Author: SaveCulhamGreenBelt (Page 1 of 5)


The new Community Interest Company, Bioabundance, is waiting to hear whether their application for statutory review (Judicial Review) of the SODC Local Plan 2035 (SOLP2035) will be accepted by the High Court. The company claimed three main grounds:

  • The unlawful pressure put on councillors to adopt the local plan  in December 2020; 
  • technical errors in calculating the plan’s housing numbers which overstated housing requirement;
  • the impact of housing overprovision on climate change.

Bioabundance fundraising is going well but they have still to reach their target of £35,000. Please visit their crowdjustice site:

Bioabundance now has 70 members including six or so Parish Councils.  Please read more about Bioabundance and its very positive aims and actions at or here for all their online platforms:

Good news from Cherwell campaigners

In the meantime, Cherwell campaigners, Cherwell Development Watch Alliance, who launched their own Judicial Review of the Cherwell Local Plan Partial Review, which proposes 4400 houses on Green Belt.  They filed back in October 2020 and heard just in mid-February that Judge, the Hon. Mrs Justice Lang has granted a full High Court hearing.  Cherwell Council and Robert Jenrick, together with 4 landowners will have to defend: Council plan to build on green belt challenged in High Court | Oxford Mail

Although this is no indication of the final outcome, it bodes well for acceptance of the Bioabundance challenge to SODC’s Local Plan.  Both challenge the number of houses for Oxford City and on Green Belt. 

Oxford-Cambridge Expressway cancelled (official)

And more good news: A huge win today (18 March) for the various No Expressway groups as Transport Secretary Grant Shapps has today (18 March 2021) announced the cancellation of the Oxford-Cambridge (Ox-Cam) expressway, after analysis confirmed the proposed project was not cost-effective.

The Government still has massive aims for what it terms the ‘Oxford-Cambridge Arc, home to cutting-edge research, globally renowned science and technology clusters and some of the most productive places in the country’.

If anyone has the stamina to read more, check out this document: Planning for sustainable growth in the Oxford-Cambridge Arc (


Bioabundance Community Interest Company has now filed its case with the High Court for statutory review of SODC’s Local Plan. 

THIS IS NOW OUR LAST CHANCE to challenge, stop or change this hugely destructive Plan and Robert Jenrick’s intervention in our local planning.

Bioabundance need to raise an initial £10,000 within days and are actively seeking donations; they have set up an appeal on Crowdjustice:

Do consider taking swift action and making a donation, however modest. 

(It is very easy to do:  click the link above, decide the amount you wish to donate and enter your name and credit/debit card details.  It is a pledge at this stage, with the amount taken from your card if the fundraising target is reached).

**Please also share the link on Facebook/Twitter or via email by following the easy path offered on the Crowdjustice site**

Next steps: Bioabundance now wait to hear if the court will accept it, and for the cost order under the Aarhus Convention.*

(*There may be some delay (as background Cherwell Development Watch Alliance (CDWA) launched their legal challenge to the partial Cherwell District Council plan in October and are still waiting to hear). 

This is the Press Release that was sent out:

High Court case filed against South Oxfordshire District Council

On the 21st January 2021 Bioabundance Community Interest Company (“Bioabundance”) filed in the High Court for statutory review of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan.

Bioabundance is challenging the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2035 on the grounds of climate change, improper pressure put on councillors to adopt the plan, and excessive and incorrectly calculated housing numbers.

The Local Plan, which allocates areas for housing development, was forced through the Council by interventions from the Secretary of State for the Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government. This was against the will of newly-elected councillors who sought to withdraw the plan and start on a new one with climate change at its heart.

“This is a pioneering action by Bioabundance, and our last chance to put our environment before housebuilder profit in South Oxfordshire. This is the first time a local plan has ever been challenged because of our climate and ecological crisis.” Dr Sue Roberts, Bioabundance Chair

Legal advice for this important environmental challenge has come from lawyers with a successful track-record, such as working with Plan B and Friends of the Earth on the climate challenge of Heathrow’s 3rd runway (since overturned). 

