Cherwell Green Belt Study

Final Report

Prepared by LUC April 2017 Project Title: Cherwell Green Belt Study

Client: Cherwell District Council

Version Date Version Details Prepared by Checked by Approved by

V1 14/03/17 Draft Cherwell Green Belt Sarah Young Sarah Young Sarah Young Study Richard Swann

V2 17/03/17 Final Draft Sarah Young Richard Swann Sarah Young Richard Swann

V3 18/04/17 Final Sarah Young Richard Swann Sarah Young Richard Swann Cherwell Green Belt Study

Final Report

Prepared by LUC April 2017

Planning & EIA LUC BRISTOL Offices also in: Land Use Consultants Ltd th Registered in England Design 12 Floor Colston Tower London Registered number: 2549296 Landscape Planning Colston Street Bristol Glasgow Registered Office: Landscape Management BS1 4XE Edinburgh 43 Chalton Street Ecology T +44 (0)117 929 1997 London NW1 1JD Mapping & Visualisation [email protected] FS 566056 EMS 566057 LUC uses 100% recycled paper Contents

1 Study Objectives 1 Introduction 1 Background 1 Study Objectives 2 Report Structure 3

2 Study Context 4 Introduction 4 National Planning Policy 4 Housing White Paper 5 The Oxford Green Belt 6 Oxford Green Belt Study 7 Local Planning Policy 7

3 Assessment Methodology 9 Introduction 9 Assessment Approach 9 Task 1: Subdivision of Assessment Sites 9 Task 2: Assessment of Green Belt Contribution 10 Task 3: Assessment of Harm to Green Belt 14 Task 4: Assessment of Potential Alternative Boundaries 15 Task 5: Identification of Potential Mitigation 15 Output Format 15

4 Summary of findings 17 Introduction 17 Role of Green Belt Harm Assessment 17 Findings of the Assessment 17 Possible Scenarios for Accommodating a Share of Oxford’s Housing Need 23 Consideration of Green Belt Outer Extents 24

5 Mitigation and Enhancement of Beneficial use 29 Introduction 29 Mitigation to Reduce Harm to Green Belt 29 Beneficial Use of Green Belt 31 Specific Mitigation / Beneficial Use 33 Making Changes to the Green Belt 34

Appendix 1: Detailed Site Assessments 35 1 Study Objectives

Introduction

1.1 LUC were commissioned by Cherwell District Council (CDC) in December 2017 to undertake a partial review of the Green Belt within Cherwell District. The review appraises strategic development sites within the District against the five nationally defined purposes of the Green Belt as set out in the NPPF. It also draws conclusions on the relative harm (or otherwise) to the Green Belt that may result from their potential release for development. The review will inform the preparation of the Partial Review of Cherwell Local Plan Part 1 and the Cherwell Local Plan Part 2. More specifically, it will provide evidence to enable Cherwell District Council to consider whether the Green Belt boundaries should be altered through the Local Plan process, to enable existing Green Belt land to contribute to meeting Oxford’s unmet housing need.

1.2 This chapter sets out the background to the study, the key study objectives and the structure of the remaining report.

Background

1.3 In 2013, the Oxfordshire Local Planning Authorities commissioned a new strategic housing assessment (SHMA), to establish the appropriate level of planned growth across the Oxfordshire Housing Market Area and the level of housing need arising in each District. In April 2014 the Oxfordshire Local Authorities published the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) for Oxfordshire. The document suggested that 100,060 additional new homes were needed in Oxfordshire between 2011 and 2031.

1.4 In November 2014, the Oxfordshire Growth Board commissioned a Project team to address the unmet housing needs of Oxford. This project team considered the implications of the SHMA and how best to meet the identified unmet housing need of Oxford. In September 2016 the Growth Board (with the exception of South Oxfordshire DC) endorsed the proposed apportionment across the Districts using a working figure of 15,000 homes. The agreed apportionment for Cherwell District was 4400 homes.

1.5 The Cherwell Local Plan Part 1 was adopted in July 2015. It plans for growth to fully meet Cherwell’s development needs to 2031. The Local Plan also committed the Council to work towards addressing the unmet objectively assessed housing need from elsewhere in the Oxfordshire Housing Market Area (HMA), particularly from Oxford City.

1.6 Work has commenced on the Partial Review of the adopted Local Plan (Part 1) specifically to meet Oxford’s unmet housing need. An Issues Consultation document was published in January 20161. The publication of the Issues Paper was accompanied by a “Call for Sites”, and a number of site submissions were received promoting development sites in the Green Belt. An Options Paper was also published for formal public consultation in November 2016. It is intended that a proposed Submission Partial Review document will be published for consultation in May 2017 and a final Submission Plan submitted to the Secretary of State in September 2017.

1 Available to view on http://www.cherwell.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=11346.

Cherwell Green Belt Study 1 April 2017 1.7 The key focus of the Partial Review document is the identification and assessment of strategic development sites to meet the agreed apportionment for Cherwell of 4400 dwellings. In the adopted Local Plan, strategic development in the Green Belt was not required to meet Cherwell’s housing needs. However, as the Green Belt, by definition, immediately adjoins Oxford, the development of land within the Green Belt has to be considered as a possibility in meeting the City’s unmet housing need. Early work undertaken to inform the Partial Review Options Paper suggest that the areas closest to Oxford are the most sustainable areas of search.

1.8 Approximately 14% of the Cherwell District lies within the Oxford Green Belt. A large number of villages in the District are washed over by the Green Belt and the villages of Kidlington, Yarnton and the eastern side of Begbroke are surrounded by the Green Belt. Other villages lie partly within and partly outside the Green Belt.

1.9 The Planning Inspector who examined the Cherwell Local Plan in 2014 considered that there needed to be: ‘….a formal commitment from the Council, together with other relevant Council’s, to undertake a joint review of the boundaries of the Oxford Green Belt, once the specific level of help required by the city of Oxford to meet its needs that cannot reasonably be met within its present confines, is fully and accurately defined.’

1.10 A Green Belt Study on behalf of The Oxfordshire Growth Board was completed by LUC, in October 2015. It assesses the extent to which land within the Oxford Green Belt performs against each of the purposes of Green Belts as defined in the NPPF. The Study divided the Green Belt in to parcels for assessment purposes: broad areas of Green Belt and smaller parcels adjacent to settlements inset within the Green Belt (including Oxford City). The broad areas and land parcels were assessed as to whether their contribution to each of the Green Belt purposes was high/medium/low or no contribution. The Study emphasised that where a piece of land performs less well against the Green Belt purposes, this does not in itself justify release of the land from the Green Belt.

1.11 LUC were asked not to advise on the suitability or potential of land in the Oxford Green Belt for development. However, the findings of the study were considered by the Oxfordshire Growth Board on 26 September 2016 as a strand of the work that informed the apportionment decision. In commissioning the study, it was clear that should individual Councils conclude that there were ‘exceptional circumstances’ for making alterations to the existing Green Belt boundaries, these changes, including any allocations of land for development, would be taken forward through the respective Local Plan-making process.

1.12 This Green Belt Study has been commissioned by Cherwell District Council to assess the suitability of the strategic sites being promoted for development against the five purposes of the Green Belt. This will enable Cherwell District Council to consider whether there are ‘exceptional circumstances’ (under paragraph 83, NPPF) to justify altering Green Belt boundaries through the Local Plan process, i.e. to enable existing Green Belt land to contribute to meeting Oxford’s unmet housing need. The study is also required to establish whether there is any local justification to amend outer boundaries of the Green Belt, for example where there are anomalies due to changes of circumstance since the boundaries were approved (for example, through the construction of the M40 motorway).

Study Objectives

1.13 The objectives of the study were to: • Appraise the strategic sites against the five nationally defined purposes of the Green Belt as set out in the NPPF, ensuring consistency with the Oxford Green Belt assessment.

• Provide clear conclusions on the relative performance of the Green Belt and the potential degree of harm that may result from their release.

• Recommend where defensible Green Belt boundaries should be drawn.

Cherwell Green Belt Study 2 April 2017 • Consider whether there is justification for amendments to be made to the outer Green Belt boundary, to extend the designation where it would strengthen its strategic role, or where there are anomalies.

• Outline what mitigation measures in the form of ‘design principles’ should be applied where land may be suitable for release to minimise potential harm to the wider Green Belt and to enhance potential beneficial use of Green Belt.

Report Structure

1.14 The remainder of this report is structured as follows: • Chapter 2 summarises national planning policy with regard to Green Belt assessment and alteration, sets out in more detail the Cherwell local planning policy that has resulted in this Green Belt review. It also provides a brief background to the origins and development of the Oxford Green Belt.

• Chapter 3 sets out the assessment methodology. • Chapter 4: summarises the findings of the Green Belt assessment. • Chapter 5 sets out the mitigation measures that have been identified to minimise harm to the Green Belt and potential opportunities to enhance its beneficial use.

