This Appendix summarises the outputs of the stakeholder engagement process carried out as part of the development of the Cherwell Green and Blue Infrastructure (GBI) Strategy.

The Engagement Strategy rested on three main strands of engagement:

• An online survey.
• An interactive map.
• A key stakeholder ‘virtual round table’.

This report sets out a summary of key points raised by stakeholders via all channels.

Components of engagement process

Online survey

An online survey was open between the 25 May – 22 June 2022. It was made available to key stakeholders with an interest in GBI. This included:

• Statutory/technical stakeholders.
• Elected Members and town councillors.
• Community groups with an interest/stake in GBI.

The organisations which participated in the stakeholder engagement process are included below.

Stakeholders were asked for:

• Their views on how the current GBI network is performing.
• Their views on how GBI in Cherwell can be delivered i.e. identifying key opportunities.

In total, 31 responses were received to the online survey.

 

Interactive map

The link to the interactive map was sent out along with the online survey, on the same date and to the same stakeholders. The map allowed stakeholders to leave points on the map within any area of Cherwell District. Stakeholders were asked to leave points on the map with comments, to identify the following types of opportunities:

• Flood management.
• Green walking and cycling routes.
• Community growing space.
• Greenery in the town.
• Tree planting.
• Restoration of rivers and coastline.
• Better parks and open space.

A total of 73 comments were left on the interactive map. These were split as follows:

Focus Area	Number of comments
Banbury Focus Area	0
Bicester Focus Area	18
Kidlington Focus Area	24
Otmoor, Bernwood and Ray Focus Area	5
Mid-Cherwell Focus Area	4
Outside the Focus Areas	22

 

Key stakeholder ‘virtual round table’

A key stakeholder ‘virtual round table’ was held on 25 May 2022. Following a presentation by the LUC team and a Cherwell District Council (CDC) officer, discussions at the round table focussed on:

• The key issues facing GBI in Cherwell.
• The five proposed focus areas.
• Key barriers to delivery.
• How the study outputs should be used.

Discussion was captured using a MIRO ‘virtual whiteboard’ and shared with participants.

13 people participated in the virtual workshop – representing:

• Various departments of Cherwell District Council.
• The Canals and Rivers Trust
• Kidlington Parish Council
• Natural England
• Oxford University
• Oxfordshire County Council (active travel/ healthy place shaping)
• Oxfordshire Treescapes project

Other representatives who were unable to attend on the day were able to follow up with their comments within other stages of the engagement process.

The round table focussed on reviewing the proposed 5 Focus Areas. It also sought to identify some broad opportunity areas within these. The proposed Focus Areas – which were confirmed by stakeholders during the session – were:

• The wider Bicester area.
• The wider Banbury area.
• The wider Kidlington area.
• The Barnwood, Otmoor and Ray Area.
• The Mid-Cherwell Corridor.

However, participating stakeholders highlighted the importance of taking into account the wider GBI context in which these Focus Areas sit, rather than drawing a tight boundary around the built up area when identifying priorities for intervention.

Stakeholders were also asked to comment on how they would use the outputs of this work. Responses included:

• To inform detailed policies for the Local Plan as well as planning applications.
• To contribute to Oxfordshire’s Local Nature Recovery Strategy and Area Transport Plans.
• As a mechanism for the District Council to engage with residents.

Summary of issues raised relating to the wider GBI network

The text below summarises the key issues raised via the online survey (which focused on general GBI issues across Cherwell) and during discussions of key challenges at the virtual round table.

Stakeholders were asked to comment on how the GBI network in Cherwell is performing in relation to six proposed guiding principles. These principles are:

• Managing flood risk in Cherwell.
• Restoring the condition of rivers in Cherwell.
• Growing green towns in Cherwell.
• Expanding woodlands in Cherwell.
• Encouraging walking, cycling and wheeling in Cherwell.
• Making the most of our parks and open spaces (including biodiversity enhancements).

