Statement of Case on the County Structure Plan 2004

We support the deletion from policy H1 of the proposal of an urban extension to Oxford on the land south of Grenoble Road. We do not support the Plan promoting a revision of the Green Belt boundary to allow more development in Central Oxfordshire.

This is because:

1. The original decision was ill thought through and hasty and not based on appropriate research.
   
   
2. It suggests a shift of strategic policy which would endanger the Green Belt throughout Oxfordshire and, possibly, beyond.
   
   
3. It has given rise to a bidding war by developers which poses a real and dangerous threat to Green Belt parishes such as Sunningwell.
   
   
4. Any proposed revision of the Green Belt will, we feel, result in the strategically unsound development of Oxford City and bring about the centralisation of jobs, housing, transport and general infrastructure, all in contradiction to the strategically sound and proven policy of "developing country towns" as currently adopted
   
   

2.0 Introduction

1. We are a rural parish in the heart of Oxford’s Green Belt. There are 740 on the electoral roll. There are seven parish councillors, five of whom, including the chair, were elected in a hard fought contest in May 2003. Two co-opted members have replaced originally elected members who have moved on. Our annual precept is about £14000.
   
   
2. The parish comprises four distinct settlements: Sunningwell Village; the hamlet of Bayworth; about half of Boars Hill; the Long Furlong area.
   
   
3. There are several significant areas of ancient woodland in our parish as well as the Glebe or common. The remainder is high grade agricultural land, most of which is owned by the Wilcox family and on which they are proposing to build up to 6000 houses.
   
   
4. The parish council has taken a consistent stand against this proposal since reading about it in the local press about a year ago. An immediate survey of parishioners revealed overwhelming support for the parish council to continue its opposition.
   
   
5. Two public meetings, both attended by Mr E G Wilcox, confirmed the parish’s expectations that the council should actively oppose the proposal with all the energy it could bring to bear on the issue.
   
   
6. Since the earliest stage in this process, Sunningwell Parish Council has supported the work of “Sunningwell Parishioners Against Damage to the Environment” and gives full endorsement to the arguments found in its submitted statement of case to the EIP.
   
   
7. At the first public meeting on 7^th October 2003 about 180 parishioners attended and were astonished to hear Mr Wilcox explain his plans. He claimed he wished to build 2000 houses on a site adjacent to the A34. He claimed his motivation was to provide a more suitable site for the expansion of Oxford City into the Green Belt than the Grenoble Road site proposed and announced his formal objection to its inclusion in the Structure Plan on these grounds. He also laboured the “eco-friendly” nature of his proposal. Many questions were asked, but the answers were found to be unsatisfactorily vague by those attending.
   
   
8. By the time the next meeting (attendance over 200) was held on 7^th January 2004, it had become public knowledge that, in fact, 6000 houses were planned to cover all of Mr Wilcox’s land, most of which abuts directly on to all the settlements in the parish as well as part of Wootton.
   
   
9. This was, in our view, confirmation that Mr Wilcox’s motivation was entirely financial self interest. As far as the parish council is able to ascertain, support for his proposal in the parish is virtually nil.
   
   
10. We are making this statement of case because we believe the original decision by Oxfordshire County Council to develop land south of Grenoble road and to breach the Green Belt without just cause has allowed E.G.Wilcox and other landowner/agents to argue that the original decision sets a precedent for alternative/further development in the Green Belt against long held policy, common sense, logic and principle. We support the withdrawal of the original decision, as will be seen below.
    
    

3.0 Grenoble Road

“Is the County Council right in its decision to propose the deletion from Policy H1 of an urban extension to Oxford on land south of Grenoble Road?”

Sunningwell Parish Council takes the view that Oxfordshire County Council is right to delete from Policy H1 the proposal of an urban extension to Oxford on land south of Grenoble Road

As a parish, we feel threatened and betrayed by the proposal. Mr Wilcox would never have had the opportunity to place his objection beyond district council level and suggest our parish as an alternative if the proposal had not been made in the first place.

The development of land south of Grenoble Road is wrong on several counts:

1. The decision was a reaction to lobbying by one county councillor objecting to the original housing allocation in his constituency. This was, no doubt, accompanied by lobbying from those with direct financial interests in the land itself. The decision was taken hurriedly on the basis of one afternoon’s debate, and little thought appears to have been given at that time to the consequences.
   
   
2. The decision directly contradicted the County Council’s own Green Belt policies established over many years and which are still to be found in the Plan. Within the text of the Plan it is clear that the paragraphs dealing with this last minute insertion are somewhat at odds with the rest of the county’s policy statements on the Green Belt.
   
   
3. Most importantly, there is no proof, or even argument, relating to the exceptional need which must, according to the council’s own policy, be demonstrated before Green Belt Land can be released for development. All arguments seem to be predicated on a generally unchallenged view that there is a worrying housing shortage and “something has to be done”.
   
   
4. It proposed a specific site for development, something contradictory to the regulations regarding development allocation strategy at this level. Arguments since put forward about the generality of the proposal are unconvincing.
   
   
5. Prior to the decision, there was no appropriate survey of available non Green Belt land for the purpose of the provision of affordable housing.
   
   
6. There was no consultation on this proposal, nor was there any warning for those most likely to be affected by it. The consultation came after the decision through the mechanics of the planning process. The inevitable suspicion is that it was felt nobody would notice. In the event, it led to an unprecedented number of objections, a large proportion of which came from this parish. It is clear these objections and the quality of the arguments applied in them led to the reversal of the original decision.
   
   
7. There doesn't appear to have been any rigorous assessment of housing or employment need in relation to the proposed development. There was no analysis which indicates the precise nature of the problem addressed by this proposal. Nor were there any consequent plans based on such an analysis which match up a proposed solution with the nature of the problem itself.
   
   
8. Further to this, there were no controls imposed to regulate the nature of the proposed development. There is no guarantee that a decision to develop land to the south of Grenoble Road would even begin to address the affordable housing problem. There is, however, the strong possibility that much of the development could comprise an extension to the current Oxford Science park.
   
   
9. We are not aware of any costs built into this plan relating to the subsidisation of the provision of affordable homes, nor is there any indication of the costs related to the provision of suitable infrastructure.
   
   
10. We are also concerned about the cost to the council tax payer of the removal of the structures belonging to the water and electricity companies, and have further concerns about to where they may be removed. Is the plan to place them in another Green Belt site?
    
    
11. Beyond all the above points, by far and away the most important consideration is the fact that high landscape value Green Belt land will be lost if the proposal is not confirmed as withdrawn. Developers will have us believe the Grenoble Road site is of little landscape or agricultural merit and will concentrate our thoughts on that part of the site which is dominated by the ugly network of cables, girders and concrete associated with the water and electricity companies. In fact, especially from the perspective of the heights occupied by Barclay Farms, the land is, in our view, of high landscape value and is clearly productive arable land. Furthermore, it sustains a significant quantity of wildlife. Not only are the usual deer, fox, badger, rabbit, buzzard, kestrel, woodpecker etc. present, but also the rare English partridge. It appears bizarre that land on Barclay Farms currently supported by the government’s “DEFRA Countryside Stewardship Scheme” and managed for the well being of the local ecology should be threatened by the encroachment of commercial development on the adjacent land.
    
    

3.0 The Green Belt

“Should the plan propose a revision of the Green Belt boundary to allow more development in Central Oxfordshire, and, if so in what general locations?”

1. We are very firmly of the view that the plan should not propose a revision of the Green Belt boundary to allow more development in Central Oxfordshire. Furthermore, we object very strongly to the asking of this question in the EIP. It is not appropriate to convert the EIP into the planning decision making body on an issue as contentious and deeply significant as the possible breaching of the Green Belt. Essentially, we are being invited to comment on a proposal to deregulate the Green Belt in Oxfordshire. This threatened deregulation is already producing a worrying bidding war by entrepreneurs, developers and landowners to take control of what is an asset held in common and convert it into a profit making project for the few and their associated shareholders. We strongly object in principle to any revision of the boundary and we do not believe there is any exceptional case for such demonstrated.
   
