Consultation response to South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse Joint Local Plan 2041

Oxford City Council Consultation Response: Proposed Submission Draft 'Regulation 19' Consultation on the South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse Joint Local Plan 2041 - dated 12 November 2024.

Oxford City Council is committed to working together with stakeholders and partners to make the most of the opportunities available, building upon Oxfordshire’s strengths. It considers this can be achieved through positive and robust strategic spatial planning based on a collective vision. A strategic spatial plan for Oxfordshire would be the best way to achieve a spatial strategy which addresses challenges and opportunities across all of the economic, social and environmental sustainability objectives. However, in the absence of this, collaboration and engagement through the duty to cooperate is absolutely essential to ensure an appropriate strategy is developed that considers wider impacts.

Introduction

This letter is a consultation response from Oxford City Council to the South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse District Council’s (“South and Vale”) Regulation 19 consultation on their Joint Local Plan 2041 (JLP2041). The consultation response identifies a number of issues which demonstrate the plan is not sound or legally compliant. The issues raised include the following:

• Duty to Cooperate issues (employment) - South and Vale has failed to engage with Oxford City Council with regards to strategic cross boundary matters of employment need and supply methodology, plus the ambitious economic/employment strategy which is notably not linked to the need for new infrastructure and new homes.
• Duty to Cooperate issues (housing) - South and Vale has failed to engage with Oxford  City Council with regards to how our agreed levels of unmet need are to be planned for or delivered. The issues we raised at Reg 18 about whether the proposals would meet unmet need requirements have not been discussed with us or addressed.
• Unmet need sites- effectiveness - no site allocations are specified as being for Oxford’s unmet need. There is no acknowledgement that there may be different needs for those sites that are not met by general policy requirements of the Joint Plan in terms of mix and tenure split, which means needs are unlikely to be met.
• Unmet need and delivery - there is no separate housing trajectory for Oxford’s unmet need, which will make measuring delivery of unmet need difficult. We do not think the slow assumed delivery rates on several sites most clearly linked to Oxford to be for our unmet need are justified.
• Legal compliance - the plan is not currently legally compliant as it unreasonably skews the impact of new development in the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and does not consider clear reasonable alternatives to the eventual option selected. This results in some SA options simply not being given due consideration. The absence of an employment-led housing need option when considering the overall housing requirement, has led to an omission of key impacts being assessed.
• Tests of soundness and effectiveness – the plan has been brought forward in accordance with a recently revised shorter timescale. Many policies require considerable revision to ensure they can be considered soundly based, including positively prepared, effective and justified. Many policies omit a clear structure or appropriate threshold against which development proposals can be assessed.
• Other chapters, topics and proposed policies – the City Council has provided comments on a wide range of other aspects of the plan, which it considers are fundamental issues indicating the plan is neither sound nor legally compliant. Considerable work will be required to rectify them before the plan can be considered an appropriate development strategy for the districts.

Duty to Cooperate

It is critical that the Duty to Cooperate is rigorously assessed in order to obtain a full understanding of when and in what ways strategic matters have been discussed with the other Duty to Cooperate bodies in order to ensure the issues are being addressed in a way that ensures a plan is a result of the production of a positively prepared and justified strategy. Oxford City Council consider that South and Vale have failed to identify all of the relevant strategic matters that cross administrative boundaries arising from the preparation of their plan, and they have not engaged directly with the city council on any of these.

Duty to Cooperate – Employment Issues, Need and Supply

South and Vale have identified the “supply of employment land” as a strategic matter in their Regulation 19 Duty to Co-operate Statement. The City Council completely agrees that this is a strategic matter to which the Duty to Cooperate applies. The primary evidence base is the Employment Land Needs Assessment (ELNA). At no time has its commissioning, its geography which includes Oxford City Council’s administrative area, its methodology for calculating employment need, or its findings been discussed with Oxford City Council. Its use as a basis for allocating a combined total of 313.22 hectares of employment land to meet the 139 hectares of need identified should have been discussed with the relevant Duty to Cooperate parties, including Oxford City Council.

The City Council welcomes and supports a vibrant economy, and the provision of suitable employment land to enable this to flourish is vitally important. However, the lack of discussion on the employment strategy and on the cross-boundary impacts of it are significant failings of the plan. The City Council considers that there will be a range of social and environmental impacts (such as on the housing crisis, additional demand of public services, road and other infrastructure) all of which are strategic matters and all of which require addressing and mitigating through discussion with Oxford City Council. No discussions of this, or any other, nature have ever taken place in breach of the Duty to Cooperate.

The Duty to Cooperate Statement sets out that the JLP2041 has no unmet employment need (or unmet retail need) and as such these issues are not considered any further as strategic matters under the Duty to Cooperate. In addition, employment needs (and retail needs) are not considered to be strategic and worthy of discussion (paragraph 1.20), although in the 2022 Duty to Cooperate Scoping Statement, employment need and retail need is noted as a strategic issue with Oxford City, alongside supply (Figure 1). The City Council does not agree that strategic matters of such importance can simply be discounted from the Duty to Cooperate; plainly both employment land supply and employment need are strategic matters with cross boundary effects, even where there may be no unmet need.

