Return to Agenda

Division(s): All

ITEM EN5

EXECUTIVE – 1 MARCH 2005

OXFORDSHIRE STRUCTURE PLAN 2016 – REPORT OF THE EIP PANEL AND PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS

Report by Head of Sustainable Development

Introduction

  1. The Oxfordshire Structure Plan 2016 deposit draft was published for consultation in September 2003 and proposed pre-EIP changes to the draft Plan in April 2004. An examination in public (EIP) of the main policies and proposals in the draft plan was held from 12 to 27 October 2004. The EIP was conducted by an independent Panel appointed by the First Secretary of State. Their report was received on 13 December 2004, and the Council must now decide whether or not to accept their recommendations. The purpose of this report is to set out proposed responses to the Panel’s recommendations, proposed responses to representations made on the deposit draft Plan and pre-EIP changes that were not relating to issues debated at the EIP, and to recommend proposed modifications to the Plan.

    2. The Panel Report

  2. Copies of the Panel’s report have been circulated to all members of the Council and a copy has been placed in the Members Resource Centre. In general the report is clearly written and it contains 34 recommendations for amendments to the policies and explanatory text. These and other key points are explained in more detail below.

    3. (a) General Strategy and Policies

  3. The Panel have recommended deleting the reference to restraining the overall level of development in policy G1, the general strategy. They consider that the necessary constraints to development are well reflected in other policies and the reference to restraint is therefore unnecessary in policy G1. The Panel have also recommended amending G1 to remove the reference to permitting limited development in rural areas so that the policy more positively supports development in the smaller towns and villages of an appropriate scale to meet the needs of local communities and businesses. The Panel support the inclusion of policy G3 on infrastructure provision with a minor amendment, but say that the need is for it to be followed through in delivering future development and for the spatial priorities in the Plan to give clear direction to funding agencies and service providers. Bearing this in mind the Panel have made particular recommendations on the transport policies (see below).

  4. The Panel have not recommended any changes to policy G4 on the Green Belt, and agreed with the Council that there are not exceptional circumstances justifying the release of land in the Green Belt for housing or employment up to 2016. However, the Panel reached these conclusions in the context of the limited time horizon of the draft Plan, which is a recurring theme in their report. In particular, the Panel have recommended that the section of the draft Plan on the development strategy for the period post 2016 should be deleted due to the interim nature of the Plan as it will inevitably be overtaken by the South East Plan. The Panel consider that the Plan should not close off future spatial options, and should refer in the explanatory text to the emerging South East Plan and Central Oxfordshire sub-regional strategy, the need for a thorough comparative analysis of the options for meeting future development requirements to 2026, and outline proposals for joint working arrangements to ensure effective delivery through Local Development Documents.

    5. (b) Housing

  5. The Panel endorse the overall amount of housing proposed in the draft Plan as meeting the requirements of Regional Planning Guidance (RPG9), but expressed disappointment that the housing figure had not been tested in terms of household projections and the extent to which the housing needs of Oxfordshire’s residents will be met. They also consider that the 37,300 dwellings proposed should be seen as a minimum level to be achieved.

  6. The Panel recommend deleting both the previously developed land target and affordable housing target from policies H1 and H4 and instead including them in the explanatory text as performance indicators for monitoring. The Panel consider that county wide targets cannot be disaggregated to district level, and in the case of previously developed land, too rigid a target could adversely affect housing delivery. On affordable housing the Panel do not consider the regional indicator in RPG9 is an appropriate basis for setting local targets. However, they do not consider the provision of 50% affordable housing as a proportion of all new housing to be unreasonable, although challenging.

  7. In terms of the distribution of housing the Panel endorse the distribution proposed in the pre-EIP changes to policy H1. On development within Oxford the Panel consider that the City Council’s assessment of urban capacity is thorough, but that assessments change over time. They conclude that the proposed provision of 6,500 dwellings is likely to be realised, but emphasise that the urban area cannot be expected to yield increasing amounts of housing indefinitely.

  8. The Panel agree with the Council that there are not exceptional circumstances to justify the release of land in the Green Belt for housing to 2016, and they see no justification for re-distributing housing from the country towns or Grove to central Oxfordshire. However, they consider that an urban extension to Oxford might have to be considered in the future if the potential for Oxford to develop its economy in light of its world-wide reputation is to be achieved. The Panel have not dismissed the development proposal south of Grenoble Road or any other of the proposals suggested within central Oxfordshire (e.g. Shipton on Cherwell Quarry or Sunningwell) as necessarily being of no merit. They suggest that if such proposals are considered in the context of the Central Oxfordshire sub-regional strategy this should go hand in hand with a comprehensive review of the Green Belt.