The stakeholder responses in relation to each of these principles were as follows:

Principle 1: Managing flood risk in Cherwell

In total:

• 35% of the stakeholders felt that the GBI was performing “not very well” against the principle.
• 8% thought it was performing “very well”.
• 23% thought it was performing “quite well”.
• 15% thought it was performing “very poorly”.
• 19% had no view on this principle.

Key issues raised by respondents were:

• Development on greenfield sites is increasing potential for flooding.
• One in five Oxfordshire parishes experience flooding and / or sewage issues.
• Lack of proper river management. The river and canal corridor should be seen as an opportunity not a barrier.
• Footpaths along the canal become waterlogged after heavy rain and become impassable.
• Lack of management by the Council when dealing with flooding on main roads when there is heavy rainfall.

Principle 2: Restoring the condition of rivers in Cherwell

Stakeholders were asked to evaluate how well the condition of rivers is being safeguarded today in Cherwell, based on water quality, riverside habitats, and if the District’s rivers were acting as multi-functional corridors.

In total:

• 27% of the stakeholders felt that the GBI was performing “very poorly” against the principle.
• 23% thought it was performing “quite well”.
• 19% thought it was performing “not very well”.
• 31% had no view on this principle.

Key issues raised by respondents were:

• None of the rivers in Cherwell achieve “Good” or “High” overall ecological and chemical status under the Water Framework Directive. Those in the Otmoor Area are classified as ‘Bad’.
• Pollution from sewage treatment plants and farmland is common and not being dealt with properly. The effects of development are being mitigated by sympathetic and effective SuDS, but it was noted that it is not improving the pre-development conditions of watercourses, particularly where they are off-site receptors.
• It is unclear who is responsible for monitoring the rivers and watercourses within Oxfordshire – particularly how responsibilities are divided between the parish councils and Oxfordshire County Council.

Principle 3: Growing green towns in Cherwell

This principle relates to issues of broader sense of place, and the GBI performs in relation to urban greening, providing a setting for cultural heritage, and facilitating vibrant town centres.

In total:

• 40% of the stakeholders felt that the GBI was performing “not very well” against the principle.
• 18% thought it was performing “very poorly”.
• 9% thought it was performing “quite well”.
• 36% had no view on this principle.

Key issues raised by respondents were:

• Poor forward thinking and too much growth and development on greenbelt/farmland.
• Lack of action, especially with regard to the Growing Green towns proposal.
• There is a need for more extensive and better-connected networks of GBI.
• There needs to be a better understanding of how to mitigate new development onsite and offsite.
• Wider deployment of high quality multifunctional SuDS, and green roofs is needed.

Principle 4: Expanding Woodland in Cherwell

Stakeholders were asked to identify how far Cherwell’s GBI network is helping to achieve woodland cover targets. Their ratings took into consideration factors which include how well wooded Cherwell is as a District, and the management of woodland.

In total:

• 35% of respondents did not have a view on this topic.
• 35% of the stakeholders felt that the GBI was performing “not very well” against the principle.
• 23% thought it was performing “quite well”.
• 7% thought it was performing “very poorly”.

 

Key issues raised by respondents were:

• New country parks are major GBI assets – such as the Bankside Country Park that is being planted in Banbury. Access to and from these assets are key, such as the new country park North of Banbury gateway.
• There has been loss of woodland due to recent developments across the District.
• Cherwell has very low woodland cover – only 5.4%, far less than the average of 9% for England. There is a need to increase woodland cover, but it is vital to put the right trees in the right place.
• Woodland projects, such as the Burnehyll Woodland, need more financial support to be delivered.
• The Council provides poor tree management.

Principle 5: Encouraging Walking, Cycling, and Wheeling in Cherwell

This principle related to the ways in which Cherwell’s GBI network is creating or limiting opportunities for walking, cycling, and wheeling.

In total:

• 40% of the stakeholders felt that the GBI was performing “not very well” against the principle.
• 20% thought it was performing “quite well”.
• 12% thought it was performing “very poorly”.
• 28% had no view on this principle.

