No Expressway Alliance newsletter no 8

A coalition of individuals and groups opposed to all suggested corridors and routes for an Expressway between Cambridge and Oxford formally launched on 14TH September 2018 in Botley, Oxford.

Our member groups continue to expand:

Member groups: Buckinghamshire Expressway Action Group, Bullingdon Community Association (Oxford), Charlton on Otmoor Parish Council, Charndon Parish Council, Cowley Area Transport Group, Cumnor Parish Council, Extinction Rebellion Oxford, Fossil Free Oxfordshire, Friends of Lye Valley, Friends of Raleigh Park, No Expressway Group (formerly known as: Horton cum Studley Expressway Group), Horton cum Studley Parish Council, Kidlington Parish Council, Low Carbon Oxford North, Low Carbon West Oxford, Need Not Greed Coalition – (35 member groups), North Hinksey Parish Council, North Otmoor No Expressway Group, Oxford Bioregion Forum, Oxford Climate Lobby, Oxford Friends of the Earth, Oxfordshire Liveable Streets, Radley Parish Council, Reading Friends of the Earth, Rethink Oxfordshire’s Economic Growth Plan, Sandford on Thames Parish Council, South Oxfordshire Sustainability, Sunningwell Parishioners Against Damage to the Environment (SPADE), Wendlebury Parish Council, Weston on the Green Parish Council, Westway Community Concern, Yarnton Parish Council.

HAS YOUR GROUP JOINED AND FILLED IN A FORM YET? IF NOT, SEE HOW TO JOIN using the membership form attached with this newsletter

VACANCIES FOR VOLUNTEERS IN THE NO EXPRESSWAY ALLIANCE: VOLUNTEER JOBS AT THE NO EXPRESSWAY ALLIANCE

The No Expressway Alliance needs volunteers to help with the following Committee tasks:

Secretary: to attend Committee and General meetings, take minutes and support the Committee by helping with other tasks periodically.

Communications Officer (Social Media): to contribute to the NEA’s work in social media such as Facebook/Twitter in cooperation with the other Communications Officer who deals with Press Releases/the NEA newsletter and general communications/queries, to attend Committee and General meetings.

Page | 1

Treasurer: to attend Committee meetings and General meetings, to set up and run a bank account for the Alliance, maintain accounts and update each Committee meeting of the Alliance on the state of our funds and future liabilities.

Policy and Research Volunteer: We need a volunteer who can do further research on the routes/impacts of prospective specific Expressway route options. There will be a consultation on this in the autumn but we would like a volunteer in place before that to commence this work, obtaining information from involved groups and website sources. To attend Committee and General meetings when possible.

For all posts: apply to Dr Hazel Dawe, Chair, No Expressway Alliance – hazeldawe5@gmail.com with relevant details. For an informal chat about what would be involved, ring Hazel on 079444 71083

Postal communications: 53 Bulan Road Oxford OX3 7HU – 07747 036192

NEXT NEWSLETTER DEADLINE: 31st May 2019 please send in your news. Thanks to all who contributed to this edition.

Website: www.noexpresswayalliance.org

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NoExpresswayAlliance/

Twitter: @NoExpressway

CAMPAIGNING PETITIONS:

Online signatures at change.org at: 6812 on 30th April 2019

Hard copy signatures at 27th April 2019: 1118 Request a copy of the petition by email for printing and use in your area by emailing Steve Dawe at stevedawe@gn.apc.org

See also this petition exclusively on a Green Belt issue in the Oxford area:

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/stop-green-belt-destruction-in-oxfordshire

DATES:

Wednesday 15th May – General Meeting of No Expressway Alliance. Speaker: Daniel Scharf on Problems of Housing Delivery with opportunity for questions and discussion. Also: further discussion on our strategy for the future. 7-9pm John Wesley Room, Wesley Memorial Church, New Inn Hall Street, Oxford OX1 2DH.

Monday 17 June: Should Oxfordshire Grow? The proposed Expressway and new communities – Civic Society debate, 7.30 pm, Oxford Town Hall. Book tickets here.

