Voice spring 2017

Spring 2017

Oxfordshire www.cpreoxon.org.uk

End of the Road?

No justification for ÂŁ3.5bn Expressway

voice

Housing White Paper Will Government proposals work for Oxfordshire?

Water, Water Everywhere Thames Water plans for massive increase in demand

OXFORDSHIRE

Voice Spring 2017

Features 2 Chairman’s voice 3 Oxfordshire Local Plan round-up 4 Green Belt siege intensifies 5 No justification for £3.5bn Expressway 6 Housing White Paper 8 A Better Oxfordshire?

9 Water water everywhere 10 Need not Greed Oxfordshire – update 11 CPRE Members’ Events 12 Branch AGM, 1 July DIRECTORY Views expressed in the Voice are not necessarily those of CPRE Oxfordshire, which welcomes independent comment.

Editor: Helena Whall Cover: Site of 1,400 house Crab Hill development, Wantage.

Photo: Rick Munday Articles, letters, comments and suggestions for articles are welcome. Please contact the Branch Office below. Published April 2017 District Chairmen CPRE Oxfordshire Branch Brian Wood 01869 337904 Brianwood77@aol.com 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 rjh@ceh.ac.uk Vale of White Horse: Dr. Peter Collins St Edmund Hall, Oxford OX1 4AR 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 This will be my last Voice, as I will be stepping down as Chairman of CPRE Oxfordshire after the AGM on 1 July. The Branch Executive Committee will be putting forward the name of the person we recommend to the AGM to be elected as Chairman to take over from me.

It has been an action-packed five years, with the National Planning Policy Framework in 2011 completely changing the planning system – not for the better in our view. We have had to contend with the baleful influence of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) which is supposed to be an Objective Assessment of Need but which has proved to be anything but. This has led to inflated housing targets being set for all districts, and in particular Oxford City. This has in turn led to a period when speculative developers have believed that they had an opportunity to build the wrong sort of houses in mostly the wrong places.

Because the City has not produced a Local Plan there has been no discussion or consultation about the number of houses they have identified as Oxford’s unmet need, which is having to be met elsewhere in the districts.

We believe that the Oxford City figures should be much lower, and many more

houses could be built in the City itself.

It is ridiculous that when everyone agrees there is an imbalance between jobs and houses in Oxford, the City is continuing to make the situation worse by increasing employment at the Westgate Centre, the Northern Gateway and Osney Mead.

To make matters worse the City argues that the houses must be as close to the City as possible which means of course in the Oxford Green Belt. We continue to argue that Oxford, built on a floodplain, with two rivers flowing through it, and a crippling traffic system cannot be thought of as the right centre for a larger conurbation. We continue to argue that the Green Belt is essential to maintain the setting of the University City and should not be built on.

I cannot complete this piece without saying how fortunate I have been to have such splendid staff during my period as Chairman. I could not have had a better Director than Helen Marshall whose knowledge, initiative and work effort has been outstanding.

Ably assisted by Helena Whall and Becky Crockett. I would like to thank them all for the splendid support they have provided during my time as Chairman. I would hope that they will continue to support my successor, and I wish them all the very best fortune in the future.

Brian Wood Chairman, CPRE Oxfordshire

WANTED: Volunteers for South Oxfordshire!

Do you live in South Oxfordshire and have an interest in the local landscape and/ or planning issues? If you could spare an hour or two a month to help our local committee, then we would love to hear from you!

Our CPRE South Oxfordshire District has a small committee of volunteers who monitor and respond to planning and landscape issues across the area and provide advice and support to local communities. But we need your help!

We are currently seeking a District Treasurer. This is a volunteer role. The committee meets on a quarterly basis. This

post would require a few hours per month, including the writing and presentation of quarterly accounts.

We are also looking for local people who can inform the committee of any speculative developer presentations and planning applications. The committee needs help in being kept aware of potential threats to our countryside and seeks local knowledge to inform and support any committee responses.

Want to find out more?

