Voice autumn 2017 web

Autumn 2017

Oxfordshire www.cpreoxon.org.uk

Oxford to Cambridge Expressway A trail of devastation

voice

Oxford Green Belt Core Principles undermined

by Cherwell District Council

New housing targets for Oxfordshire?

CPRE’s initial thoughts

OXFORDSHIRE

Voice Autumn 2017

Features 2 Chairman’s Voice 3 CPRE fundraising lunch with Emma Bridgewater 4 Oxford to Cambridge Expressway 5 Oxfordshire Local Plan Round-Up 6-7 Green Belt principles undermined 8 New methodology for calculating housing targets 9 Oxfordshire Infrastructure Strategy 10 Farming Column 11 Footpaths Column 12 CPRE Members’ Events DIRECTORY Views expressed in the Voice are not necessarily those of CPRE Oxfordshire, which welcomes independent comment.

Editor: Helena Whall Cover: Ham House and Garden, Bampton. Photo: Helen Marshall Articles, letters, comments and suggestions for articles are welcome. Please contact the Branch Office below. Published November 2017 District Chairmen CPRE Oxfordshire Branch Peter Collins 01235 763081 pjcoll@maths.ox.ac.uk Cherwell North: Chris Hone 01295 265379 Cherwell South: John Broad (acting Chair) 01869 324008 john.broad85@talktalk.net Oxford: Rosemary Harris rosemary.cpre@gmail.com South Oxfordshire: Professor Richard Harding 01491 836425 Prof.Richard.Harding@gmail.com Vale of White Horse: Vacant David Marsh (Secretary) david@digitalsafaris.com West Oxfordshire: Justine Garbutt (acting Chair) administrator@cpreoxon.org.uk Branch Office CPRE Oxfordshire, First Floor, 20 High Street, Watlington, Oxfordshire OX49 5PY (Registered office) T: 01491 612079 E: administrator@cpreoxon.org.uk

www.cpreoxon.org.uk Follow 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.

2

Chairman’s voice

In the face of the daunting challenges facing CPRE and its Oxfordshire Branch, it is with determination to engage fully in confronting the complex web of issues before us that I take up my new post.

My experience as Chairman of the Vale District Committee and member of the Branch Executive Committee has made plain to me how fortunate I am to be working with a wholly committed phalanx of volunteers across the County. I single out my predecessor, Brian Wood, whose longterm involvement with, and enormous knowledge of, CPRE matters have already proved invaluable and am grateful to Vice-Presidents and former Chairmen, Bruce Tremayne and Gill Salway, whose balanced understanding of what the Branch requires has pointed the way.

I want to make special mention of our Director, Helen Marshall, who has been central to all our activities since her appointment and who has represented us so well on TV, on radio and with the press. She has valiantly fought on our behalf with Planning Inspectors at all District ‘Examinations in Public’ of the various draft Local Plans. The regard in which we are now held by local MPs, authorities and the media is in no small measure due to her contribution and that of her team.

Our challenge now is to redouble our efforts in respect of the unrelenting attacks on the Green Belt and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty – and indeed green fields all over the County. New levels of Government intervention, often from behind closed doors, are likely soon to be augmented by damaging changes in regulation.

Can we prevent the imposition of yet more houses in the wrong places, not meeting the needs of local residents?

Must we accept the proposal for 1,000,000 (one million!) new houses to be built on green fields between Oxford and Cambridge? 100,000 of

these could destroy much of the Green Belt in southern Oxfordshire – if a southern route for the Expressway is decided upon, see p. 4 – producing an agglomeration of urban development the size of two Oxfords – no less – and steadily creeping towards the City.

What can we do to increase the impact of our work? We need professional advisers to push home our message in the strongest terms, in particular in the areas of planning, communications, transport and other infrastructure concerns. As always, we need volunteers with time to organise local campaigns to combat unreasonable threats to our countryside and way of life. We are appealing to anyone who can help. Of course we also need funds to strengthen the Director’s team and to enable us to deal with particular demands in the shorter term. With your support, we can make great strides: please help.

In taking up the new post, what are my aims? As Chairman of the Branch, my aim is to crystallise decision-making to push forward our campaigning ideals. What else?

I would want to strengthen our hand with CPRE National Office so that the problems Oxfordshire faces are fully understood and reflected through its policies and actions. This is likely to involve closer links with other Branches to make common cause.

I intend to pursue this beyond the bounds of CPRE and Government, in particular through organisations which share our aims, such as Europa Nostra, the leading European nongovernmental heritage organisation of which I am currently national Chairman. To do this, I would like to engage with Oxfordshire members in order to represent their thoughts and views. I hope that all our members throughout the County will feel they can bring their particular ideas, concerns – and even praise for something done particularly well – to my notice. I want to hear from you!

