Counter-urbanization: A Chipping Norton Case Study

Counter-urbanization:

A Chipping Norton Case Study

Sean Watson

26 Sep. 2014

submitted in partial fulfilment of the MA in International Architectural

Regeneration and Development

Oxford Brookes University

2014

1

Abstract

Counter-urbanization is studied at mainly a macro and theoretical level in rural studies literature. For

this reason, this dissertation aimed to create an understanding of the reasons for counter-urbanization,

the processes that are involved in it, and its impacts, at the local and household levels in the UK. This

was accomplished by using Chipping Norton as a case study, and by examining historical data and

interviews within the frames of rural studies literatures. This found that the motivation for relocation

validated Harper’s findings of mainly housing-led relocation, but identified that counter-urbanization

occurs along with urbanization in the case study location. Finding differences in demographics between

the two, the processes of relocation were different, as well as impacts upon the town. Because of these

two groups the town’s dynamics are different than stated in rural studies literature. Urbanizers were

more likely to need social housing than counter-urbanizers, and counter-urbanizers were always middle

class, and almost always elderly. Rivalry did not exist between the two groups as the town strove to

maintain working town function. Instead, rivalry existed with privileged villagers that were identified by

the town name. This case study shows that activities of privilege were reinterpreted by townsmen as

town tradition, and included all sections of the population. Utilizing the case study approach also

allowed for a relocation cycle to be identified in town, which identified that relocation occurs shortly

after an economic challenge, as housing prices are depreciated. Each of these findings are contributions

to rural studies literature, and show the dynamic and complex processes involved in rural relocation.

2

Contents

Abstract .................................................................................................................. 1

Acknowledgments .................................................................................................. 3

List of Maps ............................................................................................................ 4

Introduction ............................................................................................................ 5

Chapter 1: Aim, Objectives, and Literature Review ................................................. 7

Chapter 2: Methodologies .................................................................................... 14

Chapter 3: Introduction to Chipping Norton ......................................................... 19

Chapter 4: Research Findings ................................................................................ 33

Chapter 5: Case Study Analysis ............................................................................. 41

Chapter 6: Conclusion ........................................................................................... 48

Bibliography .......................................................................................................... 51

Appendices ........................................................................................................... 54

1.1 Raw Interview Data ............................................................................... 54

1.2 Ethics Review Forms ............................................................................... 66

3

Acknowledgements

This dissertation was a great experience. Many thanks to my supervisor and friend, Marcel Vellinga, for

mentoring me throughout the duration of the course, and providing me priceless opportunities to be

involved in something extraordinary. Much appreciation and thanks to Aylin Orbasli for her incessant

efforts, expertise, and friendship. Special thanks to David Nobbs, Chris Butterworth, John Grantham, and

Adrian Smith. Appreciation and thanks to interview participants in Chipping Norton. And lastly, thanks

and love to my wife, Lindsay.

4

List of Maps

3.1 Chipping Norton 1880







3.8 Empty buildings with intentions for reuse

5

Introduction

The industrial revolution brought people from rural England to cities. Jobs were created and

fortunes amassed as society changed fundamentally. But these were loud, dirty, and smelly places that

were difficult to live in. The pace of life was faster, relationships less personal, and the environment

completely manmade. Urbanization was driven by employment, and whilst it worked for some, desire to

return remained for others (Winter, 1996, p.75).

In England, movement back to the countryside did not begin until the late 1950s (Harper, 1991,

p.37), and only by those who could afford to do so. It was based upon prior association to locations

(ibid), but made possible by technology. As communications developed further, migration increased.

From 1971 to 1991, 2 million relocated to the countryside, or 17% of the English population (Howkins,

2008, p.188). Modern technology has allowed many people since to leave the city whilst also

maintaining contact with those who have not. Individuals furthermore relocate from cities, but maintain

employment in them, whilst others select rural locations not far from the city, but close enough to visit

families.

This process should be simple, individuals and families move to idyllic countryside locations

where funds stretch father, and where life is slower and quieter. In practice though it is not, and has

complex impacts upon locations of relocation. As counter-urbanizers relocate from cities, the rural

population moves from village to village, or village to town, and not just to cities. They come to inhabit

the same locations, but for different purposes, and with different expectations. The presence of both is

often at odds with each other as they basically compete for presence in locations.

This dissertation enters this complexity. Aimed at creating an understanding of the motivations

for counter-urbanization, the processes that are involved in it, and its impacts upon a specific location,

this dissertation uses the case study of Chipping Norton to examine counter-urbanization in the UK.

Except for Harper’s 1991 publication, rural studies literature has approached counter-urbanization from

a macro and theoretical level. Harper began to bridge this gap by thoroughly detailing decision-making

processes and motivations through comparative research, and this case study will continue deeper into

counter-urbanization by seeing a location on its own in historical context.

6

Other than motivations for relocation, this research will examine other processes of counter-

urbanization at the local and household level. This will contribute to the study of counter-urbanization in

several ways. Harper discussed motivations for relocation, and said that characterizations differed in

locations studied. Because of this it will be important to pave that ground before charting a new course

to identify concretely the processes by which it is accomplished. This is something Harper did not do,

and which this research will contribute.

Because it has been studied from a macro and theoretical level, specific case studies examining

the impacts of counter-urbanization upon rural locations have not yet been performed. This dissertation

utilizes qualitative and historical research to provide a historical narrative that contextualizes processes

currently occurring. This will identify growth of the case study location, and when and why the location

depopulated. This is for the purpose of contextualizing the relocation of interview participants, and

identifying new patterns.

To demonstrate this research, the dissertation will be broken into six chapters. Those chapters

are described as follows: Chapter one examines relevant rural studies literature. This is discussed to

create frames to then be able to identify and compare processes occurring in the case study location,

and to identify gaps to be further explored by dissertation research. Section two details the

methodologies used to acquire historical and qualitative data. This section argues for the utilization of

the case study approach, details the various ways information was acquired, and the specifics about

methods of acquisition for rigorous research practices. Chapter three provides relevant general data

about the case study location, Chipping Norton, and then through historical research builds an

understanding of the town’s morphology and development. This section concludes by discussing

processes and policies currently affecting the town. Chapter four presents interview findings, and

analyzes them with information from historical research and rural studies literature. Chapter five

analyzes abstract findings with rural studies literature, identifying the significance of research findings.

The dissertation concludes with chapter six, by summarizing the key findings of the dissertation, and

explaining the contributions it has made to rural studies literature, and direction for further research.

7

Chapter 1

Aim:

Create an understanding of the reasons for counter-urbanization, the processes that are

involved in it, and its impacts at the local household levels in the UK, using Chipping Norton as a

case study.

Objectives:

Identify the various motivations for counter-urbanization

Detail the process by which counter-urbanization occurs

Assess the impacts of counter-urbanization at the local and household level

Analyze the case study within rural studies literature

Literature Review

Introduction

Rural studies literature is assessed in this section to offer explanations to the posed objectives. A

definition will be provided firstly to broadly clarify what is meant by the term, ‘counter-urbanization’.

This will logically be followed by further explanation on how the processes behind the term are carried

out. These insights will then be brought to the human sphere by addressing the motivations behind

them. Then, impacts from these first two objectives will be identified and assessed, which will be

concluded by identifying where research performed in this dissertation fits, the gaps of knowledge it

fills, and its relevancy to rural studies.

8

Defining Counter-urbanization

There are a myriad of facets and procedures described by the term counter-urbanization.

Because of complexities many scholars have evaded altogether defining the term. Marini and Mooney

provide probably the most satisfying definition by stating broadly and simply that counter-urbanization

is the reversal of urbanization trends (2006, p.95). The connection made to urbanization when defining

counter-urbanization is important, viewing it as a continuation from that movement. Topical literature

suggests that counter-urbanization is a response in many cases to conditions in the city, and whilst

scholars may argue ‘that the country and city are not “other” to each other (Dupuis, p.125)’, in practice

it is much of the time viewed as such. Between open and congested, cheap and expensive, or natural

and artificial, these differentiations as well as related ones between urban and rural settings will be

important for this dissertation. Marini’s and Mooney’s definition will be the broad definition from which

concepts will be constructed here.

Migration Process

As discussed, counter-urbanization has been defined to be the reversal of urbanization trends

(Marini & Mooney, 2006, p.95). Whilst it was first identified in the 1981 census (Murdoch, 2006, p.176),

and was retroactively observed to be happening as earlier as the late 1950s (Harper, 1991, p.37), it is

not just the relocation of population, but as Marini and Mooney note, it is ‘a new flow of capital, goods,

and opportunities headed towards rural areas (ibid).’In England this has included the counter-

urbanization of industrial firms, service-sector businesses, and small business ventures.

The population demographics and reasons for relocation in counter-urbanization are varied. The

reasons for why people are motivated to relocate are many, and include employment opportunities,

housing options, and people-led migration. Essentially, an elderly couple could retreat to the

countryside to retire into idyllic settings, as their younger neighbors relocate to raise kids in settings

they deem child friendly. One of them can commute to the city by train, as the other rents a work space

as an entrepreneur. Also, a clean, high-tech industry may utilize cheaper land prices and wages, and

with a competent workforce it will be able to cut back overhead costs and maximize profits (Murdoch,

2006). Each of these is counter-urbanization, and there are many other scenarios that are classified

under the same term.

The countryside is growing at a more rapid rate than metropolitan areas, and urbanization

occurs simultaneously (Cloke and Goodwin, 1992). Because of this, the countryside has lost what has

9

traditionally characterized it, ‘stable, consensual institutions in which kinship relations bind members

into a coherent whole (Murdoch, 2006, p.177).’ The urbanization and counter-urbanization movements

leave dynamic locations that are increasingly complex (ibid).

These processes are described to occur in two basic places: that occurring within the urban

fringe, and that arising in more remote rural locations (Harper, 1991, p.22). Capabilities allow more

affluent individuals to push farther from the city, as younger, middle class families mainly inhabit the

urban fringe. As the urban fringe is populated by middle class families, gentrification of locations forces

local populations into deeper rural areas and cities. Though affluence is generally associated with the

movement, counter-urbanization occurs with poorer demographics too (Harper, 1991, p.33). The

motivations for this are different than middle class counter-urbanization. Such motivations will be

discussed in the next section.

This discussion so far, as well as discussions in rural studies literature, with the exception of

Harper (1991), treats counter-urbanization at a macro and theoretical level. Equally distant, these

processes have been observed in the UK, broader Western Europe, and in the US. Marsden et al. explain

that ‘the construction of networks and the ability of such networks to “act at a distance”, is what ties

the local to the global (1993, p.147).’ Technology allowed individuals to migrate to the countryside

whilst maintaining communication with contacts in the city. As communication becomes simpler and

cheaper, the trend is facilitated as well. It will be the purpose of this dissertation to provide the concrete

substance to these broad ideas.

Motivations

Motivations behind counter-urbanization are many, and sometimes multiple and complex. Rural

studies literature identifies that many people follow jobs out of the city, which means counter-

urbanization can be led by employment (Cloke, 1983). It can also be housing-led, or a combination of

employment and housing, said Harper (1991, p.22). Cloke and Goodwin return to the subject by stating

that ‘in-migration1 to rural areas can be job-led or people-led (1992, p.330).’ People-led relocation,

according to the authors, involves retirement, self-employment, commuting, alternative lifestyles,

proximity to family, and advantageous property prices (ibid). Champion et al. add simply that there is a

1 The term ‘relocator’ is used instead of ‘migrant’ or ‘inmigrant’ to refer to processes of counter-urbanization and

urbanization. This is because the terms ‘migrant’ and ‘inmigrant’, though correct, each were received in interviews as referring to immigrants from abroad. In this work ‘migration’ and derivative words will refer to international relocations. To avoid confusion, ‘relocator’ is used to refer to non-international relocations. When specifying between counter-urbanization and urbanization, ‘counter-urbanizer’ and urbanizer’ are used.

10

broad predilection for the countryside in the English psyche (1998, p.55), giving ethos to settings as a

reason. Within these characterizations are different demographics set out to accomplish various

objectives.

These are abstractions of processes studied at a parish and household level by Harper (1991).

The author’s simplified characterizations describing the foci of relocations, the arenas those foci are put

into, and the catalysts that then set them off. She explains that a young resident might focus on settling

down, or acquiring property for relocation. This might then be viewed distinctly for its environmental

properties or for social factors, but the catalyst for relocation will be something like employment

change, or family growth (1991, p.32). An elderly resident, similarly, might procure residence, and

desiring idyllic settings, the catalyst will be retirement. Finally, a poorer resident, under this

understanding of causalities, might seek shelter, which will be held within that same arena, as the

catalyst for relocation will then be employment or a change in family circumstances. Note that the focus

is on shelter, and employment is the catalyst for attaining shelter.

