Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
Oxford City Council, 8th August 2008.
All maps reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationary Office (HMSO). Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Oxford City Council Mapping Services Agreement DOXF 002.
2 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
Contents
Executive Summary 7 Introduction and methodology 9 STAGE 1 – PLANNING THE ASSESSMENT 12 Identifying the geographical area 12 Establishing the process with partners 12 Resources 12 STAGE 2 – DETERMINING WHICH SOURCES OF SITES WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE ASSESSMENT 13 Focussing the area of search 13 Policy exclusions 13 Policy inclusions 14 Sources of sites with potential for housing 14 STAGE 3 – DESKTOP REVIEW OF EXISTING INFORMATION 15 Sites allocated for residential use in the Local Plan and Local Development Framework 15 Reviewing the suitability of allocated sites for residential 15 Sites allocated for other non-residential uses including protected employment sites 18 Employment sites 18 Other non-residential uses 30 Sites going through the planning process 36 Site size 36 Sites with planning permission 36 Sites where planning permission has been refused 38 Sites pending a decision 39 Sites not in the planning process 40 Basic desktop study 40 Contacting landowners 41 Summary of Stage 3 41 STAGE 4 – DETERMINING WHICH SITES AND AREAS WILL BE SURVEYED 51 STAGE 5 - CARRYING OUT THE DETAILED MAP SURVEY 53 Built up areas 53 Detailed map survey of the built up area 53 Non-built up areas 56 The approach to open space 56 The approach to Green Belt land 63 Core Strategy strategic sites 66 Nature Conservation sites 68 Summary of Stages 4 and 5 71 STAGE 6 AND 7 – ESTIMATING THE HOUSING POTENTIAL OF EACH SITE AND ASSESSING WHEN AND 75 WHETHER SITES ARE LIKELY TO BE DEVELOPED Stage 6 - Estimating the housing potential of each site 75 Open space provision 76 Viability 76 Stage 7 - Assessing when and whether sites are likely to be developed 76 STAGE 8 – REVIEW OF THE ASSESSMENT 89 Summary of capacity 89 Risk Assessment 89 Overcoming constraints 89 Future market conditions 89 Implications for housing policy in Oxford 91 PPS3 and the South East Plan 91
3 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008 The Core Strategy 92 New Growth Point 92 Housing trajectories 94 Review of the assessment 94 Reviewing Green Belt boundaries 94 Identifying broad locations 94 Making a case for an allowance for windfalls 94 STAGE 9 – IDENTIFYING AND ASSESSING THE HOUSING POTENTIAL OF BROAD LOCATIONS 95 Areas outside existing settlements such as possible urban extensions 95 Areas within settlements where planning policy seeks to promote development 95 Strategic Sites 95 Summary 95 STAGE 10 – DETERMINING THE HOUSING POTENTIAL OF WINDFALL 96 How to make a case for windfalls 96 Genuine local circumstances 96 Positive planning policies encouraging windfalls 97 Annual rate and pattern of redevelopment 98 Small site windfalls 99 Large site windfalls 101 Future market conditions 102 Estimated supply 102 Housing trajectory that includes windfalls in years 1-20 of land supply 103 Glossary 105
Appendices 1 CONSULTEES AND COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE METHODOLOGY (NOV/DEC 2006) A – 3 2 ORGANISATIONS CONSULTED TO SUGGEST SITES AND THE SITE PROFORMA USED A – 6 3 CONSULTEES AND COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT SHLAA (APR/MAY 2007) A – 9 4 SELECTED OXFORD LOCAL PLAN POLICY DESIGNATIONS A – 13 5 SUITIBILITY COMPARISON OF PROTECTED KEY EMPLOYMENT SITES EXTRACTED FROM OXFORD’S A - 14 EMPLOYMENT LAND STUDY (MARCH 2006, NATHANIEL LICHFIELD AND PARTNERS) 6 HOUSING COMMITMENTS AT 31ST MARCH 2007 EXCLUDING SITES LISTED IN TABLE 6 OF THE MAIN A – 16 SHLAA DOCUMENT 7 COMPLETE LIST OF ALL SITES ASSESSED IN OXFORD’S GREEN SPACE STUDY A – 31 8 EXTRACTS FROM THE OXFORD LOCAL PLAN 2001-2016 A - 48 9 EXISTING OPEN SPACE QUANTITY SCORES ACROSS OXFORD ACCORDING TO OXFORD’S GREEN A – 50 SPACE STUDY (SCOTT WILSON, FEB 2007) 10 HOUSING TRAJECTORIES A – 51 11 SITE RECORDS OF SUITABLE SITES INCLUDING DETAILED MAPS A – 60 12 SUMMARY MAPS OF CITY-WIDE SURVEY PROCESS A - 107
4 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 The Core Strategy time scale in relation to the SHLAA 10 Table 2 Sites allocated for or partly for residential development in the Local Plan 16 Table 3 Sites allocated for or partly for residential development in the West End Area Action Plan 17 Table 4 Review of employment sites for their suitability for housing 19 Table 5 Review of allocated non-residential sites for their suitability for housing 31 Table 6 Sites suitable for housing with planning permission (outline or full) for residential development 36 that have not been implemented or completed (approx 10 dwellings/0.25ha or greater) at 31st March 2007 Table 7 Sites where planning permission was refused (by 31st March 2007) but where the site is 39 considered suitable for housing (approx 10 dwellings/0.25ha or greater) Table 8 Sites pending decision (at 31st March 2007) where the site is considered suitable for housing 39 Table 9 All sites suggested by landowners 42 Table 10 Sites not in the planning process: Basic desktop study (sites suggested by landowners for the 43 draft SHLAA and later) Table 11 Sites not in the planning process: Detailed map survey of the built up area 55 Table 12 Sites not in the planning process: Open Space 58 Table 13 Broad review of Oxford’s inner Green Belt 63 Table 14 Sites not in the planning process: Green Belt land (Northern Gateway and 65 Marston/Summertown areas only) Table 15 Core Strategy Strategic Sites 67 Table 16 Local Nature Conservation sites 69 Table 17 Summary table of suitable sites: Assessment of the deliverability, developability and capacity of 79 suitable sites Table 18 Summary of capacity and timescale for delivery (windfalls years 11-20) 89 Table 19 Distribution of housing based upon Table 18 (no windfalls during years 1-20) plotted against the 93 variety of relevant targets Table 20 Small site windfall completion trends 99 Table 21 Large site windfall trends 101 Table 22 Summary of capacity and timescale for delivery (windfalls years 1-20) 103 Table 23 Distribution of housing based upon Table 22 (windfalls during SHLAA years 1-20) 104
LIST OF FIGURES Executive Diagram illustrating position of Strategic Sites based upon 400/yr target and PPS3 time period 7 summary requirements figure Figure 1 The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment process and outputs (Practice Guidance 11 Fig. 3) Figure 2 Permission against completions 37 Figure 3 Summary of sites assessed in Stage 3 (North) 49 Figure 4 Summary of sites assessed in Stage 3 (South) 50 Figure 5 Development hotspots and transport catchment areas 52 Figure 6 Quality/Value matrix from the Green Space Study 56 Figure 7 Broad areas of Green Belt within Oxford’s administrative boundary 64 Figure 8 Summary of sites assessed in Stage 5 (North) 73 Figure 9 Summary of sites assessed in Stage 5 (South) 74 Figure 10 Focus for windfall development in the Local Plan and Core Strategy 98 Figure 11 Pattern of small site windfall completions 100 Figure 12 Pattern of large site windfalls completions and permissions 102
5 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
6 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
Executive summary
i This SHLAA follows the stages set out in the Practice Guidance1. Stages 1 and 2 contain preliminary planning and scope of the assessment, determining which land types would be excluded from the assessment, which land types would be included and have a potential source of housing. ii Stages 3, 4 and 5 identify 325 sites from the various sources and assess them for their suitability for housing. This resulted in 241 sites being considered unsuitable, and 84 of the sites being considered suitable. The full range of sites considered are shown in Appendix 12. iii Stages 6 and 7 summarise the 84 suitable sites and estimates their housing capacity as well as their availability, achievability, constraints, developability and deliverability. iv Stage 8 contains a review of the assessment and sets out the land availability in Oxford in comparison to housing targets. There are two ways in which targets need to be measured. Firstly, against the Oxford’s target of 8,0002 dwellings between 2006-26 (400/yr), the SHLAA indicates that there would be an overall shortfall of 2,108 dwellings (26.3%) when windfalls are not included (Table 19). v The second measuring tool is to show that enough deliverable sites can be identified to meet the housing target for the first five years from adoption of the Core Strategy (2009/10-2013/14). The SHLAA shows a skew towards identified sites coming forward over the earlier years and it indicates that the 2,000 (400x5yrs) target of deliverable sites for years 1-5 from adoption of the Core Strategy, will be exceeded by 32.2% (Table 19). This skew also means that Barton is not required during years 1-5 but that it would be required during years 6-10 as demonstrated below.
Executive summary figure: Diagram illustrating position of Strategic Sites based upon 400/yr target and PPS3 time period requirements. ‘Deliverable’ sites are those available now, suitable and achievable. ‘Developable’ sites are those suitable and available at a later date (full definitions at paragraph 7.2)
1 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments: Practice Guidance (Jul 2007) CLG 2 Secretary of State’s Proposed Changes to the South East Plan (17 July 2008) CLG 7 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008 vi The assumptions regarding when strategic sites will be required should be revisited each time the SHLAA is reviewed as they are dependant on other identified sites in the SHLAA coming forward. Oxford’s Core Strategy Proposed Submission document3 identifies Summertown as suitable for housing and protects it against development that would prejudice this potential but it is not available for development for the foreseeable future. If the site is no longer required for operational purposes by the landowners, future reviews of the SHLAA will be able to allocate the site to a particular period for coming forward. Until then, it is not possible to rely on the capacity of Summertown so it is not included within the housing figures. The policy also refers to Policy CS3 which allows for the development of greenfield sites but only if it is proven that Oxford cannot maintain a rolling 5-year supply. The SHLAA will therefore be reviewed annually in order to monitor progress. vii Stage 9 summarises the lack of potential in Oxford from broad locations (except strategic sites which have already been included). viii Stage 10 then explores the potential from windfall sites and indicates that the Core Strategy/SoS’s Proposed Changes to the South East Plan target could be met if windfalls were included as a source of housing. Considering that there is no apparent problem with identifying the first five years of land supply from deliverable sites, this strengthens Oxford’s case to be allowed to rely on windfalls in later years. Each time the SHLAA is reviewed, and during the Site Allocations production, more sites may be identified further reducing reliance on windfalls. ix Whilst Stage 10 suggests that an annual supply of windfalls at 200 dwellings per year is an appropriate estimate, in order to make up the 2,108 dwelling shortfall identified in Table 19, only an annual average of 124 (2,108/17=124) windfall dwellings would be required over the 17-year period (2009/10 - 2025/26) from adoption of the Core Strategy. Overall, in order to meet the Core Strategy’s 8,000 dwelling target, 26.3% of the dwellings would need to be from windfalls. It has been made clear in Stage 10 that it is difficult to predict windfall supply but considering that the actual required level of 124 windfall dwellings falls far below the estimated supply of 200 windfall dwellings gives considerable leeway for any unpredictable changes in the windfall supply. x Should we not be permitted to count the 400 windfalls in the two years prior to the start of the Core Strategy period (07/08-09/10), the total shortfall in the Core Strategy target would be 2,508. So an annual average of 132 (2,508/19=132) windfall dwellings would be required over the 19-year period (2007/08 - 2025/26) and overall, in order to meet the Core Strategy’s 8,000 dwelling target, 31.3% of the dwellings would need to be from windfalls.
3 Policy CS10, Oxford’s Core Strategy Proposed Submission document (Sept 2008) Oxford City Council 8 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
Introduction and methodology
What is a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment? (SHLAA) x The SHLAA is a key component of the evidence base to support the delivery of sufficient land for housing in Oxford. It provides information on the opportunities that exist to meet Oxford’s housing target and is required by PPS34. The information in this SHLAA will inform the Core Strategy DPD and subsequent Site Allocations DPD. xi The SHLAA is not setting policy but provides background evidence on the potential availability of land in Oxford for housing and the choices available for delivering housing. The SHLAA is an important evidence source to inform plan-making but does not in itself determine whether a site should be allocated for housing development. The Core Strategy and Site Allocations DPDs will need to consider what policy approach is appropriate in order to deliver Oxford’s housing target based on this evidence.
It is important to note that whilst the SHLAA identifies potential housing sites, the decision regarding which ones will actually be selected are made in Local Development Framework documents (in the Core Strategy and Site Allocations DPDs) which will undergo full consultation before any decision is made. While the SHLAA will assess whether sites are suitable for housing, this should only be taken to mean that they are suitable provided they are not required for other purposes, and are required to meet plan purposes
xii Whilst the SHLAA will list and map sites within Oxford, it is not allocating land for housing development. PPS3 requires Local Authorities to identify sufficient specific deliverable sites to deliver housing in the first 5 years from adoption of the Core Strategy. The Core Strategy is due to be adopted in Dec 2009. In addition, Local Authorities should identify a further supply of specific, developable sites for years 6-10; and, where possible, for years 11-15. This should draw on information from the SHLAA5. The Government needs to be confident that there is sufficient land within Oxford to meet its housing targets. The SHLAA seeks to demonstrate that there is enough land that could be delivered when required. xiii The Core Strategy covers the 20 year period from 2006 to 2026, and so the SHLAA will note whether sites are available beyond year 15 to year 20. Production begins on the Site Allocations DPD in December 2008, which this SHLAA will inform but further consultation is likely in order to gain updated information on potential sites for allocation as part of that DPD.
How much housing is Oxford expected to deliver? xiv The draft South East Plan6 sets a target of 7,000 dwellings for Oxford. The South East Plan Panel Report7 raises Oxford’s target to 8,000 dwellings to be delivered between years 2006-2026. Local Authorities are completing their Core Strategies over varying timescales so it is generally considered more useful to equate the total target to an annual average target. Oxford’s target suggested by the Panel is therefore 400 dwellings per year. The SHLAA will provide information on the sites available to the City Council to deliver this target.
4 Paragraph 54, Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (Nov 2006) CLG 5 Paragraph 54-55, Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (Nov 2006) CLG 6 Draft South East Plan (March 2006) SEERA 7 South East Plan Examination in Public - Report of the Panel (29 August 2007) 9 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008 xv Table 1 shows how the Core Strategy timescale relates to the information in this SHLAA and the housing targets as set out in the South East Plan Panel Report.
Table 1: The Core Strategy time scale in relation to the SHLAA and South East Plan Panel Report target housing target Years from adoption of the Core Actual years Oxford’s housing target for period Strategy Years 1-5 Apr 2009 - Mar 2014 2,000 (400 per year)
Years 6-10 Apr 2014 – Mar 2019 2,000 (400 per year)
Years 11-15 Apr 2019 – Mar 2024 2,000 (400 per year)
The development of the SHLAA xvi In the past, Local Authorities have been expected to undertake Urban Capacity Studies and Urban Potential Studies to identify land suitable for housing. These previous studes did not have such an emphasis on the deliverability and developability of sites that the SHLAA is expected to. xvii Draft guidance8 on Housing Land Availability Assessment was published in December 2005. PPS39 was published in November 2006 and refers to the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA). The City Council produced a methodology10 in November 2006 but this was published prior to the final version of PPS3. At the time, landowners in Oxford were contacted and asked to suggest sites that they considered suitable for housing development. xviii The City Council published a draft SHLAA11 in March 2007 based upon the draft HLAA guidance and PPS3 and took into consideration comments received following the consultation on the methodology. It also contained information on the sites suggested by landowners. Consultation on the draft SHLAA was carried out in Spring 2007 for six weeks in tandem with the consultation on the Preferred Options of the Core Strategy. The draft SHLAA was more of an interim study than a draft report because some evidence was required to inform the Core Strategy and it would have been too late to wait until the final practice guidance on SHLAA from the Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) in July 2007.
Methodology xix As explained above, new guidance has been emerging throughout the early stages of preparation of the SHLAA and the Government’s final practice guidance was published in July 2007. The methodology of the SHLAA has been amended at each stage to reflect changes in guidance and therefore the methods involved in this version of the SHLAA vary to some degree from the methodology published back in Nov 2006. This methodology is based on the SHLAA Practice Guidance 12 (hereafter referred to as Practice Guidance). xx The methodology of this SHLAA has been designed to meet the requirements of the Practice Guidance to ensure a robust and transparent assessment that meets the tests of soundness in PPS1213.
8 Housing Land Availability Assessments: Identifying appropriate land for housing development – draft practice guidance (Dec 2005), ODPM. 9 Planning Policy Statement 3, Annex C (Nov 2006), CLG. 10 Oxford’s Housing Land Availability Assessment – methodology (Nov 2006) Oxford City Council 11 Oxford’s Housing Land Availability Assessment – draft for consultation (Mar 2007) Oxford City Council 12 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments: Practice Guidance (Jul 2007) CLG 13 Planning Policy Statement 12 : Local Development Frameworks (Sep 2004) ODPM 10 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008 xxi The main stages are shown in Figure 1:
Figure 1: The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment process and outputs (Practice Guidance Fig. 3) xxii Please refer to the following documents for further guidance on the expected content of a SHLAA: • Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments: Practice Guidance (Jul 2007) CLG http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/landavailabilityassessment • Planning Advisory Service guidance have produced three guidance documents during 2008 http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/core/page.do?pageId=54317
11 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008 STAGE 1 Planning the assessment
Identifying the geographical area 1.1 Oxfordshire’s Housing Market Assessment14 identifies a cohesive housing market covering the whole of the County but centred upon Oxford. With five local authorities in Oxfordshire, to undertake a joint study would be a difficult logistical exercise not least because each authority is at a different stage of either their Core Strategy and/or Site Allocations DPD. The Central Oxfordshire sub-region, as referred to in the draft South East Plan15, extends part way from Oxford into surrounding districts which makes determining the scope of a SHLAA difficult. It is therefore considered sensible to produce a SHLAA that only covers the Oxford administrative area.
