The CPRE (Campaign to Protect Rural England) held a hustings this evening for the Oxford West and Abingdon parliamentary constituency.
The venue was the Byzantine St Barnabus Church in Jericho, Oxford West.
Bill Heine, the Radio Oxford presenter, chaired the debate which included six of the seven candidates. The UKIP candidate was not there.
Oxfordshire is still more rural than most of the South East but it appears, from figures quoted at the hustings, that a body called the Growth Board now wants 100,000 new homes to be built in Oxfordshire, with a 40% increase in population. Candidates, by and large, thought growth needed to be spread across the country not just in the South East.
Already there are not enough affordable homes for local people. So there were some big questions around affordable housing, planning and toxic developments in Oxford, Oxford’s green belt, proposed park and rides, the A34, transport generally, and the NPPF.
The coalition government introduced the NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework), which appeared to give power to developers over local communities. Appeals by developers have often been successful because local authorities don’t have a five year housing supply. Larry Sanders from the Greens said, as a result, that the coalition government had been one of the most destructive in living memory.
We heard Nicola Blackwood, the Conservative, defend the NPPF policy. It had been good in principle but it did depend on local neighbourhood plans being in place to balance the developers. Those neighbourhood plans did not happen in time – so the NPPF was out of kilter.
As a result, local communities could not demonstrate that the harm being done socially and environmentally would outweigh the economic gains. Sally Copley, of Labour, said that social and environmental factors need to be given as much weight as economic.
On transport, Layla Moran, the LIb-Dem, and Nicola Blackwood, the Conservative, agreed that a long term shift from cars to cycling and public transport needed to be developed if Oxfordshire’s roads are to cope in future.
On the green belt most candidates said that it should only be built on in exceptional circumstances. Layla Moran said a full and open review was needed, not piecemeal attacks…
Next general husting is in Abingdon on 15th and I’ve asked Mike for a report as I’ve got a School Governors meeting at the same time. Mike did say after tonight’s hustings that he was suprised there had been no questions on the countryside.
It is so lovely, just for a moment, to think that the people of Oxfordshire have any kind of say, or sway. If central Gvmt want, or think that we need 100k houses….then that’s what we’ll get.
I am equally certain though that each development will have lovely flowerbeds.
Barnabas.
Beyond the General Election will we continue to enjoy/endure government made up in the main by people who have very little work experience outside the Westminster village? Since 1997 Parliament has increased its legislative output massively but apparently without the will or means to police or implement it. The NPPF is typical of this: a good-ish idea on paper, but hopeless in its day-to-day effect.
The recent pensions legislation is another half-baked idea: let’s give everybody free access to their pension pot, but without free access to proper financial advice.
I am sure the candidates in our constituency all mean well; I want a bit more than that, however…..
I have no idea how the candidates performed (and Backstreeter is typically impartial) but I would find it hard to think of a more beautiful setting for a Husting.
Went through David Cameron’s constituency yesterday and there are thousands of acres available for new developments and social housing.Didn’t see a single Labour Poster!
According to the Oxfordshire “Strategic Housing Market Assessment” which was much derided at last night’s meeting, West Oxfordshire needs an additional 600+ houses a year and around 64% of West Oxfordshire households can only afford social housing rent levels.
What a waste of time. All Abingdon councillors and Nicola Blackwood were against the development on the Drayton Road but it was still passed despite Abingdon;s traffic problem. Developers win OK!
“Oxfordshire is still more rural than most of the South East but it appears, from figures quoted at the hustings, that a body called the Growth Board now wants 100,000 new homes to be built in Oxfordshire, with a 40% increase in population. Candidates, by and large, thought growth needed to be spread across the country not just in the South East.”
With 40% increase in houses! the population will rise still more. But the Office of National Statistics website shows just 10% population rise, nationally , over the same period.
Why so much for Oxfordshire? When pressed, not a single one of the candidates seemed willing to say they would go to parliament and tackle the root cause of these figures, namely unfettered ambition of developers, and a system of control that fails.
The forecast growth will fail. It will create chaos. The forecast should be changed and it is parliament’s job to do it Oxfordshire will be unable to expand by 40% by 2031.
Just to be clear – the 40% growth forecast comes from the Oxfordshire Growth Board, which is made up of the leaders of the district, city and county councils, not the Government.
So while Janet is right that some aspects of planning decisions are out of the hands of local councillors, a lot of decisions are still influenced by them.
An MP and/or local councillors can argue against these ridiculously high figures and try and do something about them.
If it’s the leaders of those councils ‘coming up with’ these forecasts…that means it is really council officers, telling an arbitrary, transient ‘council leader’ what to say.
From the get-go….we’re dooooooomed!
Neil, I admire your optimism regarding “trying to do something about it”.
Lots of pamphlets recently both yellow, and some blue still saying lots about the problems – and even more about who else is to blame, all one big disengaging process. However I remain hopeful; and look forward to a pamphlet that tells me what you are all actually going to do!
One figure which was not quoted at the debate was that the SHMA (drawn up by consultants who are supposedly independent) calculated that for Oxfordshire as a whole the housing required to meet existing needs (not those arising from growth) is in the region of 3600 per annum. That is to address the numbers currently on waiting lists, the backlog from under provision over recent years and the anticipated demographic developments in coming years. I.e all of us with children reaching maturity, families in villages whose children want to remain in the area, people coming to work in existing jobs in schools, the NHS, the Universities etc
I also am very concerned about the traffic implications and the Green Belt issues concerning the Proposed 1000 houses in North Abingdon. The Council has rushed in to identifying many sites in the Green Belt and certainly the Peachcroft site was included late in the plan process, against the advice of the Council’s own consultants. Previous Planning Inspectors of Local Plans and the Vale Council themselves have acknowledged the importance of maintaining a gap between Radley and Abingdon. In identifying this site I the Council had not even acknowledged the Ancient Woodland adjoining it (albeit small) or that the site is close to a Site of Special Scientific Interest. What other important issues have they missed?
They have certainly missed that when the Northern edge of Abingdon was shifted Northwards to accommodate 1600 houses round about 1990, the Dunmore Road and 12 Acre Drive were set up as defining the edge of Abingdon. It was then stated that there would be no further expansion in that direction, and a brief glance at a map shows that the distance from the Northern boundary to the Town centre by far exceeds the corresponding distance from the Southern Boundary. Abingdon has doubled in size since the seventies and this foray into the Green Belt can only be seen as a speculative, profit driven thrust that would not be acceptable to any party other than the one in power now. Construction in the Green Belt will be unashamedly aimed at the top end of the market.
Any excuse about housing for Science Vale, for example, shows it for the sham that it is. Why build houses in the North of Abingdon to act as a dormitory for Harwell? And what link is there with Culham that avoids travelling through an already congested town centre, other than a very poor rail service from Radley.
…as long as the legalities are ticked…any other common sensical issues are null.