Archive - Thursday, 22 September 2011


Find by date

Other ways to search

Also look for

Never miss anything again. Sign up for our RSS news feeds and Newsletters.

'Plans free-for-all will ruin villages'

FORTY-ONE Oxfordshire villages could be at risk from a development free-for-all if Government proposals for the Green Belt go ahead, it was claimed last night.

Dr Helena Whall Dr Helena Whall

A hit-list of vulnerable villages in and around Oxford’s Green Belt is included in a survey into the potential impact of changes to the planning system.

Many of Oxfordshire’s most picturesque villages could be stripped of their Green Belt protection by the controversial planning reforms, claims the report from the Oxfordshire branch of the CPRE (Campaign to Protect Rural England) and the Oxford Green Belt Network.

The claims the Government’s Draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) could leave Oxford’s Green Belt at the mercy of developers come as Prime Minister and Witney MP David Cameron vowed to protect the “magnificent countryside”.

Dr Helena Whall, campaigns manager for CPRE Oxfordshire, said: “The major worry centres on villages that are judged to be ‘washed over’ by the Green Belt, that is to say in every respect part of the Green Belt.

“The planning changes mean that they could be taken out of the Green Belt altogether.

“This is because the NPPF states that a village whose character does not contribute to the ‘openness’ of the Green Belt should be excluded from it.”

Dr Whall, who lives near Dorchester, added: “We believe all villages in the Green Belt are at risk, but of the 41 villages, some are obviously more at risk than others: for example, Cassington, because of large scale development by Agrivert nearby and Holton, because of Wheatley Park School and Oxford Brookes University.

“Some are at risk because they are closest to Oxford and have already experienced pressures, such as Horspath and Garsington.”

The survey says 34 Oxfordshire villages are most at risk. They are: Wytham, Farmoor, Eaton, Besselsleigh, Tubney, South Hinksey, Sunningwell, Culham, Clifton Hampden, Nuneham Courtenay, Berinsfield, Dorchester, Islip, Horspath, Cuddesdon, Garsington, Great Milton, Charlton-on-Otmoor, Oddington, Fencott, Murcott, Horton-cum-Studley, Woodeaton, Elsfield, Beckley, Stanton St John, Forest Hill, Holton, Waterstock, Waterperry, Toot Baldon, Marsh Baldon, Drayton St Leonard and Cassington.

Also vulnerable, it says, are a further seven villages judged to be “half in and half outside” the Green Belt. These are: Weston-on-the-Green, Bladon, Bletchingdon, Warborough, Little Milton, Stadhampton and Newington.

Thame resident Michael Tyce, who helped carry out the survey, said: “If the advice is followed, a lot more villages are likely to be excluded from the Green Belt, leaving the Oxford Green Belt looking like a piece of Gruyere cheese, full of holes.

“It will be easier for developers to get permission to develop in all these excluded villages.

“The emasculation of the Green Belt in this way will seriously undermine its whole purpose and make it hardly worth having a Green Belt at all.”

But Mr Cameron insisted the aim was to balance environmental and social benefits with economic ones.

In a letter to the National Trust, which also fiercely criticised the Government’s proposals, Mr Cameron wrote: “Poorly designed and poorly located development is in no one’s interest.

“As Prime Minister, as a rural constituency MP and as an individual, I have always believed that our beautiful British landscape is a national treasure. We should cherish and protect it.”

He said the reforms, which are currently subject to consultation, would maintain protections of the Green Belt. But he added businesses should be able to expand, with new developments essential to economic growth.

The reforms would see more than 1,000 pages of planning regulations replaced with just 52.


Comments (9)

22/09/11

Danny A says...

I'd argue that these villages were ruined when house prices escalated, compounded by the lack of supply. People who grew up in locality were forced elsewhere to afford somewhere to live and they were replaced by higher earners working elsewhere. Therefore the local services, shops, pubs, other jobs etc died a death. A modest housing addition to individual villages (that's what were talking about, not a mass conurbation) could breath more life and local services back in to these areas. CPRE appear to want to preserve them as sanctuaries for the rich.

22/09/11

PJay says...

So the NIMBYs are using the phrase 'development free-for-all' - that's not what the Government is proposing.

This is simply scaremongering by a few NIMBYs who want to live in the past and see nothing change.

There are thousands of people who need homes in these villages, many of them were born there but cannot afford to buy the few expensive properties that come on to the market.

i myself was lucky enough to just about afford to buy a house in one of the villages mentioned above.

I would welcome some further development in my own village - it might liven things up a bit to have some new residents, not to mention the support it might provide for our ailing local pub.

22/09/11

EricTheRed says...

Nimbys all round.. Some of those villages are crying out for Redevlopment and investment.. Take Berinsfield, There is little facilities there, its run down, The pipes are inadequate and need relaying, broadband is poor, The School needs rebuilding, All of these will not happen unless new housing is built. Nimbys get out of your ivory towers and live in the today.. PEOPLE NEED HOUSES and cannot afford the prices they are now. I bet most of the nimbys bought their houses in the 70's when they were inexpensive, or got mummy and daddy to fund their deposits..

22/09/11

Floflo says...

I find it strange the people who are concerned about their community and local area are automatically labelled Nimbys.
.
PJay - rather than saving your local pub relaxing planning laws means that it will be easier to close the pub and sell it off to a private developer.
.
EricTheRed - with fewer planning controls it also means that any development can be dictated by private developers to boost profits - without caring for how the area develops.
.
So rather than improving local schools with relaxed planning there will be less motivation for developers to consider schools, pavements, local amenities etc.
.
The gated communities of the US give us an idea of where this can lead to - Islands of development for the wealthy, but development with little or no access to local amenities. Those on lower incomes will be forgotten about.

22/09/11

King Joke says...

Floflo is right - developers are not the slightest bit interested in building affordable housing nor replacing infrastructure, and only do so because planners make it a condition of planning permission.
.
Relaxing planning rules will just mean more executive homes on gated developments, well out of the reach of key workers and first-time buyers.
.
THink about it guys, are developers really interested in pushing prices down?

22/09/11

Darkforbid says...

As a rule the rate of building in villages/towns/citie
s should be the same as the local birth rate... green belt was a bad idea from the start, makes locals feel like their living in national parks, and keeps property prices high by limiting supply

22/09/11

King Joke says...

THe problem is not the rate of building, it's the post-war lowering of development density. People were happy in terraces, and those on Osney and in Jericho still are. We knocked them down however and replaced them with car parks, and put their inhabitants in new towns and peripheral estates .
.
THere would be plenty of room for everybody if we went back to the sort of densities we had before the war, plus the benefit of modern sanitation.

22/09/11

West Oxon Webwatcher says...

King Joke refers to densities before the war. Does he mean the first world war or the boer war? Most houses built between the two world wars were low density with larger gardens than today's new homes.
A lot of one one side comments above. Building for the natural local birth rate would make sense if that was all that is affecting population growth and therefore housing needs. However immigration is a major factor. Much of the housing problems in West Oxon (and probably other Oxon districts too) are caused by British people moving out of the south east to West Oxon but still working in London and with their high London salaries are pushing up West Oxon prices so that locals cannot afford to buy a home in their own area. If not enough houses are to be built for whatever reason, then immigration needs to be controlled to a much lower level than in recent years and if they are, transport infrastructure needs to be improved to cope with the thousands of extra daily traffic movements but there is no sign of that in West Oxon despite thousands of new homes already being planned without the extra homes that could be added from relaxing new homes construction limits.

23/09/11

nafnlaus says...

I’ve can never understand why people believe they have the God given right to live in a village/Township just because their parents raised them there.

Related links