Figure 1 – Extract from the South and Vale Duty to Cooperate Scoping Note dated 2022 identifying the Duty to Cooperate matters that would be discussed with Oxford City Council

The City Council considers that the decision to include Oxford City Council’s administrative area within the geographic scope of the employment need evidence for the JLP2041 demonstrates the strategic cross-boundary nature of these matters. The ELNA uses the Functional Economic Market Area (FEMA) as a basis for the work, this explicitly includes Oxford’s administrative area. Indeed, this is an explicit recognition in the evidence base for the plan that employment need and supply cannot be disentangled from, and directly affects, Oxford City. The decision to use this methodology was a decision made wholly independently and in isolation by South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Districts Councils and has never been discussed with Oxford City Council under the Duty to Cooperate.

These issues with the Duty to Cooperate are compounded by the combination of choices taken in the JLP2041. The chosen strategy makes provision for a supply of employment land exceeding the identified employment need, without considering wider impacts, including on housing need. There has been no attempt to engage further with us in order to explore these issues or mitigate any impacts. The option to set a housing requirement above the standard method-derived housing need is clearly available according to NPPF paragraph 67, which allows for a housing requirement to reflect growth ambitions. Given that the City Council raised concerns about the consequences of the standard method demographic-driven level of housing at Regulation 18, and that this has cross- boundary implications, this matter should have been discussed with us as a duty to cooperate issue.

The Duty to Cooperate Statement (paragraphs 2.20-2.22) sets out that “meeting employment needs” has been a regular agenda item for the Oxfordshire Planning Policy Officers (OPPO) meeting agendas. The issue of Community Employment Plans (not listed as a strategic matter in Paragraph 1.20), was discussed at an OPPO meeting (in June 2022). Neither the supporting evidence for Policy JT1, or indeed Policy JT1 itself, has ever been discussed at any OPPO meetings, nor are there any minutes of those meetings to support any assertion that relevant conversations took place.

It is the absence of discussion on all of the above key strategic matters relating to employment need and supply (and the interlinked issues on housing need and supply), which go to the heart of why the City Council considers that the JLP41 fails the Duty to Co-operate. Known strategic, cross boundary matters have not been discussed with Oxford City Council under the Duty to Cooperate.

Duty to Cooperate – Housing Issues and Oxford’s Unmet Need

Oxford City Council has not been engaged with constructively in terms of its unmet housing need to be planned for in the JLP2041. At Regulation 18, we raised a concern about the lack of a separate housing requirement for Oxford’s unmet need and the lack of specified sites for this need. Neither of these concerns have been addressed or discussed with us.

The policy incorporates the previously agreed level of unmet need into the total housing need figure (only over the same years it is included in the current Vale of White Horse Local Plan and South Oxfordshire Local Plan); however it does not assign this to particular sites. It is important that the unmet need is delivered on sites that are accessible to Oxford to have the benefits of sustainability that helped to justify the release of Green Belt for this purpose. In addition, the previously agreed and allocated unmet need sites were to help the unmet need arising from the 2014 SHMA, which in Oxford’s case was driven by the affordable housing need.

It is important that the signed Memorandum of Understanding regarding the operation for addressing the affordable housing element of Oxford City’s unmet housing needs continue between the councils to give nomination rights to those on Oxford’s housing register, and to enable consideration of what is the right tenure of affordable housing to meet needs.

The City Council has serious concerns with the approach taken in the JLP, which has been to take the annualised level of unmet need from the current plans and transfer it to the JLP added to the overall housing requirement, covering the same years as in current plans. There is no separate trajectory, no consideration of whether this is deliverable in those years or the best way to address the need in the draft plan’s timeframe, and with no bespoke approaches within any policy for those sites. The unmet need is based on the Oxford Local Plan 2036, so should cover that plan’s timeframe to ensure that the homes are delivered within the period to 2036.

The approach forgets that the housing need is not just a headline figure, it is about housing type, tenure and mix in the most sustainable locations to Oxford to deliver against need in a timely way. The unmet housing need for Oxford and a sound way to plan for these homes through the JLP has not been discussed with Oxford City Council. The proposed mix and affordable housing tenure splits are not aligned with those in Oxford city, and are not designed to meet unmet needs from the city.
 
The failure to discuss the best way to meet those needs and any bespoke requirements as well as likely delivery against the housing requirement are all failures of the Duty to Cooperate.

Duty to Cooperate- Lowland Fens

The City Council was informed in August 2024 of South and Vale district councils’ “intention to commission” an assessment of lowland fens and asked if we had any comment. At the same time, we were also informed that we would be notified if any cross-boundary impacts were identified. No further correspondence was received until after the document had been published. Indeed, we were informed that cross-boundary impacts had been identified, but only after the study had been published alongside the Regulation 19 assessment.

On looking at the details of the completed study, we have a number of concerns about how the study was carried out (set out towards the end of this letter), and the policy it has led to. In particular, the City Council is concerned that the potential impacts on areas within Oxford have been overestimated due to the methodology used. Areas within Oxford, including areas with development allocations, are noted as being potentially sensitive, when our own work had not suggested this. To publish this study before discussing the methodology or raising those issues with us represents a significant failure of the Duty to Cooperate.

