Author: SaveCulhamGreenBelt (Page 2 of 5)


‘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.

SCGB is now urgently fund-raising

SCGB is now urgently fund-raising, initially focusing on raising £10,000 by 8th June in order to engage a Barrister and other specialists who will prepare and represent Culham Parish Council at the Examination in Public which is to be held digitally, using Microsoft Teams, starting on 14th July 2020.

If you are able to help, please get in touch.

Thank you.


Central Government are now riding rough shod over local democracy and our elected district councillors. As per the previous update, the Secretary of State for Housing, Rt Hon Robert Jenrick MP, has weighed into the SODC Local Plan process. Last October he put a ‘holding direction’ on the district council so that they could not discuss possible withdrawal of the hideous Local Plan (which still includes 3,500 houses in Culham and six strategic sites in Green Belt), or hear representations. This hold was in place for 5 months.

Then on 7th January he wrote to the Council leader saying that he was considering passing the ‘preparation, revision or adoption’ of the Local Plan to ‘the upper-tier County Council’. The County Council held a vote as to whether they would accept this and the motion was passed 29-16 with 4 abstentions.

Latest intervention

Last week Jenrick issued a NEW DIRECTION: again, just hours before the Council were due to hold public meetings. He ‘directed’ SODC:

To progress the Plan through examination and adoption by December 2020.
To report monthly to his officials on progress

And if they should fail to comply he would take ‘further intervention action’ (which means he would hand the control of the Plan to the County Council).

On Thursday 5th March there were Cabinet and Full Council meetings. Ian Hudspeth, leader of Oxfordshire County Council, had registered as a public speaker and declared the Local Plan a ‘good plan’. Furthermore he said he considers the Culham site ‘the most sustainable location in Oxfordshire’. Speeches, with strong arguments against the Local Plan, were made by Save Culham Green Belt, Garsington village, A Better South Oxfordshire campaign group, Extinction Rebellion and the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE). Councillors, many of whom made their negative feelings about the Local Plan and Jenrick’s intervention clear, felt they had no option but to pass the motion to acknowledge these orders and accept that the Plan has to proceed to Examination, rather than lose control of district planning completely. It was passed 28 for and 2 against. (Those against were Simon Hewerdine and Elizabeth Gillespie, both independent councillors).

It was a very sad day for democracy, for South Oxfordshire and for Culham.

Next steps

There will be a Public Examination before long (June maybe?). Save Culham Green Belt remains committed to the fight to stop the building of a new town in Culham on Green Belt. We will need to raise funds to help ensure that we employ the best advisors to support us when we engage with the Inspectors at the Examination of the Plan. We will be in contact with you once we finalise our plans for fund-raising. Please be ready to help us all you can.

Recent press

Two recent press articles are attached can be found:

Here and here.

All correspondence between the Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) and SODC can be read on the SODC website here:

Eleventh hour and unwelcome intervention by Secretary of State

I hardly know where to begin, but I should update you all as regards the hideous Local Plan situation because, to pinch the phrase used by another campaign group, it has more twists and turns than an Agatha Christie plot.  If you are reasonably up to date you can jump to point 4) onwards.

1. As you know, the Local Plan was submitted by South Oxfordshire District Council (SODC) to the Secretary of State at the end of March.  Two inspectors were appointed but did not start work immediately principally because they were also examining the Oxford CITY Local Plan but also because they had been advised that the new Lib Dem/Green administration of SODC (following the Local Elections in May) were bringing the matter of the Local Plan back to discussion.


2. If you remember my last missive, meetings of SODC Scrutiny, Cabinet, and Full Council were held in July, at which Save Culham Green Belt spoke urging the Council to withdraw the Plan and start afresh.  At this point inspectors had not started examining the SODC Local Plan.  Full Council instead voted to take a ‘sensible pause’ and ask the Council’s planning officers to hold discussions with various bodies — Oxford County Council, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) etc — recognising that Didcot needs some upgraded road infrastructure that a Government grant is offering to part-fund. 


3. In the meantime the Inspectors have now begun examination of the SODC Local Plan and their three lengthy initial sets of questions to the Council can be found on the SODC website here. They have raised significant questions about the housing numbers, the spatial strategy and justification for releasing Green Belt away from urban centres and questioned the local level ‘exceptional circumstances’ for the Culham site (and others).  They are clearly querying similar parts of the plan to us.


4. On 1st October the Local Plan was brought before SODC’s Scrutiny Committee (of which our councillor, Sam Casey-Rerhaye, is a member).  A motion there recommending Cabinet keep the Local Plan and follow through with the Inspection was rejected, despite planning policy officers again recommending this course. The matter went before SODC Cabinet meeting of 3rd October. Again SCGB were well represented and an excellent motion was passed by a unanimous Cabinet to make a recommendation to Full Council that the Local Plan be withdrawn due to the excessive over-supply of homes, concerns about site-selection and its lack of response to the Climate Emergency and that work should commence as soon as practicable on a new ambitious plan suitable for the district’s economic, social and environmental needs.  The full motion can be found under the news section of SODC’s website.


5. This motion was due to be debated and voted on by Full Council on Thursday, 10th October, where if passed, it would have been binding upon the Council. No fewer than 34 speakers had registered and prepared speeches, including three people from Culham.  Some of the speakers were from groups wanting the Local Plan to proceed unchanged, largely because they want the Housing Infrastructure Fund money (HIF) Oxford County Council has been promised by Central Government (£218 million).  SODC has also been under pressure from neighbouring Councils concerned about losing the HIF money, despite SODC not being party to the contract for the HIF money, and about the danger of speculative development.  As SODC’s Cabinet said, however, speculators will always speculate – that’s what speculators do and the HIF bid, whilst relating to SODC’s Local Plan, should not be an over-riding issue, especially when a Climate Emergency has been declared. All 34 speakers and all 35 locally elected councillors were, however, DENIED THE CHANCE to speak or debate the Local Plan due to an 11th hour intervention by the new Secretary of State, Robert Jenrick, MP (appointed by PM, Boris Johnson), who wrote to the leader of SODC just the day before, directing the Council ‘not to take any step in connection with the adoption of the Plan’ whilst he considered whether to give a ‘direction’ under section 21 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.  Despite efforts by the Council’s chief executive and legal team to challenge the direction and its lawfulness, the holding direction was not removed. After taking our seats and sitting through a standard security preamble the Chief Executive announced that due to the Secretary of State’s direction Council could not hear representations or debate and vote on the Local Plan motion and the whole agenda item was silenced.  There was outrage from the hundred or so members of the public who had arrived at the meeting in Crowmarsh Gifford.  Speakers were denied their democratic right. Our elected councillors were denied their democratic right.

6. The Secretary of State is now ‘considering whether to give a ‘direction … for the Plan (or any part of it) to be submitted to him for his approval instead of Council’.  This is called ‘calling in’. Planning barrister Christopher Young QC of No. 5 Chambers said: “this is an extraordinary decision by the Secretary of State. But we live in extraordinary times. The South Oxfordshire saga is better than any soap opera”. We are not aware of any other council that has been prevented exercising their democratic right in this way and I have written to Jenrick stating our objection. 

In my letter I state: South Oxfordshire District Council already has a robust Local Plan to 2027 and, moreover, has a very healthy 7.1 year Land Supply.  The draft emerging Local Plan 2034 which is currently with the Inspectorate is a highly controversial plan drawn up under the previous administration and includes a vastly exaggerated housing supply, calculated not by the Standard Method but under the outdated SHMA, and includes no less than six strategic sites in Green Belt.  At the local elections in May the constituents of South Oxfordshire made clear their disgust at the plan and it was on the basis of electoral promises to do something about the local plan that the current administration were elected.  They have been holding conversations via the Chief Executive with DHCLG and the Cabinet, after careful Scrutiny and soul-searching, have made the recommendation to Council that the plan be withdrawn.  They recognise the Climate Emergency and wish to start a new plan which does not contravene the Climate Emergency Act and which will be found sound at Examination.

We have been repeatedly told by the Department that the Local Plan is a matter for the Local Authorities.  Yet now you try and step in and in a quite outrageous manner attempt to hamper the locally elected councillors making a decision. You are standing in the path of democracy by your unwelcome intervention and not allowing SODC to produce a Local Plan which respects the economic, social and ENVIRONMENTAL needs of the district.

Do you even know South Oxfordshire?  It is clear that Central Government are flexing their muscles and showing how they are prepared to concrete over Oxfordshire generally in the service of the endless fairy tale of economic growth, as whatever expense to the environment, despite the Government’s manifesto to leave the planet in a better state than they inherited. 

Please urgently reconsider this intervention and retract your ruling and allow local democracy to take its course. 

