WEST OXFORDSHIRELDF:
REGULATION 25 (2008 REGS) – CORE STRATEGY SO FAR: INTERIM POSITION STATEMENT: FEBRUARY 2009
GOVERNMENT OFFICE FOR THE SOUTH EAST REPRESENTATIONS: APRIL 2009
Reference / Details of RepresentationWEST OXFORDSHIRE CORE STRATEGY SO FAR: INTERIM POSITION STATEMENT: FEBRUARY 2009
Key Concerns
Core Strategy Timetable and Consultation / It is unclear what the Council’s intentions are going forwards towards submission of the Core Strategy. Your Local Development Scheme is now out of date and the interim document does not contain a timetable. Therefore it is not clear whether the Council intends to produce any other consultation prior to submission, and if so when, and if not when submission will occur. It is therefore also unclear how the Council intends to ensure that it meets the requirements of the 2008 Regulations with regards to consultation and consideration of options.
As a matter of urgency you should contact GOSE with a view to agreeing a revised LDS.
Distribution and Deliverability / While it is acknowledged that the Core Strategy is still evolving and some spatial work has already been completed, one of the key tasks before submitting it will be to ensure:
a)The spatial content of the Core Strategy clear and appropriate. At present the document contains a few short paragraphs providing high level visions for a few named settlements (Section 2). The remainder of the document is then set out as a series of themes. The submission Core Strategy will need to contain much more complete, detailed and place-specific visions/ objectives/ policies/ proposals. You may wish to view the emerging Core strategies in areas such as Dover, Brighton and Vale of White Horse.
b)The links between the plan and its implementation, monitoring and management are clear and appropriate, such that the Inspector and others will be able to clearly understand and assess the deliverability of the plan. It needs to be clear how the plan, its evidence base and its sustainability appraisal/ appropriate assessment mutually reinforce each other. Therefore, there will need to be either with each policy, or in a separate section, SMART (Specific, Measurable, Agreed, Realistic, Timed) delivery details.
c)As part of this process, for various aspects of the plan, the Council will need to ensure that its policy is based upon clear viability evidence; for example with regard to affordable housing per se, supply of infrastructure etc. Viability evidence will need to take account of both cost and timing issues.
Contingency & Flexibility / The submission CoreStrategy will need to set out how it will address risks and uncertainty and be responsive to changing circumstances. In terms of contingency, it must be proportionate to the level of risk within the strategy. For example, the plan relies on only a few strategic locations and up to a third of supply via windfalls (see separate comments on windfalls) to deliver its housing requirement, therefore a greater level of contingency will be required than another plan that can identify through its evidence base a broadly based, more than sufficient land supply.
With regard to housing, GOSE will be keen to learn about the risk analysis of the strategic allocations and any necessary contingency plans for the delivery of the overall housing requirement. This is because it is unclear as yet whether the Core Strategy is seeking to deliver only the figure set out in the South East Plan or to seek to address the need for a step change in delivery locally to meet identified need. For example, it is unclear whether the Council via the Core Strategy is seeking to address unmet need (as shown via the SHMA) that arose as a result of delayed and under delivery 2001-2006.
The nation has entered a period of economic slowdown but will recover during the lifetime of this DPD. The Council will need to demonstrate that its DPDs contain sufficient flexibility to cope with a range of circumstances. This may necessitate flagging up innovations in the designation of sites or policy affecting the use and content of S106 or other agreements in order to ensure the viability of schemes in the short term while facilitating longer-term benefits to the wider community. The Core Strategy will need to contain the basic framework to facilitate all this.
Section 3:
Housing Supply: Reliance on Windfalls / It appears from the Interim Statement and evidence base that the Council wishes to make a case, under PPS3 para 59, to include windfalls in its 10 year housing supply. It also appears that windfalls would be relied upon for up to a third of as yet unaccounted for supply 2006-2026. Taking into account the Council appear only to be seeking to deliver the minimum South East Plan requirement, it will need to demonstrate that this is appropriate in principle and that the level of is deliverable in practice. In this context:
- GOSE is aware that various Core Strategy Inspectors’ Reports have addressed similar issues. For example, the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead Inspector found the Core Strategy unsound inter alia due to its high reliance on windfalls, while the Reading Inspector found their local case for windfalls to be robust and the Wycombe Inspector amended the plan to make it Sound. It is a basic requirement for all Core strategies to set out the distribution of development such that it will support their place shaping visions. The absence of an appropriately spatial and detailed housing distribution carries a strong risk of unsoundness.
- PPS3 is predicated on front-loading and certainty, i.e. identifying as early and as clearly as possible the housing supply over the plan period. That windfalls may be small sites not readily identifiable, does not mean that they cannot be planned for at a strategic level. For example, historic windfall delivery rates and their geography may indicate that broad locationscan be identified for future delivery (i.e. the towns/ suburbs/ villages/ clusters of villages etc where windfalls may be predicted to arise and hence be planned for/ encouraged by the Core Strategy), and then monitored and managed (particularly if the anticipated supply fails to come forward). It is not the case that the Core Strategy has to identify in detail the whole housing supply, rather it should contain the Council’s commitment to doing so over the plan period and the framework to do so that will guide an appropriate portfolio of DPDs and decisions.
