Cpre oxfordshire voice spring 2015

Your vision for rural Oxfordshire?Oxfordshire’s main political parties outline their visions

Defending the Oxford Green BeltA war of principle

Bicester Garden CityA cautious welcome from CPRE

Spring 2015

OxfOrdshire vOicewww.cpreoxon.org.uk

OxfOrdshire

vOiceSpring 2015

Features4 Port Meadow and Northern

Gateway latest

5 PRO Campaign update

6 Your Vision for Rural Oxfordshire

8 Bicester Garden City

9 Defending Oxford’s Green Belt

11 Minerals

12 CPRE Oxfordshire AGM

DIRECTORY

Views expressed in the Voice are not necessarily those of CPRE Oxfordshire, which welcomes independent comment.

Editor: Helena Whall Cover: View of Oxford from the Green Belt from Boar’s Hill. Photo: Rob Bowker

Articles, letters, comments and suggestions for articles are welcome. Please contact the Branch Office below.

Published April 2015

District ChairmenCPRE Oxfordshire BranchBrian Wood 01869 337904 [email protected]: Chris Hone 01295 265379Bicester: Bruce Tremayne 01865 331289 [email protected] & Mapledurham: Judith Crockett 01491 612801. [email protected]: Sietske Boeles 01865 728153 [email protected] & Bullingdon: Michael Tyce 01844 339274 [email protected] of White Horse: Peter Collins St Edmund Hall, Oxford OX1 4ARWallingford: Richard Harding 01491 836425 [email protected] Oxfordshire: Justine Garbutt (acting Chair) 01993 837681 [email protected]

BRanCh OffICECPRE Oxfordshire, First Floor, 20 High Street, Watlington, Oxfordshire OX49 5PY (Registered office)T: 01491 612079 E: [email protected]

www.cpreoxon.org.ukFollow us on Twitter @CPREOxfordshire

and like us on www.facebook.com/CPREOxfordshire

CPRE Oxfordshire is registered in England as Charity No.1093081 and Company No. 4443278.

Chairman’s voiceWe are extremely disappointed that the vote in Congregation (Oxford University’s Governing Body) did

not recommend option three as outlined in the retrospective Environmental Statement which proposes the reduction of the height of the accommodation blocks at Port Meadow. In a subsequent postal ballot, the decision of the Congregation was upheld. However, the final decision rests with Oxford City Council. (See article on page 4).

The experience of working with the Campaign to Save Port Meadow has been very important for CPRE Oxfordshire. The knowledge, insight and energy which has gone into the campaign has been inspiring. I have been enormously impressed by the sheer dedication which has gone into this campaign. It would be invidious to name any of the people involved, but the whole exercise has been a triumph for the whole team, whatever the eventual outcome.

Over the years CPRE Oxfordshire has developed a process where it works closely with and supports local groups with particular specialist ambitions. Sometimes the people involved are not even members of CPRE, but so long as we are all working to the same end,

to protect the English countryside in some way, then there are advantages all round in this collaboration.

From CPRE we can provide an administrative framework which a small newly formed action group can use. If the law has to be resorted to it may be possible to do so in our name, which adds credibility and authority. As a registered charity we have financial advantages which smaller groups have been able to take advantage of.

And from our point of view we are able to plug in to the sheer enthusiasm and commitment which local campaigns create, and take advantage of the efforts of people who would not be likely to be operating as part of a charity such as CPRE.

There are many organisations which have worked with us in the same way as the Campaign to Save Port Meadow. The major one was the GARD campaign against the projected reservoir at Abingdon. But there have been many others which spring to mind – Witney Town Green, Keep Sutton Courtney Rural, Oxpens, and the Cogges Link Road campaign, and there are others.

If you have a local action group where the aspirations are consistent with ours, please contact us to see if we would be better working together.

Brian Wood Chairman, CPRE Oxfordshire

CPRE members to get 10% off at Cotswold Outdoor until end november!

CPRE National Office has negotiated a special discount for CPRE members to use at Cotswold Outdoor until the end of November 2015. The discount is available for use both in stores and online at www.cotswoldoutdoor.com. The Oxfordshire store is in Bicester.

All CPRE members will be receiving an email from CPRE National Office giving you a unique code to use when you shop at Cotswold Outdoor. If you haven’t yet received notification of your code, please contact National Office for more information (tel: 020 7981 2800).