Peter Collins, Chairman pjcoll@maths.ox.ac.uk

CPRE Oxfordshire voice Autumn 2017

CPRE Vale District Committee seeks new Chair Do you live in the Vale of White Horse and have an interest in the local landscape and/or planning issues?

Ham Court – a rural regeneration project!

An enormous thanks to Emma Bridgewater, pottery designer, businesswoman and national CPRE President, who threw open her gardens to CPRE Oxfordshire members at a delightful fundraising lunch in September.

If you could spare a few hours a month to lead our local Committee, then we would love to hear from you!

Our CPRE Vale of White Horse District Committee has a small but dedicated team of volunteers who monitor and respond to planning and landscape issues across the area, and provide advice and support to local communities. But we are looking for a new Chair to provide leadership to the Committee!

This is a volunteer role. The Committee meets on a quarterly basis. Time between meetings is up to you but we would ask for a minimum of a few hours per month. You don’t need any previous experience or expertise because we can provide information and training as required, but you must be passionate about environmental issues, care about your local countryside and want to make a difference.

explaining how they had taken on the regeneration of Ham Court in Bampton and their exciting plans for the future. It is clearly a massive undertaking, involving extensive renovations to the property and the creation of a wonderful garden, but what really came through was the sense of a whole community being re-established.

With your help we can do even more to protect the countryside and increase our influence on key decisions affecting land use in the district.

To find out more please contact: E: campaign@cpreoxon.org.uk T: 01491 612079 Brian Wood stood down as Chairman of the Branch at the July AGM. All the staff and volunteers extend their huge thanks to Brian for his tireless hard work during his time as Chairman. Brian will continue to be the Treasurer for the Branch.

The event raised around £2,500 with the funds going towards CPRE Oxfordshire’s work seeking to influence Local Plans, with a view to guiding development appropriately in the countryside.

Emma, and Matthew Rice (above) were very generous with their time,

Join the debate. Join the campaign. Join CPRE

Many thanks to all those that attended. We are currently working on our programme of members’ events for next year – if you have any thoughts on places we should visit or activities you would like us to organise, we’d love to hear from you!

E: administrator@cpreoxon.org.uk T: 01491 612079

Take action

Could you support CPRE Oxfordshire’s vital Local Plan work by making a donation? www.justgiving.com/cpreoxon

3

Oxford to Cambridge Expressway and its trail of devastation OXFORD TO CAMBRIDGE EXPRESSWAY POTENTIAL ROUTES

BANBURY

11

CAMBRIDGE M1

A43

A43

A422

August 2017

BRACKLEY

BUCKINGHAM

BEDFORD

M40 MILTON BUCKINGHAM KEYNES A421

A421 M1

A4421

AYLESBURY

OXFORD

10

THAME

M25

ABINGDON WANTAGE

C

M11

LEIGHTON BUZZARD

BICESTER KIDLINGTON

DIDCOT

M11

M40

OXFORD GREEN BELT

M25

BICESTER

LONDON

KIDLINGTON

OXFORD

GREEN BELT CUMNOR

A420

S1

ABINGDON

STANFORD IN THE VALE STEVENTON A417

KEY

S2

Oxford Sub Option 1

A

S2

Oxford Sub Option 2

B

S3

Oxford Sub Option 3

C

S4

Oxford Sub Option 4

Route Option A Route Option B Route Option C

A418 A

WHEATLEY S3

GARSINGTON

8 7

THAME

LITTLE MILTON CHINNOR 6

STADHAMPTON

A4074

A329 DORCHESTER

CLIFTON HAMPDEN

DIDCOT

S4

WANTAGE

S1

M40

BECKLEY

A40

CPRE Oxfordshire is unconvinced of the need for, and is opposed to, an Expressway/Growth Corridor through the “Oxford/Cambridge Arc”. If extra capacity should be required, the East-West Rail project, which CPRE supports, should clearly take priority.

B

AMBROSEDEN A41 UPPER ARNCOTT

9

A44

WITNEY

www.cpreoxon.org.uk

WATLINGTON BENSON BRIGHTWELL/SOTWELL WALLINGFORD

S.MORETON BLEWBURY A34

A4074 A329

HENLEY WOODCOTE

This is a tricky article to write as so much may have changed between when it is being written and when you are reading it. However, seemingly unlike our local authorities, we are keen to give you as much information as possible!

As reported previously (Spring Voice p.5),the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) is looking at proposals to build an Oxford to Cambridge (O2C) Expressway and is due to issue its report in November, ahead of the Autumn Budget.

