At its meeting on 16 October  2018, the City Executive Board will be asked to approve the Oxford Local Plan 2036 proposed submission draft  for public consultation.

This is an opportunity for the Scrutiny Committee to make recommendations to the Board beforehand.

Please note that the following supporting documentation will be published as supplement:

1.    Appendix 2

      i.        Sustainability Appraisal

    ii.        Habitat Regulation Assessment

   iii.        Infrastructure Development Plan

   iv.        City Council’s Response  to the Preferred Options  Consultation

    v.        Policies map

2.    Monitoring Framework

The Chair introduced the item by reminding the Committee that this was the third phase in production of the Local Plan, following preliminary public consultations in 2016 and 2017. The principal purpose of this phase was not to look at detailed aspects of the plan but, rather, to consider if the plan met the necessary test of soundness before submission to the Secretary of State.  

 Councillor Hollingsworth agreed that while the principal purpose was not, at  this stage, to look at detail, if either the Committee or the City Executive Board made compelling cases for detailed changes they would of course be given serious consideration. He paid tribute to the work of officers in preparation of the plan, with particular reference to the contributions of Sarah Harrison (Team Leader (Planning Policy)) and Amanda Ford (Principal Planner).

Councillor Hollingsworth went on to set out the overarching purpose of the plan with reference to  its foreword.  The plan sought to contribute to a better society for all and  to strike the right balance between the competing pressures that Oxford and its people face. Oxford is a wonderful city, with a beauty and a history and is a centre of learning and innovation on a global scale much of which it can be rightly proud. But it is also a city where inequality is stark - where decent and affordable housing is out of reach for so many of its citizens, and where poor air quality damages the lives of many more.  The plan will seek to respect the city of previous generations while shaping the city for those to come.

The plan can only address matters within the City’s borders and within which the amount of land suitable for housing development is very limited.  The plan will address this by look at opportunities for higher buildings and increased density of housing. Wharehouses within the City do not represent a good use of space and would be discouraged.

The plan seeks to provide a framework for the future with as much of a qualitative element as a quantitative one which should, in turn, lead to more subtlety in planning decision making.

The Chair asked why a new calculation of housing need based on the Government’s methodology set out in the National Policy Framework was not undertaken (para 2.29 of Appendix 2ii). It was explained that this methodology reduced the City’s unmet housing need to zero, contrary to previous projections and despite the clear need for affordable housing; very high housing costs; and Government recognition that Oxford was set to make a significant contribution to the economic growth of the Country. The Government had also indicated, just a few days after their publication, that the recent household projection figures would be revised.  The Strategic Housing Market Assessment undertaken in 2014 remained a sound basis for calculating future housing demand in the City and had been adopted, also, by other parties to the Oxfordshire Housing and Growth Deal.

The consultation process to date was welcomed but there was disappointment  that the plan was so rigidly structured, and a  suggestion that a more flexible ‘place making’ approach would be preferable. Councillor Hollingsworth said that the qualitative rather than quantitative approach addressed this issue to some extent (for example in relation to the threshold policy for shops).  The Team Leader (Planning Policy) said it was hard to pull together the many themes woven through the plan without recourse to some formal structure and an eye had to be kept on its ultimate use by, among others, Building Control.

The Principal Planner confirmed that, in relation to transport matters, the plan was closely aligned with the County Council as the local Highway Authority and its proposals flowed from a jointly commissioned study.

The reference to the development of the Cowley Branch line was welcome  but the Committee expressed concern that the absence of a  reference to other alternative means of transport (tram  or cable car for example) might subsequently be interpreted as the Council having dismissed such alternatives.  Councillor  Hollingsworth was clear that  this was not the intention but agreed the some wording should be added to the introduction  to make it clear.  

In response to the review of Green Belt land, it was confirmed that the eight specific sites that would be de-designated only constituted 1.45% of the total Green Belt land inside the City boundary. It was noted that a considerable proportion of Green Belt within the City was incapable of being built on.  The land to be released was only that in relation to which the landowners had indicated a willingness for it to be developed.  Sites in relation to which development would be  regarded as detrimental were not being taken forward. Some 50% of those Green Belt sites within the City boundary which were developable were not being taken forward.

A question was asked about the possibility of introducing another park and ride for the City.   While this was superficially an attractive proposition, it ran counter to the County Council’s longer term objective of situating  park and ride car parks beyond the City boundary and  in addition to which it would not represent the most effective use of land available to the City. 

It was noted that Policy SP66 relating to William Morris Close Sports Ground had the potential to exacerbate the travel/congestion issues that already existed in relation to the nearby  school. Councillor Hollingsworth said this provided a good example of the distinction between planning policy and a planning application; a potential developer would have to demonstrate that they had addressed all relevant policies, including those that related to the transport consequences of an application.

The importance of ensuring affordable transport to the City Centre was noted, the costs of which could be prohibitive for families (particularly given the eventual introduction of a zero emission zone in the city centre).  The City Council, however, had no direct control over rail or bus fares. An enhanced partnership with the bus companies would provide opportunities to address the issue.  This question did raise the issue of personal versus community decision making. There was no cost to an individual deciding, for example, to drive into the City centre and, in doing so, contributing to making air quality worse. There were, however, considerable costs to the community associated with poor air quality, such as poor health, links to dementia and reduced educational attainment. The contribution to collective decision making, as exemplified by the plan, always had to be for the greater good. 

In relation to Policy RE1 (Sustainable design and construction) it was suggested that the requirement for an Energy Statement to be submitted for any scheme of 5 or more residential dwellings should be extended to all dwellings, or perhaps, in the lighter touch form of an Energy Performance Certificate.  Councillor Hollingsworth agreed that this suggestion should be considered and the outcome reported back to the City Executive Board. He noted however that care would need to be taken not to incorporate something too prescriptive which might be challenged by the inspector.

The plan seeks to protect the Covered Market, wishing to maintain, enhance and promote its character, recognising the need to look to the future as well as the past.

In relation to Policy G4 (Allotments and community food growing) it was suggested that the ability to provide “new community food growing space” as part of the open space provision should be made a requirement. The Team Leader (Planning Policy) said that the wording reflected the need to be able to respond appropriately to different developments. It had to be recognised that, for some developments such a growing space would be impractical. 

In relation to SP61, about which there was a very brief discussion, Cllr Lygo stated for openness that he lives on Valentia Road.

The Chair thanked Councillor Hollingsworth and officers for their contribution to this important debate.