Legal Compliance

Habitat Regulations Assessment 

The City Council identifies issues with the Habitats Regulation Assessment as follows:

• South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse District Councils have not published details of the air quality impacts of the JLP2041, including evidence of the appropriate assessment which was identified as necessary at the Preliminary Screening stage.
• The Preliminary Screening document "screened in" air quality impacts in relation to Oxford Meadows, Cothill Fen and Aston Rowant and identified potential significant effects alone or in combination with other plans/projects (table 5.2 of the Published Preliminary Screening Document).
• The Preliminary Screening Document also reached the conclusion that 3 sites (Oxford Meadows, Cothill Fen, and Aston Rowant) are, therefore, to be taken forward for HRA Appropriate Assessment.
• As part of the screening in for Appropriate Assessment, it was identified that traffic modelling will be undertaken at the next plan stage to inform this assessment, including alone and to address the potential for in-combination effects taking account of traffic generated by proposals in neighbouring local plans.
• The suggested Appropriate Assessment has not been published (and neither has anything else beyond the Preliminary Scoping Stage) as part of this Regulation 19 consultation. It is noted that the Preliminary Screening report commits to undertaking further work in respect of all 3 of the sites identified above which have been "screened in".

Oxford City Council continues to work closely with neighbouring districts with regards to Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA) and is proactively engaged in seeking a positive resolution to issues raised on its own local plan by Natural England, including cumulative effects from other plans and projects.

Sustainability Appraisal 

The Sustainability Appraisal has not informed the decision-making process in a legally compliant way. This leads to issues of soundness with the plan as not all reasonable alternatives have been considered through the SA process. As such, the relevant proposed policies in the plan cannot be found sound. These issues can be summarised as follows:

• The SA comprises mostly environmental objectives which unreasonably skews the assessment. It does not reasonably balance environmental, social and economic activities. Any new development is assigned multiple negative effects and the likely positive effects of planning for development are underrepresented.
• A full range of housing need and supply options have not been appraised or considered. In particular, an employment-led housing need option is omitted entirely. We raised this at Regulation 18 stage but note that it has not been addressed or otherwise explained (which comprises one aspect of the failure to comply with the Duty to Cooperate). Appendices F and G of the SA also identifies that options assessments were undertaken very late in the plan preparation process.
• Moreover, there is no assessment of a reasonable suite of options appraising the ways different levels of employment growth may give rise to different likely significant environmental effects. The SA does not identify the likely significant effects from generating considerable additional housing need as a result of the employment strategy, or consider the likely effects arising from the choice to plan, or indeed not plan, to meet this need.
• No baseline is provided to situate an assessment of the emerging JLP2041’s policies within the context of “the likely future without the plan” (a legal requirement of SA under Schedule 2 of the Regulations. There is no discussion of the likely evolution of the current state of the environment without the implementation of the plan before then assigning the impacts due the implementation of the plan. The likely effects of the plan’s proposals cannot be understood without that context and is legally required.

Tests of Soundness and Effectiveness of the Plan as a Whole

The plan is very clearly rushed, with typos throughout, although these are easily corrected. However, this lack of attention to detail in drafting the policies is less easily corrected, and would be too much to expect an Inspector to correct at Examination because of the sheer number of policies with soundness issues, in particular in terms of effectiveness and justification. The lack of time to draft an effective policy is seen clearly in, for example:

• CE2 - the policy is not clear on the method of assessment.
• HOU2 - it is unclear how unmet need delivery is to be measured.
• HOU4 - the policy is not appropriate without a threshold.
• HOU5 - the threshold leads to half units but does not mention rounding up. Unclear on tenure.
• HOU10 - there is no reference to overall need or why particular locations are chosen or whether they meet the criteria.
• AS3-5 - the numbers in the allocation are different to the HELAA.
• NH1 - the evidence base is not robust and the policy is not sound.
• NH13 - the policy does not clearly express specific requirements or methodology.

Chapters 1-3: Introduction, About, Vision and objectives

Oxford’s unmet housing need should be referenced in these three sections to ensure it is accurately identified as a key aspect of the spatial strategy.

Chapter 4: Climate Change and Improving Environmental Quality

Policy CE2 – Net zero carbon buildings: Not effective.

Oxford City Council supports the principles of the policy in framing net zero design around energy performance standards such as EUI rather than following current/future national Building Regulations standards. We do note that there are some aspects of the policy wording which could undermine its effectiveness. These should be addressed as follows:

• Energy performance targets should be clearer on method of assessment. Differing methods of calculation will have potentially large impacts on the projected total energy performance and could result in inconsistent approaches/decisions at application stage.
• It is not clear what level of justification the decision maker will require to accept unregulated energy loads that exceed EUI targets. The wording of criterion 3/b/v appears fairly permissive of going beyond the stated targets set out in i. to iv. There a risk that the wording in v. at present potentially undermines the targets.
• The requirement for offsetting in criterion 6/a is unclear. It states that offsetting should be calculated to deliver ‘the same amount of carbon or deliver the required shortfall in renewable energy’ but these are two different matters. Carbon shortfall will change over time because of changing carbon factors associated with energy use, whereas renewable shortfall is a consistent figure based upon capacity provided/not provided. There is a risk of moving goal posts if offsetting can be calculated against carbon shortfall rather than renewable energy capacity, and it is not effective to allow offsetting to be calculated based on two different approaches.
• Policy criteria 1 and 2 include wording that states development must meet the requirements including no fossil fuels, however, the criteria of 6c appears to allow for cases where they cannot be achieved, and it’s not clear how that will be balanced or what the priority will be in development decisions.
• The policy is silent on how extensions/change of use will be handled. It would appear that these would all be subject to the same requirements as new standalone buildings, but it’s not clear all requirements are achievable.

