmarsh would add up to 1,000 extra homes in the area.

l See letter: Page 6

Comments(4)

Northern Wally says...
2:55pm Thu 16 Sep 10

Wallingford's population has increased from 6000 - 8000 in the last 35 years and shops still close. These types of developments do not support local businesses. On the contrary, poorly integrated and peripheral developments like these only encourage shoppers to get in the cars and drive to out of town retail parks. What are the real motives for Mr Bosley, a beneficiary of the family trust that owns the Winterbrook development site?

bozmandb9 says...
10:33pm Thu 16 Sep 10

Well Northern Wally, thanks for your contribution to the debate, I'm fascinated by your figures; so Wallingford's population has increased by 2,000 people in 35 years, any idea how much Didcot has increased by over that period? The problem is not so much the population, but the demographic, Wallingford's population is ageing, since young people can't afford the property prices.

As to my motivation, I would say as a Wallingford man born and bred, living in a tiny house with a massive mortgage, I would like to be able to stay in my home town in a reasonable house at a reasonable price. Furthermore, I have worked tirelessly with Wallingford in Business over the years to promote the interests of local business. Many of the independent retail shops which define Wallingford are on the brink, indeed two of them are closing this week.

As for poorly integrated and peripheral developments, I would suggest that you take a look at the plans for Winterbrook, which include pedestrian and cycle access into the town centre, and greater proximity than many existing estates.

belgarion says...
11:23pm Thu 16 Sep 10

Irrespective of the need for houses the simple fact is that Wallingford does not have the infrastructure to cope with a significant rise in population. You can provide as many walkways and cycle paths as you like but the majority of new residents will use a car to access the town. Where are they going to park? How are they going to affect the air quality, etc? To be frank it’s a bit rich (well he’s hoping to be) of David Bosely to promote a scheme where he is going to make loads of dosh and living in Cholsey not have to suffer the effects of a massive gain in Wallingford’s population. Finally it’s no good moaning about lack of business support in the town until Wallingford gets the right mix of shops. For heaven’s sake do we really need all the florists and hairdressers that we have when in reality there is a greater need for some competition to Waitrose, etc.

Gezz123 says...
9:39am Fri 17 Sep 10

I don't object to building more houses but I resent the way it's done. The whole housing industry and planning process is motivated by the developers' profit. We are building rabbit hutches all over our towns, not because this is what people want or need but because it maximises the profits for the developers. If you drive around Sovereign Place, you'll see cars parked all over the place. This is because government guidelines say people only need 1 car park space per household. We all know that any family household will have 2 cars at least (more when the kids grow up). It is disguised as some kind of green policy (encouraging people to take the bus) but all it does is allow the developers to cram in more houses and therefore make more profit. And the quality of these new buildings is appalling. Look at the development in Station road. Those wooden façades look derelict after just a few years. In Sovereign place the sewers are always broken, the pavements are falling apart, and this is just on the outside. The developers are long gone, the shareholders and directors have been paid and we have to live with what they've left behind. Speculative land purchase should be outlawed (or taxed so much that it wouldn't be worth it). This would stop those businesses fighting over where to build the houses and who is going to profit out of our town. And why don't the authorities look at developing a little, but on all 3/4 sites around Wallingford? This would give people less reason to complain and we might end up with some half decent development.

click2find

Most popular


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