Cabinet, at its meeting on 2 December 2024, will consider a report from the Executive Director (Development) seeking approval for Authority Monitoring Report and Infrastructure Funding Statement 2023/24. Cllr Louise Upton, Cabinet Member for Planning, Tom Bridgman, Executive Director (Development) and Sarah Harrison, Team Leader (Planning Policy) have been invited to present the report and answer questions. The Committee is asked to consider the report and agree any recommendations.

Cllr Upton, Cabinet Member for Planning, introduced the report and informed the Committee that it is an annual statutory requirement to examine how well planning policies are being achieved. The three overarching objectives of the report were named: strong responsive and competitive economy, building vibrant communities, and protecting and enhancing natural and built environments. The Committee heard some headlines from the report including the increases in R&D employment and space and the increase in students living out. The latter is a policy focus for the Council to limit these numbers in protection of residents, but the report finds an estimated 800 Oxford University students and up to 3000 Oxford Brooks University students are currently living out. Additionally, the Committee heard of the report’s focus on the vitality of the city and various district centres and housing for which Cllr Upton noted 365 houses were built in Oxford this year alongside nearly 1000 affordable houses since the start of the local plan period.  The Committee were directed to the funding statement within the report for information regarding the infrastructure levy, section 106 funds, and spending records.

David Butler, The Head of Planning and Regulatory Service, informed the Committee that the report will go to Cabinet and be published online for public access.

The Chair thanked Cllr Upton and The Head of Planning and Regulatory Service and invited the Committee raise questions on the report.

Sarah Harrison, Planning Policy Team Leader, Lorraine Freeman, CIL, Data Analysis and Reporting Team Leader, and Rachel Nixon, Principal Planner were present to respond to questions.

Cllr Ottino queried what understanding there is of how student accommodation is being used and when it is empty or unused, especially when in private buildings. Cllr Mundy similarly noted the increase in Oxford Brooks University students’ living within the private rented sector in comparison to previous years and requested more information on what is causing the increase, and whether it is expected to be a continuing pressure. The Chair additionally asked how it can be ensured that new student accommodation is used by Oxford or Brooks University students and how the link between new accommodation and demand is managed.

The Planning Policy Team Leader explained that current policy only impacts accommodation managed by universities and therefore policy currently focuses on nomination rights to ensure that properties not necessarily owned, but managed, by the universities are included and can be steered to accommodate students. Regarding vacancy rates, the City Council have little but it was noted that there are no signs indicating an issue with empty accommodation. She explained that universities are having an issue with accessing enough accommodation, rather than vacancy issues, but admitted that unfortunately some accommodation options are inherently less popular with students and harder to fill. In relation to Oxford Brooks University, The Planning Policy Team Leader admitted the large increase in students, demonstrated by the growth to 19586 this year compared to 16050 in the previous year. It was explained to the Committee that although there is a large increase in student numbers, this does not entirely match the increased number living out due to many being on placements elsewhere. The total number of new students requiring accommodation has increased by around 1000 whilst new accommodation availability has only increased by a few hundred. Based on this, The Planning Policy Team Leader acknowledged a growing issue and assured the Committee that this was considered in the new local plan which contained an increased threshold that Oxford Brooks University has struggled to meet. Finally, regarding specifically connecting students from the two major universities with accommodation, The Planning Policy Team Leader stated that policy changes over time have meant that a restrictive approach has been lost due to concerns over fairness. She explained that now, it is stipulated that accommodation must be taken by full-time students on courses of more than a year and that evidence on the effectiveness of this policy highlights the issue has reduced since Covid and Brexit and less students from other institutions are taking up the accommodation spaces. The policy has gone as far as it can and cannot limit to just the two major universities.

Cllr Latif noted that if most new students reside in HMOs, there will be a significant reduction in the number of houses available to the private rented sector. He negatively associated this trend with undoing undo the work that is being done to build more houses in Oxford City. Cllr Latif therefore asked whether there needs to be more focus on student numbers in the private rented market, as opposed just to rate of house building. Cllr Ottino agreed and asked what can be done, in planning terms, to restrict numbers and especially in regards Oxford Brooks University. The Chair enquired why there is not a levy on other institutions and could there be. Cllr Upton expressed agreement with the observation but explained that the last local plan sought to impose lower caps, but inspectors blocked this because universities must be allowed to thrive and would therefore disagree with the policy. The Head of Planning and Regulatory Service explained that land use policy does not have the powers to cap university number, for example, and that planning policy can instead apply various levers on the private sector to impact concentration levels to restrict HMOs. He admitted this is a challenging balance as other groups, such as young professionals, also occupy HMOs and policy must be mindful not to negatively impact these groups. Therefore, the focus must be to seek a reasonable mix of HMO and private rental options. Regarding the possibility of a levy, The Planning Policy Team Leader stated that it is beyond the powers of planning to restrict institutions and therefore a threshold would not be useful. The best way to protect the housing market is to prohibit houses from being used as boarding accommodation but policy to manage this does not exist yet. 