  9. For Banbury and Bicester the Panel see no justification for reducing or increasing the number of houses proposed by the Council. They conclude that a larger settlement at Upper Heyford than proposed would be less sustainable than other options and support the level of development proposed as a means of achieving heritage and environmental objectives.

  10. The Panel accept that it is not necessary to re-visit the allocation of housing development between districts or alternative locations at Didcot. In terms of accommodating growth at Didcot they consider that changes in travel behaviour and greater use of public transport are essential. Provided the transport issues are tackled properly the Panel are in no doubt that the provision proposed in the draft plan can be satisfactorily delivered and is necessary in view of strong demand in the south of the county. They do not suggest that more should be built at Didcot up to 2016 as it would be undesirable to lose the focus on delivering the growth currently planned. However, the Panel again emphasise that their view is in the context of the interim nature of the Plan and they consider that further growth at Didcot is quite likely to be part of the strategy to 2026.

  11. The Panel consider that the principal factor in favour of development at Grove is to help serve the needs of the expanding employment base in the south of the county. They recognise the relatively poor public transport infrastructure in the area as an issue and consider this should be the focus of attention of the transport authorities and providers. However they did not see the re-opening of a rail station at Grove as a necessary pre-requisite to major housing development. They also considered that doubts that development would not deliver the full range of necessary infrastructure as unduly pessimistic. On flood risk the Panel concluded that this is not a reason for deleting or reducing the provision proposed at Grove, based on evidence from the Environment Agency.

  12. In the context of the recent good balance between employment and housing at Witney the Panel see no justification for reducing the housing figure proposed, and notwithstanding past and present infrastructure shortcomings they agree that Witney is the most sustainable settlement in West Oxfordshire. The Panel consider that the Structure Plan with its link to the Local Transport Plan should help to promote improvement in modal transport choice in the Witney-Oxford corridor, in the context of reduced but still strong commuting from Witney to Oxford.

  13. Given the general focus of the strategy on urban areas, the Panel consider that the housing provision proposed for the rural areas appears to be of the right order, and no changes are recommended. The Panel see no case for introducing a second tier of towns or a hierarchy of settlements in policy H1. They see the allocation of housing development in towns such as Thame, Abingdon and others as matters best covered at local level. The Panel see no need to provide for a new settlement beyond the Green Belt in the context of the draft Plan, and note that it would be some years before a new settlement could provide significant housing and many issues would need to be resolved. However, the Panel consider that a new settlement would form part of a comprehensive review of all options for meeting development needs beyond the time horizon of the Plan.

    14. (c) Economy

  14. Despite some differences of opinion, the Panel found considerable agreement at the EIP about what is required to support Oxfordshire’s economy. They consider the overall approach in the draft Plan allows for what is needed e.g. smart growth, start up and incubator space, supporting the knowledge based economy, skills development and providing essential infrastructure. However, they think this is not carried forward in the policies with sufficient certainty. The Panel recommend a new overarching economy policy which relates employment development more clearly to other policies and priorities in the Plan and reflects more fully the county’s Economic Development Strategy. This policy also includes a reference to the importance of business clusters and their needs, and enables consideration of development proposals at existing large freestanding employment sites.

  15. The Panel recommend that policy E1 on Oxford should be revised and expressed in a more strategic way and to allow for redevelopment schemes that might contain an element of employment development but might not be on land previously used for employment purposes. In terms of the re-use of employment land for housing the Panel consider that the requirement of PPG3 to review employment allocations applies to Oxford, but they also recognise the need to ensure a supply of accommodation to meet the needs of a diverse economy within Oxford. They recommend retaining the statement in policy E1 relating to this with some modifications. In the absence of a case for releasing land in the Green Belt for housing the Panel consider it would be difficult to justify an exception on employment grounds alone, at Grenoble Road or elsewhere. The Panel note the pragmatic approach that has been taken towards proposals in the Green Belt such as at Begbroke and BMW and note that this may be the best approach to avoid opening the way for less specialised, space intensive development such as warehousing.

  16. The Panel recommend confirming the Council’s proposed pre-EIP change to policy E2 relating to the provision of land for employment in the smaller towns as a result of health checks. They consider that policy E3 taken with other policies in the draft Plan provide an adequate strategic framework for addressing the needs of rural areas and small communities.