1.15 The detailed assessments of parcels of land are included in Appendix 1.

Cherwell Green Belt Study 3 April 2017 2 Study Context

Introduction

2.1 This chapter summarises national planning policy with regard to Green Belt assessment and alteration, sets out the Cherwell local planning policy context that has resulted in this Green Belt review. It also provides a brief background to the origins and development of the Oxford Green Belt.

National Planning Policy

2.2 The principle of maintaining a ring of open country around cities can be traced back to the 16th century when Elizabeth I forbade any building on new sites within three miles of the city gates of London. This was motivated by public health reasons, to prevent the spread of the plague, and to ensure a constant supply of food for the metropolis.

2.3 The importance of these considerations was later recognised by Ebenezer Howard, a pioneer of British town planning, in his book of 1898 Tomorrow: a Peaceful Path to Real Reform in which he referred to ‘an attractive setting within the town could develop and which would maintain, close at hand, the fresh delights of the countryside - field, hedgerow and woodland’.

2.4 The only mechanism available at the time to realise this vision, however, was the acquisition of land by public authorities. In 1935 the London County Council Regional Planning Committee therefore put forward a scheme ‘to provide a reserve supply of public open spaces and of recreational areas and to establish a Green Belt or girdle of open space lands, not necessarily continuous, but as readily accessible from the completely urbanised area of London as practicable’. This arrangement was formalised by the 1938 Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act.

2.5 In 1955, Government Circular 42/55 codified Green Belt provisions and extended the principle beyond London. This was replaced by Planning Policy Guidance 2 in 1988 and in 2012, the Government replaced PPG2 with paragraphs 79–92 of the new NPPF. This has since been supplemented by relevant National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG).

2.6 Paragraph 79 of the NPPF states that ‘the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence’. This is elaborated in NPPF paragraph 80, which states that Green Belts should serve five purposes, as set out below. The NPPF does not infer that any differential weighting should be applied to the five purposes. The five purposes are set out in Box 2.1 below:

Box 2.1: The purposes of Green Belt

1. To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas. 2. To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another. 3. To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. 4. To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns. 5. To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

Cherwell Green Belt Study 4 April 2017 2.7 The NPPF emphasises in paragraph 83 that local planning authorities should establish Green Belt boundaries in their Local Plans which set the framework for Green Belt and settlement policy. It goes on to state that: “Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan. At that time, authorities should consider the Green Belt boundaries having regard to their intended permanence in the long term, so that they should be capable of enduring beyond the plan period.’”

2.8 Paragraph 85 of the NPPF suggests that Local Planning Authorities may wish to identify areas of ‘safeguarded land’ between the urban area and the Green Belt to accommodate long-term development needs well beyond the plan period. New boundaries must have regard for the permanence of the designation by redefining boundaries which endure beyond the Local Plan period. New boundaries should be defined clearly, using readily recognisable, permanent physical features.

2.9 Paragraph 82 of the NPPF indicates that, if proposing a new Green Belt, local planning authorities should:

• demonstrate why normal planning and development management policies would not be adequate;

• set out whether any major changes in circumstances have made the adoption of this exceptional measure necessary;

• show what the consequences of the proposal would be for sustainable development; • demonstrate the necessity for the Green Belt and its consistency with Local Plans for adjoining areas; and

• show how the Green Belt would meet the other objectives of the Framework. 2.10 Current guidance therefore makes it clear that the Green Belt is a strategic planning tool designed primarily to prevent the spread of development and the coalescence of urban areas. To this end, land should be designated because of its position, rather than its landscape quality or recreational use. However, the NPPF states that “local planning authorities should plan positively to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt, such as looking for opportunities to provide access; to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation; to retain and enhance landscapes, visual amenity and biodiversity; or to improve damaged and derelict land” (Paragraph 81).

2.11 Neither the NPPF nor the NPPG provides any specific advice regarding the methodology for undertaking reviews, and no reference is made to different scales of review.

Housing White Paper

2.12 As part of its recent White Paper on housing policy (Fixing our broken housing market, February 2017), the Government has proposed amendments to the NPPF to make the circumstances in which Green Belt boundaries can be amended more ‘transparent’ Local authorities will only be able to alter Green Belt boundaries after they have “examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting their identified development requirements”. In particular, they will have to give consideration to suitable brownfield sites, estate generation, underused and public sector land, and whether their development needs can be met by neighbouring authorities.

2.13 If local authorities are able to meet these conditions, they will also be required to ‘offset’ the removal of land from the Green Belt by way of “compensatory improvements to the environmental quality or accessibility of remaining Green Belt land”. This refers to the wider benefits that Green Belts can deliver e.g. for access, sport, recreation, flood alleviation, ecology, landscape and visual amenity etc.

2.14 The White Paper also proposes that national policy will make it clear that when carrying out a Green Belt Review, local planning authorities should look first at using any Green Belt land which has been previously used and/or which surrounds transport hubs.

Cherwell Green Belt Study 5 April 2017 2.15 It remains to be seen how these proposed changes will become formally embodied in legislation and policy.

The Oxford Green Belt

2.16 Thomas Sharpe, a pioneer of British planning, first presented the idea of a Green Belt to protect Oxford's special physical and architectural character in 19482. A decade later in 1958, Oxford City Council, Oxfordshire County Council and the former Berkshire County Council, with advice from amenity groups that included the Oxford Preservation Trust, instigated Green Belt policies. A tight inner Green Belt boundary was drawn around the city, and the Green Belt extended outwards for some five to six miles in every direction. Within it were a number of villages, most of which were 'washed over', meaning that Green Belt constraints on development applied equally within the village as outside it. Some of the largest villages, including Kidlington, were excluded from the Green Belt, as 'inset villages'. A Public Inquiry into the proposals was held in 1961 and in 1975 the Green Belt was approved. This confirmed the ‘outer’ boundaries of the Green Belt but the’ inner’ part was left as interim, pending the outcome of the preparation of the Structure and Local Plans.

2.17 In 1979 the first Structure Plan for Oxfordshire provided for the continuation of Green Belt around Oxford “to preserve the special character” of the City. The 1987 Structure Plan continued the Green Belt policy in policy EN5 which set out the purposes of the Oxford Green Belt more fully:

1. “Protect the special character of Oxford and its Landscape Setting, 2. check the growth of Oxford and prevent ribbon development and urban sprawl, 3. prevent the coalescence of settlements”3

2.18 Final approval of the alterations to the Structure Plan was announced by the Secretary of State on 15 April 1987. This included provision for the inner boundaries of the Green Belt to be decided through Local Plans4.

2.19 By the early 1990s, a variety of rationales for using Green Belt to protect the setting and special character of historic towns had been developed in different places. Green Belt was being used to: • “protect the green and open fabric of such cities, keeping open extensive belts of land which form important parts of the setting of town centres, neighbourhoods or groups of buildings;

• protect gateways, by keeping open approaches to a city, and providing a clear definition of town and country;

• protect the wider setting of a city. This may comprise keeping open areas of higher ground which provide a green background to a City, and help give it a distinctive character; and

• seek control over the size of a city, with a view to influencing the level of activity which requires to be accommodated in its historic core, thus protecting the character.”5

2.20 In approving the Oxfordshire Structure Plan 1992, the Secretary of State agreed with his predecessors (from 1979 and 1987) “that the unique, historic character of Oxford and its setting in its natural environment should be conserved and protected, and the growth of the City should not continue indefinitely.”6

2.21 From the 1992 Oxfordshire Structure Plan up to the final Oxfordshire Structure Plan in 2011, Oxfordshire has combined the special character rationale for Green Belt with some of the other purposes. Paragraph 3.9 of the Oxfordshire Structure Plan 2016 stated that:

2 Oxford Replanned, Thomas Sharpe (1948). 3 Topic Paper on the Oxford Green Belt, Cherwell Local Plan (1996) Cherwell District Council. 4 Local Plans such as The Oxford Fringe and Green Belt Local Plan (adopted March 1991), Central Oxfordshire Local Plan -Cherwell (1992) etc. 5 The Effectiveness of Green Belts, Department of Environment, London, (1993). 6 Topic Paper on the Oxford Green Belt, Cherwell Local Plan (1996) Cherwell District Council.

Cherwell Green Belt Study 6 April 2017 “The special character of Oxford and its landscape setting means not just the University and the views of the dreaming spires, but a much broader concept including the countryside around the City, the Cherwell and Thames floodplains and the relationship of nearby settlements to Oxford. Its character also includes the overall scale of activity in the City, since any considerable growth of the City will generate more activity, since significant growth will generate more traffic and pressures for further development, which could threaten the nature, character and setting of the City.”7

2.22 More recently, in the City Council’s Core Strategy and Sites and Housing Plan Development Planning Documents (published in 2011 and 2013), Green Belt is described as “an area of undeveloped land, where the planning policy is to keep it open to (amongst other purposes) prevent urban sprawl and preserve the setting and special character of Oxford and its landscape setting.”8 Paragraph 3.3.23 of the Core Strategy goes on to say, “protection of the Green Belt therefore helps to retain the distinctive physical form of the city, where the river corridors running either side of Oxford’s historic core are an essential part of its special character and landscape setting.”9

Oxford Green Belt Study

2.23 In light of concerns regarding shortage of land to meet objectively assessed need within the County, Oxfordshire County Council, on behalf of the Oxfordshire Local Authorities, commissioned a study in 2015 to assess the extent to which the land within the Oxford Green Belt performs against the purposes of Green Belts10.