Policy CE3 – Reducing embodied carbon: Not effective. Not justified.

Oxford City Council supports the principle of the policy; however, we identify several points of weakness that should be clarified to ensure effectiveness of the policy.

• Under criterion d the policy sets out that new development must redevelop previously developed land, but it is not clear how this is actually enforceable.

Chapter 5: Spatial Strategy and Settlements

Policy SP1 – Spatial strategy: Not positively prepared. Not effective. Not justified.

Oxford City Council considers the proposed spatial strategy has not been informed or developed based on proportionate or robust evidence, including its associated impacts arising from the disparity between an ambitious growth strategy and minimal proposed housing. The issues are considered in more detail elsewhere in this representation with regards to the relevant policies or evidence base documents. Importantly, it is noted that criterion 10 of this policy states the plan will allocate sufficient sites to meet the existing agreed unmet housing needs of Oxford. However, it is not apparent that sufficient sites have been allocated due to the annualised figure being use for Oxford’s Unmet Need in Vale of White Horse, which is addressed elsewhere in this response.

Chapter 6: Housing

Policy HOU1 - Housing requirement: Not effective. Not justified.

We note that the approach taken to housing need in HOU1 is exactly the same as that set out at Regulation 18, which Oxford City Council raised issue with.
When the unmet need arising from Oxford’s Objectively Assessed Need in the SHMA was apportioned to the districts through the Growth Board, it was agreed that the Vale of White Horse would take 2,200 additional homes to meet Oxford’s unmet need. This was later agreed as the unmet need resulting from the Oxford Local Plan 2036. The relevant plan period for the Vale when the unmet need was taken was 2019-2031. What was not agreed was that the Vale would take an annualised number of homes. The number should not be translated into an annualised number which is then only applied from 2021-2031. The result of that approach is it is then missing 2 years’ worth of annualised numbers of homes.

If some of the 2,200 have been delivered before the base date of the plan, then these can be discounted. However, we consider 2,200 (with only a very small number discounted where delivered before the JLP plan period for Oxford’s unmet need) should be part of the housing requirement This issue with the timing of what has been transferred from Vale’s 2031 plan into the emerging Joint Local Plan 2041 should be corrected to avoid losing some of Oxford’s Unmet Need and to ensure it is planned for. There is a hard backstop delivery date for Oxford’s Unmet Need of 2036, because the agreed unmet need relates to the Oxford Local Plan 2036. Given this, the unmet need end date in the housing requirement would more appropriately run until 2036, rather than the end dates of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2035 and Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031.

Oxford City Council stated in response to the Regulation 18 stage that it did not consider that the selection of options for testing included all reasonable options, and we maintain this to be the case. The work to date has not sufficiently tested the option of looking at an alternative method for calculating the housing requirement. Option D in the SA is closest to this, but Option D is limited in the way it is worded because it only tests using an alternative method to calculate housing need if the Growth Deal can be argued to represent exceptional circumstances, and the option is for an alternative method based on the Growth Deal.

The discussion regarding Option D then goes on to say that the Growth Deal is coming to an end and all South Oxfordshire and the Vale of White Horse’s housing to contribute to the Growth Deal has already been planned for and will be met through the existing committed housing supply. The implication of this is that without the continuation of the Growth Deal there are no exceptional circumstances and therefore there is no justification for looking at an alternative method. We do not consider this as a reason not to include alternative methods of assessing housing need. Using an alternative method of assessing housing need is a reasonable option which needs to be properly considered, including in the Sustainability Appraisal process.

The link between economic growth and housing need is missing from the set of housing need options tested, and also in the consideration of the options in the SA. Having regard to the considerable economic growth ambitions being planned for, there should be an option to determine housing need based on needs generated by, anticipated and deliberately planned for in the Joint Local Plan. The appraisal of the housing options is not rigorous in its approach and comes from an overall tilted balance that starts from a negative starting point in terms of the impact of development. This is illustrated by the explanation of the effects of the options on objective 1: Pollution effects are localised and will be dependent on where development comes forward.

However, in general terms, with an increased housing requirement, comes increased risk of higher levels of noise, air, water and light pollution in the Districts.

Oxford City Council considers that there has been no attempt to consider the connections between economic growth and housing need. The proposed approach to employment is to support the high level of growth expected through intensification of sites and allocation of additional land. However, when setting the housing requirement, no consideration has been given to whether the standard method derived housing need is sufficient to support that level of employment growth. Without sufficient housing provision, existing sustainability problems around in-commuting and affordable housing will be exacerbated, and there is also the question about whether the planned-for economic growth is harmed due to the negative impacts that will occur due to the lack of housing. Therefore, there should be an option to look at alternative housing requirements, which should include looking at the housing needed to support the proposed or forecast level of economic growth (as allowed for by paragraph 67 of the NPPF). This is an omission.