   
2. Another unfortunate consequence of the original decision to breach the Green Belt is to have allowed a general assumption of a shift of strategy in planning terms for the whole of Oxfordshire. Any such shift, in our view, would be wrong.
   
   
3. Oxfordshire has followed a very successful policy of “developing the country towns” with special reference to Banbury, Bicester, Didcot, Wantage, Thame, Henley, Abingdon and Witney. This has led to the spread of increased housing availability and the welcome development of commerce and industry throughout the area. There are many new trading estates/ business parks large and small now supporting the economy and still capable of further expansion. Modern developments tend to be knowledge and technology based and location, although important, does not need to be centred on one spot. Electronic communications have allowed whole “virtual” business communities to develop together without them having to be geographically close.
   
   
4. In our view, it would be a mistake of catastrophic proportions to change strategy now and aim to place all significant development in Oxford City. Not all roads lead to Oxford, but the ones that do are, unfortunately, increasingly gridlocked. Any change in strategy building up Oxford at the expense of other county towns and the Green Belt will only serve to exacerbate the problems of traffic and communication already in evidence.
   
   
5. We believe that this perceived shift in strategy would also lead to calls for the expansion of Oxford City beyond sustainability and that excessive sprawl will result, with other settlements such as Abingdon and Didcot being subsumed within an urban spread. This could produce a conurbation several times the current size of Oxford City stretching some twenty miles from Kidlington to Didcot. This parish feels such a move is unacceptable. We do not see any advantage in the local economy simply being allowed to “let rip.”
   
   
6. Planning responsibility is about to shift from the locally elected county council to the remote and unelected South East England Regional Assembly. We believe it is vital for the county council in its current plan to leave a firm marker for the new authority and make it absolutely plain that local people do not see any advantage in a shift of strategic policy and that the concentration of resources, jobs and housing on an expanded Oxford City would be unacceptable. It would only produce yet another cloned large anonymous urban spread and the unique quality and presence of Oxford City set within its protected boundaries of Green Belt would be lost forever.
   
   
7. We are disappointed that Oxford City Council has been following a policy of business expansion in the city at the expense of the provision of affordable housing. Opportunities have been missed in the recent past. Oxford Gaol is becoming a hotel and shopping complex; the land vacated by Rover was used to erect a very large commercial sports centre and a hotel as well as another supermarket. Much of the affordable stock in other parts of the city requires significant remedial improvement. We do not think it is appropriate that pressures which have been allowed to build up within the city from missed opportunities should find their release from penetration into the Green Belt.
   
   
8. We feel that any change to strategy which allows the expansion of the city into the Green Belt also carries with it the risk that the very qualities of Oxford and its surroundings which new businesses and skilled/highly qualified professionals find attractive will be lost or diminished and socio-economic development in the future could be less advantageous for the area than currently claimed.
   
   
9. Quality of life is paramount. If good quality exists, it should be preserved and not destroyed. The Green Belt parishes provide an enhancement to the quality of life for all; for Oxford City itself, for those living there and for all the many visitors from far and wide in cars, on horseback, cycle and their own two feet who pass through regularly every week.
   
   
10. No doubt we will be accused of nimbyism. If that were true, we would not care about proposals for development elsewhere in the county, so long as it were not here. This is not the case. We care passionately about the natural resources owned by all in the county and argue in the strongest possible terms for their preservation. The Green Belt is not just the “backyard” of those who live in it: it belongs to us all and is used by us all and is valued by us all. It should not be tampered with except under the most extreme circumstances.
    
    
11. In Sunningwell parish the perceived shift of strategic policy has prompted the bid from a landowner to lay waste to the Green Belt land here and build up to 6000 houses. We find this strategically unacceptable as it is not a proposal which emanates from any agreed wider strategical policy for Oxfordshire or the south east. It is an opportunist bolt-on proposal which has dangerous future implications for the maintenance of the Green Belt. It should be resisted at all costs.
    