2.24 The study identified and assessed parcels of land in terms of their contribution to the purposes of Green Belt set out in paragraph 80 of the NPPF, in accordance with a defined rating system. Most land was found to make a relatively strong contribution to one or more of the Green Belt purpose, but some parcels, or parts of parcels, were assessed as making a potentially weaker contribution. The findings of the study for areas relevant to this small-scale assessment are noted in the detailed findings set out in Appendix 1.

Local Planning Policy

2.25 The Cherwell Adopted Local Plan (July 2015) states that the Local Plan’s housing requirements and development strategy can be achieved without the need for a strategic review of the Green Belt in the District. However an Employment Land Review (2012) identified a need for additional employment land in the Kidlington area. The Plan asserts that it is not anticipated that this land can be accommodated on sites outside of the Green Belt. This includes a specific need which has been identified for the Science Park at Begbroke. The Plan therefore states that exceptional circumstances are considered to exist to justify a small scale local review of the Green Belt to meet employment needs and this is set out in 'Policy Kidlington 1: Accommodating High Value Employment Needs'. The Council commissioned LUC to undertake Small Scale Green Belt review in line with Policy Kidlington 1 in the Adopted Local Plan.

2.26 The Plan goes on to state that it is essential that the impact on the Green Belt is minimised, therefore priority will be given to locations that lie adjacent to existing development, avoid the coalescence of settlements, protect the vulnerable Kidlington Gap and otherwise have the least impact possible on the Green Belt. Box 2.2 below sets out the Green Belt Policy ESD14 of the Adopted Cherwell Local Plan (2015)

7 Oxfordshire Structure Plan 2016, Oxfordshire County Council (2005). 8 Sites and Housing Plan (2011 – 2026), Oxford City Council (2013). 9 Core Strategy 2026, Oxford City Council (2011). 10 Oxford Green Belt Study, LUC (2015).

Cherwell Green Belt Study 7 April 2017

Box 2.2: Policy ESD 14: Oxford Green Belt (Cherwell District Council’s Adopted Local Plan, 2016)

The Oxford Green Belt boundaries within Cherwell District will be maintained in order to:

• Preserve the special character and landscape setting of Oxford • Check the growth of Oxford and prevent ribbon development and urban sprawl • Prevent the coalescence of settlements • Assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment • Assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. Development proposals within the Green Belt will be assessed in accordance with government guidance contained in the NPPF and NPPG. Development within the Green Belt will only be permitted if it maintains the Green Belt’s openness and does not conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt or harm its visual amenities. Proposals for residential development will also be assessed against Policies Villages 1 and Villages 3.

A small scale local review of the Green Belt boundary in the vicinity of Langford Lane, Kidlington and Begbroke Science Park will be undertaken as part of the Local Plan Part 2, in order to accommodate employment needs (see Policy Kidlington 1). Further small scale local review of the Green Belt boundary will only be undertaken where exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated.

2.27 The Plan notes that any future review of the Plan will require the cooperation of all authorities in Oxfordshire to meet the County’s total housing need arising from the need assessed in the 2014 SHMA. This will include catering for the housing needs of Oxford City. As outlined in Chapter 1, the Planning Inspector who examined the Cherwell Local Plan in 2014 considered that there needed to be: ‘….a formal commitment from the Council, together with other relevant Council’s, to undertake a joint review of the boundaries of the Oxford Green Belt, once the specific level of help required by the city of Oxford to meet its needs that cannot reasonably be met within its present confines, is fully and accurately defined.’

2.28 The Plan commits the Council to help Oxford to meet its unmet housing need by undertaking a Partial Review of Local Plan Part 1. This Green Belt study was commissioned to assist the Council with the review of potential housing sites to meet their apportionment of Oxford’s unmet housing need ( i.e. 4400 homes within Cherwell).

Cherwell Green Belt Study 8 April 2017 3 Assessment Methodology

Introduction

3.1 This Chapter sets out the key elements of the assessment approach and summarises the methodology that was used to undertake it.

Assessment Approach

3.2 This study involved five key tasks, as follows: Task 1: Sub-division of 42 identified potential development sites into smaller parcels of land, where appropriate, to facilitate the assessment; Task 2: An assessment of the contribution that each land parcel makes to each of the Green Belt purposes identified in the NPPF; Task 3: An assessment of the potential harm the release of land would have on the Green Belt taking account of its contribution to Green Belt purposes and effect on the wider integrity of the Green Belt. Task 4: An assessment of the strength of potential alternative Green Belt boundaries; Task 5: Identification of any mitigation measures that might reduce harm to the Green Belt and potential for beneficial uses of remaining Green Belt;

3.3 The extent of existing or potential beneficial use (i.e. for access, outdoor sport and recreation, landscape enhancement, visual amenity, biodiversity and improvement to damaged or derelict land) does not form part of the judgement of harm, as the NPPF makes it clear that beneficial uses are a desirable consequence of Green Belt designation rather than a reason for designation. It does however constitute part of the consideration of environmental factors that the Council will weigh up against Green Belt harm and other sustainability considerations before deciding on which areas of land may be suitable for release.

3.4 In keeping with the scope of this study, environmental and sustainability issues relating to potential on and off-site impacts, such as landscape quality, biodiversity value and traffic generation, were not assessed, but are recognised as key elements in any decision-making regarding the release of Green Belt land for housing development.

3.5 The key assessment tasks and the format of the outputs are explained in more detail below.

Task 1: Subdivision of Assessment Sites

3.6 The study assesses the potential harm to the Green Belt that could result from the release of land associated with 40 sites submitted to CDC in response to its ‘call for sites’ in January 2016 and the November 2016 Options Consultation paper. Additionally CDC requested the assessment of 2 sites that were not promoted in the Options paper but which geographically have a strong relationship with promoted sites. The promoted sites are all at least 2 hectares – the minimum size considered by CDC to constitute a ‘strategic development’ – and are located in Areas of Search A (Kidlington and Surrounding Area) and B (North and East of Kidlington)11.

3.7 The sites vary considerably in size and form. Where initial site analysis found that different parts of a site were likely to make different levels of contribution to Green Belt purposes, the site was

11 Ref 1.36-1.37 of Options Consultation.

Cherwell Green Belt Study 9 April 2017 subdivided into a number of separate assessment parcels. In keeping with the criteria for strategic sites, only areas of greater than 2ha were identified as separate assessment parcels. 67 assessment parcels were identified for review.

3.8 Sites were typically subdivided into parcels on the basis of existing landscape features, such as field or road boundaries. Assessments of Green Belt at District level or above, typically select ‘strong’ features as parcel boundaries, in line with the NPPF’s reference, at paragraph 85, to the need to “define boundaries clearly, using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent”, but at this smaller scale it was sometimes necessary to define parcels with weaker physical boundaries.

3.9 It should be noted that in some cases sites overlap each other, or one site is wholly contained within another. Where this is the case the sites, or parcels within the sites, were assessed more than once.

Task 2: Assessment of Green Belt Contribution

3.10 The assessment analysed how each identified land parcels perform against each of the Green Belt purposes, with the exception of the 5th purpose - the encouragement of recycling of derelict and other urban land to assist in urban regeneration.

3.11 The 5th purpose was not assessed as part of this study as measuring accurately the extent to which individual parcels contribute to this process of recycling of derelict and other urban land is problematic. While it would be possible to undertake a spatial analysis of the supply of brownfield land relative Green Belt parcels (at conurbation, authority, settlement, Housing Market Area or Strategic Green Belt Areas scales), there are significant concerns about the validity of any judgements based on the results. It is not possible to identify and measure a causal link between the policy restraint in a particular Green Belt parcel and the recycling of urban land elsewhere, in part reflecting the complexity of the development process, the locational requirements of different types of development and variations in the property market over time. This Study therefore acknowledges that Purpose 5 is important and should be afforded equal weight with Purposes 1-4, but that it is not possible to assess the performance of Purpose 5 on a parcel-by-parcel assessment for the purpose of this review.

3.12 All four assessed Green Belt purposes are considered to relate to the relationship between the land area in question, developed land and the countryside. This relationship is influenced by the location of the parcel, the extent of openness within it and the role of landscape/physical elements, including boundary features, in either separating the parcel from, or connecting it to, built-up areas and the wider countryside.

3.13 The assessment criteria used to undertake the analysis are set out in the following tables for each respective purpose.