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

CPRE Oxfordshire voice Spring 2017

Oxfordshire Local Plan round-up Cherwell CPRE put in a detailed response to the consultation on Cherwell’s Local Plan Part 1 Review, accommodating 4,400 houses as part of Oxford’s ‘unmet need’.

This is clearly targeting the Green Belt, especially around Kidlington and North Oxford. The next stage is consultation on a Proposed Submission Document due May-June 2017. We understand consultation on the Local Plan Part Two (non-strategic site allocations and development management policies) is now scheduled for September-October 2017.

You can see CPRE’s response at: http://bit.ly/2jBd9yx

Oxford City Oxford District Council is taking its first steps towards producing a new Local Plan for the City. It is currently summarising all the responses to its First Steps consultation, which closed last August. Meanwhile, it is working on a number of technical studies to help inform the development of the Local Plan. Of these, it has now completed the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment and Employment Land Assessment.

Informed by these technical studies and the responses to its First Steps consultation, the City will draft a Preferred Options document, due for consultation this summer. This will identify various policy options for addressing the issues identified and to help deliver the City’s vision.

The Council will also start to consider sites for housing and employment uses and is calling for developers and others to submit potential sites for consideration.

If you want to have a say in the future of Oxford, the City has published an online survey –Your Oxford, in which it asks members of the public to comment on a short list of key priorities for the City, identified during

the First Steps consultation.

Your Oxford survey: http://bit.ly/2n77fKV

South Oxfordshire South Oxfordshire District Council is continuing work on its new Local Plan.

The emerging Local Plan will set out how development will be planned and delivered across South Oxfordshire to 2033. It began work on the new Local Plan in 2014 and has undertaken three consultations.

Its most recent consultation on Preferred Options took place between June and August 2016.

The council has considered the key themes raised in the Preferred Options consultation and is now carrying out a second Preferred Options consultation (this closes on 17 May).

It includes three strategic sites - 3,500 homes proposed at Culham, 3,000 at Chalgrove Airfield and 2,100 at Berinsfield. As expected the Council has rejected plans for 3,500 homes at Grenoble Road. CPRE will be responding to this consultation shortly.

SODC intend to publish the final version of its Local Plan before the end of 2017, at which time the public will have a further opportunity to make its views known.

See responses to Preferred Options consultation: http://bit.ly/2nuBWJ1

Vale of White Horse The Vale Local Plan Part Two (LPP2) Preferred Options consultation is now open and will run until 4 May. Part Two: l sets out strategic policies and locations for strategic housing for the agreed amount of Oxford’s unmet housing need to be addressed within the Vale of White Horse District (the total number of houses arising from the Preferred

Join the debate. Join the campaign. Join CPRE

Options is 24,718, a figure greater than the required 22,760), l contains policies for the part of Didcot Garden Town that lies within the Vale of White Horse District, l contains detailed development management policies to complement the Local Plan Part 1, replacing the saved policies of the Local Plan 2011, and l allocates additional development sites for housing and other uses.

LPP2 proposes several ‘larger’ sites to deliver the numbers required.

Dalton Barracks near Abingdon is to accommodate some 1,200 houses, with serious ramifications for the surrounding Green Belt and the nearby village of Shippon, while Kingston Bagpuize/Fyfield could get as many as 600 houses. Amongst the ‘smaller’ sites, Grove is due to get 300 houses, Hanney 130, whilst Marcham could get up to 520 houses. The Plan proposes 1,000 houses at Harwell Campus with another 100 in the village of Harwell, with its attendant impact on the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Publication of the Draft Local Plan Part Two is expected in late summer/early autumn 2017.

West Oxfordshire CPRE submitted a response to the recent consultation on the Main Modifications to West Oxfordshire’s draft Local Plan and has requested to be present at the second stage of the Local Plan Examination to make a representation regarding its views.

All representations received during the consultation have been submitted to the Inspector together with the proposed modifications and supporting documentation.

Hearings into the Local Plan start again on 9 May. You can see CPRE’s response at: http://bit.ly/2oxoPrK 3

Green Belt siege intensifies How can it be that whilst every Government always says it will die in a ditch to protect the Green Belt, Councils are continually being supported by the Secretary of State in lopping bits off, and, in some cases, ordered to do so against their own wishes?