Harper continues, identifying that lower socioeconomic relocation like this is generally non-job-

related, and that these moves occur within familiar locations (1991, p.33). This provides fascinating

contrast to the technologies and networks that characterize their more affluent counterparts. These

processes are far more complex than described here, but the characterizations are useful for

understanding the varied factors that contribute to individuals’ and families’ migration to the

countryside, and from one countryside location to the next and with the catalyst that set the migration

off.

Counter-urbanization Impacts

Counter-urbanization creates dramatic effects upon affected countryside locations. These

effects are not just positive or negative, but in the same instance can be both depending on affected

demographics. Power structures are changed, resources dominated, and preexisting cultures and

sociality replaced. Whilst there are diverse effects, the following impacts are recurring in rural studies

literature.

The first treats tourism, commodification, and preservationism. These are related impacts as

each relates to preconceived notions of the countryside in its duality with cities. Dupuis argues against

such duality (2006), an argument that possesses merit upon examination of subject areas, but

abstractly, the dichotomy remains, compartmentalizing perceptions between the two places. A middle

11

class family might relocate entertaining idyllic countryside perceptions, and identifying points of

attraction, has demonstrated in practice the disposition to cradle interests around these points by

seeking to highlight, preserve, and ultimately commodify their historical or cultural significances (Cloke

and Goodwin, 1992, p. 327). Whilst Edensor implies this is a static process (2006), it is also one based

upon competing and evolving interests, and though referring to the past, must by nature itself be

unique. Such processes negatively impact locations by minimizing local’s interests (Milbourne, 2008,

p.169), and will invariably lead to gentrification (Weekley, 1988, p.131).

Gentrification occurs when the middle class relocates to undervalued areas, and drives up

property values and the price of living. Housing prices rise, as does the cost of goods, and amenities

become increasingly structured around their interests. This can cause another impact discussed,

geriatrification. As gentrification of an area occurs, relocators might migrate to retire, or in later stages

of their working life envisage retirement shortly, increasing the elderly demographic (Weekley, 1988,

p.131). As the price of living goes up and employment options lack, the local young will either retreat to

more remote rural locations, or relocate to cities, leaving a local elderly demographic as well (ibid).

Rural depopulation also occurs through counter-urbanization, says Weekley (1988). Along with

gentrification and geriatrification, Weekley describes counter-urbanization as depopulating parish

figures. This occurs for several reasons, and the first is because of declining household sizes.

Geriatrification affects this form of depopulation as the local population ages, and the young leave.

Houses are under-occupied, and wealthier relocators from similar cohorts occupy the limited supply of

housing in villages. These wealthier relocators have amalgamated adjacent properties, reducing village

housing supplies from there. Similarly, property might be acquired to demolish preexisting buildings for

a single, more spacious dwelling. And finally, though less common, acquisition of properties as second

homes mainly occurs in countryside and coastal areas, which leaves dwellings uninhabited throughout

much of the year. Though this is occurring at parish levels, populations spread out across the

countryside, raising district populations (Murdoch, 2006).

Local property rights are affected when properties are purchased and are under-occupied,

amalgamated or consolidated, or utilized as second homes. Marsden et al. explain that ‘the local

distribution of property rights remains crucial to the pattern and processes of rural development (1993,

p.69)’ as entitlement to land is seen as the means of instigating further public policy initiatives.

Gentrification along with parish depopulation compounds rural poverty, or pushes the rural poor further

remote.

12

Further exacerbation of rural poverty by counter-urbanization occurs because of the diminishing

physical visibility of the rural poor. Their presence not only reduces poor presence, but also minimizes

their statistical significance. This in turn lowers welfare services provided them, and adjusts local power

structures to relocator interests, which often overlook issues of poverty (Milbourne, 2008, p.169).

Viewed similarly, Murdoch et al. explain that ‘those who possess superior sets of resources (both

cultural and material) are able to act more easily upon their formulations than those who do not (1993,

p.140).’ Though occurring centuries earlier, rural poverty has only been studied since the 1970s and is

overwhelming addressed in rural studies literature and public policy (Milbourne, 2008, p.168).

This idea of superior sets of resources being used to adjust local power structures towards a

particular group’s interests indicates a distinct impact that until now has remained nameless in topical

literature. ‘Estate-ism’ is a term coined in this dissertation to describe this impact. This is the idea that

affluent counter-urbanizers relocate not just because of motivations listed above, though they can very

well be the foci, arenas, and catalysts for relocation, but because it confers status as well as tangible

power (Marsden et al., 1993, p.69). This tangible power is articulated by Murdoch who wrote that

‘individuals and groups are more able to envisage establishing their “own” institutions, relatively

separate from those of the wider society (2006, p.178).’ Affluent relocators essentially make a break

with urban power structures, and utilize their superior resources to connect with similar ideas of

historical landlordism that popularly characterize English countryside lifestyles. This concept is

substantiated by Marsden et al. who note that rural landownership still confers status and economic

power in English culture (ibid), meaning land ownership by counter-urbanization also provides a means

for social mobility as well.

The extent to which these actors are participating in such activities, the quantity and range of

participants, and their frequency are most likely unmeasurable, and figures have certainly not been

provided around related concepts in topical literature. What is clear though is that a more general

lifestyle involving the reenactment and rearticulation of countryside privilege is active and

demonstrated publicly (Edensor, 2006). This might include such things as country outfits replete with

Wellies, tweed jackets, and an English pointer, or the hunt, country games, and Land Rovers. Edensor

writes that it ‘implies an imagined country lifestyle (2006, p.490),’ one that is stepped into as an

embodiment of rurality, which should denote privilege. As this is the social correlative to the just coined

term ‘estate-ism’, this dissertation will provide distinct nomenclature for this process as well, as it is also

without distinct terminology, entitling it ‘popular estate-ism’ for future discussion. Whether estate-ist

power and status is real or acted, this separate term allows further discussion into the visual and social

13

forms demonstrated in the public sphere referent to rural privilege, allowing for complexities like

disingenuously acting roles, aspiring to status, and involvement in tourism.

Conclusion

Counter-urbanization might not always be explicitly labelled in rural studies literature, but

because of its ubiquitous effects upon the English countryside, it has basically become correlative with

it. Whilst scholars thoroughly address the macro processes of counter-urbanization, processes at the

household and local level, as Harper explained, have been researched much less frequently(1991, p.22).

Harper began to bridge this gap by thoroughly detailing the decision-making processes and motivations

for individuals and families moving to the countryside.

Harper, however, did not discuss how it was accomplished. As she found decision-making and

motivation characterizations different in locations studied, it will be important to pave that ground in

this dissertation before charting a new course to identify concretely how it was accomplished, and the

impacts it has had. Furthermore, technologies have advanced since Harper’s 1991 publication, 23 years,

making it necessary to reexamine current processes for developments. As stated above, technologies

have allowed individuals to relocate to the countryside whilst maintaining communication with contacts

in the city. It will be the purpose of this dissertation to provide the concrete substance for these

concepts.

Information gained from topical literature above will be used as a frame of reference to examine

the dissertation case study. Whilst information above will be looked for in research conducted, the case

study will be treated uniquely to validate findings in rural studies research, demonstrating variations or

differences, and identify unique or new processes. The following section will arrange methodologies to

acquire this data.

14

Chapter 2: Methodologies

Section Introduction

This section details the methodological backbone for researching the case study, Chipping

Norton. As Marwa Dabaieh points out, ‘a few critics of the case study argue that the study of a case can

offer no grounds for establishing reliability or generality of findings (2011, p.78).’ In response to this, it

was noted in the literature review that counter-urbanization has been studied almost exclusively at the

macro and theoretical levels, reliably establishing the general movement quantitatively and

comparatively. This dissertation approaches the subject similarly to Sarah Harper, who researched from

the local and household level, but comparatively. Through the case study approach, this dissertation will

identify nuances and unique characteristics in the case of the market town, Chipping Norton, in West

Oxfordshire. Research fills this gap, as well as the objectives specifically set to the case study location.

A mixed methods approach was employed to carry out research. This approach will be

employed as the objectives of the dissertation require various types of data to adequately view and

analyze processes involved. These methodologies will be detailed further, along with how they will be

analyzed. An explanation of why Chipping Norton was chosen as the case study location is provided first.

Why Chipping Norton?

Chipping Norton was selected for several reasons. It is a commuter town that is further remote

than Witney and Carterton, also in Oxfordshire, thus possibly demonstrating employment diversity and

less reliance upon urban centers than those closer. It is also more accessible for interviews and surveys

than villages surrounding Oxford that mainly rely upon commutes to the city for employment, creating a

higher likelihood that participants will be available to interview. The town is located in the idyllic

Cotswold region, which conjures up images of the traditional English countryside. Because of this it is

more likely to be a destination for tourism and retirement. The town, also unlike Witney and Carterton,

is not a designated economic growth area, and thus does not provide the same economic opportunities,

15

housing options, and outside investment as Witney and Carterton. The town thus seems more likely to

take conservation and preservation measures as town forces act upon limited resources and land. A

previous project at the Penhurst school furthermore provided familiarity with town history and existing

issues, as well as in-town contacts. This influenced the decision to study the town further.

Collection of historical background data

The collection of historical data was essential for placing Chipping Norton’s development into

context, and being able to examine changes that have developed over time. This is an approach that has

not yet been taken in the examination of counter-urbanization in rural studies literature, but one that is

set forth here to identify when growth occurred, why it happened, when and why population figures

dropped, and nuances heretofore unobserved. This historical data was collected in various ways. These

include examining all editions of the Chipping Norton News from the latest September 2014 issue to the

first publication in December 1976, searching the Chipping Norton Museum archives for newspapers

and literature from town historians, and relying upon the 2003 town appraisal and 2013 town plan. This

information was joined together with cartography from 1880, 1922, 1938, 1950, 1979, 2002, and 2013,

and population figures relative to those years.

Chipping Norton News

The Chipping Norton News is the town’s local news source. Since 1976, the publication has not

only detailed the people and events in the town, but has informed townspeople of local politics, clubs,

proposals, plans, and controversies. This source was used to build a working knowledge of town

function, and to identify the impacts of relocation to the town. Articles that look to the past were

invaluable sources to see how the town has observed change, and special features informed of

projections for the town’s future, analyses of proposed policies, and insight into directions taken by the

town council. Greater emphasis was given to the time periods identified to have had greater growth or

population change as identified by the research carried out in census data and cartography. This was

operationalized by identifying key words or references to impacts as discussed in the literature review,

tracing them through time, whilst mindful of other impacts. The predecessor to the Chipping Norton

News, The Chipping Norton Advertiser, was used when possible, along with clippings from locals

newspapers.

Census data and cartography

16

Census data and cartography were used conjointly to examine population trends in comparison

to town expansion. When and why rural depopulation took place was examined, as well as reasons it

might not have occurred. Trends were also noted, looking for times of rapid expansion as well as slow

growth, stagnation, and decline. Maps were used from the years 1880, 1922, 1938, 1950, 1979, 2002,

and 2013. They were chosen because of their comparable data and 1:10,000 scale, as well as availability.

Population figures were provided the first year of each decade, and provide a somewhat relative

timeframe to expansion identified. The 2011 census was furthermore used to provide information about

current demographics.

2003 Town Appraisal and 2013 Town Plan

The 2003 Chipping Norton Town Appraisal, commissioned by the town council was viewed

alongside the 2013 follow-up, entitled Chipping Norton: Looking Back, Stepping Forward. Information

from these two sources served as sources to examine Chipping Norton’s past decade, and to establish

townspeople perceptions as identified by town council surveys.

Other Historical Sources

Other historical sources were used as well. Newspapers, magazines, books, and pamphlets from

Chipping Norton Museum provided dates and details to key town events. Town Council websites and

other relevant websites were used to familiarize with the location and to identify the occurrence of key

town events, and when they occurred. Much appreciated help was received from volunteers at the

Chipping Norton Museum to verify information and to find sources, as well as from town historians.

