The Joint Local Plan – South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse District Councils

South & Vale Local Plan 2041 – have your say by 26 Feb!

South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse have issued their Joint “ Preferred options” consultation on the Local Plan 204. It is live to comment on until Monday 26th February and can be found here.

CPRESouth Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse district committees are working together on their response, which you can find as it emerges here.

We are delighted that, as a result of feedback on the last consultation, our Councils say ‘protecting the countryside’ was top of local residents’ priority list.

Now we need your help to respond to this consultation and make sure that view gets translated into strong policies that really deliver for the countryside.

How to respond:

If you just have ten minutes:

If you have just a few minutes, why not email your views to:  jointheconversation@southandvale.gov.uk or send in a letter to Freepost SOUTH AND VALE CONSULTATIONS

Here’s a few pointers from us, but better if you can put it in your own words….

There’s lots to welcome in this draft Local Plan. 

Our top policies to support:

• Policy CE11 – Light Pollution & Dark Skies – we are really delighted to see that alongside policy wording to manage light pollution, there is a proactive approach to preserving and enhancing our Dark Skies.  This is something that CPRE Oxfordshire has been campaigning for over several years and it’s great to see this policy coming forward.
• Policies CE1 to CE4 – covering sustainable and net zero development.  Development built today must be fit for the future and respond to our climate emergency. We welcome the Plan’s overall ambition around supporting development that is sustainable both in terms of construction and operation.

But here are our top asks:

• Intrinsic value of the countryside – there’s a strong suite of proposed landscape policies that cover different specified areas, but we’d like to see a policy that recognises and seeks to protect the intrinsic value of our countryside as a whole, as this provides the core character of our Districts.
• Policy HOU1 – Housing Requirement  – CPRE Oxfordshire strongly supports the Councils’ measured approach to housing numbers which means that no new strategic allocations are required. We support their resistant to further Oxford city overspill housing numbers, which we believe are  overstated and that need could be met within the city by allocating sites to homes instead of employment. We are also pleased to see the removal of the Chalgrove site but would like to see a similar review of the sites that were allocated inside the Oxford Green Belt. We still consider the requirement for an additional 17,000 homes in South Oxfordshire, with a further 14,390 in the Vale of the White Horse excessive and that Oxford could do more to manage its own need. We therefore urge a constrained approach be adopted and that further consideration is given to Option C on Policy HOU1– reversion to the Standard Method only, without the Oxford overspill previously agreed.

• Renewables – there’s plenty to welcome and we support the intention to update the Policies Map to identify suitable locations for solar farms.  However, there should be a clearly stated rooftops/brownfield first policy. We need a rooftop revolution, to save our countryside for its other benefits including food, health and wellbeing, and nature.
• As written, draft Policy CE5 -Renewable Energy suggests that any and all harms caused by a solar farm would be OK as long as they are reversed at the end of a project (probably in 40 years+). The policy should be re-written to state that permission should not be grantedif there are significant adverse affects. 

If you have a bit more time…

How about completing the “ In a nutshell” version of the consultation?

You can find it here

This is a 15 section short survey , but you can skip any sections you are not interested in. We’ve suggested a response:

1. How many homes

Strongly support the principle of reducing that housing target in the JLP. The removal of the Chalgrove site is welcome but a similar review of the sites that were allocated inside what was previously designated as the Oxford Green Belt is needed. The requirement for an additional 17,000 homes in South Oxfordshire, with a further 14,390 in the Vale of the White Horse is excessive and  Oxford could do more to manage its own need. Urge a constrained approach be adopted and that further consideration is given to Option C on Policy HOU1– reversion to the Standard Method only, without the Oxford overspill previously agreed.

2. Large sites for housebuilding

Strongly support the view that no new strategic sites are required.

3. Net Zero carbon development

Support for the main aims of the policy CE5 and welcome the intention to update the Policies Map to identify suitable locations for solar farms. However, there should be a clearly stated rooftops/brownfield first policy. We need a rooftop revolution, to save our countryside for its other benefits including food, health and wellbeing, and nature.

As written, draft Policy CE5 -Renewable Energy suggests that any and all harms caused by a solar farm would be OK as long as they are reversed at the end of a project (probably in 40 years+). The policy should be re-written to state that permission should not be granted if there are significant adverse affects. 

Support policies CE1 – CE4. New development must be fit for the future and respond to our climate emergency. Propose the policy wording on CE1 should give more explicit encouragement to delivering additional energy where possible , so new development  ‘should generate the same amount or more of renewable energy’.

4. Affordable homes

Support the target of 50% affordable housing (and 25% social rent). However, more detail on this policy and its deliverability is needed.

5. Jobs

Support the view that no new employment sites are needed.

6. Where will development go?

Support the wording in SP1 which states “‘maintain the openness of the Green Belt’. Like wording to also include “enhance the beauty and accessibility of the Green Belt”. Require further detail on settlement hierarchy at the next stage to give a considered view.

7. Neighbourhood plans

Although supportive of community led development in principle, the cumulative impact on the community and its surrounding communities in relation to facilities and infrastructure must be considered.

8. Transport and Travel

Policy JT5 Supporting the Local Economy should specifically mention and build in protection for Public Rights of Ways and equestrian users.

Policy JT7 Overnight Visitor accommodation should include preventative conditions where there is an adverse impact on landscape and countryside.

9. Community infrastructure

Tick “ Other” and comment on Public rights of Ways ( PRoW). If there is improvement and development of community facilities such as sports facilities, parks etc  policy should state that the opportunity should be taken to improve and enhance any existing PRoW, for example with accessible access.

10. Water quality and waste water

Support policy CE7 on water efficiency but suggest it is strengthened by saying the Council should work with developers to achieve a  lower per capita water use than 100 lt/person/day.  This policy should also apply to houses which want extensions and renovations.

11. Nature recovery
    Support these policies. In Policy NH1 the Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) target of 25% should be the
    ambition, but as a minimum it should be in line with the Oxfordshire Local Nature Partnership’s
    recommendation of 20% or above. Strongly support and welcome Policy NH3 on Trees and Hedgerows.
12. Valuing the Landscape
    Support the policies in this section but would like to see an additional policy that recognises and seeks
    to protect the intrinsic value of our countryside as a whole, as this provides the core character of our
    Districts and is the top priority identified in previous consultation.
    Strongly support policy CE11, light Pollution and Dark skies.
13. Homes already planning in the existing Local Plan
    Unfortunately, you will need to comment on each site in turn and the top 5 include land that was
    previously in the Oxford Green Belt.

• Berinsfield Garden Village
• Land adjacent to Culham Science Centre
• Land south of Grenoble Road
• Land at Northfield
• Land north of Bayswater Brook
  Seek review of all these sites, and potential re-designation as Oxford Green Belt.

14. Planning for brownfield sites

15. Anything else you want to tell us?

Our full response to the consultation is here: