Category Archives: Planning

Safeguarding the Raleigh Park Fen

On the evening of 25 Jan 23, Stephen Parkinson (Chair of Friends of Raleigh Park) and I (your  local councillor) addressed the Vale Planning Committee about our concerns regarding the site at the top of Yarnells Hill, whose owners wanted to build 3 new dwellings.

At committee meetings, we only get 3 minutes to express ourselves, so I usually write to them ahead of time. This was no different. Here’s what my letter said.

Officers remind us that the NPPF says decisions must be made in accordance with the Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. I contend that the high risk of irrevocable damage to the irreplaceable habitat adjoining the site is just such material consideration; the NPPF says irreplaceable sites like this must be safeguarded.

Vale is not in a situation where these three luxury homes are needed. We have currently over a 6 year supply of housing land. So our strategy for providing housing is working, and these extra windfall houses are not necessary to provide the housing numbers we have committed to.

The proposed mitigation must be monitored. Even if monitoring works and notes a failure of the mitigation, it will be after the fact and the harm will already be done. This is the nature of anything that requires monitoring to succeed.

Vale’s Countryside officer doesn’t support the application. Oxford City does not support this application.

This application has been set to come to committee three times. Each time, local people and concerned ecological professionals trying to preserve Raleigh Park’s ancient fen launch into action, presenting hard evidence to committee members to urge you to vote to refuse this development. For whatever reasons, planners have removed this application from the agenda at the last minute three times. Once it was to gain ‘independent’ paid consultants’ opinion regarding the ecological risk – this was when they hired a company, Aspect Ecology, to help them out (the same company that also provided evidence to government in support of HS2). Once it was during the planning meeting itself, when it was clear the agenda could not be completed (I don’t think officers included this instance in their report). Once, most recently, was when it was recognised that there had been a problem with consultation procedures. Each time, so many people’s hard work had gone into preparing arguments about why this application should be refused. Each time, the officers took away that evidence to bring back more arguments why this development should be allowed. Why is that? Is this council a culture where we are unable to revisit decisions in light of new evidence and come to a different conclusion? A large handful of ecological experts have all pointed out in detail what can go wrong, how the fen is endangered. It’s our duty to safeguard the irreplaceable habitat.

Please read Dr Parkinson’s assessment of the mitigations. He provides a summary of what several other ecologists have determined.

Over the years that I’ve been trying to protect the wildlife and natural resources up in this corner of Botley, we’ve seen about a dozen million pound homes built in this area, one site was turned from a single family home into multiple flats (Little Dene), and the whole of the development by Bovis of 136 homes went ahead. Badgers have been forced out of their habitats. Most recently a site just opposite was approved for two new huge houses. (That site is interesting; the decision to grant permission came early, in spite of officers telling me it was being considered alongside this one, due to the similarity in ecological concerns. It also adjoins Raleigh Park, but it is brownfield where the current site is green field.) Local wildlife now have only this small corner of Yarnells Hill available for foraging and shelter, adjacent to Green Belt, adjacent to an irreplaceable habitat in Raleigh Park.

But the main this is that this is a planning decision to be taken “on balance”. Does the benefit outweigh the risk of harm? A windfall of 3 houses vs damage to an irreplaceable habitat that it is our duty to protect. How can we rely on a planning condition that requires enforcement to protect what’s irreplaceable?

You can see the meeting and hear what everyone said on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkA4ZiPfIoA

Planning Committee voted unanimously to refuse the application. I’m very grateful to everyone who helped in this effort.

Life after Oxfordshire Plan 2050

Earlier this month, the five local authorities in Oxfordshire announced they were unable to agree the way forward for determining housing numbers in the Oxfordshire Plan 2050, and that work on the Plan would therefore end. That was disappointing to those of us who had worked for so long to make it a success.