2 CPRE OXFORDSHIRE VOICE Spring 2015

A big thank you to Arnold Grayson

The Oxfordshire Architectural & Historical Society produces an annual journal called Oxoniensia which is a collection of academic papers written mainly on archaeological subjects. When I picked up the 2010 book and looked at the contributors I saw AJ Grayson had written a very erudite paper on Thames Crossings near Wallingford from Roman to early Norman Times. Could it be the Arnold Grayson I knew – and yes it turned out to be him.

We have been lucky to have had Arnold as chairman of our Wallingford District for many years (2002 – 2014). And we are pleased that he has agreed to continue as our consultant on minerals and aggregates.

Welcome to the new countryside champion for the Wallingford areaCPRE has elected Professor Richard Harding as Chairman of its Wallingford District, also covering surrounding villages and Didcot.

Professor Harding is an Environmental Scientist with research interests in climate change and water and the potential conflicts between land,

water, food and energy. Until recently he was Science Director at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, based at Crowmarsh Gifford. He has lived in South Oxfordshire for nearly 40 years and is passionate about maintaining the delicate balance between rural and urban environments in the region.

We are delighted to have Richard on board and it is a pleasure to work with him in tackling the many development pressures facing the Wallingford District.

…and our new Honorary Branch Secretary

CPRE is pleased to welcome Professor Michael Tite as the new Honorary Branch Secretary. Michael is based at the Research

Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art at the University of Oxford. He lives in Oxford and has been a CPRE member for many years. Michael will be formally taking over from Gill Salway at the AGM in June.

We are very pleased that Michael has stepped forward to take on this role and we look forward to working with him.

Arnold Grayson with a presentation bowl he received in thanks from his committee at the District AGM last year.

Gill Salway (second from right) accepting the Marsh Award for the Cogges Link Road campaign alongside her fellow campaigners.

I would like to thank him for all his efforts and hope he will continue be at our Executive Meetings for many years to come.

Brian Wood

…and Gill Salway Members will be used to seeing the familiar figure of Gill Salway at our Branch AGMs quietly and efficiently supporting the President conduct an orderly meeting. When the post of Branch Secretary fell vacant in 2003, we were most fortunate indeed that Gill agreed to fill the breach. Her outstanding role as a volunteer through so many years, and remarkable contribution to the well-being of CPRE Oxfordshire, is legendary.

Back in the 1990s she was Chairman of the Branch and when West Oxfordshire District was amalgamated, it was Gill who stepped up to take on the Chairmanship. Whatever job she took on, everyone knew that it would be done in a most capable, intelligent and tactful manner. We shall be sorry to lose her as Branch Secretary, but happy that she still finds time amongst her many other commitments to continue as our Branch Vice Chairman and being involved in arranging the members’ events programme.

Bruce Tremayne

Join the debate. Join the campaign. Join CPRE 3

Northern Gateway under examination

Oxford City Council’s proposals for the northern Gateway area went under scrutiny at an Examination in Public held in March.

The Council’s plans include 90,000m2 of employment space and 500 houses, which CPRE and others contend is a significant increase on what was agreed in Oxford’s Core Strategy (its overall development plan approved in 2011).

The area in question spans the land between Wolvercote and Peartree roundabout, already well-known for traffic congestion and pollution. The proposals would also encroach onto Green Belt land and pose a threat to the nearby Port Meadow Special Area of Conservation.

CPRE and South Oxfordshire District Council questioned the site’s allocation for employment rather than housing. SODC said that the City Council had

failed in its Duty to Co-operate by not reviewing its Core Strategy, in light of the increased housing numbers proposed for Oxford in last year’s Strategic Housing Market Assessment. CPRE took part in many of the hearing sessions, particularly highlighting the transport and environmental impacts which we do not feel have been adequately considered. It is concerning that the developers are keen to bring forward five-storey buildings, without proper consideration of the visual impacts on Port Meadow (perhaps Oxford University should remind St John’s and Worcester Colleges, who own much of the land, of the trouble this might cause!).

The Inspector’s full report is due later this year, although a ruling on the Duty to Co-operate issue is expected in mid-April. Unusually the Inspector chose to adjourn, rather than close, the hearings, so it may be that further discussions on these issues are still to come.

Approaching Wolvercote roundabout.