“We thank our excellent legal team for filing this claim and supporting our urgent action which responds to climate breakdown and the collapse of the natural world”, Dr Sue Roberts

“Local community groups, some of whom have fought this plan for years, are now joining Bioabundance and are delighted that this action is being brought forward” Ian Ashley Bioabundance Treasurer

Communities all over South Oxfordshire are worried about this plan, and are joining with Bioabundance to challenge it as it: 

  • will be catastrophic for an already massively-weakened natural ecosystem
  • will increase carbon emissions markedly in the district 
  • will destroy the countryside and our part of the Green Belt around Oxford 
  • provides four times the number of homes that can even be filled, based on current trends (see household projections from the Office for National Statistics, and com/@ecomorph)

“This action is particularly important for South Oxfordshire itself. The Local Plan is incompatible with Council’s April 2019 declaration of a climate emergency, and its target for the district to be zero carbon by 2030,” Dr Amanda Griffin, Bioabundance Member 

Notes to Editors 

  1. Bioabundance Community Interest Company is the campaigning arm of South Oxfordshire Sustainability, itself founded in 2011; it works to protect and restore wildlife in South Oxfordshire and has many projects on the go.
  2. Bioabundance has over 30 members, including parishes and individual campaign groups.
  3. South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2035
  4. If the public wish to donate funds to support this legal action, they can donate here: – press queries: email or phone Sue Roberts (Bioabundance Chair) 07913 896 874


There has been some good national press coverage so far:

     28 January / The Guardian*

  28 January / BBC News*


Some of you may be confused by the bewildering differences in figures quoted in various articles. I thought it would be helpful to throw some light on this major issue (which is in the Local Plan document if you know where to look, Table 5c, Page 88).  I will set this out below:

Committed components: 16,360
made up of:
Houses already built in the plan period (which although only just adopted runs from 2011 until 2035): 7,178
Sites under construction / with planning already granted: 9,182   

New components (and the figure SODC are cunningly citing): 13,696

made up of:

New strategic sites (e.g. Culham the largest @ 3500, Berinsfield 1700, Northfields, Bayswater Brook: 11,785

Grenoble Road, Wheatley & Chalgrove)

Neighbourhood Development Plans: 454
Neighbourhood Development Plans outstanding: 211
Nettlebed allocations: 46  
Windfall allowance:  1,200 

TOTAL (in plan period to 2035): 30,056

TOTAL including 2815 houses delivered beyond 2035 by the strategic site like Culham: 32,871

▪ Office of National Statistics (ONS) assessed housing need in South Oxfordshire is 556 houses per year which would be: 13,344 for the 24 year period 2011-2035.

▪ SODC use out of date figures from 2014 of 627 houses per year

▪ Then, because of a Growth Deal with Government and all Oxfordshire councils, they inflate this to 775 per year

▪ Then they add 4950 as South Oxfordshire’s share of houses for Oxford City who say they cannot build within their boundary …

This brings the assessed need to 23,550 homes.

BUT it is the excess and buffer (32,871 allowed for in the plan instead of 23,550) that is the major cause for concern. 

We do not question that affordable housing,  in reasonable numbers, and in sensible brownfield places/urban areas are needed.

We need to protect our green spaces, our climate and air quality and our endangered nature.


1. As previously advised, in December and under pressure from directions imposed by Secretary of State, Robert Jenrick, the council of SODC adopted the Local Plan 2035, complete with its six strategic sites in Green Belt including 3500 houses in Culham (and 1700 in Berinsfield).

2. Post-adoption there is a strict limit of six weeks in which ‘Any person aggrieved by the adoption of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2035 may make an application to the High Court under Section 113 of the Planning Compulsory Purchase Act 2004’.

3. It is important to understand that such a challenge can only be brought on the grounds that there has been a legal or procedural error. It is not possible to attack the decision to adopt the plan on its merits (or lack of merits) or whether it is bad for the residents and businesses of South Oxfordshire. The political background is also irrelevant.

4. A new and fully registered Community Interest Company (CIC), Bioabundance, has been set up by other campaign groups who, like SCGB, opposed the adoption of the Plan (Directors: Dr Sue Roberts, Ian Ashley, Secretary: Lisa Buchan).  