In the aftermath of that decision, people are wondering what comes next. Here’s a short list:

  • Vale’s work is now focused on our emerging Joint Local Plan (joint with SODC). Where before, we were waiting for OxPlan50 to inform our housing need numbers, we will now do that work for ourselves. that work is underway.
  • The most recent OxPlan50 consultation, which finished in October 2021, told us that the public valued a lot of the policies being mooted for that plan, especially the environmental policies, and more especially, those to do with sustainable construction and transport. We can use them, and the evidence gathered so far, in our Joint Local Plan.
  • One really great thing about the OxPlan50 was the vision, which each council approved. We will be going ahead with our plan, and take into account that Vision. (See the whole Vision for sustainable Oxfordshire in my DropBox here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/arigeo06o6zygdt/Oxfordshire%20Plan%20Vision.pdf?dl=0)

Here’s a summary of the Strategic Vision for Oxfordshire: 

  • All of the housing we committed to in our Local Plan 2031 is still going forward, including the 2200 we agreed to provide to help meet Oxford’s housing needs (that they are unable to provide on their own).

Personally, I am determined to do all I can to make this emerging Joint Local Plan all that we need it to be for our districts for the next 20 years: the right numbers of the right types of net-zero carbon houses in the right sustainable places, the jobs and employment locations that ensure this area’s economic health, and whatever else we can do to look after our residents’ and workers’ well-being.

 

Historical housing delivery in Oxfordshire

In recent month, everyone’s been talking about how many houses we’re going to need to build in Oxfordshire between now and 2050. Now that the OxPlan50 project has stopped, the work to determine those needs reverts to the 5 local planning authorities: Cherwell, Oxford City, South Oxfordshire, Vale of white Horse, West Oxfordshire.

I explored the councils historical housing delivery numbers. I took a look at the ten years to see how housing delivery is going in the local authorities. Figures are from the published Authority Monitoring reports.

Since about 2016, local authorities have been delivering to a very high housing figure, which was derived from the Strategic Housing Marketing assessment (SHMA) that came forward as part of the Oxfordshire Growth Deal. That deal required ambitious growth targets beyond anything ever seen here before.

Cherwell

Oxford City

South Oxfordshire

Vale of White Horse

West Oxfordshire

My speech to my motion on LPP2

At the Vale full council meeting on 17 July 2019, I tabled a motion about the problems with LPP2. You can read it here.

Vale has a duty to cooperate with our neighbouring councils. In our Local Plan, this shows up as Vale’s commitment to take on a portion of Oxford’s Objectively Assessed Need that they are unable to meet for themselves. That’s completely reasonable.

What isn’t reasonable is for us to have to commit to exact numbers of houses to help meet Oxford’s unmet need, BEFORE that need has been established by examination and adoption of their Local Plan.

Instead, our Inspector accepted the unmet housing need figures the Growth Board came up with, and said that the 2200 houses for Vale are a ‘working assumption’ and should be revisited once Oxford’s need is established. The inspector was silent on how we should do that. But it really matters, because once this LPP2 is adopted, the allocated sites will come forward in planning applications, and these Green Belt sites will be gone forever.

Letters to the Inspectors and the Inspectorate have argued that Oxford’s need must be determined prior to allocating sites in the Green Belt land for houses to meet Oxford’s need. Replies have been illogical. Cherwell’s inspector says that’s just the way planning works; examinations are scheduled when they come forward. The inspectorate says each local plan is handled independently; there’s no higher view for planning these hearings.

But the Local Plans aren’t independent. Cooperation requires sensible ways of working. We need to determine the need before adopting a radical plan to meet that need. That hasn’t been done.

In order to remove land from the Green Belt, there must be exceptional circumstances (beyond just a need for housing). Consider that the inspector of Vale’s LPP2 said that Oxford’s need for 2200 ‘mostly social rent houses’ was the exceptional circumstance. I’m shocked at the lack of rational thinking that demonstrates. How can that be the exceptional circumstances for such a serious decision, when the actual need hasn’t yet been established?  

Council needs advice from the Minister as to how he envisions this working out. If, as is expected, Oxford’s need is drastically reduced with a recalculation, it could well be that we need do nothing to help – that our Local Plan Part 1 had enough houses located close to Oxford to meet their unmet need. But we cannot know that until Oxford’s evidence and their own ability to deliver the housing they need is assessed.

The problem with LPP2

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.

Support for the LM Pavilion Plans

Here is the response I submitted to the Vale consultation on the planning application V0696 for the Louis Memorial Pavilion.

I write as one of the Vale members for this area.