(See article on Housing White Paper on pp.6-7)

The result is pressure on Councils to release ever choicer land in the hope of tempting reluctant builders to develop it. The choicest land of all for housing development is the Green Belt. It is green fields, easy to build on, and also (in the case of Oxfordshire), hard up against the City with its shops and restaurants, and easy commuting to London, and moreover straightforward to sell.

In Oxfordshire these problems are compounded with a perfect storm of a City Council dedicated for the past thirty years to reckless expansionism; some District Councils who put protecting the Green Belt last, not first, as they should; and a Green Belt largely owned by greedy colleges who would see the value of their land increase twenty fold or more if planning permission was granted. The consortium led

by Magdalen College, which owns 4

B

Blackbird Leys

Littlemore

Kassam Stadium

Oxford Science Park

le nob

Gre

Sandford

›

rs

Ho

ss ypa

d

Roa

Garsington ›

Magdalen College and its partners want to build a huge urban extension on your doorstep – is this what you want?

74

On the other hand they have also committed themselves to building far more houses than the market needs or builders can construct, and are continually ratcheting up the threats to Councils which fail to meet these clearly impossible objectives.

Easte r n

A40

The reason why the Government proclaim undying support for the Green Belt is easy to understand. Not because protecting this unique bit of our heritage is the right thing to do, although it is, but because they are politicians and know that is what the public, who overwhelmingly condemn building in the Green Belt, want to hear.

h

t pa

the greater part of the Green Belt agricultural land it is promoting for development south of Grenoble Road, would make an income of £650 million out of a scheme involving just 3,000 houses (see map above of the proposed urban extension south of the City).

We are still waiting for the planning application for 3,000 houses in the Green Belt south of Grenoble Road to be submitted by the consortium led by Magdalen College. In the meantime, we have responded to a pre-application consultation on the proposed ‘South Oxford Science Village’ held by Cratus Communications, acting on behalf of the consortium. See our Green Belt Campaign webpage for more details (see below).

Brasenose is promoting Green Belt development just to the east of Magdalen’s scheme; Christ Church to the north of Oxford at Elsfield; the University itself at Begbroke; St John’s at the Northern Gateway. The list goes on. Despite their fine sentiments in public utterances, in truth they are all seeking to secure places at the trough.

GREEN BELT can blame them? Anyone would TheWho Baldons be tempted by profit on this scale.

But it is precisely because building on green fields at City boundaries is so profitable that Green Belt controls needed to be created to protect them from urban sprawl, making Britain the envy of the world for the containment of its cities and the protection of its countryside.

Our Councils should give more attention to the obvious unsustainability of releasing Green Belt land – once gone it is gone forever – and to the overwhelming majority of each of their electorates who recognise this, wish to see the Green Belt kept open, and see housebuilding as the greatest threat to it.

The more noise we all make, the more they will see where their duty lies.

Michael Tyce CPRE Trustee Support CPRE’s Save the Oxford Green Belt Campaign: http://bit.ly/29l5U9N CPRE Oxfordshire voice Spring 2017

No justification for £3.5bn Expressway www.ukconstructionmedia.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Cambridge-Expressway.jpg

National research from CPRE has revealed that roadbuilding is failing to provide the congestion relief and economic boost promised, while devastating the environment.

The End of the Road? report, the largest ever independent review of completed road schemes in England, arrives as the Government proposes an Expressway between Oxford, Milton Keynes and Cambridge that could cost up to £3.5billion and could cut through Oxfordshire causing irreversible damage to the countryside.

There have been a number of possible routes shortlisted for the Expressway, all of which would have a significant impact on the Oxfordshire countryside, including a potential route from the A34 just north of Abingdon which would cut a swathe across open countryside to the M40 near Thame.

Claim –the Expressway will reduce journey times between Oxford, Milton Keynes and Cambridge.