Earlier this Spring, Oxford University’s Congregation voted on a resolution to take a floor off its controversial accommodation blocks at Port Meadow. Disappointingly, the resolution was defeated but around a fifth did vote in favour, despite at times intense pressure from the University administration. There was, at last, universal recognition of the harm the buildings had caused. However, in the end many dons were put off by the unsubstantiated £30million price tag put forward by the University, which they were told would impact on their research and teaching budgets.

Irrespective of this vote, the matter will still have to be addressed by Oxford City Council. They have asked the University to provide further information on the various options proposed in the Environment Statement.

Unlike Congregation, the City Council cannot take costs into account when it considers the best mitigation option, which we believe is taking one floor off the Port Meadow flats. Planning laws require the City Council to decide whether the loss of 38 rooms, out of the total student housing provision of 14,500, justifies the substantial harm the Castle Mill flats have inflicted on Oxford’s celebrated skyline and protected sites such as Port Meadow.

Our legal advice is that the loss of 38 rooms does not justify this harm, and we will be watching with interest to see what the City Council proposes.

Port Meadow– next steps with Oxford City Council

Jane Tomlinson


Protect Rural Oxfordshire campaign highlights

The Vale accepted the SHMA’s proposed figures as housing targets (20,560 houses) and identified four development sites in the Green Belt to accommodate 1,510 houses, and two in the North Wessex Downs AONB for a total of 1,400 houses.

CPRE Oxfordshire objected to the Plan, and encouraged others to do so, on the basis that it is ‘unsound’ and we hope to appear at the Examination in Public to reiterate our concerns.

Cherwell After the Inspector halted proceedings of the Examination in Public (EiP) on Cherwell District Council’s draft Local Plan in June 2014, on the grounds that the Council had not taken into account the SHMA figures, the Council was requested to find room for an extra 6,090 houses, taking the total to 22,840 by 2031. Most of these new homes have been allocated to already over-burdened Bicester, Banbury and to the old air-force site at Upper Heyford.

The EiP resumed in December of last year. CPRE used the occasion to challenge the SHMA and to argue against the Council using the SHMA figures as targets. The Inspector’s report is due in early Summer.

West Oxfordshire Given West Oxfordshire has over-deliv-ered against housing targets in recent years, the Council has parted ways with the other Oxfordshire districts and decided to adjust the SHMA projections downwards to 10,500 (from the SHMA figure of 13,200) by 2029.

CPRE took the opportunity at a public consultation last September to argue that the housing figures were still too high and for the Council to further reduce the numbers. The final (pre-submission) version of the new Local Plan will be published for consultation soon.

South Oxfordshire South Oxfordshire District Council is currently consulting on options for its revised Local Plan which attempts to accommodate the SHMA figure of 15,000 homes, as well as an estimated overspill from Oxford City of 3,000 dwellings (the SHMA figure for the City is 28,000, but the Council says they can only accommodate 10,000), bringing the total number of homes to 18,747 by 2031.

The proposed locations for Oxford’s needs include: an extension to the city in the Green Belt (at Grenoble Road or Wick Farm); a new settlement in the M40 corridor; or extensions to existing settlements – in its consultation response CPRE will be arguing that any housing from Oxford should be allocated in the same way as South Oxfordshire’s own housing. We are liaising closely with local Parish Councils sharing our concerns over the housing numbers and the proposed site allocations.

Campaigners from CPRE Oxfordshire and ROAR (Rural Oxfordshire Action Rally) – an alliance of local action groups campaigning against unsustainable development in the county, met in January 2015 with local MPs Sir Tony Baldry and John Howell, to discuss concerns about unrestrained development in the County.

CPRE also sought confirmation from the MPs that the newly-formed Oxfordshire Growth Board would not remove sovereignty on planning matters from the individual District Authorities.

John Howell indicated that he would like to stay in touch with CPRE over the coming months so we are hopeful there will be further opportunities to raise these issues.

Vale of White horseIn December of last year, CPRE responded to the consultation on the Vale of White Horse District Council’s draft Local Plan. The Plan has now been submitted to be independently examined by Government Inspectors.

TAKE ACTIONThank you to everyone who has donated to our PRO campaign – we have almost reached £5,000! Our target is £10,000 – so please ask family, friends and colleagues to donate: https://www.justgiving.com/ProtectRuralOxfordshire

Left to right: John Howell MP, Peter Jay (Chairman, ROAR), Sir Tony Baldry MP, Brian Wood (Chairman, CPRE Oxfordshire), Helen Marshall (Director, CPRE Oxfordshire), and ROAR campaigners Oliver Chapple, Jennifer Allen and Alan Lodwick.