Key issues raised by respondents were:

• Lack of well-rounded active travel proposals. Routes seem to be solely for cyclists to the detriment of pedestrians and other users.
• There are substantial gaps in green transport corridors between settlements, services and facilities. However, within new developments green transport corridors are being provided.
• Public footpaths are not well maintained and do not connect to form attractive or meaningful routes.
• There is a lack of public rights of way that are aimed at non-motorised users.
• Lack of proper cycleways that are safe for cyclists.
• In rural areas, there are no cycle paths or footpaths to connect people with neighbouring villages or towns.
• There are a lot of dual use footpaths around Bicester which are well used by both walkers and cyclists. They are tarmacked and well maintained.
• Active travel routes are not well maintained, and new connections are needed.

 

Principle 6: Making the Most of Our Parks And Open Spaces (Including Biodiversity Enhancements)

This principle broadly related to the District’s park and open space. Consideration was given to accessible green space as a health and wellbeing resource, and functions of existing green spaces in the District.

In total:

• 46% of the stakeholders felt that the GBI was performing “not very well” against the principle.
• 15% thought it was performing “quite well”.
• 12% thought it was performing “very poorly”.
• 27% had no view on this principle.

Key issues raised by respondents were:

• There is inequity in access to green spaces across Cherwell which contributes to poor health and wellbeing.
• Need to ensure GBI assets are targeted at different age groups and abilities.
• Accessible green space is under pressure from major planned development, from encroachment by minor developments and, especially around settlements, landowners pressing for built development on their land.
• Cherwell (District Council) is not a major owner or player in this. it is mostly Town and Parish councils and private sports clubs.
• New connections are needed to build the resilience of wildlife corridors.
• There is a definite need to raise awareness around how more sensitive green spaces should be set aside for wildlife rather than recreation.
• As there is a high level of agricultural land within Cherwell, the conversion of farmland to species rich grassland and woodland should be a focus.

 

Comments on the Delivery of GBI in Cherwell

Stakeholders were asked to identify the primary barriers to the delivery of GBI in Cherwell from a list of options. The following (in order of importance highlighted by survey respondents) were highlighted:

• Inadequate funding sources
• Insufficient prioritisation within policy
• Poor coordination between partners
• Lack of understanding of GBI
• Lack of community interest in GBI

This suggests that – when delivering GBI – a lack of interest or understanding of GBI is not the primary barrier. Rather, access to finance and strong partnerships between stakeholders, backed up by a strong policy framework, are seen as key to GBI delivery.

Key issues raised by respondents (including discussion at the round table) were:

• Maintenance of green spaces.
• Lack of understanding of the need for less formal, wilder areas to be left to support biodiversity.
• GBI has low priority within policy and is generally only considered as an afterthought to help address the impacts of development. GBI should be considered and provided at the earliest stages of development.
• Local authorities are subordinating environmental concerns to development targets and economic growth.
• The proper consideration and prioritisation of GBI, as well as resident views on GBI, should be an integral part of any decision-making.
• Lack of funding for GBI and biodiversity enhancement projects.
• There needs to be a better understanding of local issues. The new local plan for Cherwell should have a greater emphasis on GBI assets and their importance rather than solely on development.
• There is a lack of ‘joined up’ thinking across the district. Therefore, key partnerships need to work together to obtain funding to deliver improvements.
• To implement GBI projects, the partnership approach is vital, especially with farmers, landowners and town and parish councils.