The intention is to support the new road by building 1 million houses along the route, which works out at an average of 10,000 houses a mile!

Although our local authorities are busily engaged on “workstreams” with the NIC and the Highways Agency, economy with the truth is the order of the day. The NIC itself has refused Freedom of Information requests by saying that it is not in the public’s interest to know the answers to the questions the public is asking.

4

What does seem to be clear though, from what straws in the wind there are, is that the most likely routes are either an upgrading of the A34/A421 North of Oxford or a ten-mile route through the Green Belt South of Oxford from Abingdon to Thame and on to Aylesbury and Cambridge (which is actually the shortest route, and probably of the two the likelier route). See the map produced by CPRE Oxfordshire.

Meanwhile, our local authorities are also keeping very quiet.

For example, several draft Local Plans have come forward during this period but none make more than a passing mention of the Expressway, despite the fact that this would potentially be the most significant development to hit the County over the next 10 years.

As evidenced by the recent national CPRE report, The end of the road: Challenging the road-building consensus, new roads consistently fail to provide the promised congestion relief or economic boost.

CPRE therefore believes that the current Road Investment Strategy should focus explicitly on keeping existing roads in good repair and reducing their environmental impacts, rather than increasing capacity.

CPRE Oxfordshire is working with other CPRE Branches and National Office to seek to influence the NIC discussions.

We are also in touch with a growing number of Oxfordshire residents and groups who share our concerns about the Expressway.

If you’d like to get involved, please do get in touch.

E: campaign@cpreoxon.org.uk T: 01491 612079

Take action See the ‘End of the road’ report on the national CPRE website: http://tinyurl.com/cpre-endoftheroad See the CPRE Oxon website for updates: www.cpreoxon.org.uk Download our map of potential routes: http://tinyurl.com/o2cmap Please contact your MP and Council Leader and share your concerns about the Expressway.

CPRE Oxfordshire voice Autumn 2017

Oxfordshire Local Plan round-up Cherwell The consultation on Cherwell District Council’s Local Plan Part 1 Partial Review closed on 10 October. The Plan outlines proposals for housing in the south of the district to meet its contribution to Oxford’s unmet need.

Cherwell is proposing an additional 4,400 houses for the district by 2031, over and above that allocated in the adopted part of its Local Plan – 3,900 houses are proposed in the Oxford Green Belt between north Oxford and Kidlington, and between Kidlington and Begbroke and Yarnton, plus an additional 400 at Woodstock (see map of proposed sites on p.7).

In CPRE’s view, Oxford is capable of accommodating all or almost all of its housing need by switching land earmarked for employment to housing, and building at higher densities. Even if Oxford’s inability to accommodate its own housing need was real and had been properly quantified (which it hasn’t yet) we believe the Council could and should meet it elsewhere than in the Green Belt – building on the Green Belt should be the last resort, not the first.

See CPRE’s response on our website at: http://tinyurl.com/y9w4692h

Oxford City Our response to the City’s Preferred Options consultation called on Oxford City District Council to deliver more housing, by making use of land ringfenced for employment, prioritising brownfield and increasing densities, thereby meaning they would not need to build on the Green Belt or ask neighbouring authorities to do so.

Ultimately, we believe the City’s own housing need is clearly best addressed by the City itself, as to do otherwise is to create commuting and make for a less vibrant City.

The Council, despite claiming that housing need is the number one priority, particularly for more affordable homes, intends to address only a third of it within its own boundaries, pleading lack of capacity to accommodate it. The rest is offloaded onto surrounding authorities under the Duty to Cooperate.

See our full response on our website at: http://tinyurl.com/yaa28494

South Oxfordshire Consultation on South Oxfordshire’s second Preferred Options closed in May. The Plan included a housing target of 23,468, up from 20,800 to include Oxford’s unmet need. It included four strategic sites – 3,000 houses at Chalgrove, 3,500 at Culham, 2,100 at Berinsfield, with additional houses at Brookes/Wheatley – the last three within the Green Belt. In its response, CPRE expressed its concern at the Council’s cavalier attitude towards the Green Belt.

The consultation on the presubmission Plan closes on 30 November. It appears we have had some success in restricting development within the Green Belt at Brookes/Wheatley and numbers at Berinsfield have reduced. However, Culham is still very much in the firing line, facing the largest strategic allocation in the District. We will be making a strong case that taking land from the Green Belt is unjustified.