Purpose 1: Checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas

3.14 The Land needs to have a relationship with a large built-up area to make a contribution to this purpose. Where land has a relationship with the edge of a large built-up area, the strength of its contribution will be greater if it has a stronger relationship with the surrounding countryside than with the urban area, and lacks urbanising influences. Conversely a parcel will make a weaker contribution to this purpose if it either has a stronger relationship with the adjacent large built-up area than with the wider countryside, or lacks proximity to the built-up area.

3.15 In line with the methodology for the Oxford Green Belt Study, Oxford is the only settlement considered to constitute a large built-up area.

3.16 Key questions asked in relation to purpose 1, the prevention of sprawl of large, built-up areas, are:

• Does the parcel lie in adjacent to, or in close proximity to the large built up area? • To what extent does the parcel contain existing urban sprawl?

Cherwell Green Belt Study 10 April 2017 • Does land relate sufficiently to a large built-up area for development within it to be associated with that settlement?

• Does land have a strong enough relationship with the large built-up area, and a weak enough relationship with other Green Belt land, to be regarded more as infill than expansion?

Purpose 1: Check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas

Development/land-use: less development = stronger contribution Location: closer to settlement = stronger contribution Separating features: stronger relationship with countryside than settlement = stronger contribution Connecting features: weaker relationship between settlement and countryside = stronger contribution

Stronger Contribution The parcel is adjacent to the large built-up area but relates strongly to the wider countryside – development would

represent significant expansion of the large built-up area into countryside.

Weaker Contribution The parcel is not adjacent to the large built-up area and development here would not constitute sprawl from the large built up area

Purpose 2: to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another

3.17 Land that is juxtaposed between towns will make a contribution to this purpose, and the stronger the relationship between the towns, the stronger the contribution of any intervening open land will be. Physical proximity is the initial consideration but both built and natural landscape elements can act to either decrease or increase perceived separation – e.g. a direct connecting road link or shared landform may decrease perceived separation whereas a barrier feature such as a woodland block or motorway may increase the perception of separation. Land that lacks a strong sense of openness, due to the extent of existing development that has occurred, will also make a weaker contribution.

3.18 Although the text of the NPPF refers to neighbouring towns, the separation of smaller settlements is also considered relevant to Green Belt purposes. In line with the Oxford Green Belt Study, maintenance of the separation of Kidlington, Yarnton and Begbroke, which are all inset settlements, is considered to contribute to Green Belt purposes. The role that the Green Belt within the study area contributes towards preventing the merging of Kidlington, Yarnton and Begbroke is therefore considered in this assessment.

3.19 Key questions asked in relation to purpose 2, preventing the coalescence of towns, are: • How far apart are the towns being considered? • Is there strong intervisibility between the towns due to (topography/ open landscape)? • How much of a gap is required to avert perceived coalescence, taking into consideration the role of landscape features in creating either separation or connectivity?

• How do the gaps between smaller settlements affect the perceived gaps between towns?

Cherwell Green Belt Study 11 April 2017 Purpose 2: Prevent neighbouring towns from merging

Development/land-use: less development = stronger contribution Location: juxtaposed between towns = stronger contribution Separating features: lack of features between towns = stronger contribution Connecting features: stronger relationship between towns = stronger contribution

Stronger Contribution The parcel plays an essential role in preventing the merging or erosion of the visual or physical gap between settlements.

Development of this parcel would result in the physical or visual coalescence of settlements, or a significant narrowing of the physical gap with no physical elements to preserve separation

Development of this parcel would result in little or no Weaker Contribution perception of the narrowing of the gap between settlements

Purpose 3: to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment

3.20 The contribution a parcel makes to safeguarding the countryside from encroachment can be directly related to the extent to which it displays the characteristics of countryside – i.e. a lack of dense and urbanising development, and land uses associated with countryside – and the extent to which it relates to the adjacent settlement and to the wider countryside.

3.21 Planning Advisory Service (PAS)12 guidance states that: ”The most useful approach is to look at the difference between urban fringe – land under the influence of the urban area - and open countryside, and to favour the latter in determining which land to try and keep open, taking into account the types of edges and boundaries that can be achieved.”

3.22 It is important to recognise that Green Belt does not function as a series of isolated parcels: the assessment of a defined parcel will reflect the nature of landscape elements or characteristics within that parcel but must also reflect its relationship with the wider Green Belt.

3.23 Key questions asked in relation to purpose 3 are: • Disregarding the condition of land, are there urbanising influences within or adjacent which reduce the sense of it being countryside?

• Does land relate more strongly to settlements or to the wider countryside?

12 Planning on the Doorstep: The Big Issues –Green Belt (Peter Brett for Planning Advisory Service, 2015)

Cherwell Green Belt Study 12 April 2017 Purpose 3: Assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment

Development/land-use: less urbanising land use and more openness = stronger contribution Location: further from settlement or from urban encroachment in neighbouring parcels = stronger contribution Separating features: stronger relationship with countryside than settlement = stronger contribution Connecting features: weaker relationship between settlement and countryside = stronger contribution

Stronger Contribution The land parcel displays the characteristics of the countryside, is open and there is little or no sense of urban encroachment

from either within the parcel, or from neighbouring land. The parcel relates strongly to the wider countryside and has a sense of separation from the settlement. Development would

represent encroachment into the countryside

Weaker Contribution The parcel is too lacking in openness to be considered countryside, or has few countryside characteristics within it and lacks relationship with the wider Green Belt countryside

Purpose 4: to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns

3.24 Whilst many settlements have historic elements, this Green Belt purpose is only relevant to settlements of a certain size – i.e. towns – which retain a historic character connected to surrounding landscape elements, and which it is impractical to protect solely through Conservation Area designations. It is recognised (see Chapter 2 above) that the setting and special character of the City of Oxford were key considerations in the designation of the Oxford Green Belt. Whilst many settlements have historic elements, this Green Belt purpose is only relevant to settlements of a certain size which have retained an historic character to which surrounding landscape elements make a key contribution.

3.25 Therefore, in line with the Oxford Green Belt Study (2015), the role of land in preserving setting and special character is only considered in relation to Oxford. This connection between a historic town’s historic character and the wider countryside does not have to be physical, indeed successions of development often isolate core historic areas from the surrounding countryside; it is often a visual connection. This visual connection can be defined through movement through the area or views into or out of the settlement.

Cherwell Green Belt Study 13 April 2017 3.26 The key questions asked in relation to purpose 4 are: • Does the land form part of the setting and special character of an historic town? • What landscape elements/areas important to the setting and special character of a historic town would be affected by loss of openness?

Purpose 4: Preserve the setting and special character of historic towns

Development/land-use: less development = stronger contribution Location: contains key characteristics, or important in views to or from them = stronger contribution Separating features: lack of features to increased perceived separation from historic town = stronger contribution Connecting features: stronger relationship between historic town and countryside = stronger contribution

Stronger Contribution The land has a visual connection with Oxford and the parcel forms part of the City’s distinctive green backdrop and/or from

which there are views into the City, particularly the historic centre.

Weaker Contribution There is no sense of a relationship with Oxford, either through distance or through the presence of other towns or landscapes with which a parcel has a dominant sense of connection.

Task 3: Assessment of Harm to Green Belt

3.27 With reference to the size, shape and location of the assessment parcel, the nature of its boundaries, and its relationship with other elements that form boundaries within the landscape, judgements were made concerning the impact that the release of the parcel would have on the contribution of adjacent Green Belt.

3.28 Combining this judgement with the assessment of the parcel’s contribution to Green Belt purposes, and taking into consideration boundary strength and potential for mitigation, a rating was given for the level of harm that can be expected to result from the release of the parcel.

3.29 Consideration was then given as to whether there are any scenarios for release of less than the full parcel (but at least the 2ha minimum size for a strategic site) that would result in reduced harm to the Green Belt.

3.30 The assessment of potential harm was given as a rating, using a 5-point scale of low, low- moderate, moderate, moderate-high and high, using professional judgement to weigh up the parcel assessment comments. Absolute definitions equating Green Belt harm to suitability for release cannot be given. The harm ratings and accompanying comments are intended to contribute alongside judgements regarding environmental and sustainability impacts, and potential housing yields, to aid final decisions regarding the suitability of release of Green Belt land.

Cherwell Green Belt Study 14 April 2017 Task 4: Assessment of Potential Alternative Boundaries

3.31 The role of a parcel’s boundary features in influencing the contribution to Green Belt purposes, through their role as separating or connecting features, formed part of the assessment process described above. However the nature of a boundary in comparison to the existing Green Belt edge, or potential alternatives boundaries outside of the assessment parcel is also a consideration when determining whether a boundary is “readily recognisable and likely to be permanent” (NPPF paragraph 85), and will in turn affect the impact that release of the parcel might have on adjacent Green Belt (as set out in Task 3 above).

