Agenda item

To receive and consider report 96/08 of the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy). 

Introduction and Report Summary

The Government is consulting on the proposed changes it intends to make to the draft South East Plan that will guide development in the region to 2026.  The closing date for comments is 24 October 2008. Members will recall that the draft plan was prepared by the South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA).  It was submitted to Government in March 2006 and after a period of consultation an examination in public was held (November 2006 – March 2007) where an independent panel of planning inspectors tested the plan for soundness.  The report of the panel, including their recommended changes, was published in August 2007.  The Council made comments on the panel’s recommendations (see report to Executive October 2007). 

Three key documents have been received

·      a schedule of the changes proposed to the draft plan with the Secretary of State’s reasons for doing so (532 pages)

·      a sustainability appraisal and habitats regulation assessment (40 pages) and

·      a companion document showing what the final plan would look like if all the changes proposed were incorporated (313 pages).

These documents are available for public inspection at the local services point and the members lounge in Abbey House.  They can also be viewed on the Government Office web site at www.gose.gov.uk/planning/regional planning  and there is an item for information on the Council’s web site.

Section 4 of this report very briefly summarises the key changes proposed and focuses on the implications of the changes for Central Oxfordshire and the Vale.   The South East Plan is important as when approved it will replace the Oxfordshire Structure Plan and along with key documents in the Council’s Local Development Framework it will form the development plan.  All plans and strategies of the Council must take the development plan into account, and applications for planning permission should be determined in accordance with it. 

The contact officer for this report is Katie Barrett (Development Policy Manager) telephone (01235 540339).  E-mail address:  

katie.barrett@whitehorsedc.gov.uk

Recommendations

The Advisory Group recommends the Executive to inform the Secretary of State for the Environment that the Council:

(a)       Broadly supports the proposed changes to simplify the structure and format of the South East Plan, in particular the definition of a clear spatial strategy, and make the wording clearer, more focused and more succinct than in the draft plan.  However, the focus for Central Oxfordshire should be managed economic growth as this more accurately reflects the policies for the sub region.  It is also regrettable that some proposed policies that set out the approach local authorities should take when preparing LDFs in the form of a list of criteria (e.g. Policy C7) have not been expressed as general policies that could be used to determine applications – this would have obviated the need for policies in local development documents covering the same matters.

(b)       The changes to the wording from general intentions to a more positive approach, and the use of the word ‘will’ rather than ‘should’, put a much greater onus on the local authorities to deliver, particularly through the LDF process.  Whilst this is not unreasonable, or the tasks difficult in themselves, the implications for local authorities are considerable.  LDFs are required to have a greater scope, give greater certainty and detail early in the development process, and cover a much longer time period than the local plans they replace.  The Government should not expect such plans to be delivered more quickly than old style local plans particularly in view of the need to consider all reasonable options, the much greater emphasis on a robust evidence base, limited public funds (including the requirement for year-on-year efficiency savings), the shortage of experienced planning staff and the demands being put by all local authorities on the service providers who may be unable to respond fully in the timescales set out.

(c)       The Council objects to the removal of the conditionality clause in policy CC7, which stated development would only be allowed if there was the infrastructure to support it, as, particularly through the development control process, it could result in unsustainable development and lead to a continuation of past trends of under investment in the region that could damage its social and economic strengths.  The Government should recognise that councils cannot be held responsible for those aspects of delivery they do not control: the market and Government spending on infrastructure and affordable housing play a large part.  The need for infrastructure to support the social well-being and economic vitality of the South East should be fully reflected in future Government spending reviews.

(d)       While there is no objection to the deletion of the policy on strategic gaps at the regional level, the reasons for doing so must not preclude such designations at the local level.  The panel recognised this may be necessary where gaps between settlements cannot be protected by landscape and other policies.  PPS7 is not sufficient to prevent the coalescence of settlements where the open gaps are very narrow.

(e)       There should be references to the need to ensure inter-regional connectivity, including with the South West region, in the text introducing the spatial strategy.

(f)        The Council objects to policy RE1 as it should refer to employment land reviews being the basis for the provision of employment land in LDFs. As worded it would allow for the release of more employment land than justified by employment land reviews in response to something as ill defined as changes in the global economy. It pushes down to a local level decisions that should be made at the national or regional level and could result in speculative applications and subsequent appeal decisions leading to a significant over development of employment land in some areas in relation to the level of housing and other planned infrastructure,  which would not be sustainable.  The Government should set out in the RSS what levels of employment development will be appropriate. Otherwise the decision over the level of development in the most important area of the UK for employment will be left up to individual Councils. This approach contradicts the early review of employment land suggested under policy RE3.

