Agenda item

Report Content: Paul Staines, Growth Board Programme Manager

Purpose of the report

To provide the Growth Board with a report on the findings of the Post SHMA Strategic Work Programme (the Programme), to recommend the adoption of the proposed apportionment  of the unmet housing need for Oxford and approval of a Memorandum of Co-operation including both the apportionment and timetable for delivery of Oxford’s unmet housing need as derived through the Programme.

Recommendation

The Growth Board is recommended to:

(a)               Approve the apportionment of the agreed working figure for the unmet housing need for Oxford, in the interest of complying with the Duty to Co-operate.

(b)               Approve the attached Memorandum of Co-operation setting out the apportionment and timetable for delivery of the unmet housing need for Oxford.

(c)        Formally recommend the approved apportionment to each of the Oxfordshire Local Planning Authorities for consideration in the preparation of their Local Plans, in the interest of meeting the objectively assessed housing needs for Oxfordshire.

The Oxfordshire Growth Board had before it a report on the findings of the Post SHMA Strategic Work Programme (the Programme), that recommended the adoption of the proposed apportionment of the unmet housing need for Oxford and approval of a Memorandum of Co-operation including both the apportionment and timetable for delivery of Oxford’s unmet housing need as derived through the Programme.

Paul Staines, Growth Board Programme Manager, in introducing the contents of the report stressed that the areas of search identified were not to be taken as proposed for development sites but were, as made clear in the report and appendix, evidence of Districts’ ability to meet part of Oxford’s unmet housing need. He explained the chronology of the Programme and how Officers had arrived at the recommendations in the report and finally set out the recommendations. He highlighted adherence to the set of 5 principles drawn up by leaders and the Board as guidance for the programme as evidence of its successful conclusion.

Councillor Cotton, Leader, South Oxfordshire District Council indicated that he had a long list of questions covering the detail in the report that he would send separately to officers for them to respond to but that at the meeting he wanted to raise some issues.

On transportation he queried whether officers were aware of the bias towards areas of deprivation. He also queried the lower score for transport of the Culham site, which was adjacent to a station, when compared to Grenoble Road, asking whether its scoring under the heading of accessibility to Oxford was correct.

On jobs a lot of weight had been given to the proximity to jobs. However he noted that these were existing jobs and he queried what effort had been made to identify future growth in jobs. He queried where the 5 key employment sites in the City were and he further queried how many jobs were associated with them over what period. Bev Hindle responded that existing jobs was the basis of the assessment since we were examining proximity to existing nodes of employment rather than new sites that might come forward.

On education Councillor Cotton suggested that the information provided was not transparent and that it would be good to see it school by school. He questioned the information sitting behind the assessment/scoring suggesting that it was based on misinformation about the long term capacity of sites. Bev Hindle, responded to the concerns commenting that there was a balance between current need and potential.

Councillor Cotton also questioned the density figures quoted for Oxford which he felt were incorrect and that current density was lower than quoted. He also referred to criteria that underpinned the assessment of their areas of search considered in the Programme and questioned whether excessive weight had been given proximity to or communication lines with Universities Bev Hindle indicated that the Executive Officers Group had felt that the weighting given was correct. They had not consulted with the Universities as proximity to or access to university facilities is a matter of fact..

Councillor Cotton remained unconvinced that every option had been pursued for meeting the need in Oxford and highlighted the greyhound site referred to by one of the earlier speakers as a site that could potentially accommodate housing that then need not be provided by the rural districts. He concluded that without such certainty he was unable to support adding to South Oxfordshire County Council’s existing high housing need figure. He would therefore be unable to sign the Memorandum of Cooperation. However he stressed that nonetheless he would continue to co-operate and discussions would continue.

During further discussion the remaining members of the Growth Board generally supported the recommendations and agreed to sign the Memorandum of Co-operation. They recognised its importance as a vehicle in order to demonstrate their compliance with the Duty to Co-operate and that it was important in order to progress Local Plans. They highlighted all the work that had gone into the final report. It was emphasised that the sites set out in the document were indicative, were not intended to propose, suggest or even infer where housing should be developed and that the decision on where housing was to be provided lay with the District Councils as the Local Planning Authorities through their Local Plans. Councillor Barber proposed an amendment, to the Memorandum of Cooperation which was seconded and agreed, to make this clear.

Following a vote, by a show of hands, it was:

RESOLVED:             (by 5 votes for to 1 against) to:

(a)       approve the apportionment of the agreed working figure for the unmet housing need for Oxford, in the interest of complying with the Duty to Co-operate;

(b)       approve the attached Memorandum of Co-operation setting out the apportionment and timetable for delivery of the unmet housing need for Oxford, subject to the following addition as a new 3.6 to Section 3:

3.6 The Programme does not identify, propose, recommend or seek to identify, propose or recommend any site or sites for additional housing within any district. Each LPA will remain responsible for the allocation of housing sites within its own district and through its own Local Plan process.

N.B In light of the vote officers were authorised to make such minor editing changes to reflect that South Oxfordshire District Council will not be signing the Memorandum of Cooperation.

(c)       formally recommend the approved apportionment to each of the Oxfordshire Local Planning Authorities for consideration in the preparation of their Local Plans, in the interest of meeting the objectively assessed housing needs for Oxfordshire.