Objections to CPOs for exchange land by OFAS

Objection to Exchange Land on behalf of Ferry Hinksey Trust and Oxford Flood and Environment Group

We are writing to object to the Exchange Land Section 19 of OFAS on behalf of statutory objectors Ferry Hinksey Trust, non-statutory objectors Oxford Flood and Environment Group and over 5,000 people who have signed a petition to save Hinksey Meadow and surrounding landscape from the 5k channel for the following reasons:

• We object to the channel as set out in our objections at the public inquiry as the Environment Agency have failed to consider alternatives that would obviate the need for exchange land. Therefore, they are putting an unfair burden on taxpayers and on land use that should be used for other purposes including environmental or should remain in private hands.
• We object to most of the choices presented because the exchange land and/or the new access rights will not offer an equivalent level of amenity to what is currently enjoyed.

The exchange land does not represent a net gain to the public as it is in most cases substituting land that is already open to the public and where there is existing access. Land cannot be exchanged for public use when it is already in public use. Therefore, the loss of the land is absolute and leaves the public in a worse position vis a vis amenity. There is precedent for this. LB Greenwich and Others v The Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Transport (‘Oxleas Wood’)2:

"If the proposal were to take land already in public ownership and enjoyed for recreational

purposes, and to substitute for it land in private ownership but over which the public

already enjoyed extensive public rights of way affording roughly equivalent recreational

access, it could not sensibly be contended that the requirements of the section were

satisfied…"

• There is no consideration or calculation of the loss of the land to the environment, setting, tree cover, wildlife corridor, amenity. Therefore, it represents a net loss that would have a material effect on Biodiversity Net Gain calculations. So the environmental impact of the exchange is distorted as there is no compensation for the real loss of green spaces that contribute to the biodiversity of an area. This is not acceptable in a climate emergency. It decreases the green setting of Oxford.
• Some of the land use exchange represents a change of purpose e.g. Oatlands Rd land exchange.
• Legal cases, notably the ‘Oxleas Wood’ case, confirm that exchange land that is already in regular public use, even if it is privately owned, would not be ‘equally advantageous’ (“I’m taking this piece of land that you’re already using, and replacing it with another piece of land that you’re already using”).
• There has been a lack of consultation with the public about the exchange land, violating the principle of demonstrating equal advantageousness to the public. In his evidence of 16 November 2023 at the CPO inquiry, Mr. Thorne confirmed that no local residents had been involved in identifying, appraising or choosing any of the exchange land for the Oxford Flood Alleviation Scheme. This is despite the fact that it is for the public that ‘equal advantageousness’ needs to be shown.
• Mr Thorne also confirmed that the criteria for assessment was set by him. As demonstrated by Riki Therivel in her evidence, (appended: Jewson’s land as Best Option 1.) this does not meet the legal test for the suitability of exchange land.

In summary, the criteria used to appraise the options set no ‘red flags’ for options that do not meet legal requirements; haven’t been used consistently (Grandpont v. Seacourt); haven’t included local residents‘ input (some of which has been coming in since 2016); and arguably should conclude that Option 1 should be the preferred option. The EA has only considered three options, two of which have obvious ’red flag' issues.

The plots and their exchange land in question are listed below and we deal with them in turn.

• A. Most of Seacourt Nature Park - Jewson’s Field + 740m2 of Hinksey Meadow
• B. Strip of land on the east side of Oatlands Recreational Ground - land adjacent to the Electric Road
• C. Kendall Copse - land at Egrove
• D. Kennington Pools - land at Egrove
• E. Small area on the SW end of Grandpont Nature Park - a plot of land across the Abingdon Road from the nature park
• F. Edge of Hinksey Park - not considered to be open space so no exchange land needed
• G. Edge of Botley Park – ditto

1. Seacourt Nature Park and Jewson’s Field

We adopt the position outlined by Riki Therivel and Tim O’Hara in their objection as apendeded to this document below. We agree with their conclusion as to unsuitability of the exchange land and the arbitrary methods and criterial used to make the assessment. (see appendix)