Fact –the CPRE research found that traffic increases much more in road corridors with new schemes than background traffic in the surrounding area. Schemes completed eight to 20 years ago demonstrated a traffic increase of 47%, while traffic more than doubled in one scheme.

Claim –the Expressway will boost the economy –latest proposals identify development opportunities across the corridor for an additional 1 million houses and 700,000 jobs.

Fact –Previous schemes have repeatedly failed to live up to such promises. Of roads promoted for their benefits to the local economy, just one in five demonstrated any evidence at all of economic benefit, and that was weak.

The Oxfordshire-Cambridge region is often referred to as a ‘knowledge corridor’, ‘knowledge spine’ and ‘brain belt’ without any explanation as to why “knowledge” requires the creation of mini motorways across the Oxford Green Belt and green hinterland to transport it. Perhaps, rather than the apparently appealing vision of creating our very own “knowledge intensive silicon valley” the reality of the proposal is about more housing, more jobs and much, much, more long distance road freight?

The recent studies for the Expressway have been described as “a housing growth plan with roads attached”. The prospect of a ribbon of development along the corridor is now a real possibility and concern.

In reality, we understand that the major beneficiary of the creation of an Expressway is the release of road capacity on the M25 and M42 for lorry based freight. This suggests the Oxford to Cambridge corridor, especially when linked to the M3/ A34 from Southampton and A14 from Cambridge to Felixstowe, is primarily seen as an “outer M25” despite masquerading under the more palatable headline of being a “knowledge related corridor.”

Join the debate. Join the campaign. Join CPRE

CPRE continues to challenge the existence of the corridor as an identifiable sub region. We believe that completing East-West rail is an absolute priority and should be delivered before any Expressway development is allowed to adversely affect the Green Belt to the south of Oxford.

We understand that the Department for Transport will shortly release its ‘Roads to Growth’ report, which will outline their proposed route strategies.

Meanwhile, CPRE will continue to raise concerns that the key limiting factor to economic growth in the target towns and cities is the so-called first/last mile connectivity and not a lack of regional port-to-port road freight capacity that would be created by an Expressway. If there is money to spend, the priority should be high quality bus services, well-planned rail services, cycling routes to and from stations and better, and more efficient use of the existing road network.

Colin Thomas CPRE Trustee Take action: See CPRE’s End of the Road? Research http://bit.ly/2nqKjFL 5

Housing White Paper – CPRE’s initia that broader measures are needed to sort out the housing market.

2. Brownfield There’s a welcome focus on brownfield, with the aim of giving ‘great weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements’.

3. Higher density

In March, the Government published its long-awaited Housing White Paper. Titled ‘Fixing our Broken Housing Market’, it set outs how the Government intends to boost housing supply and create ‘a more efficient housing market whose outcomes more closely match the needs and aspirations of all households’.

A consultation on many of the proposals closed at the start of May, but there is still time to feed in your thoughts by writing to your MP and to the Housing Minister, Gavin Barwell.

Local authorities will have to ‘make efficient use of land and avoid building homes at low densities where there is a shortage of land’, and must especially think about higher density in urban locations that are well-served by public transport. CPRE welcomes this move, although we think specific guideline targets should be set.

4. Small to medium sized builders It recognises the dominance of a few big players, and the need to encourage small to medium sized companies, introducing a variety of measures to help bring forward smaller sites.

These announcements are all very much in tune with CPRE campaigning over the last few years. Your support has made a real difference!

Meanwhile, here’s our overview of its key contents – undoubtedly some good ideas (many driven by CPRE campaigns!) but also some deeply worrying proposals.

1. The planning system isn’t to blame for everything!

After several years of systematically trying to undermine the planning system, without any significant effect on housing delivery or prices, the Government is at last acknowledging 6

1. The 5 Year Housing Supply When a District cannot prove it has an adequate 5 Year Housing Supply, it falls prey to speculative development, as so many of Oxfordshire’s communities know to their cost.

This has led to hugely damaging applications from Milton-underWychwood to Benson, Adderbury to Great Coxwell, and is the single biggest source of anger and despair for communities seeking good, plan-led development.

