ITEM CA8
CABINET – 16 SEPTEMBER 2008
WESTON OTMOOR PROPOSED ECO-TOWN – PROGRESS REPORT
Report by Head of Sustainable Development
Introduction
1. Cabinet in June 2008 considered a report on the Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) consultation on eco-towns, including the proposed eco-town at Weston on the Green – Weston Otmoor – one of 15 potential locations that were being assessed. The report outlined the process for considering the various eco- town proposals and included a joint report prepared with officers from Cherwell District Council. The County Council’s response endorsed the comments in the joint report, which highlighted a number of concerns about the proposal (See Annex 1) (download as .doc file), and informed CLG that on the information available it would object strongly to the inclusion of the “Weston Otmoor” eco-town proposal in the final list of eco-town locations. This report gives an update on the process so far, outlines the next stages of the government’s consideration of the eco-town proposals and recommends a further response to CLG.
The Eco-Towns Process
2. The report to Cabinet in June outlined the various assessments that are being undertaken, which include:
· a Sustainability Appraisal (SA) of all sites, (by Scott Wilson for CLG);
· a Financial Assessment (by Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) for CLG);
· a “deliverability” assessment” (by the Advisory Team for Large Application Sites (ATLAS) for CLG);
· an assessment of the economic and social impacts on Bicester, Kidlington and other settlements (by Arup, at the instigation of the local authorities, commissioned by SEEDA and funded by CLG), and
· an assessment of the transport implications.
3. In addition, Savills have produced a report for Parkridge on the potential impact of Weston Otmoor on Bicester. Should this be advanced as evidence in support of the eco-town we shall report on it more fully, but our initial view is that it lacks credibility.
4. The assessments are in progress. The PWC work will include draft heads of terms for any S106 agreement. We have yet to see any conclusions. The Eco town Challenge Panel met twice and the Panel’s comments on the Weston Otmoor proposal following the second session are attached at Annex 2 (download as .doc file).
5. CLG and Parkridge have run consultation events about the eco town programme and Weston Otmoor. Arup, who are doing the assessment of the impact of the eco –town proposal on Bicester and nearby settlements have held workshops with local business and other interests. Shelter (the National campaign for Homeless People) have also published a CLG-funded report on Weston Otmoor which purports to set out the housing issues for Oxfordshire and the impact on housing of the eco-town at Weston Otmoor.
6. The June Cabinet report also noted that the Government expected to publish the initial sustainability appraisal (SA) in the summer together with a draft planning policy statement (PPS). The publication of the SA and draft PPS have been delayed. In July 2008 CLG published “Eco-Towns living a greener future: progress report” (www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/ecotownsprogressreport) which says that the Government will be publishing further consultation from September 2008 on more detailed assessments of 13 potential locations (bids for two locations having been withdrawn) and a draft Planning Policy Statement (PPS). In July the Government also published an Eco –towns sustainability appraisal scoping report, which includes a brief overview of eco-towns, the purpose of an eco –towns PPS and expected timescale for preparation. (See Annex 3) (download as .doc file).
Comments of Head of Sustainable Development
7. Since I last reported, the Secretary of State’s proposed changes to the South East Plan were published for consultation in July 2008 (see Agenda item...). Weston Otmoor is within the Central Oxfordshire sub-region for which there are specific policies in the draft SE Plan.
8. The Secretary of State has confirmed the overall strategy for the central Oxfordshire sub-region that was endorsed by the examining panel. Policies CO1 and CO2 emphasise Bicester’s role as a main location for housing and employment development and that greater emphasis will be given to increasing the social and economic self – containment of the town (see Annex 4) (download as .doc file). The only change to the housing provisions recommended by the Panel for the sub-region are an additional 600 houses to be built at Bicester, giving a total provision for the town of 4,900 dwellings for the period 2006 to 2026. The provision of a new settlement of up to 15,000 new dwellings and jobs next to the M40 and very close to Bicester is in direct conflict with the Government’s proposed policies for housing delivery, self-containment and economic development at Bicester, in addition to its stated policies to protect the green belt.
9. Policy H2 in the draft South East Plan refers to the need to test the longer term issues that arise from eco-town and growth point proposals such as the ultimate size of new settlements through the next review of RSS. The County Council expressed major concern about the eco-towns process pre-empting proper consideration of options through the development plan led system. The Progress Report says the Government will be seeking views on how the planning process will be applied when it consults on the draft PPS; that the Government is “… committed to the plan-led system, and our preference remains that the options for how best to meet housing need are explored in regional and local plans”; and confirms that the eco-town PPS and list of locations will be national policy and therefore a significant material consideration in determining a planning application.