    
12. It would be easy to dismiss Sunningwell parish as a minor patch of farmland and a few houses within the larger landscape long overdue for development and modernisation. It is not. People come here to live and breathe and re-create themselves. We are a welcome resource. The land itself has immense value. For such a small parish, it has a surprisingly high biodiversity. This is mainly because it contains significant areas of mature oak woodland, a habitat which, until recently, was under increasing threat from the creep of the ubiquitous alien conifer. Here we are used to coming across deer, fox, rabbit, badger, buzzard, kestrel, greater spotted woodpecker, tree creeper, nuthatch etc. together with the wide range of associated insects and small creatures such as voles and mice and, apparently, spectacled worms. Within the centre of the parish is the Glebe, now famous as the area of land protected from developers by the parish through pursuing the case through the courts as far as the House of Lords. This is unimproved pasture land and has biodiversity interest worthy of specialist study.
    
    
13. We are small. But we are special. We have a cricket club with a cricket ground and a pavilion. We have a village pond, a pub and a church which was built centuries ago. We have a village fete every year and opera performances on a stage built over the pond every summer. There is a chapel, an art school, a small primary school of the highest quality, a village hall and, above all, a thriving, vibrant community. The socio-economic mix is interestingly wide.
    
    
14. We have a mix of professionals and workers, some of whom are self employed, others of whom work for small and large companies dotted about the county. Employment within the parish ranges from farm work to nursing care to security and property management to automotive repair work to antique furniture restoration. A quick survey of the occupants of the local pub one evening or the parish church or chapel one Sunday morning would uncover solicitors, doctors, gardeners, painter and decorators, carpet fitters, entrepreneurs, company chairpersons, nurses, lecturers, sales staff, labourers, researchers, journalists, office workers, warehouse workers, lorry drivers, electricians, plumbers, local authority staff, postal workers etc., etc. In other words, we are not the rich and privileged who occupy houses in the Green Belt only because of our social position. We are a varied and lively community particularly noted for our general willingness to become involved in local community matters.
    
    
15. We don't deserve destruction. Nor do other parishes like ours. And there are other very similar parishes in Oxford’s Green Belt. We are a fairly typical of the parishes placed under threat by a Green Belt review.

4.00 The way forward

1. This parish council asks that the withdrawal of the proposal to develop land south of Grenoble road be upheld and that no land currently in the Green Belt be identified for development in Central Oxfordshire.
   
   
2. We are aware that the issues being addressed arise from a complete split between the City and the County in terms of strategic planning and ask that efforts be made to resolve this split as soon as possible on the basis of the need to plan in the best interests of all in the future.
   
   
3. We would welcome the notions of planning, authority, sensitivity and judgement being an integral part of future policy statements. We deeply regret that the current plan was altered under pressure at the last moment and would like to see more evidence of long term planning and wider consultation in the future.
   
   
4. We would like to see planning based on rational argument and prior research of quality in future strategic thinking. We do not wish to see ever again statements of policy within a plan being clearly contradicted by last minute reactive statements.
   
   
5. We are particularly anxious that future planning should be in the hands of public elected bodies which consult and listen. We do not agree that planning should be in the hands of commercial companies, landowners or developers and would ask that any movement in that direction be resisted at all costs. We do not feel planning should be decided on the basis of who is strongest and who shouts loudest.
   
   
6. We are aware that we will be working with SEERA in the near future and ask that they will be inclusive in their consultations and that they will exercise some sensitivity and independence of judgement on the issue currently facing Oxfordshire. Grenoble Road has undoubted significance way beyond the current plan in question. The final decision will have implications for the whole of the south east. It is, therefore, essential, in our view, in the interests of the wider community, that Oxfordshire County Council maintains its change to the plan and deletes from policy H1 the proposal of an urban extension to Oxford on land south of Grenoble Road. It is also essential that this plan does not promote a revision of the Green Belt boundary to allow more development in Central Oxfordshire.