The Chair introduced this item. He said this was an opportunity for the Scrutiny Committee to make recommendations to the City Executive Board to inform their decision to approve the Oxford Local Plan 2036 Preferred Options Document for consultation. He explained that the discussion should focus on establishing that the consultation document was fit for purpose and presented a suitable range of options for the public to consider.  The Committee would have further opportunity to discuss the detail of the individual policy proposals.

The following members of the public addressed the Committee:

Jon Ody (representative for the National Bargee Travellers Association – NBTA) expressed his view that the assessment for the needs of travellers described in section 2.3 of the consultation document did not comply with the recent legislation and government guidance. He proposed some revisions to the recommendations in section 2.3(ii) and tabled an alternative Option D.  A copy of the material submitted by Mr Ody is attached as an appendix to these minutes.

Sam Dent reiterated the points made by Mr Ody and expressed her concern that the fact that the options contained in the consultation document were potentially non-compliant indicated that, despite the previous assurances given at Full Council in 2016, the views of the boating community had not been considered fully by the team working on the Local Plan consultation document.

Councillor Alex Hollingsworth, Board Member for Planning and Regulatory gave an undertaking to review the consultation document in regard to the points raised by the public and to respond in detail at the City Executive Board meeting. He emphasised that option A was the preferred option and that options B and C were alternative options.  The preferred option was for a capacity based policy that applies similar principles to planning applications for new residential moorings that already apply to bricks and mortar. 

The Head of Planning, Sustainable Development and Regulatory Services; the Planning Policy and Design, Conservation and Trees Manager; and a Principal Planner attended the meeting to present the detail of the Oxford Local Plan 2036 Preferred Options Document and to answer questions from the Committee.

The Committee commented that consultation materials needed to be clear and concise, specifically in respect of:

·         Seeking views on the mix of housing and employment sites in the city.

·         Emphasising that social housing is the only category of affordable housing that is genuinely affordable to many people in the city.

The Board Member agreed to circulate drafts of the public consultation documents to scrutiny members on the proviso that they would have the opportunity to comment on but not re-write the material.

The Committee conducted a lengthy and comprehensive review of the policy options detailed consultation document.  The Board Member and planning officers highlighted the more significant changes and contentious issues. The Committee welcomed the Council putting the various new proposals out for public discussion and sought assurances on a number of points. Their discussion included, but was not limited to, the following issues:

·         A final policy could differentiate between categories of language schools, summer schools and independent colleges for over 16s that the Council would wish to restrict and those it wouldn’t wish to restrict.

·         Remote working can mitigate housing demand and is a demand-side factor that would be factored into an updated Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) over the next few years.

·         The preferred options continue to prioritise the delivery of new social rented housing while allowing flexibility for more imaginative options for delivering new housing that will remain genuinely affordable over the long term.

·         While it is proposed that new purpose-built Houses of Multiple Occupations (HMOs) will be allowed for the first time in areas where there is no over-concentration of HMO accommodation, existing HMO policies would not be watered down. 

·         New student accommodation would be restricted to certain areas including the city centre and tightly drawn district centres.  Student accommodation would not form part of the HMO concentration calculation and the consequences of considering these two categories together (which is not proposed) would need to be carefully thought through. 

·         The targets for university students living outside of university provided accommodation were realistic, having been being lowered and redefined to exclude groups such as nursing and teaching students.

·         The Council does have a legal duty to accommodate travelling communities but a recent needs-based study had identified no requirement for any sites in the city.  Option B: ‘Do not include a policy on travelling communities’ would be rejected.

·         The Council was using a common sense definition of outdoor amenity space.

·         Green Belt land within the city has been reviewed against the same objective criteria that the Council has asked neighbouring district councils to use and the districts have been consulted as per the duty to cooperate. 

·         The Council could make a strong case that exceptional circumstances related to housing need and the local economy do warrant development on some identified sites within the Green Belt. 

·         Carbon emission target standards would require the delivery of onsite renewable energy at new developments.

·         Already developed land in the highest risk flood zone areas could be safely redeveloped with very high standards of flood mitigation.

·         The new Health Impact Assessments were potentially a very useful tool for assessing the impacts of major developments on health inequality, mental health, etc.

·         The proposals relating to building heights were intended to enhance the skyline by allowing an appropriate degree of height variation, as well as allowing for increased densities.

·         While few other cities have height limits in place, lots of guidance is available on assessing the visual impacts of higher developments.

·         The provision of facilities for tourist coaches outside the city centre would, together with a zero emissions zone, help to improve air quality in the city centre.

·         Car free residential developments would only be suitable in areas where a controlled parking zone (CPZ) could be enforced.

·         The Oxford Design Review Panel would continue to play an important role, subject to funding.

·         The Committee noted the policy approach options for primary and secondary shopping frontages of district and local centres (page 166 of the CEB paperwork) and considered whether the Council would wish to use planning policy to protect and control smaller shopping areas that may not be classified as local centres, such as Magdalen Road and Northway.  The Committee heard that the definition of local centre flows from the National Planning Policy Framework.

The Scrutiny Committee made the following recommendations to the City Executive Board:

That consideration is given to the possibility and desirability of using planning policy to protect and control shopping frontages in smaller shopping areas that are not classified as local centres.