The potential positive and negative impacts of housing are set out in the plan itself in relation to affordable housing (Policy HOU.3), paragraph 6.19, which says Our districts are amongst the least affordable areas to live in the country, with median house prices and monthly rents in both districts being well in excess of national averages. A lack of affordable housing can have a detrimental affect on our economy, environment, and the social well-being of our communities. This includes employers finding it harder to recruit and retain staff, increased emissions as people potentially commute further to work here, and the breakdown of social networks as people move away from friends, family and the communities they grew up in. This applies to delivery of all housing, not just affordable housing, but there is a failure to acknowledge this within the options and the SA assessment of them. In addition, it is not clear what policy mechanism is being proposed to overcome this issue given the very high negative impacts of new development being identified.

Oxford City Council note that the approach is to incorporate the previously agreed level of unmet need into the global housing need figure, but not to assign this to particular sites. We consider it is important that the unmet need is delivered on sites that are accessible to Oxford to have the benefits of sustainability that helped to justify the release of Green Belt for this purpose. In addition, the previously agreed and allocated unmet need sites were to help the unmet need arising from the 2014 SHMA, which in Oxford’s case was driven by the affordable housing need. It is important that the signed Memorandum of Understanding agreements continue between the Councils to give nomination rights to those on Oxford’s housing register, and to enable consideration of what is the
right tenure of affordable housing to meet needs.

Policy HOU2 - Sources of housing supply: Not effective. Not justified.

Oxford City Council consider that it is not possible to accurately assess the ways in which Oxford’s unmet need will be delivered effectively over the plan period without knowing where the unmet need will be (or has been) delivered. This includes the number of completions and proposed delivery of allocations. It is not an effective policy to simply merge the unmet need with the overall needs of South and Vale. On this basis the Plan does not meet the Soundness test C, being effective. It is necessary to ensure that Oxford’s Unmet Need (including type, tenure, mix, and size) are going to be delivered within the JLP period up to 2036. This issue has not been discussed with Oxford City Council as part of the preparation of the Joint Local Plan 2041.

Policy HOU3 - Affordable housing: Not effective. Not justified.

Oxford City Council highlights that the policy does not refer to the potentially different affordable housing needs of developments intended to meet the agreed levels of Oxford’s unmet need, and to be effective we consider it should. We note that First Homes are included, but not in the proportion required by Government policy. We agree that, given the housing market profile that exists in much of Oxfordshire, First Homes cannot be delivered in a way that meets the definition or that meets needs. That evidentially being the case, a justifiable approach would be to argue that First Homes are not appropriate, rather than including them but not in a way that meets Government policy.
Both because the percentage requirement is significantly below 25% and because, at the 30% discount required, the evidence base acknowledges they will exceed the minimum price threshold to meet the definition.

Policy HOU4 - Housing mix and size: Not effective. Not justified.

Oxford City Council highlights that this policy requires a threshold, as it’s impossible for smaller developments to meet the percentage requirements. The policy does not have enough flexibility to enable a scheme to respond to its local context, or to any changes in needs over the plan period. The percentages would be better as a range. Moreover, the percentage requirements seem to have been worked out based on demographic factors, with an increase in 3-beds based on rates of loss, mainly through sub-division. This loss could be however, showing a lack of need for those size units at the current time. The reasoning for the percentages should be expressed in terms of need rather than deviating from this approach. In particular, the percentage mixes do not take account of needs on the housing list, for both market and affordable housing.

In addition, the proposed requirements of Policy HOU4 does not account for the needs of those on Oxford’s housing list to meet Oxford’s unmet needs. For sites intended to meet Oxford’s unmet need, where there is an agreed Memorandum of Understanding and discussions on nomination rights, this must be an important consideration. Further, the policy should also have more flexibility to respond to the needs of a site and changes over time. Oxford City Council are deeply concerned about this policy. It should enable decision makers to seek a suitable mix of affordable housing to deliver for Oxford’s unmet need based on the available evidence held by the City Council, but it does not. This strategic matter has not been discussed with Oxford City Council.
 
Policy HOU5 - Housing for older people: Not effective.

Oxford City Council highlights that this policy is not effective. The proposed 5% of units cannot be housing with support until there are 20 units in total, but the threshold as drafted is 10. There is no mention of tenure. For the policy to be effective it should be clear which tenure it applies to, how it affects the overall mix, and that rounding up to the nearest whole unit is required (or the threshold amended). This type of housing is not required on sites allocated to meet Oxford's needs as it would displace those categories of identified need.

Policy HOU6 - Self-build and custom-build housing: Not justified

Oxford City Council highlights that the policy suggests that this type of housing will only be required on large scale housing developments (sites of 200 or more homes) and for these a percentage threshold of 5% would apply. There is no explanation of how the percentage threshold has been calculated and whether application of this would meet demand. The number of individuals on the Custom and self-build register should be used to demonstrate that the percentage threshold is sufficient.

Policy HOU10 - Meeting the needs of Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople: Not justified. Not effective.

Oxford City Council considers that this policy is not effective or justified by any evidence. Criterion 1d) of this policy identifies six site allocations which make provision for between 6-10 pitches on each site. No reference has been made in the policy/ supporting text as to what the overall required need for the plan period actually is. No evidence has been included as to why these are the most suitable locations, nor whether the provision of this type of housing is viable at each of the identified sites. No distinction has been made between gypsy and traveler pitches and travelling showpeople, whose needs are different and who require more space to store equipment etc.