5. Bioabundance has pro-bono legal advice from the lawyers who provided support to the successful legal challenge relating to the third runway at Heathrow (since overturned at Appeal…) The lawyers believe there is a ‘reasonable’ case for challenging the Local Plan (LP2035) as a whole on the grounds of:

    • Climate change measures
    • Improper pressure put on councillors to adopt the plan
    • Excessive and incorrectly calculated housing numbers
    • Inadequate consultation

6. Bioabundance first sent a 22-page Pre-Action Protocol letter (PAP) to South Oxfordshire District Council and have now applied to the High Court on 20 Jan for Judicial review of LP2035.

7. A CIC cannot be set up solely to launch a Judicial Review so the existence of Bioabundance will  be ongoing whatever happens; it will be proactive in challenging breaches in environmental law (eg pollution with sewage), and exerting pressure to ensure that, as far as possible, climate change mitigation / offsetting is solid and that things such as heritage and conservation areas are protected.  

8. Bioabundance will need to raise an initial £10,000 to take the case forward. They are currently awaiting a ‘cost order’ limited by the Aarhus Convention. For the High Court stage it is estimated that a further £30k will need to be raised. 

9. Save Culham Green Belt and Culham Parish Council (now corporate members of Bioabundance) wholeheartedly support this last effort to avoid catastrophe for the district, though there can be no guarantees of success. Many of us will be donating personally and invite you to consider a donation. 

10. CROWDFUNDING: The crowdjustice funding site can be found here:

More information on Bioabundance Community Interest Group is on their website:


This update from SCGB bears the unwelcome news that you may already have read in the press:


On Thursday evening, 10 December, following a 3.5 hr online meeting, South Oxfordshire district councillors voted to adopt the hideous Local Plan 2035 with its 3500 houses in Culham and a new river crossing from Didcot to Culham, arriving at the A415 perilously close to the Europa School.


The motion to adopt the Plan, proposed by the Cabinet Member for Planning, Anne-Marie Simpson (who lives in Cholsey), and seconded by David Rouane (Didcot North East), was carried as follows:

FOR : 17



Basically all Conservative, Labour and Henley Residents Group councillors voted for adoption. The Liberal Democrat and Greens ruling group were either split or abstained.  Didcot and Henley come off well in this Plan and this is reflected in the voting.

There were a number of powerful speeches by campaigners urging council to reject the plan and to use their vote, rather than abstain.  Many councillors also gave emotional speeches about their dilemma.


The cleft stick the ruling group found themselves in was due to the Secretary of State, Robert Jenrick, imposing a ‘direction’ on the Council (on 03 March 2020) to ‘progress the plan to examination and adoption by December 2020’, under the threat of either doing so himself or passing responsibility of the district to the (Conservative-led) higher authority, Oxfordshire County Council.  In other words, the choice was between adopting the Plan, drawn up by the previous Conservative-led administration, or the Secretary of State using his powers under section 27(2)(b) of the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (2004 Act) to adopt it himself.

If you would like to read Jenrick’s letter, here is the link:

As one Green councillor wrote to me after the vote:

…  there was no way that we could win the battle; if we voted against it would have been a victory on a minor skirmish, before total annihilation. Jenrick was determined to force that plan through, and he had the power under the 2004 Act to do exactly that, with perhaps also the consequence of  abolishing South Oxfordshire District Council as an act of revenge, and passing its planning power to OCC.

You may not know who we are personally as District Councillors, but as after 20 years as a Parish Councillor seeing the vapid District Councillor, I decided to stand. I was elected because I am active in the community, and not just a party member. I know that some County Councillors are exactly that, idle and ignorant, so the prospect [of] people like that running my District made the surrendering to overwhelming odds on Thursday the least worse option.

I would say that I have been mightily impressed by my other Green Councillors, highly educated, articulate and hardworking, and if all local councillors were as remarkable as them we would all be in a better place.

Save Culham Green Belt has fought an incredibly long and hard fight and done everything we could to try and stop this Juggernaut. In addition to arranging petitions, rallies, village information meetings and getting wide coverage in local press, we have fielded speakers at every single council meeting about the Plan since May 2017 (over 3.5 years). We commissioned reports for the Parish Council’s submissions to public consultations, employing transport and planning consultants as well as professional local environmental experts and we have had on-going pro-bono legal support thanks to one of our committee members. Culham was the subject of an hour-long BBC2 documentary in Jan 2018, we appeared on Channel 4 News in March 2018, BBC South in August 2020 and on BBC’s Countryfile programme in November 2020.  We made a film with support from the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) which was widely circulated, and, most recently, we raised £11,600 from generous members of the committee and wider village to fund a traffic consultant and a barrister from Kings Chambers, Manchester, to represent the Parish Council at the Examination in Public in July, the first ever Examination to be held virtually via Microsoft Teams. It is the quite appalling erosion of local democracy and wielding of power that Robert Jenrick has exercised which has brought about this very sad situation.


Our barrister is working, potentially with other barristers, to see what grounds we have to challenge Central Government.  Two central planks of the 2019 Conservative manifesto (pages 29 & 31 respectively) were:

We remain committed to devolving power to people and places across the UK. Our ambition is for full devolution across England, building on the successful devolution of powers to city region mayors, Police and Crime Commissioners and others, so that every part of our country has the power to shape its own destiny.’

We will protect and enhance the Green Belt. We will improve poor quality land, increase biodiversity and make our beautiful countryside more accessible for local community use. In order to safeguard our green spaces, we will continue to prioritise brownfield development, particularly for the regeneration of our cities and town’

Jenrick’s coercive direction and not-so-veiled threats are in direct contradiction with these Manifesto statements.  We have not given up the fight yet.  The clock is ticking: with the Plan ‘adopted’ we have 6 weeks in which to launch a legal challenge.  If there are grounds we will need to raise more than 5 times what we have raised previously and will need everyone to support a crowdfunding effort.  More news soon.

Letter sent to Oxford Mail/Times by district councillor, Sam Casey-Rerhaye.

Dear Editor,

A couple of weeks ago, The Sunday Times mentioned people referring to South Oxfordshire as ‘the dustbin’ for property developers. Being surrounded by AONBs, some inside the district itself, means the land available for the ‘Growth Deal’ policy should be limited in this district to the narrow strip between the Chilterns AONB and Oxford’s greenbelt. But supreme efforts have been made to circumvent this – apparently leading to this ‘dustbin’ rumour- a further insult to the district after the ‘dump it on Didcot’ housing-without-infrastructure policy of previous years.

In other news, Oxford University makes a lifesaving, not for profit, vaccine with Astra-Zeneca. Some of the best news we have had this year and for which we are all extremely grateful and proud.

There’s not much consistency in these two pieces of news. Oxford’s greenbelt has been accepted for the last 50 or so years as a successful tool in preventing urban creep and acknowledged as protecting the setting of this historic and successful city. The two universities and their science and technology spin offs, research at Harwell, Culham and Rutherford-Appleton, the John Radcliffe and other Oxford hospitals,  plus the Cowley car works (now converting their production to electric cars) are what this area is rightly known for and of which we are proud to be part.

So why is South Oxfordshire now a ‘dustbin’? What has led us to this point? It’s a long and winding road, but it starts with a poor economic policy, failing government funding formulas for universities, and, quite likely, housing policy written by Conservative party funders. Colleges that own land in Oxford’s greenbelt are now very keen to develop this land, their fiduciary duty to their college pushing them in this direction while the commodification of education means tuition fee limits leave colleges in deficit (though it remains true that many colleges are still very wealthy). And then there are the government agencies involved here: Homes England and UK Atomic Energy Authority – both behaving like they are private property developers.

But just building more houses will not provide the affordable housing we know is needed here (and there are limits to the success story of Oxfordshire: housing unaffordability and areas of continual deprivation being two of them). They’ll be executive homes and ‘investment properties’, a clear lesson from the last 10 years of ever-rising house prices and ever more unaffordable houses built.

I am a Councillor in South Oxfordshire, having been elected in the swing away from the Conservatives in May 2019, a swing in large part created by the ditching of protections for that greenbelt and the constraints of South Oxfordshire’s land in the Conservative’s draft Local Plan. The Secretary of State Rt Hon Robert Jenrick’s legal direction on us (firstly to stop us doing anything at all with the Plan for a full 5 months, wasting time while he worked on his General Election campaign, then, secondly, to force the Plan through examination and to consider adoption by this December) has now come to a head.  