"Conclusions

• The EA has considered only a limited number of options. No local residents were involved in identifying the options, establishing the criteria, or assessing the options against the criteria, even though it is we who would be disadvantaged by the loss of Seacourt Nature Park.
• The criteria used by the EA miss one of only two legal criteria for exchange land, namely whether people are already using the land. The criteria have also been inconsistently applied between the different open space sites – Grandpont v. Seacourt.
• Jewson’s Field is clearly more than a ‘cut through’. Different parts of the field have been regularly and extensively used by local residents for different forms of public recreation. As such, all of Jewson’s Field should be automatically eliminated from further consideration as exchange land.
• Hinksey Meadow is needed for exchange land only because Jewson’s Field isn’t big enough, so it should also be eliminated from further consideration as exchange land."
• Furthermore, the other potential open land north of Botley Road at Bulstake Close shows evidence of current public use. This would need further investigation to demonstrate it could be used as exchange land.

1. Strip of land on the east side of Oatlands Recreational Ground: land adjacent to the Electric Road

Oatlands Recreation Ground is a very popular local park used by school children for sports and recreation. It is frequently used by dog walkers. There are regular meet ups in this space of sports groups. People frequently picnic and gather in this space.

The strip of land adjacent to the Electric Road and to Monks Causeway is not a suitable substitution for this land.

• There has been inadequate consultation with the public. Particularly the parents of the schoolchildren at West Oxford Primary School who are unaware of the intended changes and have not been consulted.
• The land proposed for change of use to recreation use is part of a wildlife corridor that links SACs and SSCIs. Evidence of MG4 meadow fragments have been found on this site. This land has not been adequately assessed.
• To quote Dr King’s Public Inquiry Statement.

“Biodiversity sampling is still inadequate, and the EA has throughout tackled this with a lack of conviction. A thorough revision of the BNG calculations needs to be attempted. It would help if the EA released their full data; a lengthy report on invertebrates, commissioned by the EA themselves in 2018 and extending to over 100 pages, was only released by the EA in 2023 on the basis of a Freedom of Information request.”

"When the 2022 application was submitted myself and some other raised the alarm over the biodiversity sampling and calculations of BNG on DEFRA. Two samplers were put onto parts of the site for six days, data from their 167 quadrats were incorporated and the baseline biodiversity estimate was increased by over 100 units. The terrestrial biodiversity caused by the full application became negative, at minus 1.5%, whereas after mitigation it is expected to become >10%.

"Appendix 5 (Table 4) shows the extent to which the plant communities and their condition were upgraded after this reassessment, which took place after the current application was submitted in May 2022.

"The biodiversity data had been collected in 2020 on the basis of DEFRA2.0 criteria but submitted by calculating them in DEFRA3.0. The sampling was inadequate and superficial. Several widely-distributed and relevant species had been markedly under sampled. Appendix 6 shows a map of the central part of the site with some of the areas within the red line which were not sampled at all in June 2022 in white. These areas require resampling, together with the extensive areas to the north and south which were not resampled at all. Graham Scholey mentioned in his Proof of Evidence that recommended areas were resampled, it is unclear who recommended them and I was not consulted.

I mentioned the gross undersampling of Long Meadow (see Appx. 6) as an example; it was sampled the day after it has been mown for hay and is a long-term hay meadow. It deserved a multiplier of 6 (not 2) and was in 'good condition (multiplier 3) not poor (multiplier 1).

'Bulwarks Meadow" (over 15 ha), as Richard Wilson calls it, the main site for trying to establish new MG4 communities in mitigation, already seems far too far towards MG4 to make it a suitable mitigation site. This was confirmed by Wilson’s (2019) report, which rated its invertebrates as nearly equivalent to Hinksey Meadow or Iffley Meadow SSSI. The whole area (Long Meadow, Bulwarks Meadow, lands along the Electric Road, Pembroke Lands) has plenty of similar vegetation, either MG4 or very close to it. It needs relatively little treatment." (our emphasis)**[1]

• Fragments of MG4 including great burnet indicative of surviving meadowland have been identified on this land. This area forms part of the potential area for a meadow recovery network (see report from Catriona Bass – appended.