In addition, with no evidence justifying suitable locations, it is concerning to note that some of the proposed sites have been previously identified as sites in sustainable locations, in proximity to Oxford and included in the plan to meet Oxford’s unmet housing need. Gypsy and Traveller pitches are not identified as part of Oxford’s unmet housing need requirement (i.e. there is no unmet need), therefore the inclusion of these type of pitches/ plots on these specific sites would lead to a decrease in the amount of much needed affordable housing being able to be provided for people within Oxford.

Chapter 7: Jobs and Tourism

Policy JT1 - Meeting Employment Needs: Not justified. Not positively prepared. Not effective.

The City Council is seriously concerned that by not balancing jobs growth with housing delivery across South Oxfordshire and the Vale of White Horse, affordability issues and other known housing supply issues within Oxford (and the wider Housing Market Area – defined as Oxfordshire in Chapter 4 of the ELNA) are likely to significantly worsen throughout the plan period.
 
Policy JT1 allocates 35.34ha of employment land to meet 25.8ha of employment land required in South Oxfordshire and 277.88ha of employment land to meet 113.2ha required in the Vale of White Horse. The policy allocates significantly more employment land than is required to meet the identified employment land needs through the Employment Land Needs Assessment Stage 1 Report (AECOM, January 2024) (ELNA).

The amount of employment land allocated clearly has implications for the number of jobs created. It is imperative that the planned employment land (and therefore jobs) growth is understood in the context of its implications on the already existing housing crisis, and significant levels of in- commuting experienced. Any significant imbalances are likely to have a substantial detrimental impact on Oxford.

The City Council considers that the plan is unsound as it fails to provide an appropriate strategy to mitigate the high level of economic growth and associated job creation resulting from the significant allocation of employment land proposed under Policy JT1. In addition, the employment policies are not justified as they have failed to take into account the reasonable alternatives (as addressed elsewhere in this consultation response).

To understand the significance of the proposed growth and potential implications on the already existing housing crisis, and significant levels of in-commuting experienced we calculate this could be 10,538 jobs in South Oxfordshire and 87,728 jobs in Vale of White Horse. This takes the employment land set out in Policy JT1, and the intentions of sites protected in Policy JT2 and applies assumptions from the ELNA (including Table 8.1 plot ratios and proportions of jobs from Chapter 8 from the preferred scenario) to make this initial calculation.
From various sources, in Table 1 (below) we present the number of homes required and supplied for the Plan period to 2041 and the total number of jobs created.

The implications of these significant issues have not been considered, proposed to be mitigated in the plan, or discussed with other local authority areas identified within the FEMA and Housing Market Area (both of which include Oxford City). This is also raised as a Duty to Cooperate issue with the preparation of the plan and its evidence base.

Policy JT2 - Protecting our employment sites

The additional identified supply at Culham Campus (a net increase of 126,936sqm of floorspace or 5,099 jobs) including additional floorspace and employment plans on known development sites are not recognised as part of the overall employment land supply set out in Policy JT1.

Chapter 8: Site Allocations and Garden Villages

Policy AS3 – Land South of Grenoble Road, Edge of Oxford and Policy AS4 – Land at Northfield, Edge of Oxford: Not positively prepared. Not justified. Not effective.

The plan does not allocate any new large scale strategic housing sites on the basis of an “oversupply of sites” in current local plans (para.6.2). As raised above, no specific site allocations are identified for Oxford unmet need which is a concern and leads to issues of delivery and implementation, as well as soundness and legal compliance issues. It is important that sites to deliver unmet need for Oxford are well-located to be accessible to Oxford, especially by public transport and/or cycling and walking. Concern has been raised at earlier stages of consultation. The site allocations which form urban extensions to Oxford would be the most logical for accommodating Oxford unmet needs. It is also hard to see how the unmet need will be delivered effectively over the plan period without knowing where the unmet need will be planned for. On this basis the Plan does not meet the Soundness test C, being effective.

The main site allocations from extant local plans, which are closest to Oxford, are retained: some as repeated policies, some with adjusted policies. HOU2 carries forwards North of Abingdon (800) and NW Abingdon (200), whilst the urban extension sites have individual site allocation policies. We welcome the references in supporting text for the site allocations for AS3, AS4, AS5 recognising that these sites provide opportunity to help address unmet need from Oxford (paragraphs 8.34, 8.42 and 8.46) but this needs to be clearer to make the policies effective. The policies should specify the number of dwellings that are contributing from these sites towards Oxford’s unmet needs, simply referencing the “opportunity” is not sufficiently clear to be an effective policy.

If then we are to assume that at least some of Oxford’s unmet need would be delivered on those sites on the edges of Oxford, we are deeply concerned to note that the plan is now no longer anticipating the original levels of homes to be delivered on these sites within the plan period by 2041. This is despite the previous agreements/MoU to deliver Oxford’s unmet needs within the extant local plan periods for Vale and South to 2031/2035. There is no trajectory to show how Oxford’s unmet needs will be delivered within those timeframes; there is only an overall trajectory graph provided for each district (Appendix 4 of Reg 19 document) but no detail behind it to show the delivery timescales for sites, or to explain the reasoning for the assumptions on the strategic sites.

