joint Public Meeting January 7th 2004

He then introduced the agenda and asked attendees to sign in as a record of people here. He also appealed for anyone wishing to aid/join SPADE to fill out contact details form.

PC has written to OCC Structure Plan committee and fed in its response to the Structure Plan. It supports the structure Plan in general particularly its defence of the green belt but PC objected to building at Grenoble Road as it did not obey the rules OCC themselves had set up –a really clear explanation was needed of why building in green belt was necessary. Members for PC have written to District and County councillors especially those abstaining or voting for Grenoble Road asking them to change their view.

Bob Warne - Chair of SPADE

Outlined SPADE history. Formed from Parish Council public meeting in Oct 2003 called as result of an article in the Oxford Times which indicated a development within green belt surrounding Sunningwell and Bayworth parish. It was decided to form a group centred on Sunningwell and Bayworth and a group of people volunteered to run an action group. Group formed and has now a structure of chair, treasurer, secretary, press person and other active members and has a constitution to focus what the group is doing. We are lobbying against inappropriate development within the parish. We have delivered newsletters, and have a web site at www.sunningwell.org where latest information is available.

Colin Thomas – update on SPADE actions so far
SPADE’s first act was to get responses to the structure plan. He thanked everyone for their response. 400 responses were generated out of a total 2800 received by OCC from the whole county, including comments about Grenoble Road which was IN the structure plan unlike the Penbridge development. We believe through this sort of public response that SPADE is enough of a significant player to be invited to speak at the Examination in Public (EIP) - the next phase of the structure plan.

Geoff Manning – response to the PC was received from 40% of parish households.

Not just a Sunningwell issue – Boar’s Hill and elsewhere too. Press coverage – front page of Oxford Times and Abingdon Herald recently. Networking with other organisations – Oxford Green Belt Network, other lobbying groups.
SPADE had lobbied Anne Purse (OCC executive member with responsibility for Structure Planning). Discussing with planning officers in district and county council

Here to launch the lobby campaign.

Wilcox Proposal – Colin Thomas

The Planner’s leaflet was the only information we had to go on during the Structure Plan consultation process. There had already been a submission to the Vale of White Horse by Mr Wilcox as a response to the local plan. We also have copy of the West Waddy ADP response to the OCC Structure Plan. Very little information exists about the proposal. There are no detailed plans, just an overall respnse to the local plan and Structure Plan and the proposal leaflet itself.

WWADP’s submission to the VOWH local plan – their proposal was to remove the land around Abingdon from the Green belt designation. Suggested that land between Abingdon, Kennington, Wootton be identified as a strategic site for housing development and proposed a new site. Suggested that a bolder approach was needed than incremental development. Suggested a new site either in addition to existing allocations or long term proposal or as alternative to that already suggested by VOWH.

Response to OCC Structure Plan – WWADP document suggests that the structure plan should be amended and Penbridge be submitted in replacement to certain areas of the existing plan (Grenoble Road). Suggested Penbridge be identified for limited employment development under mixed use development. Suggested Penbridge be posed as a bold proposal to avoid a continued incremental approach which is claimed to put pressure on local services. Suggests the structure plan look at alternatives to expansion to Bicester, Didcot, Grove, Grenoble Road, and consideration given to a new community beyond Green Belt the size of future housing need. Penbridge posed as that alternative. Suggests Penbridge be a new development in a discrete location with excellent connections to routes and without harm to the environment and in an attractive environment in its own right.

WWADP Justifications: There is no logical bar to Penbridge on the grounds of development in the green belt on the basis that OCC Structure Plan breaches the green belt by proposing Grenoble Road. Remainder of the 4 pages illustrates areas of the structure plan which Penbridge is in line with. This is merely a comprehensive list of aspects any developer would like to promote in any development. The plan was what made a difference. [Showed plan] This highlighted the difference between the small red circle in the original proposal leaflet and the submitted plan.

Geoff Manning – this is 150 acres transferred into 600.

Q: from the floor – is all the land owned by Wilcox?
Mrs Wilcox said that Mr Wilcox declined to comment.

CT - When asked by the Oxford Times WWADP commented that a parcel of land this size ‘allowed for flexibility.’

We’ve made comment about 2000 and up to 6000 houses. The proposal isn’t only that. There is an element which mentions a park and ride site, and combined heat and power facility - to us an incineration plant.

