Cabinet, at its meeting on 21 January 2026, will consider a report to recommend that Council approve the Proposed Submission Draft Local Plan 2045 for public consultation and, subject to the outcome of the consultation, if no matters are raised that materially impact upon the Plan strategy, to submit the Submission Draft Oxford Local Plan 2045 to the Secretary of State for formal examination.

Councillor Alex Hollingsworth, Cabinet Member for Planning and Culture, David Butler, Director of Planning and Regulation, Rachel Williams, Planning Policy and Place Manager and Sarah Harrison, Planning Policy Team Leader have been invited to present the report and take part in discussions.

The Committee is asked to consider the report and agree any recommendations.

 

Cabinet, at its meeting on 21 January 2026, will consider a report to recommend that Council?approve the?Proposed Submission Draft Local Plan 2045?for public consultation and, subject to the outcome of the consultation, if no matters are raised that materially impact upon the Plan strategy,?to?submit the Submission Draft Oxford Local Plan 2045 to the Secretary of State for formal examination. 

 

Councillor Alex Hollingsworth, Cabinet Member for Planning and Culture, Rachel Williams, Planning Policy and Place Manager, Sarah Harrison, Planning Policy Team Leader, and Natalie Dobraszczyk, Planning Policy?Team Leader, were present to respond to questions.  

 

Councillor Hollingsworth provided a comprehensive summary of the Local Plan 2045 report, emphasising that it must be compliant with the national planning policy framework (NPPF), and outline the process by which the current Local Plan has been through to this point. The Committee specifically heard a summary of housing need policy and the high housing demand in Oxford, with reference to some specific site allocations. Councillor Hollingsworth discussed Oxford’s potential and its role as a city which positively contributes to national economic growth also. Councillor Hollingsworth concluded by thanking the officers for their dedicated work.  

 

The Chair thanked Councillor Hollingsworth and invited questions from the Committee. 

 

Councillor Miles firstly queried whether the Local Plan considers the density of hot food takeaways in district centres, specifically possible maximum limits; Manchester was referred to as an example. Specifically, Councillor Miles considered the proximity of these retail units to schools. Secondly, Councillor Miles asked whether play for children has been considered within the plan, and finally, it was asked whether remerging subdivided dwellings (previously altered for caring reasons) will be considered in respect of the challenges posed to reconfiguring buildings at later points.  

 

Councillor Ottino asked whether the the policy will address inequalities in the city, beyond just the consideration of additional social housing. Examples of boosting economic development and employment in a manner which most benefits the least advantaged were suggested.   

 

The Planning Policy Team Leader (SH), in response to Councillor Miles, clarified that policy C1 does restrict hot food takeaways in line with the NPPF, which, whilst allowing different approaches to be used, requires they be justified with evidence. In the case of Oxford, the Committee heard that sufficient evidence had not been found to deviate from the NPPF.  

 

In reference to play for children, the Planning Policy Team Leader (ND) noted policies C2, G1 and G2, which generally seek to protect green spaces and open spaces which can be used for play. It was noted that the plan currently features sufficient flexibility around the concept of play, and due to the complexity of the concept and variable needs of different groups, it was preferred not to refine the wording further.  

 

Finally, in reference to the splitting of dwellings for care purposes, Councillor Hollingsworth explained that the matter would be better considered via planning applications in the first instance, not the local plan. A summary of the complexities of this process was offered to the Committee. In response to Councillor Ottino, it was noted that the Local Plan considers community employment and procurement plans within policy E3 which makes commitments in relation to apprenticeships, rates of pay, and accessibility policies. The Committee heard of ongoing efforts to engage with local contractors and small businesses who are often excluded from these schemes in order to increase equality. Councillor Hollingsworth noted his hope that the planning inspector would receive this positively and offered examples such as the Oxford North scheme. 