"It is needs to be understood that the whole network of meadows around Hinksey Meadow, affected by OFAS, already constitutes and important nature reserve for people and wildlife with a significant number of rare plant species and bird species. It is not a ‘blank canvas’ from which to create a new nature reserve. On an hour-long walk through some of these meadows, on 29 April 2023, a number of rare MG4 species were photographed (see map below). Among numerous bird species heard and seen, two pairs of rare grasshopper warblers were recorded as well as pairs of sedge and reed warblers.

Having been engaged in landscape-scale re-creation and restoration of floodplain meadows since 2018, through the Thames Valley Wildflower Meadow Restoration Project, we have not seen another area with greater potential for the creation of a nature recovery network for floodplain meadows and their dependent wildlife." *[2]

• Identifying this as exchange land without a proper consideration of its biodiversity and ecology violates the precautionary principle and the mitigation hierarchy.
• Similar land parcels have been found in the 2019 Wilson Report to have a surprisingly high level of invertebrates. The importance of this land parcel for connectivity needs to be investigated before any decisions on change of use.
• There is no evidence presented that this land parcel could be converted for playing field use.
• This area is part of the entrance to the green belt and the iconic pastoral landscape and green setting of Oxford. It adjoins the historic and ancient Monk’s Causeway. It should not have a change of use to sports field merely based on its proximity to the displaced land on Oatland’s Recreation Ground.
• The removal of the vegetation, scrub, etc. would decrease the net biodiversity of the area and would not be compensated for.
• The suggestion that the land would just need to be mowed to become available for recreational purposes betrays the lack of proper care and attention to the nature of the site. There is no evidence that this would render it ready for children’s sports recreation purposes. +[3] Nor should potential meadow recovery land be used for this purpose.
• Nor are the other suggested sites of any value for recreation purposes. One suggestion, clearly put forward as a straw man, would put children in danger from overhead electric cables. ++[4] Yet this clearly unsuitable land is listed as the second choice. This suggests that there has been a lack of due care and attention in the choosing of exchange land.

1. Kendall Copse: exchange land at Egrove

Kendall Copse Kendall Copse is a 2.3ha community woodland, supported by the Friends of Kendall Copse and local residents from Kennington.

The land at Egrove is part of a mature estate owned by the University and maintained to a high standard by grounds staff. It is part of the setting of the listed educational establishment Egrove Park.

• Egrove Park while private land is frequently used by members of the public so therefore it cannot be used as exchange land as it is already in the public domain. The land belongs to the university and is frequently used by their members. There is an integrity to Egrove Park and its maintenance that would be compromised by hiving off to change of ownership, without any other real benefit to the community.
• Kendall Copse was set up in 2008 and represents around a thousand trees and hedgerow that was established by the community. The biodiversity and ecological contribution cannot be compensated for by mature woodland and beautiful parkland that already exists. The loss of Kendall Copse is therefore absolute.
• There is no evidence that the community has been adequately consulted about this loss. For example, a new restoration site could have been proposed, further into Kennington.
• The only way to compensate the community is to give exchange land that is brownfield or of poor ecological value and allow a new woodland to be established with financial assistance from the Environment Agency.
• The channel in this area would be of poor ecological value as it will be concreted and therefore of no environmental advantage to the area.
• The tree cover and biodiversity of the area, the entrance to Kennington, will be materially altered for the worse and therefore the exchange land is not advantageous to the public and does not represent a fair exchange for the loss.

1. Kennington Pools - land at Egrove

Kennington Pools - page 12 https://consult.environment-agency.gov.uk/thames/ofas-updates/user_uploads/es-appendix-d-1-aquatic-invertebrate-and-mussel-survey-2016.pdf

Tributary of Hinksey Stream. Pond habitat, 50 cm deep, slow flowing
(< 10 cm/sec), with a substrate constituted of gravel (20%), sand (10%) and silt (70%). Presence of macrophytes (Lemna trisulca, Phalaris arundinacea, Carex sp., Typha latifloia, Mentha aquatica) Moderately shaded by riparian vegetation. Surrounded land use of broadleaf woodland, with road / railway within urban area. Appendix B, Plate B10.