(g)       Policy RE5 refers to local authorities enabling businesses to operate as efficiently as possible in relation to movement. There should be recognition that the means to effect improvements in movement lie outside the hands of local authorities and are the responsibility of Government. Councils cannot improve the capacity of trunk roads, motorways or railways. Without Government support on this aspect Councils cannot operate this.

(h)       While the Council is pleased that the overall level of housing in the district has increased by only 60 houses over the 20 years, it objects to policy H1 as it does not give clear strategic guidance on the levels of housing development to be planned for, and fails to give certainty to communities, service providers and developers.  Although there are figures for the minimum number of houses to be provided in each area, local development frameworks are expected to test higher levels of housing development.  These are key strategic matters that should be resolved at the regional level and not in an ad hoc way through a myriad of local development documents.  It puts additional demands on an already complex LDF process and it is not at all clear how local authorities will know whether they have done sufficient testing and whether any increase proposed will be in general conformity with the overall strategy of the RSS.  Furthermore the approach could leave the way open for decisions to be taken on higher levels of growth through the development control process.  Especially when taken in conjunction with policy RE1, it undermines the ability to plan comprehensively for balanced housing and employment growth and the provision of infrastructure and services to meet the needs of new development.  It undermines the objectives of sustainable housing and the validity of the sustainability appraisal undertaken at the regional level.  The reference to the housing figures being minimal should therefore be deleted and any increase sought should be determined through a review of the South East Plan.  The Council also objects to the reference to councils assessing the ability to accelerate the rate of housing delivery in the new growth points (which includes Didcot) as this is something that should be assessed through the review of the South East Plan.

(i)        If the Government retains the figures in policy H1 as minima, clarification is required that the need to provide a ‘minimum annual average’ rate of housing does not mean that over provision in one year will not count towards the overall total, or that the requirement to plan for an upward trajectory of housing completions does not necessitate a year on year increase in completions.   In  addition it is not at all clear how local authorities are to test the longer term issues arising from eco-towns through emerging LDFs when so little is known about them – this should be something the Government takes into account when it assesses whether particular proposals should be pursued.

(j)        The Council objects to policy NRM3 as the Environment Agency has concluded that currently it cannot support Thames Water’s proposed reservoir.  If the reservoir is not required to be as large as currently proposed, then in the Council’s view there is no need for it to be located in Oxfordshire.  The geographic reference to the Upper Thames Reservoir being in Oxfordshire should therefore be removed from policy NRM 3.

For Central Oxfordshire and the Rest of the Vale

(k)        While the objective of improving self containment of towns is generally supported, the plan must recognise that much of the employment for Didcot and Wantage/Grove will be provided at Milton Park and Harwell. Policy CO1 should seek the self containment of the Quadrant area as a whole and not the individual settlements.

(l)         The redistribution of some dwellings from the Central Oxfordshire part of the Vale to the figures for the rest of the district although small is welcome (policies CO1 and AOSR1).

(m)      The Council objects to the way the south Oxford strategic development area (SDA) has been justified. The regional imperative to deliver higher housing numbers could be met elsewhere in the South East: therefore it is not an exceptional circumstance that over-rides Green Belt policy.  Furthermore the Western Otmoor eco-town as proposed would provide housing linked to Oxford by a fast, free and frequent public transport services. It is not, therefore correct to say at this stage that there is a lack of alternatives to the strategic development area.

(n)       The Council objects to proposed paragraph 22.15 and the last sentence of paragraph 22.20. As worded there is no guidance on who will judge whether the land south of Oxford is unsuitable for development.  It is not realistic to assume that the local authorities would agree alternative locations for the 4,000 homes proposed for this area.  Even if agreement could be reached it is difficult to see how this could be tested at examination – which could involve two or more different LDFs and would seriously prejudice public involvement in the process.  Such proposals would not be in general conformity with the South East Plan and could result in legal challenges.  The desire for flexibility to achieve the building rates proposed creates considerable uncertainty and may affect delivery.  Furthermore it is not consistent with the Government’s previous insistence that for Didcot the Oxfordshire Structure Plan had to clearly apportion the housing requirement to particular districts. If there are serious doubts whether the SDA south of Oxford is deliverable it should not be included in the Plan.   Given recent statements that the Government is reducing its overall target of 240,000 new homes a year to 210,000 and the current debate about a possible eco town at Weston Otmoor, the need for additional homes on the edge of Oxford should be deleted from this plan and reassessed through the review of the South East Plan.  This would also give the opportunity to fully assess whether the location chosen for development is deliverable.  It is noted that SEERA’s report to the regional planning committee objects to the south Oxford SDA as the preferred spatial option should be based on growth at Bicester, Didcot, Wantage & Grove and within the built up area of Oxford.  However, this strategy was based on significantly lower level of development.  This ability to deliver an increase in numbers in these locations and the implications for traffic accessing Oxford have not been tested, therefore no increase in housing numbers elsewhere should be made or alluded to in this Plan.