 

 

Councillor Mundy, in relation to policy G4 on biodiversity net gain, asked whether the proposed Local Plan has considered exceeding the expectations that were given by government in respect of new sites. It was asked whether the plan would consider exceeding 10%, and whether mapping and costings of potential advantages of this have been done. Secondly, Councillor Mundy requested that the glossary refer to the current rate of the Oxford living wage, and, queried why it is stipulated that contractors could have alternative social arrangements other than the Oxford living wage. Lastly, Councillor Mundy queried whether a higher percentage of social rent should be aimed for given the number of people waiting for a council home. 

 

Councillor Stares expressed concern that homes and facilities are being built without consideration for developing communities. The Committee heard a summary of her experiences and the changes in Blackbird Leys since 1960; Councillor Stares emphasised that planning permission often is awarded to developers who provide nothing to the community. 

 

In response to Councillor Mundy, the Planning Policy Team Leader (SH) explained that consideration was made of whether the Local Plan should seek to exceed the 10% target, however government regulations deter this unless specific evidence is available to justify the decision; it was not determined that Oxford had sufficient evidence for this. It was also confirmed that viability testing supported the affordability of the 10% target.  

 

In relation to the social rent target of 80% of the 40% affordable housing, Councillor Hollingsworth acknowledged that this is a high rate and provided an explanation of the factors which are considered in balancing this. The Committee heard that the percentage of social housing affects the total amount of affordable housing that can be afforded.  

 

In relation to the living wage, Planning Policy Team Leader (ND) committed to updating the glossary, and it was explained that additional information will be supplied within a technical advice note to support the plan to ensure clarity. The Committee heard that the policy is aimed at promoting the Oxford living wage and ensuring that necessary objectives are met to deal with inequalities.  

 

In response to Councillor Stares, Councillor Hollingsworth acknowledged the fundamental issue of developing communities and pointed to aspects of the plan which address the issue. Councillor Hollingsworth provided a detailed response in relation to Armstrong Road, as referenced by Councillor Stares, and discussed the concept of district centres. Councillor Stares and Councillor Miles noted concern regarding the definition of district centres and drew on other local examples when discussing this with Councillor Hollingsworth. The Committee learned that the definition of a district centre is laid down in the NPPF. The Planning Policy Team Leader (SH) explained how this is defined in the NPPF and the exclusions made. 

 

In response to this discussion, the Planning Policy and Place Manager referred the Committee to pages 205 and 206 of the draft plan which contained relevant policy information. The Committee heard that a centre must be as defined by law and this means it would be appropriate for a wide range of “Town Centre” uses, as listed in the report on page 206. Planning Policy and Place Manager also explained that a suite of additional and separate policies are present within the Plan to encourage development of communities. 

 

Councillor Hollingsworth also referred the Committee to page 207 and discussed some specific examples with Councillor Ottino located in Blackbird Leys. Councillor Hollingsworth committed to looking at this outside of the meeting in order to refer to maps.  

 

In relation to policy G4 and the biodiversity net gain, the Chair acknowledged comparisons with other Councils and asked whether consideration has been given to the potential to include a higher percentage requirement for biodiversity net gain.  

 

Councillor Miles sought clarification in relation to the technical advice notes mentioned by officers. It was asked whether these would be created separately to elaborate on the local plan, and what would then constitute a topic that a note could be focused on. Councillor Miles also commented that there seems to be a lack of focus in the current local context on the planning needs of children which is distinct from the earlier topic of play. On this basis, it was asked whether there is scope to have either a technical advice note or design code guidance around how developers can respond to the needs of children in planning terms.  

 

In response to the Chair, the Planning Policy Team Leader (SH) explained that the constrained nature within Oxford makes it harder to justify a higher than 10% biodiversity net gain, as the focus is on redevelopment sites and not development of large green field sites where there is more scope for incorporating biodiversity. In response to Councillor Miles, the Planning Policy Team Leader (SH) explained how the children’s needs have already been incorporated into the draft plan, including guidance relating to the need for street hierarchy to prioritise children. The Committee heard that this is elaborated on within the design code, and a separate technical advice note could be provided as there is no restriction on what can be included within a technical advice note; this is determined by what officers feel is needed to help explain how to meet policy requirements. In response to Councillor Miles, the Planning Policy Team Leader (SH) also provided a definition of technical advice notes, emphasising that they are to help explain how to meet policy requirements. Councillor Hollingsworth added that technical advice notes provide a very important set of guidance to increase the degree of certainty and confidence for applicants and for decision makers. 