See our thoughts & advice on how to respond at: http://tinyurl.com/yc2ex694

Join the debate. Join the campaign. Join CPRE

Vale of White Horse Consultation on the Vale Local Plan Part 2: Detailed Policies and Additional Sites closes on 22 November. The Plan proposes 3,420 houses for the district, bringing the total number of houses planned (ie those proposed in Parts 1 and 2 of the Plan) to 24,748, almost 2,000 more than the housing requirement for the full Plan period (2011 – 2031) of 22,760.

It proposes several large sites to deliver the numbers required to meet Oxford’s unmet need – including 1,200 houses at Dalton Barracks, near Abingdon, within the Green Belt, while Kingston Bagpuize/Fyfield is earmarked for 600. It also proposes an additional 1,000 houses at Harwell Campus, in the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), to support the Council’s objective to support the Science Vale Area. We will be arguing that development at Dalton Barracks can go ahead without the need to release the land from the Green Belt. We will also argue that building at the Harwell Campus is unjustified, not consistent with national policy and harmful to the North Wessex Downs AONB. See our response on our website at: http://tinyurl.com/yd5khtp2

West Oxfordshire We were well represented at the May and July hearings into West Oxfordshire’s draft Local Plan. We had some success, with the Inspector asking the Council to work with us on Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, landscape and heritage polices. The Council were also forced to commission a landscape impact assessment of their proposed sites in the AONB and at Woodstock. We are now awaiting the Inspector’s report.

See CPRE’s statements for the hearings at: http://tinyurl.com/yc6nvlxz 5

Cherwell Council attacks the core principles on which Green Belts depend

The Green Belt around Oxford was created specifically to remain undeveloped and to permanently prevent urban sprawl. In this it has the proven support of over three quarters of Oxfordshire residents, City, Town and Country alike (CPRE Survey, April 2015). The Government says building on it can only be contemplated if all other alternatives have been proved to be even more unacceptable (i.e. it should be the last resort, not the first).

Wasting no time considering that evidence, Cherwell District Council instead decided over a year ago that as the Green Belt, by definition, immediately adjoins Oxford, the Green Belt areas closest to Oxford are the most sustainable areas (for building Oxford’s houses on). In other words, the Green Belt itself is the justification for doing what the Green Belt was created to prevent. The White Queen would have been delighted.

What is more the Council targeted the most sensitive point in the whole Oxford Green Belt, the ‘Kidlington Gap’, where any development will threaten the merger of Kidlington and Oxford – another thing the Green Belt was created to prevent, as well as being hardly a desirable prospect for up to now independent Kidlington.

If Cherwell had considered the evidence, as the White Rabbit urged, they would have found – as indeed they admit – that there are acceptable 6

‘There’s more evidence to come yet, please your Majesty,’ said the White Rabbit.

‘No, no!’ said the White Queen. ‘Sentence first – verdict afterwards.’

The White Queen in Lewis Carrol’s Alice in Wonderland.

If Cherwell had considered the evidence, as the White Rabbit urged, they would have found – as indeed they admit – that there are acceptable sites for the housing elsewhere…

Building more houses to the hectare (increasing densities) does not mean tower blocks but development like highly desirable Victorian terraces such as those in sought after Jericho. What is more, using land more efficiently would not only mean pleasant places to live, and the ability to walk to work, but less expensive houses too, just the kind that are actually needed.

sites for the housing elsewhere in the District which should have taken priority. The Council has suggested the following sites: Junction 9 and 10 on the M40, Arncott, Bicester and the surrounding area, Upper Heyford and Banbury and the surrounding area. They would also have found that the “unmet Oxford need” these houses are intended to satisfy is not a current need at all, but a hypothetical requirement at some point in the future if Oxford continues to grow unchecked.

Neither is it really “unmet” as Oxford has enough land to meet three times its present housing targets if it used vacant land for housing, as it should, and if it built more houses to the hectare than it does currently.

Cherwell has deliberately failed to challenge whether the “unmet need” is real; failed to identify suitable places to satisfy it, to the extent (if any) it actually exists; but it has also failed to follow Government advice and the public’s wishes about protecting the Green Belt, instead targeting the most sensitive area within it.

Never mind the White Queen, even the Mad Hatter would have been proud of them.

Michael Tyce CPRE Trustee Support our Just Giving Green Belt appeal: http:// tinyurl.com/cpreoxongreenbelt CPRE Oxfordshire voice Autumn 2017

John Tenniel

Cherwell District Council seems to have sought inspiration from Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland when it was deciding to accommodate most of its share of Oxford’s notional unmet housing need in the Green Belt.