Interviews

Semi-structured interviews were performed door-to-door in various neighborhoods throughout

the town, and at the Chipping Norton Museum. Careful consideration was taken to incorporate the full

diversity of demographics, and to minimize redundancy. Deductions based on observation were used to

target locations and individuals most likely to fit within demographic groups. This was for the purpose of

attaining as diverse of information as possible. Many townspeople commute to work, and residents of

surrounding villages come to Chipping Norton. It became important to provide commuter

representation as locomotion to larger towns and cities played an important role for townspeople. This

was achieved by performing interviews at various times throughout the day. On days one and two

17

interviews began at 11am. On day three they began at 1pm and lasted until 8pm. Locals were also

interviewed as well. This was for the purpose of balancing town perceptions, and assessing impacts

through local eyes. Individuals were not selected based on participation in counter-urbanization or

urbanization, nor for being local to the town. On three occasions interviews were performed in groups.

This was seen to have the advantage of validating information expressed by others in the conversations,

and to provide further insights as participants took trips down ‘memory lane’. Adverse effects to

information accuracy due to group interviews were not identified. A further interview was carried out at

the Red Lion pub.

The interviews were performed over three visits to the town, but were done in two analytical

parts. After performing eight interviews, those interviews were examined, and strategies to acquire

holes in collected information were employed. Strategies did not always prove successful, and Plan Bs

were employed to acquire information from similar demographics. These seven additional interviews

were added to the findings of the eight other interviews.

Information from interviews was analyzed by first categorizing the data according to dissertation

objectives and frames set out in the literature review. Responses pertaining to similar processes were

grouped together to identify uniformity and variation between participants, and in response to the

literature review. This was seen in terms of the existence of processes, and nuances in their

occurrences. New processes were similarly grouped together according to uniformity.

As dissertation time frames allowed for a small sample size, qualitative analysis was preferred

over quantitative. This was also because quantitative analyses were used much more frequently in rural

studies literature, providing inquiry to town and relocator qualitative experience. Great effort was made

to provide the historical context for interview data, and interviews were placed within literature review

frames, triangulating analyses. This allowed credibility to determine the substantiality of processes

observed, and whether they are significant enough to be seen as variations to processes identified in the

literature review, or new processes altogether. Where patterns are shown those patterns are indicated,

but where individual nuance was identified, that too will be seen as rural reality.

Conclusion

This section discussed the methodologies employed to achieve the objectives of the research –

to create an understanding of the reasons for counter-urbanization, the processes that are involved, and

its impacts in Chipping Norton at the household and local level. The case study methodology utilized a

18

mixed methods approach with two main methods, collection of historical data and interviews. These

methods were employed to qualitatively analyze town and relocator experiences, and to benefit from

the case study approach. The data was triangulated between the literature review, historical research,

and interviews.

19

Chapter 3: Introduction to Chipping Norton

This introduction to Chipping Norton will set the stage for research performed. It is arranged to

first provide general access to the town, then by examining the town’s morphology, population figures,

along with historical events, builds an image of what the town has been, and how it has developed to its

current form. As present time approaches, in-depth access into the current functioning of the town will

be detailed. The section will conclude by summarizing key points, and setting the stage for research

analyses.

General Information

Chipping Norton is a market town in the district of West Oxfordshire, England. It sits on the edge

of the Cotswold region, named after a unique limestone sitting beneath and which is used in the regions

vernacular built environment. Because of this stone, the town is considered one of the ‘Gateways to the

Cotswolds (Chipping Norton Town, 2014)’ and is under protection as an Area of Outstanding Natural

Beauty, which receives equal protections as national parks (CN Town Plan, 2013, p.27). 126 of the

town’s structures are listed heritage sites (CN Town Plan, 2013), with St. Mary’s Church, rebuilt

approximately 1450, grade-1 listed (St. Mary’s Church, N.D.). The Chipping Norton Conservation Area,

designated by the district council, adds further restriction to development of the town’s built

environment. Recent talks have suggested its expansion to more town areas.

The town’s market town function, existent since the beginning of the 13th century (Chipping

Norton Town Council, 2014) differentiates the town from surrounding villages. Market towns historically

provided a hub where farmers bought and sold goods (BBC, 2014). They were centers along a route

conveniently located for farmers, and which encouraged further industry within the area. In a similar

capacity, Chipping Norton today still functions as a service hub for nearby villages along with Churchill,

which because of its postcode is still considered Chipping Norton, but is not considered in this

dissertation. Market space in town center is designated on Wednesdays for market stalls, and farmer’s

markets sell produce from farms, as town shops serve the area.

20

Historical Development

The historical morphology of the town will be further discussed to explain how the town came

to exist in its current form. The maps used illustrate the expanding town morphology from years 1880,

1922, 1938, 1950, 1979, 2002, and 2013, with additions to the built environment highlighted in blue.

These maps show town expansion, but unless identifiable from a 1:10,000 scale, they do not show

regenerations and reuse of existing buildings, nor demographic changes. This information is included

when possible, and in whichever form they are found. This is along with pivotal events that would affect

town functioning and population changes, to form a broad narrative of the town.

Early 19th century to 1911

Former town councilor and town historian Rob Evans wrote that ‘the Industrial Revolution was

brought to an unlikely rural setting (1995, p.v)’ when William Bliss II identified in Chipping Norton a

niche market in tweed manufacturing. This came at a time when countryside populations were declining

along with agrarian activities (Marsden et al., 1993, p.70), providing employment to workers

transitioning from farming.

The town’s population steadily rose from 2,640 to 3,368 between 1831 and 1851(GB Historical

GIS, 2014). Construction of the second lower mill, now called ‘the Bliss Mill,’ ended in 1872 (Lewis and

Watkins, 1989), right around the height of its prosperity when the company employed 700 townspeople

(ibid). By 1881 4,167 people populated the town, whilst the overwhelming majority of males still tended

to agricultural activities (GB Historical GIS, 2014). Figure 3.1 shows the town a decade before its 1891

peak of 4,222 (ibid). The town’s population finally declined in 1901 to 3,780 which lightly regained in

1911 to 3,972 (ibid). Figure 3.1 shows a pronounced town center, with growth expanding outwards

along the B4450 at the bottom of the map. Small patches of buildings are along the left hand side,

where the Bliss Mill and railway station are. This area expands in coming years.

21

Map 3.1 Chipping Norton 1880 (FIND 2013)

The town population dropped again, this time to 3,521 in 1921 (ibid). Interview participant 13

stated his family farming heritage ended with his father as large properties were farmed by a few

people. His father drove a lorry before becoming an engineer, which his son then took up. Assuming

this elderly man, the son, is 65 today, and his father was 20 when he became a father, his father

would’ve been roughly 20 in 1929, within the expressed time frame. Depopulation then occurred with

mechanization of farming, as work would have been sought elsewhere. Town expansion occurred mainly

outside the town center area by the Chipping Norton Common and the Leys (map 3.2).

22


In 1927, shortly before the Great Depression hit, the Craft’s Corn Mill brought new industry into

town (Oxford Mail, 1955). As the depression continued, Chipping Norton’s population dropped to 3,499

in 1931 (ibid). This was a short-lived slump as the town’s population jumped to 4,100 in 1939, eight

years later. This is most likely fully explained by 1,420 evacuees from West Ham the town housed on the

eve of WWII (CNM, 2014). The Leys continued to expand, as more growth occurred around the same

area.

23


In the 1940s, the Greystones housed German POWs (CNN, Nov. 1990). Part of the land was

developed into the Greystones Sport and Recreation Center in 1977 to be enjoyed by the whole town

(CNN, Apr. 1977). The population grew from 1951 to 1971 from 3,878 to approximately 5,000 (CNN, Jun.

1977), the town’s highest recorded population yet. This was an increase of 28% compared to the 10%

growth of the previous 25 years. It was reported that the population decreased during this time as well

(ibid). This growth was outside of the town center area as well.

24


In 1951 British Railways discontinued passenger services between Chipping Norton and Banbury

(CNN, Jun. 1977), which was followed by closure of the Chipping Norton Railway Station in 1962 (ibid).

The Bliss Mill reported that it was becoming increasingly difficult to find skilled labor, and was not

working to full capacity (Oxford Mail, 1955). The town sunk into nostalgia for what it had once been.

This was shown by an article from the Evesham Journal & Four Shires Advertiser in February 1958, which

explained that ‘sixty years ago its streets were not as busy as they are now, but it was the center of an

agricultural district in a way which is hardly true today (1958).’ The town was transitioning from its

former market town function, to one of industry and service. The article reads further, ‘it has realized

that the dignity and status of a borough cannot rest on classical buildings and old world charm alone

(ibid).’ The town council asked local tradesmen to help revive the street market, marketing it, and

sought chain stores for the High Street. This was for the purpose of ‘expanding its trade and restoring it

to the position it once held as a thriving Cotswold market town (ibid).

These efforts helped the town attract the furniture maker, Parker Knoll, whose doors were

opened in 1962, providing another significant employer to the town (Bland, 1995, p.204). Concern for

the town’s architectural heritage was expressed in July 1977, saying that ‘many of Chippy’s best old

buildings have already been destroyed (CNN, Jul. 1977).’ This is a theme that continues today, and

25

perhaps indicates new priority as the town began to thrive. The Banbury Guardian in November 1979

entitled an article on the town, ‘Here’s a town that’s on the “up and up” (1979).’ Resembling 1958

efforts to revive it by marketing, the article ended, ‘next time you see the signpost – Chipping Norton –

don’t pass by. Stop by and see for yourself just what we have to offer (ibid).’ An explosion of growth

added to the town’s expanse. The Parker Knoll factory is seen on the right side of figure 3.5.

Simultaneous to town prosperity, district planners, against pleas from the town council, decided

the town should not be allowed substantial growth (CNN, Apr. 1979). Growth occurring was to meet the

needs of the existing work force, and plans attempting to expand the population would be rejected.

This was for the purpose of preserving agricultural lands and the natural beauty of the town (ibid).


26

Town historian Rob Evans wrote, ‘[the Bliss Mill was] the first large-scale town workforce in this

small market town community and together with their successors in the Co-op, the railway and Parker

Knoll , established Chipping Norton as a working Cotswold town (1995, p.x).’ Challenging economic

times fell upon the town that resulted in much cut spending. The doors of Bliss Mill closed in 1980,

leaving 120 unemployed (Evans, 1995, p.v). The tweed manufacturer had been fading from the 700

workers employed in 1870 (Evans, 1995, p.vi), and its closure was no surprise to townspeople. By 1981

the town’s population was 5,003 (Smith, 2014), roughly three people more than it was reported to have

been in 1977. Plans were set to regenerate the mill into luxurious housing, but the challenging economic

climate stalled plans as many lost confidence in its fruition. Development eventually did occur, and the

Bliss Mill was turned into 35 luxury flats, 9 cottages, and 2 lodges (CNN, Dec. 1992).

Discussions to designate the town as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty began in 1986

(CNN, Feb. 1986), when business was once again booming (CNN, Sep. 1986) and property values rising

(CNN, Mar. 1985). The designation, said planning officers, ‘would have far reaching effects on the future

development of Chipping Norton, regarding housing and jobs (CNN, Feb. 1986).’ What this designation

did do, however, was tighten restrictions on town development. The town slowly began to unravel in

the next decade.

A 1995 Chipping Norton News article was entitled ‘Is Chipping Norton becoming a ghost town

(CNN, Jun. 1995)?’ The article pointed out that many of the town center shops were empty or closing.

Abandoned homes on Burford Street were turned over to the homeless before being redeveloped into

affordable social housing (CNN, May 1990), and a proposal for Rockhill sought to turn the site into a

gypsy camp (CNN, Mar. 1991). By May 2000, a headline read, ‘snow, bad publicity or just plain apathy

meeting for public to ask questions and air views (CNN, May 2000).’ Despite dismal times, the Cromwell

Business Park opened in 1990 (CNN, May 1990), and Owen Mumford, a medical device manufacture was

opened in 1992 (Owen Mumford, 2014). Census data shows growth from 1981 to 1991, with 5,351

residents. That number increased to 5,972 in 2001. The town continued to fill in as buildings were

regenerated and housing expanded (figure 3.6).

27


A further blow was dealt in 2003 when the slowing operations of Parker Knoll halted altogether,

and 200 were left unemployed (CNN, Apr. 2003). This closure was a turning point in the town’s strategy

that resulted in emphasizing small local businesses, and marketing the town once again to attract

business (CNN, Oct. 2003). Discussion of maintaining a working Cotswold town economy and

preservation of town heritage quickly became rising public concerns (CNN, Sep 03). In the following

years, a new focus on the development and redevelopment of town properties turned the town’s empty

buildings into housing and small businesses, and sought to find new areas for growth.

The Parker Knoll site was redeveloped into affordable homes during this time (CNN, Mar. 2006).