NEWSOPPOSITION GROWS ACROSS THE ARC

To note:

Page | 2

The Labour leader of Oxford City Council, Susan Brown, says, 29th April - Briefing note to full Council, p.39:

“I have spoken to the leaders of the other Labour councils in the Arc and both Milton Keynes and Cambridge are opposing the Expressway as it is currently described.”

REPORTS FROM THE NO EXPRESSWAY CONFERENCE IN BICESTER, 30/3:

Three presentations from the Conference, see: https://www.noexpresswayalliance.org/stopping-the-expressway-a-no-expressway-alliance-conference/

Paul Miner of CPRE on the Arc, report of speech at the Conference:

Chris Todd, from the Campaign for Better Transport, report of speech at the Conference:

THE POSSIBLE EXPRESSWAY ROUTES ARE BECOMING A LITTLE CLEARER………….

Extract from an Expressway Action Group newsletter:

“HIGHWAYS ENGLAND - ROUTE STUDIES

As instructed by Government, Highways England are continuing to develop possible routes for an Oxford to Cambridge Expressway around Oxford. Following their initial report last year to the Department for Transport, Government decided to reject 5 of the 7 possible ‘corridors’ proposed for study by Highways. The remaining 2 corridors are ‘B1” to the West of Oxford, and ‘B3' to the South. Highways are expected to produce a shortlist of routes in each corridor, with a breakdown of the key factors for and against each one. This report is expected to go to Government in Autumn 2019.”

CYCLOX: OXFORD CYCLING CAMPAIGN AND THE EXPRESSWAY

Extract from recent newsletter:

“Oxford Cambridge Expressway

Cyclox has not agreed a formal position on the Expressway but our general view is that the money could be much better spent, and that the Expressway will only encourage more traffic in and around Oxford, and worsen climate change, air pollution and foil attempts to increase active travel.”

THE OXFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL MEETING ON 2/4:

PASSED A motion demanding a public consultation on the principle of the Cambridge-Oxford Expressway but declined to accept a motion opposing this megaproject in principle.

PASSED A motion ‘acknowledging’ the existence of a Climate Emergency but declined to accept a motion declaring such an Emergency. The motion only commits the County Council to deal with its own emissions, so further action on the County’s emissions as a whole will be needed. Passing such a motion flatly contradicts any idea whatsoever that the County Council could, at a later date, support the Cambridge-Oxford Expressway and its associated corridor development since the Climate and air pollution impacts of such a project are clearly as damaging to the Climate as they would be to a vast area of England’s environment.

Dr Hazel Dawe, as Chair of the No Expressway Alliance, spoke to the meeting:

Page | 3

“Speech by Dr Hazel Dawe, Chair of NEA to Oxfordshire County Council 2nd April 2019

The Expressway is an abomination. It will increase traffic, increase pollution, increase noise, increase ill health and worsen climate change.

Highways England claims that it will reduce congestion. Their own post opening project evaluations prove this is not so. For example, the Newbury bypass had an increase in induced traffic of 56% after five years and traffic levels in the town centre were back to pre-bypass levels after only four years.

Whatever route is finally chosen it will inevitably damage precious and beautiful countryside. Every possible route will affect sensitive sites. The potentially endangered sites include Shotover Country park, Cothill Fen and Wytham Woods. We are now told Otmoor is not completely reprieved.

We are owners-in-common of our external environment. It belongs to no-one, because it belongs to everyone; as a consequence, it is not guarded well, and is often over-used. We must realise that our external environment is important for our survival and act accordingly. The climate emergency is making us realise that we are collectively ‘sole owners’ of Planet Earth. We must guard it well.

There is no Planet B

The Expressway is a cancer. Not one road, 100 roads and a million homes. These will be the wrong homes in the wrong place.

Oxford Co-housing describes scheme as both foolish and grandiose.