10. The Council’s concerns about the process remain well founded. The RSS process has not been used properly to assess and develop location specific policy on eco-towns. If the Government were committed to explore options to meet housing need in regional and local plans, the correct approach would be simply to hand the issue of eco-town proposals in the South East over to the review of the RSS, which is expected to commence in January, so that all options could be considered together. Instead, it appears that the Government is determined to come to an early decision through the proposed PPS, which will pre-empt any wider debate on options; and leave, as indicated in the Secretary of State’s proposed modifications to the SE Plan, the RSS simply considering the issue of ultimate size of any eco-town that is supported by Government.
11. Despite CLG urging the developers to fix the main elements of the scheme by the end of July, there are still major elements that are ill-defined. In particular, information on the rail proposals is outstanding. Technical documents and emails have been received throughout the last few months and are still being received. These documents set out in more detail the still evolving aspects of the transport proposals; updating or contradicting previous information, as well as updating elements in response to Government standards contained in the Progress Report published at the end of July. Following our request, the developers are consolidating this information into a single report and Interim Transport Assessment, which we expected to receive on 22 August. We will then use this information to provide a ‘fix’ on the scheme and base our transport assessments from this point. That said, CLG has agreed in writing that work can continue on development of the strategic outputs from the Transport Assessment until the end of September, although at meetings, CLG has also set a target of the end of the year.
12. Although the promoter is expressing the intention to provide a settlement where public transport is a priority and sustainable travel patterns are promoted, we remain concerned that its location adjacent to the intersection of two major roads could create/maintain high levels of demand for car-based journeys.
13. The Cabinet report in June noted that the A34/M40 junction is already severely congested, and significant improvements would be required. The potential impact of the Weston Otmoor proposals on the highway network is being tested through the use of the Central Oxfordshire Transport Model (COTM), validated at the end of July. Halcrow (our term Transport consultants) are currently running four scenarios through the COTM, which include a reference case, which models how the area would look in 2026 if the scheme did not go ahead. It then models three other scenarios looking at the impact of the proposals in 2017 and 2026 using a variety of different assumptions. Although this modelling work is being undertaken by Halcrow it is being paid for by the developers. The outcomes of this work will be reported to the Cabinet with the response to the draft PPS in December.
14. Additional information on public transport which has come to light since the end of June, presents some of the biggest questions. A full analysis of the proposals will be provided at the December Cabinet meeting but some of the issues include the following:
(a) The developers propose that 80% of all journeys to work will be made by public transport. In this respect, the achievability of the rail offer is critical to the success of the new town. There was an extensive critique of the rail proposals provided in the last report to Cabinet. Despite the importance of rail to the proposal, it appears from discussions that Network Rail had not been involved in advising on deliverability of the rail proposals until early August. Network Rail is of the view that the proposals are not deliverable in the timescale set out by the developers, but further discussions are being held to see if the issues can be overcome. There are fundamental issues to resolve on rail, such as how the proposed high density rail use arising from this settlement can be accommodated within the overall strategic aims of the East-west rail proposals. A report on the Tram and Tram-train systems received at the end of July indicates that to overcome the issue of different platform heights between tram and train, the preference would be for a separate platform facility dedicated to tram-train, although it is not clear how this might be accommodated at Oxford Station.
(b) As referred to in the report in June a new railway / bus interchange station adjacent to the Pear Tree Park and Ride is now being proposed. Known as the ‘North Oxford Exchange Halt’, the purpose is to provide an interchange for people travelling from Weston Otmoor by train onto a series of new bus routes into and around Oxford. There are serious concerns about the ability to deliver a railway station in this location and its transport impact on a highly congested part of the county’s road network. There are also reservations about the timing of this proposal and the impact that this would have on the surrounding area, particularly the Northern Approaches work that is being progressed as part of the wider Access to Oxford project. There are also serious reservations about the appropriateness and deliverability of some of the Oxford bus routes proposed by the developers, which include proposals for a route along Pullens Lane (a private road) and Divinity Road.