The Housing White Paper at last acknowledges some of the issues, describing the process as a ‘blunt tool’ that has led to ‘some negative effects’.

What an understatement!

Unfortunately, the proposed solution is bizarre, verging on insulting.

The suggestion is that, to avoid ongoing challenges from developers as to whether or not a District has an adequate housing supply, a local authority could apply to have it formally assessed and it would then be fixed for 12 months.

However, in return for this supposed privilege, the District would have to accept an additional 10% buffer, over and above its existing housing targets!

This is simply unacceptable.

There is certainly a lot to consider, and you can see CPRE’s full response on our website.

Good moves

Bad moves

“We’ve not only listened to your input, we’ve taken it on board.

Any honest assessment of the housing white paper will quickly spot the marks of your influence”.

Housing Minister, Gavin Barwell speaking about CPRE at its Annual Lecture.

Providing the right houses in the right place is dependent on a robust Planlead approach and this should always take precedence. If the local authority is failing in its duty to achieve this, then we need mechanisms that incentivise or penalise the authority as a whole. Ultimately, the Government must recognise that it is developers that call the shots on housing supply, not local authorities.

The solution for slow delivery cannot be simply to release more land, CPRE Oxfordshire voice Spring 2017

al response penalising specific communities and jeopardising precious countryside.

TAKE ACTION

See our website for all the latest information on the Housing White Paper and tips on how to respond.

1. The Housing Supply and Delivery rules must change to protect communities from speculative development.

2. Green Belt policy must live up to the rhetoric and deliver protection for future generations.

Why not write to your local MP with two simple messages?

2. Housing delivery test

Why building more houses doesn’t bring down prices Rept0n1X/Wikimedia Commons

Despite acknowledging some of the limitations of the 5 Year Housing Supply rules (looking at future proposed delivery), the White Paper now proposes introducing a similar approach to past housing delivery.

The Housing Delivery Test will look at the number of houses a local authority has delivered over the last three years.

If it starts falling behind, there will be a range of measures culminating in further land release through speculative development – with all the problems outlined above.

3. Green Belt We are delighted that the Government has re-confirmed its manifesto pledge to protect the Green Belt. Sadly, we are not convinced the reality of the White Paper reflects this position.

Where we originally started was that housing need was not of itself an ‘exceptional circumstance’ that justified Green Belt development.

The White Paper now says it is, albeit only after other options have been reasonably explored. (It doesn’t define “reasonably” though). This is therefore a complete reversal of policy.

CPRE Oxfordshire has urged that this is reversed at least to the previous position.

The threats to the Green Belt are real and, far from being ‘exceptional’, are becoming the norm. (See article p.4).

The policy must match the rhetoric and deliver the Green Belt protection that is what the public wants and has been told to expect.

One of the fundamental flaws of the Housing White Paper is the continuing emphasis that simply building more houses will bring down prices. Take this extract from the Prime Minister’s opening statement: ‘I want to fix this

broken market so that housing is more affordable…. The starting point is to build more homes’.

Unfortunately, developers simply aren’t incentivised to build at a rate that will lower their profits. Plus, the housing market is primarily set by existing properties, with new housing having very little effect on the overall situation.

The 2016 Redfern Review, commissioned by builders Taylor Wimpey, agreed that ‘restrictions on new housing supply have not been the main culprit when it comes to price rises over the past 25 years’. It found that even building 300,000 houses a year over 10 years would only cut house price inflation by 0.5% per annum.

Housing targets will be the key The Housing White Paper, and indeed the whole housing market, will stand or fall on whether realistic housing targets can be agreed. Currently, numbers are based on imaginary growth, bearing no relation to past delivery or any sensible prediction of what might be achieved in the future.

This is how Oxfordshire ended up in the ridiculous position of trying to build the equivalent of 2 new Oxfords in 16 years!

The Housing White Paper promises a new standard methodology for calculating ‘Objectively Assessed Need’ ie the housing targets for each local area. At the time of going to

Join the debate. Join the campaign. Join CPRE

press, this has yet to be published for consultation (please check our website for the latest information).