In December, South Oxfordshire Councillors must consider the final report (not yet published at time of writing) from the Inspector on this draft Local Plan and consider adopting it in full. If we do not vote to adopt it, there are a whole raft of other things the SoS is legally able to do: accept the Plan himself for South Oxfordshire; bring commissioners in to run the Council under ‘value for money’ rules (while many other councils face bankruptcy), give all Planning powers to the County Council who have agreed to accept them if offered; take Planning powers into the Ministry and charge the District Council for this, and probably other powers of which I am not even aware. As there is another election coming this May for the County Council, we’re not expecting Rt Hon Robert Jenrick to do us any favours.

The Green/Libdem-led Council has achieved a lot in the last 18 months. We suggested improvements to this draft Plan where possible, and hope these will be accepted by the Inspector (increasing the carbon-efficiency of the homes built in the Plan as far as legally possible being one) and we have developed a council Corporate Plan for the district which will be in place until 2024. A vision that puts climate change, nature restoration, well-being and prosperity at the heart of what the Council does. We have started the process for building properly affordable, zero carbon affordable-to-run homes, we have brought both nature restoration and a questioning of growth for its own sake into the conversation across Oxfordshire, we have pushed through Civil Parking Enforcement working with other councils, and acted decisively on building a new, properly sustainable Council headquarters in Didcot after so much dither in the previous administration.  He can’t take that way from the people of South Oxfordshire, even if we are now considered a dustbin.

Yours faithfully,

Sam Casey-Rerhaye (Councillor for Sandford & the Wittenhams)



Please read on – we urgently need your help.

Examination of the Local Plan

The Inspector has now released his ‘Preliminary Conclusions’ following the Examination in Public of SODC’s Local Plan (actually not held in ‘public’, but over Microsoft Teams).

Incredibly he has found the plan ‘sound’ and, in the words of the barrister hired by Save Culham Green Belt on behalf of Culham Parish Council: “It’s as if the examination hearings need not have happened for all the attention he has paid to our case” (or that of any of the other campaigns for that matter). See end of this email for an extract from the Inspector’s letter:

What next?  See Petition explained below 

We have to do all we can, in collaboration with other village groups (in Garsington and Elsfield for example), to stop this hideous plan being adopted.  Lib Dems and Green councillors (the leading group) are attempting to halt it, even though this is contrary to the wishes of the Secretary of State, Robert Jenrick.

This is explained in a short video:

Please, please help us by signing, and sharing the petition they have set up. It takes only seconds. The link to the petition is here:

When you have signed, please, everyone, share the video and petition links as widely as you can this week (email, Facebook, Twitter)  so we can get as much interest as possible. 

Thank you

Extract from The Inspector’s preliminary conclusions (which are not expected to alter substantially) regarding the Culham site (STRAT 9):

The allocations next to Culham Science Centre (STRAT9) and at Berinsfield (STRAT10) also require alterations to the Green Belt boundaries, but they are also strongly justified by the evidence. Science Vale contains an important cluster of technological activity, and supporting economic growth includes ensuring that there is enough housing, at the right price, for those working in that sector. STRAT9 is next to an important employment centre which is receiving substantial investment, and has a rail station with the potential for an improved service, […] supported by major infrastructure improvements arising from the successful HIF bid.” 

If you would like to read the letter in full, please click this further link below (all documents pertaining to the Examination in Public can be found on SODC’s website):’s%20Preliminary%20Conclusions%20Letter%20280820.pdf


Having raised £10,000 for professional advisors, Save Culham Green Belt and Culham Parish Council fielded a strong team at the recent ‘Examination in Public’ of the SODC Local Plan (held digitally over Microsoft Teams).  We had a barrister, environmental expert, and traffic consultant, as well as speakers from SCGB and a valuable contribution from a young member of the village about the climate emergency.

We have to warn you, however, that from the Inspector’s summing up session last Friday it seems he has accepted the inflated housing numbers, the ‘spatial strategy’ and all the sites except possibly Chalgrove until he has some more info (ironically the only site not in Green Belt), but will likely accept that one too. So, the Culham site has been accepted as ‘sound’ including all the boundaries and all the numbers (3,500 houses).   We are appalled.  We still await the formal written decision and statement.