As such the evidence for the strategic sites’ delivery or how the unmet needs from Oxford are to be delivered in a timely and transparent manner, is not justified. The housing trajectory for delivering Oxford’s unmet needs should be separated out to show annually how that will be delivered. This is also raised as a Duty to Cooperate issue by Oxford City Council as no discussions have taken place on this issue.

We are also concerned that the assumed capacity for these strategic sites (including AS3: Grenoble Road) now includes additional requirements for specialist housing types – for older persons accommodation and for pitches/plots for Gypsy and Travellers - to be accommodated on the sites. Neither of these are featured in Oxford’s unmet need requirements, so would not contribute to meeting Oxford’s unmet needs or reducing housing waiting lists in Oxford. By introducing these additional requirements for the sites, the capacity of those sites to meet Oxford’s unmet needs is being reduced, along with further delays through implementation of through the planning application process leading to further concerns about deliverability of these sites, including in meeting Oxford’s unmet needs. This is also raised as a Duty to Cooperate issue by Oxford City Council as no discussions have taken place on this issue.

It is not justified that the delivery timescales for AS3 Land South of Grenoble Road have been pushed back. The site is allocated for 3,000 homes, of which a mere 1,275 are expected to be delivered by 2041 (para 8.32). We note that the HELAA, para 76, identifies indicative ‘lead in times’ (6.4 years for sites of this size) but there is no explanation about when this is counted from. This site has been in the planning system for a long time already, including pre-app discussions, so this broad-brush assessment of delivery times is not appropriate because site-specific information is known. In addition to the issue raised above, Oxford City Council raise this as a Duty to Cooperate issue as no discussions have taken place on this change to the delivery of Oxford’s unmet needs.

Neither is it justified why AS4 Land at Northfield is only anticipated to deliver 1,425 (of its 1,800 homes) by 2041 (para 8.40], and that site is also now required to deliver 60 older persons, 6-10 G&T, which will reduce the capacity for delivering homes for Oxford’s unmet needs on appropriate sites. It is also not explained why AS4 suggests a site capacity of 1800 but the HELAA proforma for Land at Northfield SH595 gives a capacity of 1323. Oxford City Council raise concerns about the soundness of this policy. In addition, Oxford City Council raise this as a Duty to Cooperate issue as no discussions have taken place on these changes to the delivery of Oxford’s unmet needs.

There appears to be a contradiction between saying the Oxford unmet need is being delivered in the earlier part of the plan period through a stepped trajectory to align with the agreements in the extant local plans (para 6.11), whilst the strategic sites closest to Oxford (except for the north Abingdon sites already progressing) are not going to be complete even by 2041 let alone by the original plan dates, and furthermore some of their capacity is now being allocated to other uses.
 
It can only be concluded that there is a lack of evidence to demonstrate how the full agreed unmet need figures of 4,950 and 2,200 will be delivered by 2041 let alone by 2031/2035, or 2036, which is the end of relevant plan period which identifies that need. The plan is therefore not sound or legally compliant. The City Council is deeply concerned about the soundness, in particular whether it is justified or effective and has not been approached to discuss these issues. Indeed, we have previously raised similar queries about delivery rates in our Regulation 18 comments on policy AS3. Oxford City Council raise this as a Duty to Cooperate issue as no discussions have taken place on these changes to the planning for Oxford’s unmet needs.

Housing Sites and Major Infrastructure

There is minimal reference to the Cowley Branch Line re-opening in the relevant strategic site allocations policies which would be close to the two new stations. Policy AS3 and Policy AS4 (bullet point 2i) and 2g) respectively) state “Proposals for the development must demonstrate...all necessary infrastructure based on up-to-date evidence on the impact of development. This should reference the latest Infrastructure Delivery Plan, but not be limited to this document...”. This is followed by a series of sub bullet points that list what the transport mitigation measures are likely to include.

The Cowley Branch Line and proposed new stations at Oxford Littlemore and Oxford Cowley are not specifically mentioned in any of these sub bullet points, although it is noted that there is reference in the supporting text at paragraphs 8.34 and 8.42 where it is stated “..the site would also benefit from the potential reopening of the Cowley Branch Line”. If there is an identified benefit, this should be included as part of the policy.

The accompanying Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) dated October 2024 does not specifically mention the Cowley Branch Line. The Cowley Branch Line should be identified in the IDP and added as a “transport mitigation measure” within the policy. This does not represent effective cross- boundary working about such a major item of cross-boundary infrastructure, despite these sites both adjoining the city boundary. This does not meet the requirements of effectiveness or positive preparation.

Policy AS5 – Land at Bayswater Brook, Edge of Oxford.

It is welcomed that the allocation AS5 Land at Bayswater Brook is expected to deliver the full capacity of 1,100 homes by 2041, and noted that the site now benefits from a recent planning approval, although the capacity to address Oxford’s unmet need is reduced by the AS5 policy requirement to now accommodate 120 older persons units on the site.

Chapter 10: Well-designed places for our communities

Policy DE4 - Optimising densities: Not effective. Not justified.