CPRE meets with local MPs Sir Tony Baldry and John howell


Your Vision for Rural Oxfordshire?With the General Election just a few months away, CPRE invited all the political parties in Oxfordshire to outline their ‘Vision for Rural Oxfordshire’. Here are their responses.

Liberal Democrats

The Liberal Democrats recognise that Oxfordshire is facing an unprecedented level of development while at the same time seeing the pressure on local council finances lead to reductions in local services.

HOUSING: While we recognise that there is a genuine need for a lot more houses, we believe strongly that protecting the rural nature of the county, and the principles behind the Green Belt, are vital too. We do not agree with the urban sprawl proposed by Labour and Conservative run councils, we oppose piecemeal development of the Green Belt and want to see a more realistic assessment of the number of new homes that are actually needed.

LOCAL PLANNING: We believe strongly that local communities need to be in control of how they develop. Lib Dem councillors have strongly supported the development of neighbourhood plans and have, in the Vale of White Horse, proposed additional funding to support the development of neighbourhood plans.

TRANSPORT: One of the big problems with the current proposals for housing growth is that they are not supported by investment in transport infrastructure, particularly public transport. This is at the same time as many bus subsidies are being taken away. We will continue to push for better rail services, for example the reopening of Grove station, creating demand for and integrated with local bus services.

LOCAL SERVICES: Liberal Democrats are very conscious that as budgets get squeezed it is often the rural areas that see their services cut first. We have a strong track record of arguing for rural services to be taken into account when services are cut.

Labour Party

Rural Oxfordshire is a beautiful place with ugly problems caused by inequality and poverty, often hidden from view, with people isolated. Employment is high, but with lower wages than elsewhere in the South East, and there are many who commute far from home, with the family and social costs that entails. House prices and rents are high; an average home costs over 12 times the average wage in West Oxfordshire. Homelessness and insecurity are rising. We need truly affordable homes and social housing throughout the county. If rural Oxfordshire is not to become a dormitory, we must also cut the need to commute and attract high quality jobs.

Nobody is arguing that there can be no development. However the pace, scale and siting of development is determined by landowners and developers, rather than by communities to meet local needs. Labour councillors wish to see devolved decision-making, particularly the expression of community will for the future of our towns and villages, placed at the heart of planning.

There are remarkable declines in economic and social activity in some towns and villages. These are the result of a number of pressures and changes. One of these is a noticeable but hidden decrease in population, caused by the purchase of homes as investments, not for family use. The number of second homes is not clear, though those officially declared are a minority. Empty homes are a concern, but empty communities, on weekdays affected by commuters and weekend-only residents, are a driver of failure for village shops, pubs, churches and schools. To combat this we propose that every Parish Council produces a neighbourhood statement of aspiration, outlining the sort of place they wish to be in 20 and 50 years. These plans will include suggestions for new parish homes for local people to promote community vitality.

Conservative Party

In this Parliament we have positively changed the landscape for planning and given local communities and their local councils the chance to share in the development of planning and the development of their neighbourhoods. First, the National Planning Policy Framework is a move to make over 1,000 pages of national planning guidance accessible to local communities rather than just to planning professionals. It is about giving local communities power over planning. Secondly, it introduces the concept that development must be sustainable. Thirdly, it gives local communities the chance to really play a role in developing neighbourhood plans.

Some 1400 communities around the UK are now producing Neighbourhood Plans covering well over 6 million people. These, for the first time, are allowing local communities a real say in the development of the planning system and have given them the right to decide where the houses should go, what they should look like and what open green spaces should be preserved. The responsibility for deciding how many homes should be built has been taken away from Whitehall and is now decided locally. All that is asked is that local councils produce a plan and say how the homes are going to be delivered.

The Green Belt and countryside are fully protected. None of this has proved to be a charter for developers and we encourage communities to take up these powers to protect themselves and their landscapes.

Read Stand up for the countryside: A Manifesto for the 2015 General Election published by CPRE National Office and available from www.cpre.org.uk


Your Vision for Rural Oxfordshire?With the General Election just a few months away, CPRE invited all the political parties in Oxfordshire to outline their ‘Vision for Rural Oxfordshire’. Here are their responses.