1.2 It is appreciated that spatial planning is not expected to be constrained by administrative boundaries, however, it is made clear in PPS3 that the types of sites identified for the rolling 5 year supply are generally those that are some way through the planning process e.g. allocated, permitted or close to permission. All of these would be within the individual Local Authority’s administrative boundaries and rarely would sites cross boundaries. Provided that each District generally follows the method set out in the practice guidance, there should be no significant problems aggregating the information to cover the market area and/or sub-region at a later date. Representatives from each of the Districts are meet on a regular basis to discuss their SHLAAs and ensure co-ordination of methodologies where possible. The main difference in the approaches to the assessments is due to the urban and rural differences. The four rural districts must make decisions regarding which settlements to assess, Oxford however will assess all land as, in comparison with the four other districts, it covers a relatively small area and all areas are generally sustainable. It is also acknowledged that there are slight differences on whether or not certain land types are being assessed, these tend to be variations on the categories of flood plain or nature conservation areas. However, these differences are not considered significant enough to affect the robustness of Oxford’s or the other Districts’ assessments.
Establishing the process with partners 1.3 The City Council established links with partners in order to agree the methodology of the assessment. In November 2006, we consulted partners to allow them to raise any issues with the draft methodology. A list of partners contacted on the draft methodology, any comments received back, as well as the City Council’s response to these comments are at Appendix 1.
1.4 At the same time as consulting on the draft methodology, we contacted a wide range of landowners and agents in order to identify sites that might become available for development up to 2026. This assisted us in the identification of sites as it utilised the knowledge of the landowners and agents. A list of those contacted and a copy of the site proforma sent out are at Appendix 2. We also put the draft methodology and the site proforma on the City Council’s website. Partners were then consulted on the draft SHLAA in March 2007. Comments received at that stage are at Appendix 3.
Resources 1.5 The SHLAA was undertaken in house by City Council officers. As the SHLAA was required before submission of the Core Strategy, it was not possible to delay starting the SHLAA until the final Practice Guidance came out so work had to begin based on the draft guidance. Due to the likelihood that the final Practice Guidance would make changes, there was a financial concern in having to commission consultants to undertake work based on the draft which would then have to be reworked following the release of the final Practice Guidance.
14 Oxfordshire HMA Final Report (Nov 2007) Tribal Group 15 Map C2, Draft South East Plan (March 2006) SEERA 12 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008 STAGE 2 Determining which sources of sites will be included within the assessment
Focussing the area of search 2.1 A map showing selected current Oxford Local Plan designations is at Appendix 416. The Practice Guidance allows for the exclusion of clear-cut designated sites, however, the Practice Guidance says that the SHLAA should not be narrowed down by existing policies designed to constrain development unless this is fully justified. It is considered that policies that are designed to constrain development would include such policies as landscape/visual designations, Green Belt designations and restrictions on greenfield development. The assessment will therefore not exclude land covered by these types of designations.
2.2 The assessment will exclude land designated for intrinsic reasons, these are sites designated because of an attribute that is down to their particular location. These are considered to be in the flood plain with the highest risk and European and National nature conservation sites. The only land type excluded that is not an intrinsic designation are allotments. An explanation for their exclusion is set out below.
Policy exclusions 2.3 The following land types will be excluded from assessment:
Oxford is vulnerable to flooding. PPS25 says that more vulnerable uses (which includes residential dwellings) are appropriate in Flood Zones 1 and 2 (subject to Flood Risk Assessments where relevant). More vulnerable uses are only appropriate in Flood Zone 3a if the Exception Test (PPS25) is passed. The Exception Test is not a role for the SHLAA to undertake. More vulnerable uses are not permitted in Flood Zone 3b. Flood plain The approach in the SHLAA is to exclude all land within Flood Zones 3a and 3b, the only (Zones 3a and 3b) exception is where sites within Flood Zone 3a are already allocated within the adopted Local Plan however these would still require a Flood Risk Assessment and to pass the Exception test. Sites within Flood Zones 1 and 2 will be included in the assessment. The city-wide Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) will inform the SHLAA to the extent of Flood Zones 3a and 3b
There are many sites within Oxford that have nature conservation value. These are designated as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), Sites of Special Scientific Interest Nature (SSSIs), Sites of Local Importance for Conservation (SLINCs), Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) conservation and wildlife corridors. There are also County Wildlife sites. It is recognised that the SAC designations and SSSIs are of more ecological importance than the local designations of County (SSSIs and SAC) Wildlife sites, SLINCs and LNRs so in order for the SHLAA to be robust it will only exclude SSSIs and SACs
Allotments are considered to be of significant importance to local communities and are likely to be in greater demand as new dwellings are built. At present, approximately 75% of allotments sites in Oxford have waiting lists which illustrates the current high demand. There are some allotments with disused plots but some of these are likely to become of more interest to local communities as sites are tidied and made secure. Oxford is a very Allotments compact city and unlike rural areas, properties do not tend to have large gardens. Considering the garden sizes in Oxford, the likely increase in demand with new housing, including the growing trend for cultivating organic produce, their loss could have a significant negative impact upon the local community and for this reason allotments will be excluded from assessment
16 The paper version of the Oxford Local Plan 2001-2016 Proposals map is the definitive map 13 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008 Policy inclusions 2.4 Many of the Local Plan policies relating to land types include exception criteria within the policy so it would be unjustifiable to exclude these land-uses in their entirety when there may be occasions when their development is acceptable. Also, the SHLAA must allow for the Local Authority to be in the best possible position to decide its strategy for delivering its housing objectives which may mean adopting new policies for these land-uses (which would be dealt with in the DPDs and not in the SHLAA). To exclude all land currently protected from residential development in the Local Plan would render the SHLAA unrobust and unsound. Therefore these types of land use will not be excluded in their entirety from the area of search and will be assessed on a reasoned site by site basis:
Planning policies recognise that public open space is important for communities and recreation and should be retained. However, there may be some sites that are Open space underused or in unsuitable locations and these sites should be considered for their housing potential. Private open space will also be considered
Planning policies recognise the importance of the Green Belt in maintaining the openness between built up areas. However, there may be small areas of the Green Green Belt land Belt that could be reviewed without significantly compromising the aims of the Green Belt therefore it should not be ruled out of the area of search Planning policies recognise that the priority is to develop brownfield sites. However, PPS3 does not exclude greenfield sites from assessment. All greenfield land within Greenfield land Oxford is either covered by one of the categories referred to (flood plain, nature conservation, open space or Green Belt) and so will be assessed or excluded in the SHLAA in some way
Safeguarded land, as shown on the Local Plan 2001-2016 proposal map, is land be Safeguarded land kept free to fulfil its purpose of meeting possible longer-term development needs and therefore it is entirely appropriate to assess this land for its suitability
Locally designated nature conservation sites are recognised as having lower status Nature conservation than nationally or European designated sites and this should be reflected in the areas (County wildlife assessment. Locally designated sites will therefore be included within the assessment. sites, SLINCS and Local However, it is worth noting at this stage that it is likely that the majority of these nature Nature Reserves) conservation sites will be eliminated anyway for being within Flood Zone 3a or 3b or for being a valued/quality open space according to the Green Space Study
More vulnerable uses (that includes residential) are permitted within Flood Zones 1 Flood plain and 2 (subject to a Flood Risk Assessment where relevant) therefore sites within Flood (Zones 1 and 2) Zones 1 and 2 will not be excluded from the assessment
Brownfield land is generally considered suitable for development although the Practice Guidance allows for current planning policies and the need for other land Brownfield land uses to be taken into consideration when assessing the suitability of brownfield land for housing
Sources of sites with potential for housing 2.5 Taking into account the exclusions and inclusions above, the types of sites in the planning process that the Practice Guidance says should be considered are:
(i) sites allocated for residential use in the Local Plan; (ii) sites allocated for other non-residential uses; (iii) sites going through the planning process: that have planning permission (outline or full) but are unimplemented and sites that have planning permission for housing that are under construction. Also sites that have been refused permission but where the principle of housing acceptable; (iv) Sites not in the planning process.
2.6 These four types of site are assessed in further detail in Stage 3.
14 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008 STAGE 3 Desktop review of existing information
3.1 This desktop review will identify the sites going through the planning process referred to in paragraph 2.5 above and also assesses sites that were suggested in the draft SHLAA.
3.2 The sites within each section of Stage 3 are listed in a table and assessed for their suitability for housing. Sites identified as suitable will be taken forward to the next stages of the SHLAA and are mapped in greater detail in Appendix 11.
The site offers a suitable location for development and would contribute to the Suitable creation of sustainable mixed communities
3.3 Sites considered unsuitable for housing are not considered further within the SHLAA. However, all sites (suitable and not suitable) within Tables 2-8 and 10 are shown on a summary map to accompany the table for reference.
Sites allocated for residential use in the Local Plan and West End AAP Reviewing the suitability of allocated sites for residential 3.4 There are a number of sites allocated in the Local Plan for residential development. Many of the sites have already been developed but there are some which remain undeveloped or without planning permission or that are currently going through the planning process.
3.5 The principle for residential on these sites has been established in the Local Plan however the potential of these sites must be reviewed. Table 2 is a list of sites allocated for residential development in the Local Plan. It excludes sites within the West End Area Action Plan boundary as these are dealt with in Table 3. Some sites are now considered without any further potential if development has been completed. All sites in Tables 2 and 3 are shown in Figures 3 and 4.
15 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
Table 2: Sites allocated for or partly for residential development in the Local Plan
Map ref Local Current planning status (Figures 3 Plan Site name Review of site and policy constraints update with 06/07 completions and 4) policy Suitable for residential. Site is within Flood Zone 3 but allocated Arthur Street, off Mill 2/1 DS.4 No current application in the adopted Local Plan. Suitability of site subject to Flood Risk Street Assessment and the Exception Test Bernwood School, Permission granted for 115 2/2 DS.5 Development complete North Way dwellings 04/00383/RES
2/3 DS.8 Between Towns Road No current application Suitable for residential as mixed use site
BMW Garage, Banbury Application submitted for change 2/4 DS.11 Suitable for residential as mixed use site Road of use to retail/financial Suitable for residential. Site partly is within Flood Zone 3 but Application submitted for 54 2/5 DS.13 Canalside land, Jericho allocated in the adopted Local Plan. Suitability of site subject to dwellings 07/01234/FUL Flood Risk Assessment and the Exception Test 2/6 DS.18 Cowley Centre No current application Suitable for residential as mixed use site Suitable for residential. Site is within Flood Zone 3 but allocated Cowley Marsh Depot 2/7 DS.19 No current application in the adopted Local Plan. Suitability of site subject to Flood Risk site, Marsh Road Assessment and the Exception Test Cowley Road Bus Permission granted for 228 2/8 DS.21 Development complete Depot dwellings 02/01523/RES Cutteslowe Court, Permission granted for 33 2/9 DS.23 Suitable for residential. Under construction. Wyatt Road dwellings 06/01655/FUL Diamond Place, Ferry 2/10 DS.24 No current application Suitable for residential as mixed use site Pool Car Park Donnington Middle Permission granted for 20 2/11 DS.26 Development complete School, Cornwallis Rd dwellings 04/01965/FUL Permission granted for 24 2/12 DS.29 Elsfield Hall Suitable for residential. Development not started 01/06/07 dwellings 02/00328/FUL Suitable for residential. Site is within Flood Zone 3 but allocated Permission granted for 17 in the adopted Local Plan. Suitability of site subject to Flood Risk 2/13 DS.39 Lamarsh Road dwellings on part of the site Assessment and the Exception Test. Part of site has planning 06/01032/RES permission for residential. Development not started 25/04/2007 Permission granted for 38 2/14 DS.40 Leafield Road Suitable for residential. Development under construction. dwellings 03/02254/FUL 2/15 DS.41 Leiden Rd , Wood Farm No current application Suitable for residential Lucy's Factory site, Permission granted for 249 2/16 DS.45 Suitable for residential. Partially complete Walton Well Road dwellings 04/00387/FUL Outline permission granted. Mabel Pritchard Reserved matters application 2/17 DS.46 School, St. Nicholas Suitable for residential submitted for 46 dwellings Road 07/01440/RES Manor Ground, London Permission granted for 87 2/18 DS.47 Suitable for residential. Partially complete Road dwellings 00/02117/NFY Outline permission granted 03/00302/OUT Milham Ford School, 2/19 DS.48 Permission granted for 47 Suitable for residential. Under construction Marston Road dwellings on part of site 06/01984/RES 2/20 DS.50 Northfield House No current application Suitable for residential Suitable for residential. Site partly is within Flood Zone 3 but Northfield School site, 2/21 DS.51 No current application allocated in the adopted Local Plan. Suitability of site subject to Kestrel Crescent Flood Risk Assessment and the Exception Test OAC Factory site, Permission granted for 229 2/22 DS.53 Woodstock Road dwellings 2/01241/FUL Development complete (Phase 3) 04/01170/FUL Application submitted for 12 Suitable. Site partly is within Flood Zone 3 but allocated in the Osney Mill and Works, 2/23 DS.55 dwellings 03/02502/FUL. Legal adopted Local Plan. Suitability of site subject to Flood Risk Mill Street agreement due Assessment and the Exception Test Railway Lane, Application submitted for 85 2/24 DS.67 Suitable for residential Littlemore dwellings 07/01186/FUL Permission granted for 132 2/25 DS.69 Rivermead Hospital Development complete dwellings 03/02496/FUL Ruskin College, 2/26 DS.71 No current application Suitable for residential Dunstan Rd Suitable for residential. Site partly is within Flood Zone 3 but Scrap Yard, Jackdaw allocated in the adopted Local Plan. Suitability of site subject to 2/27 DS.73 No current application Lane Flood Risk Assessment and the Exception Test. Site on raised ground Permission granted for 78 Speedwell School, 2/28 DS.75 dwellings 04/02088/RES & Development complete Sandford Road 05/00046/RES Suffolk House, Banbury Permission granted that did not 2/29 DS.81 Suitable for residential. Development not started 01/06/07 Road include residential 03/00505/FUL.
16 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
St. Augustine's School, Permission granted for 74 2/30 DS.80 Suitable for residential. Under construction Iffley Turn dwellings 05/01118/RES Temple Cowley Middle Permission granted for 111 2/31 DS.84 Development complete School dwellings 04/02163/RES The Trap Grounds off Outline permission for 45 dwellings 2/32 DS.85 Unsuitable. Granted town green status in Summer 06 Aristotle Lane 02/00821/OUT Permission granted for 43 2/33 DS.89 Windmill School dwellings Suitable for residential. Under construction 05/01602/RES Wolvercote Paper Mill, 2/34 DS.90 No current application Suitable for residential as mixed use site Wolvercote
3.6 A number of sites allocated for residential development in the Local Plan are contained within the West End Area Action Plan17 (AAP) boundary. The AAP also identifies new sites that have an indicative use of residential18. It also contains a policy on residential development in areas of flood risk that relates specifically to the West End area19. All residential sites within the West End area are reviewed for their suitability in line with the AAP in Table 3 and all except Osney Warehouse are considered suitable for mixed use in the West End AAP which would affect their residential capacity
Table 3: West End sites allocated for or partly for residential development in the Local Plan or identified as an indicative use in the West End Area Action Plan Map ref Local Plan/ (Figs 3 and West End Site name Current planning status Review of site and policy constraints 4) AAP Site encompassed within Suitable for residential in the Local Plan and indicatively in the 3/1 DS.1 Abbey Place Car Park Westgate site West End AAP. Flood Zone 3. Development not started 04/04/07 Permission granted for 14 Suitable for residential indicatively in the West End AAP. Flood 3/2 DS.3 Albion Place Car Park dwellings 07/00089/CT4 Zone 2 on Albion Place Car Park Suitable for residential indicatively in the West End AAP. Although 3/3 DS.17 Cooper Callas site No current application within Flood Zone 3, site is allocated in the Local Plan for residential Suitable for residential indicatively in the West End AAP and 3/4 DS.3 Magistrates Court No current application allocated in the Local Plan for mixed use including residential. Flood Zone 2 Suitable for residential indicatively in the West End AAP. Although Oxford and Cherwell 3/5 DS.16 No current application within Flood Zone 3, site is allocated in the Local Plan for Valley College residential Oxford Railway Station Suitable for residential indicatively in the West End AAP and 3/6 DS.61 No current application and Becket St Car Park allocated in the Local Plan Suitable for residential indicatively in the West End AAP. Although 3/7 DS.62 Oxpens Road site No current application within Flood Zone 3, site is allocated in the Local Plan for residential as part of a mixed use development Rewley Road Fire 3/8 DS.68 No current application Suitable for residential indicatively in the West End AAP. Station Suitable for residential indicatively in the West End AAP and 3/9 DS.76 Telephone Exchange No current application allocated in the Local Plan. Flood Zone 2 Land to the West of St. 3/10 DS.77 Aldate's and south of No current application Suitable for residential in the Local Plan Queen Stt St Aldate's Police Suitable for residential indicatively in the West End AAP and 3/11 DS.79 Station and land to the No current application allocated in the Local Plan. Although partly within Flood Zone 3, rear site is allocated in the Local Plan for residential Suitable for residential indicatively in the West End AAP and Permission granted for Westgate Shopping allocated in the Local Plan. Although partly within Flood Zone 3, 3/12 DS.88 127 dwellings Centre site is allocated in the Local Plan for residential development not 06/01211/FUL started 04/04/07. Suitable for residential indicatively in the West End AAP and 3/13 DS.91 Worcester St Car Park No current application allocated in the Local Plan Although partly within Flood Zone 3, site is allocated in the Local Plan for residential Suitable for residential indicatively in the West End AAP. Partly 3/14 WE20 Island site No current application within Flood Zone 3. 3/15 WE20 County Hall No current application Suitable for residential indicatively in the West End AAP.