3.32 Features considered to constitute strong potential Green Belt boundaries include natural features such as substantial watercourses and water bodies, and man-made features such as motorways, A and B roads and railway lines. Less prominent or less permanent features such as walls, woodland, hedgerows, tree lines, streams and ditches are considered to constitute moderate strength boundaries, and edges lacking clear definition on the ground will form weaker boundaries.

3.33 The suitability of an alternative Green Belt boundary also depends on its relationship with existing boundaries in terms of the resulting form. An overly extended or convoluted shape is likely to cause greater harm than a simpler, more direct alignment in terms of its impact on the relationship between built development and open countryside. For each of the assessment parcels, commentary is provided on the nature of the existing boundary and any suggested alternatives.

Task 5: Identification of Potential Mitigation

3.34 If decisions are made to remove land from the Green Belt, the Council should seek to minimise any harm to the remainder of the Green Belt. This will include careful masterplanning of development to ensure that harm is minimised, ensuring Green Belt boundaries are defined, and that positive uses for the wider Green Belt are secured. This study provides guidance on these issues. Chapter 5 of this report sets out:

• what ‘design principles’ could be applied to parcels of land that have been identified as potentially suitable for release from the Green Belt (i.e. to minimise potential harm to the Green Belt).

• what opportunities there are to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt, i.e. to provide access and recreation opportunities; to retain and enhance landscapes, enhance visual amenity and biodiversity; or to improve damaged and derelict land.

3.35 The study does not consider measures which might reduce environmental harm, or improve sustainability.

3.36 Beneficial use is considered in terms of the possible enhancements noted in NPPF paragraph 81 (see Chapter 2 above) including:

• Improving access. • Improving opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation. • Retaining and enhancing landscapes. • Improving visual amenity. • Increasing biodiversity. • Improving damaged and derelict land.

Output Format

3.37 The assessment findings for Tasks 1-4 are presented on a site by site basis. For each site the following information is provided:

Cherwell Green Belt Study 15 April 2017 • The site reference number, name and size. • A map of the site, in context with any nearby settlements – this map also shows the development constraints, listed in Paragraph 3.4 above, which may have a significant impact on development potential.

• An aerial photograph covering the same area, to illustrate the nature of land cover. • A brief description of the site in terms of its land use, boundaries and relationship with defined urban areas (i.e. settlements outside of Green Belt, or inset within but excluded from it).

• Comments on the relationship between the site, settlements and countryside, to support the subdivision of the site for assessment purposes and the judgements made in the assessment of contribution to Green Belt.

• A list of parcels into which the site was divided; a site which requires no subdivision has a parcel reference that matches the site reference, whereas a site which is subdivided is appended with a letter (e.g. PR25a, PR25b, etc..). Cross-reference is made to any other sites under which the same land is assessed.

3.38 For each parcel within a site the following is provided: • A map showing the location of the parcel, in the context of the site and any adjacent parcels. • A representative photograph of the parcel. • Text assessing the contribution of the parcel to each of the Green Belt purposes. • Text assessing the strength of any potential alternative Green Belt boundaries – either the parcel boundaries or sub-divisions within it – with reference to any relevant boundary features outside of the parcel that are relevant to its relationship with settlements or with the wider Green Belt.

• Judgement of the level of harm that would result from the removal of the parcel, or any strategic subdivision of it (i.e. an area of at least 2ha), from the Green Belt, taking into consideration the impact of release on the contribution of adjacent Green belt. Different release options were assessed as separate ‘scenarios’.

3.39 To conclude the assessment of each site an assessment is given for harm that would result from the release of the whole site and a map is provided showing the harm ratings given to each parcel/sub-parcel, colour-coded by rating.

Cherwell Green Belt Study 16 April 2017 4 Summary of findings

Introduction

4.1 The following chapter provides a summary of the key findings of the assessment and consideration of possible strategic development scenarios for accommodating housing within the District. These scenarios do not take into account other constraints (e.g. environmental, landscape, heritage, infrastructure constraints) which may affect any decisions on the suitability or otherwise of potential locations for housing. The scenarios presented purely consider Green Belt issues alone which is explained in more detail below.

Role of Green Belt Harm Assessment

4.2 Consideration of the harm to Green Belt purposes that could result from the release of land for housing development is an essential aspect of the decision-making process; however it is important to recognise that consideration of Green Belt harm sits alongside environmental and sustainability considerations as one of three key elements of that decision-making process. Whilst the ideal would be to minimise harm to the Green Belt, it may in practice be that locations which will result in the least overall harm, will in fact be ones which do significant harm to the Green Belt. Planning judgement will be needed to weigh up the relative importance of each key element in any given location, and to determine whether the benefit of accommodating Oxford’s housing need outweighs the overall harm caused in achieving it.

4.3 It is also important to recognise the strategic nature of Green Belt. The extents of the Oxford Green Belt do not reflect any detailed analysis of environment or sustainability of growth but rather a more generalised desire to constrain urbanisation of the landscape. Decisions that informed the delineation of the Green Belt around Oxford were made in light of local development pressures identified at that time.

4.4 The strategic nature of Green Belt, and recognition of local/regional variations in the extent of development and nature of open land in between settlements, is reflected in the absence from national planning policy of any definitions to accompany its defined purposes. Thus, with reference to the purposes stated in paragraph 80 of the NPPF, there is no definition of what constitutes a ‘large built up area’, a ‘town’ , a ‘historic town’ or ‘countryside’, and variations in local planning authorities’ interpretations of these are evident in Local Plans and/or in reviews of Green Belt that have been carried out.

4.5 In light of the above, this assessment of harm to Green Belt purposes does not draw conclusions as to where land should be released to accommodate housing development, but identifies variations in the harm that would be caused to Green Belt purposes and considers possible strategic development scenarios and alterations to the outer extent of the Oxford Green Belt that could respond to these variations.

Findings of the Assessment

4.6 The results of the parcel-by-parcel assessment are summarised in Table 4.1 below, and visualised in Figure 4.1. Harm resulting from release of sites as a whole is visualised in Figure 4.2.

4.7 It is important to recognise that this site-based assessment does not reflect the cumulative impact of the release of multiple sites, or parts of sites, on the Green Belt as a whole.

Cherwell Green Belt Study 17 April 2017 4.8 Out of a total geographical area of 1310.59ha, and considering the parcel/sub-parcel scenario ratings: • 926.91ha (70.7%) rated as ‘high’ in terms of harm to Green Belt resulting from release. • 216.97ha (16.6%) rated as ‘moderate-high’ in terms of harm to Green Belt resulting from release. • 132.08ha (10.1%) rated as ‘moderate’ in terms of harm to Green Belt resulting from release.

• 28.84ha (2.2%) rated as ‘low-moderate’ in terms of harm to Green Belt resulting from release. • 5.77ha (0.4%) rated as ‘low’ in terms of harm to Green Belt resulting from release. Table 4.1: Assessment results summary

Site Parcel Size (ha) Harm rating PR014 PR14 21.68 Moderate PR019 PR19a 9.66 High PR019 PR19b 35.48 High PR019 PR19b 12.64 Moderate PR019 PR19b 26.08 Moderate high PR019 PR19c 24.73 High PR020 PR20a 8.64 High PR020 PR20a 5.38 Moderate high PR020 PR20b 28.44 High PR020 PR20b 5.25 Moderate PR020 PR20b 6.76 Moderate high PR020 PR20c 7.78 Moderate PR020 PR20d 24.19 High PR020 PR20d 3.70 Moderate PR020 PR20d 3.24 Moderate high PR020 PR20e 5.86 Moderate PR020 PR20e 26.54 Moderate high PR020 PR20f 35.56 High PR020 PR20f 13.26 Moderate high PR021 PR21 4.51 Moderate high PR023 PR23 14.71 Moderate high PR024 PR24 13.61 High PR024 PR24 5.79 Moderate PR027 PR27a 28.38 Moderate high PR027 PR27b 7.63 Moderate PR029 PR29 2.23 High PR030 PR30 13.30 High PR032 PR32 3.45 Low moderate PR034 PR34 9.60 High PR038 PR38a 6.26 Moderate PR038 PR38b 13.86 High

