Here’s Vale’s press release about my motion at full council last night.

The Leader of Vale of White Horse District Council will be writing to the ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government to raise concerns about the process required to adopt Part 2 of the districts Local Plan.

The district council will point out that the numbers of houses the rural Oxfordshire districts are required to provide depends heavily on how many houses the city of Oxford can and can’t accommodate. In its Local Plan Part 2, the Vale is allocating land for housing that Oxford indicates it cannot find the space for, and so councillors at the Vale believe city’s Local Plan should be examined first to properly establish how many houses the Vale really has to allocate.

This is particularly important as the inspectors examining Oxford City’s plan have directed questions to the city about the level of housing being used in the county – the inspectors examining the city’s plan identified that the assessment of housing need in Oxfordshire that the city council is using is based on figures which are now a few years old.

Cllr Emily Smith, Leader of the Vale of White Horse District Council, said: “The Local Plan Part 2 would remove land from the Green Belt, and allocate thousands of houses in the Vale that Oxford cannot find space for. It would be wrong to do this if it turns out Oxford ultimately doesn’t need to find space for as many houses.

“We believe Oxford’s need for housing should be properly established before we’re asked to adopt a plan that goes to these lengths. We’re also keen to make sure Oxford has done all it can to accommodate its own need — the duty to cooperate works in both directions.”

The Council agreed to send the letter at a meeting on 17 July 2019 – the full motion that was passed at council was as follows:

1. Council notes the Inspector’s Report of the Examination of Vale’s Local Plan Part 2, dated 25 June 2019. In his report, the inspector lists the four objectives of LPP2, one of which is to set out policies and locations for new housing to meet the unmet need of Oxford City.
2. Council notes that the inspector (in paragraph 26) reminds us that the Oxfordshire Growth Board agreed a ‘working assumption’ that Oxford City’s unmet need was 15,000 homes, of which Vale should supply 2200 homes over the plan period. He says (in paragraph 28) that this ‘working assumption’ is to be ‘confirmed or adjusted’ through the examination of Oxford’s Local Plan and the preparation of Oxfordshire’s Joint Statutory Spatial Plan, which is currently in its early stages. He reminds us again (in paragraph 92) that the additional housing requirement is a ‘working assumption rather than definitive and warrants some caution in allocating sites in the LPP2’. There is no guidance or explanation of what this would mean in practice.
3. Council notes that Oxford City has submitted its local Plan for examination, but the inspector has found some issues that require more work before it is ready to be examined in public hearings; he discusses the issues in his letter to that council (undated, but found on the Oxford City’s Local Plan examination website page). Inspector is concerned that the housing figures are based on the figures in the 2014 SHMA, which are based on 2011 ONS population and household projections that ‘are now a few years old’ (page 2). He also points out that there may have been double counting. Therefore the housing needs figure is questionable. This housing need figure ‘could have a bearing on the level of unmet need which would have to be accommodated by neighbouring local authorities’.
4. Council notes that LPP2 allocates 1200 homes at Dalton Barracks, for Oxford’s unmet need. Dalton Barracks and the neighbouring village of Shippon are to be removed from the Green Belt for future housing development.
5. Council notes that paragraph 137 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires Green Belt boundaries to only be modified under exceptional circumstances. The inspector for Vale’s LPP2 says (in paragraph 29) that the housing required for Oxford’s unmet need must be close to Oxford, and much of it is to be social rented housing. The inspector says (in paragraph 55) that the number of houses to meet Oxford’s unmet need, and the fact that they must be near Oxford, demonstrates there are exceptional circumstances to justify the removal of Dalton Barracks and Shippon from the Green Belt.
6. Council notes that the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) wrote to the planning Inspectorate in May 2019 to object to the order in which Oxfordshire’s Local Plans are being examined, citing rules in NPPF: (Jpg of letter not reproduced here). The reply from PINS failed to answer the question: (jpg of reply not reproduced here).
7. It is this council’s opinion that in order for Vale’s Local Plan to be sound, the exact, evidenced number of houses that Oxford requires in order to meet its real need should be determined before Vale includes them in Vale’s Local Plan Part 2. Oxford’s assessment of its housing need must include evidence that Oxford City has done all it can to accommodate its own need, including evidence that the use of land for employment sites over housing sites is justified and lawful. There must be a public examination of the Oxford City Local Plan to definitely identify the unmet need (if any) to precede any adoption of neighbouring authorities’ Local Plans to accommodate it. Until this is dones, there are no exceptional circumstances to allow removal of Dalton Barracks and Shippon from the Green Belt.
8. Council therefore requests the Leader of the council to write to the Minister for Housing, Communities and Local Government to:
   1. Let the minister know that Vale is assessing its options with regard to the local Plan Part 2 and of council’s opinion as stated.
   2. Point out that in Oxfordshire the various Local Plans are not independent of each other That fact should have been considered in the examination process by ensuring Local Plans that are part of another authority’s evidence, as is Oxford City’s Local Plan, are examined first. Current examination procedures are deficient.
   3. Point out that the Duty to Cooperate should include Oxford City’s duty to have a clear evidenced housing target before asking its neighbours to help meet its need. The Duty to Cooperate should run both ways.
   4. Ask for the Minister’s advice about how we should ‘confirm or adjust’ our Local Plan Part 2 once Oxford’s unmet need is established, if our Local Plan is already adopted.
   5. Ask the Minister to explain to use how this Local Plan Part 2 can be considered sound and legal when the housing figures used are based solely on a ‘working assumption’ of Oxford’s unmet need, the Plan allocates housing development in the Green Belt in clear contravention of paragraph 137 of the NPPF, and the Plan removes Dalton Barracks and Shippon from the Green Belt without the exceptional circumstances the regulations require.

And to write to our two local Members of Parliament, explaining the situation and asking them for their support.