3/16 WE20 Macclesfield House No current application Suitable for residential indicatively in the West End AAP. Nursery and Osney Suitable for residential indicatively in the West End AAP. Partly 3/17 WE20 No current application Warehouse within Flood Zone 3
17 West End Area Action Plan Submission Document (June 2007) Oxford City Council 18 Appendix 1, West End AAP 19 Policy WE14, West End AAP 17 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008 Sites allocated for other non-residential uses including protected employment sites Employment sites 3.7 Oxford Local Plan policies (EC.1-5) and draft South East Plan policies (RE1-2, CO5) are designed to encourage sustainable employment, strengthen employment sectors and modernise employment uses. The Core Strategy preferred option is also in favour of retaining employment sites. Despite this need to retain employment sites within Oxford, in order for the SHLAA to be robust it is considered necessary to assess the potential for housing on: • allocated employment sites (Local Plan section 14); • protected key employment sites (Local Plan policy EC.2); • any other employment sites in Oxford that could accommodate a significant number of dwellings.
3.8 Significant amounts of employment land in Oxford has been lost to other uses over many years. There is very limited supply of employment land remaining in Oxford to meet long term needs. Most of the new employment space that is being created is being concentrated in larger units in fewer locations. Oxford is less able to compete with surrounding areas as many of the competing locations have lower costs and fewer land and labour constraints. If Oxford’s supply of suitable employment space runs out this could threaten its role as a leading centre of knowledge based industries. Oxford’s Employment Land Study (OELS) 20 concludes that all the protected key employment sites and the sites allocated for employment use should be strongly protected as they ensure a range of different types and sizes of sites and employment uses, in order to provide for a range of needs.
3.9 Each site will be considered for it’s suitability for housing. However, due to the findings of the OELS and current local planning policies, the general presumption will be in favour of retaining employment uses. The OELS says that if there was a pressing need to remove protection from some designated key employment sites, the focus should be on the poorer ranking ones (scoring less than 25 points) as set out in Table 6.1 of the OELS (Appendix 5). Only 3 sites score poorly: one is in the undeveloped flood plain (Dairy Depot, Old Abingdon Rd), and the other two sites would not exceed 8 dwellings between them due to their small size (Builders yard, Southmoor Rd; Garage repair shop, 2a Hayfield Rd). So the potential of these poorer employment sites is considered to be less than 8 dwellings. If sites scoring 25 were also considered, this identifies a further 4 sites. However, one of these has already been redeveloped for live-work units (Green St Bindery) and the other 3 would be unlikely to accommodate more than 18 dwellings between them (Quarry Motoring Centre, Green Road; Builders Yard, JH Cox, 108 Temple Rd; Corner of Hayfield Rd and Aristotle Lane).
3.10 Bearing in mind the OELS and current planning policies relating to Oxford, Table 4 reviews the suitability of employment sites for housing. All sites in Table 4 are shown in Figures 3 and 4.
20 Oxford Employment Land Study (March 2006) Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners 18 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
Table 4: Review of employment sites for their suitability for housing
Map ref Policy Physical problems or (Figures Site Existing use Site size (ha) Potential impacts Environmental conditions Suitable for housing? restrictions limitations 3 and 4) Sites allocated for employment use in the Local Plan 4/1 Land at rear of Oxford Open land 1.15 DS.58, EC.3, Awkward shape, access via Visually residential Potential traffic noise from Unsuitable provides poor relationship to Retail Park (DS.58) last used as EC.4, EC.5, existing road which is heavily may look Bypass, poor residential amenity existing uses. Also is one of very few new temporary EC.7 used already, not attractive incongruous in allocated employment sites. Local Plan and parking for environment for residential townscape terms Core Strategy policies are to retain existing BMW bounded by Eastern Bypass with other uses employment and retail park 4/2 Littlemore Park, B1 and 8.53 DS.44, NE.19, Potential liable to flood at Needs to respect Potential noise from Southern Unsuitable, there are very few sites allocated Armstrong Road (DS.44) undeveloped NE.8, TR.5, least part of site, sports nature conservation Bypass for employment use. Recently supported by land EC.3, EC.4, ground needs to be areas Local Plan Inspector. Local Plan and Core EC.5, EC.6 replaced, Local Plan Strategy policies are to retain existing Inspector supported employment employment use, buffer zone required adjacent brook, noise from Southern Bypass 4/3 Oxford Business Park, Oxford 49.05 DS.57, EC.2, Majority of this site is now If new residential Traffic noise from Eastern Unsuitable would result in the loss of one of Cowley (DS.57) Business Park EC.3, EC.7 completed therefore little development is Bypass, potential conflict with the most significant few remaining supplies (Class B uses) land available, unless restricted to limited problems caused to residents of employment sites in Oxford. Local Plan demolition proposed, bus land available could from operation of existing and Core Strategy policies are to retain services to this site presently potentially cause businesses existing employment limited problems to existing businesses 4/4 Oxford Science Park, Undevelope 2.37 DS.60, EC.3, Land liable to flood in part, Need to consider Potential flooding issues, Unsuitable for residential use. It would also land adj. to Minchery d land EC.4, EC.5, adjacent nature potential adverse development would not relate result in the loss of one of the few sites Farm (DS.60) EC.7, NE.19, conservation area, impact on nature well to existing commercial uses allocated for employment use. Local Plan NE.8 residential development conservation area and Core Strategy policies are to retain would not relate well to other existing employment commercial uses in this area 4/5 Oxford Science Park, Oxford 23.91 DS.59, EC.2, Majority of site completed Visually residential Potential traffic noise from Unsuitable would provide poor relationship Littlemore (DS.59) Science Park, EC.3, EC.4, limited supply of land may appear location adjacent southern to existing uses. It is also one of the principal research and EC.5, EC.7, available, residential use of incongruous within boundary sites allocated for further employment development NE.19, NE.8 remaining sites would not this commercial growth. Local Plan and Core Strategy uses relate well to existing setting policies are to retain existing employment commercial uses 4/6 Nielsens, London Road, B1a Offices 4.92 DS.49, EC.2, Potential difficulties No significant Traffic noise from A40, poor Unsuitable, this site is both protected and Headington (DS.49) EC.3, EC.7 associated with significant adverse impact environmental relationship to allocated for employment use. Local Plan amount of additional traffic Park and Ride and Core Strategy policies are to retain onto A40, noise from traffic existing employment
19 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
on A40 4/7 Rover Sports Club Field, Sports 10.43 DS.70, EC.3, Existing sports field Poor relationship to industrial Unsuitable this site, originally in the Green Roman Way, (DS.70) Ground EC.4, EC.5, requires replacement area, particularly BMW Belt, was only supported for employment use adjacent to EC.7, SR.2 facilities, this as an exception based on the future BMW allocation was expansion needs of BMW. Local Plan and supported as an Core Strategy policies are to retain existing exception based on employment the importance of BMW to Oxford’s economy Protected key employment sites in the Local Plan 4/8 Bacordo Court, 79-83 B1/B8 0.46 EC.2, EC.3, Infill site set in Conservation Need to preserve or Offers reasonable conditions for Unsuitable would result in loss of one of the Temple Road EC.6, EC.7 Area enhance residential amenity few local employment sites. Local Plan and Conservation Area Core Strategy policies are to retain existing employment 4/9 Blackwells Hythe Bridge B1 0.34 EC.2, EC.3, Potential for conversion Residential potential Residential amenity would be Unsuitable for residential since it would result Street EC.6, NE.9 limited probably require limited to upper effected by traffic in the loss of existing modern office acc demolition to achieve good floors only given noise/pollution, minimal ommodation in the City centre which is in living conditions, close to need for active opportunities for outside short supply. Local Plan and Core Strategy land liable to flood commercial amenity space policies are to retain existing employment frontages at ground floor level 4/10 Blackwells, Marston St B1 / B8 0.51 EC.2, EC.3, Relatively narrow site, Design should Dwellings may have little Unsuitable however site has permission for 9 EC.6 potential overlooking to respect character of outlook, layout and design dwellings whilst retaining employment neighbours area critical (06/02142/FUL) but is excluded from assessment as would deliver less than 10 dwellings 4/11 Blanchfords Builders Sui generis 1.01 EC.2, EC.3, Access limited from Windmill Car parking may have to be Unsuitable has potential but would lose Yard, Windmill Rd EC.6 Rd limited employment land supply of which there is very little in this area. Local Plan and Core Strategy policies are to retain existing employment 4/12 BMW Garsington Road B2 81.99 EC.2, EC.3, Potential contamination of Future housing use Poor residential environment, Unsuitable for residential use, and would EC.6, this site, poorly located for could prejudice traffic noise implications result in the loss of a key industrial employer, housing given relationship to existing and future this land makes a significant contribution to this industrial area use of surrounding amployment land supply. Local Plan and land for employment Core Strategy policies are to retain existing generating uses employment 4/13 Builders yard (JH Cox), Originally 0.13 EC.2, EC.3, None New residential Good Unsuitable. Whilst site scores only 25 in the 108 Temple Rd builders yard EC.6, EC.7, development could OELS, site smaller than threshold for sites (Sui Gen) but HE.7 potentially enhance assessed permission Conservation Area granted for
20 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
car repair business B2 / Sui G 4/14 Builders yard, Lamarsh Sui Generis 0.49 EC.2, EC.3, Land liable to flood restricts Essentially within retail Could enjoy good views to Unsuitable Flood Zone 3. Local Plan and Rd (but EC.6, NE.8 residential use, now park south (green belt) Core Strategy policies are to retain existing permissions redeveloped for other uses employment granted for ie. retail retail) 4/15 Builders’ yard Travis Sui generic 0.73 EC.2, EC.3, Included in Table 6 as site with planning Perkins, Chapel St (permission EC.6, HE.10 permission granted for residential) 4/16 Builders yard, Southmoor Sui Generis 0.12 EC.2, EC.3, Small site, overlooking Impact upon Residential amenity could be Unsuitable. Whilst site scores less than 25 in Rd EC.6, EC.7, problems. Conservation Area reasonable given location the OELS, site smaller than threshold for sites HE.7, HE.10 assessed. Local Plan and Core Strategy policies are to retain existing employment 4/17 Car Tyre & Exhaust Sui generis 0.13 EC.2, EC.3, Land liable to flood restricts No significant Fronts main arterial road Unsuitable Flood Zone 3. Provides local depot, 302 Abingdon Rd EC.6, NE.8 residential use impacts potential noise service and offers opportunity for modernisation. This is the only protected site in Abingdon Rd. Site unlikely to accommodate 10 dwellings. Local Plan and Core Strategy policies are to retain existing employment 4/18 Chiltern Business Centre, B1/B2/B8 0.96 EC.2, EC.3, Potential contamination of Future housing use Poor residential environment, Unsuitable for residential use, and would Garsington Rd EC.6, EC.7 this site, poorly located for could prejudice traffic noise implications result in loss of existing businesses and land housing given relationship to existing and future supply. Local Plan and Core Strategy this industrial area use of surrounding policies are to retain existing employment land for employment generating uses 4/19 Corner Hayfield Rd & B1 0.18 EC.2, EC.3, Adjacent to canal and land Impact upon Residential amenity could be Unsuitable. Whilst site scores only 25 in the Aristotle Rd EC.6, EC.7 liable to flood Conservation Area reasonable given location OELS, site smaller than threshold for sites assessed. Local Plan and Core Strategy policies are to retain existing employment 4/20 County Trading Estate, B1/B2/B8 42.04 EC.2, EC.3, Potential contamination of Future housing use Poor residential environment, Unsuitable for residential use, in a Watlington Rd EC.6, EC.8 this site, poorly located for could prejudice traffic noise implications predominantly business area and would housing given relationship to existing and future result in loss of existing businesses and land this industrial area use of surrounding supply. Local Plan and Core Strategy land for employment policies are to retain existing employment generating uses 4/21 Dairy depot, Old Sui generis 0.79 EC.2, EC.3, Narrow site with access road None Flooding potential high, noise Unsuitable Whilst site scores only less than 25 Abingdon Rd EC.6, NE7, limits layout, flood plain, being close to railway line in the OELS, site is within Flood Zone 3. Local TR.8 some land may be required Plan and Core Strategy policies are to retain for GTE, set back required existing employment
21 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
from existing railway line 4/22 Enterprise Centre, Cave B1 0.20 EC.2, EC.3, Height limitation, parking No obvious ones On good bus routes and within Unsuitable potential but would result in loss Street EC.6, EC.7, access issues easy walking distance of the of important group of small affordable HE.10 city centre business units. Local Plan and Core Strategy policies are to retain existing employment. 4/23 Fenchurch Court, Bobby B1/B2/B8 1.19 EC.2, EC.3, Potential contamination of Future housing use Poor residential environment, Unsuitable for residential use, and would Fryer Close EC.6, EC.7 this site, poorly located for could prejudice traffic noise implications result in loss of existing businesses and land housing given relationship to existing and future supply. Local Plan and Core Strategy this industrial area use of surrounding policies are to retain existing employment land for employment generating uses 4/24 Garage repair workshop, B2/Sui Gen 0.02 EC.2, EC.3, Small site, potential impact Conservation Area Attractive environment for Unsuitable. Whilst site scores less than 25 in 2A Hayfield Rd EC.6, EC.7, on neighbours residential the OELS, site smaller than threshold for sites HE.7 assessed. Local Plan and Core Strategy policies are to retain existing employment 4/25 Green Street Bindery, 9 B1 (but 0.47 EC.2, EC.3, Small site, potential No obvious impacts Residential area, good Unsuitable. Whilst site scores only 25 in the Green St permission EC.6, EC.7 overlooking to neighbours environmental conditions OELS, site already developed for live-work granted for units. Local Plan and Core Strategy policies live/work are to retain existing employment units) 4/26 Harrow Rd Industrial B1/B2/B8 4.08 EC.2, EC.3, Potential contamination of Future housing use Poor residential environment, Unsuitable for residential use, and would Estate, Watlington Road EC.6, EC.7 this site, poorly located for could prejudice traffic noise implications result in loss of existing businesses and land housing given relationship to existing and future supply. Local Plan and Core Strategy this industrial area use of surrounding policies are to retain existing employment land for employment generating uses 4/27 Horspath Industrial B1/B2/B8 8.34 EC.2, EC.3, Potentially contaminated If the whole site was Potential adverse noise impact Unsuitable would result in the loss of a Estate, Pony Rd EC.6, EC.7, land, noise from Eastern redeveloped for on residential amenity significant number of existing businesses and EC.9 Bypass residential then potential opportunities for local industrial would not have firms to relocate. Local Plan and Core significant adverse Strategy policies are to retain existing impact on employment landscape 4/28 Jordan Hill Business Park B1 2.28 EC.2, EC.3, - No significant Adjacent to existing residential Unsuitable for residential since it would EC.6 adverse impacts of area, with existing open involve the loss of this Business Park which is residential landscape frontages to South key to Oxford’s economy. Local Plan and and West Core Strategy policies are to retain existing employment 4/29 King Charles House, Park B1/D2 0.36 EC.2, EC.3, Potential for conversion Residential potential Residential amenity would be Unsuitable for residential since it would result End St EC.6, NE.9 limited probably require limited to upper effected by traffic in the loss of purpose built modern office demolition to achieve good floors only given noise/pollution, minimal accommodation. in the City centre which is living conditions, could be need for active opportunities for outside in short supply. Local Plan and Core Strategy expensive commercial amenity space policies are to retain existing employment
22 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
frontages at ground floor level 4/30 Macmillans, Between B1 0.36 EC.2, EC.3, Fronts onto busy road, Ground floor Potential traffic noise issues, and Unsuitable for residential since it would result Towns Rd EC.6 access and noise issues frontage should limited opportunities for private in the loss of purpose built modern office respect the amenity space accommodation in the District centre which commercial area, is in short supply residential would dilute it 4/31 Magdalen Rd & Newtec B1 0.42 EC.2, EC.3, Potentially contaminated, No obvious adverse Residential area, good Unsuitable would result in the loss of this small Place EC.6, EC.7 impacts environmental conditions industrial park, which provides local job opportunities. Local Plan and Core Strategy policies are to retain existing employment 4/32 Nuffield Industrial Estate, B1/B2/B8 6.35 EC.2, EC.3, Potential noise from Eastern Future housing use Residential environment to the Unsuitable for residential use since it would Sandy lane west EC.6, EC.7, By-Pass, contaminated land could prejudice south-west effected by existing involve the loss of significant number of EC.8 existing and future employment uses existing businesses and land supply. Local use of surrounding Plan and Core Strategy policies are to retain land for employment existing employment generating uses 4/33 Osney Mead Industrial B1/B2/B8 18.26 EC.2, EC.3, Low lying land liable to flood, No obvious adverse If the whole estate is developed Unsuitable significant constraints which Estate EC.6, EC.7 poor access, electricity impacts then could potentially create a make residential unsuitable ie. flooding. pylons cross the site, within reasonable residential Local Plan and Core Strategy policies are to view cone and high building environment retain existing employment policy 4/34 Oxford Psychologists, B1 0.40 EC.2, EC.3, Overlooking may be a Overlooking, Potential noise from traffic on Unsuitable has potential for housing, given Elsfield Way EC.6 potential problem, access / townscape Elsfield Way new development next door but at present traffic issues, noise from considerations provides good accommodation for local traffic on Elsfield Way business. Local Plan and Core Strategy policies are to retain existing employment 4/35 Powell’s Timber yard, 474 Sui generis 0.34 EC.2, EC.3, Near to land liable to flood, Potential overlooking Offers reasonable conditions for Unsuitable Flood Zone 3. Would result in loss Cowley Rd EC.6, NE.8 backland form of issues residential amenity of one of the few local employment sites. development site Local Plan and Core Strategy policies are to retain existing employment 4/36 Printing works, Crescent B2/B1 (check 0.59 EC.2, EC.3, Narrow site, close to flood Loss of existing Residential amenity Unsuitable potential for conversion, but Rd recent EC.6, EC.7, plain potential flooding building would acceptable would result in loss of local business and permissions) Adj. NE7 detract from the potential opportunity for relocation. Site too character of this small. Local Plan and Core Strategy policies area are to retain existing employment 4/37 Quarry Motoring Centre, B2/Sui generis 0.05 EC.2, EC.3, Small site, close to By-Pass No obvious ones Need to ensure that noise from Unsuitable. Whilst site scores only 25 in the Green Rd EC.6, EC.7 Bypass both within and outside OELS, site smaller than threshold for sites dwellings is mitigated assessed. Local Plan and Core Strategy policies are to retain existing employment 4/38 Storage building, 91-99 B8 0.15 EC.2, EC.3, Land liable to flood restricts Potential to retain Fronts main arterial road Unsuitable Flood Zone 3. Site unlikely to Botley Rd EC.6, NE.8 residential use and covert building potential noise accommodate 10 dwellings. Local Plan and