    17. (d) Transport

  17. The Panel note the identification in the Regional Transport Strategy (RTS) of Oxford as a regional transport hub and consider that the theme of regional hubs and spokes should be included in the draft Plan to provide a land use planning reference point for preparation of the Local Transport Plan. In terms of the A34, the Panel consider that whatever national/inter-regional role it has, it also serves as a sub-regional distributor and vital link between major centres in the county. They consider that a realistic approach should be adopted as to the involvement of the A34 in more local travel solutions.

  18. The Panel considers that the Plan should identify which elements of the County’s transport network need to be concentrated upon to support the development strategy and to prepare the ground for further growth beyond 2016. The Panel consider that the relationships that link transport provision to the main development strategy should be represented in the transport policy itself, including those aspects of transport provision that lie outside the Council’s direct control, but may be addressed through partnerships and planning obligations. The Panel also consider that a reference to the East-West rail link should be included in policy T6 because it would directly support the RTS spoke linking Oxford to Milton Keynes. Revisions are recommended to policy T6 covering these points, and also amendments to the key diagram to show strategic travel corridors connecting the major development locations to Oxford.

  19. The Panel note a lack of strong commitment in the draft Plan to infrastructure and service provision over which the Council has little control. The Panel see the answer to the county’s infrastructure shortfall is not necessarily removing bottlenecks, but to offer real alternatives that will persuade people to change their travel behaviour. They consider that a more focussed reference to the need to link the spatial strategy of the Plan to high quality public transport to serve development needs would assist in securing better resources for transport in the county. The changes recommended to policy T6 also reflect this view.

    20. (e) Environment

  20. The Panel support the inclusion of all the environmental policies in the draft Plan. They recommend several detailed amendments, mainly to bring the policies in line with new Government policy in PPS7. They did not consider that any additional policies were necessary, for example on reducing pollution or protecting tranquillity, as these matters were already covered by other polices or were implicit in the development strategy.

    21. (f) Minerals

  21. The most significant amendment recommended to the minerals policies is the deletion of the strategic resource areas for minerals, including existing areas and the new area proposed at Stadhampton-Berinsfield-Warborough-Benson (SBWB). The Panel consider that while strategic resource areas may have suited the county in the past they are not essential to achieve satisfactory decisions. They consider that the methodology used to select a new area is at too high a level to fully address all the issues (although they did not disagree with the criteria used), and there is no certainty that the SBWB area provides a better or more sustainable option than other candidates, or that one new area is better than two or more. The Panel also consider that as the strategic resource areas will be reviewed in preparing the Minerals and Waste Development Framework (MWDF) decisive weight could not be attached to a preference for SBWB. Therefore, the Panel recommend that policy M2 should indicate criteria for identifying locations for sand and gravel working in the new MWDF.

    22. Comments of Head of Sustainable Development

  22. Proposed responses to each of the Panel’s recommendations are set out in Annex A (download as .doc file). Overall the Panel’s endorsement of the overall number of houses to be built in Oxfordshire and the housing distribution as proposed in the pre-EIP changes is welcome. Despite the Panel’s comments regarding the interim nature of the Plan, the confirmation of the housing allocation for the country towns and Grove will help increase certainty for major developments being planned for in these towns which should aid delivery of housing supply, and in turn the provision of essential infrastructure. The reference to restraining the overall level of development in policy G1 has been part of the general strategy since the first Structure Plan was approved and has been useful in controlling development that does not accord with the strategy and policies of the Plan. However, the Panel’s view is accepted that appropriate limits to development are included in other of the Plan’s policies.

  23. In the long term, the Panel have left all options open to be considered in regional planning work and in deciding in response to the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) where development should be located through the new local development frameworks. The Panel wish the Plan to refer to joint working arrangements to achieve this, and the Council has recently had some experience of this in undertaking work on the Central Oxfordshire sub-regional strategy on behalf of SEERA. Such arrangements are allowed for under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act where the local planning authorities agree to it or the Secretary of State so directs. A considerable amount of work on the feasibility and implications of strategic development options has already been undertaken as part of the Structure Plan review and fed into the sub-regional work on central Oxfordshire.

  24. On the economy, the Panel’s recommendations for a new overarching policy and revisions to policy E1 on Oxford are helpful and set out in spatial terms the Council’s aspirations for economic development in Oxfordshire. The revisions to policy E1 also provide a more explicit policy basis for considering proposals for redevelopment in the City such as the proposals for the West End.

  25. On transport, the changes recommended by the Panel that introduce a stronger regional dimension to the policies are generally acceptable. The main thrust of the Panel’s recommendations is to strengthen the way in which the transport strategy is expressed. This is done through changes to policy T6, the most important of which is to express the transport strategy more clearly through the introduction of principal transport corridors. These relate to the main development strategy and give a clearer basis for priorities in developing the transport networks. This will assist the formulation of justifiable transport schemes within the LTP and provide a clearer framework for determining the transport requirements of development.