- Government policy/ PPS3 are seeking to secure a step change in both overall housing delivery and the means of that delivery. Part of this process (first mentioned in the Communities Plan several years ago) is the requirement for Local Authorities to be proactive in the identification and delivery of land for housing. Anover reliance on windfalls would indicate passiveness not proactivity, and is likely to produce doubt not certainty!
- Housing delivery is about more than meeting the strategic requirement. It is, inter alia, also about meeting need such that the right amount of housing of the right type is located in the right places at the right time in a sustainable way. Councils that have a robust distribution and a commitment to delivery will be better placed to ensure the delivery (by themselves or others) of all aspects of sustainable communities, by guiding development and supporting infrastructure to particular locations. Councils that do not, risk relying on piece-meal, uncoordinated delivery dictated by other parties; or late or no delivery of needed development/ infrastructure; or the undermining of the Council’s own vision.
- An over reliance on windfalls may threaten the Council’s own vision in other ways. For example, it may put pressure on sites that are needed for employment, retail or community services.
- An over reliance on windfalls may also jeopardise the Council’s ability to deliver a responsive and better choice and mix of housing. For example, what are the implications if the windfalls are mainly town centre or small sites or sites in remote locations, whereas the need is for family housing with gardens or affordable housing in rural villages.
- Genuine windfalls (i.e. totally unknown and unknowable, rather than simply not ever allocated in a plan but could have been) are a finite resource. Recent increases in their delivery are likely to be due to the implementation of PPG3 that focussed particularly on urban brownfield sites, and may not be repeated. Equally, stronger policy regarding the likes of floodplains or Special Protection Areas may mean that sites that may once have come forward for housing will no longer do so. Thus past performance is not necessarily a good basis for future planning.
The future of rural areas / It is not clear how the housing distribution will affect/ help support the future sustainability of the rural areas. While it is right to focus development in the main towns, it is not clear how much development may be appropriate and may be delivered in the smaller settlements. For example, if numbers of dwellings are kept artificially low, they seem likely to contribute little to the task of delivering the right houses in the right locations at the right time as required by PPS3, and little to the Council’s aim to increase affordable housing in rural areas.
We are also unclear from the Settlement Sustainability Report (July 2008) how settlements relate to each other. Given that they are not isolated islands, but rather form a mosaic of communities, how do clusters of settlements currently share facilities and services, and what potential is there to enhance this sharing in future in order to avoid villagers having to travel longer distances if all services are only maintained in the largest towns? And in what ways do the existing West Oxfordshire settlements relate to/ rely upon/ now or potentially in future provide services for communities beyond the district boundary? Similarly, what discussions have the Council had with service providers with regards to the known or potential means by which services will be delivered in future, for example, by mobile means/ shared premises/ electronically, that may impact on the sustainability of individual or clusters of settlements?
The Council will need to carefully reflect on these issues before bringing forward the Submission Core Strategy, responding as appropriate to the type of questions posed in the Taylor Report, and in the Government’s recent response. For example, in terms of sustainability the question to ask is perhaps not whether the settlement is sustainable now, but rather whether development of a given size/ location/ form will make the settlement or cluster of settlements more or less sustainable in the future – balancing social, economic and environmental concerns.
Other Comments
South East Plan / The Secretary of State’s Proposed Changes to the South East Plan were published in July 2008. The consultation period on them ended on 24 October. Subject to any amendments or other processes made necessary as a result of the consultation or for any other reason, the final plan is intended to be adopted in spring 2009.
In line with normal conventions, the Proposed Changes Plan is a material consideration in plan making and application decision making. It is therefore incumbent upon all authorities to demonstrate how they have taken the latest version South East Plan into account at all stages of plan production.
Omission:
LDF Diagram / The Council should consider including a diagram in all LDF documents that shows the component parts and inter-relationships of the LDF, and any other key influences such as the South East Plan or national policy etc. In this way readers can be provided with a context within which the DPD sits.
Omission:
Key issues summary / It would be helpful to gather together all of the key issues identified (as opposed to simple facts) that the rest of the plan needs to address in order to provide a clear context for the later sections. They should be presented on a geographical as well as a theme basis.
Omission:
Key Diagram / It is considered unfortunate given the commendable use of graphics elsewhere in the document, that a Key Diagram indicating how the options may come together at the district level, has not been included.
In the Submitted plan, the Key Diagram should be placed in a prominent location for ease of reference and be a clear representation of the spatial strategy. It can be supported by as many other maps/ diagrams/ illustrations as is helpful/ appropriate to communicating the strategy.
Care should be taken when seeking to use mapping from other sources. For example, we note that the boundary of the Central Oxfordshire Sub–Region as shown on Fig 1.1 is rather different from that shown on Diagram COX1 in the Proposed Changes version of the South East Plan.