I have also written to our local MP, John Howell and on 12 October had this quite shocking response.  It is clear we cannot expect any help from him:

Dear Caroline

There has been no infringement of democracy.  First, all the Secretary of State has said is that he wants more time to discuss with SODC whether he should call-in the Plan in whole or in part.  If he does so, it will go the Planning Inspectorate for examination.  This is the proper place for the issue of the Green Belt to be decided and where, as I continue to believe, the issue of too much building on the Green Belt can be examined.  Second, how is it democratic for SODC to take action that undermines and seeks to nullify the democratic opinions of Oxford City Council (Labour controlled), Oxfordshire County Council (Conservative controlled) and the Vale of the White Horse (Liberal-Democrat controlled) with regard to infrastructure. The representations from these councils have weighed significantly with the Secretary of State.  Thirdly, it is precisely to avert situations where a group of new councillors, who have very little experience of planning and who seek to undermine totally the interests of the wider community, take actions that are incredible, that the Secretary of State has these powers.  All he has done is to obtain a little more time for discussions – whatever the Liberal-Democrats and Greens may say. Lastly, I understand that a prominent Liberal-Democrat turned up at Culham and said that they were not interested in the high value, high income jobs that Culham was seeking to create and that they did not care whether the companies came here or not.  I find that view absolutely appalling and contrary to the interests of the young people Culham is training in its new apprenticeship centre and against their democratic rights too.  The Secretary of State has made a sensible use of his powers.


John Howell OBE MP ACIArb FSA
Member of Parliament for the Henley Constituency

I would be delighted and grateful if anyone else in his constituency (you must include your address) feels able to write to John Howell:

And also, particularly, the Secretary of State.  If you are contacting the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government please use the contact form on the MHCLG website:

The link for this is     

Also: Twitter: @RobertJenrick / Facebook: RobertJenrickNewark)

It is impossible to guess what will happens next.  We will attempt to keep you updated.  In the meantime you can keep checking on SODC’s website.  All the letters to and from Central Government are there for all to read:

Save Culham Green Belt


At a very long Full Council meeting on Thursday 18 July 2019 there were 14 public speakers voicing objections to the Local Plan. Developers representatives were also present to press their arguments.  Representatives of Culham Parish Council and Save Culham Green Belt spoke and we also had support from Clifton Hampden Parish Council.

SODC’s councillors voted on a motion put forward by the cabinet member for Housing to take what they call a ‘sensible pause’, rather than yet deciding whether or not to withdraw the Local Plan from the Inspector. The motion was accepted (20 ‘for’; 13 ‘against’).The wording of the motion is pasted below.

In summing up, the new leader, Sue Cooper, said that in the May local elections the swing was greater in South Oxfordshire than anywhere else because of dislike of the Local Plan.  At the same time the new administration do not want to be irresponsible, and recognize that Didcot needs upgraded road infrastructure. She acknowledged that the Plan has ‘grossly over-stated housing numbers’. She said that the council need a ‘short breathing space’ in which to see what can be negotiated in relation to the £218 million Housing Infrastructure funding (HIF) (which is linked to delivering homes in Culham and Berinsfield) and what, if anything, can be carried forward to a ‘new plan’, making changes necessary in accordance with the Climate Change Act.

In the next six weeks or so officers and councillors will have discussions with various bodies (Oxfordshire County Council, the Department for Housing, Communities and Local Government and Homes England) and will work on formulating some new policies.

In the meantime the cabinet member for Housing will write to the Inspector’s officer requesting that he pause /does not yet begin ‘examination’ of the Local Plan as it was submitted at the end of March.

It is unclear when the next meeting/s about the Local Plan will be, though there was much talk about Oxfordshire County Council having a September deadline.  There may be a Council meeting in September, though under the ‘normal’ schedule the next one would be 10 October. We will keep you informed when we know more.

Council also approved a motion to ask the Leader to write to Government to urge completion of the East-West rail track, upgrade of Oxford-Didcot line, opening of Grove station and other rail upgrades, all to be prioritised above other infrastructure.

Wording of the motion:

(1)   express [Council]’s determination to maintain its housing land supply and avoid speculative housing development;

(2)     express its continued support for the Housing and Infrastructure Fund (HIF) funding and infrastructure projects that could be delivered by it;

(3)     ask officers to explore with Oxfordshire County Council, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Homes England options for protecting the HIF funding whilst enabling the council to address concerns about the current emerging Local Plan 2034 including (but not limited to) climate change issues and Oxford City’s unmet housing need, and to report back to Cabinet and Council;

(4)     recognising that the Climate Change Emergency is all too real and is recognised to be of key and statutory importance under the Climate Change Act 2008 and the associated objective of “zero carbon by 2050”, express its wish to do all that it can to respond through the Local Plan process;

(5)     agree that as soon as practicable, alongside satisfactory progress being made on resolving issues in the emerging Local Plan, work on a subsequent Local Plan shall commence, strengthening climate change considerations 


Following the May election results and the democratic changes that resulted, SODC’s new administrative group, led by Lib Dems and Green councillors, is looking at options as regards the Local Plan.

Planning Policy ‘Officers’ (‘non-political’, salaried ‘Officers’ in charge of both the Vale of White Horse and South Oxfordshire councils) have summarized the four options they see open to councillors, as follows:

Option 1)Allow the emerging Local Plan to continue through its examination. Any modifications made during the examination will be entirely at the discretion of the Inspectors’.

[This (of course) is the option Officers are recommending to councillors. i.e. proceed with their horrid Plan and let the Inspector decide]

Option 2)Allow the emerging Local Plan to continue through its examination, but proactively recommend a series of main modifications to the plan. These changes will be entirely at the discretion of the Inspectors. There are no early conclusions from our Inspectors about the soundness of aspects of the Plan or if modifications are needed. The Plan cannot be changed unless the Inspectors find that part of the Plan unsound’.

[This means just making a few fiddly changes to wording and is meaningless.]

Option 3)Withdraw the Local Plan from examination. The Council will make changes to the plan, then conduct a further Regulation 19 consultation. The extent of changes will need to fall within the remit of Regulation 19 consultation – i.e. not introduce new subject areas for the plan to cover. The Council would then submit a revised plan for examination’.

 [Again, this is just tinkering with the Plan since nothing fundamental could be changed. And again we can only comment on whether we find the Plan ‘sound’, ‘justified’ or ‘legally compliant’].

Option 4)Withdraw the Local Plan from examination. The Council will restart the plan making process. This will allow the Council to prepare a significantly different plan (subject to compliance with the law, and national policies and guidance). The Council would need to undertake at least two consultations (Regulation 18 and 19) before submitting the new plan for examination’.


The above options will be considered by SODC’s Scrutiny Committee on 2 July. Their recommendation to Cabinet will then be discussed on 10 July. A vote will be taken by Full Council on 18 July.


Meanwhile, we have been in correspondence with JOHN HOWELL, MP :

He confirms respect for the democratic mandate of South Oxfordshire’s electorate:

From: HOWELL, John []
Sent: 30 June 2019 07:49
To: Caroline Baird
Subject: RE: SODC Local Plan / new administration

Dear Caroline

Thank you for your email.  Central Government is not in the habit of overriding the democratic obligations of local government.  Local government will however have to decide whether it wishes to continue to take advantage of Central Government offers such as the Growth Deal.


John Howell OBE MP ACIArb FSA
Member of Parliament for the Henley Constituency

Prime Minister’s Trade Envoy to Nigeria | Member of the Council of Europe | Deputy Chairman Industry and Parliament Trust | Government Neighbourhood Planning Champion | Chairman Communities and Local Government Conservative Backbench Committee

House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA, Tel. 020 7219 6676

From: Caroline Baird
Sent: 27 June 2019 16:24
To: HOWELL, John <>
Subject: SODC Local Plan / new administration

Dear John

As you are, of course, well aware, there has been a huge democratic change in the administration of SODC following the May local elections and policy officers have warned that Central Government are ‘watching closely’.

I have spoken at one Scrutiny meeting and am registered to do so again next week as scrutiny was adjourned due to the limited time councillors had been given to review lengthy documents supplied just the previous day.  I am aware that the new team are developing new policies and they need some time and space to formulate a Local Plan that is suitable given the new political environment and conforms to these realities.

From your position as our MP and/or in your position in the Department, are you able to offer any assurance that Central Government will respect the democratic changes and allow this breathing space, rather than taking more heavy-handed action?

Kindest regards

Caroline Baird

A Green Party District Councillor for Culham!