23 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
or new development Core Strategy policies are to retain existing employment. 4/39 Summertown Pavilion, B1 0.77 EC.2, EC.3, Building has some historic Potential loss of Predominantly residential area, Unsuitable potential for housing but would 16-24 Middle Way EC.6, EC.7 importance, demolition an building would good relationship to Alexandra lose these existing small business in this area. issue detract from Courts Local Plan and Core Strategy policies are to character of the retain existing employment area 4/40 Telephone Exchange, Sui generis & 0.64 EC.2, EC.3, Within District centre No significant Close to busy road network but Unsuitable potential exists on the upper St.Lukes Rd & Between B1 EC.6, RC.2 therefore commercial uses impacts providing noise could be mitigated floors, but would result in the loss of one of Towns Rd (temporary encouraged on ground layout and design the few major employment sites within this permission floors at very least are acceptable District centre. Local Plan and Core Strategy granted for policies are to retain existing employment D1) 4/41 Telephone Repeater Sui Generis 0.55 EC.2, EC.3, Potential residential amenity Provides poor Potential traffic noise, poor Unsuitable for residential use. Local Plan and Station, Woodstock Rd EC.6, Adj. adversely effected by relationship to residential environment Core Strategy policies are to retain existing NE.3 relationship to A40 & A44, existing and future employment traffic noise, part of Northern uses Gateway Area where employment uses promoted, little road frontage 4/42 The Tyre depot, Marsh Sui generis 0.03 EC.2, EC.3, Small site, liable to flood No significant impact Offers reasonable conditions for Unsuitable whilst suitable would result in loss Road EC.6 residential amenity of one of the few local employment sites. Site unlikely to accommodate 10 dwellings. Local Plan and Core Strategy policies are to retain existing employment 4/43 Tyre & Exhaust centre, 72 Sui generis 0.05 EC.2, EC.3, Small site, within District At ground floor level Redeveloped site could Unsuitable Flood Zone 3. Offers potential but London Rd EC.6, NE.7, shopping centre would detract from provide reasonable would loose service/business from the local RC.2 commercial nature environmental amenity area. Site unlikely to accommodate 10 of this frontage dwellings. Local Plan and Core Strategy policies are to retain existing employment 4/44 University Press, Walton B1/B2 2.08 EC.2, EC.3, Existing building has Demolition Attractive environment for Unsuitable would result in the loss of one of Street EC.6, HE.9, architectural & historic particularly of residential Oxford’s most important employment sites. HE.10 importance, potential limited frontage not possible Local Plan and Core Strategy policies are to largely to conversion retain existing employment 4/45 Warehouses off Kiln B8 1.53 EC.2, EC.3, Very close to Eastern Bypass Design may need to Need to ensure that noise from Unsuitable not ideal location for housing, Lane, Shelley Close EC.6, EC.9 turn its back on the Bypass both within and outside and would result in the loss of important Bypass and look into dwellings is mitigated local businesses and key employment site. the site Local Plan and Core Strategy policies are to retain existing employment Other employment sites 4/46 1-3 Pound Way B1 0.03 RC.2, RC.4, Site limited in size, presently Redevelopment Fronting busy road and Unsuitable upper floors uses are directly EC.3, EC.4, occupied by Barclays and through conversion therefore potential noise linked to ground floor businesses at present EC.5, EC.7 Lloyds linked to ground floor could improve problems but could be
24 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
uses. condition of mitigated by insulation property. 4/47 116-120 London Rd B1 0.04 RC.2, RC.4, Relates to upper floors only, Redevelopment Fronting busy road and Unsuitable site and in particular the upper EC.3, EC.4, fronts main road through conversion therefore potential noise floors do have potential for residential but EC.5, EC.7 could improve problems but could be would involve the loss of one of the few condition of mitigated employment sites in this District centre property. 4/48 134a and 134b Cowley B1 0.10 RC.2, RC.4, Modern offices 2 and 3 Redevelopment Close to busy road therefore Unsuitable whilst it has potential to be Road EC.3, EC.4, storey above existing shops through conversion noise potential but could be converted to residential there are very few EC.5, EC.7 could improve mitigated. Very accessible well large office premises within the Cowley condition of served by public transport Road property. 4/49 156-160 Cowley Road B1 0.03 RC.2, RC.4, Relatively small site, offices Redevelopment Close to busy road therefore Unsuitable site and in particular the upper EC.3, EC.4, on upper floors (2) only, through conversion noise potential but could be floors do have potential for residential but EC.5, EC.7 need separate entrance to could improve mitigated. Very accessible well would involve the loss of one of the few serve any residential condition of served by public transport employment sites in this District centre property. 4/50 17-33 Beaumont Street, B1/ D1 1.30.33 EC.3, Listed buildings may limit Redevelopment Providing potential noise issues Unsuitable would involve loss of significant City centre EC.4,EC.5, redevelopment potential, through conversion from traffic overcome, amenity office accommodation. HE.7, Conservation Area, fronts could improve should be reasonable busy City centre road condition of property. 4/51 2-7 Worcester Street, B1 0.17 Adj.DS.30, Relatively new development Would make this Noise/pollution issue in relation Unsuitable need to retain modern office Offices, Gloucester EC.3, EC.4, therefore dependent on overall development to busy road accommodation which makes an important Green EC.5, EC.7, conversion, close to busy less of mixed-use contribution towards this mixed-use scheme HE.7, HE.9, road, within Conservation WEAAP Area 4/52 228-232 Banbury Rd B1 0.08 RC.2, RC.4, Restricted to use of upper Potential would rely Fronts main arterial road, but Unsuitable this is good modern office EC.3, EC.4, floors, but recently on conversion of noise could be mitigated, accommodation, which should be retained EC.5, EC.7 refurbished good standard of existing property but accessible location accommodation not clear how easy this would be 4/53 256 Banbury Rd B1 0.05 RC.2, RC.4, Restricted to use of upper Potential would rely Fronts main arterial road, but Unsuitable this is good modern office EC.3, EC.4, floors, but reasonable on conversion of noise could be mitigated, accommodation which should be retained EC.5, EC.7 accommodation existing property but accessible location not clear how easy this would be 4/54 260-272 Banbury Road B1 0.08 RC.2, RC.4, Restricted to use of upper Potential relies Fronts main arterial road, but Unsuitable would result in the loss of office EC.3, EC.4, floors, formerly occupied by principally on noise could be mitigated, accommodation EC.5, EC.7 Oxfam, requires separate conversion but not accessible location entrance clear how easy this would be 4/55 56-60 St Aldates, corner B1 0.09 DS.78, EC.3, Conservation Area, WEAAP,
25 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
of Thames Street EC.4, EC.5, busy bus route EC.7, HE.7, HE.9, WEAAP 4/56 93 Islip Road Sui Gen 0.08 EC.3, EC.4, Potential contamination from Within residential Could provide reasonable Unsuitable for further capacity as planning EC.5, EC.7, existing employment use, area, subject to amenity permission already granted 07/00350/FUL layout and design 4/57 Abbey National BS, Cnr. B1 0.02 DS.77, EC.3, Conservation Area, Listed Residential Noise/pollution issue in relation Unsuitable would result in the loss of office St. Aldates / Queen St. EC.4, EC.5, Building, Height limitation, unacceptable on to busy road accommodation, unlikely to become EC.7, HE.9, Primary Street frontage ground floor available since alternative relocation RC.3, RC.5, frontage, demolition options limited RC.10 would not be supported. 4/58 Anchor House, Banbury B1 0.16 RC.2, RC.4, Relatively small amount of Potential relies on Fronts main arterial road, but Unsuitable would result in the loss of office Rd EC.3, EC.4, accommodation but on all conversions but not noise could be mitigated, accommodation EC.5, EC.7 floors so ground floor access clear how easy this accessible location available would be 4/59 Barclay House, 242-252 B1 0.18 RC.2, RC.4, Restricted to use of upper Potential relies Fronts main arterial road, but Unsuitable good standard of office Banbury Rd EC.3, EC.4, floors, therefore would principally on noise could be mitigated, accommodation should be retained could EC.5, EC.7 require separate access conversion but not accessible location only be released if a case could be made arrangements clear how easy this out through the cascade policy approach would be 4/60 Barclays Bank, B1 0.03 EC.3, EC.4, Conservation Area, height Residential Potential on upper floors. Unsuitable presently occupied by bank with Cornmarket St EC.5, EC.7, limitation, Primary shopping unacceptable on ground floor service area and admin above, HE.9, RC.3, street frontage ground floor frontage unlikely to become available since alternative relocation options limited 4/61 Blue Boar Court, Blue B1 0.03 EC.3, EC.4, Small site, attractive building Suitable only for Relatively quiet location, lack of Unsuitable Existing property provides good Boar Street EC.5, EC.7, suitable only for conversion, conversion, outdoor amenity space but standard of office accommodation HE.7, HE.9 Conservation Area opportunities limited following recent conversion. Need to retain 4/62 Boswell House, 1-5 Broad B1 plus other 0.05 EC.3, EC.4, Conservation Area, Listed Consider that this is a Unsuitable Permission (04/00669/FUL) Street uses (check) EC.5, EC.7, Building, Primary shopping commercial city granted for change of use of first to fourth HE.9, RC.3, frontage, adjacent busy bus centre location floors from B1 to D1. permission implemented route and completed. 4/63 Buildbase, Watlington 0.94 EC.2, EC.3, Potential contamination of Future housing use Poor residential environment, Part of County Trading Estate. See ref 4/20. Road EC.6, EC.8 this site, poorly located for could prejudice traffic noise implications housing given relationship to existing and future this industrial area use of surrounding land for employment generating uses 4/64 Clarendon House, B1 0.15 EC.3, EC.4, These modern open plan No significant Lack of outdoor amenity space Unsuitable this is prime modern office Cornmarket Street, EC.5, EC.7, offices would not be easy to adverse impacts accommodation which should be retained HE.7, HE.9 sub-divide floorspace to convert to residential, demolition & rebuild
26 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
expensive, Conservation Area, Ground floor primary shopping frontage 4/65 Cranbrook House, B1 0.12 RC.2, RC.4, Good standard of Potential would rely Fronts main arterial road, but Unsuitable would result in the loss of office Banbury Rd EC.3, EC.4, accommodation on all floors on conversion of noise could be mitigated, accommodation EC.5, EC.7 so ground floor access existing property but accessible location available not clear how easy this would be 4/66 Falklands House, Oxpens B1 0.22 EC.3, EC.4, Residential potential Noise/pollution issue in relation Suitable presently occupied by Oxford Road EC.5, EC.7, needs to be to busy road University Training Corps. But in the event of HE.9, considered in the them leaving has potential WEAAP, context of West End 4/67 HSBC, Corner of B1 0.03 EC.3, EC.4, Conservation Area, Listed Residential Noise/pollution issue in relation Unsuitable presently occupied by bank with Cornmarket Street & EC.5, EC.7, Building, height limitation, unacceptable on to busy road / Queen St ground floor service area and admin above, Queen Street HE.9, RC.3, Primary shopping street ground floor unlikely to become available since RC.10 frontage frontage, demolition alternative relocation options limited would not be supported 4/68 Kennet House, 108-110 B1 0.13 RC.2, RC.4, Relates to upper floors only, scope probably Fronting busy road and Unsuitable site and in particular the upper London Rd EC.3, EC.4, fronts main road suitable for change therefore potential noise floors do have potential for residential but EC.5, EC.7 of use only therefore problems but could be would involve the loss of one of the few separate access mitigated employment sites in this District centre arrangements required 4/69 Lloyds TSB 1-5 High B1 0.05 EC.3, EC.4, Conservation Area, Listed Unacceptable on Noise/pollution issue in relation Unsuitable presently occupied by bank with Street, Carfax EC.5, EC.7, Building, Height limitation, ground floor to busy road ground floor service area and admin above, HE.9, RC.1, Primary Street frontage frontage, demolition unlikely to become available since RC.3 and rebuild unlikely, alternative relocation options limited. 4/70 Lloyds TSB Bank, 87 B1 0.27 RC.2, RC.4, Site limited in size, presently scope probably Fronting busy road and Unsuitable upper floors uses are directly London Rd / corner of EC.3, EC.4, occupied by Lloyds Bank suitable for change therefore potential noise linked to ground floor businesses at present Stephen Rd EC.5, EC.7 and therefore upper floors of use only therefore problems but could be linked to ground floor uses. separate access mitigated arrangements required 4/71 Macmillan House, 38 St. B1 0.12 DS.78, EC.3, Conservation Area, Land Office use would Noise/pollution issue in relation Unsuitable given location and possible risk of Aldates EC.4, EC.5, liable to flood, narrow appear more to busy road, potential risk of flooding EC.7, HE.7, frontage site, noise/pollution suitable given flooding HE.9, fronts busy road, within constraints WEAAP, NE.8 regeneration zone 4/72 Maintenance Depot, Sui Generis / 0.23 EC.3, EC.4, Narrow main access may Scale and density in Overall should be good, Suitable given existing use and relationship Lanham Way, Sandford B8 EC.5, EC.7, require access through relation to adjacent possible contamination issue to residential area Road HE.7 neighbouring developments properties 4/73 Mayfield House, rear of B1 0.04 RC.2, RC.4, Constrained site due to Potential relies Close to main arterial road, but Unsuitable would result in the loss of office
27 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
274 Banbury Road EC.3, EC.4, surrounding development principally on noise could be mitigated, accommodation EC.5, EC.7 conversion but not accessible location clear how easy this would be 4/74 Mill Street, Oxford B1b 0.43 EC.3, EC.4, Reasonable attractive Future proposals Concern over future flooding, Unsuitable, clearly potential flooding issues (formerly Oxford (2,000sqm) EC.5, EC.7, building, conversion need to be relationship to existing uses, would rule out residential use Innovation) HE.9, NE.8 considered preferable, in considered in the noise for nearby rail line Cons. Area, High Buildings context of this overall Policy, land liable to flood. site, mix of uses etc Close to railway line potential noise issues 4/75 Natwest Bank, 120-121 B1 0.09 EC.3, EC.4, Cons Area, height limitation, Res. unacceptable Upper floors would offer Unsuitable presently occupied by bank with High Street EC.5, EC.7, Primary shopping street on ground floor reasonable conditions ground floor service area and admin above, HE.9, RC.3, frontage frontage unlikely to become available since alternative relocation options limited 4/76 Natwest Bank, George B1 0.03 EC.3, EC.4, Cons Area, height limitation, Res. unacceptable Upper floors would offer Unsuitable presently occupied by bank with Street EC.5, EC.7, Primary shopping street on ground floor reasonable conditions ground floor service area and admin above, HE.9, RC.3, frontage frontage unlikely to become available since alternative relocation options limited 4/77 Norwich Union Offices, B1 0.18 RC.2, RC.4, No obvious ones, but at Potential would rely Fronts main arterial road, but Unsuitable this is good modern office Banbury Rd EC.3, EC.4, present designed as purpose on conversion of noise could be mitigated, accommodation which should be retained EC.5, EC.7 built offices. existing property but accessible location not clear how easy this would be 4/78 Opposite Blue Boar B1 0.01 EC.3, EC.4, Small site but reasonable Suitable only for Relatively quiet location, lack of Unsuitable existing property provides good Court, Blue Boar Street EC.5, EC.7, amount of accommodation, conversion, outdoor amenity space but standard of office for Oxford based firm HE.7, HE.9 in Conservation Area, may opportunities limited be possible for conversion to residential 4/79 Oxfam House, 274 B1 0.03 RC.2, RC.4, Restricted to use of upper Potential relies Fronts main arterial road, but Unsuitable could only be released if a case Banbury Road EC.3, EC.4, floors, formerly occupied by principally on noise could be mitigated, could be made out through the cascade EC.5, EC.7 Oxfam, requires sep. conversion but not accessible location policy approach entrance clear how easy this would be 4/80 Pembroke House, 36-37 B1 0.02 EC.3, EC.4, City centre potential noise Impact on Potential noise problems would Unsuitable as site too small Pembroke Street EC.5, EC.7, Conservation Area need to be mitigated CP.3, would depend whether conversion or new build 4/81 Pickfords Ltd, Sandy B8 2.81 EC.3, EC.4, Presently only one access Introduction of Poor relationship for future Unsuitable, represents well located Lane West EC.5, EC.7, shared by commercial uses, housing may restrict occupiers adjacent to existing employment use, which will accommodate EC.8 possible contamination. operation of existing industrial uses a range of different businesses Planning application adjacent
28 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
submitted for redevelopment employment uses, as B1 and Sui generis 4/82 Prama House, Banbury B1 0.15 RC.2, RC.4, Restricted to use of upper Potential would rely Fronts main arterial road, but Unsuitable this is modern office Road (West site) EC.3, EC.4, floors, good standard of on conversion of noise could be mitigated, accommodation in reasonable condition EC.5, EC.7 modern office existing property but accessible location ,which should be retained. accommodation. not clear how easy this would be. 4/83 Seymour House, B1 0.04 RC.2, RC.4, No obvious ones, but at Potential would rely Fronts main arterial road, but Unsuitable this is modern office Manbury Road, Mayfield EC.3, EC.4, present designed as purpose on conversion of noise could be mitigated, accommodation in reasonable condition House, Mayfield Road EC.5, EC.7 built offices existing property but accessible location ,which should be retained not clear how easy this would be 4/84 Town Hall, St. Aldates B1 0.33 EC.3, EC.4, Listed building, Conservation Would not Noise/pollution issue in relation Unsuitable given present role of the Town EC.5, EC.7, Area necessarily fit with to busy road Hall and associated rooms offices would be HE.7, HE.9, the public role of this preferable WEAAP building at present, Listed Building may restrict internal arrangement 4/85 Unipart, Watlington B8,B1 30.49 EC.3, EC.4, Only one access road Scale and density to Poor relationship for future Unsuitable since it is occupied by a major Road EC.5, EC.7, serving site, potential respect setting occupiers to industrial area, employer important to Oxford’s economy contamination, adjacent Green Belt particularly BMW 4/86 Units 1-4, 379 Cowley Rd Sui Gen 0.07 EC.3, EC.4, Potential noise from main Providing design Potential noise problems would Unsuitable as unlikely to achieve 10 units as EC.5, EC.7, arterial road, cost associated acceptable, no need to be mitigated part of a mixed use development with demolition and new overlooking issues OK build
29 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008 Other non-residential uses 3.11 There are a number of sites allocated within the Oxford Local Plan for uses other than residential and employment. These mainly include uses for the universities, hospitals and for recreational, community, primary health care, student accommodation and retail use. The Practice Guidance allows for current planning policy approaches to be taken into consideration when assessing the suitability of sites. Taking this into account the approaches relating to particular land use types are set out below. Table 5 reviews the suitability of non-residential allocated sites for housing bearing in mind the approaches below. All sites in Table 5 are shown in Figures 3 and 4.