The Henry Cornish Care Center went into the Rockhill Farms property, and it has since been announced

28

that 80 extra-care housing units with 16 further elderly homes will be constructed as well (CNN, June

2014). 29 pubs in the area were closed, and many of them were turned into housing.

Hard times once again hit the town in 2010 due to the latest recession. Spending cuts ensued as

controversy over funds promised to the Town Council from the selling of Parker Knoll never left District

hands (CNN, Sep. 2010). As Chipping Norton is not designated an area of economic growth, sentiments

were raised in 2011 that the town is being left behind, seeing restrictions as a ‘threat to future viability

(CNN, Mar. 2011).’ Similar town care was demonstrated as one headline reads, ‘the town looks like

being a real Cotswold center of culture (CNN, Feb. 2012),’ a demonstration of town pride. Business

continued to boom for Owen Mumford, who proposed a 30 job expansion in 2012 (CNN, Jul. 2012), and

today is reported to employ 350 townspeople (ibid). In March 2013 the charity Action for Children closed

the Penhurst school citing it was not cost effective (CNN, Mar. 2013). 135 jobs were lost as further

details indicate the property will be regenerated into elderly housing (CNN, Apr. 2014).


29

Many other once prominent buildings within the town are now abandoned. Besides the Parker

Knoll property (1, map 3.8), which is designated for office and light manufacturing (CNN, June 2014), the

Motorcycle Garage (8, map 3.8), which is planned to have an office and stores along with a house and

flats, and the Police Station (7, map 3.8), which the Town Council wants for its own purposes, property

owners and developers prefer residential accommodation for reuse of the town architecture. The

Penhurst school (2, map 3.8), which closed May 2013, will be regenerated into 60-65 bed care homes,

40-45 assisted living flats and cottages, and will provide dementia and nursing care (CNN, April 2014).

The Mill on Station Road (12, map 3.8) received planning consent for 33 flats in 2008. Consent was

retracted as the scheme was seen to be unviable in 2012. Since then, the Cherwell Housing Trust has

been revising their plans, but intend on using it for housing. The Churchill House on Hailey Road (11,

map 3.8) has been approved to build 10 social rented housing units. Permission has been received for

Vernon House (8, map 3.8) on Burford Road, to build 14 flats and five houses. The Manor House Gallery

(10, map 3.8) is also being regenerated into new houses. And lastly, regeneration of the Baptist Church

(13, map 3.8) to five dwellings has been stalled due to strong objection from the Town Council.

The remaining buildings do not have a specific function planned, and are either up for sale, or

exchanging hands. The Old War Memorial (6, map 3.8) was purchased by St. Charles Homes who

planned to convert the building of the hospital building and build 14 homes, but was put back on the

market. Chestnuts, which has been empty for 15 years, the Ambulance Station, and Castle view (3,4,5,

map 3.8) will shortly be on the market, all grouped together.

30

Map 3.7 Empty buildings with intentions for reuse (Google Maps 2014)

Presently

The 2011 census shows the town population is growing older, and that it is losing 20-29 year

olds (CN Town Plan, 2013, p.7). 20% of the population is 65+, compared to West Oxfordshire’s 18%

average. This is much higher than the 16% national average (ibid). The average townsperson is 42, two

and a half years older than the average Englishman (ibid). This number is projected to increase as the

town’s working population simultaneously declines. Similarly, the number of economically active

persons per household will drop, as the overall town population increases (CN Town Plan, 2013, p.8).

31

Whilst the town’s population grew by 365 residents between 2001 and 2011, the number of

households expanded by 275 (Oxford District Council, 2011). This indicates that new households are

thinning out into smaller numbers as the population gradually grows. Continued decrease of household

size is projected in the future, as it is seen to drop from 2.37 in 2011, to 2.24 (CN Town Plan, 2013, p.8).

Despite its current designation as a non-economic growth area, there is great possibility of

massive growth within the next 15 years. The latest consultation for West Oxfordshire’s Local Plan

indicates that Chipping Norton will be included with Witney and Carterton as a town of expansion (CNN,

Sep. 2014). 58 bed care homes have been approved along with 176 new houses. New proposals

furthermore push for 317 new homes in the town with a new draft of the local plan indicating 1,000

new homes may be added in the next 15 years (ibid). Evaluation to see if the town’s infrastructure can

support such expansion has not been conducted, making plans tentative (ibid).

Housing prices are expensive throughout the county and in Chipping Norton as well. Oxford was

reported to be the most expensive city outside of London as housing prices are 50% higher than the

national average (CNN, Apr. 2014). This filters down to the rest of the county, as the average asking

price in town was £348,816, compared to the £201,000 national average of (Osborne, 2014).

Gentrification is prevalent throughout the county and Chipping Norton, making it difficult for young

families to purchase starter homes. The Chipping Norton News indicates that, ‘first time house buyers

[are] essential to keeping Chipping Norton a working Cotswold town (CNN, Apr. 2014)’ but pose the

question, ‘will it come quick enough to avoid a free for all (ibid)?’ Similar concerns were raised in 1985

(CNN, Mar. 1985) and 1991 (CNN, Sep. 1991), resulting in discussion of 50% of new housing going to

affordable social housing. But as the population ages, emphasis has mainly been placed on retirement

and care homes.

As the town ages and gentrification continues to push up the cost of housing and living, the

town has been reluctant to provide facilities for young people. One example is that of a town skate park.

Residents seeking a skate park were required to receive 5,000 signatures on a petition. It was noted that

‘other areas in West Oxfordshire have recently had skate parks built without this demand (CNN, Nov.

2012).’ The park was refused in June 2014 on the grounds that at least a 30 meter buffer must exist

between the chosen site and residential dwellings (CNN, Jun. 2014). No suggestions were given however

to where such a place might be. ‘Outdoor leisure provision for young people in and around town, such

as playgrounds, kick-about areas and skate parks,’ wrote the Town Plan , ‘were rated as poor (CN Town

Plan, 2013, p.25).’

32

Other than housing expansion and facilities suited for older demographics and the elderly, the

Town Council and residents continue to seek investment, and takes seriously demands by local

businesses to market the town for business purposes. Groups like Experience Chipping Norton, which

networks local businessmen, are working to attract more ‘footfall’ to the town. The methods that

Experience Chipping Norton uses includes painting railings, fixing planters, creating visitor information

guides, and holding special events (CNN, May 2014). These activities will be important as more housing

is planned, the population ages, and employment remains sparse.

Conclusion

The town morphology as observed through maps shows gradual but consistent growth between

1880 and 2013. Though the population declined throughout the first half of the 20th century, town

expansion on the outskirts of town continued. Important businesses were added during this time, which

set the stage for the latter half of the century. The town marketed itself in 1958, attracting Parker Knoll,

and in 1979, as business began to thrive. Though a couple of recessions and development restrictions

brought hard times upon the town twice more, the town was resilient, and took to marketing itself again

in town policy, as well as local efforts by businessmen.

As there is no precedent to newly proposed development plans, these new policies could wildly

expand the town beyond what it has before seen, but it has not yet been determined that the town can

handle such expansion. With upward and downward trends observed in population figures, the town’s

population from 1911-2011 has not quite doubled. In the next 15 years 1,000 more people may be

added to the town, more than doubling the population from 1931 to 2031. When taken between 1891

and 2011, the town has only grown by 1978 residents. Despite this growth, household sizes are smaller

as pubs, hospitals, and other business sites are regenerated into housing units. Whilst the population is

ageing and much of the new housing is suited for their needs, affordable social housing is important,

and has been a concern since 1985 amongst first time house buyers. The next section will detail findings

from interviews performed to find the motivations for relocation to Chipping Norton, how it was done,

and the impacts it has had upon the town.

33

Chapter 4: Research Findings

This section presents interview data collected, and synthesizes it with historical information

from the last section, and rural studies literature. Motivations for relocation are discussed first. This is

followed by the processes of relocation, and then seen along with impacts set out in the literature

review to identify aspects discussed. Where processes seen in the literature review are encountered in

interviews, they will be validated with explanations from rural studies literature and historical research.

Reversely, when they were not observed, or in variation, this will also be noted providing an explanation

for it, and relevant information building upon those processes will be discussed further.

Motivations

The 2013 Town Appraisal conducted by the town council touched upon motivations for

relocation to Chipping Norton. The survey found that 25% of relocations were employment-led, 16% due

to a love of country life, validating Champion et al. (1998, p.55), and another portion, percentage not

stated, desired to be near family (p.9). These are categories that resemble the broad categories rural

scholars like Cloke (1983), and Cloke and Goodwin (1992) used to characterize counter-urbanization

movements, and validate Cloke’s conclusion that migration is mainly employment-led.

Harper expanded these characterizations by placing them into arenas, foci, and catalysts to

explain the needs, frames of mind, and reasons for their occurrences (1991). Differentiating between

these categories proved difficult in practice, but interviews performed showed that reasons for

relocation to Chipping Norton are layered, do not necessarily corroborate town council findings, and are

not as neat. This is possible for three reasons. Firstly, the town council survey dealt with a larger sample

size than used for this dissertation, which could point towards employment-led migration, and secondly,

the town council survey used multiple choice questions, not opened-ended interviews. Whilst multiple

choice questions place the information into clear frames, they do not necessarily expound upon

complexities of reasons or irrationalities that might exist. Finally, the Town Appraisal was released a

34

decade ago, the year a large town employer, Parker Knoll, closed, creating the certainty that industries

attracted relocators, and the possibility this influenced motivations for relocation.

The town council survey furthermore identified that 27% of the population was born in the area,

but relocated to the town (CN Town Appraisal, 2003, p.9). This is the difference between counter-

urbanization and relocation from villages to Chipping Norton, or urbanization. Data for relocation

motivations will be analyzed further within these frames, and it will be argued that relocation from

nearby villages is urbanization.

Of the 15 participants randomly interviewed, five were local, six had counter-urbanized, and

four urbanized. One of the locals had had a job related move from the town but returned back later,

whilst the four others were born in, grew up, and worked inside the town the duration of their lives.

Four of the five had also retired in Chipping Norton.

Two general motivations for individuals counter-urbanizing to Chipping Norton were identified,

housing and closer proximity to families, which is essentially housing-led as well. Three of the six

counter-urbanizers commuted out of Chipping Norton to either London or Oxford, and a fourth

participant had previously counter-urbanized to a village whilst working in Chipping Norton, then made

the switch to town later. Participants 2 and 8 are a married couple who both commute to Oxford. The

other two participants had retired before moving to town. Participant 6 commuted to London, but

retired in Chipping Norton.

Whilst the two other participants relocated to be closer to families, neither of their families lived

in the town. Participant 14 halved commute time to North London to see his son by relocation to town,

whilst participant 11 relocated from Cheshire to be closer to her daughter in Faringdon, Oxfordshire.

Both of these participants had already retired, thus able to place greater priority on family interaction.

Whilst the motivation was to be closer to families, the reason participants moved to Chipping Norton

was the location, type, and cost of housing.

Three reasons might explain why counter-urbanization is mainly housing-led in Chipping Norton.

Firstly, employment is lacking in town. Secondly, as Harper notes, affluent counter-urbanizers showed

greater disposition for farther moves (1991, p.37), and would not be the demographic to inhabit

affordable social housing. Thirdly, because gentrification has raised housing prices, prices are too high

for employment-led moves unless the relocator commutes to a higher paying job. Urbanizers were

shown more likely to commute.

The remaining relocations were identified as urbanization. These relocations are termed

urbanization for two reasons, they were moves to higher populated areas, and sociality differs from

35

villages. On the first point, relocations were from villages to Chipping Norton, a market town. This

means that participants relocated from a location of lower population to a rural economic hub. They

were employment and housing-led relocations, and each housing-led participant commuted to work.

This resembles housing foci of counter-urbanizers, looking at location, types, and prices of housing that

may not be available in villages. Participant 5 commuted to London, whilst participant 10 commuted to a

village four miles away, differentiating between village and city commutes amongst urbanizing

participants.

Reverse to this, participants 3 and 15 had already worked in town before relocating to it.

Participant 3 had counter-urbanized first to a village, and then moved to town. Participant 15 relocated

from a village where he was stationed in the military, but once there commuted out of town. Participant

1 made a direct employment move to town when she and her husband were offered a pub. Lastly,

participant 10 relocated to Chipping Norton from a village in the area when she married her former

husband, making her relocation due to life change.

The second reason this has been termed urbanization is due to town sociality differences.