The analysis found

" The results shown in Table 3.8, above, indicate that Kennington Pit is of good biological quality (BMWP scores 75 to 118, ASPT 3.9 to 4.2), with samples characterised by a relatively high diversity (21 to 31 families recorded present) and the presence of several taxa considered to be moderately sensitive to pollution, such as Coenagrion sp. (damselfly larvae), Acroloxus lacustris (limpet), Holocentrropus dubius (caddisfly larvae) and Crangonyx pseudogracilis (crustacean).

LIFE scores are generally used to assess the flow sensitivity of invertebrate communities and species in flowing watercourses rather than ponds, so are not particularly relevant for ponds. However, for comparison, most of the taxa recorded are typical of slow flowing / standing conditions (flow groups III, IV, V), with the exception of the leech Piscicola sp. and the mayfly Baetidae (flow group II). This is reflected by the low LIFE scores (6.0), thus confirming that the community is adapted to still water conditions that characterise this pond habitat.

In terms of conservation value, all of the species recorded are common, with the exception of the diving water strider Gerris argentatus, the water scorpion Ranatra linearis and the snail Bythinia leachi (Conservation Score 5, ‘Local’), as demonstrated by the CCI scores, which are indicative of ‘Low’ to ‘Moderate’ conservation value.

The proposed land parcel for exchange is completely different in quality with no aquatic component. Therefore it is completely unsuitable for exchange. Furthermore, the aquatic survey was undertaken in 2016 and is therefore out of date.

-Nor should the mature and beautiful woodland area of Egrove be compromised. It is currently thriving under careful management and the change of management may not ensure its continuance to high standard.

1. Small area on the SW end of Grandpont Nature Park: a plot of land across the Abingdon Road from the nature park

Grandpont Nature Park constitutes its own eco-system. A fragmented piece of land on the other side of Abingdon Road does not constitute an exchange, particularly as the piece of land is already part of the green setting of the road. It would also be necessary to create vehicle access to this land parcel further changing the pleasing and wooded nature of the site.

1. Edge of Hinksey Park - not considered to be open space so no exchange land needed
2. Edge of Botley Park – ditto

Taking both of these spaces together, the plots of land adjoin the open spaces and are areas of scrubland that are valuable for wildlife. Therefore, they represent a loss to the public realm. It violates the principle of exchange and open space to commandeer plots of land for other purposes without proper compensation. There is a loss to nature and wildlife and affects the setting of the open space and should be considered an integral part of it.

Conclusion

The plots of land affixed for exchange do not represent fair exchange for the simple reason that they are already in the public domain or are part of the setting of public land, even if in private ownership.

The removal of these land parcels which constitute wildlife corridors or green settings and the substitution with already existing sites represents a net loss to the public in terms of biodiversity and connectivity.

Some of the land parcels, for example Egrove for Kendall Copse, compromise the existing high standard of the woodland. They are not like for like in the case of Kennington Pools.

There has been no reckoning of the biodiversity net gain nor attempts to ascertain the biodiversity value of the current sites ( aside from Kennington Pool.) This could represent a serious loss for example with the land parcel alongside the Electric Road for Oatlands Recreation Ground, where there would be a change of use and amenity.

The criteria established by Michael Thorne to assess values are not in accordance with legislation nor any known criteria for assessing value (as per Riki Therivel’s assessment in relation to Jewson’s Field.) They are therefore meaningless and not a basis for decision making. Crude criteria and rule of thumb heuristics were used to assess land quality for amenity and therefore are unverifiable.

The land exchanges are supposed to represent land that is equally advantageous to the public and users. Yet there is little evidence of public consultation other than random visitor surveys and not at the hours when people often take their recreation (e.g. Weekends, evenings, early mornings) so the results are lacking a strong evidence and representational base. The surveys conducted date from 2018 and are therefore pre-pandemic and 5 years out of date. We conclude there was inadequate consultation as part of the process.

