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. As with the paper as a whole there are lots of questions that remain unanswered but a regional infrastructure levy could render viability testing as presently known redundant. A key concern with this is that for Oxford, with its greater land values compared to its surrounding areas, a regional levy set at a generally viable level for all would mean reduced funding for infrastructure and affordable housing in Oxford.

-       The criteria against which ‘beautiful’ buildings would be judged. No clarity on this issue had been provided by government, but there was particular concern that the focus was on the beauty of buildings solely, rather than the broader streetscape in which buildings would be situated.

The report was NOTED.