The last Annual General Meeting of the Oxford Green Belt Network took place just before the start of the Examination in Public into the County Structure Plan. OGBN submitted a paper to the EIP and also appeared and gave evidence there. Together with other conservation groups and representatives of parish councils, we put the case for maintaining the Oxford Green Belt within its present boundaries, but were opposed by a range of landowners, developers and their agents who were all keen to build in the Green Belt. The outcome was as favourable as we could have hoped for and we can indulge in a moment of self-congratulation. The inspectors who reported on the EIP decided that the case for development had not been made out. This ruling has been accepted by the County Council and the Structure Plan has now been formally adopted.

So is the Green Belt safe until 2016, the year to which the Structure Plan runs? It would be nice to say "Yes" to that, but sadly it is far from being the case. Circumstances can change and the inspectors recognised this when they stated that their conclusion was reached only in the context of presently identified requirements for housing. If a need for more housing in excess of present plans could be proven, then it is back to considering the merits or otherwise of land to the south of Grenoble Road, at Horspath, Sunningwell, Radley, Yarnton and elsewhere. In reality the threat to these locations is never likely to go away, especially now that the balance of power is in danger of slipping away from the County towards SEERA (the South East England Regional Assembly) and to central government.

The Regional Assembly’s South East Plan was published at the beginning of 2005 and we all remember the infamous "Your Shout" consultation leaflet which was supposed to drop through all our letterboxes. The Oxford Green Belt Network answered the questions asked in this leaflet but also wrote at greater length explaining our responses and making the case for protecting the Green Belt. The key to all this so far as we were concerned was the so-called strategic sub-region of Central Oxfordshire, an area larger than the Green Belt since it extended from Bicester in the north to Didcot and Wantage in the south. It must also be remembered that the South East Plan covers the years from 2006 to 2026, i.e. it extends for ten years beyond the end of the County Structure Plan.

In our response to SEERA’s consultation, OGBN supported the County’s position which sought to limit the number of new houses to be built in Central Oxfordshire to 1,600 a year up to 2026, a total of 32,000. We also supported the County in suggesting that the greater part of the new housing should be outside the Green Belt, principally in the Bicester and Didcot areas.

Let us now come up to date. SEERA has decided on house-building figures for the South East as a whole and Oxfordshire is expected to absorb 47,000 new dwellings over the 20-year period from 2006 to 2026. Rather more than half this total, 26,300, is already planned for in the adopted Structure Plan. But that Plan, one recalls, only extends to 2016, which leaves another 21,000 dwellings to be built between 2016 and 2026. This may seem a long time away, especially to someone who, if he survives that long, will be 91 in 2026, but it is nevertheless crucial to the long-term future of the Green Belt.

Where will the 21,000 dwellings be built? The County Council is presently consulting on this matter on behalf of SEERA and that is why we have it as an item on our agenda this evening. We are told that 11,000 of the 21,000 could be built on brownfield sites and another 2,000 outside central Oxfordshire in places like Banbury. But that leaves 8,000 to be built on greenfield sites in Central Oxfordshire and the consultation is about 3 options for accommodating this growth. Two of these options avoid the Green Belt by concentrating development to the north at Bicester and to the south at Didcot and, possibly, Grove. The third is a write-in option which invites other suggestions and it doesn’t require much imagination to anticipate the revival of all those ideas about urban extensions to Oxford with the consequent loss of Green Belt land to development. All the landowners who want to build south of Grenoble Road, at Sunningwell and elsewhere, are already sharpening their pencils in eager anticipation of the case for development being reopened.

One other important point remains to be made. When they reported on the Examination in Public into the Structure Plan the inspectors observed that beyond 2016 they thought it inevitable that "future plans will need to address new spatial options within Central Oxfordshire, including those which involve making changes to the Green Belt". They softened the blow a little by saying that "such a choice should only be made after a thorough strategic appraisal which shows it to be the best sustainable option". But this is the observation which is giving heart to those who want to build in the Green Belt and are calling for a review of the boundary of the Green Belt, sooner rather than later.

We will return to the subject later in our agenda, but meanwhile let me touch briefly on other matters that have been of concern to OGBN over the past 12 months. One of these has been the continuing problem of farms going out of business, their land being divided, either for letting or for sale, and the finding of alternative uses for barns and other buildings. We have written letters about proposed developments at Chilswell Farm, South Hinksey, Hall Farm at Begbroke, Frieze Farm, Gosford, and Park Farm and Stockwell Barn at Waterstock, as well as keeping an eye on what is happening elsewhere. When farmland is subdivided it is not inevitable that building will follow, but there is always a danger of new fences or other kinds of barrier being erected and consequent changes to the appearance of the landscape taking place. So we were pleased when the Oxford Preservation Trust bought land to protect it at Chilswell and this was noted in one of our Newsletters.

OGBN recognizes the need for affordable housing in rural areas and is not going to protest over a small number of such dwellings on appropriate sites in villages which have been selected in Local Plans for such provision. But we do object to unauthorized developments and ones on sites that are harmful to village character, and we have been dismayed at examples of building taking place without planning permission in the hope that a weak enforcement system will eventually lead to the owners getting what they want.

The issue of waste disposal has come to the fore following government pressure on local authorities to recycle more and to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill. The County Council is good about consulting us when new recycling sites are proposed or extensions planned to existing ones. We recognize the importance of recycling, not least if it reduces the problem of roadside flytipping, so have tended not to object to schemes like that at Worton Farm, Cassington, to extend the green waste recycling facility. But we are aware that some are controversial and we are watching out with particular interest for any proposals to build waste incinerators in the Green Belt. Our concern here is not with pollution, which is a matter for the experts, but with the location of any such facility, its appearance and the implications it may have for traffic movements. Consultants acting for the County Council have spoken of a possible site close to the A.34 but that is all we know at present.

We continue to keep a watchful eye on sports grounds in the Green Belt, especially when schemes are put forward for enlarging pavilions and using facilities for large scale social events. The proposed concert at Stratfield Brake was an interesting example, which failed when the promoters went bankrupt. We could write at length about Waterstock golf club, a continuing saga. Telecom masts spring up, disguised in ever more ingenious ways, and we write letters in the hope that local authorities will find some means of restricting their spread. Roadside advertising has not been halted despite the powers that local authorities are said to possess to prevent it. Finally, the rivers. We have taken an interest in ideas for creating a new channel for the Thames, have written about the mooring of residential boats at Tumbling Bay and, most exotic of all, been amazed by the idea of having an Olympic-scale rowing course across the Hinksey meadows.

In conclusion, could I thank the members of OGBN’s Steering Committee for their support. A Committee of 13, we have met at roughly two-monthly intervals but are active inbetween these occasions. Activities of individual members have included questioning prospective councillors over their views on the Green Belt, lobbying present County Councillors before the crucial decision to adopt the Structure Plan, writing on our behalf to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on housing matters, as well as working through both CPRE and the Oxford Preservation Trust to promote the interests of the Green Belt. I am grateful, also, to the Parish Councils and Parish Meetings who support our activities through their annual subscriptions. This is greatly appreciated and we are always glad to hear from parishes who have Green Belt concerns.

The year 2005 marks the 50^th anniversary of Green Belts. It is just 50 years since the then Minister, Duncan Sandys, urged local authorities to adopt the Green Belt as a means of checking urban sprawl and of protecting the character of historic towns. Not all places responded, but Oxford did and the benefits of having a Green Belt are there for all to see and enjoy. The Oxford Green Belt Network will continue to promote the aims of Green Belt policy established by these pioneers of 50 years ago.