Green Party

There are about 1 million jobs in the ‘Green Economy’ and a recently revised One Million Climate Jobs report by the Campaign Against Climate Change offers a costed programme for a million more. The growth of such employment would benefit rural Oxfordshire, but the key obstacle to achieving a well-balanced, diverse and sustainable rural economy in the county is the obsession of the major political parties with the pursuit of austerity to an extent unique in the industrialised world.

At present, the Oxfordshire’s Low carbon economy report by the Environmental Change Institute and Low Carbon Oxford envisages a plan for the county involv-ing £680 million of public money. Such money will not materialise unless the Government introduces fairer taxation and a wider range of taxes.

Some key elements of the Green’s General Election manifesto will address the need for public services renewal. The Green Party would: increase cigarette, alcohol, Air Passenger Duty taxes, high-est levels of income tax and free local au-thorities to set their own levels of Council tax. Taxes on wealth and on land value are envisaged, alongside a programme to eliminate tax havens and a Financial Transaction Tax. These steps would allow us to address key needs in rural areas: including support for new cooperatives and small businesses to form, includ-ing in agriculture and forestry; more skills/training opportunities and greater resources for schools and health centres; and enhancement of rural bus services to help address traffic problems.

United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP)

The Oxfordshire countryside and rural communities are facing massive overdevelopment – our region is expected to host 106,000 new houses by 2031. Many smaller villages will double in size and distinct community identities will be lost as urban sprawl upon green fields merges one community into its neighbour. This unsustainable development is the response of our District Councils to the deeply flawed Strategic Housing Market Assessment report (SHMA).

UKIP recognises that rights of existing communities must be put ahead of the interests of big developers, but we also acknowledge that we need new housing. UKIP has several relevant policies:• WewillprotecttheintegrityofGreen

Belts.• Therightsofexistingcommunities

must be respected. Where 25% of local residents call for it, a binding referendum on major development issues should be called.

• Stampdutyfornewhomesonbrownfield sites will be abolished. We want to see government backed loans to assist the redevelopment of brownfield sites.

Additionally, your UKIP candidates for both the Parliamentary and District elections will:• ChallengeinParliamenttheSHMA

report. This must be subject to independent scrutiny.

• DistrictCouncilsmustconductasurvey of brownfield sites across the county and preferentially grant planning permission upon these areas.

• Weneedtoencouragegreateruseofhigher-density housing on brownfield sites.

• Wewouldmakeuseofprovisionsinthe Local Government Finance Act to abolish or reduce council tax for one or two years for new homes built on brownfield sites.

UKIP recognises the value of our rural environment. We stand ready to protect it and to address demands for new housing in a more sustainable and sympathetic manner.

national healthaction Party (nhaP)

The race to build vast numbers of homes across the UK is set to change rural areas rapidly. Political expediency has resulted in uncontrolled speculative development running rife.

Punitive policies against District Councils without approved local plans have prevented local decision-making about planning in villages and on greenfield sites. Totally remote people, bent on satisfying political strategy, are now shaping our countryside. Additional knee-jerk legislation is removing the obligation on developers to provide affordable housing.

No consideration is given to the consequences of building endless ‘executive’ housing in the countryside, engulfing small villages whose schools and infrastructure can’t bear further strain, whose young people cannot afford to get a foot on the housing ladder and are forced to live in towns and where public transport is often non-existent or inadequate.

Many growing settlements are becoming dormitory villages, inhabited by commuters and their families who are forced to run two or more cars, adding to the strain on roads and pollution in the environment. The threat to unspoiled areas of natural beauty has never been greater.

The authorities seem unable or unwilling to make the most of brownfield sites in towns. Pressure from housing conglomerates is for the most profitable quick return, with no eye on the future consequences.

It is time for the quick fix to be halted, for local councils to be given back control over their own districts, for public consultation to actually have some meaning and power and for a return to common-sense calculation about the real cost – to the countryside and rural communities – before the unconstrained dash for building cash causes further irreparable harm.

…continues on page 8

See CPRE’s ‘Vision for the Countryside’ at: www.cpreoxon.org.uk/about-us/our-vision


CPRE gives a cautious welcome to ‘Bicester Garden City’

In reality, to help Cherwell deliver its Plan, the government is saying it will fund: new schools; improved transport links (including a controversial new junction off the M40 south of Junction 9 near Arncott); a third railway station (where exactly is not clear); and most controversially create 21,500 jobs (a remarkable number). As regards this latter promise, little substantive employment has been added in the Bicester area other than in warehouses and retail outlets. Plans to set up a factory on the eco-town site to churn out prefabricated zero-carbon houses, employing 2,000 people, have yet to materialise.