University use The University of Oxford is a world-renowned centre of academic excellence as well as one of the largest employers in Oxford. Oxford Brookes University (OBU) has a reputation for academic excellence, and is important to the Oxford economy. The City Council has maintained and supported the development of these facilities in the Oxford Local Plan and in the Core Strategy Preferred Options. Current policies are in favour of retaining existing sites and supporting their development and so the presumption will be to consider any allocations for University use as unsuitable for housing.
Student accommodation The Oxford Local Plan generally supports the development of student accommodation on specific allocated sites and sets targets for the number of students that should be living in purpose built accommodation. The Core Strategy continues this by also setting a target. This gives students more opportunity to live outside of private rented accommodation making more family dwellings available to local households. The presumption will be to consider any allocations for student accommodation as unsuitable for housing. Oxford Brookes has expressed that the sites allocated for their student accommodation are still required.
Hospital use Oxford is an important centre for healthcare and research, with a broad range of facilities serving a regional catchment and also patients from further afield, including overseas. The City Council has maintained and supported the development of these facilities in the Oxford Local Plan and in the Core Strategy Preferred Options. Current policies are in favour of retaining existing sites and supporting their development and so the presumption will be to consider any allocations for hospital use as unsuitable for housing.
Recreational and community uses Both recreational and community uses help deliver socially cohesive and active communities and their protection and delivery are supported within the Oxford Local Plan. The presumption will be to consider any allocations for recreational and community use as unsuitable for housing.
Primary health care and educational uses Access to primary health care and education is fundamental to delivering healthy and inclusive communities and the maintenance and development of new facilities are supported in the Oxford Local Plan. The presumption will be to consider any allocations for primary health care as unsuitable for housing.
Retail use Oxford’s Retail Needs Study21 (RNS) identified a need for significant additional non-food (comparison) floorspace of between 31,000 and 36,500 m2 by 2011. Due to this high need, the presumption will be to consider any allocations for retail use as unsuitable for housing.
21 Oxford’s Retail Needs Study (Feb 2004) Roger Tym and Partners 30 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
Table 5: Review of allocated non-residential sites for their suitability for housing
Map ref Site Physical problems or Environmental (Figures Site Existing use size Policy restrictions Potential impacts Suitable for housing? limitations conditions 3 and 4) (ha) Sites allocated for non-residential uses in the Local Plan 5/1 Acland Hospital Site Vacant, previously 0.65 HE.7, HE.9, ED.8, DS.2 Several listed buildings, Loss of hospital use Central and Unsuitable. Site is required for student hospital with 60 (University of Oxford use which would need to sustainable location so accommodation parking spaces, 37 and Primary Care be re-used and their excellent access to beds Facilities including student setting enhanced goods and services accommodation) 5/2 Part of Bayswater School Recently developed as 0.39 DS.6 (Recreational use) n/a n/a n/a Unsuitable. Site now developed for a Site a swimming pool swimming pool 5/3 Bertie Place Recreation Recreation ground 3.37 DS.7 (Primary School) Site formerly used for Would involve loss of Contamination could Unsuitable. Site is required for primary school . Ground, Bertie Place and vacant land tipping so risk of site allocated for a be an issue Only if site was no longer required might site and Land Behind contamination. Site relocated primary be suitable. Site partly within flood zone 3 Wytham Street within flood zone 3 school 5/4 Bevington Road, Teaching and research 4.57 HS.13. ED.8, DS.9 No apparent problems Loss of existing Site located within Unsuitable. Site is required for student Banbury Road, Parks facilities. Student (University of Oxford use University facilities transport central area accommodation and university use Road and Keble Road accommodation including student and student so well served by accommodation) accommodation public transport. Good location close to shops and other services 5/5 Blackbird Leys Mixed use including 5.14 DS.10 (regeneration zone) Small area of site Loss of existing Site well served by Unsuitable. Site is required for retail, leisure regeneration zone retail, leisure within Flood Zone 3 facilities at the heart public transport to community and educational use . However, community facilities of Blackbird Leys Cowley Centre and to some residential may be incorporated but and education the City centre. Close due to the other potential competing uses, it to ring road not possible to assume general suitability of the site to residential 5/6 BT Site, Hollow Way 100 staff, 88 parking 1.58 HS.13, ED.6, DS.12 No apparent problems Would involve losing Site located on Hollow Unsuitable. Site is required for student spaces, telegraph pole (Student site for purpose built Way near the ring accommodation storage accommodation use) student road. Site located in accommodation residential area. Relatively poor access to public transport 5/7 Castle Site Developed for leisure 1.66 DS.14 (Mixed Use Unsuitable. Site now developed (partly for and residential Development) residential) 5/8 Churchill Hospital Site 330 beds, 57,500m2 22.73 NE.18, DS.15 (Hospital use) Site located close to Would involve losing Poor public transport Unsuitable. Site is required for hospital use built area - not yet full lye valley SSSI and site for hospital use.. accessibility to this site. Note permission boundary brook. Need Master plan shows Site situated away 04/01297/FUL - Cancer to ensure that redevelopment from shops/ services centre, work hydrology not likely to involve etc commenced affected by intensification of
31 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
620m2 office B1 redevelopment hospital use on site 5/9 Cowley Road Bingo Hall Had 25 staff and up to 0.25 SR.15 Community No apparent problems Would involve loss of Good access to public Unsuitable. Site is required for community use 500 customers - Facilities, DS.20 site for community transport and shops/ the need for new community centre Currently vacant (Community Arts use) uses local services identified in this location by Strategic Leisure Community Centres Study 5/10 Cripley Road, Land at 1.53 HS.13, NE.18, ED.8, DS.22 Site is an awkward Would involve losing Good access to public Unsuitable. Site is required for student North End Yard (Student shape – long and site for purpose built transport and shops/ accommodation accommodation) narrow. Site borders student local services the green belt and is in accommodation. Potentially noisy very close proximity to location as adjacent the SAC. Site also in to the railway line very close proximity to the flood plain 5/11 Donnington Bridge Road, Riverside centre - 5 3.22 DS.25 (Recreational use) East Area Action Unsuitable. Site is required for recreational Riversport Centre staff, facilities for 50 Plan supports use . Site within Flood Zone 3 students. Rowing club redevelopment of 11,300ft2 over 2 floors. centre for Boat house - limited recreational uses use 5/12 Dorset House, London Previously Oxford 0.56 HS13, ED.5 ED.6, DS.27 No apparent Would involve loss of Good access to public Unsuitable. Site is required for student Road Brookes Uni School of (Mixed Use Development) problems. university facilities transport, shops/ local accommodation Occupational Health, Small site (i.e., updated services (80 students) library, or student Building currently accommodation) vacant 5/13 Dunnock Way Site, Pathways workshop, 0.87 SR.15, SR.16, HH.2, DS.28 No apparent problems Loss of future Good access to public Unsuitable. Site now developed Blackbird Leys (low intensity (Mixed Use Development) potential site for the transport, local shops/ manufacture of community inc. services garden products by primary healthcare disabled adults 22 etc Emps. Small Spar shop 4000ft2 total floorspace. And takeaway 5/14 Former Government Remaining 2.00 HS.13, ED.5, ED.6, DS.31 No apparent problems Would involve losing Site close to Brookes Unsuitable. Site is required for student Buildings Site, Marston development land (Oxford Brookes University site for purpose built University. Good public accommodation and university use Road vacant. Oxford Centre use including student student transport access. for Islamic Studies have accommodation) accommodation Good access to local purchased land shops/ services 5/15 Gloucester Green Bus Bus station 0.19 DS.30 (Transport use) No apparent problems Loss of central bus Excellent access to Unsuitable. Site is required for essential Station station shops, services and transport requirements transport 5/16 Harcourt House, Marston Temporary permission 1.08 HS.13, ED.5, ED.6, DS.32 No apparent problems Would involve losing Site close to Brookes Unsuitable. Site is required for student
32 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
Road for vehicle rental, (Oxford Brookes University site for purpose built University. Good public accommodation and university use previous permission for use including student student transport access. Territorial Army centre accommodation) accommodation Good access to local 06/00704/TEM shops/ services 5/17 Herbert Close Playing field 0.55 HS.13, DS.33 (University of Limited vehicular Would involve losing Good public transport Unsuitable. Site is required for student Oxford use including access down already site for purpose built and shops services on accommodation and university use student accommodation) crowed roads. student Cowley Road (near accommodation the site.) 5/18 Horspath Site, Land Most of site used for 15.85 Green Belt. NE.1-3, DS.34 Edge of City Location. Loss of potential site Poor access to public Unsuitable. Site is required for recreational South of Oxford Road agricultural purposes. (Recreation use) Site is located close to for sporting transport. Poor access use Disused Allotments also employment land. Site excellence to shops and services present given preference for consideration as possible centre for sporting excellence in Green Spaces Strategy 5/19 Institute of Health Medical research. 150 2.24 DS.36 (Medical Research) Site already extensively Loss of medical Access to public Unsuitable. Site already extensively Sciences Site, Old Road staff V. limited parking developed for medical research and other transport, shops and developed for hospital uses. Site is required Permission purposes health related services is OK for hospital use 05/02194/FUL development *05/02194/FUL cancer research building approved 13,772m 08/02/06 subject to legal agreement 5/20 John Radcliffe Hospital Major Regional 27.03 DS.37 (Hospital use) Site already extensively Loss of medical Good access to public Unsuitable. Site is required for hospital use Site, Headington Hospital developed for medical research and other transport, shops and purposes. health related services Redevelopment will development involve modernisation of existing buildings on site 5/21 Jowett Walk North area - 4 tennis 0.27 HS.13. ED.8, DS.38 Loss of tennis courts. Would involve losing Central location. Good Unsuitable. Site is required for student courts, south area - 6 (Student Would need site for purpose built access to shops and accommodation garages and 11,119ft2 accommodation) replacing/ improving student services. Reasonable office accommodation. public transport links 5/22 Littlemore Mental Health Hospital 7.40 DS.42 (Hospital use) Site already extensively Development of the Edge of City Location. Unsuitable. Site is required for hospital use . Centre developed for site for housing Poor public transport Local Plan policy says that some key worker specialist medical would involve loss of access. Poor accommodation suitable but it is not possible purposes specialist mental accessibility to local to estimate a capacity due to the other healthcare services shops and other requirements for the site services 5/23 Littlemore Mental Health Field 3.68 DS.43 (Hospital use) Area already Development of the Edge of City location. Unsuitable. Site is required for hospital use .
33 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
Centre, field at rear, extensively developed site for housing Poor access to shops Local Plan policy says that some key worker Littlemore for specialist medical would involve loss of and services. accommodation suitable but it is not possible purposes specialist mental Reasonable public to estimate a capacity due to the other healthcare services transport links requirements for the site 5/24 Nuffield Orthapaedic 203 beds, 311 staff. Lots 8.37 DS.52 (Hospital use) No apparent problems Development of the Relatively poor public Unsuitable. Site is required for hospital use . Centre, Old Road of building has been site for housing transport links Local Plan policy says that some key worker completed would involve loss of accommodation suitable but it is not possible hospital services to estimate a capacity due to the other requirements for the site 5/25 Odeon Cinema, George Cinema 1.05 DS.54 (Mixed use Constrained site in the Would involve loss of Heart of City Centre Unsuitable. Cinema redevelopment is Street Development) heart of the West End a cinema – which is location on George necessary as part of West End Area Action a strong part of the Street. Excellent Plan development of the access to shops, West End public, transport and services 5/26 Paradise Street Vacant building 0.10 HS.13, ED.8, DS.63 No apparent problems Would involve losing City Centre Location. Unsuitable. Site has permission (03/00999/FUL) Workshops (Student site for purpose built Good public transport for student accommodation which has been accommodation) student links and good access completed accommodation. to shops and local services 5/27 Park Hospital Site Hospital/ medical use 1.97 HS.13, ED.6, DS.64 No apparent problems Would involve loss of Good access to shops Unsuitable. Site is required for hospital use (University of Oxford use) small-scale and services. redevelopment on Reasonable public site for hospital and transport access medical uses 5/28 Pusey House, St. Giles Was 10 garages. Now 0.15 HS.13, ED.8, DS.65 No apparent problems Would involve losing City Centre Location. Unsuitable. Site is required for student vacant (Student site for purpose built Good public transport accommodation . Unlikely to deliver 10 accommodation) student links and good access dwellings accommodation. to shops and local services 5/29 Radcliffe Infirmary Site, Oxford University 4.27 HS.13, ED.8, DS.66 No apparent problems Would involve losing City Centre Location. Unsuitable. Site is required for primary health Woodstock Road Purchased Site. Site (University of Oxford use site for purpose built Good public transport care, student accommodation and university currently vacant including student student links and good access use accommodation and the accommodation to shops and local relocated Jericho Health services Centre) 5/30 Ruskin College Site, College use 0.18 HS.13, ED.8, DS.72 No apparent problems Would involve losing Unsuitable. Site is required for student Walton Street (University of Oxford use site for purpose built accommodation and university use including student student accommodation) accommodation/ University Of Oxford teaching/ research/ university
34 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
administration uses 5/31 Slade Hospital Site, Continued health care 1.33 DS.74 (Hospital use) Would involve loss of Oxfordshire Learning Poor access to local Unsuitable. Site is required for hospital use Horspath Driftway use specialist medical trust Disability Trust owns transport network. site the site Average accessibility to local shops and services 5/32 St. Aldates Regeneration Commercial, 6.41 DS.78 (Regeneration No apparent problems May not deliver the Good access to Unsuitable. Site is required for retail, leisure Zone educational, zone) best regeneration of central shops and and educational use . However, some institutional and the site services. Good public residential may be incorporated but due to residential transport access near the other potential competing uses, it not to site possible to assume general suitability of the site to residential. Site partly within Flood Zone 3 5/33 Part of St. Clement’s Car Parking for 120 cars (to 0.32 HS.13, ED.8, NE.8, NE.9, Part of site is Flood Would involve losing Good access to local Unsuitable. Site is required for student Park be retained) NE.10, DS.82 (University of zone 3. Car parking to site for purpose built shops and services. accommodation . Site partly within Flood Oxford use) be retained, student Good public transport Zone 3 potentially accommodation access near to site underground 5/34 St. Cross College Annex , Tennis Courts and 1.39 HS.13 ED.8, DS.83, Part of site is flood Would involve losing Good access to city Unsuitable. Site is required for student Holywell Mill Lane Allotments NE.8(University of Oxford zone 3 site for purpose built centre accommodation . Site partly within Flood use) student Zone 3 accommodation 5/35 Warneford Hospital Site, Hospital Use 8.67 HS.13, ED.6. NE.19, DS.86 Close proximity to SSSI Initial idea was to Good access to local Unsuitable. Site is required for student Headington (Hospital use and Oxford build new mental shops/ services. accommodation, hospital and university use Brookes University use) care premises but Reasonable public have changed transport links within plans. Now plan to walking distance of site refurbish existing premises 5/36 Warneford Meadow Site, Field 5.17 HS.13, ED.5, ED.6, DS.87 No apparent physical Would involve losing Good access for Unsuitable. Site is required for student Headington (Hospital use and Oxford problems. Town green site for hospital and residents to Warneford accommodation, hospital and university use Brookes University use) status being applied Oxford Brookes use and Churchill hospitals . Local Plan policy says that some key worker for which, if successful, accommodation suitable but it is not possible would prevent to estimate a capacity due to the other development requirements for the site
35 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008 Sites going through the planning process Site size 3.12 Local Authorities are expected to determine what size of site would make a significant contribution to housing delivery and therefore what would be the threshold for identifying potential sites. Oxford is a very compact city and a large proportion of housing is delivered on relatively small sites. It would not be sensible to set the threshold for large sites too high otherwise there could be very few sites identified. Therefore a site of around 0.25ha or greater is considered to make a significant contribution towards housing delivery. This size of site could usually contribute around 10 dwellings or more with a reasonable mix of dwelling sizes. If there are sites identified below the threshold, but could still make a significant contribution, these may be included within the SHLAA. To exclude a number of sites with a capacity for 9 dwellings or sites less than 0.25ha may misrepresent the potential land that is available in Oxford so the SHLAA will be flexible on this point. The approach of the SHLAA is designed around potential yields rather than site area alone.
