The Board Member for Transport, Planning and Regulatory Services introduced the report and explained that it contained nothing substantially new but provided a useful summary of the current position.

A Principal Planning Officer highlighted an error on page 96 of the paperwork (paragraph 17 of the report), where ‘£50,000 for Vale of the White Horse and South Oxfordshire Examinations’ should read ‘£50,000 for Vale of the White Horse and West Oxfordshire Examinations’.

The Panel questioned whether the Council had looked at potentially cheaper alternatives to the proposed additional resources, such as co-funding some of this work on a county-wide basis.  The Panel heard that there was a joint working process but not full agreement on some issues, so there was a need for the City Council to frontload evidence to the Oxfordshire Growth Board.  Two districts were trying to evidence that Oxford’s housing needs could be met within Oxford, for example through the removal of height restrictions and certain environmental protections.  The City Council was identifying sites on the edge of the city for housing development and the Districts were not necessarily keen to carry out such work on a joint basis.

The Panel asked whether there was scope for the City Council to negotiate on issues such as housing density and height restrictions in the city, or to consider sites outside the city on major transport routes, in order to find middle ground and seek agreement with the districts.  The Panel heard that there had been positive engagement with some districts and less positive engagement with others.  The Board Member advised that finding solutions to Oxford’s unmet housing need would require difficult decisions about sustainability that would have to balance a range of views.  However the evidence that Oxford’s housing need far out-scaled its capacity meant that progress was now being made towards agreement of Oxford’s unmet housing need that would need to be met outside of the district.  The Board Member advised that the housing need figure that the City Council had agreed to accept [from the Strategic Housing Market Assessment] as a working assumption for the purposes of calculating the unmet element, was at the lower end of future projections and would not meet the affordable housing needs by some way.

The Board Member advised that height restrictions were very important to the character of Oxford but that did not mean that a completely flat skyline would be desirable.  Some higher developments on selected sites could be appropriate if they are carefully designed, such as potentially at the Oxpens site. 

The Board Member advised that the City Council would consider whether high density housing would be appropriate on future development sites.  It was unlikely that there were streets of older housing within the city that could feasibly be redeveloped and replaced with new housing blocks, as suggested by a Panel member.

The Panel expressed disappointment that so far, only student accommodation had been allocated on the Oxpens site.  The Panel heard that the City Council was awaiting the latest plans for selling the site from the landowner, London and Continental Railways. 

A Principal Planning Officer advised that the City Council had assessed that there was capacity for 10,368 additional housing units in Oxford in the period from 2011-31.  This was a slight increase on the figure given in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA), and was a significant increase from the SHLAA in previous years.  This was a very ambitious figure that made some very optimistic assumptions about density and overcoming constraints, and hence it should be seen as an absolute upper limit. 

The Panel questioned what else the City Council was doing to get its message across.  The Panel heard that the City Council was seeking to influence districts’ local plans and had successfully pushed for a 2 year time frame for Cherwell to review its local plan.  South Oxfordshire (SODC) would be the last of the 4 neighbouring districts to review its local plan, with examination anticipated in late 2016.  SODC’s latest draft assumed a contribution of 3,000 new homes towards meeting Oxford’s unmet housing need, and considered three sites; land South of Grenoble Road, Wick Farm north-east of Barton, and a new settlement near Lewknor off junction 7 of the M40 motorway.  The Board Member advised that he was not confident that Grenoble Road would be SODC’s preferred option.

The Panel questioned who owned land South of Grenoble Road and how many houses could be accommodated on this site.  Principal Planning Officers advised that this depended on the size parcel of land in question but that the site could accommodate at least 4,000 homes. The City Council, Thames Water Utilities, Magdalen College were the major land owners.

The Panel asked whether improved transport links would be part of any urban extension of Oxford and heard that this would be part of the detailed work including routes for cycling, walking and buses.  The Board Member advised that the Cowley branch line represented an opportunity to improve public transport in that part of the city, along with new or extended bus routes.  More ambitious options, such as trams, were unlikely.

The City Council was also continuing to engage at Leader and officer level and using political persuasion and argument to challenge undesirable alternative options, such as developments near Swindon or in more distant Oxfordshire villages, which would be less suitable for meeting Oxford’s needs.  The preferred option for meeting Oxford’s needs is through sustainable urban extensions around the edge of the City. The City Council’s position had been clearly represented in local media.  The City Council was also making a technical and political case to national government.