Cherwell Green Belt Study 18 April 2017 Site Parcel Size (ha) Harm rating PR038 PR38b 4.30 Moderate PR038 PR38b 13.44 Moderate high PR038 PR38c 40.36 High PR038 PR38c 7.41 Moderate high PR039 PR39a 29.95 High PR039 PR39b 8.72 High PR041 PR41a 22.70 High PR041 PR41b 7.36 High PR048 PR48 2.47 Moderate high PR049 PR49 4.22 Low moderate PR049 PR49 3.11 Moderate PR049 PR49 3.12 Moderate PR050 PR50a 14.50 High PR050 PR50a 4.16 Moderate PR050 PR50a 13.44 Moderate high PR050 PR50b 88.85 High PR050 PR50b 7.22 Moderate high PR050 PR50c 18.89 High PR050 PR50c 3.71 Moderate high PR051 PR51a 23.99 High PR051 PR51b 49.45 High PR051 PR51b 5.12 Moderate PR051 PR51b 3.93 Moderate high PR051 PR51c 106.35 High PR055 PR55 5.46 High PR074 PR74 4.39 Moderate high PR075 PR75 2.83 Moderate PR091 PR91 2.39 Low PR092 PR92 5.71 Moderate high PR118 PR118a 17.53 Low moderate PR118 PR118b 172.91 High PR118 PR118b 14.49 Moderate high PR122 PR122 6.21 Moderate PR123 PR123 4.11 Moderate PR124 PR124 11.56 High PR125 PR125a 10.86 Moderate PR125 PR125b 9.83 Moderate high PR126 PR126 3.58 Moderate PR126 PR126 8.29 Moderate high

Cherwell Green Belt Study 19 April 2017 Site Parcel Size (ha) Harm rating PR167 PR167a 3.93 Moderate high PR167 PR167b 3.76 Moderate high PR168 PR168 3.31 High PR177 PR177 5.52 High PR178 PR178 13.67 High PR178 PR178 14.09 Moderate high PR181 PR181 2.18 High PR194 PR194 3.59 Moderate PR194 PR194 4.90 Moderate high PR195 PR195 3.39 Low PR202 PR202 4.44 Moderate PR209 PR209a 26.20 High PR209 PR209b 2.75 High PR209 PR209c 8.42 High PR209 PR209c 4.51 Moderate high PR209 PR209d 58.43 High PR209 PR209e 21.13 High PR209 PR209e 21.13 High PR209 PR209f 9.77 High PR210 PR210 49.62 High PR211 PR211a 2.03 Moderate PR211 PR211b 3.86 Moderate YA21 YA21 3.64 Low moderate YA21 YA21 1.15 Moderate

Begbroke West Gap Begbroke West Gap 1.12 Moderate

Cherwell Green Belt Study 20 April 2017 Cherwell Green Belt Study

PR19b Figure 4.1: Harm to Green Belt PR19a PR19c resulting from release of parcels

PR29 Green Belt parcel Harm rating High Moderate high Moderate Low moderate Low PR118b PR209f

PR27b PR195 PR27a PR210 PR118a PR194

PR14

PR209e PR30 PR23 PR209d PR32 PR55 PR74 PR24 PR91

PR21 PR20a PR209c PR181 PR209b

PR48 PR20d PR20b PR20c PR209a PR125a

PR51a YA21 PR202

PR125b PR34 PR20e PR20f

PR51c PR51b Begbroke PR126 West Gap PR178 PR49

PR92 PR50c

PR167a

PR167b PR75 PR39b

PR168 PR39a PR50b PR177 PR38a PR50a PR41b PR122 PR38b PR38c

PR123 PR41a PR211a PR211b Map Scale @ A3: 1:30,000 PR124

0 1 2 E km © Crown Copyright and database right 2017. Ordnance Survey 100018504 CB:VT EB:Tzampoura_V LUCEDI 6986_Fig4-1_ParcelRatings_A3L 15/06/2017 Source: OS, Cherwell District Council, LUC Cherwell Green Belt Study

PR19 Figure 4.2: Harm to Green Belt resulting from release of sites

PR29 Site boundary Harm rating High Moderate high Moderate Low moderate Low PR118

PR195 PR27 PR210 PR194 Where sites overlap, the lower of the site-level ratings has been shown PR14 on the map.

PR30 PR23 PR209 PR32

PR55 PR74 PR24 PR91

PR21

PR181 PR48

PR20

YA21 PR125 PR202

PR34

Begbroke PR126 West Gap PR178 PR51 PR49

PR92

PR167 PR75

PR39 PR50 PR177 PR168

PR122 PR38

PR41 PR123 PR211 Map Scale @ A3: 1:30,000

PR124

0 1 2 E km © Crown Copyright and database right 2017. Ordnance Survey 100018504 CB:VT EB:Tzampoura_V LUCEDI 6986_Fig4-2_SiteRatings_A3L 15/06/2017 Source: OS, Cherwell District Council, LUC Possible Scenarios for Accommodating a Share of Oxford’s Housing Need

4.9 The paragraphs below identify three scenarios for consideration, but any combination of these may also be possible: • Focusing development on sites assessed as making a lower contribution to Green Belt. • Focusing development on the most ‘fragile’ areas of Green Belt (see 4.16-4.17 below). • Focusing development on new inset, or outer Green Belt edge, settlements.

4.10 The considerations that will determine the most appropriate scenario, or combination of scenarios, will largely relate to the existing or potential environmental qualities and value of land, including potential mitigation measures and options for beneficial use of Green Belt, and to the sustainability of residential development.

4.11 Paragraph 6.12 of the Partial Review Options Consultation equates the site minimum size threshold of 2ha with a notional density of 50 dwellings per hectare (dph) – i.e. 100 homes – but recognises that this might not be appropriate for final policies. Given that 50dph is a higher density than most residential areas of Oxford, and makes no allowance for infrastructure, retention of boundary landscape elements, provision of green space, the ‘fit’ of new development with existing adjacent development and visual impact on adjacent countryside, it is likely that the net dph on many sites could be significantly lower.

Release of sites making a lower contribution

4.12 A strategy which avoids releasing sites, or sub-site areas, that would potentially result in higher levels of harm to the Green Belt would result in development of generally relatively small areas of land, adjacent to inset settlement edges. If such a strategy also sought to avoid higher levels of harm to environmental considerations, the number and size of sites would be likely to reduce further, although the sustainability of these settlement-edge locations would typically be expected to be high.

4.13 Release of areas identified as making a low contribution to Green Belt could provide 5.8ha of potential development land.

4.14 Release of areas identified as making a low or low-moderate contribution to Green Belt could, subject to consideration of cumulative impacts, provide 34.6ha of potential development land. 4.15 Release of areas identified as making a low, low-moderate or moderate contribution to Green Belt could, subject to consideration of cumulative impacts, provide 166.7ha of potential development land.

Release of fragile Green Belt

4.16 Green Belt that occupies only a small/narrow area between separate urban settlements will tend to rate highly in terms of its role in preventing settlement coalescence. However, if environmental assessment determines that this land lacks significant value then a case could be made for accepting the coalescence, or near-coalescence, of settlements in order to maximise the scale of development in one area, and consequently to minimise the number of separate locations in which ‘exceptional circumstances’ for Green Belt release would need to be demonstrated.

4.17 Potential locations for this could be: • Between Oxford and Kidlington – either contained to the south of the A34, to retain a small Green Belt gap, or a larger expansion leaving no gap – e.g. defined to the west by Frieze Way and including land to the east of Kidlington between Bicester Road and the A34. • In the Yarnton / Begbroke / Kidlington area – one option would be joining Yarnton and Begbroke to the east of the A44, retaining an open corridor of Green Belt between them and Kidlington and retaining separation between the settlement areas to the west of the A44; a

Cherwell Green Belt Study 23 April 2017 second option would be between the north of Begbroke and Kidlington, retaining an open corridor of Green Belt to the south between Begbroke, Yarnton and Kidlington.

Release of land for development of new settlements

4.18 Harm resulting from the release of land which is further from the large, built-up area of Oxford and neighbouring inset settlements, towards the outer edges of the Green Belt, is typically assessed as ‘high’ because development would constitute encroachment on the countryside. Any isolated development would need to be large enough in scale to form a sustainable inset settlement, and development adjoining an existing washed-over settlement would potentially weaken the justification for that existing settlement’s Green Belt status.

4.19 The encroachment on countryside through creation of new settlements or major expansion of existing washed-over settlements is an option that could contribute significantly to meeting development targets whilst avoiding major harm in terms of the other Green Belt purposes; however environmental and in particular sustainability considerations would be key factors in determining its viability.

4.20 Potential locations for this could be: • Islip – potentially retaining a degree of distinction from the core of the existing settlement, with only land to the north of the railway line being released. The Cherwell valley floodplain strengthens separation from Kidlington. • Shipton-on-Cherwell / Bunkers Hill – in association with one or other of the existing settlements, potentially in association with a redrawing of the outer boundary of the Green Belt (see below).

Consideration of Green Belt Outer Extents

4.21 The assessment of harm resulting from release of Green Belt cannot determine how far the designated area should extend out from Oxford. This judgement needs to address the same issues that would have been factors in setting the original extents of Green Belt, and subsequent alterations to it: the demand for development and the desire to limit urbanisation so as to maintain the identity of settlements and protect countryside. However, the harm resulting from the release of Green Belt can be seen to diminish towards the Green Belt edge in locations with no significant settlement separation role. This is because release of that land is less likely to significantly weaken the contribution of adjacent Green Belt which already, being alongside the outer boundary, has less protection from the designation.