We conclude that the exchange land and the new access rights will not offer an equivalent level of amenity, recreation, and enjoyment of the landscape to what is currently enjoyed. The system used to assess exchange diminishes the amount of land that could be classified as open space and therefore does not compensate the public. If definitely diminishes the amount of green space and biodiversity in our landscape.

Appendix

Objection Jewson’s Field from Professor Riki Therivel

1

Objection to Jewson’s Field being used as exchange land for Seacourt Nature Park

Riki Therivel and Tim O’Hara,

November 2023

We are not opposed to the use of Seacourt Nature Park as part of a flood scheme, but believe that the proposed exchange land is inappropriate and that other land should be used instead. We have been raising this issue with the Environment Agency (EA) since 2016.

This objection takes forward the proof of evidence that we put to the CPO inquiry (OX002N 1a, 1b and 1c), plus Mr. Thorne’s proof of evidence and rebuttal proof of evidence. We understand from the latter that the EA’s most recent arguments for using Jewson’s Field and Hinksey Meadow as exchange land are:

1. The EA has assessed three options for exchange land using a consistent set of criteria, and

found Jewson’s Field to be the best option.

2. There is a well-worn path along the northern edge of Jewson’s Field, but the EA’s

observations suggest that most people simply cut through the field.

3. “Cutting through” (or “transiting the land”) does not meet the statutory definition of “for the purpose of public recreation”, hence local residents' existing activities do not fall under the legal requirements regarding public recreation, so Jewson’s Field can be used as exchange land.
4. Anyway, Jewson’s Field has evidence of fencing which means that the landowner could

withdraw permissive access to the land at any time.

5. Because Jewson’s Field is the preferred option for exchange land but isn’t big enough, 737m2 of Hinksey Meadow also needs to be used as exchange land.

This objection goes through those points one by one.

1. Jewson’s land as best option

The two legal tests for exchange land are

1. size of land and
2. equal advantageousness. A key component of ‘advantageousness’ is whether the site is already used by the public for recreation:

Section 19 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981:

"(1) In so far as a compulsory purchase order authorises the purchase of any land forming

part of a common, open space or fuel or field garden allotment, the order shall be subject to

special parliamentary procedure unless the Secretary of State is satisfied—

(a) that there has been or will be given in exchange for such land, other land, not being less in area and being equally advantageous to the persons, if any, entitled to rights of common

or other rights, and to the public…"

Government CPO guidance1:

1 Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (2019) Guidance on Compulsory purchase process and

The Crichel Down Rules, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/compulsory-purchase-process-and-

the-crichel-down-rules-guidance, Sec. 240.2

"Land which is already subject to rights of common or to other rights, or used by the public,

even informally, for recreation, cannot usually be given as exchange land, since this would

reduce the amount of such land, which would be disadvantageous to the persons

concerned."

LB Greenwich and Others v The Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Transport (‘Oxleas Wood’)2:

"If the proposal were to take land already in public ownership and enjoyed for recreational

purposes, and to substitute for it land in private ownership but over which the public

already enjoyed extensive public rights of way affording roughly equivalent recreational

access, it could not sensibly be contended that the requirements of the section were

satisfied…"

In his evidence of 16 November 2023 at the CPO inquiry, Mr. Thorne confirmed that no local

residents had been involved in identifying, appraising or choosing any of the exchange land for the Oxford Flood Alleviation Scheme. This is despite the fact that it is for the public that ‘equal advantageousness’ needs to be shown. The EA considered only three replacement land options for Seacourt Nature Park, with two of them arguably not meeting one of the two legal tests for replacement (see below).

Mr. Thorne also confirmed that he himself had devised Table 14 of CD2.11, which sets criteria for assessing options for exchange land:

2 [1993] Env. L. R. 3443

Table 14 does not ‘red flag’ or eliminate sites on the basis of whether the land is already used by the public for recreation, i.e. it misses out one of the two legal requirements for exchange land.

