Weather
'Prepare for bad news on Green Belt' (From The Oxford Times)
When It Happens Panel Get involved: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting 'OXFORD NEWS' to 80360 or email
'Prepare for bad news on Green Belt'
7:00am Thursday 2nd April 2009
CAMPAIGNERS battling to save Oxford’s Green Belt are bracing themselves for a double blow.
The Oxford Times understands that the Government is preparing to allow the building of thousands of homes south of Grenoble Road, as a new extension to Oxford.
The announcement is expected to be made over the next few weeks, with the Government also likely to increase the number of homes earmarked for Oxfordshire in the South East Plan.
Keith Mitchell, the leader of Oxfordshire County Council, told The Oxford Times yesterday: “I think we are likely to get an instruction from Government to build at Grenoble Road. If that is the case we have to move forward and make sure we end up with a balanced sustainable community and not a huge quantity of one type of housing.”
And news that South Oxfordshire District Council is to press for a Green Belt review to allow hundreds of homes to be built at Berinsfield and Wheatley came as a further shock for Green Belt supporters.
South Oxfordshire has stood firmly against any redrawing of the Green Belt around Oxford to allow 4,000 homes to be built on land near the Kassam Stadium, owned by Magdalen College and Thames Water.
The council now faces accusations of double standards after signalling its willingness to see the Green Belt breached to allow extensions of both Berinsfield and Wheatley.
The Campaign to Protect Rural England, which has just launched a ‘Hands Off Oxford’s Green Belt’, campaign says it is “appalled” by the “damaging U-turn” by South Oxfordshire, which has stood firm against moves to expand Oxford from Sandford-on-Thames to Garsington.
But South Oxfordshire insists that a selective Green Belt review is justified by “exceptional circumstances”, with the Green Belt now inhibiting the regeneration of Berinsfield and there being a “strong case” for linking the Wheatley Bridge area to Wheatley.
Dr Helena Whall, campaign manager for the Oxfordshire branch of the CPRE, said: “We have learned that SODC, which professes to be opposed to the urban extension of Oxford into the Green Belt, is nevertheless itself proposing two breaches of the Green Belt at Berinsfield and Wheatley. It is guilty of double standards.
“It goes without saying that these proposals represent serious, further threats to the integrity and future of the Green Belt, the permanence of which is so important to us all.
“The Wheatley threat, in particular, taken with the urban extension of Oxford, risks development sprawling out over the whole Green Belt arc to the south and east of Oxford, and requiring a new outer ring road, which would connect to junction 8a of the M40, with severe traffic consequences for this presently rural area.”
It is understood that South Oxfordshire’s plans would involve building up to 150 homes at both Wheatley and Berinsfield. The proposal is set out in the council’s core strategy document, earmarking land for development over the next 20 years.
It says: “Berinsfield lies within the Oxford Green Belt and whilst Wheatley is not covered by the Green Belt, the boundary wraps tightly around the built-up area.
“Any expansion of these villages would require a localised review of the Green Belt boundary. Local reviews differ from the strategic review south of Oxford in that they are small-scale and address local needs and priorities. The emerging South East Plan enables local reviews to take place without compromising the wider strategy.”
Oxford City Council views the homes off Grenoble Road as key to combating the city’s housing shortages. But the site lies within South Oxfordshire boundaries — and the district council has described the city council’s plans as a ‘land grab’.
Ed Turner, the city council executive member for housing, said: “It is interesting that South Oxfordshire recognises the need to review its Green Belt in order to meet the enormous challenges in providing sufficient houses for local families.
“I hope their open mindedness about the Green Belt in Berinsfield will transfer to open mindedness about working in partnership with the city to bring forward development south of Grenoble Road.”
More Oxfordshire stories
- Britain braced for fresh snowfall
- Norovirus closes hospital wards
- Police and council at odds over cutting 49 county speed limits
- 'Call 999, there's a cotton bud stuck in my ear'
- Council cuts ‘won’t hit old and vulnerable’
- Homes sought for trainee guide dogs
- Oxford United fans get a heart MOT
- New blast of cold weather forecast
- Wintry weather returns
- Tributes for jazz legend Dankworth
Your Say YourOxford
Doug_L, Wallingford says...