· the majority won’t be affordable (and building more 'unaffordable' open market homes will continue to inflate the market);

· it will add to our transport difficulties, as these extra homes would potentially almost double the number of cars on our roads;

· the carbon generated by such a build will be huge and decimate any planned efforts to reduce our carbon footprint;

· building on the greenbelt will add to the already unacceptable degradation of biodiversity.

We should look to build clusters of community-led homes in every neighbourhood and village that can demonstrate housing need... using every available site and especially making use of public and charitable-owned land: homes that are people-centred, built for and by local people, with local connections; zero carbon AND with most, if not all, permanently affordable.

The No Expressway Alliance enjoys widespread support from a variety of organisations, parish councils, campaigning groups, residents groups, political parties. At our launch we had speakers from four political parties, Tory, Labour Lib Dem and Green.

Oxford City Council has voted unanimously against the Expressway.

Please reject this unpopular unacceptable project.”

Page | 4

Hazel Dawe and Joanna Gill wrote the following letter in response to this contradictory behaviour by the County Council, to the Oxford Times:

Dr Hazel Dawe, 53 Bulan Road, Oxford OX3 7HU - Tel 079444 71083

Dear Editor

The County Council did, indeed, ‘acknowledge’ a climate emergency at its meeting on 2nd April. However, in the same meeting the council took two decisions which contradict the urgency of the climate emergency and will do much to worsen climate change.

The Tory councillors refused to oppose the Oxford Cambridge expressway, a road which will increase traffic, noise, pollution and ill health and worsen climate change. They did this despite many of them admitting that they had been contacted by constituents and parish councils opposed to the Expressway. They voted for a much weaker proposal to consult residents on the principle of an Expressway before consulting on possible routes.

Cllr Yvonne Constance seemed unaware of the obvious contradiction between acknowledging a climate emergency and continuing to invest millions of pounds of Council staff's money in the fossil fuel companies that are both driving climate breakdown and lobbying against the policies we need to avert catastrophe. Leaving the oil in the ground and investing in renewables rather than fossil fuels is essential to meeting our emissions targets and reducing the impact of climate change.

As councillor Constance herself said: actions speak louder than words. The actions of the county council give the lie to their fine words.

Yours faithfully

Dr Hazel Dawe, No Expressway Alliance, Joanna Gill Extinction Rebellion Oxford

HOW MUCH EMPTY EMPLOYMENT LAND DOES OXFORD HAVE? WHY IS IT NOT IN USE FOR HOUSING?

John Hill did some research on employment land left empty in Oxford – report available from stevedawe@gn.apc.org John recommends this be updated slightly by looking at the CPRE submission to the Oxford Local Plan: http://www.cpreoxon.org.uk/news/current-news/item/2723-ox-city-local-plan-presub-consult-nov-18

John’s report identifies long-term empty sites and clear over-provision of employment land. So this has increased pressure on local authorities outside Oxford to provide land for housing, and more commuting into Oxford in consequence since jobs are concentrated in the City.

LONGER ITEMS Minutes No Expressway Alliance Committee – held 27th March 2019 -53 Bulan Road, Oxford OX3 7HU

Attendance: Hazel and Steve Dawe, Chris Henderson, Tim Hibbert, Hugh Jaegar, Terry Pollard, Riki Therivel.

Apologies: Sarah Foxcroft, Deborah Lovatt, Anna Ratcliff.

Page | 5

1. REPORT OF AGM: Notes of the Annual General Meeting were accepted. One minor update was West of Oxford groups are to meet in April and that the NEA may get a West of Oxford Area representative after than point. [see notes of the AGM in NEA newsletter number 7, issued 31/3]

2. MINUTES OF NEA STEERING COMMITTEE, 16/2: Minutes agreed with these updates: placards to be done for the 30/3 Conference at a potential £80.00 per item for A2, agreed we would have one. [However, it then proved possible for Hazel to get 2 at £27 each costing £54 in total, which was done in time for the Conference]. Visit by HD & SD to Winslow, Bucks, for petitioning etc date tbc. [David Rogers has kindly offered to provide a lift if the date agreed is convenient to him] Confirmed that we have a stall for the NEA at the Low Carbon West Oxford transport-themed event at the West Oxford Community Centre 10.30-12.30 Saturday 27th April. HD/SD would do stall and help appreciated on the day – which is a public event, all supporters welcome. 8/6 is the Big Green Day Out and SD has been chasing Oxford City Council about a stall for the NEA, still not confirmed. ACTION: SD to chase again. TH suggested we might consider petitioning at Wheatley market (Fridays) and the annual Bicester Big Lunch. ACTION: SD will see what date is best to go to Wheatley and publicise for assistance & TH would let the Ctte know when the Bicester Big Lunch is going to occur, when known.