15. We have recently been made aware of the Chiltern Rail proposals for improvements to the Oxford to Bicester line (including a new parkway station at Water Eaton) to provide a direct link between Oxford and London Marylebone. We have yet to reach a view on how they fit with the Council’s other aspirations for the rail network and other transportation and planning issues, including East West Rail.
16. A key element of the proposals relates to the assertion that there will be no net increase in the number of cars on the core road network (A34, M40, and A41). The developers claim that this can be achieved by removing 1,500 cars from the network in the peak hour via a 6,000 space Park and Ride facility, combined with free public transport in Weston Otmoor and a high quality train service. This would be coupled with demand management measures to restrict the number of vehicles leaving the Weston Otmoor site in the peak hour to 1,500.
17. This however, assumes that the park and ride will not attract new trips. It does not take into account vehicles on the network trying to access some of the 15,000 jobs that are proposed to be available within the town, nor deliveries or visitors to leisure facilities and so on. In addition, details about the assumptions regarding the proposed Park and Ride have not been fully explained. The proposals seem to suggest that if a rail ticket is purchased, there is no restriction on travel by car to the park and ride. The park and ride system and the demand management system also appear to operate independently. Therefore, although the demand management system can, in theory, limit those wishing to leave the town, there is no way of telling how many vehicles (if any) entering the park and ride have been removed from the strategic road network.
18. The government’s progress report points to the provision of affordable housing as a benefit of the scheme in an area of extreme affordability pressure. The developers proposal is for 4,500 affordable dwellings (Annex 5) (download as .doc file), about 30% of the 15,000 dwellings proposed; less than the Government’s SE Plan regional target of 35% and well short of the “at least 40%” of all housing in the Central Oxfordshire sub region in the proposed changes to the SE Plan. A higher provision would be expected on a major site. Significantly only 225 units (1.5% of the total) are proposed as social rented housing compared to the proposed SE Plan regional target of 25 % social rented and 10% other forms of affordable housing.
19. I reported in June that approximately 30% of the Weston Otmoor site is in the green belt. The original master plan suggested significant housing development in the green belt contrary to the government’s assertions that the eco-town proposal would not involve house building in the green belt. The developers, Parkridge, now propose that no dwellings will be built in the green belt. However, my current understanding is that as well as the rail station, shops and other businesses and services around the High Street, commercial development and transport infrastructure will be built in the green belt. The proposal as it stands is contrary to green belt policy. In reality there will be pressure to locate housing closer to the rail station and not just to the north west of A34. A real concern is that with the rail station on the edge of the settlement as now proposed, if the area is established in the PPS as an appropriate location for an eco–town, there will be pressure to develop additional land in the green belt to the south east of the proposed station.
20. We still have very significant concerns about the deliverability, practicality, timing, management and enforcement of the scheme. There has been very little information from the developers about management issues connected to the eco-town proposal. Their argument is that this will be provided later in the process if they are on the final list of eco-towns. At this stage the details of the proposal are still emerging. There is, for example, lack of reference to the social or cultural needs of the population, and the consequent infrastructure implications. The Challenge Panel (Annex 2) commented on the lack a sense of place and that “There is no doubt that the transport strategy is transformational, but there is little about the governance of the town. The transport strategy should be just part of a wider vision.”
21. A key challenge for the proponents of the eco –town is the need to ensure infrastructure and affordable housing are delivered. The Council has said already that it is unconvinced about the deliverability of the major infrastructure package that underpins the eco-town proposal. We will be in a clearer position to provide an assessment on the overall transport infrastructure budget when we report on the draft PPS later this year. We are still working on other aspects of the potential infrastructure package that we think would be required if the scheme were to proceed. Our provisional estimates are that the likely education requirements are up to 3 secondary schools, 12 - 14 primary schools and probably a special school; compared to 2 secondary and 8 primary schools in the developers submission. If the development were to proceed there would need to be very clear guarantees that a major infrastructure package is deliverable at the outset.
22. The developers appear to be seeking to provide the minimum funding for affordable housing by providing much less than is required by Government policy, an insignificant amount of social rented houses and emphasis on intermediate shared ownership housing. I think given our concerns about the overall costs of the infrastructure package that this is like to drive down affordable housing provision still further to well below 30%, contrary to the aspirations of both Oxford City Council (who have indicated support based on a minimum of 35%) and Shelter.