 

The Chair invited further questions. 

 

Councillor Miles queried whether the consultation results could be published for reference and asked whether it is feasible for this to be done before proceeding to the next stage of the process. In agreement, the Chair also asked whether summaries of the consultation responses could be provided to Cabinet and to full Council.  

 

The Planning Policy and Place Manager reassured the Committee that a comprehensive consultation statement will be published alongside the consultation following the Council's approval, as per the requirement of regulations.   

 

The Chair invited questions related specifically to site allocations. 

 

Councillor Miles referred to the earlier public addresses and the example of removal of land at Meadow Lane. The feasibility of this was questioned.  

 

Councillor Hollingsworth summarised that the land is subject to a planning application and has previously been allocated for housing need; he acknowledged the contentious nature of this case. A summary of current housing need numbers was also provided to the Committee.  The Planning Policy Team Leader (SH) explained that Meadow Lane is described as a private open space as it is owned by Oxford City Housing Limited. As such, it is not a public open space as it does not have public access and has been classified based on how the land is used. A summary of issues relating to this site were offered to the Committee, with acknowledgement of the conservation area.  

 

Councillor Stares noted that the draft plan refers to Templars Square and expressed concern that it will lose all use as a shopping centre if residential units are developed in line with the numbers enclosed.  

 

The Planning Policy Team Leader (SH) clarified that the policy requires it to remain functioning as an important district centre and a document will be published as part of the consultation to explain how the capacity of Templars Square was assessed and the choice of high-density designs. Councillor Hollingsworth referred Councillor Stares to policy SPS16 on page 275 which provided additional relevant detail. Members also heard that this builds on a previous recommendation from the Scrutiny Committee relating to strengthening wording around housing density.  

 

The Chair invited any final questions.  

 

Councillor Ottino reflected on the impact of homelessness in Oxford and the number of people trapped in the private rented sector. He emphasised that the approach to solving this must be a collective responsibility and it must be addressed across the board, with specific progress made towards upward building, rather than houses being built on riskier flood zones.  

 

The Planning Policy Team Leader (SH) clarified that some of the flood zones mentioned within the report refer to sites at which only a small portion of the land falls on flood plain, and therefore the whole site has been noted as a flood risk.  

 

Councillor Stares emphasise the need to build more homes, but also communities and places where people can be happy and supported.  

 

The Chair invited discussion of possible recommendations. 

 

The Committee resolved to recommend to Cabinet: 

 

1. For officers to undertake a further review of the areas in Greater Leys, in particular Dunnock Way, and other sites such as Littlemore to be allocated Local Centres under Policy C1, noting their similarities to Underhill Circus. 

2. That the evidence-base is thoroughly examined to determine whether 10% biodiversity net gain is conclusively the most ambitious minimum the council could set.  

3. For officers to explore whether a higher threshold for the acceptability of loss of sports facilities could be incorporated in the Local Plan. 

4. For officers to reconsider the language in Policy C2(h) encouraging the development of city centre play amenity. 

 

The Committee emphasised the importance of providing clear guidance on how planning can be designed to ensure Oxford creates child-friendly places and amenities, recognising that such practice has been adopted by other authorities. The Committee noted that children’s needs should be addressed within the Local Plan policies, potentially through the Technical Advice Note. Acknowledging the current timeline for the Plan’s implementation, the Committee requests that this matter be recorded and revisited in future. 

 

The Committee also requested that a summary of the consultation results be made available to members ahead of Full Council on 26 January 2026 where the submission of the Draft Local Plan 2045 is due to be considered. 

 

Councillor Miles left the meeting during the discussion of recommendations and did not return.  

 

The Chair thanked officers and Cabinet Member. 

 

Councillor Hollingsworth, the Planning Policy and Place Manager, and both Planning Policy Team Leaders left the meeting and did not return.  

 

Councillor Rowley left the meeting.