Worryingly, the White Paper drops several hints that it will seek to increase housing in areas of high demand, rather than looking to balance growth across the country in line with the Government’s recent Industrial Strategy. This means there is a strong risk that Oxfordshire numbers could increase still further!

A standard methodology will be welcome, but only if it is based on sensible inputs, not marketing spin.

7

A better Oxfordshire?

As this issue of the Voice goes to print, our local authorities are still discussing (some might say squabbling!) about the various options for the future structure of public administration in Oxfordshire. By the time you read this, it is quite possible that a single unitary structure for the county will have been agreed – but then again, perhaps not!

CPRE Oxfordshire has not taken a position on the overall structure of local authority organisation in Oxfordshire, as we consider that this is beyond our remit.

However, we do have specific concerns which we would wish to see any proposed structure address:

A A county-wide structure plan, with full public engagement and subject to independent scrutiny via an Examination in Public.

Currently, housing and growth targets are set for the county as a whole, but the actual planning for

these is taken forward via Districtlevel Local Plans, guided by the unaccountable Oxfordshire Growth Board. This means there is no adequate assessment of cumulative environmental and social impacts, no county-wide strategic planning, and poor public accountability. Whatever organisational structure is finally agreed, it is vital that there is a countywide strategic plan to address these issues.

To ensure there is full public engagement, this must be subject to independent scrutiny via public examination led by a Planning Inspector.

B A balance of rural and urban interests CPRE believes that Oxfordshire’s rural character is an essential element of the quality of life of all our local residents (city, town and village dwellers).

Decisions about future levels of growth and how this can be accommodated and/or mitigated must therefore take this into account, alongside economic considerations. In CPRE’s view, a full consultation on the desirability or otherwise of the current growth strategy should take place, before the sea-change to the County it envisages becomes irrevocable.

C Protection of the Green Belt The Oxford Green Belt performs a vital role in constraining the expansion of the City, protecting its historic character and the surrounding villages.

Any new structure should be based on a strong statement in favour of protection of the entirety of the Oxford Green Belt, subject only to truly exceptional circumstances.

Dark Skies matter Darkness at night is one of the things that defines the countryside and makes it so different from towns and cities. But that darkness is disappearing, and with it our view of the stars and planets.

CPRE has used satellite data to create maps which show how much light pollution there is in England. Nationwide, the satellite maps show that just 22% of England is untouched by light pollution, and that light pollution is rapidly increasing in the South East, leaving less and less countryside where we can still enjoy starry, starry nights.

According to CPRE, there are no truly dark skies left in Oxfordshire.

It has the smallest proportion of its total land area within the truly dark category – just 1%.

Vital role played by our AONBs 53% of our our darkest skies are over National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs), demonstrating the vital role played by AONBs in Oxfordshire – covering almost one quarter of the land area – in protecting and enhancing our experience of the countryside. CPRE is campaiging to ensure all new development in our AONBs does not increase light pollution.

See ‘Night Blight’ by CPRE: http://bit.ly/2oVdJJn

8

CPRE Oxfordshire voice Spring 2017

Water water everywhere: Thames Water plans for a massive increase in water demand across the south-east Thames Water are making plans to increase the supply of water across the Thames Basin by 40% by 2080. These plans will be crystallised in their next Water Resources Management Plan in 2019 (WRMP19). Underlying these plans are government instructions that the South-East (and particularly London) must not run out of water and water must not present a constraint to economic growth.

GARD (Group Against Reservoir Development) is campaigning hard against the proposed reservoir at Abingdon. CPRE supports this campaign and is working closely alongside GARD – questioning, first, the growth figures underlying the case and calling for all other options to be considered before more valuable countryside is irretrievably lost. www.abingdonreservoir.org.uk

Thames Water are currently assessing a large range of options to meet this target. They lose 25% of water in leaks and so their reduction should be a priority. Leak reduction is expensive and causes immense disruption to households and the road system, but to replace aging pipes is a good investment for the future. Water metering can both help pinpoint leaks and help consumers reduce their water use. Currently only one third of households have meters; although Thames Water plan to increase this to 75% by 2025, progress is very slow particularly getting meters into blocks of flats in London.