I fully support the plans presented here, with the inclusion of requests for changes from Sport England and any other statutory consultee. I fully support the parish council and the process they’ve followed to get to the point where they are applying for permission to do this development.

It is appropriate use of Green Belt land; although I don’t think the site is actually IN the Green Belt. It is a modernisation of recreational facilities in a community which has an historical underprovision. It is supported by the neighbourhood plan, which is nearing completion. It is supported by Vale’s leisure strategy which identified the pavilion and scout hut as in need of replacement.

I support the statements of the chairman, Cllr David Kay in his submission here, including the policies to which he refers and the wide consultations and community approvals throughout the process.

I’m pleased at the environmental responsibility shown by the PC in this design.

It will be a wonderful asset to the community and something everyone can point to with pride.

It will be up to the parish council (or any management group they set up) to work with potential users of this community facility to see what can be done to meet their needs. It isn’t a material planning consideration though.

(submission number 149178)

Houses for Oxford – my view

This post is long, sorry, not sorry. It’s a complicated topic, and I want to be thorough when I share my opinion. It has to do with how neighbours to Oxford are expected to provide new housing to meet Oxford’s needs.

Local authorities have a so-called ‘duty to cooperate’ with each other in establishing local plan policies in cross-boundary areas. This is the law, but it’ never been really well defined. Here in Oxfordshire, the main duty to cooperate lies between Oxford City council and its neighbouring districts: Cherwell, West Oxfordshire, South Oxfordshire (SODC) and Vale of White Horse.

Today, we read in the Oxford Times that SODC are proposing to include a controversial Green Belt site (referred to as Grenoble Road) in their most recent version of their local plan. This site is in the Oxford Green Belt, and seen by some as a rather unattractive housing site (as it has high power lines and stanchions throughout) but nonetheless is located close to Oxford on its southeastern boundary). But it is in the Green Belt, established deliberately to provide a green space for the city and also to prevent future urban sprawl.

Here’s a link to the newspaper article:  https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/17279902.big-build-1700-new-homes-planned-as-grenoble-road-picked-for-huge-development/

Local authorities are having financial difficulties now in many areas, with major cuts in Government funding in the past few years, and more cuts expected. (Bear with me; this is relevant.) There are three primary income sources for local councils:

  1. New Homes Bonus scheme (expected to end next year). Basically local authorities were awarded a bonus based on the number of homes delivered. Vale of White Horse District Council is a top performer in this area; when Govt said our income depended on the houses we built, we built lots of houses.
  2. Business rates (based on growth over a certain baseline). Vale of White Horse had some bad luck in this area; just after the baseline was taken, Didcot power station closed down, and Culham science company became a charitable enterprise, so no longer paid business rates. Both these actions hit our business rates income for years, because our rates are always low compared to our baseline. Government were asked if they could provide relief; they said no.
  3. Council taxes that we pay. This is a politically driven decision. Conservatives are proud that they froze council tax in the Vale for many years of the eight years they’ve been in charge. But in spite of the other sources of income being volatile and uncertain, and not under our own control, Conservatives took no action. Over the years, more and more houses were built and more people moved here. But the cost of providing services continued to go up, and the council tax stayed the same. As a result, Vale has lost millions in income every year, and over the years. These loses will continue to accumulate; there’s an annual limit to how much councils can raise council taxes without a referendum (and we know all about referendums now.) Currently we pay £126 per annum to Vale (Band D). In 2011 we paid £116. Councils are allowed to raise taxes by the higher of 3% or £5 per year. Vale has about 50,000 band D properties. You can do the maths.

There used to be a Government grant to local authorities, but that was systematically reduced over a few years and then it stopped altogether last year.

We are all worried about our ability to continue to provide services with these drastic cuts.

So, Oxford has nearly full employment; It doesn’t need more employment sites; but remember the income from business rates. Oxford DOES need more houses that people who work in Oxford can afford to rent or buy; but remember the demise of New Homes Bonus. So Oxford’s  Local Plan will have a shortfall of about 10,000 homes (when compared to their assessed need). These 10,000 homes must be provided by the neighbouring districts; remember ‘Duty to Cooperate’.