3. AREA REPRESENTATIVES: CH is very keen to get other Parish Councils south east of Oxford to join the NEA. ACTION: CH to undertake approaches and call upon SD for any back up materials required. TH supported getting more PCs involved and approaching the Association of Parish Councils for Oxfordshire. The issue of other Parish and Town Councils along the rest of the Arc was raised, plus the matter of achieving outreach to events where we can have an active presence. ACTION: All groups which are members of the NEA should, through personal contacts and direct approaches to Clerks of Parish and Town Councils, encourage membership of the No Expressway Alliance. CH noted that there will be a public meeting on the Expressway at Radley College on Monday 8th July. ACTION: CH to confirm time and other relevant details of 8/7 meeting when he can, and call upon NEA Ctte members for help in ensuring a range of speakers. TP said he has had meetings with PC representatives and is seeking village meetings on the Expressway. ACTION: TP to let Ctte know when such meetings are occurring so that publicity may take place via the NEA newsletter and that speakers may be provided. HJ raised questions about his role as Oxford Area representative. Discussion agreed on an action: ACTION: HJ will contact Low Carbon groups in Oxford not currently members of the NEA to join, as a first step.

4. VOLUNTEERS FOR CO-OPTION: RT had attended the meeting with interest in the Legal Coordination role. After consideration, she felt she could assist with this at a distance rather than by being on the Committee. She also volunteered to help with work on future consultations. This was much appreciated by the Committee. TP informed the Committee that Chris Church has a Legal Coordination prospect. ACTION: TP to obtain details of this person and give them to HD to allow her to approach them.

5. SKYPE OR ZOOM MEETINGS OF THE COMMITTEE: Only 2 out of 7 of those attending had experience with these means of communication. A quick discussion on this in terms of both confidence and access resulted in the conclusion that the Committee would not proceed with these options at this time.

Page | 6

6. NEA CONFERENCE 30/3, BICESTER: Further workshop facilitators needed from those attending conference. Agreed that Ctte members would volunteer independently.

7. COMMUNICATIONS PLAN: Anna Ratcliff had prepared an outline Communications Plan for the Alliance. Rather than discuss this in detail, it was agreed comments should be sent direct to Anna. [However, subsequently Anna has had to stand down due to overload. Consequently, ACTION: HD will accept comments from Ctte members on the draft. ACTION: All Ctte members]

8. RAIL BRIEFING: HJ agreed to help with this, and he wanted to know what was required. This would be brief, for the website. HD said this was to make the case for rail over road. SD noted that the Campaign for Better Transport was placing new campaigning emphasis on re-opening rail lines. ACTION: HJ would proceed to prepare a Rail briefing on the lines suggested, of no more than 2 sides of A4.

9. STRATEGY: Paper prepared by SD discussed briefly as it was recognised further points would emerge from the 30/3 Conference, leading to useful additions. TP raised the issue of database creation and lobbying as Strategy points and was asked to put specifics in writing –ACTION: SD would revise the Strategy paper in line with conference ideas, for the next Ctte meeting. TP would put in Strategy points on database creation and lobbying in the same format as the Strategy draft as circulated and discussed at this Ctte meeting, and send to SD.

10. NEED NOT GREED COALITION: SD confirmed that NNG is happy to be known purely as a coalition without a listing of constituent groups. They may want a representative, which the Ctte found consensual and SD would let them know this. ACTION: SD to let NNG know they can have a rep – action already taken.

11. NEXT GENERAL MEETING: This was set for Wednesday 15th May 7-9pm with a ‘Practical problems of Housing delivery’ speaker. ACTION: SD to approach a speaker for this. Now Booked: Also agreed following General Meeting as Weds 10 th July with a Bicester venue. TH would investigate a Bicester venue for this date and inform Ctte. Speaker topic for July to be set by next NEA Ctte meeting.

12. RECRUITMENT OF ADDITIONAL TOWN AND PARISH COUNCILS: Agreed we would use the standard leaflet as a basis for contacting more town and Parish councils. Letter to be signed by reps of PCs which are already members of NEA. ACTION: SD would draft and send to PC members at this Ctte meeting for edit/signing/dispatch, subsequent to May local elections.

13. MEMBERSHIP OVERVIEW: Agreed this was desirable: ACTION: SD would collate what information we have for discussion and use, subsequent to May local elections.

14. MEMBERSHIP FEES: After discussion, the Ctte agreed that whilst it recognised the issue of fees as raised in the NEA Constitution agreed at the AGM but that it had no practical means of carrying out this function without a Treasurer or bank account. Agreed to keep this under review whilst a Treasurer is sought. Finances: Karl Wallendszus as Oxford FoE Treasurer holds the NEA grant/funds at present. Just under £3000 remains in the accounts as of 22/3.

Page | 7

[Some funds were collected at the 30/3 NEA Conference as well but expenses incurred by the Conference will need to be covered]

15. DO WE WANT AN ECONOMIC CONSULTANT’S REPORT ON THE EXPRESSWAY: RT volunteered to communicate with David Rogers on this and, assuming his cooperation, establish whether or not we already have enough information to meet this need, suggested by John Stewart’s speech at our AGM in February. ACTION: RT to contact David Rogers about doing this assessment. SD to send all the FoI materials to RT/David Rogers to assist this process – action already taken.

16. LOBBYING AND ACTION FOR 2/4 COUNTY COUNCIL MEETING: Considerable amount of work done to communicate this to networks already. HD would be speaking for the NEA at the Council meeting, and a large picket outside is expected. [NEA & Extinction Rebellion Oxford did press releases for 2/4 in addition to a lot of emailing]

17. LOCATION OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS IF TOO LARGE FOR CURRENT VENUE: We agreed that the current membership of the Ctte favoured locations such as the West Oxford Community Centre and Flo’s in the Park, in Florence Park, Oxford.

18. NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING: Agreed this would be Weds 17th April and ACTION: SD has booked the Mary Town Room, West Oxford Community Centre, 7-9pm for this date.

19. AOB: forward dates to note, full details not available in all cases: TP mentioned the No Expressway Group’s Otmoor Walk on 7th July, with the possibility of further walks elsewhere. He was informed by Committee members that this clashes with the Cowley Road Carnival which is Oxford’s largest single annual event with about 45,000 attendees from Oxfordshire and further away last year. TP wants to have other walks on the same day in areas threatened by the Expressway. ACTION: TP to confirm details for walk on Otmoor and any in further locations when available, and of No Expressway Group action on 1st September about the unveiling of a plaque on the Otmoor rioters, to the rest of the Ctte for publicity/engagement. Brill Common would have a NEA event on 27/7 with major speaker, this would be in Brill near the Windmill. ACTION: SD would chase up Brill contacts for further details.

Proposed Growth of Oxfordshire to 2050. The reasons to vote against the Oxford-Cambridge Expressway. Short briefing by David Rogers:

Oxfordshire, a rural county under threat! The Headlines:

- Doubling housing and population in Oxfordshire by 2050, more than 6 times the national rate- More infrastructure needed to support growth, but already Oxon has a >£7 billion hole in

infrastructure funding without the proposed expressway and additional housing. Oxfordshire cannot afford this growth!

- The proposed expressway is a 20th century solution to 21st century problem. More roads bring more traffic, congestion and pollution

Page | 8

- An expressway and 300,000 new homes will make it virtually impossible for the county to achieve 45% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2030 and 100% by 2050, to keep global warming within 1.5oC (UN IPCC).