Sites with planning permission 3.13 Sites with planning permission but that have not yet been completed are called commitments. A ‘commitment’ is a dwelling that has full, outline or reserved matters planning permission but had not been completed at 31st March 2007. Dwellings permitted under outline permission are an estimate of capacity and are superseded when reserved matters permissions is granted. In relation to commitments, PPS3 says that “Local Planning Authorities should not include sites for which they have granted planning permissions unless they can demonstrate, based on robust evidence, that the sites are developable and are likely to contribute to housing delivery at the point envisaged”22.
3.14 Table 6 lists the sites of a significant size (generally 0.25ha/10 dwellings or greater) that had planning permission (outline or full) at 31st July 200723 for residential development on the whole or part of the site that have not yet been implemented and/or completed. It excludes sites allocated in the Local Plan or West End AAP. All sites in Table 6 are shown in Figures 3 and 4.
Table 6: Sites suitable for housing with planning permission (outline or full) for residential development that have not been implemented or completed (approx 10 dwellings/0.25ha or greater) at 31st March 2007 Map ref Date of Development Net number of (Figures 3 Site name Application number permission implemented? dwellings and 4) 138 - 140 London Road, 6/1 04/01311/FUL 08/08/2005 10/05/2006 14 Headington 6/2 69 The Slade, Headington 03/02175/FUL 19/04/2004 13/06/2006 11 Beckley View House and Brome 6/3 Place Garage Block, Fettiplace 05/00641/FUL 29/06/2005 10/04/2006 27 Road Garages and Land East Of Not at 6/4 02/02348/FUL 14/10/2003 18 Warren Crescent, Headington 31/04/2007 05/02159/RES (further applications Hernes House Residential Home, Not at 6/5 submitted 08/12/2005 24 3 Hernes Crescent 01/06/2007 07/02120/RES and 07/02121/RES Lawn Upton House, Sandford 04/02282/FUL, 15/02/2005, Not at 6/6 22 Road, Littlemore 04/02293/FUL 02/03/2005 24/04/2007
22 Paragraph 58, Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (Nov 2006) DCLG 23 It is possible for the later date of 31st July 2007 to be used for permissions as these are confirmed be the issuing of a decision notice. Completions are not finalised until March each year so it is not possible to have a more recent date than 31st March 2007 and therefore in reality some of these sites may be completed by the time the SHLAA is published (although won’t officially be recorded as complete until 31st March 2008) 36 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
6/7 Rose Hill Orlit redevelopment 05/00639/OUT 29/06/2005 No, outline 67 Morris Motors Athletic and Social 02/02046/FUL, 08/12/2004, 6/8 08/08/2006 60 Club, 129 Crescent Road 05/01717/VAR 12/04/2006 Rear Of 25, 27 And 29 Abberbury 6/9 04/01626/OUT 07/04/2005 No, outline 10 Road Royal British Legion Club, Hadow 6/10 03/01351/FUL 04/04/2005 21/06/2006 16 Road, Marston Site Of 78 St Clements Street And 6/11 1-4 Sunset Cottages, St Clements 03/02393/FUL 23/11/2004 19/02/2007 15 Street 23/08/2006 (outline) 04/01106/OUT, 6/12 St Nicholas House, Littlemore Reserved No, outline 26 07/01441/RES matters submitted 6/13 Travis Perkins, Chapel Street 04/02259/OUT 14/03/2006 No, outline 57
6/14 Block Of Garages, Holland Place 06/01765/FUL 18/05/2007 No 11 Territorial Army Centre Slade 6/15 Barracks Infantry, Mascall 06/01703/OUT 12/06/2007 No, outline 72 Avenue Total 450 Total -10% 405
3.15 Sites that are under construction are at very low risk of not being completed. Sites where the permission has not been implemented are at slightly greater risk of not being completed. But it is recognised that there is always likely to be an proportion of sites with planning permission that are not implemented for whatever reason, but considering the strength of the housing market in Oxford, this proportion is likely to be low.
3.16 Figure 2 shows an extract from Oxford’s AMR 200624 contains information on the number of permissions compared to completions over the previous 5 years (01-06). For the purposes of this SHLAA, a trend line has being added which gives a rough indication of the time lag between permissions and completions.
1400
1200
1000
net 800 permissions
net 600 completions Linear (net 400 permissions) Number of dwellings Linear (net completions) 200
0 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 Year
Figure 2: Permission against completions
24 Indicator 1, Oxford’s Annual Monitoring Report 2006, Oxford City Council 37 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008 3.17 It suggests a time lag of approximately 2 years. This is thought to be a reasonable indication considering that large sites could take up to 2/3 years to complete whereas small sites could take 1-2 years to complete from the date of permission.
3.18 To gain a rough idea of the proportion of permissions not likely to be implemented, the recent housing data (the last 5 years - 02-07) is analysed. Generally speaking it could be expected that most developments are implemented within the first few years of a permission being granted. Whilst planning permissions are valid for three years since August 2006, the majority of permissions over the past five years have a five year expiry period. So, of those residential planning permissions (excluding allocated sites) granted between 1st April 2002 and 31st March 2005, only 109 sites with permission (full or reserved matters) had not been implemented by 31st March 2007. This totals 262 dwellings. As a proportion of all dwellings permitted (excluding allocated sites) during that period, this is just over 16%. Bearing in mind that there would be at the very least a further 2 years to run on those permissions, it is considered reasonable to assume that likely no more than 10% of all permissions would fail to be implemented. Although the expiry date is now three years, this is not considered to affect whether or not a developer decides to implement their scheme or not. If they intend to implement a planning permission, they will ensure it is within the time period in any event.
3.19 As well as the commitments on sites of a significant size in Table 6, there are a number of commitments on smaller sites25. These have not been mapped in the SHLAA individually because they are numerous and generally consist of developments of 1 or 2 dwellings but the full list is at Appendix 6. Together they contribute a significant number of dwellings. Similarly, a 10% discount will be applied. Commitments on small sites have been checked up until 31st March 2007.
Commitments at 31st March 2007 on small sites 689
Total -10% 620
Source: Annual Monitoring Report 200 and Oxford City Council database
Sites where planning permission has been refused 3.20 Some proposals for housing were refused planning permission for various reasons, often on detailed design grounds but the principle of housing on some of these sites may not have been a reason for refusal. The sites may be suitable for housing and if alternative proposals were to be submitted for housing on these sites, that addressed the original reasons for refusal, housing may be delivered on them.
3.21 Reasons for refusal aside, Table 7 lists sites where planning permission was refused during the past 5 years that could still suitable for housing development. All sites in Table 7 are shown in Figures 3 and 4.
3.22 Where a principle for housing on a refused site has been established, it is quite likely that the applicant may submit a further revised application in order to gain permission. This is also likely to be soon after the refusal and probably within the following 5 year period. A number of refusals listed in Table 7 are a few years old and with no new application submitted since suggests that it’s likely that some sites will not be pursued. However, following a refusal an applicant may appeal and the landowner reassess options and a redesigned scheme may be submitted. This could take up to 3 years so a sensible approach would be to discount these sites taking this into account. Of the sites listed in Table 7, about 35% of the dwellings are part of applications where the refusal was more than 3 years ago. A very rough method is to apply this discount, and also include the 10% discount for non-implementation, explained in paragraphs 3.15-3.17. A discount of 45% will therefore be applied to all sites in Table 7.
25 Oxford City Council database 38 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
Table 7: Sites where planning permission was refused (by 31st March 2007) but where the site is considered suitable for housing (approx 10 dwellings/0.25ha or greater) Map ref Application Net (Figures 3 Site name number and Site suitable for housing? number of and 4) date of refusal dwellings Whilst there would be some design and highway issues to be overcome, the principle of residential on this site is likely to be 8 Headley 04/02479/OUT 7/1 considered acceptable. The expectation is that with fewer 10 Way (01/03/2005) dwellings development of the site is more likely to be acceptable. Notional capacity suggested Whilst there would be some design and highway issues to be overcome, the principle of residential on this site is likely to be 86-88 Old 04/00940/FUL 7/2 considered acceptable. The expectation is that with fewer 10 Road (05/08/2004) dwellings development of the site is more likely to be acceptable. Notional capacity suggested Land Rear Whilst there would be some design issues to be overcome, the Of 274 and principle of residential on this site is likely to be considered 07/00733/FUL 7/3 276 acceptable. The expectation is that with fewer dwellings 8 (26/06/2007) Woodstock development of the site is more likely to be acceptable. Notional Road capacity suggested Whilst there would be some design issues to be overcome, the Rear Of 40- principle of residential on this site is likely to be considered 03/01508/FUL 7/4 47 Juxon acceptable. The expectation is that with fewer dwellings 8 (01/10/2003) Street development of the site is more likely to be acceptable. Notional capacity suggested Total 36 Total - 45% 18
Sites pending a decision 3.23 Table 8 lists the sites of a significant size (generally 0.25ha/10 dwellings or greater) that have been submitted to the City Council seeking permission (outline or full) at July 2007 for residential development. Whilst no decision had been made at the time of writing, discussion took place with officers on whether the principle of housing on the site is acceptable. All sites in Table 8 are shown in Figures 3 and 4.
3.24 There are a number of variables that require assessment in order to determine whether housing would be delivered on these sites. Firstly, whether planning permission will be granted as the proposal may be contrary to other Local Plan policies, whether a further application would be submitted and whether any permission would actually be implemented. Taking a cautious approach, a discount of 25% is considered reasonable and will be applied to all sites in Table 8.
Table 8: Sites pending decision (at 31st March 2007) where the site is considered suitable for housing
Map ref Net (Figures 3 Site name Application number Site suitable for housing? number of and 4) dwellings
8/1 Beenhams 06/01099/FUL Within existing residential area 20 King of Prussia, 76 Mixed use redevelopment with residential on 8/2 06/02082/FUL 8 Rose Hill upper floors 266 And 268 Iffley 8/3 06/02423/FUL Within existing residential area 13 Road Within existing residential area 8/4 Sunnymead Court 07/01872/FUL 12 Redevelopment of residential Total 53 Total - 25% 39
39 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
Sites not in the planning process 3.25 There are two main ways of identifying sites not currently in the planning process. The first is undertaking a basic desktop study. The second is through a more detailed map survey of Oxford. The map survey is carried out as Stages 4 and 5.
Basic Desktop Study 3.26 Taking into account the exclusions and inclusions set out in paragraphs 2.3-2.4, the types of sites that are not currently in the planning process that the Practice Guidance says should be considered are: • vacant and derelict land; • surplus public sector land; • land in non-residential use which may be suitable for re-development for housing including as part of mixed-use development; • additional housing opportunities in established residential areas, such as under-used garage blocks; • large scale redevelopment and re-design of existing residential areas; • sites in rural settlements and rural exception sites; • urban extensions; • new free standing settlements.
3.27 Owing to the geography of Oxford, there is no potential for sites in rural settlements, urban extensions and new free standing settlements within Oxford’s administrative boundary so these are excluded from this assessment. The urban extension proposed by the South East Plan panel report is referred to in Stage 9.
3.28 The Practice Guidance suggests a number of sources26 that could be used to identify sites with potential for housing. The more useful of these have been used to identify further sites:
Empty property register – The City Council’s Empty Homes officer was contacted for details on empty properties during the first stages of the SHLAA. The majority were single properties and not likely to yield a significant number of dwellings. The only site which, due to its size, might have yielded about 10 dwellings was 26/28 Quarry High Street, however a planning application was received and the officer has recommended refusal, the reasons for which are unlikely to be overcome by a redesign. There are therefore no sites on the Empty Property Register that are likely to yield a significant number of dwellings.
National Land Use Database (NLUD) – this did not yield any sites above and beyond the Local Plan allocated sites because the only information the NLUD holds is information supplied directly by the Local Authority anyway.
Register of Surplus Public Sector Land27 – This identified two sites owned by British Railways Board (Residuary) Ltd. South End Yard (3.22 ha) was suggested directly by the landowner but this is encompassed within the Oxpens Road site in Table 4. Land at Mill Street (0.3 ha) is listed in Table 10.
Vacant property registers (industrial and commercial) – The City Council’s Asset Management team was contacted for the draft SHLAA with regards to sites that they consider may become available for development. All suggested sites that could deliver a significant number of dwellings are listed in Table 10.
Commercial property databases – an online search was conducted for property or land that could be available for development in Oxford. The search yielded few sites and those that were of a significant size are encompassed within existing business/industrial parks and would be unsuitable for housing. There are therefore no sites from commercial property databases that are likely to yield a significant number of dwellings in suitable locations. The majority of employment sites are reviewed in Stage 3(ii)
26 Figure 5, Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments: Practice Guidance (July 2007) CLG 27 Register of Surplus Public Land (Jun 2007) English Partnerships 40 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008 Contacting landowners 3.29 Another source of information was contacting landowners and agents during the draft stages of the SHLAA. In November 2006 a wide range of landowners and agents were contacted in order to identify sites that might become available for development up to 2026 which would be included in the SHLAA. A list of landowners consulted and the proforma used are at Appendix 2. Landowners, developers and land agents were given 6 weeks to suggest sites for consideration as having potential for housing development. It was made clear that the types of opportunities we sought were for areas of land, or a building or group of buildings, part or all of which could be appropriate for housing or for a mixed use to include housing and which meets the following tests:
• it could accommodate 10 or more dwellings; and • is likely to become available for development or redevelopment in the next 20 years; and • it is evidently underused; or • it might reasonably be expected to be targeted for development.
3.30 Sites of around 0.25ha or greater identified during consultation are listed in Table 9. The work involved in this desktop study was primarily undertaken as preparation for the draft SHLAA. Many of the sites in Table 10 were carried forward from the draft SHLAA although some sites were suggested after the draft SHLAA was published. The potential capacity of suitable sites will be considered in Stage 6. All sites in Table 10 are shown in Figures 3 and 4.
Summary of Stage 3 3.31 Stage 3 has reviewed sites identifiable from existing desktop information that included reviewing Local Plan allocated sites (residential and non-residential), employment sites, sites going through the planning process and sites suggested by landowners for the draft SHLAA. All stage 3 sites are shown in Figures 3 and 4. Sites identified during Stage 3 as suitable for housing will be taken forward to Stages 6 and 7.