Cherwell Local Development Plan Partial Review: proposed sites for new housing and related development; land to be removed from the Green Belt Bletchingdon

26

A4 0

Woodstock

cherwell District

Shipton-on-Cherwell

o r d G r e e n B e lt f x e O ell District Th herw C in Riv

PR10

er C

herw ell

A4

Bladon

Hampton Poyle

A3

4

4

Green Belt

Site boundaries

Kidlington

New housing and related use on land removed from Green Belt

Begbroke

Other land removed from Green Belt Existing settlements

0

A426

PR8

PR9

PR7a PR7b Yarnton

West Oxfordshire District

A4 Oxford C anal

4

Cassington

PR6c PR6b

PR6a

A40 A40

Vale of White Horse District

A3 4

mes

a r Th Rive

Wolvercote

Oxford District

June 2017 Proposed housing figures North Oxford PR6a – Land East of Oxford Road 650 PR6b – Land West of Oxford Road 530 PR6c – Land at Frieze Farm (reserved site for replacement Golf Course)

Kidlington PR7a – Land South East of Kidlington 230 PR7b – Land at Stratfield Farm 100 Begbroke PR8 – Land East of the A44 1,950 Yarnton PR9 – Land West of Yarnton 530

Join the debate. Join the campaign. Join CPRE

Woodstock PR10 – Land South East of Woodstock 410 (only site outside of Green Belt) Total 4,400 (3,990 in the Green Gelt)

7

“We ♥ Rural Could a new methodology for Oxfordshire” calculating housing targets mean Photos: Helena Whall

Local community film-makers at a CPRE Film Production Workshop in Oxford

CPRE Oxfordshire is supporting six rural communities from across Oxfordshire to produce a series of one-minute films to celebrate the heritage, character and landscape of their local area.

Local communities include Save Culham Green Belt, Standlake Online, Responsible Planning in Burford, Kidglington Development Watch, Save Gavray Meadows and the Society for the Protection of Bampton.

The CPRE Rural Community Film Project was launched in the summer and film-making will begin this autumn. The films will be shared on social media, with the aim of involving a younger audience in rural and community issues. (Keep an eye on our website for the films next spring!).

We hope to use the process to build up expertise within each community so that they have the capacity to make further films in the future. The Project is being supported by the National CPRE and if successful could be rolled out across the branches.

CPRE Oxfordshire gratefully acknowledges the support of the Tanner Trust for this project.

8

less housing for Oxfordshire?

The Government has published a consultation on plans to change the way housing targets are calculated.

The consultation runs until 9 November, so it will have closed by the time the Voice lands on your doorstep, but you can see the branch response on our website.

In summary, household growth projections would be used as the demographic baseline for every local authority area. CPRE has long argued that there should be a clear distinction between actual local need and the arbitrary figures arrived at in notional growth strategies. We therefore welcome this move which could, at a stroke, return Oxfordshire to more sensible and achievable housing targets.

If carried through, this could enable many of our more controversial housing allocations to be removed, such as those in Green Belt and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Rather than fighting off ridiculous and inappropriate allocations, we could all get back to concentrating on creating high quality, high density developments and building sustainable communities.

Impacts for Oxfordshire The potential impacts for various Oxfordshire Districts are set Housing Targets, Oxfordshire out in the table Strategic below.

Housing Market Assessment 2014 (per annum) Cherwell 1,142 Oxford City 1,400 (1,2001,600) South Oxfordshire 775 (725-825) Vale of White 1,028 Horse West Oxfordshire 660 (635-685) OXFORDSHIRE 5,005 (p/a) TOTAL

Extrapolated over the period of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA), from 2011 to 2031, the Oxfordshire-wide 100,000 target would potentially come down to a far more realistic 68,300 (although still the equivalent of increasing every settlement by over 20% across the time-period). However, several of our local authorities have already made it clear that they intend to stick to the current figures.

The Way Ahead In light of this new proposed methodology, CPRE Oxfordshire is calling on local authorities to: a) Call a temporary halt to all Local Plan proceedings currently underway. b) Update the 2014 Oxfordshire SHMA, based on the new methodology. c) Ensure any proposed uplift for economic growth ambitions should be subject to full democratic consultation. d) Take this opportunity to draw a line under the diverse Local Plans and commit to the production of a Joint Spatial Plan which is already under discussion by the Oxfordshire Growth Board.

See the CPRE Oxfordshire consultation response at: www.cpreoxon.org.uk

762

Protected land (Green Belt/Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) -33% 15%

746

-47%

29%

617

-20%

65%

689

-33%

38%

601

-9%

37%

3,415 (p/a)

-32%

New proposed methodology (per annum)

% change

CPRE Oxfordshire voice Autumn 2017

R. Wendland

Oxfordshire plan for a massive increase in infrastructure

“Growth in Oxfordshire over recent decades has created a deficit in existing infrastructure” Anyone living in Oxfordshire would surely recognise and agree with this opening statement from the Oxfordshire Infrastructure Strategy (OxIS).