- We should invest in East West Rail link (EWR) and proportionate and truly affordable housing in the right locations.

The Office of National Statistics predicts that in the period 2016-2050 the population of England will grow by 16% (Fig. 1 left). This average growth hides considerable regional variation.

In the same time period, Local Plans already submitted, and future plans being prepared, commit Oxfordshire to a comparable 100% increase – i.e. a doubling in the numbers of both houses and people by 2050 (Fig. 1, right).

This proposed growth of the county, at more than six times the national average, is attributable to two major developments, illustrated in Fig. 2 (right). First is the addition of 100,000 houses under the recently completed Local Plans, and covered by the Growth Board Deal, for the period 2011 to 2031/36. These alone increase the county’s homes and population by 37%, i.e. more than twice the national average for 2016 – 2050, and over a shorter period of time. Second is the addition of a further 200,000 houses associated with the Ox-Cam Expressway. Doubling a county’s housing and population has never been done before in recent times, and Fig. 2 raises the important question “Are there really no limits to growth?”

This proposed rate of growth not only makes it near impossible for the county to meet its climate change targets but threatens the county’s rural character and the environment and way-of-life of all its existing inhabitants.

Page | 9

Fig. 2

Fig. 1Fig. 1Fig. 1Fig. 1Fig. 1Fig. 1Fig. 1Fig. 1Fig. 1Fig. 1Fig. 1Fig. 1

Fig. 2Fig. 2Fig. 2Fig. 2Fig. 2Fig. 2Fig. 2Fig. 2Fig. 2Fig. 2Fig. 2

The Oxfordshire Infrastructure Strategy documents reveal that there is currently a >£7billion hole in the infrastructure budget to 2040, little or none of which is associated with any expressway development. Thus, the county cannot afford a ‘business as usual’ scenario, let alone any additional infrastructure required for the expressway and its associated houses. Infrastructure is the key to sensible development as the former Expressway Champion, Iain Stewart, emphasised in a Parliamentary debate about Milton Keynes in July 2016 (https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2016-07-

12/debates/16071263000002/TheOxford-MK-CambridgeArc). In a climate of post-Brexit uncertainty, the county cannot imagine it can develop or spend its way out of infrastructure debt by building yet more infrastructure-dependent developments. Housing, especially on green-field sites, has infrastructure costs that cannot be met by S106 or CIL charges.

The population increase envisaged in the current Local Plans to 2031/36 is in fact more than sufficient for the period up to 2050, and any additional development should be rejected at the present time.

There are many challenges associated even with the current plans; development within the green belt; or in flood plains; or far from places of work. Should development be at high density, close to places of work; or at lower density with rapid transit systems carrying workers to and from more scattered settlements? How can we make housing really affordable; or how do we finance and build proper, social housing?

Each of these questions follows on once the quantum of new housing has been decided. But these are not the question this document addresses, which is the more fundamental one of just how many houses our county actually needs and can properly support. To take just one example, the Swindon and Oxford water catchments hit capacity use in 2020. The projected 1 million extra homes in the Cambridge-Oxford Arc would involve a substantial increase in water supply, from sources at present unknown (London alone will be short of water for 2 million residents by 2040).

The JSSP to 2050 speaks in aspirational language of ‘building new communities’, or of ‘place-making’ in settlements of the future. The danger is that if too many new communities and settlements are forced upon the county at too rapid a pace, they will end up destroying those already there, that have taken decades, even centuries, to evolve.

The Ox-Cam expressway proposals should be rejected in their present form. They offer a 20 th

century solution to a 21st Century problem. East West Rail (EWR) offers all the benefits of rapid transit between the two regions; delivers passengers to city centres (thus avoiding the first mile/ last mile problem of car commuting); has a much lower carbon foot-print than car-based travel; and is less polluting and therefore harmful to health. EWR between Oxford and Cambridge will be open by 2030 and can meet most or all of the needs to which the expressway has been offered as a solution. We do not need, and we cannot afford (financially, socially or environmentally), the Ox-Cam expressway.