A second, and more contentious, strategy is to increase the supply of water, particularly during droughts.

A wide range of potential projects are being looked at, including: improved treatment of sewerage, desalination, increased groundwater extraction, water transfers from the River Severn and a new upper Thames reservoir. The last two are obviously of direct interest to Oxfordshire.

Bringing water from the River Severn has considerable promise. Water could be transferred either through the disused Cotswold Canal or through a dedicated pipeline. However, there are dangers, the water chemistry in the lower Severn is very different from the Thames and there is also the danger of the spread on invasive species – like the zebra mussel and killer shrimp.

There are also some ‘interesting’ institutional problems! The Vyrnwy

Thames Water scoping map of the reservoir option near Abingdon.

reservoir is owned by United Utilities, the river water is ‘owned’ by Severn and Trent and, of course, the Welsh Government has a strong interest.

Finally there is the new reservoir.

Thames started out with a list of 55 potential sites, this was whittled down to three: Chinnor, Marsh Gibbon and Abingdon. Most recently Abingdon has been identified as the cheapest option. This would be a four square mile (150M.m3) reservoir to the south of Abingdon and east of the A34 (lying between Steventon, Hanney, Drayton and Marcham). A smaller scheme

Join the debate. Join the campaign. Join CPRE

was rejected by a Public Enquiry in 2010 (at which CPRE objected to the scheme) and there are many negatives, not the least the loss of valuable farmland, loss of houses and disruption to the rural community.

Technically there are also doubts about whether a reservoir would help in an extreme, three year drought – the very eventuality these schemes are designed to guard against. Thames Water will officially declare their list of preferred options later this year.

Richard Harding CPRE Water Advisor 9

What do we want?

Update The coalition now has more than 30 members and we recently organised a successful annual review meeting where groups were able to exchange experiences and information.

The meeting also provided members with an opportunity to consider campaign successes over the past year, as well as challenges, and the way ahead.

Successes and challenges We had three main campaign objectives when the coalition was formed in January 2016: • To raise public awareness of the disparity between “need” and “greed”; • To force a reassessment by the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP), Growth Board and constituent Local Authorities of the developer-led, aggressive growth strategy being imposed on the county; and • To demand that Local Authorities and the LEP engage in sustained, transparent and meaningful stakeholder consultation and engagement.

We have had a significant impact in raising public awareness, not least in persuading several hundred people to

respond to the Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) consultation, with the vast majority referencing NNGO concerns. However, there is still a long way to go in raising overall public consciousness of the issues.

Disappointingly, there has been no change to the overall targets. However, we believe there is much greater awareness of the level of concern felt by local people in relation to the growth strategy. On a positive note, an expert panel set up by Government to look at Local Plans has recommended taking aggressive growth targets out of the calculation of housing numbers, and the recent Housing White Paper has recognised that the 5 Year Housing Supply Rules are a ‘blunt tool’ that have had ‘some negative effects on local planning’.

NNGO forced a much-improved public consultation (including the SEP being reviewed at some full Council meetings) and limited improvements in the final SEP document.

The Way Ahead The original focus for the coalition was the refresh of the Oxfordshire Strategic Economic Plan. Now that the revised Plan has been published, we have reconsidered our priorities for the year ahead.

Thank you!

Thanks to the wonderful generosity of all our supporters, we are delighted to report that our fundraising appeal last autumn hit its target of £20,000. This means that we have been able to continue investing time and resources in all our campaigns work, including challenging the growth strategy for Oxfordshire, protecting the Green Belt and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and fighting for the right development in the right place. This newsletter gives you an update on all these issues and hopefully shows how we are putting your donations to very good use.

If you would like any further information, please do get in touch. Thank you!