Cllr Ottino expressed being unconvinced that all student accommodation is in use and queried whether there are means for monitoring usage. If empty, could sanctions be imposed and the building be used for alternative purposes, such as temporary accommodation? Additionally, the Chair queried whether there is data on how other educational institutions accommodate their students and whether this is routinely collected. The Planning Policy Team Leader reiterated that some accommodations options are less popular amongst students based on location or quality and that the universities are considering and seeking redevelopment options to remedy this. In response to the Chair, she explained that there is a student accommodation needs assessment that is not detailed within the report which fulfils this.

The Chair invited the Committee to raise questions on other matters within the report.

The Chair queried the possible impacts of having a gap between local plans in 2026, especially in relation to student accommodation, and if there is a means to assess the implications of high levels of student accommodation on the Council’s finances. She used the example student council tax exemption alongside increased waste collection demand. Furthermore, the Chair also addressed the recent lack of new care homes for Oxford City’s ageing population and the possibility of a gap in provision those who can no longer live at home; she asked if extra care provisions are being planned and if any barriers are being experienced. The Head of Planning and Regulatory Service assured the Committee that the local plan would continue to be the appropriate statutory document for planning until a new one is published. A renewed local plan is in development and concerns regarding a policy gap are not significant as the current plan goes to 2036. He also explained that the new NPPF will support the new local plan in the interim and that a new draft local plan to go to Cabinet and Council in January. In regards financial implications of student increases, he noted that little can be done other than to shoulder the cost of any increased pressures. Finally, Cllr Upton reassured the Committee that planning policy enables the development of new care homes but explained that has now power to force people to use their land for this purpose. She recognised the pressures of the ageing population but stressed that the local plan can only encourage and enable options, it cannot force actions.

In reference to appendix 2, Cllr Ottino asked what Littlemore Parish Council have spent CIL money on and whether guidance is provided. The Head of Planning and Regulatory Service explained that guidance is provided but, as a Parish Council, the two areas have freedom to spend their money as they wish within the statutory rules. The City Council has no oversight of this.

Cllr Mundy acknowledged BMW’s previous exemption relief from CIL and enquired whether there have been any other major sites that have had any granted exemptions from CIL. The Head of Planning and Regulatory Service David stated that no other applications have been received.

In relation to CIL, the Chair observed that current information provided is not divided by ward. She requested whether a breakdown could be offered to the Committee to show if CIL is being spent in the immediate area that it is generated. She explained that this would address concerns that CIL is often allocated to other areas of the city and fails to provide immediate infrastructure support to the local area. The Head of Planning and Regulatory Service explained that when CIL is received, it is split into ‘pots’ including administration, neighbourhood and strategic. He directed the Committee to p.121 for more detail on this and assured the Committee that the ‘neighbourhood pot’ is used by Parish Councils or neighbourhood forums for the local area.

Finally, the Chair enquired as to what can be done to address the lack of land and grant funding for self-build properties listed in the report, and what can be done to maximise opportunities for reaching the housing target. The Planning Policy Team Leader explained that self-build plots have come forward recently. In regard housing targets, she informed the Committee that housing build rates vary year on year but that landowners are being proactively contacted to check if any land is becoming available and where progress can be pushed forwards. There is a limit to action that can be taken on this.

The Committee raised no further questions on the report.

The Committee resolved to make the following recommendation on the report to Cabinet:

1.            That Cabinet ensures that comprehensive data on unmet student accommodation demand from universities, alongside details of sites identified or proposed by these institutions to address their accommodation requirements, are included in future reporting of the Authority Monitoring report.

2.            That Council works with University of Oxford and Oxford Brookes University to ensure that their land holdings, including those located at or near city boundaries, are used effectively to meet unmet accommodation demands; and that Council encourages universities to share their plans for leveraging these land assets for this purpose.

Cllr Upton and David Butler left the room and did not return. Sarah Harrison, Lorraine Freeman and Rachel Nixon also left the meeting and did not return.