Section 2:
Vision / The submission visions and objectives will need to be suitably specific in terms of what will happen where and when. For example for each place or cluster of places as appropriate, figures for the likes of housing, employment/ retail floorspace, should be included as well as any key green space, infrastructure projects etc. The Interim objectives do not appear sufficiently specific.
Presentation of Housing Supply:
Housing Trajectory / The Council will need to include a PPS3 compliant trajectory in its Submission Core Strategy. This will comprise both tables of figures and their graphical representation. The figures should ideally be disaggregated to show the sources of the supply both in terms of geography and type of site (permissions, large allocations, windfalls etc) and show whether the Council considers that it will deliver at least the figure set out in the South East Plan, while also taking into account any under delivery 2001-2006 for which demand (with reference to the Housing Market Assessment) still remains to be met.
Affordable Housing: Viability & Delivery / The BlytheValley judgement makes it clear that each authority will need to produce viability evidence to support whichever thresholds it proposes to use, not simply those below the ones set out in national and/or regional policy.
Each authority must also demonstrate that the operation of its affordable housing policy will not fetter its ability to meet its overall housing requirement.
Para 5.3
Cotswold Line improvements / We note that the line will improve by 2010; however, we are not clear what impact this has had on the Council’s strategy for the district. For example, do the improvements help make certain settlements more sustainable and hence more appropriate to accommodate a different level of development than before? Or how might these settlements better act as a transport and other services hub for other nearby settlements?
Thresholds & Targets
For Example
Climate Change (paras 6.1-6.19) / GOSE welcomes the Council’s intention to include policy aimed at addressing the issues arising from climate change.
Given GOSE’s roles and responsibilities no threshold/ percentage target specific comments will be made since it will be for your Inspector to test whether in each case they are justified, will be effective and are consistent with national policy.
Monitoring & Implementation / The Submission version of the Core Strategy will need to include indicators and targets and be clear what will constitute success or failure and what will trigger contingency action. Such details are necessary in order to enable service providers, LSP/LAA partners and others to fully implement the plan in a timely, co-ordinated and effective manner.
Evidence Base:
Robustness / We note that various parts of the evidence base were produced in 2007 or before. The Council will need to demonstrate that its evidence base on submission has taken into account any changes in economic and other circumstances since first produced and hence, looking forwards, continues to be sufficient and fit for purpose.
We also note that it appears from the consultation statement that the Council has not had any direct dealings with the Highways Agency. We trust that this is based on an agreement between the Council and HA that this is unnecessary, rather it being an oversight.
West Oxfordshire Core Strategy So Far: Interim Position Statement
Sustainability Appraisal
General
Basic Assumptions / GOSE has not reviewed in detail any of your SA/SEA/AA work, but we trust that the other consultees who have a formal responsibility to comment on such work have had the opportunity to do so. In general it is assumed that all authorities will be able to demonstrate that they have:
produced their documents (and updated them) based upon the latest published national guidance
assessed within the SA/SEA how national and regional policy comes together to impact on the area as a whole and, as relevant, its constituent parts;
assessed within their SA/SEA all reasonable alternatives such that an Inspector will be able to confirm the soundness of their DPDs and/or make binding recommendations based upon their SA/SEA.
consulted, and amended their documents in light of the comments from, the key SA consultees, and others as appropriate (using headers/footers to clearly differentiate between versions),
completed a full quality assurance self-assessment that will be circulated at the time of Submission; and
included a non-technical summary – that is a summary of the findings not simply the process followed (this can be separate or bound in)
We expect you to liaise with Natural England, to determine whether an Appropriate Assessment is necessary based upon the location of protected species or sites within or in the vicinity of the area covered by the DPD, and acted accordingly.
As always you are advised to obtain expert legal and/or other advice as necessary in order to ensure that you meet all your obligations in connection with the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 No. 1633.
Copying in GOSE / Please forward to GOSE (e copies will suffice) the responses received from Natural England, the Environment Agency and English Heritage regarding your SA received as part of the current consultation exercise.
Please note that in order to enable GOSE to carry out all its roles and responsibilities, full versions of all documents should be forwarded to GOSE at each stage of DPD production. It is normally sufficient to provide an e copy by email or on CD, unless aspects would be difficult to assess on screen. If in doubt, please contact GOSE before consultation begins to discuss which documents need to be forwarded and in what format.
Mapping & Diagrams / GOSE would strongly encourage authorities to make maximum appropriate use of maps and diagrams to help explain SA/SEA/AA concepts or portray information. This will assist in converting data into spatial intelligence and in turn underpin place and decision making.
W Oxon Scoping Report / We note that as yet the report has not been up-dated to reflect PPS12. We also note that to-date it appears rather generic, yet will need to be made more W Oxon specific in order to enable the SA/SEA to appropriately underpin the Submission Core Strategy; for example in terms of bringing together national and regional guidance and applying it locally and assessing the various options open to the Council to deliver land uses and development over the plan period.
Annex A