(o)       The policy in the spatial strategy section of the plan (SP5) requires selective reviews of the Green Belt including to the south of the Oxford to accommodate an extension to Oxford city: by definition of it is demonstrated that land in South Oxfordshire is unsuitable, then to comply with the policy it would fall to the Vale to undertake a review of Green Belt in its area as it is the only other authority with land south of the city.  Unlike land to the north of the city, the County Council has never proposed an urban extension to Oxford in this district.  If the Government retains the strategic development area south of Oxford in the Plan and if subsequently a case is made that an urban extension cannot be built in South Oxfordshire, alternative locations must be considered through a review of the South East Plan.  The wording of policies SP5 and CO4 should be changed to ‘a selective review of Green Belt boundaries is required in the following locations’.  This would mean that if the review failed in South Oxfordshire it would not follow that there should be a further review south of the city.  In no other areas where a review is proposed does the South East Plan require a wider review to deliver alternative locations if the area proposed for the development is not achievable.  In addition it is not reasonable for the review of the Green Belt to safeguard land for development to at least 2031 based on the rate of development proposed in the SDA to 2026.  The SDA is proposed to meet the requirements of the period to 2026: what happens beyond then should be judged afresh and not simply continue the growth proposed in this plan period.

(p)       Changes in the transport section referring to prioritising transport schemes that aid delivery of the sub-regional strategy, improving the links between homes and jobs in the Didcot-Wantage and Grove corridor, and local schemes including improving the A415 and providing the Marcham bypass are welcome.  However, it should be pointed out that in a relatively large and mainly rural area with only one rail station, the car will remain the dominant mode of travel.

(q)       There should be recognition of the status of the larger market towns (such as Abingdon) in the policy or explanatory text of policies BE4 and/or CO1.  They currently have the same policy approach as villages, yet they are sustainable locations that could accommodate development that meets the need of a wider area than just the needs of that community.

(Time: 3.33pm to 3.36pm)

The Executive received and considered report 96/08 of the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) that set out proposed changes to the South East Plan to 2026 as they affected the Vale.  The report also set out recommendations from the Strategic and Local Planning Advisory Group on the response that should be made to the Secretary of State. 

The Executive concurred with the views of the Advisory Group, particularly surrounding the removal of the conditionality clause in policy CC7, which stated development would only be allowed if there was the infrastructure to support it, as it could result in unsustainable development.  Members considered that councils could not be held responsible for the aspects of infrastructure delivery they could not control. 

RESOLVED

that the Secretary of State for the Environment be informed that this Council:

(a)       Broadly supports the proposed changes to simplify the structure and format of the South East Plan, in particular the definition of a clear spatial strategy, and make the wording clearer, more focused and more succinct than in the draft plan.  However, the focus for Central Oxfordshire should be managed economic growth as this more accurately reflects the policies for the sub region.  It is also regrettable that some proposed policies that set out the approach local authorities should take when preparing Local Development Frameworks in the form of a list of criteria (e.g. Policy C7) have not been expressed as general policies that could be used to determine applications – this would have obviated the need for policies in local development documents covering the same matters;

(b)       The changes to the wording from general intentions to a more positive approach, and the use of the word ‘will’ rather than ‘should’, put a much greater onus on the local authorities to deliver, particularly through the Local Development Framework process.  Whilst this is not unreasonable, or the tasks difficult in themselves, the implications for local authorities are considerable.  Local Development Frameworks are required to have a greater scope, give greater certainty and detail early in the development process, and cover a much longer time period than the local plans they replace.  The Government should not expect such plans to be delivered more quickly than old style local plans particularly in view of the need to consider all reasonable options, the much greater emphasis on a robust evidence base, limited public funds (including the requirement for year-on-year efficiency savings), the shortage of experienced planning staff and the demands being put by all local authorities on the service providers who may be unable to respond fully in the timescales set out;

(c)        The Council objects to the removal of the conditionality clause in policy CC7, which stated development would only be allowed if there was the infrastructure to support it, as, particularly through the development control process, it could result in unsustainable development and lead to a continuation of past trends of under investment in the region that could damage its social and economic strengths.  The Government should recognise that councils cannot be held responsible for those aspects of delivery they do not control: the market and Government spending on infrastructure and affordable housing play a large part.  The need for infrastructure to support the social well-being and economic vitality of the South East should be fully reflected in future Government spending reviews;

(d)       While there is no objection to the deletion of the policy on strategic gaps at the regional level, the reasons for doing so must not preclude such designations at the local level.  The panel recognised this may be necessary where gaps between settlements cannot be protected by landscape and other policies.  Planning Policy Statement 7 (PPS7) is not sufficient to prevent the coalescence of settlements where the open gaps are very narrow;

(e)       There should be references to the need to ensure inter-regional connectivity, including with the South West region, in the text introducing the spatial strategy;

(f)         The Council objects to policy RE1 as it should refer to employment land reviews being the basis for the provision of employment land in Local Development Frameworks. As worded it would allow for the release of more employment land than justified by employment land reviews in response to something as ill defined as changes in the global economy. It pushes down to a local level decisions that should be made at the national or regional level and could result in speculative applications and subsequent appeal decisions leading to a significant over development of employment land in some areas in relation to the level of housing and other planned infrastructure,  which would not be sustainable.  The Government should set out in the Regional Spatial Strategy what levels of employment development will be appropriate. Otherwise the decision over the level of development in the most important area of the UK for employment will be left up to individual Councils. This approach contradicts the early review of employment land suggested under policy RE3;

(g)       Policy RE5 refers to local authorities enabling businesses to operate as efficiently as possible in relation to movement. There should be recognition that the means to effect improvements in movement lie outside the hands of local authorities and are the responsibility of Government. Councils cannot improve the capacity of trunk roads, motorways or railways. Without Government support on this aspect Councils cannot operate this;

(h)       While the Council is pleased that the overall level of housing in the district has increased by only 60 houses over the 20 years, it objects to policy H1 as it does not give clear strategic guidance on the levels of housing development to be planned for, and fails to give certainty to communities, service providers and developers.  Although there are figures for the minimum number of houses to be provided in each area, local development frameworks are expected to test higher levels of housing development.  These are key strategic matters that should be resolved at the regional level and not in an ad hoc way through a myriad of local development documents.  It puts additional demands on an already complex Local Development Framework process and it is not at all clear how local authorities will know whether they have done sufficient testing and whether any increase proposed will be in general conformity with the overall strategy of the Regional Spatial Strategy.  Furthermore the approach could leave the way open for decisions to be taken on higher levels of growth through the development control process.  Especially when taken in conjunction with policy RE1, it undermines the ability to plan comprehensively for balanced housing and employment growth and the provision of infrastructure and services to meet the needs of new development.  It undermines the objectives of sustainable housing and the validity of the sustainability appraisal undertaken at the regional level.  The reference to the housing figures being minimal should therefore be deleted and any increase sought should be determined through a review of the South East Plan.  The Council also objects to the reference to councils assessing the ability to accelerate the rate of housing delivery in the new growth points (which includes Didcot) as this is something that should be assessed through the review of the South East Plan;

(i)         If the Government retains the figures in policy H1 as minima, clarification is required that the need to provide a ‘minimum annual average’ rate of housing does not mean that over provision in one year will not count towards the overall total, or that the requirement to plan for an upward trajectory of housing completions does not necessitate a year on year increase in completions.   In  addition it is not at all clear how local authorities are to test the longer term issues arising from eco-towns through emerging Local Development Frameworks when so little is known about them – this should be something the Government takes into account when it assesses whether particular proposals should be pursued;

(j)         The Council objects to policy NRM3 as the Environment Agency has concluded that currently it cannot support Thames Water’s proposed reservoir.  If the reservoir is not required to be as large as currently proposed, then in the Council’s view there is no need for it to be located in Oxfordshire.  The geographic reference to the Upper Thames Reservoir being in Oxfordshire should therefore be removed from policy NRM 3;