41 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
Table 9: All sites suggested by landowners
Site Suggested by Where assessed Cotuit Hall, Pullens Lane Oxford Brookes University (West Waddy ADP) Table 10 Paul Kent Hall, James Wolfe Road Oxford Brookes University (West Waddy ADP) Table 10 Crescent Hall, Crescent Road Oxford Brookes University (West Waddy ADP) Table 10 Union Street Car Park, Cowley Road Oxford City Council (Asset Management) Table 10 Northway Centre, Maltfield Road Oxford City Council (Asset Management) Table 10 Sutton Road Hall, Northway Oxford City Council (Asset Management) Table 10 26/28 Quarry High Street Oxford City Council (Empty Residential Properties) Table 10 Townsend House, Barton Oxfordshire County Council Table 10 Longlands, Blackbird Leys Oxfordshire County Council Table 10 Iffley House, Iffley Oxfordshire County Council Table 10 Marston Court Oxfordshire County Council Table 10 Ormerod School Oxfordshire County Council Table 10 Harlow Centre and Site Oxfordshire County Council Table 10 Headington Quarry Glebe, Quarry Road Oxford Diocesan Board of Finance (Hives Planning) Table 10 Southfield Golf Course, Hill Top Road Oxford City Council Table 15 Land north of Godstow Road, Wolvercote Oxford City Council (Asset Management) Table 14 (14/7) Land at Mill Lane, Marston Oxford City Council (Asset Management) Table 10 Land at Marsh Lane, Marston Oxford City Council (Asset Management) Table 10 Land rear of Priory Road flats, Minchery Farm Oxford City Council (Asset Management) Table 10 Land rear of Ulfgar Road, Wolvercote Oxford City Council (Asset Management) Table 10 Court Place Farm Allotments, Marston Oxford City Council (Asset Management) Table 10 Ruskin College land Ruskin College (West Waddy ADP) Table 10 Cowley Marsh Playing Field, Marsh Road Oxfordshire County Council Table 10 Northway Playing Field, Marston Oxfordshire County Council Table 10 Grandpont Nature Park Oxfordshire County Council Table 10 County Hall, New Road Oxfordshire County Council Table 3 Macclesfield House Oxfordshire County Council Table 3 Speedwell House, Speedwell Street Oxfordshire County Council Table 3 Shotover View, Crawford View, East Oxford Oxfordshire County Council Table 10 Maintenance Depot, Lanham Way, Sandford Oxfordshire County Council Table 4 Road Land North of Botley Road/ Bullstake Close Oxford City Council (Asset Management) Table 10 Former Barton Road Cricket Ground Thomas Homes Table 10 Hill Farm Savills on behalf of client Table 10 Union Street substation Oxford City Council (Asset Management) Site too small Collins Street games hall Oxford City Council (Asset Management) Site too small Garage sites: Horspath Rd, Sermon Cl, Kestral Oxford City Council (Asset Management – garage Site too small Crescent, Crowberry Rd, Balfour Rd sites Phase 2) 91 Lime Walk Oxford City Council (Empty Residential Properties) Site too small 317 London Road, Headington Oxford City Council (Empty Residential Properties) Site too small 127 Walton Street Oxford City Council (Empty Residential Properties) Site too small 29 Old High Street Oxford City Council (Empty Residential Properties) Site too small 24 Marsh Road Oxford City Council (Empty Residential Properties) Site too small 4 and 6 Temple Road Oxford City Council (Empty Residential Properties) Site too small Globe Public House, 59-60 Cranham Street Oxford City Council (Empty Residential Properties) Site too small 17 Iffley Road Oxford City Council (Empty Residential Properties) Site too small 151 Iffley Road Oxford City Council (Empty Residential Properties) Site too small 41 and 41A Lake Street Oxford City Council (Empty Residential Properties) Site too small
42 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
Table 10: Sites not in the planning process: Basic desktop study (sites suggested by landowners for the draft SHLAA and later) Map ref Information Total site Physical problems or Environmental (Figures 3 Site name Existing use Policy restrictions Potential impacts Site suitable for housing? source size (ha) limitations conditions and 4) Residential development of Site within Highways concerns a significant number of Potentially poor Unsuitable. Planning permission refused for 26/28 Oxford City Headington regarding visibility dwellings could impact quality amenity residential development (07/01210/FUL) on 10/1 Quarry Council Empty Residential 0.17 Quarry splays and upon the character and space for new 21/08/07. Reasons unlikely to be overcome High Street Homes Conservation Area manoeuvring setting of the Conservation residents by a redesign (HE.7) Area Suitable provided it meets the criteria in Policy SR.2. Whilst covered by SR.2, the site is a restricted access sports facility and Access good. No Former Majority of the site Design would have to have therefore does not contribute to maintaining apparent physical Barton is covered regard for neighbouring open space standards in the Headington Thomas Former cricket problems. Site may No apparent 10/2 Road 1.2 Protected open air residential properties and to urban village (Green Space Study). It’s Homes ground (disused) have acquired poor conditions Cricket sports facilities provide publicly accessible development has the potential to create ecological value since Ground (SR.2) local open space new publicly accessible informal and formal being unused local open space (Figure 51 and 52, Green Space Study). Dependant on ecological surveys Surrounding area is low density. Unsuitable. The City Council is seeking to Access could be via Residential development of reduce the number of student living outside Site protected as Pullens Lane/Harberton a significant number of of purpose built student accommodation purpose built Mead but unsuitable dwellings could impact and the loss of this site would not contribute student for heavy and upon the character and to this aim. (Local Plan policy ED.6) Cotuit Hall, Oxford accommodation increased level of setting of the Conservation Student No apparent 10/3 Pullens Brookes 1.1 under Local Plan traffic. Area. Loss of a significant number of mature trees accommodation poor conditions Lane University Policy ED.6. Site Mature trees Would require felling of trees within a Conservation Area likely to be also in surrounding site and within Conservation Area. unacceptable. Development of the site Conservation Area within it. Loss of student would be contrary to the existing spacious (HE.7) Sloping site could accommodation may character of neighbouring plots. May cause difficulties encourage students to adversely affect the neighbouring High Wall occupy family dwellings garden (Register of Historic Gardens) instead Site designated at Unsuitable. Development into this part of the Local Plan policies Residential development of Green Belt would encourage the coalescing Court SR.8 (Protection of a significant number of of Old Marston/New Marston/Northway Oxford City Access good. No Place Farm Allotments); HE. 7 dwellings could impact No apparent which would be conflicting with the aims of 10/4 Council Asset Allotments 5.9 apparent physical Allotments, (Conservation upon the character and poor conditions the Green Belt. See Table 13. The site is the Management problems Marston Area); HE.10 (View setting of the Conservation remains of the countryside setting of Old cones); NE.2 Area. Loss of allotments Marston and it’s erosion would adversely (Green Belt) affect it Cowley Site designated at Potential vehicular Marsh Public open Local Plan policies access via Gillians Loss of important and No apparent Oxfordshire Unsuitable. Green Space Study (para 6.7.3) Playing space SR.2 (Protection Way. Additional popular publicly accessible poor conditions. 10/5 County 2.2 recommends site should be protected Field (part), (Neighbourhood Open Air Sports pedestrian and cycle open space. Scores highly in Close proximity Council through the planning system Marsh park) Facilities); HE.10 access also off the Green Space Study to Flood Plain Road (View cones) Barracks Lane Crescent Oxford Site protected as Access exists onto Site close to Temple Cowley Unsuitable. The City Council is seeking to Student No apparent 10/6 Hall, Brookes 1.2 purpose built Crescent Road. No Conservation Area. Loss of reduce the number of student living outside accommodation poor conditions Crescent University student apparent physical student accommodation of purpose built student accommodation
43 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
Road accommodation problems may encourage students to and the loss of this site would not contribute under Local Plan occupy family dwellings to this aim. (Local Plan policy ED.6) Policy ED.6. instead Vehicular access would be off Unsuitable. Site is important in maintaining Protected open air Whitehouse Road. access to informal neighbourhood open sports facilities and Grandpont Oxfordshire Public open Additional pedestrian Noise issues as space (Figure 19, Green Space Study). The public open space Loss of publicly accessible 10/7 Nature County space (nature 3.2 and cycle access site adjacent to quality of the site should be maintained and (SR.2, SR.5). open space Park Council park) across river and railway line consider how values can be enhances 2.2ha is flood plain towpath. (Table 6.1F Green Space Study). Site partly (NE.7) Majority of site in Flood within Flood Zone 3 Plain Part of the site is Protected Open Suitable but only on the existing built up Open space currently has Air Sports Facilities area of the site (0.85ha). Development into no public access. Access to No apparent Harlow Oxfordshire (Local Plan policy the Green Belt on this site would encourage Educational Access off Raymund new public open space poor conditions. 10/8 Centre and County 2.6 SR.2) and Green the coalescing of New support offices Road could be created as part of Close proximity Site Council Belt Marston/Summertown which would be the development to benefit to Flood Plain Western end of the conflicting with the aims of the Green Belt. existing residents site is flood zone 2 See Table 13. Part of site in Flood Zone 2 (NE.7) Hives Planning Unsuitable. Site is a wildlife corridor adjacent Headingto Local Plan policies on behalf of to Stanfield Study Centre (SLINC). The loss of n Quarry NE.20 (Wildlife Access off Quarry the Oxford Greenfield No apparent the wildlife corridor would be detrimental. 10/9 Glebe, 2.0 corridor) and HE.7 Road Loss of wildlife corridor Diocesan (woodland) poor conditions Loss of a significant number of mature trees Quarry (Conservation Mature trees on site Board of within a Conservation Area likely to be Road Area) Finance unacceptable Suitable. Design will need to consider the relationship between the site and the large Oxfordshire County Council plots to the west of the site to ensure there is Iffley Oxfordshire Access off Anne state that bedspaces from Residential home Conservation Area No apparent no significant impact upon the openness 10/10 House, County 0.6 Greenwood Close. the home would be for elderly people (HE.7) poor conditions and character of these plots. Loss of a Iffley Council Mature trees on site replaced on other sites and significant number of mature trees within the in other ways Conservation Area likely to be unacceptable Located within Land Development would be on area of large Open space and Adjoining retail Site is constrained and Suitable. Would need to be of high quality Adjacent upper floors of a new retail retail units and footpath unit is District sloping. design in order to improve the environment 10/11 TKMaxx, The Junction 0.05 unit. Footpath from car park so adjoining retail Shopping Suitable for car free for the occupiers. Would improve the mix of John Allen between Towns Road would environment unit Frontage (RC.4) development units within Cowley District Centre Centre need to be diverted and outlook quite poor Site designated at This open space currently Unsuitable. Development into this part of Local Plan policies Land at Access off Marsh has no public access. the Green Belt would encourage the Oxford City HE. 7 Marsh Greenfield Lane/Horseman Close. Access to new public open No apparent coalescing of Old Marston/New 10/12 Council Asset 2.9 (Conservation Lane, (agricultural) No apparent physical space could be created as poor conditions Marston/Northway which would be Management Area); HE.10 (View Marston problems part of the development to conflicting with the aims of the Green Belt. cones); NE.2 benefit existing residents See Table 13 (Green Belt) Local Plan policies This open space currently Unsuitable. Development into this part of Land at Mill Oxford City NE.2 (Green Belt). Access off Mill lane. No has no public access. the Green Belt would encourage the Greenfield No apparent 10/13 Lane, Council Asset 16.0 3.26 ha of site is apparent physical Access to new public open coalescing of Old Marston/Summertown (agricultural) poor conditions Marston Management undeveloped problems space could be created as which would be conflicting with the aims of flood plain (NE.7). part of the development to the Green Belt. See Table 13
44 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
2.76 ha is a SLINC benefit existing residents (NE.19) Immediately adjacent to Flood Plain. Could potential be included Unsuitable. Site is long and thin and unlikely Register of Land at Mill Access off Osney Lane within Flood to achieve a well designed development 10/14 surplus Public Railway land 0.3 None Land surplus to requirements Street Site is narrow Plain in future with adequate amenity space. Adjacent to Sector Land Flood Risk Flood Plain Assessments. Noise issues as site adjacent to railway line Land north Development of the site Oxford City Local Plan policies of Botley Greenfield would encourage run off No apparent 10/15 Council Asset 10.67 NE.2 (Green Belt); Flood plain Unsuitable. Site in Flood Zone 3 Road/Bulst (agricultural) into already flood prone poor conditions Management Flood Plain (NE.7) ake Close areas Site close to A40 and so may be This open space currently Land north noise issues. Local Plan policies has no public access. Suitable. Development into this part of the of Oxford City Access potentially off Surrounded on Greenfield NE.2 (Green Belt); Access to new public open Green Belt may be acceptable if supported 10/16 Godstow Council Asset 1.21 Godstow Road/Green three sides by (agricultural) Conservation Area space could be created as in the Northern Gateway AAP. Site Road, Management Close roads/rail so HE.7 part of the development to encompassed within Site 14/7 (Table 14) Wolvercote environment for benefit existing residents occupiers quite poor Site designated at Local Plan policies Access off Priory Road. Littlemore has a shortage of Land rear SR.8 (Protection of Cowley branch line public open space and Unsuitable. Slow worms present on site. of Priory Oxford City Allotments) being considered for development of this site for No apparent There is a shortage of open space in 10/17 Road flats, Council Asset Allotments 1.3 Slow worms are future strategic residential would reduce the poor conditions Littlemore and housing in this location would Minchery Management present on site passenger transit (Core amount of public open exacerbate this problem Farm which are a Strategy) space protected species (NE.21) This open space currently Land rear has no public access. Oxford City Difficult to access site. of Ulfgar Vacant Part of site in Flood Access to new public open No apparent Unsuitable. Difficult to access. Adjacent to 10/18 Council Asset 1.26 Predominantly Road, greenfield land Plain (NE.7) space could be created as poor conditions flood plain Management covered in trees Wolvercote part of the development to benefit existing residents Suitable (partly). Site is adjacent to the very sensitive Bartlemas Conservation Area. The Access off Bartlemas This open space currently C.A. was originally surrounded by open fields Adjacent Close. No apparent has no public access. Lincoln of which this site was one. Development Bartlemas physical problems. Access to new public open College close to the C.A. unlikely to be acceptable Private open Conservation Development would space could be created as Sports Lincoln No apparent as it would adversely affect the apenness 10/19 space (sports 2.3 area. See have to carefully part of the development to Ground, College poor conditions surrounding the Conservation area. pitch) Bartlemas consider the impact benefit existing residents. Bartlemas Provided design is acceptable in terms of its Conservation Area upon the neighbouring Improvements to the Close impact upon the Conservation Area, Appraisal Bartlemas environment for pedestrians development may be acceptable on the Conservation Area along Bartlemas Close eastern part of the site only. Site is a Protected Open Air Sports Facility
45 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
but for private use only. Development on the site could create new public open space and improve access to formal public open space (Figure 46 Green Space Study). Lincoln College will provide for their sporting needs on the adjacent Jesus College site. Oxfordshire County Council Longlands, Oxfordshire Access off Longlands state that bedspaces from Residential home No apparent 10/20 Blackbird County 0.44 No designations Road. No apparent the home would be Suitable for elderly people poor conditions Leys Council physical problems replaced on other sites and in other ways Oxfordshire County Council Access off Harberton Oxfordshire state that bedspaces from Marston Elderly persons Road/Marston Road. No apparent 10/21 County 0.42 No designations the home would be Suitable Court home No apparent physical poor conditions Council replaced on other sites and problems in other ways The regeneration/ Suitable, provided that loss of community redevelopment of the facilities acceptable or loss mitigated by Northway Access likely off Oxford City Community facility Northway complex is provision made on site as part of any new Centre, Community Maltfield Road. No No apparent 10/22 Council Asset 0.78 protected under supported in the North East development (SR.15). The Maltfield facility apparent physical poor conditions Management Policy SR.15 Area Plan. New community regeneration/redevelopment of the Road problems facility likely to be included Northway complex is supported in the North in redevelopment East Area Plan The regeneration/ Northway Public open redevelopment of the Oxfordshire Site protected Variety of potential Unsuitable. Green Space Study Playing space Northway complex is No apparent 10/23 County 2.0 open air sports accesses. No apparent recommends site should be protected Field, (Neighbourhood supported in the North East poor conditions Council facilities (SR.2) physical problems through the planning system Marston park) Area Plan but open space likely to be retained Loss of special school. Close to busy Part of site is Oxfordshire County Council road so noise Oxfordshire Access off Waynflete Ormerod protected open state that current service will surveys may be 10/24 County Special School 1.4 Road. No apparent Suitable School air sports facility be delivered in a different necessary. No Council physical problems (SR.2) way in a new property. Area apparent poor predominantly residential conditions Site protected as Area predominantly low Unsuitable. The City Council is seeking to Paul Kent purpose built Access off James density residential. Loss of Oxford reduce the number of student living outside Hall, James Student student Wolfe Road. No student accommodation No apparent 10/25 Brookes 0.7 of purpose built student accommodation Wolfe accommodation accommodation apparent physical may encourage students to poor conditions University and the loss of this site would not contribute Road under Local Plan problems occupy family dwellings to this aim. (Local Plan policy ED.6) Policy ED.6. instead Residential development of West Waddy Site within a significant number of Unsuitable. Development of the site would Ruskin Access may be Close to A40 so ADP on behalf Conservation Area dwellings could impact destroy the openness surrounding Old 10/26 College Greenfield 4.7 difficult. Mature trees noise could be of Ruskin (Local Plan policy upon the character and Headington and significantly affect the land on site an issue College HE.7) setting of the Conservation setting of the Conservation Area Area Residential home Suitable. Bearing in mind previous elderly Oxfordshire for elderly people Close to A40 so Shotover EC.3, EC.4, EC.5, No apparent physical Could be implications for persons accommodation. Relates to 10/27 County used as County 0.58 noise could be View EC.7, problems amenity space. predominantly residential area, site formerly Council Council B1 offices an issue used as elderly persons home and laundry Sutton Oxford City Community Community facility Access likely off Sutton The regeneration/ No apparent Suitable, provided that loss of community 10/28 0.18 Road Hall, Council Asset facility protected under Road/ Westlands redevelopment of the poor conditions facilities acceptable or loss mitigated by
46 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
Northway Management Policy SR.15. Road. No apparent Northway complex is provision made on site as part of any new physical problems supported in the North East development (SR.15). The Area Plan. New community regeneration/redevelopment of the facility likely to be included Northway complex is supported in the North in redevelopment East Area Plan Oxfordshire County Council Townsend Oxfordshire Access off Bayswater state that bedspaces from Residential home No apparent 10/29 House, County 0.45 No designations Road. No apparent the home would be Suitable for elderly people poor conditions Barton Council physical problems replaced on other sites and in other ways Unlikely to be Union significant open Loss of car parking although Street Car Oxford City Within Cowley Access off Union space provided there may be potential for 10/30 Park, Council Asset Public car park 0.23 Road District Street/ Chapel Street. for residents. Suitable, provided well designed spaces to be provided Cowley Management Centre Constrained site Outlook onto underground Road supermarket not ideal Unsuitable. Development into this part of West part of site the Green Belt would encourage the covered by Local Part of site close Savills on coalescing of Old Marston/Summertown Greenfield Plan policies NE.19, to A40 so 10/31 Hill Farm behalf of 18.6 Access difficult Affect on biodiversity. which would be conflicting with the aims of (agricultural) NE.20, flood plain. potential noisy client the Green Belt. See Table 13. Affect on Whole site within conditions biodiversity unacceptable. Site within Flood the Green belt. Zone 3
47 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
48 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
49 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
50 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008 STAGE 4 Determining which sites and areas will be surveyed
4.1 The Practice Guidance indicates how the Local Authority should determine which area to survey and it requires that consideration is given to the nature of the housing challenge, the nature of the area and the nature of land supply.