Congratulations to Sam Casey-Rerhaye who is now the District Councillor for the ward that includes Culham: ‘Sandford and the Wittenhams’.  Not only is Sam also on Culham’s Parish Council and on its campaign committee, Save Culham Green Belt, she also lives in the village.

The recent local elections, in which Sam won her seat, resulted in dramatic changes to South Oxfordshire District Council.  Previously Conservative-led with a huge majority (the opposition being just two Liberal Democrats, 1 Labour and one councillor from Henley Residents Group), the Leader was able to ‘whip’ the leading group and vote through the potentially disastrous Local Plan. The council’s formation is now dramatically different: 12 Lib. Dem., 10 Con.,3 Lab., 3 HRG and five Green councillors. The council will now be led by a coalition between the Liberal Democrats and the Greens, with Sue Cooper as Leader. Our neighbouring council, the Vale of White Horse, which shares planning officers with SODC has similarly had its Conservative majority stripped (it has now 31 Lib. Dem., 6 Con. and 1 Green).

CPRE, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, is already urging the new leaders to scrap the controversial housing plans, including SODC’s Local Plan which was submitted to the Secretary of State at the end of March and is now being reviewed by two independent Inspectors. The Plan involves six strategic sites on Green Belt, including 3,500 houses in Culham.

Save Culham Green Belt is working with Sam and the Green councillors particularly, whose manifesto promised to protect the Green Belt, to see if the Local Plan can be halted. Importantly there is a process to do this. Part of the problem, however, is that the submission of the Local Plan was linked to a ‘Growth Deal’ agreed with Government by the five Oxfordshire councils and the Local Enterprise Partnership (OXLEP) to provide 100,000 houses in return for £215 million. No constituents voted for this tremendous growth to the county, however, and, whilst we recognise that housing is needed, the numbers of houses and the location of sites are highly controversial. They are not in line with natural growth and migration and will put enormous strain on infrastructure and will destroy natural resources and habitats, agricultural land, and flood plain.

There is now a chance to Save Culham Green Belt.  We will let you know what help we need from our supporters.


SODC submitted the Local Plan to the Secretary of State on 29 March.

Planning Inspectors Jonathan Bore and Nick Fagan have been appointed to undertake an independent examination into the soundness of the Plan.

A Programme Officer, Ian Kemp, will act as liaison between the Inspectors and the council or members of the public. Email: / Tel: 01527 861 711 / 0772 300 9166

The inspectors will examine the Local Plan’s evidence base (all the Council documents) and all the objections to it.

Site visits will be made by the Inspectors. It is likely that they will have questions which may be posed in advance of the hearing sessions.  We do not yet have a timetable for the Examination process. When we know more we will post a further update.

Meanwhile, more details can be found on the Council’s website:

Representations from the final consultation which ended in January can now be viewed on the Council’s website here (the last item on the list you will reach clicking this link).


The applicants have submitted new documents and in particular propose a new entrance off the A415.

A reminder that the application covers 94.5 hectares of rapidly disappearing Green Belt in Culham, immediately adjacent to the proposed SODC housing development.

The area is shown on the map below, coloured pink:

Click here for close up map:

This is a big commercial venture; the applicants are aiming for 162,000 visitors a year and are allowing for parking for 827 cars and an additional large overflow carpark.

There would be extensive built form including: Play Barn, Indoor Play and Science Area, Theatre,  Operational Storage Containers and Portacabin office, Animal Shelter, Shop, Party Rooms, Play Barn Café,  Toilet Block for Play Barn, Restaurant with patio and seats (with extension to follow),  Toilet Block for Restaurant, River hide, Glamping support facilities (eg showers etc), Car Park, overflow Car Park, Service Roads (and a lot of tracks wide and smooth enough for wheelchair access everywhere) AND ‘SITE MANAGER ACCOMMODATION’ which is a 2 bedroom house with kitchen, bathroom and lounge! 

We should all be alarmed that Year 4 plans for the Centre including Conference facilities and weddings….

The major change is a NEW entrance and junction from the A415, near the top of Tollgate Road, instead of the previously proposed Thame Lane entrance, and a 400m access road over these green fields. 

Traffic volumes and visitor numbers remain as previously.

Our previous responses WILL be taken into consideration but it is important that as many people respond as possible.


Scroll down to Comment button for online web comment form

or email:, quoting REF: P17/S4416/FUL

Please take a moment to consider the noise and traffic all this will create in Culham. Help protect our Green Belt.

« Older posts Newer posts »