Participant 5 stated that Chipping Norton is small enough to be friendly, but big enough to have

anonymity. This was in contrast to Milton-under-Wychwood, where individual’s doings were known by

the village. As the town’s population exceeds 6,300, sociality will differ compared to lower population

villages. None of the villages relocated from have populations exceeding 2,000.

Reversely, the problem terming these relocations ‘urbanization’ is that sociality is not the same

as cities, and though the town is an economic hub, it encounters many problems similar to villages that

relocators came from, like employment and housing. Participant 5 commutes to London for work and

lives in Parker Knoll, the neighborhood most resembling a suburban setting because of yard sizes, and

the neighborhood’s planning, density, and visual aesthetic. This sees the town as an extension of the city

for participant 5 and similar commuters.

In conclusion, relocation patterns were shown to be different between counter-urbanizers and

urbanizers, but neither was straightforward. Whilst counter-urbanizers were motivated by housing

locations, types, and prices, so were many urbanizers. Except for participants 2 and 8, all the counter-

urbanizers had retired, whilst only one urbanizer had. Participants 3 and 6, both counter-urbanizers, had

retired whilst living in town, but both of their motivations were on par with other counter-urbanizers

who relocated for housing. Reversely, urbanizers showed a variety of reasons for relocation. Some

urbanization was housing-led as participants commute to work, whilst another was a life change, and

the other employment-led. Commutes for these relocators were both local and to London.

36

Processes

Whilst fundamental, the process of relocating to a rural location was not addressed in rural

studies literature. Much of this information is obvious, but adds to the depth of study in relocation

processes. These processes could be implied, but this study provides concrete evidence in the case of

Chipping Norton, and establishes the processes of town assimilation. Interview findings regarding these

processes will be further detailed.

The moving process to Chipping Norton was unanimously described as normal. Almost every

participant explained how their belongings were placed into a moving truck, and were removed at the

other end. One participant said that after coming out of the service he had so little that a single car was

used.

Counter-urbanizers discovered properties through the internet, working with estate agents, and

by visiting the town, whilst urbanizers already possessed knowledge of the town, and had more facility

visiting. Relocators chose their properties based upon various criteria. Participant 5, an urbanizer and

commuter, chose her residence because of its size, its garden, and appreciation of the feel of the town.

Historical connections were drawn for participant 6, a counter-urbanizer, as her and her husband chose

the location for its historical value. Participants 2, 8, 11, and 14, each counter-urbanizers, chose their

residences from those in certain price ranges, whilst participants 11 and 14 specifically desired

bungalows. Criteria can be simplified as location, type, and price.

Of both the counter-urbanizers and urbanizers, two participants said they knew townspeople

before relocating. Both of those individuals relocated from nearby villages, and both moves were

employment related. The other participants moved without previous associations in town. That’s not to

say that they knew nothing of the town. Most of the participants possessed previous knowledge of the

town, either living in villages nearby, or studying the town before deciding. Participant 14 commuted

past the town, and had desired to relocate to it by so doing.

Because relocators had no previous contacts in town, social organizations were important to

their assimilation once in town. Upon arrival, the Methodist Church invited participant 14 in for tea, and

has subsequently provided many other social activities as well. This participant volunteers at Oxfam and

the Chipping Norton Museum, is part of the Bowls Club, and attends activities with the University of the

Third Age, which continues learning for the elderly. Participant 15 is part of the Chipping Norton

Historical Society, and provides significant help to the Chipping Norton Museum as well.

37

Female working participants, participants 2 and 5, found town sociality through their children’s

schooling. Both of these women also socialized with neighbors, finding social satisfaction through these

means. Participants 2 and 8 explained that pubs were important places for socializing in the town as

well. Participants 1,2, and 8 explained that the town pubs are split between locals pubs, and newcomer

pubs.

Whilst showing division in the town, separate pubs provide locations for like-minded

communion. This might be seen better as different communities in town rather than rivalry. Participant

9, a local, explained that each wave of newcomers brings new ideas, and participant 13, also a local,

noted this places different significances upon town events and town history. This can be demonstrated

by participant 6, a retired counter-urbanizer from 1999 who thought the town was no longer a working

town, against that of participant 12, a local, who remembers the daily Bliss Mill whistle at noon, and

who worked in the town until retirement when the Penhurst School closed in 2013. Each of these is

perception based upon observations in their own lives.

Despite the clubs, charities, and extra-curricular learning activities, as well as split pubs between

locals and newcomers, a gradient in town sociality has shown to exist through data. Entry into town

sociality occurs through casual experiences in town and on buses, said participant 2, and acquaintance

with neighbors builds acquaintances and friendships. Another entryway into town sociality was the

Methodist church for participant 14, as well as co-workers for participants 3 and 15. Participant 8

explained that with time, you finally go to the pub. Whilst suggesting this decision comes with

comfortability in the town, he also suggested a formal invitation might be extended to meet up there. As

the town has expanded past village sociality, several communities exist within town, and assimilation

can be into anyone of these. Locals and newcomer pubs are one example, elderly circles exist for

volunteer work and learning, another draws upon interest in local politics or local history, amongst

many others. Whilst Murdoch explained that industries and businesses have ‘complex constellations of

networks in countryside locations (2006, p.179),’ this study shows this has occurred in town sociality as

well.

Others like participants 5 and 13 either note the ability to step in and out of the town at will,

‘sociality in contrast to community (ibid)’ like urban centers, or do not go out much, and thus draw social

circles closer to home. Participant 15 stated that because of commute to work, he did not really begin

to socialize until he retired. As shown here, commuters can show lesser investment in town sociality, as

they have insufficient time, or socialize in places they work. Despite these variations, participant 11

explained that after two years, she is finally feelings assimilated into town.

38

Despite new acquaintances and friendships in town, most relocators maintain contact with

those in their previous locations. Those that did not maintain contact with people in the places from

which they relocated either moved in earlier cohorts – participant 3 in 1968 and participant 15 in 1972 –

and did not have families in those locations or had watched friends and family move from whence they

came – participant 5. Technology is essential to facilitate the ability to do this. There was no

differentiation between demographics in regards to how this was done, by telephone and emails, as well

as visits. Two of the participants also sent letters or Christmas cards through the mail.

Lastly, the self-sustaining town that once characterized Chipping Norton has not been the case

for some time, and all working participants regularly interact with people outside the town for business

purposes. For participants 2, 5, 8, and 10 this meant commuting to Oxford and London. Participant 9

works alongside insurance brokers in Woodstock. Further communication was done by email, phone

calls, and Facebook was used for business purposes as well.

Impacts

Three general waves of relocation were identified in the interview findings. These waves were

those who relocated from 2011-2012, those who relocated from 1999-2000, and earlier relocators from

1968 and 1972. Each wave coincides with early recovery from economically challenging atmospheres in

Chipping Norton history. An irregularity was noticed with participant 10, who relocated in 1991, during a

difficult economic time. Her case is different from other participants as her relocation was to marry a

local townsman, a life change. This section begins by detailing the town atmosphere at the times of

interview participant relocation to town, which is then formulated into an observed cycle with evidence

from historical research.

By 1968 and 1972, Chipping Norton’s agricultural market town function had waned, and

industry and service were seen to replace it (Evesham Journal & Four Shires Advertiser, 1958). The

railway had gone, the Bliss Mill was experiencing challenges (CNN, Jun. 1977), but the town had

attracted Parker Knoll, which opened its doors in 1962. The town struggled to maintain relevancy in the

area. Tradesmen were asked to revive the town’s market, and the town sought chain stores for the town

center (Evesham Journal & Four Shires Advertiser, 1958). Great expansion occurred during this time, as

the town’s population rose from 4245 in 1961 to 4,767 in 1971. The town was gradually changing course

from agriculture to further industry and small business, and relocation was equally slow but steady. Both

39

participants from this wave considered themselves local to the town, the only to do so of all relocators.

One had counter-urbanized, and the other urbanized after serving in the military.

By 1979, the town was on the ‘up and up (The Banbury Guardian, 1979)’ as property values rose

(CNN, Mar. 1985), and business boomed (CNN, Sep. 1986). Designating the town an Area of Outstanding

Natural Beauty in 1986 was supposed to set a new course for the town’s development, but instead the

town had slowly unraveled by 1995 (CNN, Jun. 1995). Whilst abandoned homes on Burford Street were

turned over to the homeless before regeneration into social housing units (CNN, May 1990), participant

10 relocated to the town from a nearby village to marry a townsman.

Three more relocated between 1999 and 2000. Between 1991 and 2001, the town’s population

rose from 5351 to 5972, an increase of 621 people. This was the largest population increase over a

single decade till that point in the town’s history. This number surpasses the population jump between

1931 and 1939, when 1,420 evacuees from West Ham inhabited the town, as well as the population

decrease between 1891 and 1901 that saw 422 townspeople leave. These three participants counter-

urbanized to Chipping Norton, participant 2 and 8, a married couple in their forties that commute to

Oxford, coming from the Netherlands, and participant 6, retired, from Buckinghamshire.

The most recent recession had fully touched Chipping Norton by 2010, and public talks

dismayed over spending cuts. Concern arose that the town would be left behind because it is not

allowed to develop economically like Carterton and Witney, a concern that is validated by Weekley

(1988, p.133). Four participants relocated within this time frame. Two of those relocators were elderly,

and the other two in their forties. Both elderly participants were counter-urbanizers, whilst the two in

their forties moved from nearby villages.

Each of these waves of relocation shows a similar pattern. As economic difficulty falls upon the

town, the town searches for ways to increase business and ‘foot fall’ by marketing the town. Except for

participant 10, it was during these times interview participants relocated to the town. Whilst some of

the relocators used estate agents, the counter-urbanizers, and the others that had previous knowledge

of the town, there was no evidence through interviews that town marketing was effective for attracting

participants to the town. What is clear though is that buildings were abandoned before each wave, and

were regenerated into housing. Participants relocated because of the pricing and types of housing

available in town, and they used estate agents and the internet to identify locations.

Sudden shifts in Chipping Norton News content were noticed shortly after this stage in each

wave. Town marketing became less of a priority, and was replaced with concern for the built

environment and town heritage, or preservationism. Shortly thereafter announcement of a thriving

40

town was made, which was shown to then be followed by concerns for housing and employment as the

town fills in.

To summarize this pattern, the town fell into three economic slumps between 1958 and 2010.

The town markets itself to revive the economy. Relocation occurs. A shift in town priorities is observed

to preserve town heritage and the built environment. The town is thriving. And finally, a shortage of

employment and housing is voiced. The duration of processes shortened with each wave, till present

time in which all processes are present in a time of town prosperity. This will be addressed later.

This is not a process that rural studies literature could have addressed as research scopes, noted

in the literature review, stay between the quantitative and comparative, macro and theoretical levels.

Whilst the sample size for relocation waves is small, except for participant 10 who relocated as a life

change, each relocator falls within this observed pattern. Further research with a larger sample size and

comparative research can add clarity to this pattern, and its existence in other locations. Impacts due to

relocation during these waves become important, and are analyzed next.

41

Chapter 5: Case Study Analysis

The previous chapter fulfilled three of the four dissertation objectives. This chapter will

complete the fourth, which is to analyze the case study within rural studies literature. This includes

abstract and theoretical processes set out in the literature review which were identified in the

examination of the case study.

Gentrification, Geriatrification, and Depopulation

Gentrification, geriatrification, and depopulation were shown to be related in the case study.

Whilst counter-urbanization gentrifies locations by introducing more middle class residents, local

townspeople add to the numbers of both middle class residents, as well as elderly residents. This in turn

means fewer of these individuals will have children at home, and will themselves occupy residences with

fewer people, i.e. spouses, friends, or guests. Through this underuse and under-occupation of

residences results, depopulating the town’s built environment. The extent to which depopulation is

occurring in Chipping Norton is debatable, and will be discussed further.

Gentrification occurs by relocators that have either retired, or in later stages of their working life

envisage retirement shortly, thus increasing elderly demographics (Weekley, 1988, p.131). Stated in the

literature review, as the price of living goes up and employment options lack, young locals will either

retreat to more remote rural locations or relocate to cities, leaving local elderly demographics as well

(Weekley, 1988, p.131). This was observed through interviews performed, as three of the five locals

were elderly with an additional townsman having no children at home.

The 2013 Chipping Norton Town Plan says that household sizes have been decreasing and will

continue to do so in the future (8). Unfortunately, historical figures to trace trends through time are not

accessible as census data is released each century, making household figures unavailable. But working

from the Town Plan, projections indicate that the average household size will continue to drop from

2.37 in 2011, to 2.24 in the unidentified future (2013, p.8), barely replacing itself. Though historic trends

cannot yet be traced to contextualize projections, Weekley says that this means that the limited supply

42

of housing available and decreasing average household size creates under-occupied and underused

facilities (1988, p.131). Depopulation must then be occurring to some degree.