 

Stakeholders also highlighted the role of the following important delivery partners:

• Oxfordshire Local Nature Partnership.
• Landowners along the Sor Brook from Bloxham to Adderbury.
• Defra and the Forestry Commission – making use of funding streams to support woodland creation, management, and access.
• Community First.
• Oxford County Council.
• Cherwell DC.
• The Canals and Rivers Trust.
• Wild Bicester.
• The River Restoration Centre.
• Graven Hill.
• Thames Water’s Bicester Wetland Reserve in conjunction with the Banbury Ornithological Society.
• The recently established Banbury Quays Consortium.
• Potential to use council landholdings in Tramway with private sector developers to build / deliver the Canalside regeneration.
• Stakeholders also highlighted the role of the following parallel work streams:
• Oxfordshire’s Nature Recovery Network.
• Emerging work led by BBOWT on the Bernwood, Otmoor, and Ray areas.
• Neighbourhood Plans.

Summary of comments raised on the identified Focus Areas

This chapter summarises the key issues raised in relation to specific Focus Areas. Detailed comments left on the interactive map have been incorporated directly into the Focus Area profiles.

The wider Bicester area

• Bicester is now a garden city but no additional green/open spaces have been created.
• Poor water quality in Langford Brook was highlighted.
• Bicester town centre has few small local shops. It is now improving with a small fish shop and a greengrocers. The Friday Market is a great success. Garth Park is now too crowded. It shows how much Urban Parks are needed.
• Burnehyll Woodland needs more financial support to be delivered.
• Some areas of Bicester are very poorly provided with green spaces. . However, the green spaces are usually in flood plains which cannot be built on.
• The provision on Kingsmere is too small for the “ever expanding town”.

 

The wider Banbury area

• Opportunities to improve the canal corridor within Banbury should be highlighted.
• Green corridors in Banbury are mostly well looked after when in Banbury Town Council control but the linear green park/lung has not been delivered by CDC in its Local Plan.
• Urban development around Banbury, specifically Bodicote, has left little space for green areas. Bodicote has far too much development “eating into” the Cherwell boundary and eroding our green areas, leaving little space for walking.
• New country parks are major GBI assets – such as the Bankside Country Park that is being created in Banbury. Access to and from these assets are key.
• Current plans to develop Bodicote further will erode our green spaces leading to the loss of our only remaining areas of recreation and walking and cycling paths.

 

The wider Kidlington area

• The canal is currently a wasted asset within Kidlington.
• The Parish Council has proposed the development of a Green Ring around Kidlington to provide access within and around Kidlington and into the surrounding countryside.
• There is a substantial amount of development planned to meet Oxford’s unmet housing need.
• There needs to be some guarantee to preserving the green land around Kidlington.
• The Kidlington Master Plan, LCWIP, Oxford transport strategy area welcome policies but there does need to be some prioritisation and this may depend on funding and coordination between partners including KPC.

 

The Bernwood, Otmoor and Ray Area

• Restoration work is being led by the Berks, Bucks & Oxon Wildlife Trust (BBOWT).
• A key challenge to overcome will be land ownership.
• There is a need to figure out how this area can be a strategic site for GBI and how partnerships can be formed to deliver it.

The Mid-Cherwell Corridor

• No specific comments were made in relation to this Focus Area.

List of participating organisations

Statutory/technical stakeholders

• Anglian Water
• Natural England
• University of Oxford (Environmental Change Institute and Nature-based Solutions Initiative)
• Woodland Trust
• Sustrans

Elected members and town councillors

• Adderbury Parish Council
• Bletchingdon Parish Council
• Bodicote Parish Council
• Cherwell District Council
• Kidlington Parish Council
• Launton Parish Council
• Milcombe Parish Council
• Milton (Banbury) Parish Meeting
• Weston on the Green Parish Council
• Yarnton Parish Council

Community groups with an active interest/stake in GBI

• CPRE Cherwell District
• Gavray Meadows Community Interest Company
• Kidlington Development Watch
• Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
• The Canal & River Trust
• Tooley’s Boatyard Trust
• Oxfordshire Treescapes project
• Oxford University (working with Oxfordshire County Council on natural capital mapping)

 

CDC officers representing:

• Planning Policy
• Development Management
• Community Nature Officer
• Climate Change
• Flood Risk

 

Oxfordshire County Council:

• Active travel
• Healthy place shaping