CPRE’s reaction to all these announcements is a cautious welcome, though we note the government will provide its backing ‘subject to value for money’, not subject to any environmental considerations! Our concern is that any detailed proposals should seek to protect the countryside and rural villages around Bicester that have already suffered the brunt of the town’s significant and rapid expansion. Is this really an opportunity to create a town of which the country can be proud, a pleasure to dwell in, and with a minimum impact on the environment in general and the surrounding countryside in particular? Or shall we end up with the usual dreary urban sprawl which has so widely prevailed since the war?

At the beginning of December 2014, the government announced Bicester as the coalition’s second new garden city after Ebbsfleet in Kent. 13,000 new homes will be built, and the treasury will help fund the additional infrastruc-ture needed to make this happen. The government has said it does not want to ‘impose any definition of what garden cities are’, but features can include ‘quality design, gardens, accessible green space near homes, access to em-ployment, and local amenities’. None of which strikes a particularly revolution-ary note, being what one might expect any major new development would incorporate these days. Indeed it is hard to see how such vague criteria will cre-ate ‘the advantages of an energetic town life with all the beauty and delight of the country secured in perfect combination’ as envisioned 100 years ago by Garden City architect Ebenezer Howard.

In the case of Bicester, what does the announcement really mean? In fact 10,000 new houses are in line with the Local Plan (2014-2031) currently with the Planning Inspectorate, and a further 3,000 will be built from 2031 onwards. Of the total in the draft Plan to 2031, 6,000 are already allocated to the eco-town which makes up the North-West extension of the town. The eco-town in any case incorporates all the features of the Garden City concept, but now all the other planned developments must follow similar guidelines.

CPRE held a public meeting in March to discuss the Bicester Garden City (left to right) Philip Ross, former Mayor of Letchworth Garden City and co-founder of the New Garden City movement, Helen Marshall, Director, CPRE Oxfordshire, Bruce Tremayne, Chairman of CPRE Bicester District and Councillor Barry Wood, Leader, Cherwell District Council.

Socialist Party of Great Britain

Why do campaigns against unwanted housing developments or polluting industries feel like uphill struggles? Why do campaigners have to appeal to distant, unaccountable decision-makers? The reason is that the land, along with industries, shops and services, isn’t owned by or managed in the interests of the majority. The tiny minority which have the wealth also have the power. This means we don’t have nearly enough influence in planning how land is used. And it also means the drive for financial gain overrides concerns about making developments as sustainable and non-polluting as possible.

The needs of big business and government remain more important than those of communities and the environment. Even when a particular environmental campaign is successful, it doesn’t alter the conditions which led to it being needed in the first place. The problem is built in to the way society is organised, so society itself needs to change.

The Socialist Party aims for a world in which rural Oxfordshire would not be anyone’s private property but would be democratically managed by all those living there. Without the dictates of government and the economic market, it would be possible to balance people’s needs and wishes with protecting the environment. This can’t happen unless the vast majority of us want to change the fundamental way society is run. Such a change can only happen by organising democratically, co-operatively and equally.

To safeguard our future and that of the countryside, a complete revolution in the basis of society is the only solution.

8

Defending Oxford’s Green Belt: a war of principle

The Green Belt has been much in the news lately, as the City Council and the University of Oxford use the ‘Growth Board’ they have created to seek to justify City expansion into it, particularly on to land they happen to own, which would of course increase exponentially in value as a result.

Their current weapon of choice is a disarmingly named ‘Green Belt Review’ which will seek to categorise every piece of land in the Green Belt on a points score against the purposes for which the Green Belt was created. This is regardless of the fact that all of the land in question was thought appropriate by the creators. It is easy to see where this classification process would lead. Some land is bound to score lower than others in, say protecting views of the dreaming spires, or prettiness. The bottom ten per cent will be earmarked for development. Then the next ten per cent will become the bottom ten per cent and so forth.

Meanwhile the Growth Board’s development ambitions have now gone way beyond the City’s 2008 objective for a mixed commercial and housing extension of land South of Grenoble Road. Now the plan is for satellite ‘towns’

on Green Belt land near Kidlington, Wheatley, and North of Abingdon. It is obvious that if this went ahead, growth of the satellites would quickly lead to loss of the entire Green Belt, except the parts which are unbuildable, such as the flood plain.