Relocation appears to have accelerated this process, especially counter-urbanization. Of the

locals interviewed, participants 4, 7, 12, and 13 are either retired, or do not have children living in their

homes. All of the elderly relocators were counter-urbanizers, except participant 15, an elderly man that

relocated in 1972, contributing to the under-occupation of town facilities along with the local

population.

Urbanizers were then more likely to be working, and have children at home than counter-

urbanizers and locals. Participants 2 and 8 were the only counter-urbanizers to have children at home,

two, and were on par with the number of children of urbanizers, participants 5 and 10, who each had

two, as participant 9, a town local had three. Whilst urbanizers contributed to the town’s working

population, of participants 1, 5, and 10, along with participants 2 and 8, only one works in town.

Participant 5 commutes to London, and participant 10 to Anston, a proximate village. Participants 2 and

8 both commute to Oxford. This indicates that employment options are either lacking or insufficient in

town to sustain residence there. Participants 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15, reversely are either retired

or approaching retirement, and do not have children at home. This roughly demonstrates a pattern of

locals and counter-urbanizers as empty nesters or retired, and urbanizers as working, reproducing, and

adaptable. This is gentrification.

Dunn et al. say that this is compounded by limited growth policies from land constraint and

conservation (1981, p.196). Chipping Norton has two such constraints, designation as an Area of

Outstanding Natural Beauty, implemented in 1986 (CNN, Feb. 1986) and a limited growth policy

implemented in 1979 (CNN, Apr. 1979). These policies have had adverse economic effects upon the

town, and have ‘artifically reduced the possibility of incremental change of the type which has been

present in most villages for centuries (1988, p.133),’ allowing entrance mostly to middle class and

elderly relocators.

Though gentrification affects counter-urbanizers, urbanizers, and locals differently, it is manifest

through the target audiences of town retail and housing. All the local townspeople interviewed noted

the high cost of shops in town center, and the need to travel for purchases. Participant 8, a counter-

urbanizer, noted that ‘posher’ shops have gone into the town center, whilst participant 11 was the only

counter-urbanizer to report to travel to Banbury for purchases. Participant 5, an urbanizer, reversely

said she loved the town center shops. Whilst the town center shops are increasingly more ‘posh’, they

are also targeted towards adults and the elderly. Participants 3, 9, and 10 stated that other than

43

expensive boutiques, there are no children’s shops in town. This is alongside expensive housing prices

that keep younger families from purchasing starter homes. Housing prices nationally average £201,000

(Osborne, 2014) and in town £348,816. Though this is a national problem for young families (Burn-

Callander, 2014), it is one perpetuated in town by gentrification, and continued housing emphasis for

the elderly rather than affordable social housing for young families.

The earlier relocation pattern expressed, transition from an economic slump to town marketing,

then relocation, preservation measures, prosperity, and finally lacking employment and housing, is

complicated with the 1,000 new homes planned for the next 15 years (CNN, Sep. 2014). As the town is

currently marketing itself, land prices are high, abandoned buildings are being planned for reuse, mainly

housing, and preservationism is just as prevalent. Lower housing prices made residences accessible for

counter-urbanizers and urbanizers, but expansion during these next years will most likely gentrify the

location beyond that which it has experienced thus far, creating an even older average age and

increasing retail and housing prices yet. Whilst housing appreciation was experienced in 1985 (CNN,

Mar. 1985), it was met with response for affordable social housing, not further concession for

gentrifying populations. As this cycle is a new contribution to rural studies literature, compaction of the

cycle to have each stage occurring simultaneously, as stated here, is also a contribution demanding

further research. One potential answer is that the town has grown to resemble an urban location, with

different neighborhood viabilities that allow for de-vitalization of neighborhoods rather than a broader

threat to the town’s survival.

Estate-ism and Social Class

Chipping Norton has gained a national and international reputation as a location for hobnobbing

and network building (CNN, May 2013). David Cameron and Jeremy Clarkson, amongst others, have

purchased large residences in villages surrounding the town, which has come to characterize the town

itself (Sherwood, 2014). Rural landlordism and power networking is estate-ism exemplified, conferring

status and tangible power (Marsden et al., 1993, p.69), and is locally labeled the ‘Chipping Norton Set’.

This has little to do with the town itself.

Only very minor demonstrations of what could be termed popular estate-ism were observed in

town, but the concept of estate-ism is nevertheless an important aspect to discuss to characterize the

town. Rural studies literature made no mention of half-way points between the city and countryside,

still not being suburbs. Whilst surrounding villages like Dean and Salford have become villages of

44

privilege, Chipping Norton is similar to a separate neighborhood or section of a city where the middle

class lives and retires, and where workers perform their labors, and reside also. Though spatially more

distant, the villages and town are the same economy, and interact with one another.

Wealth exists within the town, and there are semblances of estate-ist power gained, but unlike

Harper’s observations, there is no particular lifestyle identified within the town (1991, p.35).

Townspeople do not enter the town center wearing tweed jackets, suited in Wellies, and do not parade

the obedience of their trained dogs in a performed role as Edensor notes of the countryside (2006, 484).

Rather, Burchardt’s and Conford’s conclusion that the countryside no longer differs significantly from

the city (2008, p.1) seems to best characterize observations made in town in regards to townspeople’s

interests, lifestyles, and retail.

As a market town, villagers enter the city for shopping and leisure, but leave just as swiftly.

Photos and articles detailing the activities of the ‘Chipping Norton Set’ seemingly appear whenever they

shop in town, but indicate that they are not part of the town, but occasional visitors. Historically,

wealthy, landed individuals had great influence upon rural communities (Marsden et al., 1993, p.70), but

despite this semblance of power today, the town receives some benefits from, but does not rely upon

their privileged neighbors for subsistence except to support town shops. Participant 7 said that their

celebrity is good for bringing attention and ‘footfall’ to the town, but that appears to be the extent. This

attention could reversely lead to an increased rate of town gentrification as the town is placed in the

spotlight attracting tourism, and possibly relocation. Shops, leisure activities, and restaurants cater to

villagers and wealthy town relocators, and increasingly less to town locals (CNN, Dec. 2012, CNN, May

2013).

In town, one of the most traditional symbols of rural privilege, the hunt, has been ingested by

townspeople as part of town history and heritage. Despite the illegality of the sport and popular

condemnation of it, it has proven to be popular in Chipping Norton (CNN, Dec. 2013; CNN, Feb. 2013;

CNN, Feb. 2012). In February 2013 it was reported to be ‘a very nice spectacle proving that the hunt

crosses and includes all sections of society and the community rather than being the aristocrats’ sport

that many see it as (CNN, Feb. 2012).’ The sport could very well garner sentiments for or against estate-

ist activities, but many townspeople have embraced it as a town tradition. Participants 12 and 13, both

town locals, explained that the Boxing Day hunt is an exciting time for residents of all social backgrounds

to socialize in the town center. When asked about David Cameron’s participation in the hunt, these

participants explained, ‘that’s Dean, that’s not us.’

45

Rural studies literature places the middle class against the rural working class (Milbourne, 2006,

p.169). This case study has shown the working and middle class pitted against privileged villagers. This

observable distinction could very well be a point of solidarity between the working and middle class that

accounts for near absence of expressed contention between them in interviews, and one that led to

clear distinctions between the town and villages, as observed through participants 1, 12, 13, and

15.Chipping Norton is seen by The Times as ‘Britain’s Beverley Hills because of its high-profile residents

(CNN, May 2013),’ and ‘the Hamptons, a posh country retreat (ibid),’ by The New York Times. Resident

Peter Shirley said of the King’s Arm pub that “this is still a working-class town, and this is a working class

pub (ibid).”’ Though not entirely accurate, there is much evidence to support the notion that the town

has not been taken over by the wealthy and the old, and though a ‘working-class town’ is not correct,

participants 1 and 9 prove the town remains a location for employment. This shows that even though

‘middle-class residence in the countryside is part of new forms of belonging (Murdoch, 2006, p.178),’

that superior sets of resources, as Marsden et al. state (1993), have not completely overtaken the town

as it attempts to accommodate working-class demographics. The town must then be performing a

different function from that of villages.

Unexpectedly, there was no correlation between the locals as the working class, and the middle

class as relocators to Chipping Norton. Though born and raised in town, some locals showed upward

social mobility, and some relocators reversely inhabited social housing. Participant 7’s father had

transitioned from farming to engineering, which his son followed, and both of them moved into the

middle class. Participant 9, in his late twenties, became an insurance broker, placing him into the service

sector. Participants 12 and 13, both locals, each transitioned from industrial work to service sector jobs,

bringing both of their families’ to comfortable middle class lifestyles. Adaption was demonstrated by

these participants that allowed them to stay in town, and not have to move to another village, town, or

the city for housing. Participant 9’s childhood friends have all left town, but because of this economic

adaptability, shown by participants 7, 12, and 13 also, he moved into a demanded service, securing

employment in town.

The urbanizing participants showed greater diversity here. Participant 10 identified herself to be

living in social housing, participant 1 relocated to own and operate a pub with her husband, participant

15 relocated from the military to work as an engineer having acquired the skills there, and participant 5

commutes to London for work in book publishing. She explained that she does not maintain contact

with individuals in Milton-under-Wychwood because her friends and family have since moved from the

village. As discussed above, she adapted as well by commuting to London for work to be able to remain

46

in the countryside. It is true, however, that all the counter-urbanizing participants are middle class, and

most of them retired.

In summation, Chipping Norton fulfills an important rural role which is akin to an urban center

for nearby villages. Because of this, the town attracts those that have counter-urbanized to retire, and

those that have urbanized for housing supply. Estate-ism occurs throughout surrounding villages, but

Chipping Norton seems to enjoy unique solidarity between the working and middle class as a result.

Estate-ist activities like ‘the hunt’ are interpreted as town traditions, and are inclusive. This is different

from rural studies literature which indicates the tendency to publicly act upon superior sets of

resources. Locals are not necessarily the working class in town, who proved to adapt to experience

upward social mobility, to be able to continue enjoying the countryside. This suggests that a certain level

of income must be reached to remain in the town, reached through employment adaptation.

Foreigners

Relocation to rural locations occurred with foreigners also. The town hosts middle class

foreigners, and also foreigners requiring social housing and benefits. Objections to these migrations

were identified in interviews, and have been manifest in the rejection of shop proposals.

One such proposal was for a Kebab fast food restaurant. The September 2013 issue of the

Chipping Norton News stated it was a ‘kebab shop too far’, indicating the existence of two others in

town. It similarly cites The Guardian, saying ‘that the town’s status as a “haven of power and

refinement” might be at risk of being eroded by a show that “many didn’t want (ibid).”’ Formal rejection

of the proposal was based on the grounds of ‘odor, noise, disturbance, litter, and parking (CNN, Jul.

2013)’ affecting the town, as well as impact on adjoining residential dwellings (ibid).’

Policymakers and the writers of the Chipping Norton News have clearly seen the proliferation of

ethnic food challenging to the cultural fabric of the town. This was reiterated by participants of

interviews who cited foreigner culpability for gentrification, occupation of social and affordable housing,

and taking local jobs. This experience was much different from that of participants 2 and 8, who

migrated from the Netherlands, and have expressed positive sentiments about their experience

assimilating into the town. Such migration was not identified in rural studies literature, and is a

contribution to the discipline with further research implications.

Two participants noted that relocators perceive the town differently than those that relocated

in earlier cohorts, and locals. Whilst participant 15, a relocator in 1972, said that they bring with them

47

new ideas and different points of view, participant 13, a town local, explained that relocators see the

town history differently than locals and those who relocated earlier, and attach different weight to town

events than earlier cohorts, which differs still from locals. Two of the town’s relocators had lived abroad

before retiring to Chipping Norton. Participant 3 had lived in the Middle East, and participant 11 lived

extensively in Kenya. She had mentioned that after two years in town, she is finally feeling accepted into

the town. Experiences in these locations, and other places in the world, will undoubtedly create

different perceptions from those who were born in, grew up, and have retired in the town. Still more,

those migrating from different cultures introduce much else.

Town Experience

All of the participants except two expressed near complete satisfaction with the town.

Relocated participants that reported greater satisfaction had assimilated into the town, having multiple

social outlets. These individuals spoke of quiet and slower lives, whilst locals reminisced about town

memories, and had almost no point of conflict with newcomers. Participant 7, a local townsman, spoke

of the need for tourism in town, and saw newcomers as contributing to a stronger town economy.

