The Head of Planning Services has submitted a report requesting Cabinet to note the response on the White Paper Planning for the Future to be submitted to MHCLG.

Recommendation: Cabinet is recommended to:

1.    Note the response on the White Paper to be submitted to MHCLG.

The Head of Planning Services had submitted a report requesting Cabinet to note the response on the White Paper Planning for the Future to be submitted to MHCLG.

Councillor Alex Hollingsworth, Cabinet Member for Planning & Housing Delivery, introduced the report. It was unusual for a Council response to a Government consultation to be put before Cabinet but the implications of the White Paper on Planning for the Future were such that they warranted Cabinet’s attention.

The proposals contained in the White Paper as presently conceived would have a profound effect on the City’s control of many important matters: its general development;   its ability to respond appropriately to its heritage, to   provide social and affordable housing, and to set its own standards in relation to the climate emergency.

The White Paper was explicit about the Government’s intention to repeal the substance of the Town & Country Planning Act 1947. Despite the White Paper’s references to “democracy” and “efficiency” these were not features which emerged from the substance of the proposals. There had been a great deal of criticism of elements of the White Paper at a national level, notably in relation to the proposed use of an algorithm to produce housing numbers. However there were many other elements of the White Paper which gave a cause for concern.

It  was worthy of note  that the Oxfordshire branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England and the Council were united in their opposition to the White Paper, to its centralising tendencies, its  lack of democracy and its  impracticality as well as to  the damage it would do to the provision of affordable housing, place making and local policy. These views were shared widely throughout the country and by councils of all political persuasions.

At a fundamental level the proposals would remove the crucial opportunity for local people to contribute to planning decisions, replacing it with the new version of the local plan. The zoning approach to plans suggested in the White Paper would be both complex and impractical. The proposals didn’t, for example, address the many and varied differences that exist in different parts of the City which would, in turn, require a multiplicity of zones to do them individual justice.

The White Paper set great store by the criterion of “beauty” as a key element in the decision making process but failed to define it.

The White Paper placed great emphasis on greater public engagement via digital means to provide certainty for the development industry whereas, since the 1947 Act, planning processes had sought to balance the needs of different interests in a more equitable way than the proposals would allow. The White Paper was explicit in its intention to remove what was regarded as the disputatious element of public consultation but this was something which, in practice, provided one of the cornerstones of the present system. The White Paper represented a profoundly damaging set of proposals which put the whole planning system, the communities which are protected by it and local  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76

The Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government issued the Planning for the Future White Paper on 6th August 2020 seeking views on a package of proposals for reform of the planning system in England. The Council’s response is scheduled to go to the Cabinet meeting of 14 October 2020. The Panel is asked to consider the response and make any recommendations to Cabinet as required.

Amanda Ford, Planning Policy Team Leader, will be available to present the report and answer questions. Councillor Alex Hollingsworth, Cabinet Member for Planning and Housing Delivery, has been invited to present also.

NB The report for this item will be issued as a supplement.

Councillor Alex Hollingsworth, Cabinet Member for Planning and Housing Supply, introduced a report presenting the response by the Council’s officers to central government’s consultation on far-reaching changes to its planning rules, the Planning for the Future white paper. The proposals in the white paper were introduced as the most profound challenge to democratic management of planning since 1947 and would remove from both councils and local people the ability to have any meaningful say in the Planning process. Local policies, such as housing numbers and environmental standards, would be replaced with centrally mandated standards. Centralisation of s.106 funding would likely result in the reduction of affordable homes being built. Considerations of the purpose and impact of a building would be deprioritised in relation to its aesthetic appeal, with as-yet-undefined ‘beautiful’ buildings automatically being granted planning permission.

A concurrent consultation was also being undertaken by government, to which the Panel’s attention was drawn. The key proposal was that the threshold of dwellings in a development required before the provision of or contributions towards social and affordable housing that would be required from developers would increase from 10 to 50. With Oxford’s large number of small to medium size developments, this would have a very significant negative impact on the number of social and affordable houses being delivered within the City. Other losses to affordable housing numbers were expected to arise from another government proposal, to increase the number of ‘starter homes’ in developments, which would be taken out of the requirement for affordable housing delivery, thereby reducing the numbers further.

Carolyn Ploszynski, Planning Policy and Place Manager, and Amanda Ford, Team Leader (Planning Policy) introduced the technical elements to government’s proposals and the Council officers’ response. The overriding objective, according to the proposals, was that the government wished to see more high quality homes being delivered faster, but it was the view of the officers that these objectives are unlikely to be achieved through the proposals being suggested. In Oxford it could mean housing sites being lost to other uses, or conservation areas being put in blanket “protection zones” reducing the amount appropriate development.

In response to the report, the Panel discussed a number of issues including:

-       The challenges of drafting a new Local Plan within 12 months and agreeing it within 30 months, which was suggested by Panel members and officers to leave little or no opportunity for public consultation or evidence gathering. Further, it was reported that the response from MCHLG to many practical challenges around implementation remained unclear.

-       Whether it would be possible to bring in zoning proposals of sufficient granularity to prevent unsuitable development. It was explained to the Panel that it would be possible to bring in the necessary granularity, but only if a master-planning exercise was undertaken. However, the level of master-planning required to deliver such granularity was reported not to be deliverable within the 12 month period proposed by the government.

-       What would happen under the proposals to viability testing.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23