Please vote against it in your County Council meeting. (2/4)

No Expressway Group news, covering Horton cum Studley and neighbouring communities:

“Dear all

I wanted to provide you with a further update from our No Expressway Group.

Page | 10

Awareness Campaign - Signs

Firstly, I'm delighted to say that we have our "Under Threat" No Expressway signs up over a greater area now, with a further nine Parish Councils requesting signs for their villages; others have been in contact and would either like signs once the route options are announced or already have signs. Do get in contact if you would also like some signs. We are very happy to put these up for you, as we now have all the tools to make this an easy and relatively quick job!

Work with the No Expressway Alliance

As per my last email, the No Expressway Alliance held a conference about how to stop the proposed expressway, on 30th March. Two of our group were among the six speakers in the morning session. Sarah Foxcroft (who is also the HcS PC Chair) spoke about the campaign the No Expressway Group have undertaken and David Rogers spoke about the potential impact on the environment, having been asked to stand in for BBOWT at short notice. For those of you who were unable to attend I have attached their presentations here for your information. If you have any questions about these please do let me know.

Highways England - Freedom of Information Request information

I wanted to share some information we recently found out as a result of a Freedom of Information request to Highways England made by Steve Dawe of the No Expressway Alliance earlier this year.

No 7 Minutes of SRG corridor workshop includes the following (thus these are the minutes written by Highways England following the Stakeholder meeting in March 2018)

"Under a typical highways scheme stakeholders would not be engaged at this early stage. noted that one consequence of the early engagement currently being undertaken is that the Project Team is not able to answer all stakeholders’ questions.Engagement will continue until DCO application. Engagement with members of the public on corridors is challenged by the scale of the Project area. There are c.3.3 million people living in the arc. Consultation on corridors would require years of additional work at substantial cost to taxpayers. It would also leave a level of uncertainty across the region that was undesirable.

The Project Team are therefore engaging with Stakeholder Reference groups who themselves represent various public interests (environment, road users etc).

Public consultation is due to start in Stage 2 (2019) on route options. There are likely to be around 3 route options."

So, we now understand why Highways England have not consulted the general public or Parish Councils - there are just too many of us!  I'm sure this is not the only time that this approach has been taken, but really it is galling.  It is also further evidence, if needed, as to why we need to ensure our voices are heard.

Page | 11

I have also attached to this email Highways England's list of stakeholders and the list of these stakeholders who attended a stakeholder engagement meeting in March 2018 (a very much shorter list!). It's interesting to see who HE believes can best inform their decision making and who they believe can inform them of the public's view! We are looking at how we can lobby / influence these stakeholders as much as Highways England themselves. If you are thinking along the same lines as us, then this could be a useful list for you.

Importantly this also means that the only elected representatives in the HE Stakeholder list who should be representing your views are your District and County Councils. So it is critical that our local councillors are working on all our behalves.

Information to Submit to HE

I imagine that your Parish Council has submitted information to Highways England as part of this project. In case you did not have access to it, I will send in a second email to this (due to file size issues) information regarding historical sites of importance that we've managed to get hold of for some, but not all, of the areas local to us. Unfortunately, the experience of those campaigning against the Arundel Bypass has taught us that HE have not always recorded this information, for their analysis of route options, accurately or completely. Hence, I wanted to recommend to you that you submit this information for your area directly to HE, if you have not already done so, to ensure its inclusion. You can send this to HE at the following email address: OxfordToCambridgeExpressway@highwaysengland.co.uk.

Upcoming Events

The No Expressway Group will be holding another "Walk the Moor" event around the 7 villages of Otmoor on 7th July. This is a follow up to the highly successful Walk the Moor event last year. If any of you would like to join in, do let me know and I will pass on your details.

No expressway Alliance is looking to organise a big community picnic on 27th July at Brill. This should be a great opportunity to make useful contacts, as well as making the most of the stunning location!

