Putting together an Annual Report reminds one how quickly time passes. It seems very little time since I was writing the last one, yet here we are again. It has been an encouraging year in many respects, although hanging over us, as has been the case for several years now, is the threat of at least one, and probably more, major developments in the Green Belt to satisfy the demand for housing. More of that later. The most satisfying aspect of the year has been the steadily growing support that the Oxford Green Belt Network has had from parish councils, parish meetings and amenity groups who, through their annual subscriptions, demonstrate their confidence in what we seek to do to protect the Oxford Green Belt from inappropriate forms of development. The number of subscriptions has topped 40 for the first time and for that we are very grateful.

Minor changes are taking place in the Green Belt all the time. Most of these involve no more than small alterations to existing properties and are not matters over which we can get involved. Where the change is on a large scale, however, reducing the openness of the Green Belt and harming its visual amenity, we are more likely to express a view, an example being at Sandford-on-Thames where we supported the parish council over a redevelopment scheme on Henley Road that was excessive and out of keeping with the character of this Green Belt village.

In deciding whether or not to get involved, we are guided by government advice on Green Belts, notably the guidance document PPG.2. But even this leaves room for interpretation as to what is, or is not, appropriate. Examples relate to sportsfields and to gravel extraction, both permitted forms of development in a Green Belt according to PPG.2 but ones which can be damaging to the wider aims of Green Belt policy.

PPG.2 states that Green Belts provide opportunities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation near urban areas, but the same document goes on to qualify this by saying that only essential facilities for outdoor sport and recreation are acceptable, referring to small changing rooms or unobtrusive spectator accommodation or small stables. But where do you draw the line? Modern sport increasingly involves large pavilions, floodlighting, car and coach parking, and other facilities which conflict with the idea of openness of the Green Belt. What is more, the pavilions are used for money raising and other activities not directly related to the sports involved.

A recent example, to which we objected, was an application for a pavilion and cricket pitch off Mill Lane, Marston, in the parish of Elsfield. But suspicions were aroused when we discovered that the cricket pitch was on only a small part of a total application area of nearly 20 hectares (50 acres) in size. The proposed pavilion was also large, suggesting that the cricket pitch was a first step towards opening up the area for other forms of development, perhaps starting with car boot sales and going on to who knows what. In this case we felt that the encouragement which PPG.2 gives to outdoor sport and recreation was being used as a catalyst to change.

Floodlighting causes another kind of problem, not least because of the pool of light which it creates in the Green Belt countryside. We objected recently to floodlighting that was proposed at the car park serving the athletics ground on Oxford Road, Horspath. It seemed to us unnecessary given that the sportsfield itself had floodlights and some street lighting had also been put in place. Another example is at Court Place Farm off the A.40 in Old Marston. Here the application was for a full size astro turf football pitch surrounded by 3-metre high fencing and 6 floodlights, 12 metres in height; nine netball courts, similarly surrounded by 3-metre fencing and with 6 floodlights, 12metres in height; plus parking for over 200 vehicles. All of this is next to the Oxford City football ground which has its own floodlighting. At the time of writing this report we had not formulated our response to the City Council’s consultation on the matter, but one does wonder whether all this lighting and fencing is necessary in what is still, despite the existing sports facilities, a Green Belt location.

Mineral working is another legitimate activity in Green Belts according to PPG.2 but one which can seriously affect the nature and quality of the landscape. PPG.2 does refer to the importance of maintaining high environmental standards where mineral working takes place and of ensuring that the site is well restored. Easier said than done. The Oxford area is rich in sand and gravel reserves and some large areas of the Green Belt have been worked over or are still in process of being worked, not always with results that can be said to conform to high environmental standards or to satisfy the need for satisfactory restoration.

An example with which we have been concerned recently is at Eynsham where there is a proposal to open up a large area of agricultural land at Cassington Lane for gravel. It is not a site scheduled in the current County Minerals Plan and the land would not be restored to agriculture. The footpaths here are an amenity for the people of Eynsham and there would be disruption, not only to these, but to archaeological remains and drainage. It is the intention to partially fill the excavations with builders’ waste, in effect treating the site as a landfill. We believe that, notwithstanding the demand for gravel, the effect on the Green Belt at this point does not justify what is being proposed.

