September 2020 Planning for Cherwell to 2040 Community Involvement Paper July 2020 Response from North Oxfordshire Green Party NORTH OXFORDSHIRE GREEN PARTY SEPTEMBER 2020 The North Oxfordshire Green Party (NOGP) is the branch of the Green Party of England and Wales covering Cherwell. Our members in the three main conurbations of Cherwell as well as those living in the surrounding villages have considered the document ‘Planning for Cherwell to 2040’ and their responses are included in this document. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS There are specific responses to some of the main questions posed in the community involvement paper as well as general observations. Our main focus is naturally on the issues relating to climate change and environmental protection, but the GPEW also has a strong policy stance on housing, particularly affordable housing, as well as place making and the provision of sustainable infrastructure. We are also keen to support small local businesses and vibrant town centres, but this is as part of an overall approach to organic economic growth, rather than pursuing growth for its own sake. GROWTH The main theme of the involvement paper seems to be a continuation of Cherwell’s pursuit of growth whilst at the same time trying to represent this as ‘sustainable’. The terms ‘sustainable growth’ is in large part an oxymoron. Growth can never be maintained indefinitely, and whilst we would support the maintenance of a thriving economy, in an area like Oxfordshire growth needs to be managed, rather than pursued. This is particularly the case in a district like Cherwell where growth has outstripped the national average by a very large margin. One valuable lesson that we must learn from the experience of the pandemic is that businesses may not need huge, expensive premises to operate from in the future. This goes for almost all businesses, with the possible exception of some service industries and the manufacturing sector. Many more people will be working from home than has been the case in the past. By 2040 this may be a much more entrenched position. We need to be planning for better communication infrastructures such as fibre broadband and 5G across all areas, including those harder-to-reach rural sectors, in order to facilitate what is likely to be a more established mode of remote working. This should in many cases be a priority above the provision of more traditional modes of travel and communications. RETAIL We would support measures aimed at helping smaller retailers. We do not support the spending of huge sums on shopping centres such as Banbury’s Castle Quay Shopping Centre. This has been promoted as a regeneration project when in fact the focus has been on maintaining a development that services larger retailers almost exclusively. Areas like Banbury, Bicester and Kidlington all have a good independent retail offer, but these businesses need more targeted support. This is likely to be even more the case in 2040 when it’s predicted that more that half of all retail sales will be made online. That figure may be even greater once the impact of COVID-19 is factored in. Other 1 | P a g e global crises such as climate change may also have an impact by then, especially if we have not achieved local targets of zero carbon by 2030. GREEN SPACES There are numerous references to ‘green space’, ‘green infrastructure’ and ‘green belt’ within the document; however it seems apparent, from both the overriding focus on growth and the industrial strategy, that these important aspects of our environment are liable to be sacrificed at the first opportunity. For example, paragraph 1.2 makes reference to ensuring that developments do not do harm, respond to climate change, avoid pollution, improve biodiversity and the provision of sustainable transport modes. All these things could be done using the current local plan and national policy frameworks, yet it’s clear from previous behaviour that these things are not a real priority for Cherwell. TRUST The document makes only one specific response to Cherwell’s recent partial review which was adopted by the council on 7th September after considerable opposition from local and national campaigners and local residents. The proposals that were eventually pushed through by the administration as a result of that review will result in huge destruction of a large area of green belt in south Cherwell, along with the building of more roads and the expansion of existing business areas such as the Begbroke Science Park, which in turn will result in the obliteration of two ancient and distinct villages. References in paragraph 1.20 to ‘maintenance of local distinctiveness’ and in para 1.21 calling for villages and hamlets to ‘retain their traditional character’ will ring very hollow with the people of Begbroke, Yarnton, Gosford and Water Eaton. The single reference to this highly contentious and far reaching decision by the council is an attempt to exclude it from discussion as part of this consultation. While it’s clear that the current administration would be keen for that to be the case, future planning policy cannot be seen in isolation from the council’s past actions. Trust and good will form a major part of any planning policy; it now seems clear to the people of south Cherwell that their council cannot be trusted and shows very little good will towards residents there. In that context it is very difficult to take seriously any of the aspirations towards the protection of green spaces and the amenity of local residents that are espoused in this document, when the council’s recent actions stand as proof of their total lack of genuine concern for such values. CURRENT POLICIES Comments in paragraphs such as 1.14 which refers to ‘safe green spaces’ and ‘Green Belt strategies’ in 1.35 would also seem to be simple window dressing. The reference in 2.4c to an 2 | P a g e ‘environmental objective’ is all very laudable, but seems far from the true aspirations of the current administration. Moreover, many of the policies and aims that are listed in connection with environmental matters and zero carbon development are already present in the current local plan; yet rarely, if at all, are they applied to planning applications. These policies are usually dismissed during the consideration of such applications as mere ‘aspirations’ that would not stand up to a planning appeal. If that is the case, it’s difficult to see how they would be given more ‘teeth’ in the future and if those teeth would even be used, were they available to the planning committee. This would seem to be unlikely in cases where these values are seen as obstacles to growth or in opposition to the industrial strategy. EMERGING POLICY There is a single reference in 2.6 to the government’s emerging policies on planning which, if they go ahead in their current form, will make much of this consultation redundant. Much more focus is needed on that aspect, and there is the argument that expending further effort and expense on a consultation at this point is foolhardy, especially given that these proposals would not become policy for another 20 years. OXFORD/CAMBRIDGE ARC There is much mention of the so-called ‘knowledge spine’ and the ‘Oxford to Cambridge Arc’, both rather worrying aspects coming from the only council in Oxfordshire that refused to condemn the building of the Oxford to Cambridge Expressway, a project universally opposed and panned by environmental campaigners across the region. It’s also worth noting that as chair of the ‘Arc Leaders’ Group’ the current leader of Cherwell District Council has some part to play in this project. It’s worrying that repeated references to this notional arc and the connectivity between the two cities is another recurring theme allied to the theme of growth. It’s difficult not to see such references as an attempt to keep the idea of the expressway alive, even though it has been suspended by national government. NOGP feels it would be as well to set the record straight on this once and for all, making CDC’s policy on the expressway clear. The building of a motorway is not compatible with the council’s climate change emergency motion. FARMLAND There are several references in the document to protecting farmland in the pursuit of food security. The NOGP would wholeheartedly support this aim, but again CDC has not shown good faith on this aspiration so far. Building on green areas usually involves the removal of large swathes of good farming land. This is particularly the case in south Cherwell, where dozens of acres of grade 2 farmland are about to be concreted over. 3 | P a g e BIODIVERSITY AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT The table on Page 20 contains a list of rather vague priorities including references to such things as ‘biodiversity offsetting’. The Green Party regards any sort of offsetting as dodging responsibility. The reference to ‘natural capital mapping’ is again a great phrase, but this needs more detail. Green councillor Ian Middleton has already suggested that a register of important trees should be compiled, but has been told that there are no resources to carry this out. If that is the case, then including items like this in that table is pointless. The reference to ‘green infrastructure networks’ also needs more explanation. It also includes an aspiration to protect areas where development is inappropriate. The Green Belt would seem to be a perfect example of such an area, yet, as already mentioned, Cherwell has done very little to protect that and has instead actively pursued the opposite.