Q: Katy Evans – what was the response to the VOWH proposal?

CT – our best understanding is that local plan (district council) went through a similar process as the structure plan consultation. They take the responses and work through them with a committee of officers and members of the DC. That process is ongoing. No official outcome yet from VOWH process. On VOWH website there are a number of references to their comments about Penbridge which imply they would not be supportive of the proposal.

Debbie Dance – Oxford Preservation Trust
At the first public meeting there was a debate about supporting Grenoble Road deflecting Penbridge – a very sensible decision. The Structure Plan is the overall plan local plans slot into. There was never any proposal in issues papers seen by the Trust (which has been consulted throughout) that there was to be a change to the green belt. Grenoble Road proposal came in at very last minute. It is dangerous because there is no real assessment of why it’s necessary to build in the green belt there and are now some extraordinary inconsistencies through the structure plan. All the policies on the green belt are good and strong, and out of the blue there is a proposal to build in the green belt. Quite sure there are a number of developers and landowners working on a lot of similar developments. This is just the one we’ve heard about. When Penbridge appeared OPT was delighted that someone had give a cast iron demonstration of what will happen if a breach of green belt is allowed . Please don’t lose sight of the overall picture. Whatever is being said by the OCC, the answer is development should come out of the structure plan. The most important thing is to get those words out of the Structure plan and strengthen the green belt policies. You and lots of OPT members wrote and these letters will be considered by the officers.

CT - outlined key points of the plan process.

DD – consultation considering them now. They have to consider everything put before them. We have to persuade the [OCC] members that they must remove the wording and references to Grenoble Road as they have breached their own policies. Hopefully we’re successful. Then it goes to the EIP and that is an invited group of people who go before inspector to consider it. For things like Grenoble Road and Penbridge developers will be wanting them put back in the structure plan if they’ve been removed and it’s our job to try and make sure that doesn’t happen. Penbridge is not in the structure plan – Grenoble Road is. One of our 2 main objectives is to protect the green setting of the city. The Trust was involved in the setting up of green belt. The Trust was set up not specifically designed to deal with green belt, but the green setting of the city. With this proposal to build in the green belt, there is no consideration of the effects. Where is the justification for needing to build in the green belt around the city. Where is it? There has been no review of anything. Out of the blue a councillor decides the infrastructure of Bicester can’t take any more so let’s put it in the green belt. This is no reason to ditch the green belt. If they can show why it is necessary to build, why necessary to change the boundary, that would be a measured way of doing it and preventing piecemeal Grenoble Roads, Penbridges and all the others we will see. Is it recognised by people in Kidlington and elsewhere that they are in as much danger – they are in as much danger as we are. That’s the message for the Trust to do on a wider scale. OPT is taking a strategic approach – taking a balanced, professional view and is confident they will get a place at the table for the EIP. Will not be going as NIMBY’s. Of course there is an affordable housing problem but it has to be solved in a proper sensible and thought out way, not as it is at the moment, which is important for the city and its setting. You are seeing it at first hand. OPT will be helping SPADE and offering help. OPT will be lobbying at their end. Lots of people speaks volumes and lots of councillors don’t understand the seriousness of what has happened. We do think it’s very ill considered and it’s for us all to make them wake up and make sure they know what they are doing.

Q: Angela Baker (Boar’s Hill). Who owns the land south of Grenoble Road?
DD – partly by Magdalen College, and British Waterways (said in error – the owners are Magdalen College and Thames Water). The scheme is tied up with the science park, by the Kasam Stadium at Sandford on Thames .

Q: David G-Smith – plainly you are well informed – but there is going to be housing built around Oxon. As you look at it, is the amount of housing that needs to be built, can it be placed on land that is not Green belt. An important part of the equation.

DD – the Government gives targets to the OCC. The councillor that put forward the motion that they not be in Bicester didn’t know he had to suggest them elsewhere. Unless you had a serious full review, how can you tell us it should go anywhere at all? We live in the 21st century and there is a housing problem. It needs to be looked at with all parties. In Cambridge they brought together all the stakeholders they could think of. They did study of number of different models. They have a different policy and they are a different place. They had a no growth policy with no industry and not the same pressures as we have. They have used some green belt, but the important thing is that it’s been properly considered.