Traffic congestion (particularly around Oxford), air pollution, the electricity network, waste recycling, waste water, water supply, telecommunications (including broadband provision) etc, all require substantial improvements just to service the existing population.

To better understand the scale of the infrastructure needed in the county, the Oxfordshire Growth Board recently commissioned an Infrastructure Strategy (OxIS) – the stage one report was published in April 2017 (see link below). The strategy presents an overview of possible growth patterns to 2040, the infrastructure required, and estimates likely costs and funding gaps.

The report starts with the premise of an extra 123,000 houses and 267,000 people in Oxfordshire by 2039. Growth is assumed to continue at the rates envisaged by the local Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) and the 2014 Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) up to 2039. CPRE believe these projections are exaggerated, not least because the original SHMA is flawed (a view supported by a recent Government report on Objectively Assessed Need – see p.8).

The further centralisation of services and facilities across Oxfordshire is a theme running through this report:

for example, halving the number of Further and Higher Education colleges, reducing local GP provision, closing local hospitals, closing police stations, reducing the number of waste recycling sites and bringing the elderly into purpose-built assisted living centres.

This may reduce costs but could have huge social and environmental costs..

This document puts a high reliance on hard infrastructure, in particular roads. As history has shown us, adding to and widening roads leads to increased traffic, and frequently creates new pinch-points at other places. It encourages new traffic and unnecessary person-movements, negating the carbon and pollution savings that are made by reducing congestion.

OxIS significantly downplays the impact that the proposed Expressway / Growth Corridor through the “Oxford/ Cambridge Arc” would have on the Oxfordshire countryside, whichever route is finally chosen (see p.4). It also fails to acknowledge the vast associated development that would be required alongside the Expressway. OxIS should be revised to set out clearly the risks associated with the Expressway and associated development, and to prioritise East-West Rail.

It is good to see the Oxfordshire AONBs, river corridors and the Oxford Green Belt recognised as an essential part of the local landscape. While the report does identify that the AONBs are showing some detrimental impacts,

Join the debate. Join the campaign. Join CPRE

the report only identifies problems and few solutions. CPRE would like to see a comprehensive strategy to assess and mitigate the risks that accelerated growth will pose to the Oxfordshire landscape.

CPRE is pleased to see a coordinated approach to planning infrastructure in the county. There are, however, serious issues about funding and timing which are referred to: “There is an increasing gap between the expected rate of growth up to 2031 and the ability to deliver key infrastructure”. The overreliance on developer contributions is obviously inappropriate. Developer contributions are not equal to the task of big infrastructure projects, and the money is generally released retrospectively leaving local people devoid of infrastructure whilst houses are being built. We need to ensure that infrastructure funding is committed and available in advance of building houses.

CPRE would like to see realistic and achievable plans for the future of Oxfordshire. We would like to see plans which are serious about the protection of our countryside and rural nature of the county. Finally, we would like to see a real and open public debate on the level of growth the people of Oxfordshire really want.

Richard Harding, Chair, CPRE South Oxfordshire District Committee Oxfordshire Infrastructure Strategy: http://tinyurl.com/oxon-oxis 9

Uncertain Harvest:

does the loss of small farms matter?

See ‘Uncertain harvest: does the loss As part of National CPRE’s Farming Foresight series, it recently published a paper titled ‘Uncertain Harvest: does the loss of small farms matter?’. It was pleasing to see the report begin by noting that the quality of management is of paramount importance, regardless of farm size and that smaller farms can be just as productive as larger units.

There is no doubt that in general, smaller units have a harder economic time, as many factors conspire to make life that little bit tougher. Firstly, the farm will generally have smaller fields, with a higher proportion of less productive headlands, so there will be more turning of equipment and work rates and efficiency will be reduced. Imagine a square 40-acre field, then divide it into quarters resulting in four ten-acre ones – you will see how the area of field edges increases by 50% and that there are four times the number of corners. The field boundaries will likely be one or a combination of fences, hedgerows and ditches, all of which require costly maintenance. Another factor at play here will be environmental legislation, which although needed and justified, will impact more severely on the farmer with the four smaller fields, especially if surrounded by any sort of watercourse. Regulation prevents many crop protection products being applied within several metres of a watercourse, which will invariably be detrimental to crop yield.

Independently-minded UK farmers have traditionally purchased their inputs individually, where smaller orders or remote locations have increased their cost. When selling, many products were sold to Government-controlled Marketing Boards, where regardless of amount or location, the produce was 10

of farms matter?’ a CPRE National Office report: http://tinyurl.com/cpreuncertainharvest

collected and all producers received the averaged price. Contrastingly, in Europe where there is a bigger percentage of small farms, the cooperative model is more widely used.

Inputs are purchased advantageously and the produce marketed through facilities the individual farmers have a share in, so that they are rewarded for any product innovation and market development. This means that they have bought and sold better for many, many years.

The CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) in my opinion usually gets overplayed as a source of discontent. There is never going to be a system that is thought to be universally fair. Cheap press is made out of the amount that some prominent individuals receive under the current system, conveniently forgetting that they will have employees and responsibilities like any others. Adjusting payments to scale is fine in theory, if you end up the right side of a cliff edge or CAP. Farm level assurance schemes, although laudable, tend to protect those who can conform, but mean markets close for those who can not. This has also driven increased specialisation and then scale.

Legislation invariably has unintended consequences which legislators either seemingly ignore or do not fully consider. As with the environment, food safety is important but it reduces the number of farmers and smaller processors, who often find the cost of conforming means that it is not worth continuing their enterprise.

The cost of compulsory veterinary attendance at abattoirs, for example,

has seen the closure of many smaller operations, just as the demand for local produce is increasing. The larger operations have carried on, which suits the large retailers very well.

Interestingly, CPRE’s report only seems to mention mechanisation once, whereas I see it as one of the biggest drivers of change, with vastly increased horsepower available – but much of the change has come from regulation.

If we take the farm tractor as an example, in the early 1970’s, just as we joined the EU, the fitting of roll bars became mandatory for justified safety concerns. This rapidly became a safety frame, a safety cab, then a safety cab with noise reduction, moving on to a quiet cab with air conditioning, then with extra filtration, improved seating, cab suspension etc. At each stage cost escalates, so if your farm output remains static through yields, land area or prices, this imposed cost increase becomes unsustainable.

However, relying on old machines means that the time to complete tasks is never reduced, so finding time to contemplate business options or to apply for grants seldom materialises.

Once a small farm graduates from a hobby or lifestyle activity, to a full time, sole source of income activity, the working hours, especially if livestock are involved, can become horrendous – 7 days a week for 30-40 years is not uncommon. No wonder successive generations are rejecting the lifestyle of the seemingly attractive small farm for a regular job, working 39 hours with guaranteed holidays.

Angus Dart Farming Advisor CPRE Oxfordshire voice Autumn 2017

Blue plaque commemorates the work of D’Arcy Dalton

In the years following the First World War, D’Arcy Dalton became a figurehead for walkers to look to who found a footpath obstructed or their right to walk it challenged at a time when there was no effective body to manage rights of way, compared to the County Council’s professional team which exists today. This led to him becoming a founder member of the Oxford Fieldpaths Society and for many years he was its chairman. He also became chairman of the CPRE Oxfordshire’s Rights of Way Committee and it was due to his passion for protecting rights of way to enable everyone to enjoy the countryside that this too became an integral part of the work of the Branch.

Of his many achievements defending rights of way, perhaps the most notable followed the 1949 National Parks and Countryside Act, which required county councils to produce a definitive map showing all those

Photos: Oxford Fieldpaths Society

The lifetime work of D’Arcy Dalton (as he was known locally) in defending Oxfordshire’s rights of way was recognised this year by the award of a Blue Plaque. In August members of CPRE Oxfordshire, Oxford Fieldpaths Society and others who had known him gathered in Great Milton to witness its unveiling on the house where he lived until his death in 1981.

RICHARD ASSER (1930-2017)

Jim Parke of the Oxford Fieldpaths Society unveiling the plaque.

footpaths which needed to be registered as Public Rights of Way (PRoW). In Oxfordshire, this process started in 1950 and took up most of his time in the following years, attending many hearings to resolve objections made by farmers and landowners to footpaths considered to be PRoWs. A huge debt is owed to D’Arcy Dalton for saving many miles of footpaths which would otherwise have been lost to the walkers and riders who enjoy using them today.

Gordon Garraway Footpaths Advisor

Guests at D’Arcy Dalton’s home in Great Milton.

Join the debate. Join the campaign. Join CPRE

It is with great sadness that CPRE reports on the passing of Richard Asser, long time Committee member of CPRE Banbury District.

Under Richard Asser’s leadership in the 1970s, latterly as Chairman, the CPRE Banbury District Committee was able to save much of the medieval character of Banbury, including the Market Square, although property developers succeeded in destroying the original Banbury Cake Shop. A Pyrrhic victory was the Methodist Chapel, where the facade was protected, but the developers preserved only the columns and plinth.

