Return to Agenda

Return to EX5

ITEM EX5 - ANNEX A

EXECUTIVE – 10 JUNE 2003

OXFORDSHIRE STRUCTURE PLAN REVIEW

Oxfordshire Structure Plan Review Deposit Draft –

Comments from the Environment Scrutiny Committee

On 16 May 2003 the Environment Scrutiny Committee considered the draft Review document. Comments made by members of the Committee are set out below. These represent issues identified for the Executive’s consideration in the course of discussion and do not necessarily represent the views of the Committee as a whole. (References are to paragraphs and policies in the circulated draft Review document.)

Chapter 1, Introduction

1. A reference should be added to the challenges faced over past years in accommodating development demands imposed by central government.
2. A summary table should be included showing existing and proposed housing allocations for the country towns and each district.
3. It was noted that a definition of affordable housing and key workers will be included in the glossary to be added to the published plan.
4. Pressure should be maintained on national government to pursue the development of a coordinated transport policy which would support development allocations required by the government.

Chapter 2, Strategy for Oxfordshire

1. 2.3 - (Notwithstanding government advice in favour of higher site densities) housing densities substantially over 50 per hectare should be avoided.
2. 2.8 -There was concern (as expressed by Oxford City Council and supported by a number of the Committee Members) that the reference to "restraint" of employment in Oxford should be amended to make clear that sustainable development could be permitted.
3. 2.9 - The distribution of housing development generally does not reflect the balance of employment, which is concentrated more in the southern part of the County.
4. 2.11 – Additional development at Bicester is not a sustainable option, on the basis of the limited scope to make the necessary improvements to the town centre, failure to provide adequate recreation and community facilities for the town, the inadequate local employment base with 70% of the workforce commuting out of Bicester and transport links already operating at capacity. The proposals for Bicester should be deleted.
5. There are doubts whether infrastructure will keep pace with or precede development - developer contributions have not produced adequate facilities in Bicester so far. There should be a ten year breathing space before any further housing is allocated to Bicester to enable infrastructure to catch up.
6. 2.12 - Comments similar to those in (d) and (e) above were made in relation to the housing allocations proposed at Grove, with particular reference to transport and other infrastructure deficiencies.
7. Development of land on the south side of Oxford (suggested by Oxford City Council) should be explored as an alternative location for growth if the constraints identified by the Working Group (notably the network of overhead power lines) can be overcome.
8. 2.16 – 2.21 – It was noted that the projected pattern of development post 2016 has been included at the request of some consultees in order to give a longer term perspective, this being the last opportunity in a Structure Plan to influence the location of development after 2016. However a view was expressed that these provisions should be deleted altogether.
9. 2.20 - Begbroke/Kidlington/Yarnton area - add that in the event that a new settlement is needed, sites just beyond the green belt could be looked at.
10. 2.21 -There was support for the absence of development allocations at Witney. Post 2016 development at Witney/Carterton depends heavily on GTE, over which there are serious concerns about the timetable for delivery, and should not take place unless improved transport links can be guaranteed.
11. There was support for the absence of further housing allocations at Banbury.

Chapter 3, General Policies

1. G1 – A view was expressed in favour of a more dispersed form of development, with housing and employment allocated to rural settlements throughout the County, to halt the decline of smaller communities and reduce the need for dependence on subsidy.
2. Concern was expressed about such an approach on the particular grounds that a dispersed pattern of development would not achieve the "critical mass" of development in each case to attract infrastructure provision and support public transport.
3. G3 - There are problems of a deficit in infrastructure provision. Developer contributions do not address deficiencies and need to be secured in a way that ensures provision is made in time with development, not after it.
4. G4(c) seeks to prevents coalescence of settlements in the Green Belt. This needs to be borne in mind if Begbroke/Kidlington/Yarnton goes ahead to ensure Begbroke and Yarnton do not become absorbed into Kidlington. The same principle should also apply to settlements beyond the green belt.
5. G4 – Development of land south of Oxford would need a revision to the Green Belt boundary.
6. There are attractions in the green belt "swap" idea put forward by the City Council whereby giving up small areas for development would be offset by adding equivalent areas on the outside of the Green Belt.
7. A contrary view expressed was that the beginning of G4 should say "The existing Green Belt will be maintained …".
8. A query was raised over whether the Green Belt policy would allow for development at Berinsfield as referred to in 2.14. The site would provide a useful amount of development and there were reasonable transport links.