  26. Removal of the strategic sand and gravel resource areas from the Structure Plan would mean their loss as a basis both for identification of specific areas for working in the new MWDF and for the consideration of planning applications in the meantime. However, there is a clear logic to the Panel’s conclusions, particularly given that the new requirements for strategic environmental assessment and sustainability appraisal mean that all potential locations for sand and gravel working will have to be considered in preparing the MWDF. It is important to note that the Panel have not expressed views for or against any particular locations, and that all options, including the existing Structure Plan areas and SBWB, will need to be considered. Nor have the Panel expressed a view on whether a concentrated or dispersed pattern of working is to be preferred. That again is a matter for consideration in the MWDF. Recasting policy M2 as a set of indicative criteria for locating sand and gravel working would not only provide a framework for assessment of areas for inclusion in the MWDF, but would also provide a list of factors that will be material in the determination of planning applications for sand and gravel working.

    27. Conclusions

  27. Overall I consider that the Panel’s recommendations should be accepted because firstly, they are on the whole reasonable and will clarify the intentions of the Plan; and secondly, it will help to complete the adoption process without delay. There are some exceptions to this on points of detail, the reasons for which are set out in Annex A (download as .doc file). An up to date development plan will stand the county in good stead by providing certainty until the Regional Spatial Strategy is approved. There is also a procedural reason for completing the process as soon as possible, in that if the Plan is not adopted by 22 July 2006 it will become subject to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive. SEA is an iterative process which cannot be applied retrospectively to a plan already prepared. If the plan is adopted after the deadline without SEA it could be open to legal challenge.

  28. The Panel’s report deals only with the matters debated at the EIP and not all the issues raised in representations. Therefore the Council must also consider all the representations and objections made on the deposit draft Plan and pre-EIP changes and consider whether modifications should be proposed to the Plan in relation to issues not discussed at the EIP. Annex B (download as .doc file) summarises the representations and objections with proposed responses and modifications to policies where these are considered appropriate. The annex also considers representations made on the explanatory text – the responses indicate where changes to the text should be considered but does not formally recommend detailed changes. I consider that this should be done following consultation on the proposed modifications when the Plan is prepared in its final form for adoption.

  29. Proposed modifications to the policies in the draft Plan are set out in full in Annex C (download as .doc file) . These include modifications as a result of the Panel’s recommendations and in response to representations made on the draft Plan and pre-EIP changes. They also include the housing distribution and amendment to policy E2 agreed by Council on 6 April 2004 and confirmed by the Panel, and also the detailed wording of a new policy on waterways and the restoration of the Wilts and Berks Canal.

    30. Next Steps

  30. Subject to agreement by the Council, annexes A,B and C to this report will be published for consultation in May/June this year as proposed modifications to the draft Plan and the Council’s statement of decisions and reasons on the Panel’s recommendations and representations made on the draft Plan. Subject to the scale of representation received, the draft plan will be reported back to Council with revised explanatory text in November 2005 at the latest, with the adoption process completed at the end of the year.

  31. Following the advertisement of the final notice there is a six week period for legal challenge in the High Court. After adoption, the Plan will be "saved" for three years under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act unless it is superseded in whole or in part by the approval of the regional spatial strategy or the Secretary of State directs that the three year period should be extended. There are also provisions in the Act for the regional planning body to consider, in discussion with the structure plan authority, whether parts of a structure plan should be saved for a longer period to avoid a policy void.

    32. RECOMMENDATIONS

  32. The Executive is RECOMMENDED, subject to consideration of the comments of the Environment Scrutiny Committee, to RECOMMEND Council to:

          1. agree the proposed responses to the EIP Panel’s recommendations and representations made on the draft Plan and pre-EIP changes set out in Annexes A and B as the Council’s statement of decisions and reasons;

          2. agree for consultation the proposed modifications to the draft Plan set out in Annex C;

          3. authorise the Head of Sustainable Development in consultation with the Executive Members for Sustainable Development and Transport to make any minor editing changes in preparing the above documents for consultation; and

          4. note that amendments to the explanatory text will be prepared for the agreement of Council when the draft Plan is presented for adoption.

CHRIS COUSINS
Head of Sustainable Development

Background papers: Nil

Contact Officers:
Frankie Upton, Tel 01865 815962
Ian walker, Tel 01865 815588

February 2005

Return to TOP