The justification for all this is ‘(cheaper) houses and jobs’. But economists recognise that you cannot make houses cheaper just by building more, because the market price is set by the houses that presently exist, of which new build will always be a tiny fraction.

As for housing and jobs, Oxfordshire’s longstanding (until now) philosophy, strongly supported by CPRE, has been that although the University may generate spin-off businesses, these are best cited in the other County Towns, ‘sharing the proceeds of growth’. Obviously the new houses should be where the new jobs are.

The argument about whether to sacrifice the Green Belt for growth – which could occur anywhere – has been fought by CPRE for years, with us and the Green Belt winning.

Now a new argument is being advanced in the Financial Times. This is that almost everyone prefers

to live in cities and that therefore letting cities expand willy-nilly is in the best interests of almost everyone.

This seeks to overturn the core reason the Green Belts were introduced. They were created precisely to prevent urban sprawl and to preserve a green lung around the City. Preventing urban sprawl preserves the individual identities of surrounding settlements, and gives the City’s residents ready access to fresh air and open green fields.

Oxford itself – despite its City Council – is best served by keeping the Green Belt, which constrains its growth, intact. Not only does this best protect the City’s priceless University heritage; but also the City’s unalterable medieval street layout, criss-crossed with rivers, makes it laughably inappropriate as a core for the metropolis its Council are eager to create.

We may be seeing the end of the phoney war, in which predators, with crocodile tears in their eyes, claim that sadly some Green Belt (initially) must be sacrificed for growth. The real war of principle, whether we should maintain Green Belts, which so define the character if England, or not, could be beginning. CPRE will fight to maintain the Green Belt which we helped create and which is so obvi-ously beneficial to the environment of Oxfordshire whether you live in the City, or around it, or elsewhere in the County.

Green Belt threats in the Vale


Mired in milkby angus Dart, farming consultant

George Orwell wrote of a terrible totalitarian society that he predicted we might well be living in by 1984. Over 40,000 English and Welsh dairy farmers thought that they were, when the EU suddenly introduced Milk Quotas restricting production across all the then states to 15% less than the production of 1983. This was a brutal response to begin to control the size of burgeoning EU butter and milk-powder ‘mountains’. These stocks had been allowed to grow to unsustainable levels during years of slowly made policy decisions. The fall out and recriminations went on and on, with Italy getting the prize for the slowest possible introduction of the measures many years later.

be with a cushioned mattress with a waterproof top sheet or even a layer of soft sand. Money might equally well be spent on a new or improved milking parlour. This could hasten the speed of milking so that the herd benefits by spending less time standing waiting to be milked and longer either eating or lying down cudding. Modern research has helped us to target investment, to aid our animals’ natural habits and patterns of behaviour, further enhancing their welfare. Sadly that optimism has been short-lived, with the on farm value crashing by some 8.5 pence per litre over the year. How do farmers react in a busi-ness where it can take three years to implement even a change in breeding policy? Obviously commitments such as wages, feed and electric bills have to be met, so those investment plans will have to remain dreams. Harder still, normally after several generations, some will decide that this marks the end of the road. It is not just small fam-ily farms who have concluded that ‘exit is best’. Last week, I saw the dispersal of a long established large herd on a well run estate, which had reluctantly concluded that it would make unsus-tainable losses before things improved. Over time no doubt the Herdsman’s houses will be rented out as commuter cottages and another strand of agricul-ture’s fabric will have gone.

Over time no doubt the Herdsman’s houses will be rented out as commuter cottages and another strand of agricultures’ fabric will have gone.

What has driven this unprecedented change in fortune? Dairy products especially in dried form – milk powders and cheese – are internationally traded commodities. Although global demand is increasing at 2% year on year we are still exposed to the whims of market supply and political events. The forthcoming end of quotas has already seen Continental European dairy farmers increase output by 5%. The timing of this has collided with Mr Putin’s Russian import ban, a home that usually takes 3% of European dairy output. More milk has therefore been made into powder, but here it is competing with the USA and New Zealand for the Chinese market, but their purchases of skimmed milk powder are back by 45% compared to 2013. It has it seems only been a severe drought in New Zealand that has begun to restore an amount of stability to the situation.

On the domestic market the behaviour of some of the newer retailers trying to grow market share has resulted again in price pressure. They will, of course, be able to cover the ‘loss leader’ margins elsewhere in their stores while the cattle auctioneer’s predictions of under 9,000 producers by 2016, could become a reality.