Chapter 4, Transport

1. T2 should incorporate:

• park and ride facilities to connect with coach services for longer distance journeys at motorway junctions
• secure motor cycle parking
• park and ride car schemes located in country towns.

b. 4.13 should include specific reference to improving services on the Oxford-Bicester railway line and the need to improve access to the JR and Horton hospitals.

c. T6 (second paragraph) should include reference to Wantage/Grove in view of the development proposals for this area.

d. T7 - There is a need for development of high quality service areas with HGV facilities on major long distance routes, such as A34 and A40.

e. Concern was expressed over the lack of progress on the A34 multi modal study .

Chapter 5, Protecting and Enhancing the Environment

1. EN3 was ineffective in preserving higher quality land at Didcot. There is a need to ensure that it is strengthened by deleting the caveat about "overriding need".
2. The proposals for mineral working in the Warborough area, where there are ancient monuments, are not consistent with EN6 .
3. EN6 should be:

• widened to include geological sites
• amended to give the presumption in favour of preservation absolute effect.

d. EN10, Thames Water have said that there will be a net loss of water from the County in seven years’ time – It was suggested that the Structure Plan should take this into account.

Chapter 7, Housing

1. The need to make consequential changes to housing numbers to cater for any amendment of the strategy (Chapter 2) was noted.
2. Breakdown of housing figures: see Chapter 1(b) above.
3. H1 – "Dispersal option": see Chapter 3(f) and (g) above. Opposing views were expressed on the advantages of a dispersed distribution of housing in terms of the provision of affordable housing against the problem of achieving a "critical mass" for developer contributions and public transport.
4. H2 - Opposing views were expressed on the possibility of more substantial development at Upper Heyford, as a means of absorbing housing pressures, against the disadvantages summarised in paragraph 19 on page 22 of the officers’ report.
5. H3 - Housing Density: see Chapter 2(a) above.
6. H3 - Concern that if housing has to be high density it should be well designed and of good quality. Opposition was expressed to development in the form of flats.

Chapter 8, Town Centres

1. TC2 should be strengthened by deleting the option of out of town centre sites.
2. Support was expressed for the TC2 policies on vitality and viability of town centres.
3. A suggestion was made that the Structure Plan could provide a foundation for provision and funding of town centre managers.

Chapter 9, Recreation and Leisure

1. Polices need strengthening to cover the need for leisure facilities in development areas.
2. Reference should be included to the opportunities for creation of more country parks through mineral working restoration.

Chapter 10, Energy

1. 10.8 - There were conflicting views on whether the Structure Plan should specifically rule against wind turbines, or should sanction them if in small groups or individually, or should allow for their use as being a non-polluting form of energy generation.
2. 10.4 - Reference should be included to the potential for energy generation from waste, whilst it was noted that waste heat transfer at Didcot Power Station had proved expensive.

Chapter 11. Minerals

1. M2 - Concern was expressed about the Stadhampton-Berinsfield-Warborough-Benson area proposal on grounds of the effect on open views towards the Chilterns; impact on historic settlements and the Warborough conservation area; the need to protect 5 scheduled ancient monuments; and poor transport infrastructure..
2. Reference was made to risk of bird strikes east of Wallingford, but it was noted that there has been conflicting advice from different branches of the Ministry of Defence on this issue.
3. Paragraph 11.12 should be strengthened to provide that an operator’s past performance "will" be a material consideration in determining planning applications.

Chapter 12, Waste Management

1. 12.4 – A suggestion was made that incineration should be deleted as an option in order to encourage waste reduction, re-use and other forms of recovery.
2. 12.10 - It was suggested that there should be more positive proposals to implement alternatives such as "waste to energy" in order to limit the higher cost that will be imposed by Landfill Tax increases.
3. WM3, delete the escape clause referring to "overall environmental benefit".
4. Concern was expressed over lorry movements through villages in connection with the Sutton Courtenay landfill site.
   
   Return to TOP