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

10

Sustainable, democratically accountable planning in Oxfordshire • Increased awareness of the difference between “need” and “greed”, • Robust strategic planning for Oxfordshire as a whole, • A move away from the concept of Oxford/Oxfordshire as the most appropriate location for a growth hub, • Changes in the national planning system to ensure local decisionmaking takes priority (not greedy developers), and • Realistic housing targets – the right homes in the right places and at the right prices.

What are we going to do? a) Use the opportunity of potential devolution / local authority restructuring to press for a countywide Structure Plan, open to full public scrutiny and ongoing public engagement. b) Engage with the Oxfordshire Infrastructure Strategy (OXIS) by monitoring and responding as necessary. c) Engage with the County Council elections (to be held in May 2017) by contacting all candidates to seek their support for sustainable, democratically accountable planning in Oxfordshire. d) Respond to the Housing White Paper (published in February 2017) objecting to any attempts to increase housing targets in areas of ‘high demand’, such as Oxfordshire, while pushing for the definition of ‘affordable housing’ to be linked back to ability to pay. e) Act as a source of information exchange for our members, including advice on planning and campaign tactics. f) Work to expose conflict of interests within the system. g) Build alliances with other organisations whose campaign work is in line with our objectives.

TAKE ACTION Support the campaign: www.neednotgreedoxon.org.uk CPRE Oxfordshire voice Spring 2017

State of Nature in Oxfordshire 2017 the Turtle Dove. However, the area of woodland recorded in the county over the last 30 years has increased.

species, including long-term trends and more recent losses and gains.

Compiled from data supplied by over 60 local recording groups and organisations, including CPRE, key findings include:

• There is continued fragmentation and loss of connectivity across the county’s landscapes, affecting the future viability of habitats and species.

• Despite widespread historic loss of species-rich semi-natural grasslands, Oxfordshire still has some of the rarest and finest grasslands in the country.

The State of Nature in Oxfordshire 2017 is a ground-breaking report by local conservation charity, Wild Oxfordshire.

It paints the most comprehensive picture to date of the state of Oxfordshire’s natural habitats and

The report makes clear that our local environment faces challenges from rapid development, changes in farming practices and climate change.

It calls for action to put sustainable development that invests in nature at the heart of local decision-making, and argues that we urgently need to create larger and more connected areas of high quality habitats.

• Our rivers are much cleaner than they were 30 years ago, and targeted action has helped the recovery of local populations of threatened species, such as Water Vole and Otter.

• Long-term declines in farmland and woodland biodiversity continue, with some associated species in serious risk of extinction, such as

For more information and a copy of the report see: www.wildoxfordshire. org.uk/stateofnature

CPRE Members’ Events

challenge perceptions about rural life.

The building is fully accessible to all.

Programme: 2017

Details will also be added to the CPRE Oxfordshire website under ‘Events’. Non-members are welcome to these events, but priority for places will be given to CPRE members.

Jeroen Komen

The full details of the members’ events programme for this year are included on the flyer sent out with the mailing of the Voice to all members.

The museum is free but a voluntary donation may be made to museum funds.

Guided visit to Deddington Saturday 7th October – 11.00am Deddington is an attractive village, 6 miles from Banbury, built in the local dark honey-coloured stone. It has a market place, church dating from the 13th century and striking earthworks which are all that remain of the Norman motte and bailey castle.

The visit is free and there is no limit on numbers.

Ardley Viridor Waste Facility Wednesday 19th July 1.00pm - 3.00pm

Visit to the Museum of English Rural Life at Reading University

On this visit, led by the staff of the operating company, Viridor, members will have an opportunity to see the plant in operation with expert information on the technology involved.

Thursday 24th August - 10.30am The Museum of English Rural Life has reopened recently after a £3 million redevelopment project. This has radically transformed the public displays and the new museum aims to

Join the debate. Join the campaign. Join CPRE

The visit to this historic village and church will inevitably involve some steps but should not be too arduous.

Cost £5.00 to be shared between the church and Local History Society You can find out more and register your interest in the first instance by contacting: Becky Crockett, Administrator Tel: 01491 612079 E: administrator@cpreoxon.org.uk 11

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

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

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