Geoff Manning – other places could have increased to take the 1000 houses elsewhere.

Q: Henri Koffman – any chance of a swap of land by the council from Penbridge to the old airfield?
DD – the structure plan is not supposed to put in specific sites. That’s for the local plans. That’s why it’s so important to get the strong green belt policies in the plan.
To give a hint about lobbying – only talk about things you really can talk about. In order to mount a campaign to show they should go somewhere else, you have to have all the information. You need to argue what you really know about you weaken your argument. It’s not for us to justify why it should go in green belt, it’s for them. And they haven’t done that.

Q: Ed Millard – Wrote to councillor Mitchell (OCC leader) and has a response to it. He has split interests and it explains he is fed up with development in the north of the area. [SPADE has the letter].

Peter Belk – Lobbying

Lots of people will have filled out the response forms. We now need to influence the county councillors. We have produced straightforward newsletters with ideas on arguments which might be appropriate and who to write to. We urge everyone to take these leaflets and write as many letters as you can to the county councillors. The last vote passed by a 6 vote majority. This is the next focus of the campaign.It is our democratic right to let them know about the seriousness of our opinions.

Q;: Alan Baker – central address?
PB – yes, write 20 letters, put them in one envelope and post them to the County Hall address.

Geoff Manning – write your own letters. A proforma letter won’t count so much.

Q: Lady from church cottage – LibDems voted against, others for. We could use leverage to say they will not vote for their party again.

Response from Bob Warne – SPADE is a non political group and does not intend to be drawn into party politics

Q: Katy Evans – we were told that councillors didn’t like to receive letters but wanted face to face meetings.
PB – SPADE will be doing that. Everyone can try.

Q: Gina Birch – do we know there were any abstentions?
PB – we don’t think so although not clear from the county council minutes. We have identified councillors who didn't vote in our newsletter.
Geoff Manning – green belt covers a wide area!

Dick Gould – Fundraising
Hopefully all will have received our newsletter number four. Already had a very good response. In addition to asking you to make donations to SPADE we will also be approaching other parish councils and other environmental groups operating with an interest in the area. The extent to which they can support us is unclear. They will expect to see us helping ourselves. We do need funds to keep up the momentum of publicity, to keep you informed and to engage professional help. We can do a lot of SPADEwork ourselves, but we will need professionals – planning consultants, legal counsel. We need your money - please give generously.

Geoff Manning – the Parish council has agreed to underwrite initial funds providing SPADE raises money elsewhere.

Bucket provided for donations. Otherwise to Dick Gould.

Comment from Tessa Ward (VOWH district councillor)
Local plan officers will report to VOWH development and policy committee in March which will summarise objections to the local plan and give a suggested response. Vale’s stance is that in order for any development such as Penbridge there has to be exceptional circumstances proven to breach the green belt. Adhered to almost unanimously by almost all councillors.

Peter Belk – A34

What does the A34 have to do with all this? In the WWADP proposal there is a proposal to change the slips at A34 to provide south facing slips. Currently running is a highways agency review of A34 from Southampton to junction with the M40 at Bicester. That regional management strategy is immensely complicated. It rules out major changes to the A34 such as extra lanes (we think). It includes concentrating on minor changes, one of which is to provide south facing slips at the A34/A4183 junction. There is a leaflet available with prepaid form to send back comments. We don’t propose to engage in this process on the back of Penbridge, but rather what would happen to the traffic on the A34 if there were south facing slips. If you don’t do anything else, object to south facing slips at the junction on the basis of the effect on local villages of the traffic.

Question from the floor (questioner unknown) – any plans to build bridges to avoid Abingdon?
PB – Highways agency justification is to provide access for North Abingdon. Concentrate on how changes to the junction will affect traffic in this locality.

Geoff Manning – one of the reasons for not having slips was for local traffic to avoid using the A34 to bypass it.

Question / statement from the floor (questioner name unknown - ex chair of St Helen Without PC?). Originally would have been the main bypass for Abingdon.

Bob Warne – Support/skills
You’ve heard about what we’ve done and what we’ve got to do. If you are able to give you help?
First – please fill out contact details. Opportunity if you have particular skills in areas we need and you are prepared to give us your time, we would be pleased to have that.

Lobbying campaign – the biggest simple way you can help. Can’t overestimate the importance of hundreds of letters on the same subject. Implore you to at least write one letter, hopefully more. We have given suggestions of topics you might like to argue.