The inspector was given a guided tour of Culham Science Centre on 12th August.  Sam Casey-Rerhaye, our District Councillor and Parish Council Chair, was invited to accompany him too, for ‘balance’.  But as we know, Government, led by Secretary of State, Robert Jenrick, is pushing this Plan through with Culham Science Centre being used as a political tool. We did, at the last moment, gather a good twenty or so demonstrators with excellent banners and the Inspector acknowledged our presence as he drove in.

Oxford Mail covered the event.  Here is the link

and we also made the local television news on BBC South with a 5 minute report on the later evening news with four short interviews; and a shorter one earlier in the day. 


‘Examination in Public (EiP) of the Local Plan, which would normally be a public event, is being held digitally over Microsoft Teams due to the Secretary of State’s insistence.  It is the first ever Local Plan to be held digitally.

Hearing sessions began on 14 July and can be viewed live (not available on catch-up) on the Council’s YouTube channel:

The hearing session on CULHAM (Inspector’s Matter 12) will be held on Wednesday 29th July from 10:00 – 13:00.  Do please support us by listening in.

Culham Parish Council will be represented by a barrister from Kings Chambers, Manchester, as well as by a transport specialist and local environmental specialist, together with Sam Casey-Rerhaye and Caroline Baird. 

Other speakers from Culham include Dr Peter Kirby, Philip Owen and John Storrs.

SCGB remonstrates with Robert Jenrick over the announcement that the Examination in Public (EiP) of SODC’s Local Plan is to be held digitally

SCGB remonstrates with Robert Jenrick, Secretary of State over the announcement that the Examination in Public (EiP) of SODC’s Local Plan is to be held digitally using Microsoft Teams, and to begin on July 14th.

The following email has been sent to Jenrick and the Planning Inspectorate, co-signed by Culham Parish Council, Nuneham Courtenay Parish Council and Clifton Hampden Parish Council.  The parishes of The Baldons and Sandford are sending their own letters as are other campaign groups.

29th May 2020

To: Rt Hon. Robert Jenrick, MP, Secretary of State for Housing, Community and Local Government

Culham Parish Council finds the requirement for South Oxfordshire District Council to hold its Examination in Public digitally/electronically to be demonstrably undemocratic for the following reasons:

1.. It disenfranchises many people – including the elderly and young – who cannot afford and/or do not have computers; or lack the technical ability.

  1. Many people who do have computers do not have sufficient broadband width to hold online discussions, let alone lengthy ones and are prioritizing use of the internet for their children’s schooling needs.
  2. Likewise, some people who do have computers do not have operating systems that easily accept software such as Microsoft Teams which has been one of the platforms indicated / or are unfamiliar with the installation and operation of the necessary video-conferencing software.
  3. Video-conferencing is still fraught with connectivity issues when many people from the same area all using the internet at the same time.  Consistent sound is also a huge problem.
  1. Telephone representation has also been proposed as an alternative for some. This is not an adequate alternative to face-to-face conversation.

Simply stated, too many obstacles are put in our way.

Furthermore, and perhaps even more importantly:

  1. Many people are too busy/preoccupied with other matters connected with the WORLDWIDE health and economic disaster that Covid-19 has presented us with, including:

6.a) preoccupation with home-schooling

  1. b) caring for elderly relatives or neighbours
  2. c) redundancies and financial hardship
  3. d)  mental stress

Culham Parish Council also finds it unreasonable for MHCLG to be keeping SODC to the deadline of December 2020 for adoption, requiring the EiP to be held in a matter of just weeks when the Inspector’s Matters and Issues and Guidance has only been issued this week.

Quite apart from all of the above:

  1. Villages, parishes and campaign groups are unable to undertake fund raising for professional and legal representation; it is our legal right to have due representation:

7.a) we cannot hold fetes, bring-and-buys, quizzes, plant sales etc, or any other of the normal ways a village would fund raise

7.b) we cannot go door-to-door

  1. c) many people have no income / vastly reduced income
  2. The SODC Local Plan is one of the most contentious Local Plans and it would be entirely wrong for it to be the ‘guinea-pig’ for electronic EiP.

It is unreasonable to conduct governmental business electronically without considerable advance warning, a detailed specification of technical requirements, and meaningful rehearsal for all parties concerned.

 All of this leaves the whole process of SODC / MHCLG open to Judicial Review.

« Older posts