Reversely, participant 9, a local living in social housing, explained that delinquents from other

villages had been dumped off from social housing from nearby villages for creating problems in villages.

Not being able to verify this was not as important as sentiments expressed by his so saying. These

remarks place neighborhood ills upon village relocators, whether real or imagined, and the inability to

control that aspect resulted in a less satisfying experience. Relatedly, participant 15 told of

dissatisfaction with public policies directly affecting him, but which he had no power to influence. Some

of these policies regarded planning, and as he is an early relocator and the policies were for further

town expansion for relocators, they interrupted his day-to-day life and desire for the town. The case

study approach was pivotal for the acquisition of this information, and because rural studies literature

has mostly remained at the macro and theoretical levels, this information provides a contribution to the

discipline.

This chapter has analyzed the findings from interviews along with information from historical

research and rural studies literature. Whilst this chapter has presented the variations in findings, the

next chapter will clearly summarize motivations, processes, and impacts of relocation to Chipping

Norton. It will also state the contributions to rural studies literature made through the research. This will

conclude the dissertation.

48

Chapter 6: Conclusion

This final chapter summarizes key findings through research performed, and clearly states

contributions made to rural studies. It does this by stating how dissertation objectives were reached,

then states new processes observed, and contributions to the study of counter-urbanization. The

chapter does this by identifying each objective separately, which then concludes by indicating areas for

further research.

Several motivations for counter-urbanization were identified in rural studies literature. Cloke

found it can be led by employment (1983), Cloke and Goodwin later say that it can be job-led or people-

led (1992, p.330), and Harper states that it differs between demographics as elderly relocation is mainly

housing-led, and younger relocations are mainly employment-led (1991). Case study research identified

that relocation was mainly housing-led. This was because gentrification is occurring, and large

businesses have left the town, providing less employment in town. Housing prices are high and retail

suits middle class interests, which makes it affordable to mainly individuals in later stages of their

working lives, or retired.

Not identified through rural studies literature was that along with relocation from cities,

relocation also occurred from villages. Because these were moves from areas of lower population, and

sociality as a consequence was different, this was identified as urbanization. These relocations could be

employment and housing-led, and there was greater likelihood of necessity for social housing.

The second dissertation objective was to identify the processes of counter-urbanization. This is a

contribution to rural studies literature as the means by which relocation occurs and assimilation into

locations had not been detailed. Unanimously counter-urbanizers and urbanizers called their moves

‘normal’. Their belongings were loaded into moving vans and removed at the other end. Urbanizers

used preexisting knowledge to select the town, and counter-urbanizers found it through estate agents

and the internet. Harper states that counter-urbanization from the 1950s to early 1960s was based on

prior association (1991, p.37), and this study showed that technology has since allowed individuals to

identify the town and residences online, whilst researching about the town as well. This furthermore

allows them to maintain contact with locations they came from.

49

Research into this objective also identified how town assimilation occurred. Assimilation was

gradual for both counter-urbanizers and urbanizers, and those that had assimilated expressed the most

town satisfaction. This occurred with informal encounters with townspeople, churches, neighbors, and

schools, and became more formal as social niches formed. Newcomers would be invited or feel

comfortable to go to a newcomer pub, clubs and societies were joined, and further education and

volunteer work by the elderly provided entrance to social circles. Reversely, commuters had a higher

likelihood of either not having the time to socialize in town, or socializing elsewhere, as others did not

get out much, and drew social circles closer to home. Murdoch noted that industries and businesses had

become ‘complex constellations of networks,’ and research here shows it is the same with town

sociality.

The third dissertation objective set out to examine the impacts of counter-urbanization upon

the case study location. By identifying clusters in the dates of relocation in relation to historical data, a

relocation cycle was identified, occurring three times. In this cycle the town marketed itself to recover

from challenging economic climates. Relocations ensued shortly thereafter. Interviews showed this to

not be directly related to town marketing, but through estate agents and later the internet. Town

priorities then shift and measures to preserve town heritage and the built environment begin. Notice of

town prosperity shortly follows, which is then accompanied by housing and employment shortages. The

duration of this cycle shortened with each wave of relocation, till present time, in which all of them exist

simultaneously. This process was not identified in rural studies literature, having benefitted from

historical research and the case study approach to recognize this cycle. Comparative case studies will be

important to further examine this cycle.

The fourth dissertation objective set out to analyze case study findings with rural studies

literature. This examined abstract and theoretical processes identified in the literature review, seeking

to validate rural studies concepts, and identify new ones. What was found was that because town retail

suits middle class adult and elderly demographics, household sizes are declining and average ages are

increasing, and housing prices are well above the national average, that the town is affected by

gentrification.

Gentrification occurred through counter-urbanizers, but also urbanizers and locals that had

adapted employment to stay, experiencing upward social mobility by so doing. Whilst counter-

urbanizers and locals were almost always middle class and old, greater variation was seen with

urbanizers. Urbanizers were younger, and had both adapted to employment opportunities in town or

50

commuted, being both working and middle class. As urbanization in rural areas was not identified with

counter-urbanization studies, this further detail is a contribution made by this dissertation.

Along with gentrification, town rivalries were not split between the working and middle

class, but between the town and affluent surrounding villages. Hobnobbing and networking are activities

attributed to these village locations, but that celebrity translates into increased ‘footfall’ and town shop

support, not power in town. Townspeople were clear to separate themselves from villager activities, and

ingested traditional estate-ist activities like the Box Day Hunt to include all sections of the population.

Unlike the ‘superior sets of resources (1993, p.140)’ that Marsden et al. say counter-urbanizers possess

to dominate rural locations, Chipping Norton demonstrated town sociality that might best be

characterized as egalitarian in nature. Further case studies could very well show similar

characterizations in other rural locations in the UK.

Finally, this study indicates that several avenues of research can be explored for further

examination of processes. Further case studies to identify the relocation cycle can provide nuances to

this process, and when and why variations exist. Continued study can also enlighten as to the

significance of all stages occurring simultaneously, as is currently the case in Chipping Norton.

Urbanization in rural areas was identified here, and comparative research to examine impacts upon

locations would provide useful information in contrast to processes of counter-urbanization detailed in

rural studies literature. Another avenue is the examination of other market towns to identify

countryside locations acting as rural economic hubs for surrounding areas, and whether solidarity is

between the middle class and working class and pitted against privileged villagers, or if the middle class

and working class experience less of an egalitarian community, and are at odds. Findings in this

dissertation can furthermore be emphasized with a larger sample size and participation from harder to

locate demographics to provide a more complete study of processes in the UK through the case study of

Chipping Norton.

The aim of this dissertation, to create an understanding of the reasons for counter-urbanization,

the processes involved, and its impacts at the local and household level was reached by historical

research and interviews in the case study location, Chipping Norton. As data between rural studies

literature, historical research, and interviews was triangulated, many processes were confirmed, and

new ones contributed. These analyses were contextualized within rural studies literature to connect

them with processes throughout the UK. Further avenues of research were opened by so doing.

51

Bibliography

Printed Publications

Bland, S. (1995). Take a Seat: The Story of Parker Knolls 1834-1994. London, Baron Birch.

Cloke, P. (1983). Counter-urbanisation – a rural perspective. Geography, Vol. 70.

Cloke, P. and M. Goodwin (1992). Conceptualizing Countryside Change: From Post-Fordist to Rural

Structured Coherence. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series, Vol. 17, No. 3,

pp.321-336

Dabaieh, M. (2011). A Future for the past of desert vernacular architecture. Lund, Lund University.

Dean, K., Brown, B., Perry, R., and D. Shaw (1984). The Conceptualisation of Counterurbanisation. Area,

Vol. 16, No. 1, pp.9-14

Dunn, M., Rawson, M. and A. Rogers (1981). Rural Housing: Competition and Choice. London, George

Allen and Unwin.

Dupuis, E.M. Landscapes of desires? (Ed.) Cloke, P. Marsden, T. and P. H. Mooney (2006). Handbook of

Rural Studies. London, Sage Publications, pp.124-132

Edensor, T. Performing Rurality (Ed.) Cloke, P. Marsden, T. and P. H. Mooney (2006). Handbook of Rural

Studies. London, Sage Publications, pp.484-495

Arnason, A., Shucksmith, M. and J. Vergunst (2009).Comparing Rural Development: Continuity and

Change in the Countryside of Western Europe. Surrey, Ashgate Publishing Company.

Fielding, A. Counterurbanisation (Ed.) M. Pacione (1986). Population Geography: Progress and Prospect.

Croom Helm, London, pp.157-165

Harper, S. People Moving to the countryside: case studies of decision-making (Ed.) Champion, T. and C.

Wakins(1991). People in the Countryside: Studies of Social Change in Rural Britain. London, Paul

Chapman Publishing, pp.22-37

Lyson, T.A. Global capital and the transformation of rural communities (Ed.)Cloke, P. Marsden, T. and P.

H. Mooney (2006). Handbook of Rural Studies. London, Sage Publications, pp.292-303

52

Marsden, T. Murdoch, J. Lowe, P. Munton, R. and A. Flynn (1993). Constructing the countryside. London,

UCL Press Limited.

Milbourne, P. From Agricultural Poverty to Social Exclusion: Shifting Approaches to Rural Poverty in

England(Ed.) Burchardt, J. and Conford, P. (2008). The Contested Countryside: Rural Politics and Land

Controversy in Modern Britain. New York, I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd, pp.167-186

Murdoch, J. (1998). Counterurbanisation and the countryside: Some Causes and Consequences of Urban

to Rural Migration. Cardiff, Environmental Planning Research Unit.

Murdoch, J. Networking rurality: emergent complexity in the countryside (Ed.) Cloke, P. Marsden, T. and

P. H. Mooney (2006). Handbook of Rural Studies. London, Sage Publications, pp.171-184

Panelli, R. Rural society (Ed.) Cloke, P. Marsden, T. and P. H. Mooney (2006). Handbook of Rural Studies.

London, Sage Publications, pp.63-90

Kennedy, J. (2000). The Changing Faces of Chipping Norton Book One: Series Number 42. Whitney,

Robert Boyd Publications.

Lewis, D. and A. Watkins (1989). The Bliss Tweed Mills. Chipping Norton, Chipping Norton Local History

Society.

Weekley, I. (1988). Rural depopulation and counterurbanisation: a paradox. Area 20.2, pp.127-134

Winter, M. (1996). Rural Politics: Policies for agriculture, Forestry & the Environment. London,

Routledge.

Websites

BBC (2014). Bitsize: Types of Settlement Function [online] Available at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/standard/geography/settlement/settlement_function/revision/1/

(Accessed 10/9/14)

BBC GCSE (2014). Bitsize: Characteristics of Rural Areas [online] Available at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/geography/rural_environments/characteristics_rural_areas

_rev1.shtml (Accessed 10/9/14)

Burn-Callander, R. (2014). Housing shortage has put homes out of reach for ‘ordinary people’ [online]

Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11080155/Housing-shortage-has-put-

homes-out-of-reach-for-ordinary-people.html (Accessed 10/9/14)

Chipping Norton Town (2014). Town History [online] Available at:

http://www.chippingnortontown.info/CHIPPINGNORTON/TOWNHISTORY/tabid/213/Default.aspx

(Accessed 10/9/15)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/standard/geography/settlement/settlement_function/revision/1/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/geography/rural_environments/characteristics_rural_areas_rev1.shtml

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/geography/rural_environments/characteristics_rural_areas_rev1.shtml

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11080155/Housing-shortage-has-put-homes-out-of-reach-for-ordinary-people.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11080155/Housing-shortage-has-put-homes-out-of-reach-for-ordinary-people.html

http://www.chippingnortontown.info/CHIPPINGNORTON/TOWNHISTORY/tabid/213/Default.aspx

53

GB Historical GIS / University of Portsmouth (2009). ‘Chipping Norton RegD/PLU through time,’ A Vision

of Britain through Time[online] Available at:

http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/census/table_page.jsp?tab_id=EW1891POP2_M2&u_id=10005670&s

how=DB&min_c=6&max_c=10 (accessed 18/8/14)

Osborne, H. (2014). UK house prices in June reach new record high [online] Available at:

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/aug/19/uk-house-prices-record-high (Accessed 10/9/14)

Oxford City Council (2014). District Data Service[online] Available at:

http://oxford.gov.uk/districtdatapublications (Accessed 26/8/14)

Owen Mumford (2014). History [online] Available at: http://www.owenmumford.com/en/history/

(Accessed 10/9/14)

Sherwood, H. (2014). Quiet, pretty … and notorious: Chipping Norton in the spotlight again [online]

Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/28/rebekah-brooks-chipping-norton-

set?CMP=twt_gu (Accessed 10/9/14)

St. Mary’s Church Chipping Norton (N.D.). Church Architecture [online] Available at:

http://www.stmaryscnorton.com/church-architecture.html (Accessed 10/9/14)

Newspapers

CNN Apr. 1977 – Sep. 2014, Chipping Norton News.