4.22 However, where land is found to contribute significantly only to the purpose of preventing countryside encroachment, the following questions should be asked: • Does the land need to be kept permanently open to meet Green Belt purposes? • Is the land sufficiently suitable for development, in terms of environmental and sustainability considerations, to justify the exceptional circumstances required for its release?

4.23 The expansion of the Green Belt could also be justified if it could be shown to be necessary to strengthen existing Green Belt, either in light of increased development pressure, or to provide protection around newly released Green Belt.

Extension of Green Belt towards Woodstock

4.24 The Oxfordshire Green Belt Study determined that there was no need to alter the boundary in the vicinity of Woodstock; however any release of Green Belt land in the triangle between Woodstock, Kidlington and Oxford (in response to the subsequently identified level of requirement to accommodate Oxford’s unmet need) could warrant reconsideration of this, in order that settlement separation can be maintained.

4.25 There are landscape elements that could potentially be used to form a revised Green Boundary in this area (see below), but the merits of this would need to be considered against the strength of the Green Belt between Begbroke/Kidlington and the outer edge of the designation along the

Cherwell Green Belt Study 24 April 2017 A4095 Upper Campsfield Road, and the potential of land between the Green Belt edge and Woodstock for development. Upper Campsfield Road, with associated tree cover, constitutes a strong boundary that also marks a visual distinction between the well-treed character of land between the Green belt and Woodstock and the more open landscape of the airfield and adjacent arable farmland. The visually strong boundaries around the fields between Woodstock and the Green Belt offer some potential to accommodate development without having a major impact on perceived settlement separation, but development here would add to the importance of retaining openness in the more visually exposed landscape between the A4260 Banbury Road, Kidlington, Begbroke and the hills to the west.

4.26 Were the Green Belt to be extended outwards, the route of an ancient trackway which can be traced from north of Woodstock (Samsons Lane) down almost to Yarnton (Dolton Lane) is suggested as a potential boundary. It already marks the north-eastern edge of Woodstock parish but leaves space adjacent to the settlement to the south of this. Parallel to the north of Woodstock the track meets the embankment of a disused railway branch line, a feature which continues westwards, strengthened by tree cover along most of its length, till meets the railway mainline just west of Shipton–on-Cherwell. This strong linear feature could form an alternative Green Belt boundary, joining up with the existing edge at Shipton Quarry or continuing to the south of the quarry (see para 4.28 below).

4.27 There could be potential to enhance beneficial use of the Green Belt through creation of new public rights of way to connect up those sections of the Samsons Lane to Dalton Lane trackway – the majority of the route between Yarnton and Woodstock, continuing north some 8km to Steeple Barton – that already provide public access. A public right of way already runs parallel to but a short distance south of the disused railway line, so there would be little benefit from providing access here, but there is potential for ecological enhancement along this corridor, particularly at the western end where tree cover is lacking. Figure 4.3 below illustrates this potential amendment, which would add approximately 139ha of land to the Green Belt.

Realignment of Green Belt to exclude Shipton Quarry

4.28 The large site at Shipton Quarry forms the edge of the Green Belt, and the restoration of the site offers potential to define a new strong boundary either to the south of the quarry or within it, should the quarry be proposed for development. The creation of a sizeable new settlement in this location would still cause harm in terms of reducing the settlement gap north of Kidlington, and encroaching on countryside, but harm to the adjacent Green Belt would be less than would be the case in a more central Green Belt location. The railway mainline and the river offer strong alternative boundaries to the east and north. In isolation the removal of all of the quarry area from the Green Belt would constitute the loss of approximately 67 hectares from the designated area (see Figure 4.3).

4.29 The current Green Belt boundary is not lacking in strength, so in the event that no development is proposed in this area it should remain unaltered.

Realignment of Green Belt to strengthen the eastern boundary

4.30 Where there are no sizeable settlements beyond the Green Belt boundary, and land contributes only to the prevention of countryside encroachment, the use of strong physical boundary features could be considered less important. This is reflected in the choice of outer edge boundaries in a number of sections of Green Belt perimeter around the country, with administrative boundaries commonly being used.

4.31 The eastern edge of the Oxford Green Belt in Cherwell district is an example of this: the Green Belt edge follows the district boundary between Bernwood Forest and Murcott, and a variety of landscape elements between Murcott and the M40/A34 junction near Wendlebury; however the subsequent construction of the M40 motorway has introduced a strong boundary feature which runs fairly close to the Green Belt edge for some distance.

4.32 Most of the Oxford Green Belt follows ‘A’ or ‘B’ road edges, or the River Thames, so this section of the boundary in Cherwell is comparatively weak. Although there are not significant development pressures at present, the NPPF requires that Green Belt boundaries should be valid beyond the life of a Local Plan, so change in this area may be warranted. The best case for realignment would relate to the small section of the boundary in the vicinity of the village of Merton that lies to the

Cherwell Green Belt Study 25 April 2017 east of the M40 – illustrated on Figure 4.4. This loss would amount to approximately 71 hectares.

Cherwell Green Belt Study 26 April 2017 Cherwell Green Belt Study

Figure 4.3: Potential alterations to Green Belt near Woodstock

Potential addition to Green Belt near Woodstock Potential removal from Green Belt near Shipton-on-Cherwell Green Belt

Map Scale @ A3: 1:30,000

0 1 2 E km © Crown Copyright and database right 2017. Ordnance Survey 100018504 CB:VT EB:Tzampoura_V LUCEDI 6986_Fig4-3+4_PotAlterations_A3L 17/03/2017 Source: OS, DCLG, Cherwell District Council, LUC Cherwell Green Belt Study 27 April 2017 Cherwell Green Belt Study

Figure 4.4: Potential alterations from Green Belt near Merton

Potential removal from Green Belt near Merton Green Belt

Map Scale @ A3: 1:30,000

0 1 2 E km © Crown Copyright and database right 2017. Ordnance Survey 100018504 CB:VT EB:Tzampoura_V LUCEDI 6986_Fig4-3+4_PotAlterations_A3L 17/03/2017 Source: OS, DCLG, Cherwell District Council, LUC Cherwell Green Belt Study 28 April 2017 5 Mitigation and Enhancement of Beneficial use

Introduction

5.1 The following chapter sets out potential mitigation measures that could be applied to reduce the potential harm to the Green Belt, if the decision is taken to remove areas from the Green Belt. This is followed by a discussion of the potential opportunities for enhancing the beneficial use of the Green Belt (in line with para 81 of the NPPF (2012) and section A62 of the Housing White Paper (2017).

Mitigation to Reduce Harm to Green Belt

The concept of mitigation

5.2 One of the factors weighed up in the judgement of harm resulting from the release of a Green Belt parcel, is the impact that the loss of openness would have on other Green Belt land. This is assessed by considering how neighbouring land would rate in terms of its contribution to Green Belt purposes were the parcel in question to be urbanised: i.e. would its contribution be lessened? In many cases this is a key factor in the judgement: a site might in itself be small, but its development could represent a more significant change than its physical area might suggest if, for example, this resulted in the breaching of a strong boundary feature, or an increase in the built containment of adjacent land.

5.3 There is the potential to reduce harm to the remaining Green Belt by implementing measures which will affect the relationship between Green Belt land and urban areas. Measures which increase the contribution that land is judged to make to Green Belt purposes, offsetting to some degree the predicted reduction in contribution, could strengthen the case for release of a particular parcel.

5.4 Mitigation relates to land under the control of the site owner/developer, and could therefore apply either to land being released or land being retained as Green Belt. There is an overlap between the latter and the concept of beneficial use of Green Belt land as set out in the NPPF, in that mitigation can also present an opportunity to enhance beneficial use.

Generic mitigation themes

5.5 The extent to which harm can be mitigated will vary from site to site, but potential measures can be considered under generic groupings. As described in the assessment methodology, the Green Belt purposes are considered to relate to the relationship between the land area in question, developed land and the countryside. This relationship is influenced by: the location of the parcel; the extent of openness within it; and the role of landscape/physical elements, including boundary features (in either separating the parcel from, or connecting it to) built-up areas and the wider countryside.