Lastly, please note that we are in the process of investigating some detailed information within the Corridor Assessment Report and it's appendices which could have a very significant bearing on route options and development. We will be in touch again once we've completed our assessment.

If you have any questions, would like to talk in more detail or have any useful information, please do get in touch.

With best wishes, Olivia Field, Chair, No Expressway Group, noexpressway.org

Oxon., Bucks. and Northants. population and household projections

Page | 12

By Richard Harding

Introduction

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) makes population and household projections. These projections are made using recent trends of births, deaths and migration (in and out of a region). The most recent projections, published in 2018, are based on a 2016 starting point. Projections are made nationally, regionally and at the County and District level. County and District projections go out to 2041 and national to 2100.

Population Projections

Table 1 shows the population projections.

2016 2031 2041 2050 (extrapolated)

Oxon. 678500 713000 728100 754700Bucks. 533100 587600 610800 633100Northants. 732100 814700 852500 883700

I’ve extrapolated the 2050 projection from the 2041 by assuming a population growth of 0.4% per year – this may be an over estimate as the national projections show continuing fall in population growth during the 2040s (see figure 1).

20172019

20212023

20252027

20292031

20332035

20372039

20410.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

Percentage per annum population growth

Northamptonshire

Buckinghamshire

Oxfordshire

England

The table shows an increase of population for between 2016 and 2050 of 67,000 for Oxfordshire, 100,000 for Buckinghamshire and 151,000 for Northants.. Assuming a mean occupancy rate of 2.4 persons per house this would mean Oxfordshire needs 28,000 new houses, Bucks. 42,000 and Northants. 63,000.

It’s worth noting the population growth rate drops off as the population ages.

Household projections

Table 2 shows the ONS household projections for the three counties from 2001 to 2041.

Page | 13

2001 2016 2031 2041

Oxon. 240000 268000 291000 305000Bucks. 187000 21100 238000 254000Northants. 271000 303000 354000 375000

On these figures between 2016 and 2041 Oxfordshire needs 37,000 new houses, Bucks. 43,000 and Northants. 72,000. These figures are greater than those estimated from population alone (despite being over a short period) because there is an expectation of an aging population so more one and two person dwellings.

Conclusion

It is clear that either way of calculating the Counties need 10s of thousands of new houses not the 100,000s required by the Expressway arc. To fill these houses (if they were even built) we would need to import hundreds of thousands of people from elsewhere in the UK, over and above the historic levels of emigration into these Counties (which is already included in these figures).

RJH 4 April 2019

Sources

National Population https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationprojections/datasets/tablea11principalprojectionuksummary

District and County Population

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationprojections/datasets/localauthoritiesinenglandtable2

Households

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationprojections/datasets/householdprojectionsforengland

NEED NOT GREED WRITES TO MPs on LOCAL INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY

EXTRACT from a letter to MPs in Oxfordshire concerning the proposed Local Industrial Strategy

“we understand the draft LIS is currently with Government for consideration.

The document makes startling claims about the ability to create 108,000 net new jobs in the county by 2040. Since Oxfordshire effectively has full employment, this inevitably means a significant increase in population to take up these new roles.

This is despite the fact that:

a) Local people have not had a say – there has been no public consultation and indeed we doubt that many are even aware that such a proposal exists.

b) There has been no environmental assessment – the document gives no indication of if/how the requirements of the Government’s 25 Year Environment Plan will be taken into account,

Page | 14

and has not been assessed against Oxfordshire’s capacity to absorb this level of growth whilst protecting and enhancing the environment.

c) The strategy is premature and would predetermine the outcome of the Oxfordshire Plan 2050 – local people have been told that this is where the levels of development for the county will be considered and balanced against other requirements. They rightly demand that this should be a process of genuine engagement, not one where key elements of the strategy have already been decided behind closed doors.

Please will you now write to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and ask that Oxfordshire’s Local Industrial Strategy is subject to full public consultation and environmental assessment (preferably through the Oxfordshire Plan 2050 process) prior to adoption?”

Page | 15