Richard Asser and his wife Jane moved to Tadmarton Manor in north Oxfordshire in 1961, where they lived for over 50 years and brought up their three children.

He owned a 200-acre farm and in his “spare time”, he farmed it himself under the guidance of, and with the practical help from a neighbour whose family had farmed for generations.

Living in the same village for over fifty years, he led the campaign, with a few others, to raise a huge sum of money to buy the village school from the diocese so that the community could use it as a village hall. For the millennium, the church bells were recast and rehung, another initiative which Richard helped bring to fruition. He served as Chairman of Tadmarton Parish Council and the Village Hall Committee for very many years.

For St Nicholas Church, Tadmarton, where his ashes are buried, he was a member of the Parochial Church Council and became Churchwarden.

Richard was a source of wisdom, probity and strength in the running of organisations, large and small.

He would never give up, however apparently hopeless the cause, and very often his persistence paid off.

CPRE Oxfordshire will remember Richard with great affection.

11

Out and about in 2017 with CPRE Phil Crockett

The first of our events this year in July, was an opportunity for CPRE members to visit Ardley for a guided tour of the new waste processing plant operated

by Viridor. Readers may remember that CPRE opposed the building of the giant incineration facility because of fears about its impact on the surrounding countryside and possible traffic problems. This visit, however, was to see the plant in operation and to hear from the management the current situation on waste treatment and disposal in the county. There is also an excellent gallery display for visitors of all ages (including a dinosaur made from recovered items!).

Ardley takes all the non-recyclable household waste from the whole county (and some from neighbouring areas too).

An unforgettable sight is the Everest of rubbish of all sorts being picked up in giant grabs and fed into the furnace, all viewed from a control room so clinically clean it could be NASA. At the end of the process the residual ash is separated from any metal (which goes for

Viridor are keen to emphasise that they wish to educate the public in the importance of waste reduction and in the economics of recycling. For example, much of the cardboard packaging which the more diligent of us have been carefully sorting into our recyclables is, in fact, made of such degraded pulp that it is more environmentally beneficial to feed it into the flames at Ardley than to use energy in trying to recycle it.

As for the impact of the plant on the locality, while the building is massive it sits low in a disused quarry area and the surrounding landscaping, very immature at the moment, will obviously do a lot to lessen its impact.

Gill Salway

us to browse through while we had our lunch. It was fascinating to see what CPRE had been involved in in its early days.

Phil Crockett

In August, CPRE members visited the Museum of English Rural Life (MERL) at the University of Reading. We had an excellent volunteer guide who led us through the numerous galleries which contained thousands of exhibits from large farm wagons to small items of equipment dating back several centuries.

Many of the items on display were familiar to us and brought cries of, ‘I saw that in my mother’s kitchen!’ or ‘I recall seeing a machine like that working in the fields when I was little!’ or ‘Do you remember….?’

recycling) and turned into compressed blocks for building. The heat generated is used to run the plant itself and has the potential to be used to power local homes and businesses. We were taken through the whole installation, even allowed a peep (through toughened glass) into the furnace.

Interestingly, many CPRE papers are deposited in the museum archives and lists of these papers were available for

Our final visit of 2017 was to Deddington, where a dozen of us were given a most enjoyable guided tour by Chris Day, Chairman of the Deddington and District History Society. We started in the impressive Church of St. Peter and St. Paul where Chris explained that at the time of the Domesday Book, Deddington was valued twice as highly as nearby Banbury, hence the remains of a Norman castle, the large church and the many imposing buildings.

However, as Banbury grew in importance, Deddington stagnated and failed to flourish as a market town, which perhaps was a blessing. Although there are some large housing developments taking place now, the centre of the village around the Market Place is largely unchanged and the outskirts are not full of warehouses and shopping precincts.

Oxfordshire Voice

Branch Office

CPRE Online

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

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

Oxfordshire: www.cpreoxon.org.uk

One gallery houses the only permanent exhibition of Ladybird Books in the world, with much original artwork on display. (The university archive contains some 20,000 Ladybird illustrations.)

These iconic books brought back many childhood memories.

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

T: 01491 612079 E: administrator@cpreoxon.org.uk

Castle House, Deddington

After an excellent lunch at the Deddington Arms, we went on a walk through the village with its beautiful ironstone buildings which glowed golden in the afternoon sun. Chris talked knowledgeably and entertainingly of the architecture and history of the houses and businesses. We agreed that we had had a most informative and happy day and we are all the more determined that CPRE should continue to try to protect historic villages like Deddington from being overwhelmed by inappropriate and insensitive development.

Judy Crockett

Twitter: @CPREOxfordshire www.facebook.com/CPREOxfordshire National: www.cpre.org.uk