The EA applies Table 14 differently between sites. For instance Tables 27-32 of CD2.11, which assess exchange sites for Grandpont Nature Park, consider 1. distance from the area that would be impacted and 2. distance from the entrance of Grandpont Nature Park.

The latter is presumably considered because this is where much of the public would be entering Grandpont Nature Park. The reasons given for the choice of Option 14 as the preferred exchange land for Grandpont, even though it is not closest to the area being impacted, include (14.48.5 of Mr. Thorne’s proof of evidence) “The Exchange Land for Grandpont Nature Park and Dean’s Ham Meadow is 65m east of Hinksey Park’s main access”.

However the same thinking is not applied to exchange land options for Seacourt Nature Park. Tables 16-18 pf CD2.11 only consider how far from the edge of Seacourt NP the exchange land options are If distance from the park entrance was also considered, Option 1 (Bulstake) would come out better at 382m than Option 3 (Jewson’s Field) at 452m3:

3 Distance to Bulstake has been calculated via the P&R, since this I how local people would access it.4

The EA has not presented any evidence to show that they have tried to identify where people who use Seacourt Nature Park come from, and so why the location criteria have been used differently for Grandpont and Seacourt. In terms of accessibility, the appraisal for Option 1 (Table 16) 1 states “Access to Option Site 3 will, however, be blocked for periods during the Scheme construction works, making it inaccessible for periods of time”. It is unclear why this is noted under Option 1, and we wonder whether the attribute score of 1 should actually be applied to Option 3, not Option 1.

If location and accessibility of Options 1 and 3 are assumed to be the same for the two options –indeed, they are arguably worse for Option 3 than Option 1 – then Option 1 (Bulstake) comes out as the preferred option.

In summary, the criteria used to appraise the options set no ‘red flags’ for options that do not meet legal requirements; haven’t been used consistently (Grandpont v. Seacourt); haven’t included local residents‘ input (some of which has been coming in since 2016); and arguably should conclude that Option 1 should be the preferred option. The EA has only considered three options, two of which have obvious ’red flag' issues.

2. Jewson’s Field as a “cut through”

The EA seems to agree that there is a well-worth path that goes east-west through Jewson’s Field, and that has been in use for 20+ years, essentially making it a permissive footpath. Para. 14.24.2 of Mr. Thorne’s proof of evidence notes that, based on EA surveys, 95% of people using Jewson’s Field spend less than 4 minutes there, and that this supports the conclusion that people “solely transit across the land”; in other words that Jewson’s Field is merely a “cut through”.

The EA’s own surveys show that the area is used for dog walking: p.272/346 of CD2.11 states “one person with their dog was observed to access the area of interest” and p.291/346 of CD2.11 states

“Of all the people observed, 5 used Jewson’s Land via the West Access – all were observed to be walking their dogs”. These surveys were carried out in March 2019 and July 2019.

Our own survey of September 2023, which is at Appendix G of our proof of evidence for the CPO inquiry, shows that local residents use Jewson’s Field for:

“Walk through and checking litter locations”

“Run and walk”

“Walk through and around”

“Walk the dog, pick berries”

“Walk my dog”

“Walk the dog”

“Dog walk”

“Walk, run”

“Walk, pick, enjoy”

“Dog walk”

This is not just “cutting through”.

The video that I hope to be able to show for the Sec. 19 inquiry - https://youtu.be/s5pEqpXn_3U -

shows Jewson’s field to also be used for walking in a loop around the field, bird feeding, enjoyment of alcohol and solvents, and camping4

. We have personally also used Jewson’s Field to take photos (daytime and trail cam), make this video, video homeless people as part of a wider “Not Just Homeless” project5, scything and picking litter. These activities are not just “cutting through”.4 We are not suggesting that all these activities are laudable, merely that they actually take place. 5 E.g. 1:54 of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4hwuE4bPCY5