Also short of people to help with distribution of newsletters/posters etc. Always could use more help. We have a long haul and would like a much bigger pool of people to help us deliver/collect.

Also all contributions gratefully received. Professional fees are expensive. Need funds for the long haul.

? from Colin Walters From Abingdon. Have you lobbied in Abingdon?.
BW - Will be delighted to take your name for help!!

Question from the floor (questioner unknown) Does the leafleting go wider?
BW - Yes but on a limited basis. But we are trying to tap into other local networks.

Geoff Manning – opened the floor for questions
Q: Paul O’kelly – from Hinksey hill. Didn’t know about the plan. Can you distribute them wider.
AT - Are you volunteering?!

? – Robert Muirwood Is there a PR officer ?
PB - From our point of view (those against Penbridge) are disappointed at the response from the media.
BW – we have contacts with Abingdon Herald, and Oxford Times. We focus this through the news network. Yes it is disappointing to find that they don’t cover it.
GM – has not positively approached the press but will consider it now we have more information.

May Hall – Central Television? Always asking for things to be involved in.
BW – have written to all the press. Not sure if anyone is here.

? Question from the floor (questioner unknown) from Boar’s Hill - If you are going to the press and they are not telling your story it’s your fault.
DD - NIMBYism doesn’t carry well into other areas.
BW – we have tried to avoid NIMBYism at all costs. We are campaigning on breaching of the green belt issues. It is quite clear that this is our focus whether it’s for local plan, OCC structure plan or any other reason. Our approach has to be on the green belt. VOWH are concerned that any breaches of green belt (at moment only talking about Grenoble Road but which may enable other larger areas of the green belt to be breached as the policy is no longer valid). Also indicated that people in other areas are also looking avidly at the green belt to develop into.

DD- Paper did an article on the green belt. You need to make a fuss when the councillors are reading it and going to make a decision – that’s in March. As far as they’re concerned, papers don’t publish no news. They know we’re against development in the green belt. There has been huge response to the green belt and what went into the structure plan. That’s OPT’s job - everyone knew that this was going on. The fact is lots of letters have gone in and now we are gradually building it. OPT is in the paper all the time. What we care about is getting it out of the structure plan and that’s what we’re concentrating on.

Chris Wise (councillor VOWH) –
For information - Councillor Ward proposed that VOWH green belt should be protected and maintained. This was supported by all parties and upheld.

Q: Alan Baker – proposing to respond to the letter in last night’s paper? (accusing OPT and other similar organisations of being ‘all right jack’ as he couldn’t afford a house)
DD – yes OPT will but it needs to be considered

Question from the floor (questioner unknown) - Surprised that Mr Wilcox is at the meeting and whether we should ask him to leave or ask him not to attend as it inhibits what we say here.
Geoff Manning – we agreed it is an open meeting.
BW – it is an open meeting and nothing has been held back because of his presence. You now have as much information as we have on the proposal.

Questioner – what we are talking about is blocking Penbridge.

Alan Baker – I have no objections to TW being here because perhaps they’ll understand the strength of feeling there is in the village about the proposals.

Tessa Ward – question for DD. Does OPT have a feeling for what the people of Oxford are thinking? We’re talking about breach of green belt around Oxford. Support for that is coming from Labour Councillors to extend Oxford.
DD – Oxford civic society backed OPT campaign. Tonight only OPT members who live in the area are here. Yes, there is a real feeling there, but like everywhere else when it’s really on your doorstep you become really aware of it.

Q - Lesley LeClerc Has much publicity been done in the journals of the university?
DD – a number of colleges who own green belt land
GM – some of them willing to sell it!

Q: Charles Jones - Whitecross – has representation been made to the RAF – the land is right on the end of the runway ?
GM - Useful information and will consider

Katy Evans asked to thank members of the SPADE group and a round of applause followed.

Geoff Manning – thanked everyone for attending and closed the meeting. 21.30 pm.

OCC Oxfordshire County Council
VOWH Vale of White Horse
PC Sunningwell Parish Council
OPT Oxford Preservation Trust
BW Bob Warne
GM Geoff Manning
CT Colin Thomas
PB Peter Belk
AT Annie Thomas
EIP Examination in Public (of the structure plan)