By earmarking more land for employments sites, Oxford cannot meet their own housing needs, and so neighbours must do that for them. This is one side of the duty to cooperate. Local Plans will not be found sound if they do not provide enough housing to meet Oxford’s unmet need. That’s one of the main reasons for SODC allocating the Grenoble Road site.

But in my opinion, the other side of Duty to Cooperate is that Oxford must do all it can to meet its  own housing needs. I think they aren’t doing that.

My response to the Oxford Local Plan (now out for it’s pre-submission consultation) is that they need to plan for fewer employment sites, and provide more houses that people can afford to buy or rent. I think the ‘duty to cooperate’ needs to run both ways; Oxford must to do its best to meet its own housing needs, and then the neighbouring authorities need to help Oxford meet the needs it cannot meet for itself. Simples.

Oxfords Local Plan doesn’t do that well enough. So SODC and other districts are having to take up the slack. Hence the Big Build of Grenoble Road, and also Dalton Barracks near Abingdon, also in the Green Belt.

 

 

 

 

 

 

LPP2 – guest post by Cllr Emily Smith

Last night the Vale discussed how to move forward with Local Plan Part 2 having received a letter from the Inspector saying the plan was unsound without modification. Specifically, he gave three options in relation to Dalton Barracks and Abingdon Airfield; 1) stick with 4500 homes but do a lot more work to put the transport infrastructure in place, 2) change the plan to only allocate 1200 homes on this site, or 3) remove Dalton Barracks from the Local Plan and find other sites around the Vale to put the 1200 homes required.

The Council, and the Opposition, voted to proceed under Option 2. But I had the following to say during the debate:

“In our Reg 19 [formal consultation on the Local Plan documents] submission and during the examination in public, the Liberal Democrat group questioned the soundness of Local Plan Part 2 and asked the inspector to consider six modifications.

“In his letter Mr Reed agreed with four of these six; including Abingdon Airfield in the site name, the inadequate transport infrastructure to support housing at Dalton Barracks and Abingdon Airfield, deleting the pointless bus road through Sunningwell and not removing Shippon village from the Green Belt.

“The Inspector also addressed our fifth point about the number of homes we should be building in the Vale – he reduced the number of homes required in Southeast Vale and clarified that the size of Oxford’s unmet need should be treated as a “working assumption”.

“We still don’t have a sound Part 2 plan and are yet to learn what further modifications the inspector requires.

“But, we are where we are.

“Officers’ recommendation is to inform Mr Reed we intend to proceed with his ‘Option 2’. Of the three options available, given the time pressure we are under, this seems like the most sensible way forward.

“However, this course of action does raise some questions and concerns.

“Firstly, timing. The Local Plan Part 1 inspector said we had to have part 2 in place by December 2018. Our group warned council back in Sept 2017 that rushing to submit an unsound Part 2 plan would put this deadline at risk. I note Cllr Cox’s comments that he thinks we can still meet the 31st December deadline, but what are the consequences of this for the Vale if we don’t meet this?

“The Oxfordshire Housing and Growth Deal requires all 5 Districts to have submitted local plans by April 2019. But with this delay, and the uncertainly over what Oxford’s unmet need will actually be, is the Vale also at risk of jeopardising the growth deal?

“Secondly, this change in direction, and the work required on further modifications, will require additional staff time and money. I am concerned about the additional workload for our officers and the extra money this council will have to spend as a result. I would like to know how much has been put into the budget to cover these unintended costs and what the consequences will be for other projects the Planning team are responsible for?

“And finally, we need to make sure that residents, Parish Councils, Neighbourhood Plan Groups, county highways officers and members of this council are fully engaged with the development of the new plans for Dalton Barracks and Abingdon Airfield. So what arrangements are in place for public consultation so that the plan developed under ‘Option 2’ has every chance of being found sound by the inspector?”

Cllr Cox, leader of the Vale responded to these questions by saying he is confident we can meet all the required deadlines, that planning officers had not raised any concerns about workload and there would be a 6-week consultation on the new plans for Dalton Barracks.

