Skip to content

What are you looking for?

Comment

Local Plan reviews – Oxfordshire, the Vale of White Horse and Growth Deals

Local planning authorities are required under Regulation 10A of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 (as amended) to complete a review of their Local Plan every five years, starting from the date of adoption of the Local Plan. Director, David Murray-Cox considers the current situation of Local Plans across Oxfordshire authorities and their potential impact on future developments.

So far, two of the authorities in the Oxfordshire region have undertaken reviews of their Local Plans under Regulation 10A. In the first such review, towards the end of 2020, Cherwell District Council concluded that the housing requirement in the Local Plan should not be reviewed. In the second review, where circumstances are similar, the Vale of White Horse District Council has decided to review its housing requirements.

For the last few years, Government and the Oxfordshire authorities (Cherwell, Oxford City, Oxfordshire County, South Oxfordshire, Vale of White Horse and West Oxfordshire) have been signatories to the Oxfordshire Housing & Growth Deal. Amongst a series of commitments, the authorities receive very significant sums of money (in excess of £200m) to support infrastructure and affordable housing (in addition to other sources of funding such as the Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF)). From their side, the authorities agreed to plan for 100,000 homes between 2011 and 2031.

At this juncture, it is important to note that each of the authorities (with the exception of Oxfordshire County of course) has now adopted a Local Plan which is based upon the ‘mid-point’ of their objectively assessed need under the county-wide Strategic Housing Market Assessment (which underpins the 100,000 figure in the Deal). The exception to the rule is Oxford City Council which has adopted a ‘capacity-led’ Plan, but that is an important factor in its own right as it has long been known that the city is unable to accommodate its own needs. With that in mind, the Local Plans adopted by other authorities also make provision in their Local Plans, but in different ways, for the ‘apportioned’ unmet needs of the city. For example:

  • Cherwell District adopted a Local Plan (2015) including a housing requirement for its needs, and then adopted a Partial Review (2020) which allocates additional sites (but makes no comment in relation to the requirement) to address the city’s need;
  • South Oxfordshire adopted a Local Plan (2020) which includes a requirement to meet both its needs and those of the city;
  • The Vale of White Horse adopted a ‘Local Plan Part 1’ (2016) including a housing requirement for its needs and then adopted a ‘Local Plan Part 2’ (2019) which amongst other matters addresses the apportioned needs of the city; and
  • West Oxfordshire adopted a Local Plan (2020) which includes a requirement to meet both its needs and those of the city.

The significance of Local Plans in Oxfordshire should not be understated. They are the vehicles by which the authorities have set out how the levels of growth in the Deal are to be provided. In at least three cases (South Oxfordshire, Vale of White Horse and West Oxfordshire) those Plans are structured in such a way that they are designed to address the needs of that authority and the apportioned needs of the city, in the wider context of the authorities planning for 100,000 homes in the county by 2031. That means that the five year housing land supply position is calculated against the combined requirement (for the district and the city). 

The combined calculation means that there is a remedy (using the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable) if/when a housing land supply shortfall arises which enables that authority to continue playing its role in addressing the levels of growth expected in the county.

The Vale of White Horse District Council Cabinet meeting on 3 December agreed with the advice of officers, that its housing requirement should be reduced to reflect the Standard Method, with an additional level of growth for the needs of the city. That decision was made despite the advice of officers that there were various reasons why the existing requirement should be maintained.

This raises two fundamental concerns. 

  • The first arises from whether the Oxfordshire authorities can now, collectively (and the Vale in particular), claim that they are firmly behind the growth expectations which underpin the Deal. Will the Vale’s decision be the impetus for others to follow suit and how will other authorities beyond Oxfordshire which might be in areas of economic growth react?
  • The second concern is procedural. The Vale adopted its Local Plan in two parts, with the first (which is now five years old) setting out a housing requirement solely for its needs. The second (which is not yet five years old) then addressed the apportionment of Oxford city’s unmet needs and refers to a ‘housing requirement’ or ‘target’ of the two figures in combination. Indeed, a table in the LPP2 policies which includes the combined requirement is said to ‘supersede’ that in part 1. The Vale of White Horse’s own Housing Land Supply Statement (June 2021) explains that the housing requirement is set out in LPP2 (not LPP1).  Despite this, the council has concluded that it can, and will, review its housing requirement downwards.

It will be particularly interesting to see whether this decision stands the test of time, through whatever means it might be contested, but it is hard to see how this is anything other than a retrograde step in an area with affordability issues and where significant economic growth is anticipated, and little more than an attempt by the LPA to manufacture a healthier housing land supply.

If you have interests in the Oxfordshire region and would like further information or advice on what the Local Plan reviews mean for you, please get in touch with David Murray-Cox.

17 December 2021

You may also be interested in