There is further evidence of “non-cut-through” activities at Appendix MT27 of Mr. Thorne’s CPO evidence. The appendix shows aerial photos of Jewson’s Field. Zooming into the 2018 photo shows two homeless encampment: the large one that I refer to in the video, and a smaller one, both with paths leading to them:

Zooming into the 2022 figure, there is evidence of yet another homeless encampment with

associated path, and we have seen others over time. The activities of homeless people certainly can’t be called “cutting through”6

Para. 14.24 of Mr. Thorne’s proof of evidence states that “A number of Environment Agency site visits and visitor surveys of the land have not provided evidence of physical use of the land that can be regarded as recreational use”. We are concerned that the EA seems to confuse absence of evidence (of recreational use) with evidence of absence. In this case, the two are definitely not the same.

Many activities carried out in Jewson’s Field don’t – indeed shouldn’t - leave traces behind, for instance exercising the dog, photography, litter picking, and berry picking.

In summary, there is plenty of evidence of Jewson’s Field being used as more than a “cut through”. A lack of physical evidence of recreational use during a limited number of site visits is not inconsistent with the actual, significant, widespread use of the field by the public.

3. Activities of local residents meeting ‘statutory definition’ of public recreation

Mr. Thorne notes at para. 14.27.3 of his proof that past and current activities at Jewson’s Field are

“not considered as falling within the statutory definition of ‘for the purposes of public recreation’ as it is used to transit across the land”. Mr. Thorne already confirmed on 16 Nov that there, in fact, is no ‘statutory definition’ of public recreation. We are not sure why he used that incorrect legalese.

Standard definitions of ‘recreation’ include:

Recreation: “(a way of) enjoying yourself when you are not working” (Cambridge dictionary)

Recreation: “things that you do in your spare time to relax” (Collins dictionary)

"Recreational purpose is the following or any combination thereof: hunting, trapping, horseback riding, fishing, swimming, boating, camping, picnicking, hiking, pleasure driving, motorcycling, all-terrain vehicle riding, nature study, water skiing, snowmobiling, other summer and winter sports, educational activities, and viewing or enjoying historical, archaeological, scenic, or scientific sites while going to and from or actually engaged therein. ‘Recreational purpose’ includes the activity of accompanying another person who is engaging in such activities.

‘Recreational purpose’ is not limited to active engagement in such activities, but includes entry onto, use of, passage over, and presence on any part of the land in connection with or during the course of such activities" (Law Insider, USA6, our underlining).

“[W]e use the terms recreation and physical activity interchangeably to refer to activities that keep people active but which are outside of organised competitive sports. We also take a broad view as to what constitutes ‘recreation’ and would consider any activity that involves physical movement to fall within our definition”7

Given these definitions, we believe that walking the dog, feeding birds, picking berries, taking photos and videos, running, picnicking, scything, picking litter, enjoying a drink, and camping are all recreational activities, and that Jewson’s Field is extensively used for public recreation. Indeed, the recreational activities physically cover most of Jewson’s Field:

6 https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/recreational-purpose , the only legal definition we could find.

7 https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/482/national-plan-for-sport-and-recreation- committee/publications/7

8

8 1:54 of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4hwuE4bPCY, 20168

In summary, the great majority of Jewson’s Field is, and has been, used for a wide range of

recreational activities over 20+ years. The remain parts of the field form an attractive setting for this recreation.

4. Evidence of fencing

The EA has been arguing that Jewson’s Field is in private ownership, as evidenced by

fencing of the land, and that the owner could take the land out of public use at any

time. We agree that there is fencing between Jewson’s Field and Hinksey

Meadow: this is maintained by the Oxford Preservation Trust to prevent cattle from

straying from their land. However there is an unlocked pedestrian gate on the east

entrance of Jewson’s Field (right), and no fencing on the 80m boundary between

Seacourt Nature Park and Jewson’s Field, including the west entrance to the field.

The EA’s Statement of Case of July 2023 (p.188) states that

"In the north-west corner of the site, the chain-link fencing is broken. This has created a

concealed access point through the overgrown hedgerow".