2:10pm Thu 2 Apr 09
. After all, these conservationists themselves are living in houses that are built on what used to be fields or woodlands.
What I do object to is the poor quality of the housing that is likely to be built. In this respect I do think that it is a shame that areas of greenbelt land will be sacrificed for vast concrete swathes of high density builds that I feel sure will be built to an extremely poor standard.
Obviously a bit too idealistic, but I think it would be better all round if new housing developments were of a quality that the new communities inhabiting them could be proud of. I also think that if this were the case, suggested developments would encounter less resistance from pre-existing neighbouring communities that understandably want to protect what they have.
oneviewpoint, oxon says...
5:08pm Thu 2 Apr 09
"Corporate" is being allowed to dictate where housing is built
DanOxford, Oxford says...
9:42pm Thu 2 Apr 09
2:10pm Thu 2 Apr 09
I’m not particularly against new land being used for housing as I class shelter as a basic human necessity. If there is a shortage of housing then more houses need to be built.
I class open space as a basic human necessity also- and the population increase isn't something that has just 'happened' and therefore beyond our control.
Granted, people are living longer, more people are remaining single (hardly surprising when the government rewards single mothers, does little to make absent fathers pay and has allowed house prices to become affordable for many young couples starting out in life) BUT Nulabour's mass immigration failure is behind much of the need for more houses.
This is no longer some far and distant 'issue' we'd rather not discuss in polite company- you only have to walk down the street in Oxford and you'll see the evidence all around you- as is the case in most UK cities now.
Given the size of the global population, and given the complete lack of interest in NuLabour to control or secure our borders, and given that we must be a soft touch for immigrants to risk their lives crossing from perfectly safe Countries to get here, the immigration is actually potentially without limit.
What are we going to do- house them all?
There is now evidence that a lot of Eastern Europeans who returned home to find a lack of jobs there are returnig to the UK with their families because they might as well ride out the recession here where benfits are much higher.
Is it really fair that someone who works here for a year (probaby in a low paid job, paying little tax) is then entitled to the same benefits for them AND their family that a British worker who has paid in all their life and possibly for generations is?
It's not racist to ask why someone should pay more tax and go without so that someone else who is neither benfitting them personally nor the Country overall can live in the UK- it's simply common sense and fairness to the people already here.
Local Advertisers
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
DanOxford, Oxford says...
12:16pm Thu 2 Apr 09
How many times will we hear that depriving future generations of green land is a sacrifice we need to make to provide 'afforable housing'? How many times will we hear that concreting over the countryside is 'eco'?
We are losing our Country NOW, to provide homes for foreigners. At least let's be honest about this.
The recent mass immigration has been proven to add zero net benefit to the UK, and has produced both obvious and hidden financial and other costs.
WHY are we paying for Nulabour to import votes and destroy England's culture, Countryside and community?
We are a relatively small nation (two thirds the size of Germany and yet soon to overtake it to become the most inhabited nation in the EU)and we are FULL.
It's not just the houses- we're already struggling nationally and locally with a lack of resources, congestion and social problems.
ENOUGH is ENOUGH!
http://migrationwatc
h.com/
Immigration to Account for a New Household Every 6 Minutes
March 13, 2009
Government projections issued this week confirm that net immigration is now the largest single influence on household formation in England, accounting for very nearly 4 in 10 new households (39%).
The projections show that, over the 25 years from 2006 to 2031, immigration will account for an extra 99,000 households a year - or one every six minutes. This means an extra 2.5 million households by the end of the period out of a total of 6.3 million new households, or nearly 40%. These households would not be formed if immigration was in balance with emigration.
The figures also show a substantial increase of 15% in the number of households expected to be formed in England by 2031 compared to the last estimate which was made only a couple of years ago in 2006. There are large upward revisions for the North East (33%) Yorkshire and the Humber (30%), and the East Midlands (21%). The West Midlands and the East are both revised up by 16% while the South East and South West are increased by about 10 %. (see attached table).
Commenting, Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of Migrationwatch UK said, "Yet again the government have tried to bury the true picture in the middle of a 17 page statistical release but they cannot conceal the fact that immigration will have a massive impact on housing demand and therefore on our whole quality of life and our environment. It is time that the government faced up to the facts and brought immigration under control instead of seeking to camouflage the true position".