Council criticises Planning Inspectorate call to withdraw local plan over duty to cooperate and standard method concerns

Oxford City Council has hit out against a recommendation from the Planning Inspectorate to withdraw its local plan from examination over concerns about the duty to co-operate and its decision to move away from the standard method.

According to the Planning Inspectorate, the local authority's development plan has too many homes in it as a result of the decision not to use the standard methodology.

However, Oxford said more homes must be built to avoid economic stagnation in the region.

In a letter to the council, the inspectorate noted that previously, there had been close cooperation between local authorities across Oxfordshire on plan-making and the approach towards housing need.

All five district councils in Oxfordshire were initially involved in the preparation of a strategic plan for the county - named the Oxfordshire Plan 2050 - which was submitted for Regulation 19 consultation in the autumn of 2021.

However, joint work on the Oxfordshire Plan 2050 came to a "somewhat abrupt end in August 2022," the planning inspector noted.

The letter said the "key factor" behind the plan's collapse was the inability of the authorities to reach an agreement on the approach to planning for future housing needs.

Oxford City and Cherwell District Councils went on to progress their own Local Plans after the demise of the Oxfordshire Plan 2050 and proceeded to commission the Housing and Economic Needs Assessment (HENA).

The inspector said the HENA "identifies a housing need for Oxfordshire significantly above that which would be derived from the sum of housing needs for each individual authority using the standard method".

"It goes on to identify housing needs for each individual authority which, in most cases, are higher than the standard method figure."

The HENA identifies a housing need figure of 1,322 or 1,416 homes per year for Oxford City, depending on two different proposed scenarios, which is higher than the standard method figure of 762.

The letter said the increased housing need figure is "particularly significant given the constraints on housing land supply in Oxford City itself and the strong likelihood that a substantial proportion of this need would therefore have to be met in neighbouring authorities".

It added: "Indeed the submitted Local Plan is based on the council's assessment of capacity within the City boundaries to accommodate only 481 homes per year.

"This is well below even the standard method figure."

Writing in response to the Planning Inspectorate, Oxford's Planning Policy and Place Manager, Rachel Williams, said the letter "disappointingly falls short in terms of accuracy, consistency and interpretation".

She wrote: "In order that we can move forward we would benefit from more clarity specifically with regard to the duty to co-operate.

"Currently, we consider that there are contradictions and uncertainties about the details of what constitutes a failure of the duty to co-operate."

She noted that the inspector listed three criticisms of the council.

Firstly, it intended to progress quickly with the HENA following the end of the Oxfordshire Plan; secondly, it was clear the other districts were not going to join the commission; and thirdly, Oxford then progressed quickly.

"Whilst we disagree that these points inherently merit criticism, it is not clear in the letter how they are directly duty to co-operate flaws," she said.

Williams added that the inspector implied that there was a duty to co-operate issue because Oxford did not consult three adjoining districts on our decision to move away from the Standard Method.

"However, this is simply not true, and we do not consider it constitutes a failure of the duty to co-operate," she said.

She said that in preparing the Oxfordshire Plan 2050, all parties agreed that the county needed to explore other means beyond the standard method.

"Following that, the City Council simply maintained (as others were absolutely aware) that the same issues remained existing in Oxford.

"We set this out at Reg18 part1 at paragraph 2.5: 'We consider that circumstances are likely to exist in Oxfordshire that justify using an alternative method to calculate housing need, owing to its important role in the local and national economy' and 'it is considered there are reasons to diverge from the standard method in Oxfordshire (as discussed in relation to the options below)'.

"Given that the failure of the Oxfordshire Plan lay in part because some districts considered there was reason to continue to divert from standard method and other districts considered no reason not to use standard method from the base period/s of the plan/s, the views of all sides did not need further discussion."

Oxford City Council said it is currently considering its options in response to the letter.

The council's leader, Cllr Susan Brown, said: "The planning inspectors have failed to grasp the seriousness of Oxford's housing crisis and the number of new homes we need to tackle this crisis – and don't appear to have heeded the clear message from government which requires all councils to up their housing delivery ambitions."

"The reality is that while the city council are builders, there are others elsewhere who are blockers.

"Waiting for a situation where all councils in Oxfordshire are agreed on housing numbers and cross-boundary matters is just not realistic."

She added: "Oxford City Council also disputes the finding it has not met the duty to co-operate. We have a longstanding history of working collaboratively with neighbouring councils and other stakeholders on planning issues affecting Oxfordshire - including during the preparation of this plan.

"The duty to co-operate is not a duty to agree. Nor should it be a charter for those who object the loudest to be able to block the building of desperately needed homes."

Adam Carey