IT seems incredible that the planning policies which have guided the development of Oxford since the 1970s should be cast aside on the questionable housing projections of the SHMA, supported by the non-elected, business-dominated, Local Enterprise Partnership calling for massive urbanisation in the county.

The existing policies have served Oxford well, helping to maintain the environmental quality of the city while directing growth to the county towns. Urbanisation, on the scale envisaged, has no benefits for the county and substantial disadvantages.

However it would be naive to imagine that no development will take place around the city, but this should be balanced in terms of planning gain by disposing of negative features. Oxford Airport, while successful in its own terms, is not essential and a cause of noise nuisance. The site is environmentally sterile. It does, however, occupy a large site which is a potential growth area for the city adjacent to new science parks and rail station.

Developing the site is preferable to concreting over meadows and fields elsewhere.

The site could accommodate the growth needs of Oxford for decades to come and expand north-eastwards to the railway line incorporating the vast landfill site at Bunkers Hill. I am sure the airport owners, the Cohen brothers, will recognise the advantages to be gained.

A note of caution nonetheless: any new settlement must not be a sprawl of low-density housing estates but an identifiable place with a local character.

This is best achieved by formulating a master plan incorporating the planning and design lessons of the past 25 years.

Exemplars already exist in the form of new settlements such as Fairford Leys, Aylesbury, or Poundbury, Dorchester (much criticised by architects but seldom visited). There is no reason why such a development could not achieve a high-quality environment given the right encouragement and backing.

Paul Hornby
Walton Crescent
Oxford

Today’s letters

Want to give your opinion? Email letters@oxfordmail.co.uk