Evesham Journal & Four Shires Advertiser (1958) 7, Feb. 7.

Oxford Mail (1955). 18, Nov.

The Banbury Guardian(1979). 29, Nov. 29

Maps

Google Maps, 2014. Chipping Norton. [online] Available at:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Chipping+Norton (Accessed 24/9/14)

FIND, 2013. Chipping Norton 1880, 1922, 1938, 1950, 1979, 2002, 2013. FIND: Professional Mapping

Intelligence, FIND-36303, 1:10000.

Museum

CNM (2014). Chipping Norton during World War II. [museum] Chipping Norton Museum.

Email

Smith, A. 2014. Chipping Norton population figures 1951-1991.[email] Message to S. Watson (Personal

communication, 26 August 2014).

http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/census/table_page.jsp?tab_id=EW1891POP2_M2&u_id=10005670&show=DB&min_c=6&max_c=10

http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/census/table_page.jsp?tab_id=EW1891POP2_M2&u_id=10005670&show=DB&min_c=6&max_c=10

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/aug/19/uk-house-prices-record-high

http://oxford.gov.uk/districtdatapublications

http://www.owenmumford.com/en/history/

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/28/rebekah-brooks-chipping-norton-set?CMP=twt_gu

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/28/rebekah-brooks-chipping-norton-set?CMP=twt_gu

http://www.stmaryscnorton.com/church-architecture.html

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Chipping+Norton

54

Appendices

1.1 Raw Interview Data

Raw data collected from interviews is organized and presented here. This Data is listed in order

of its retrieval, which identifies participants by number. 15 participants were interviewed, and their

individual responses can be traced by number with each subsequent question. Some questions were not

applicable to participants, or participants did not answer particular questions. In this case, the given

response is N/A, or not applicable. Interviews were performed with both locals and relocators to the

town. When questions did not apply to locals, ‘local’ is placed as a response. Similarly, some questions

are only applicable to participants currently working. When individuals are retired, ‘retired’ is place as a

response. The first 13 questions are mainly short response questions, and the last four are open-ended,

receiving varying levels of detail. The open-ended questions list pieces of information participants

mentioned, and do not necessarily create single, coherent thoughts.

Demographics

1. 40+ female

2. 40+ female

3. 65+ female

4. 65+ female

5. 40+ female

6. 60+ female

7. 55 male

8. 40+ male

9. 27 male

10. 40+ female

11. 70 female

12. 50+ female

55

13. 65+ male

14. 65+ male

15. 65+ male

Why did you relocate to Chipping Norton?

1. Given a business

2. Housing – commutes to Oxford

3. Housing – already worked here

4. Local

5. Children – commutes to London

6. Housing – commuted to London

7. Local

8. Housing – commutes to Oxford

9. Local

10. Life change – Marriage to townsman

11. Life change – Closer proximity to daughter in Faringdon

12. Local

13. Local

14. Family – Closer proximity to son in North London

15. Housing

When do you relocate?

1. 2011

2. 2000

3. 1968

4. Local

5. 2011

6. 1999

7. Local

8. 2000

9. Local

56

10. 1991

11. 2012

12. Local

13. Local

14. 2011

15. 1972

Did you relocate from a city, town, or village?

1. Village

2. Internationally to city then Chipping Norton

3. City to village to town

4. Local

5. Village

6. City

7. Local

8. Internationally to city then Chipping Norton

9. Local

10. Village

11. Town

12. Local

13. Local

14. City to village to Chipping Norton

15. Village

Where did you move from?

1. Long Compton, Warwickshire

2. Leiden, Oxford, Chipping Norton

3. Liverpool

4. Local

5. Wychwood, Oxfordshire

57

6. Buckinghamshire

7. Local

8. Leiden, Oxford, Chipping Norton

9. Local

10. Bleddington, Oxfordshire

11. Runcorn, Cheshire

12. Local

13. Local

14. Bristol, York, Chipping Norton

15. Not disclosed

How did you hear about Chipping Norton?

1. Previous knowledge

2. Internet, estate agents

3. Worked in town

4. Local



7. Local

8. Internet, estate agents

9. Local


11. Moved to Swindon before coming to Chipping Norton

12. Local

13. Local

14. Estate agent, internet and phone, rough previous knowledge from commuting


What helped you to choose residences?

58

1. N/A

2. The internet and estate agents

3. N/A

4. N/A

5. Lived here before for schooling, liked town. Searching for a place with a garden, not many

houses of this size. The feel of the town was important. No big housing developments.

6. Location, one of the oldest roads in town

7. N/A

8. The internet and estate agents

9. N/A

10. N/A

11. Found a bungalow on the internet in the right price range.

12. N/A

13. N/A

14. Wanted a bungalow, right price range, walkable.

15. Property newspapers

How did you relocate to Chipping Norton?

1. Normal movers

2. Movers to take everything – more complicated internationally

3. Car

4. Local

5. Movers

6. Normal house move

7. Local

8. Movers to take everything – more complicated internationally

9. Local

10. Simple move from 6 miles away

11. Normal move

12. Local

13. Local

59

14. Rented a holiday cottage for 3 weeks as movers floundered, moved furniture into storage

15. Owned nothing but a car after the services.

Did you know anyone here beforehand?

1. Yes

2. No

3. Yes

4. Local

5. No

6. No

7. Local

8. No

9. Local

10. No

11. No

12. Local

13. Local

14. No

15. No

Do you maintain contact with people from the location you moved from?

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. No

4. Local

5. No

6. Yes

7. Local

60

8. Yes

9. Local

10. Yes

11. Yes

12. Local

13. Local

14. Yes

15. No

How?

1. Visits, email

2. Visits here and there, telephone, emails, Christmas Cards

3. No

4. Local

5. No

6. Visits here and there, telephone

7. Local

8. Visits here and there, telephone, emails, Christmas Cards

9. Local

10. Visits, telephone, internet

11. Write, email

12. Local

13. Local

14. Visits, email, telephone

15. No

Does your work necessitate connection outside of the town?

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. Retired

61

4. Retired

5. Yes

6. Retired

7. Yes

8. Yes

9. Yes

10. Yes

11. Retired

12. Retired

13. Retired

14. Retired

15. Retired

How is that done?

1. Telephone, email, visits

2. Commute, email, telephone

3. Retired

4. Retired


6. Retired

7. Commutes to Banbury for work - telephone, email, visits


9. Commute, text, Facebook

10. Commute for work

11. Retired

12. Retired

13. Retired

14. Retired

15. Retired

How is living different here compared to where you came from? Or, how have you found country life?

62

1. No different, both small communities

2. Small scale, get to know people easier through school, clubs, buses, neighbors. Then you got to

the pub.

3. Quieter, wouldn’t want to live in the country (determining Chipping Norton is not). More

amenities in town for older people.

4. Not really quieter than cities. Would want children to grow up in London for opportunities. No

serious troubles in town, but people are frightened of gangs. Trouble starts in pubs.

5. Not like Oxford where you feel uncomfortable being out in the evening. Likes local shops, really

good community feel. Can step in and out of the town. Small enough to be friendly, big enough

to maintain anonymity. Not the prettiest town, but good enough.

6. So much slower, quieter, more friendly, people have been standoffish. Everything in town you

need. Good cross section of the population.

7. Quiet, slow paced.

8. More relaxed, slower pace of life than Netherlands. Can’t do without cars, have to travel for

shops. Can escape work, colleagues, and relax.

9. Pretty lucky, rather like living here. Can go for a stroll at midnight and feel safe.

10. Only one pub in Bleddington. There’s nothing to do there. It’s quiet. Lots of old people.

Wouldn’t want to live in Oxford or London.

11. Everything’s all to part. Was frightened to look at people in Runcorn. People tip their hats as you

walk by here. Very friendly.

12. Quieter, but traffic is just as bad.

13. It’s not any different, I imagine.

14. Slower pace, have to go out for entertainment. Witney for shopping, pictures. Here for bare

essentials. Friendly.

15. In the military it’s a transitory life. The population is fixed here. Long term friendships.

What has changed?

1. Houses prices, local families cannot attend accommodation, pollution levels, traffic increase

2. More development, posher shops, more foreigners.

3. People moving in that commute to work

63

4. Shops changed and closed. More expensive boutiques. Used to be able to buy everything inside

town, Co-op did everything. Still thinks of town as self-sufficient, but it’s not. Now shop in

Banbury. No children’s clothing, have to go out for it. Used to have two butchers. Lots of

commuters, no work, no industries. Buses have improved. Too much town preservation,

‘newcomers try to make it.’

5. Lived here before schooling. Did not have the notoriety it now has.

6. Town getting busier. Quite a significant amount of building. Lost Parker Knoll. Mumford’s has

increased in size. Fantastic town council.

7. Doesn’t see the town as a working town anymore. Used to be self-sustaining. Mumford’s still

thriving. All ancestors transitioned from farming. Chipping Norton Set creates good town

publicity, brings people to the town. No problem with tourism, decent tourism.

8. Quite a few pubs closed. Better leisure center, new hospital, empty buildings. Buses have

improved, but no their times. Roads have deteriorated. Locals will say it was a much rougher

place. Pub used to be really rough. Lot more elderly people. Locals left because they couldn’t

afford to live here. Purchased by Londoners who come once a month.

9. Things have gotten worse. People causing trouble in Housing Association housing in other towns

are dumped here. General inflation, housing prices rising. Has only rented houses.

10. Lot more houses, expansion, but private though. Not much housing association (social housing).

Lots of change on the High Street. People can’t afford to rent shops, open 6 months to a year,

and then out. More old people.

11. Has not noticed anything, feels too new.

12. Used to know everybody. Everyone was into everyone else’s business. Used to be a job getting

back home with all the people you’d talk to. Now rarely find someone you know. Housing prices

gone up. Center of town changed. Spreadout. Moved hospital and vets out of town center.

Shops have disappeared. Banbury or Stratford for shopping.

13. Different memories for each group of newcomers. Brings different significances to events

happening within the town. Town used to be regulated by a Bliss Mill whistle.

14. Pretty well the same (here since 2011). Some shops have closed down.

15. People moving in come with new ideas and different points of view. Does cause some animosity.

Newcomers think they know everything, but a newcomer can go back decades.

64

How has your experience been in Chipping Norton?

1. N/A

2. Good experience

3. Feels like a local, does not recall what it was like before.

4. Very happy with the town.

5. Love shops, bookshop particularly. Really good community and feel of the town. Can step in and

out of it. If you want to be involved, you can be. Not too big, everything we need.

6. Comfortable, really pleasant. Everything in town you need. Need progress, certain amount of

housing. Need more work and schools.

7. Great, really.

8. Able to escape from work, and the city.

9. Love it, no reason to move.

10. Great experience in Chipping Norton. Love it. Not too busy. Stuff to do. Leisure center. Need

more shops for kids. Currently go to Banbury.

11. Fantastic experience in the country. Shop in Banbury. Settled. People know we’re not from the

district by the way we speak, Cornish. Get mixed up in things they say. We’re getting there

(accepted into town).

12. Experienced lots of things happen in the town, has seen much change, and still finds the town

charming and fascinating.

13. Very good experience. People are friendly, the church is friendly. Doctors in walking distance.

Pollution levels are high though.

14. Have no control over our own say, especially in planning and housing.

What helped you to make friends once you arrived here?

1. N/A

2. Schools, clubs, riding the bus, neighbors, pubs

3. Local

4. Local

5. Schools, neighbors

6. N/A

65

7. Local

8. Pubs, neighbors

9. Local

10. Pubs, neighbors

11. Clubs, neighbors

12. Local

13. Local

14. Welcomed in by Methodist Church on first day with tea. Charity shops and Chipping Norton

Museum for socializing. Oxfam. A lot happens through the church. Belongs to University of the

Third Age, and Bowls Club.

15. Worked outside town and only had a chance to socialize in town after retirement. Member of

Chipping Norton History Society.

66

1.2 Ethics Review Form

67

68

Counter-urbanization: A Chipping Norton Case Study

Documents