There is a lot of work to do, and without knowing what other modifications the Planning Inspector requires to make the plan sound, I remain concerned about resources and hitting our 31st December deadline. We will see…

20 Eynsham Rd application – I object

I’ve formally objected to (and called in to committee) the planning application P18/V2510/FUL for 6 flats at 20 Eynsham Rd.

Here’s what i said in my objection:

The plans don’t differ significantly from the previous ones.
The main problems are overdevelopment of the site, intensification of use, overlooking neighbours, so loss of privacy, especially with respect to 2 Tilbury Lane.

Applicant sought pre-application advice and was given it. Applicant seems to have ignored the advice given, essentially that intensification of this ‘relatively small site’ would not be acceptable. (In their application docs, applicants refer to it as a ‘relatively large site’. Didn’t listen to pre-app advice.) To meet the ‘no intensification of use’ criteria, we would expect an application for no more than 2 dwellings on this site to be acceptable in principle.

So applicant proposed to demolish two flats and build 6 flats, with 9 bedrooms and 6 parking spaces.

Vale’s design guide does not support car parks in front of flats.
Design Guide also has something to say about entrances to flats and flatted developments.
Unsafe access to and egress from parking.
Bins on Tilbury Lane. Would this be allowed?
Plans don’t reveal how many flat and parking spaces are disability accessible.
Over dominant relative to neighbouring sites.
Not in alignment with homes on Tilbury Lane
Six parking spaces for 9 bedrooms; not enough parking. No visitor or delivery parking. There is no parking allowed on Eynsham Rd or on the private Tilbury Lane.

This application is for a development that’s inappropriate on this site.
I have also called this application in to Planning Committee.

Local Plan Part 2 not good enough – Inspector

The inspector of Vale’s local plan has provided his first findings from the Examination in Public. I’ve put a copy of his letter in my Dropbox, here:  https://bit.ly/2CU0JxP

The planning inspectorate requires Vale to adopt the Local Plan Part 2 within two years of adoption of Local Plan Part 1, which was December 2016.

The Planning Inspector, after considering the Vale of White Horse District Council’s Local Plan Part 2 has said, ‘The plan does not meet the tests of soundness without some modification’.

He has demanded more work to be done on the plans for development at Dalton Barracks.

Once Vale has communicated to the inspector their preferred approach for doing that, he will set out the other places in the Local Plan Part 2 that need more work. Other changes required so far include removing plans for a bus road through Sunningwell, reducing the number of homes in South-East Vale, keeping Green Belt protection for the some of the areas around Dalton Barracks.

Liberal Democrat Councillors have been arguing that Conservative plans to build 2,200 homes in the Vale to meet Oxford’s housing needs were being rushed. They say the plans for transport are inadequate and the removal of Green Belt protection not properly justified.

Following the three-week long examination in public where Lib Dem Councillors, MP, parish and town councils and community groups presented evidence, it seems the Planning Inspector agrees.

The inspector makes clear the 2200 dwelling Oxford City require the Vale to build for them should be treated as a “working assumption”. This figure could fall if Oxford City can allocate more homes within the City closer to employment sites through their Local Plan, which is currently out for pre-submission consultation.

The inspector was clear that if the Vale want to use this area for housing they will need to provide information about transport infrastructure, cumulative air quality impact implications, a habitats regulations assessment to consider the impact on Cothill Fen and Oxford Meadows, and a sustainability appraisal for 4500 dwellings.

I am very concerned about the volume of  work needed to make this plan sound. I cannot see how the Vale can now meet its December deadline.

When Vale Council debated the Local Plan Part 2 in Sept 2017, we argued that highways needed more time to get the transport infrastructure around Dalton Barracks right. The Tories voted us down then, but it looks like we were right.

The Vale Local Plan Part 2 is largely about allocating houses for Oxford City’s unmet need, but the numbers won’t be known exactly until the Oxford Local Plan is adopted.

Liberal Democrats from across Oxfordshire will continue to argue that Oxford should be providing more homes within the city, close to employment sites. The City should  allocate more land for affordable housing and less for new retail and employment sites. This would reduce the need to build on the Green Belt in the Vale and reduce commuter traffic into the City.

The Liberal Democrats will continue to make the case for proper infrastructure planning BEFORE housing and for stronger planning policies to ensure the development we get is socially and environmentally sustainable.