When the milk year ends on March 31st it will herald the end of the Milk Quota regime across the EU after 31 years. There has been a great deal of pain endured, illustrated by the fact that now under 10,000 producers remain. The year had begun with an industry in rarely confident mood. The milk price had, it seemed, reached a realistic level both for consumers and for farmers, at over 30 pence per litre on farm. Farmers were turning their minds to re-investment, the chief beneficiary of which would be the dear old cow. This might include the building of new free-stall barns to maximise the cow’s comfort, where the cow has free to access beds on which it lies whilst housed. These can

Cows on Angus Dart’s farm.


How not to develop a minerals core strategy

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), should be used. This was agreed. A revised strategy was published early in 2014, issued for wider consultation and found favour with all those who commented.

This should have been the end of an unnecessarily long process, but no. OCC decided that it should have one more go at setting the LAA, and commissioned a new consultant, Land Use and Cuesta, to do the work. Our group was not consulted, but saw the figuring shortly before it was considered by the Council’s cabinet in November 2014. Four of our groups’ members spoke against the whole tortuous method of calculation used and we felt vindicated when 3 of the 8 members of cabinet abstained on the vote to recommend the LAA proposed.

On 24 March the full Council debated an amendment to the plan by the Wallingford county councillor, Lynda Atkins, who argued that the strategy is at fault because it fails to follow the Council’s own statement of community involvement, and the method of calculation is illogical. Sadly, the amendment was narrowly lost by 23 to 26 votes, with 7 abstentions. The plan will now go out for a final public consultation.

Arnold GraysonCPRE Minerals consultant

CPRE Members’ EventsProgramme: 2015The details of the members’ events programme for this year still have to be finalised. However, the provisional programme is outlined below. We trust you will find the planned events of interest.

Those of you who have registered your email address with CPRE will be notified of the final programme by email or you can let us know if you are interested in any particular event and we will send you the details ( email: [email protected] ). Alternatively, please check the CPRE website under ‘Events’. Non-members are welcome at all these events.

MayWalk along the Thames Path at Goring and Streatley.

JulyVisit to Chedworth Roman Villa, near Northleach. There will be a guided tour of the site and the opportunity for an afternoon walk in the beautiful surrounding countryside.

Sunday 9 augustA day to meet up to draw, paint or photograph the landscape of North Oxfordshire, with an artist on hand to give help and advice if needed. To be followed by a pub lunch.

SeptemberA guided visit to the historic village of Ewelme, including a trip to the restored watercress beds and after lunch, the opportunity for a walk on Ewelme Downs.

Ewelme’s historic church St. Mary the Virgin.

Demonstrators outside County Hall, with Arnold Grayson, CPRE’s minerals consultant, on the far right.

Readers might well say ‘Not again!’ Once more Oxfordshire County Council (OCC) has tried to pull a fast one and reshape the arguments about the amount of gravel to be worked in Oxfordshire. In 2011 we found the arithmetic used by the consultants, Atkins, to be confused and implausible. But the inspector responsible for assessing the figuring never reached that point in his deliberations. Instead he found the whole exercise unacceptable owing to the county’s failure to consider its ‘duty to cooperate’ with other minerals planning authorities. OCC then decided to redo the arithmetic on the local aggregate assessment (LAA). This time the consultants, still Atkins, invented an even more esoteric method of calculating the numbers for Oxfordshire’s future supply of material.

Each time the LAA was produced, CPRE, together with other groups of residents concerned with minerals production in their own locality, were able to comment to the County Council at an early stage. The Council honoured its own statement of community involvement. Our environmental group criticised the method adopted by Atkins, and, instead the chairman of one of our groups, Parishes Against Gravel Extraction (PAGE), proposed that the simple method set out in the 2012


Oxfordshire Voice

Published biannually by the Oxfordshire Branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England.

Design: Rob Bowker T: 01491 825609 Print: Severnprint Ltd with vegetable inks on recycled paper using renewable energy.

CPRE Online

Oxfordshire: www.cpreoxon.org.uk

Twitter: @CPREOxfordshire

www.facebook.com/CPREOxfordshire

National: www.cpre.org.uk

Branch Office

CPRE Oxfordshire, First Floor, 20 High Street, Watlington, Oxon OX49 5PY (Registered office)

T: 01491 612079 E: [email protected]

Documents

Cpre oxfordshire voice spring 2015