Oxford City Council agree with the principle of optimising densities. However, the policy is worded too vaguely which renders it ineffective. There is no detail backed by evidence suggesting the range of densities that would be suitable for potential sites. The only threshold given is for sites that are well connected to settlements identified as tier 1 or 2 in the settlement hierarchy, where a minimum density of 45dph should be achieved (unless it can be demonstrated otherwise). This is an arbitrary figure and does not appear to be based on any evidence, therefore it is not possible to ascertain that density is being optimised and that the policy is effective in achieving its ambitions. We are concerned that an ineffective policy in this regard would affect delivery of Oxford’s Unmet Need.

Chapter 12: Nature Recovery, Heritage and Landscape

Policy NH1 - Biodiversity designations: Not effective. Not justified.

Policy NH1 criterion 6 sets out that development within the mapped hydrological catchment of a lowland fen (as identified in the Joint Local Plan Lowland Fen Evidence) must effectively demonstrate that it will not result in harmful changes to the water quality, water chemistry or supporting hydrological regime. We do not consider that the associated evidence which the policy refers to sets justified or effective thresholds for applicants, nor is it clear what is expected of them in an application.

There is a reliance on unclear terms in the report like ‘larger developments’ which could be interpreted in different ways when trying to implement the policy. Also, the potential for harm assigned to some of the hydrological impacts within risk zones is unclear, particularly for the larger risk zones like Zone 1 and 5. This makes expectations on applicants challenging to interpret because there is no specificity about the distance thresholds over which specific risk of harm might be a reasonable concern for an applicant. This impacts the policy’s effectiveness in protecting the habitats it seeks to address.

Policy NH2 - Nature Recovery: Not positively prepared. Not effective. Not justified.

Para 3(e) of policy is loosely framed and this part of the policy as written does not appear to engage with potential for delivery within LNRS area, which can also provide opportunities for positive joint working with neighbouring districts.

Chapter 13: Infrastructure, transport, connectivity and communications

Policy IN1 – Infrastructure and service provision: Not positively prepared. Not effective.

The policy should mention the Cowley Branch Line as a pipeline transport scheme or priority. Paragraph 13.27 makes no reference to the reopening of this line. This does not represent effective cross-boundary working about such a major item of cross-boundary infrastructure, which will help to deliver large allocations for residential development and employment in the vicinity of Oxford. The infrastructure will provide benefit to South Oxfordshire (and Vale of White Horse) and should be referenced.

Policy IN3 - Transport infrastructure and safeguarding: Not positively prepared. Not effective.

The policy should specifically mention the Cowley Branch Line as a pipeline transport scheme or priority. Paragraph 13.27 makes no reference to the reopening of this line. This does not represent effective cross-boundary working about such a major item of cross-boundary infrastructure, which will help to deliver large allocations for residential development and employment in the vicinity of Oxford.

Evidence Base: Employment Land Needs Assessment, AECOM (January 2024)

The underlying evidence base for Policy JT1 – the ELNA – contains a number of errors, inaccuracies and inconsistencies which result in discrepancies both with the overall assessed supply of employment and, and with the employment land needs. These errors are a fundamental cause for concern that the ELNA is not fit for purpose.

There is an unexplained increase of 40,500sqm between Table 6-5 of the ELNA (page 71 of the PDF), which presents a profile of industrial properties and floorspace, and Row C of Table 9-2 (page 120 of the PDF) which calculates the Industrial land requirements set out in Policy JT1. This will have an impact on the overall land requirement in both Councils for industrial uses.

There are also inconsistencies with existing floorspace in Chapter 7 of the ELNA as illustrated in Table 2 below.

*Equivalent floorspace (sqm) and land (ha) are estimated using the employment densities and plot ratios provided in Table 8-1 of the ELNA (pages 107-108 of the PDF)

This shows that there is a potentially significant underestimation of the amount of existing employment land in both South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse. In both cases the amount of existing employment land assessed within Chapter 7 of the ELNA represents almost double the amount of employment land presented in Tables 6-2 and 6-5. The ELNA does not accurately support Policy JT1 both in terms of supply and demand of employment land.

Evidence Base: Lowland Fens: Identifying sites and Mapping hydrological risk zones in South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse report, 2024

Oxford City Council considers this is an expansive piece of work covering a large area and seeking to assess a range of complex, technical factors that influence hydrology of fen sites and this high-level, desk-based assessment acknowledges in its opening sections that the risk zones for fen sites are precautionary. It advises that to refine these zones and assess potential risks of developments, either individually or cumulatively, within each zone, site-based ecological and hydrological investigations would be required. However, there are elements to the assessment which appear to have gone far beyond the standard approach of being precautionary, without any element of ground-truthing via site investigations, identifying some potential impact mechanisms that we do not consider to be justified, reasonable or proportionate. We observe you have assessed Oxford in this study, without any input from Oxford City Council.

Conclusion

Oxford City Council continues to advocate for coherent strategic planning for Oxfordshire where all relevant stakeholders engage positively to plan for the true identified housing need, to support our vibrant economy, to protect the natural and historic environment and to address the climate crisis. Oxford City Council have raised a number of issues which are of significant concern. The City Council objects to the South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse Joint Local Plan 2041 and requests attendance at the hearings forming part of the Examination in Public of the JLP2041 where each relevant issue will be considered.