5.6 Table 5.1 below lists some mitigation measures that could be considered as part of the development process.

Cherwell Green Belt Study 29 April 2017 Table 5.1: Potential measures to mitigate harm to Green Belt

Mitigation measure Benefits Considerations

Use landscaping to help Maintaining sense of separation A boundary that is relatively integrate a new Green Belt between urban and open land homogeneous over a relatively long boundary with the existing distance – e.g. the Oxford Canal to edge, aiming to maximise the west of Kidlington – is likely to consistency over a longer be stronger than one which has more distance variation. Landscaping works can help to minimise the impact of ‘breaches’ in such boundaries

Strengthen boundary at weak Reducing opportunities for The use of building and landscaping points – e.g. where ‘breached’ sprawl can create strong ‘gateways’ to by roads strengthen settlement-edge function

Define Green Belt edge using Reducing perception of Boundaries that create visual and a strong, natural element urbanisation, and may also movement barriers can potentially which forms a visual barrier – screen residents from intrusive have detrimental effects on the e.g. a woodland belt landscape elements within the character of the enclosed urban Green Belt (e.g. major roads) areas and the amenity of residents

Create a transition from urban Reducing perception of This may however have implications to rural, using built density, urbanisation in terms of reducing housing yield height, materials and landscaping to create a more permeable edge

Consider ownership and Ensuring permanence of Green Trees and hedgerows require management of landscape Belt management to maintain their value elements which contribute to in Green Belt terms, and the visual Green Belt purposes screening value that can be attributed to them is more limited if they are under private control (e.g. within back gardens)

Enhance visual openness Increasing perception of Although openness in a Green Belt within the Green Belt countryside sense does not correspond directly to visual openness, a stronger visual relationship between countryside areas, whether directly adjacent or separated by other landscape elements, can increase the extent to which an area is perceived as relating to the wider countryside

Preserve/enhance landscape Preserving setting and special Landscape character and historic elements which contribute to character of Oxford settings assessment can help to the historic setting of Oxford, identify valued characteristics that and views which provide an should be retained and where appreciation of historic setting possible strengthened, and intrusive and special character elements that should be diminished and where possible removed

Cherwell Green Belt Study 30 April 2017 Mitigation measure Benefits Considerations

Enhance access within the Increasing perception of Uses of the countryside that permits Green Belt countryside an appreciation of it as a connected area with valued characteristics can counter urbanising influences – e.g. enhancement of connectivity of rights of way to avoiding truncation by major roads, or provision of access along the Green Belt boundary to strengthen its role

Improve management Increasing strength of Landscape character assessment can practices to enhance countryside character help to identify valued characteristics countryside character that should be retained and where possible strengthened, and intrusive elements that should be diminished and where possible removed

Design and locate buildings, Maintaining perceived Analysis of settlement settings, landscaping and green spaces settlement separation by including consideration of viewpoints to minimise intrusion on minimising the extent to which and visual receptors, can identify key settlement settings new development intrudes on locations where maintenance of the settings of other openness and retention of landscape settlements features would have the most benefit.

Maintain/create separation Minimising urbanising between existing washed-over influences that could weaken settlement and new inset the justification for retaining settlement the washed-over settlement’s status

Design road infrastructure to Reducing perception of Increased levels of ‘activity’ can limit perception of increased urbanisation increase the perception of urbanisation associated with urbanisation new development

Using sustainable drainage Strengthening separation features to define/enhance between urban and open land separation between settlement and countryside

Beneficial Use of Green Belt

5.1 The purposes of Green Belt do not make any reference to the quality or use of land falling within the designation, but the NPPF, at paragraph 81, states that:

“Once Green Belts have been defined, local planning authorities should plan positively to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt, such as looking for opportunities to provide access; to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation; to retain and enhance landscapes, visual amenity and biodiversity; or to improve damaged and derelict land.”

Cherwell Green Belt Study 31 April 2017 5.2 As part of its recent White Paper on housing policy, the government has proposed that local authorities should seek to ‘offset’ the removal of land from the Green Belt by way of ‘compensatory improvements to the environmental quality or accessibility of remaining Green Belt land’. This could be achieved through legal agreements in conjunction with the release of land and planning consent for development

5.3 The NPPF suggests types of beneficial use. They relate principally to the environmental quality of the land, but can also, through strengthening boundary/buffer roles and affecting landscape and visual character, affect the contribution of land to Green Belt purposes.

Generic potential opportunities to enhance use

5.4 Many of the mitigation measures listed in the previous section which relate to Green Belt land can also be considered beneficial uses, but there is broader scope for introducing or enhancing uses of Green Belt land that (by adding to its value) will strengthen the case for that land’s future protection, regardless of whether it is classified as Green Belt. Some examples are provided in Table 5.2 below.

5.5 Beneficial uses could be achieved through legal agreements in conjunction with the release of land and consent for development. The Housing White Paper states in para A62 that the Government will be exploring whether higher contributions can be collected from development as a consequence of land being released from Green Belt.

Table 5.2: Potential beneficial uses of Green Belt

Beneficial use Considerations

Improving access Enhancing the coverage and condition of the rights of way network and increasing open access provision

Providing locations for outdoor sport Some outdoor sports can represent an urbanising influence; an emphasis on activities which do not require formal facilities is less likely to harm Green Belt purposes

Landscape and visual enhancement Using landscape character assessment as guidance, intrusive elements can be reduced and positive characteristics reinforced

Increasing biodiversity Most Green Belt land has potential for increased biodiversity value – e.g. the management of hedgerows and agricultural field margins, and provision of habitat connectivity

Improving damaged and derelict land Giving land a functional, economic value is a key aspect in avoiding damage and dereliction through lack of positive management, but this needs to be achieved with minimum harm to characteristics/qualities which help it contribute to Green Belt purposes.

Cherwell Green Belt Study 32 April 2017 Specific Mitigation / Beneficial Use

5.6 Analysis of the potential development sites has identified some specific locations in which measures could be implemented to achieve beneficial uses which would also strengthen the contribution of Green Belt, or help to offset any harm resulting from release of adjacent Green Belt. These are set out in Table 5.3 below:

Table 5.3: Potential locations for beneficial use and mitigation within the Green Belt

Beneficial use Impact on contribution to Green Other considerations Belt purposes

Creation of a linear park along Greater public access could Provision of public access and the Oxford Canal, to provide strengthen the boundary between enhancement of biodiversity enhanced access and urban and open land, by widening value can conflict opportunities for outdoor the area of functional use Loss of farmland could have an recreation, and to increase associated with the Canal impact on the economic biodiversity value Greater public access could diminish viability of other Green Belt countryside character land

Improving visual connectivity Visual connectivity from Begbroke Limited (i.e. smaller than of Green Belt land to the Lane through to the hills to the west strategic scale) release of north-east of Begbroke with of the A44, and associated Green Belt land could facilitate Green Belt at the junction of landscape enhancements, could this Langford Lane and the A44 strengthen countryside character in and beyond the largely contained area between Begbroke and Kidlington

Creation of a new public right The eastern edges of these of way along the eastern settlements do not constitute strong edges of Yarnton and Green Belt boundaries; creating a Begbroke, linking Langford well-defined right of way with Lane in the north to Green strong boundary features would Lane in the south, with help to preserve countryside associated hedgerow character in the open fields between boundaries here and the edge of Kidlington

Reconnection of east-west Would provide some Would require public rights of way to the defragmentation of the settlement crossing/bridging/ underpasses north of Oxford gap between Oxford and Kidlington to negotiate the A34, A4260 and A44, creating a continuous

right of way from Woodeaton to the Oxford Canal without any major road crossings

Landscaping works to create a There is potential, through ‘gateway’ to Kidlington landscaping works, to create a stronger sense of arrival at Kidlington, which in turn could help to preserve distinction between the settlement and the countryside Particular consideration could be given to the creation of stronger settlement edges at either end of Langford Lane

Cherwell Green Belt Study 33 April 2017 Making Changes to the Green Belt

5.7 As noted in Chapter 2, the NPPF requires changes to the Green Belt to be made through the Local Plan process. This should include:

i. demonstration of exceptional circumstances, such as unmet housing or employment land needs, that cannot be met elsewhere; and

ii. consideration of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development, considering a range of local, regional and national issues such as economic growth, health and wellbeing, accessibility and biodiversity, cultural heritage and climate change resilience, as well as an assessment against Green Belt purposes.

5.8 A common interpretation of the policy position is that, where necessitated by development requirements, plans should identify the most sustainable locations, unless outweighed by adverse effects on the overall integrity of the Green Belt according to an assessment of the whole of the Green Belt based around the five purposes13. In other words, the relatively poor performance of the land against Green Belt purposes is not, of itself, an exceptional circumstance that would justify release of the land from the Green Belt. Equally, even if an area of Green Belt scores strongly against one or more purposes, or a high degree of harm to the Green Belt is identified, the NPPF does not suggest that a review of its boundaries would not be appropriate, if ‘exceptional circumstances’ are demonstrated.

5.9 Should the District decide to release land from the Green Belt, we recommend that outline policy guidance or masterplans are prepared as part of the Local Plan process. These masterplans should draw on the findings of this Green Belt Study to indicate precise development areas, new defensible Green Belt boundaries (existing or new features) and appropriate development heights and densities. Such an approach, together with specific policies for the development of the land, would help to engender public confidence and support, as well as mitigate harm to the remaining Green Belt.

13 Planning on the Doorstep: The Big Issues – Green Belt, Planning Advisory Service (PAS), 2015 (http://www.pas.gov.uk/documents/332612/1099309/Planning+on+Your+Doorstep+-++The+Big+Issues+Green+Belt.pdf/bb5fcd90- fa29-42a0-9dd9-82b27a43f72f)

Cherwell Green Belt Study 34 April 2017