Update…Update..Update…

The Examination in Public of the County Council Structure Plan was held in October. SPADE was invited to take part and a report from Bob Warne of the day’s debate follows. You will no doubt be aware of the reports this week in the media that SEERA (the South East England Regional Assembly) has apparently already decided that there WILL be development in the green belt, and Oxford City Council are now talking about not 1000 but 10,000 houses at Grenoble Road in Oxford. There will be a public consultation on the SEERA regional plan at the start of next year, and SPADE is now working on how best to engage in that consultation. Watch this space, as we will doubtless be coming back to you with suggestions for action in the near future. Also the Vale of White Horse local plan consultation continues in the new year and we will be looking to be representing your views there too.

Report on the Examination in Public 14 October 2004 – Bob Warne

The culmination of 12 months’ campaigning on Oxfordshire County Council’s (OCC) Draft Structure Plan was the opportunity for SPADE to present its case against inappropriate development within the Green Belt at the Examination in Public (E I P). On the day we also held a rally outside the venue in Oxford [more on this below from Tessa Ward who kindly took on organising the event for SPADE]. SPADE’s attendance at the EIP was only possible due to the support and encouragement from those of you who have helped us and worked hard during the year - many thanks to everyone who has taken part in one way or another.

The enquiry itself devoted the whole day to the discussion of two particular issues that had resulted from the public consultation periods and OCC discussions and votes earlier in the year.

a) Is the OCC right in its decision to propose the deletion from the Policy H1 of an urban extension to Oxford on land South of Grenoble Road and

b) 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?

Those of you who have been engaged in our campaign will know that our short answers are Yes and No. Details of our arguments supporting those positions can be found in our submission of our statement of case to the EIP on our website.

Around the table on the day were, in essence, two groups: those who supported incursions and review of the green belt comprising Thames Water/Magdalen College and a number of developers; those who did not, such as SPADE, Oxford Preservation Trust, Sunningwell Parish Council and other Parish Councils, and OCC. You may recall that it was the OCC Draft Plan resulting from many months of consultation and scrutiny which was hijacked at the Council meeting in September 2003 when the proposal to include the 1000 houses in the Grenoble Road area was “parachuted” into the Council debate. This proposal had grown to a figure of 3000 houses [since reported at 10,000] as presented at the enquiry, but little or no mention was made of the intended extension to the Oxford Science Park.

The proceedings themselves were heavily controlled by the Inspector and his panel, the intention no doubt being to enable all those who wished to participate time to do so in the restricted timetable of the enquiry. However the process did lead to frustration of several of the participants who were not allowed to question some presentations on matters of fact but did not appear to prevent an abuse of time by some lead developers in presenting their case.

Debates on the two previous days failed to illuminate any clarity on numbers of houses that we were discussing, despite a request from SPADE and others for some guidance on the outcome on this issue. Eventually it emerged that Oxford City had remained unconvincing that their review of available land within the city had been sufficiently robust and in particular they had failed to adequately consider the use of their safeguarded land. However it does appear that they had had to acknowledge that even with the issue of safeguarded land outstanding, they were only short of land for 500 units! Hardly any legitimacy for incursion into, or review of, the Green Belt.

Much was made by Oxford City and the developers of the poor quality of the Green Belt land around Grenoble Road and of the

ability, in planning terms, to substitute “somewhere else” the amount of Green belt that was to be taken. None, including the representative from G.O.S.E., could explain to the Inspector when challenged, how in practical terms this could actually be achieved. Substituting “somewhere else” a Green belt area which was originally intended to prevent the coalescence of the small villages or to protect the views around Oxford does not restore or prevent the coalescence of those villages or protect that particular view!

The Penbridge “eco village” proposals and other satellite developments were critically challenged by SPADE, OCC and others. West Waddy’s assertion in their presentation that the development on the A34 interchange at Lodge Hill into four ways had been agreed by the Highways Agency was corrected by the latter’s representative who confirmed that at this stage such a proposal was only one of the options for improvement of the A34 and even if agreed, it was unlikely to be delivered before about 2021.

OCC and the District Councils which would be affected by such satellite developments were critical of them on the grounds that they seldom met the criteria for viability, provided few jobs, had a tendency to become dormitories and encouraged additional travel to work. In addition they failed to see how satellite development in the Green Belt could solve Oxford’s alleged housing needs, the plank on which Oxford City were pinning their argument for expansion into the Green Belt.

OCC were criticised by some pro Green Belters in their failure to carry out a robust assessment of other areas that may be available for development before adopting a policy to develop in Green Belt areas. OCC reminded the Inspector that they had carried out extensive consultation and considered many other options in compiling and presenting their Draft Structure Plan. They had concluded that neither need nor circumstances were established to justify any take of Green Belt land at all within the scope of the Plan. The draft plan as presented to the full Council Meeting in 2003 (leaving aside a reference to Berinsfield) reflected those conclusions and THEY WERE STILL FIRMLY OF THAT VIEW.

We must now await the report of the Inspector which is scheduled for publication early 2005.[ Now available see county council website ] SPADE and others have raised serious doubts in questioning the validity of the arguments advanced by many that the only way forward is for development to take place within the Green Belt. It is also quite clear that there is no shortage of developers confident that, if the decision is favourable to expanding into the Green Belt, it will open the way for them to realise their plans.

And Finally… from Dick Gould, Treasurer

For a variety of reasons, we have decided that it is not appropriate for SPADE to attempt to secure Charitable Status. We apologise for any problems this might cause but if you have made a donation to us and ticked the box to indicate it should be gift aided, you should now NOT claim tax relief on the donation. As ever, we are keen to received donations and offers of support or involvement so please feel free to contact us