23. The developers have set out a development rate which is very ambitious and I think unlikely to be deliverable. The developers suggest a build rate of 1,500 per year between 2010 and 2017 reducing to 1000 to 2020. This is a much higher rate than has ever been delivered at any settlement in Oxfordshire; would represent about half of the high rates for the whole of Oxfordshire during the boom years of the 80s; and is planned at a time when the Government are also expecting the delivery of an average of c. 245 dwellings per year at Bicester. In addition, during the early years of the proposed eco-town most commentators still expect house building rates to be suffering from economic downturn. The developers propose also 15,000 new jobs by 2020 and suggest that 11,400 jobs will be provided by 2017. By comparison in the proposed modifications to the SE Plan, the Government includes an estimate that 18,000 new jobs will be created between 2006 and 2016 in the whole of the Central Oxfordshire sub-region (including growth at Oxford and in the buoyant southern central Oxfordshire area around Harwell and Milton Park). The proposals for Weston Otmoor appear very ambitious in this context.
24. A major problem for the developers is to demonstrate that the high rate of housing and commercial development that is envisaged is feasible. In terms of both past experience in Oxfordshire, current market conditions and what is planned for Oxfordshire I doubt that the developers can deliver what they propose; and in particular will not deliver sufficient affordable housing. The result could be a significant mismatch between housing and job growth, with major implications for commuting to and from the site. A related concern is that because Parkridge are part owned by Pro-logis, primarily a distribution company, more land and jobs than proposed could be in warehousing/distribution. Parkridge representatives have stated in meetings that a key attraction of the location from an economic point of view is its position next to a motorway junction.
25. In conclusion, I remain of the view that the proposal is contrary to national and regional policies, in particular green belt and policies for central Oxfordshire. The delivery of a major package of transport infrastructure underpins the delivery of the proposed settlement. There is a very high risk that the developer’s overall strategy would fail to deliver the infrastructure that would be needed to support the development, unless there was significant support from Government.
Financial and Staff Implications
26. The proposed eco town is having a major impact on staff resources and time. It is affecting other work areas, for example input to the preparation of local development frameworks, which are a key aspect of the government’s housing delivery programme. This problem will become more acute with the extended timetable for assessment of the eco town proposal now running until at least January 2009.The possibility of additional funding support from CLG is being pursued. In the long term if the Weston Otmoor proposal is included in the final list of proposals it will have major implications for staff, financial resources and service provision.
RECOMMENDATION
27. The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to endorse the comments in paragraphs 5 to 23 above, and reiterate that on the information available would object strongly to the inclusion of the “Weston Otmoor” eco-town proposal in the final list of eco-towns locations, in particular on the grounds that:
(a) the proposal is contrary to the policies in the South East Plan, as proposed by the Secretary of State;
(b) the proposal would have a significantly detrimental impact on the implementation of planned development of Bicester and the promotion of Bicester as a major employment location in northern Central Oxfordshire;
(c) the Council remains unconvinced about the deliverability of the major infrastructure package that underpins the eco-town proposal;
(d) there is a lack of clarity about the overall eco credentials of the “Weston Otmoor” proposal; and
(e) the Council has major concerns about the proposals for affordable housing and employment.
CHRIS COUSINS Head of Sustainable Development Environment & Economy
Background papers: 1. Initial Transport Assessment; Waterman Civils, 9 5.08 (received 21.6.08); 2. Technical Note 1: Transyt Model – Access Route to Weston Otmoor; Waterman Civils, 13 June 08; 3. Technical Note 2: Where People Live and Work, June 2008; 4. Response to Oxfordshire County Council’s Modelling Scenarios and Questions for the Transport assessment Work paper of May 08, 13.6 08; 5. Response to Highway Agency’s letters of 11th and 24th June 2008; 30.6.08; 6. Weston Otmoor Vehicle Management System, Concept Design Report; Capita Symonds, 4.7.08; 7. Weston Otmoor Transportation proposals Summary; Parkridge, undated (received 97.08); 8. Weston Otmoor Eco-town Tram and Tram-train systems; Mott MacDonald, 24/7/08 9. Transport assessment: Central Oxfordshire Traffic Model - Response to Halcrow Technical Note on Model Capabilities and Modelling Scenarios, 30.6.08 10. Figure 23: Weston Otmoor Eco-village – Proposed new bus routes from North Oxford Exchange Halt’; Parkridge, 30.7.08
Contact Officer: Ian Walker Tel; 01865 815588
September 2008
|