We clarified in our CPO submission that there is no fence between Seacourt Nature Park and

Jewson’s Field. We are pleased to see that para. 14.27.2 of Mr. Thorne’s proof of evidence has amended this to:

"There is neither the chain-link fencing or nor effective hedging as it is grown out, however

there is evidence of a post and barbed wire fence, which is broken and on the floor."

For clarification, this “fence” is 6.5m long and is not contiguous with the entrance to Jewson’s Field. The wide-angle photo below shows (in yellow) the location of the “fence” and (in red) the entrance to Jewson’s Field.9

It is difficult to interpret two mossy posts and some crumpled-up wire on the ground as an active attempt to keep recreational users out. Jewson’s have also made no move to improve this “fencing”, even in the knowledge that this inquiry was going to take place9

In summary, Jewson’s land is fenced on the sides abutting Hinksey Meadow but not on the side abutting Seacourt Nature Park. The open access on the west side of the land, and pedestrian gate on the east side clearly do not attempt to keep out local residents.

As a side comment, we are concerned that much of the EA’s evidence feels designed to mislead. The crumple of wire not “broken chain-link fencing with a narrow gap that people have been squeezing through”

. There is no ‘statutory definition’ of public recreation. ‘Cutting through’ is not a non-

recreational activity meriting exemption under the Acquisition of Land Act.

5. Hinksey Meadow

The arguments that apply to Jewson’s Field apply even more to the 737m2 of Hinksey Meadow that the EA would need to take to supplement the proposed exchange land at Jewson’s Field. The Oxford Preservation Trust encourages public access to Hinksey Meadow, Hinksey Meadow is not “used as a cut-through”, it is not fenced etc. Mr. Thorne merely argues to 4.25.5 of his proof of evidence:

"[Jewson’s Field] achieves the highest ranking in terms of its suitability as Exchange Land…

with the addition of land from part of Option Site 2, an area necessary to meet the

requirement for Exchange Land is met".

In summary, the EA proposes to take 737m2 of Hinksey Meadow as exchange land simply because it is adjacent to Jewson’s Land. Presumably if Jewson’s Field was found to not be acceptable as exchange land, then Hinksey Meadow would also not be used.

Conclusions

• The EA has considered only a limited number of options. No local residents were involved in identifying the options, establishing the criteria, or assessing the options against the criteria, even though it is we who would be disadvantaged by the loss of Seacourt Nature Park.
• The criteria used by the EA miss one of only two legal criteria for exchange land, namely whether people are already using the land. The criteria have also been inconsistently applied between the different open space sites – Grandpont v. Seacourt.
• Jewson’s Field is clearly more than a ‘cut through’. Different parts of the field have been

regularly and extensively used by local residents for different forms of public recreation. As such, all of Jewson’s Field should be automatically eliminated from further consideration as exchange land.

• Hinksey Meadow is needed for exchange land only because Jewson’s Field isn’t big enough, so it should also be eliminated from further consideration as exchange land.
• The EA should find different exchange land for Seacourt Nature Park.

9 We don’t take this for granted. We are very grateful to Jewson’s for letting us use and maintain (scythe, litter pick) their field.

[1] https://www.hwa.uk.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Dr-King-Proof.pdf

[2] https://www.hwa.uk.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/PM-Proof-of-Evidence-Final.pdf

• Page 14 Appendix 1 - Longmead Trust Observations on OFAS

[3] “Mowing of Option Site 4 is all that is needed to achieve managed grassland equivalent to the Open Space Area.” Page 35 https://www.hwa.uk.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/CD2.11-20230206_DM-OpenSpace_ExchangeLand-FULL-Report-2023-V1.pdf

[4] “Children’s play area under high power electricity lines is not desirable. National Grid may regard this land as safeguarded infrastructure land.” Ibid. page 36

Any representations or objections in relation to this proposal should be addressed in writing to:

By email to:
PCU@levellingup.gov.uk

By post to:
The Planning Casework Unit
Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities 23 Stephenson Street
Birmingham B2 4BH

by 23:59 on 12 December 2023 quoting reference PCU/S19/U3100/3321729.