In relation to the Central Oxfordshire policy area and the Rest of the Vale policy area:

(k)       While the objective of improving self containment of towns is generally supported, the plan must recognise that much of the employment for Didcot and Wantage/Grove will be provided at Milton Park and Harwell. Policy CO1 should seek the self containment of the Quadrant area as a whole and not the individual settlements;

(l)        The redistribution of some dwellings from the Central Oxfordshire part of the Vale to the figures for the rest of the district although small is welcome (policies CO1 and AOSR1);

(m)      The Council objects to the way the south Oxford strategic development area has been justified. The regional imperative to deliver higher housing numbers could be met elsewhere in the South East: therefore it is not an exceptional circumstance that over-rides Green Belt policy.  Furthermore the Western Otmoor eco-town as proposed would provide housing linked to Oxford by a fast, free and frequent public transport services. It is not, therefore correct to say at this stage that there is a lack of alternatives to the strategic development area;

(n)       The Council objects to proposed paragraph 22.15 and the last sentence of paragraph 22.20. As worded there is no guidance on who will judge whether the land south of Oxford is unsuitable for development.  It is not realistic to assume that the local authorities would agree alternative locations for the 4,000 homes proposed for this area.  Even if agreement could be reached it is difficult to see how this could be tested at examination – which could involve two or more different Local Development Frameworks and would seriously prejudice public involvement in the process.  Such proposals would not be in general conformity with the South East Plan and could result in legal challenges.  The desire for flexibility to achieve the building rates proposed creates considerable uncertainty and may affect delivery.  Furthermore it is not consistent with the Government’s previous insistence that for Didcot the Oxfordshire Structure Plan had to clearly apportion the housing requirement to particular districts. If there are serious doubts whether the strategic development area south of Oxford is deliverable it should not be included in the Plan.   Given recent statements that the Government is reducing its overall target of 240,000 new homes a year to 210,000 and the current debate about a possible eco town at Weston Otmoor, the need for additional homes on the edge of Oxford should be deleted from this plan and reassessed through the review of the South East Plan.  This would also give the opportunity to fully assess whether the location chosen for development is deliverable.  It is noted that the South East England Regional Assembly’s report to the regional planning committee objects to the south Oxford strategic development area as the preferred spatial option should be based on growth at Bicester, Didcot, Wantage & Grove and within the built up area of Oxford.  However, this strategy was based on significantly lower level of development.  This ability to deliver an increase in numbers in these locations and the implications for traffic accessing Oxford have not been tested, therefore no increase in housing numbers elsewhere should be made or alluded to in this Plan;

(o)       The policy in the spatial strategy section of the plan (SP5) requires selective reviews of the Green Belt including to the south of the Oxford to accommodate an extension to Oxford city: by definition of it is demonstrated that land in South Oxfordshire is unsuitable, then to comply with the policy it would fall to the Vale to undertake a review of Green Belt in its area as it is the only other authority with land south of the city.  Unlike land to the north of the city, the County Council has never proposed an urban extension to Oxford in this district.  If the Government retains the strategic development area south of Oxford in the Plan and if subsequently a case is made that an urban extension cannot be built in South Oxfordshire, alternative locations must be considered through a review of the South East Plan.  The wording of policies SP5 and CO4 should be changed to ‘a selective review of Green Belt boundaries is required in the following locations’.  This would mean that if the review failed in South Oxfordshire it would not follow that there should be a further review south of the city.  In no other areas where a review is proposed does the South East Plan require a wider review to deliver alternative locations if the area proposed for the development is not achievable.  In addition it is not reasonable for the review of the Green Belt to safeguard land for development to at least 2031 based on the rate of development proposed in the strategic development area to 2026.  The strategic development area is proposed to meet the requirements of the period to 2026: what happens beyond then should be judged afresh and not simply continue the growth proposed in this plan period;

(p)       Changes in the transport section referring to prioritising transport schemes that aid delivery of the sub-regional strategy, improving the links between homes and jobs in the Didcot-Wantage and Grove corridor, and local schemes including improving the A415 and providing the Marcham bypass are welcome.  However, it should be pointed out that in a relatively large and mainly rural area with only one rail station, the car will remain the dominant mode of travel; and

(q)       There should be recognition of the status of the larger market towns (such as Abingdon) in the policy or explanatory text of policies BE4 and/or CO1.  They currently have the same policy approach as villages, yet they are sustainable locations that could accommodate development that meets the need of a wider area than just the needs of that community.