Another site over which we have been consulted is the old cement works at Shipton-on-Cherwell. This is a long-running saga and the latest idea is to reopen the quarry for limestone, then to raise the level with imported inert materials and finally to build houses. Mineral extraction appears here to be being used as a way in to gaining support for other forms of development, not unlike the cricket pitch I spoke of earlier.

One of the primary objectives of Green Belt policy is to retain land in agricultural, forestry and related uses and, of course, we strongly support this aim. But farms continue to go out of business, posing problems over the re-use of redundant buildings and sometimes over the division of former holdings. We have knowledge of strips of land at Eynsham being sold to gullible investors in the hope of gaining planning permission. Elsewhere the effect of farm division is evident, as at Chilswell Farm, South Hinksey, where new owners propose new uses such as stabling for horses. Part of the problem often relates to buildings, especially where these are used for quasi-warehousing activities more suitable to business parks in towns. They can generate unwelcome amounts of heavy traffic in small Green Belt villages, as at Noke. In some cases developments related to farm diversification take place without planning permission having first been sought, raising issues of the kind we have taken an interest in at Stanton St John. Where retrospective applications are made it is often too late to do anything about a matter which should have been judged against the restraints of the planning system at an earlier stage.

One response to the fragmentation of land holdings is to plant trees and we have been pleased to be associated this year with the work of Forest of Oxford which aims to plant trees on plots of land in the urban fringe of Oxford, plots that have been largely abandoned and are subject to invasion by travellers. Sites close to the ringroad are favoured since tree planting there will also help to reduce the polluting effects of motor vehicles. An area adjacent to the A.40 at Cutteslowe was planted earlier in the year and there are plans to do the same on land next to the Southern Bypass and close to Redbridge park-and-ride. This is partly in the City and partly in South Hinksey parish. Both sites are in the Green Belt and provide examples of what can be done by way of enhancement of the urban fringe landscape, something which the Oxford Green Belt Network has always had as one of its aims.

I must turn in conclusion to the future and this coming year in particular. The major issue over the coming months is undoubtedly the Examination in Public into the Draft South East Plan produced by the South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA). As you will recall, no changes are proposed to the boundary of the Oxford Green Belt during the Plan period up to 2026, but that does not stop landowners and developers seeking to overcome this policy and we are all aware of the huge pressures to take land out of the Green Belt, especially for housing. The Oxford Green Belt Network has been given a place at the table when housing and the Oxford Green Belt will be discussed at the end of February and meanwhile we are invited to submit a Written Statement addressing the 5 questions that will be debated during that particular session. This Statement has to be submitted not later than 22^nd January 2007 and our Steering Committee must now work on it as a matter of urgency.

It is unfortunate that the 5 questions do not address the benefits to be derived from the Green Belt. The emphasis is on housing need, the potential for the expansion of Oxford and the merits or otherwise of the County’s Country Towns Policy. This gives some idea of what we are up against and we shall need to think hard how we can get across the benefits of retaining the Green Belt in its present form. It would be nice to think that these benefits are taken for granted but this is far from evident in the form of questions all of which challenge the current situation. We shall be facing a lot of opposition from developers at the EIP but it is good that there will be support from CPRE, the Oxford Preservation Trust and two of the parish councils most likely to be affected if demands for an urban extension to Oxford are successful, the Baldons and Horspath.

Finally I should like to thank the members of our Steering Committee for their contribution to our work over the past year. A special word of thanks is due to Austin Griffiths who has been Honorary Treasurer since the Oxford Green Belt Network was set up formally in 1998. We are grateful to Michael Tyce for taking on these duties now that Austin has felt obliged to retire. We shall do our best to maintain close contact with parish councils and parish meetings in the Green Belt and with other amenity groups who support our aims. Please keep us informed of threats to the Green Belt in your areas and we will do what we can to help.