The Panel concludes that there is sufficient justification for the sub-region, not least because it feels there are enough challenges to merit a new approach in the area that will not simply deliver previous structure plan growth policy. This is proven by the view that alternative options for higher levels of growth were inadequately tested. It also concludes that the boundaries for the sub-region are justified.
Core Strategy
The Panel recommends that there is more recognition in the strategy about the inter-relationships between the adjoining sub-regions and in particular, acknowledgement of the Oxford to Cambridge Arc. It feels that the main divergence of views at the EiP was whether the economic potential of the area could be ‘Oxford-centred’ or one that distributes growth to the surrounding towns. Key
to the conclusions is whether there is sufficient justification for a release of Green Belt. The Panel concludes that the growth needs of the sub-region will have to be met through a parallel approach of Oxford with growth in Didcot, Wantage/Grove and Bicester, with a strategic urban extension to Oxford which it feels can be accommodated “without damaging its setting but with significant
benefits to the economy and housing affordability”. It feels that its recommendations for the strategy would strengthen the polycentric nature of the area whilst accommodating the needs of Oxford City.
Economy
The Panel rejects the job estimate put forward by the Assembly (16,600) opting for a trend based figure of 18,000 as the monitoring estimate for 2006-2016.
On employment land, the Panel concludes that it would be wrong for Oxford to rely primarily on previously developed land and although there is no numerical evidence that new employment land will be needed, it was persuaded that some new land will be needed. The strategy should therefore acknowledge that a range of opportunities will be needed in both Oxford and the surrounding towns.
The Panel has concerns about the imbalance in labour and jobs and that this is likely to worsen over the second half of the plan period. Its recommendations on housing provision and distribution aim to address this in part.
Settlement Shaping
Although the Panel supports the function of the Green Belt as set out in Policy CO3, it acknowledged that the most recent Structure Plan EiP Panel envisaged that changes to the boundary may be needed in the future. It concludes that there are exceptional circumstances to justify a review of the Green Belt.
The Panel accepts that transport needs were used to shape the strategy; there was no testing of alternative transport impacts because the spatial options’ testing was “relatively superficial”.
On water supply, the Panel concludes that, assuming a new supply is provided (through an Upper Thames Reservoir) this should have no impact on housing distribution. Nor are there any overriding constraints in terms of water quality.
Although not all the Strategic Flood Risk Assessments were completed, the Panel was satisfied that this had been taken into account.
Housing
The Panel recommends that housing provision should be 40,100 (2,005 dpa) to reflect “regional imperatives” (including economic potential) and the needs of Oxford city. This is an increase of 6,100 (305 dpa). This includes provision in the New Growth Points at Didcot and Oxford, and a strategic urban extension of 4,000 dwellings (Strategic Development Area) by 2026 on the southern edge
of Oxford which will require a “highly focused selective” review of the Green Belt. To deliver this, Oxford City Council and South Oxfordshire DC should develop a joint Area Action Plan if their LDF core strategies have been completed by the time of the adoption of the RSS.
A summary of the district and sub-regional allocations are included in Annexes 1 and 2.
On affordable housing, although the Panel accepts the case for a higher target than the regional target of 35%, it does not agree that this should be as high as 50% as this is unrealistic. It therefore recommends a target of “at least 40%”.