4.2 Whilst there are variations in house prices and levels of deprivation across Oxford, the relative problem of affordability hits all areas of the city. Even the cheapest areas are unaffordable to the majority of households. Oxford is a very compact city and a large proportion of housing is delivered on relatively small sites. It would not be sensible to set the threshold for large sites too high otherwise there could be very few sites identified. Therefore a site of around 0.25ha or greater is considered to make a significant contribution towards housing delivery. This size of site could usually contribute around 10 dwellings or more with a reasonable mix of dwelling sizes.
4.3 The Practice Guidance suggests mapping the following areas to identify which geographic areas should be covered by the survey: • Development hotspots • Town and District Centres • Principal public transport corridors • Specific locations within settlements • Specific locations outside settlements
4.4 Figure 5 shows the location and number of windfall housing permissions over the past 5 years. It also shows the areas within 800 metres of the District Centres and City centre and within 400 metres of main public transport corridors. These distances are generally accepted guidelines for walking distances to services28. There is a noticeable concentration of permissions within catchments of retail areas although there is still a reasonable spread of permissions across Oxford. It is also clear from the map that the majority of Oxford’s built up area is within the 400m distance from a main public transport corridor. The regeneration areas shown in Figure 5 are taken from the Core Strategy Preferred Options29.
4.5 Due to the accessibility of the majority of areas to public transport, it is considered appropriate to survey the whole of Oxford’s built up area as being potentially suitable for housing when undertaking the detailed map survey.
28 Paragraph 4.4.1, Manual for Streets (March 2007) Department for Communities and Local Government and Department for Transport 29 Paragraph 7.3, Oxford 2026 Core Strategy – Preferred Options (March 2007) Oxford City Council 51 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
Figure 5: Development hotspots and transport catchment areas
52 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008 STAGE 5 Carrying out the detailed map survey
5.1 Stage 5 is divided into assessing the built up and non-built up areas of Oxford. The built up area includes: a) The existing built up area of Oxford which for the purpose of the SHLAA excludes areas within (b) – (e) below The non-built up area includes: b) Open space (sites within and excluded from the Green Space Study30) c) Green Belt land (as identified on the Local Plan Proposals Map31) d) Core Strategy Strategic Sites (as identified in the Core Strategy Preferred Options32) e) Nature conservation areas (SLINCs and LNRs)
5.2 Within each of these sections, criteria are set out indicating how sites were initially identified. These sites are then listed in a table and assessed for their suitability for housing. Sites identified as suitable will be taken forward to the next stages of the SHLAA and are mapped in greater detail in Appendix 11.
5.3 Sites considered unsuitable for housing are not considered further within the SHLAA. However, all sites (suitable and not suitable) within Tables 11, 12, 14, 15 and 16 are shown in Figures 8 and 9 for reference.
Built up area 5.4 Due to the accessibility of the majority of areas to public transport, it is considered appropriate to survey the whole of Oxford’s built up area as being potentially suitable for housing when undertaking the detailed map survey.
5.5 Whilst often encompassed within the built up area, formal and informal public open spaces as well as institutional and University open space will be considered under non-built up area section (ii) below. a) Detailed map survey of the built up area 5.6 Ordnance Survey maps and aerial photographs were used to identify potential sites within the built up area of Oxford. This was followed up by site visits.
5.7 The criteria used for identifying sites were:
• Sites that could accommodate 10 or more dwellings (generally greater that 0.25 hectares) • Brownfield or greenfield within the built up area
Sites were excluded if:
• it falls within designations set out in paragraph 2.3 (Flood Zone 3, SSSI, SAC, allotments); • it is open space already surveyed by the Green Space Study and other open space as these sites are dealt with in Section 5(ii); • it was identified in the initial desktop review (Stage 3 above); • it is part of a Core Strategy Strategic site as these are dealt with in Section 5(iv); • it is in the Green Belt as this is dealt with in Section 5(iii).
30 Oxford City Green Space Study (Feb 2007 update) Scott Wilson 31 Oxford Local Plan 2001-2016 Proposals Map (2005) Oxford City Council 32 Oxford 2026 Core Strategy – Preferred Options (March 2007) Oxford City Council 53 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008 5.8 There are a few areas of Oxford where properties have large back gardens. There may be potential for back gardens to be amalgamated and developed for housing, however, this would probably require the cooperation of at least 3 landowners in order to achieve a 10 dwelling development. Due to the difficulties envisaged in delivering this land, and the relatively few such opportunities that could occur in Oxford, backland development has not been considered when identifying sites.
5.9 There are also likely to be opportunities in the future for existing housing stock to be demolished and redeveloped. Oxford City Homes (Oxford City Council) are currently investigating the potential of sites where this could be undertaken33. However, these types of redevelopment are unlikely to deliver a significant net increase in dwellings because the majority with be replacement dwellings, whilst perhaps to a higher density, but also having to meet higher design standards and lifetime homes standards. These types of redevelopment have therefore been excluded from the SHLAA at such an early stage in their investigation but will be monitored for inclusion in future revisions of the SHLAA.
5.10 All sites identified through the detailed map survey are listed in Table 11 and are assessed for their suitability for housing. All sites in Table 11 are shown in Figures 8 and 9.
33 Strategy for non-traditional housing (Report to Oxford City Council Executive Board on 4 February 2008) 54 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
Table 11: Sites not in the planning process: Detailed map survey of the built up area Map ref Site Information Policy Physical problems or Environmental (Figures 8 Site name Existing use size Potential impacts Site suitable for housing? source restrictions limitations conditions and 9) (ha) 11/1 Land at Barton Map survey Open space/ 2.40 Conservation No apparent physical Development is likely to have a Likely to be Unsuitable. Development of the site would Lane fields area (HE.7) problems significant detrimental effect on noise issues from destroy the openness surrounding Old the setting of the Old Headington the A40 for Headington and significantly affect the setting conservation area residents of the Conservation Area 11/2 Land at Map survey Open space/ 1.56 Conservation Site adjacent to flood Development is likely to have a Future flood Unsuitable. The development of the site would Church Way fields area (HE.7) plain significant detrimental effect on plain area affect the setting to the Conservation Area. the setting of the Iffley revisions may Development would be contrary to the existing conservation area encroach upon spacious character of the housing plots. the site. 11/3 Land at Map survey Open space 0.39 None Significant number of The site serves as open space for No apparent Unsuitable. Unlikely that a significant number of Herbert Close and mature trees on the the Jesus College students of problems dwellings could be accommodated on this site woodland site Thelwall House. Loss of mature whilst also retaining mature trees and open trees space for students and new households 11/4 Land corner of Map survey Open space 0.79 None Mature trees on site The trees on the site are of Could be noise Unsuitable. Loss of important trees Armstrong and and importance as they form part of issues from Sandford Road woodland the former sanatorium park A4074 11/5 Land north of Map survey Open space 0.80 Conservation No apparent physical Development is likely to have a No apparent Unsuitable. Development of the site would St Clements area (HE.7) problems significant detrimental effect on problems adversely affect the tranquillity ad sense of Church the setting of the St Clement openness around the church. The relationship Church between the church and the meadow would be adversely affected 11/6 Land north of Map survey Open space 0.26 Conservation No apparent physical Development is likely to have an Likely to be Unsuitable. This gap helps retain the setting of Bury Knowle area (HE.7) problems effect on the setting of the Old noise issues from Old Headington Conservation area and its tennis courts Headington conservation area the A40 for development would encourage the gradual residents urbanisation of the Conservation Area 11/7 Land rear and Map survey Open space 0.53 Majority of No apparent physical Development is likely to have a Unsuitable. The development of the site would north of the site is problems significant detrimental effect on affect the setting to the Conservation Area. Church within the the setting of the Iffley Development would be contrary to the existing Cottage Conservation conservation area spacious character of the housing plots area (HE.7) 11/8 Land rear of Map survey Open space, 1.24 Western part Site adjacent to flood Loss of mature trees. Loss of No apparent Unsuitable. The site is valuable open space in the Convent of trees and of site within plain allotments and orchard in active problems association with the convent the allotments in view cone cultivation in association with the Incarnation association (HE.10) Convent with convent 11/9 Cold Harbour Map survey Vacant 0.32 Loss of public Site within Flood Zone May be contamination on the site No apparent Unsuitable. Loss of the pub would need to be Petrol Station brownfield house (RC.18) 3 from former petrol station problems justified in accordance with policy RC.18 and Fox and and public otherwise only remainder of site suitable. Site is Hounds Pub house in Flood Zone 3
55 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008 Non-built up areas 5.11 A significant proportion of the non-built up area of Oxford is considered unsuitable for development if it is a designation listed in paragraph 2.3 (flood zone 3, nature conservation areas and allotments). The remaining non-built up areas generally consists of Green Belt land or other open space, some with protective designations. The survey of open space includes open space within built up areas. b) The approach to open space Green Space Study sites 5.12 The Green Space Study34 (GSS) assessed the quantity, quality and access to open space. The GSS did not assess sites if they had limited potential for recreation so open space not within the GSS are dealt with below. The GSS assesses where improvements should be made but it also indicates whether the level of provision is sufficient and the value of existing open spaces. It concludes that the overall quantity of publicly accessible open space in Oxford is sufficient but that there are significant variations across Oxford.
5.13 The GSS also categorises open space into land with unrestricted, restricted and limited public access. The GSS assesses the value and quality of each unrestricted site. It then applies these scores to a Quality/Value matrix to produce a policy approach for the site. Figure 6 shows the GSS matrix. The GSS considers that sites with Poor Quality and Low Value could be surplus to requirements. However, the GSS says that “The Quality/Value matrix must be treated with caution and needs to be considered as a rough tool for selecting policy options for sites”35.
Good quality / Low value Good quality / High value Policy options Policy options Maintain quality Maintain quality Review based on further assessment Protect through planning system Average value / Good quality
Average quality / Average quality / Average quality / Average value Low value High value
Poor quality / Low value Poor quality / High value Policy options Policy options Could be surplus to requirements in terms of Raise quality to meet required standard primary purpose; review value based on Protect through the planning system further assessment Average value / Poor quality
Figure 6: Quality/Value matrix from the Green Space Study
5.14 One aim of the GSS was to assist the City Council’s Leisure Department in prioritising its own strategies to open space management and therefore there was more focus on the value of publicly accessible open space and whether any of these sites were surplus to Council requirements. However, spatial planning for open space and housing must look at the potential of all types of open space, public and private, for development.
5.15 The method for considering which sites should be assessed for housing potential begins with the complete list of open space from the GSS (unrestricted, restricted and limited access). This complete list is at Appendix 7. Each site is then filtered using the following process:
34 Oxford City Green Space Study (Feb 2007 update) Scott Wilson 35 Paragraph 3.1.8, Oxford City Green Space Study (Feb 2007 update) Scott Wilson 56 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008 Green Space Study - Unrestricted open space. Sites excluded if: • it falls within designations set out in paragraph 2.3 (Flood Zone 3, SSSI, SAC, allotments); • is less than 0.25ha to allow focus on sites that could deliver a significant number of dwellings; • It scores an medium or high Value score36 and/or an average or good Weighted Quality score 37; • It is a churchyard/cemeteries as they are protected by law; • It is part of a trunk road/highway roadside; • It is a Scheduled Ancient Monument; and • It is assessed elsewhere in the initial desktop review (Stage 3 above); a Core Strategy Strategic site as these are dealt with in section 5 (iv) or in the Green Belt as this is dealt with in section 5(iii).
Green Space Study - Restricted and limited access open space. Sites excluded if: • it falls within designations set out in paragraph 2.3 (Flood Zone 3, SSSI, SAC, allotments); • is less than 0.25ha to allow focus on sites that could deliver a significant number of dwellings; and • it scores an average or good Weighted Quality score38 (nb: the GSS does not attribute a Value score to restricted or limited open space); and • It is assessed elsewhere in the initial desktop review (Stage 3 above); a Core Strategy Strategic site as these are dealt with in section 5 (iv) or in the Green Belt as this is dealt with in section 5(iii).
5.16 Following the filter process the remaining sites are listed in Table 12 and assessed for their suitability for housing. Whilst these sites might score poorly in terms of Value and Quality, the GSS recommends that each site should be considered on a site by site even if a site scores low in the Quality/Value matrix. An open space site that is of poor quality and value does not automatically mean it is suitable for housing.
Non-Green Space Study sites 5.17 The Local Plan designates some land as SR.2 (protected open air sports facilities). Some of this land was not assessed in the Green Space Study and therefore not assessed in the section above but these should be assessed in the SHLAA. These tend to be restricted sites owned by the University of Oxford, institutional land such as schools and hospitals and agricultural land.
5.18 The GSS did not attribute a Value score to restricted and limited access sites. Land that is currently publicly accessibly has more value to local communities than land with restricted or limited access and so, generally speaking, publicly accessible space is more valuable than restricted or limited access open space. However Oxford is distinctive in that there is a significant amount of land owned by the University of Oxford that is of high cultural value but that doesn’t have unrestricted public access. So a simple ‘public access versus non-public access’ approach is not appropriate in all cases. Therefore all restricted and limited access open space that is not eliminated using the criteria above will be assessed for its value under the ‘suitability for housing’ column on a site-by-site basis.
5.19 With regards to University owned sports grounds, the general view is taken that they are not suitable for development unless a College notified the City Council of a specific site during the consultation process. Most Colleges have one main sports ground and the value of retaining that ground for their sports purposes is considered very high. Similarly, with regards to school playing fields, unless the County Council specifically mentioned a particular playing field, it can be assumed that they are highly valued in connection with the school use. Open space was identified and filtered using the following method and are listed and assessed in Table 12. All sites within Table 16 are shown in Figures 8 and 9.
Sites were excluded if: (i) It could not accommodate 10 dwellings (ii) it falls within designations set out in paragraph 2.3 (Flood Zone 3, SSSI, SAC, allotments); (iii) it is open space already surveyed by the Green Space Study (dealt with in Stage 4 (ii)); (iv) it was identified in the initial desktop review (Stage 3 above); a Core Strategy Strategic site as these are dealt with in section 5 (iv) or in the Green Belt as this is dealt with in section 5(iii).
36 Weighted Quality Score, Appendix A, Green Space Study (Feb 2007 update) Scott Wilson 37 Value Score, Appendix B, Green Space Study (Feb 2007 update) Scott Wilson 38 Weighted Quality Score, Appendix A, Green Space Study (Feb 2007 update) Scott Wilson 57 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
Table 12: Sites not in the planning process: Open Space Map ref Total site Physical problems Environmental (Figures 8 Site name Existing use Policy restrictions Potential impacts Site suitable for housing? size (ha) or limitations conditions and 9) Sites within the Green Space Study 12/1 Covered Operational Land 1.33 Conservation area Likely to require Impact upon No apparent Unsuitable. Require for operational purposes. Would Reservoir (HE.7) significant site works conservation area problems adversely affect the openness of the Conservation would have to be Area carefully considered 12/2 East Oxford Vacant 0.3 Conservation area No apparent The site was No apparent Unsuitable. Bartlemas Conservation Area is extremely Bowls Club (HE.7) problems formerly a bowling problems sensitive and development of this site would Protected public club but is now significantly adversely affect its setting and open space (SR.5) vacant. Impact character upon conservation area 12/3 Electricity Sub Operational Land 0.78 None Existing sub station Require relocation No apparent Unsuitable. Require for operational purposes Station of sub station problems 12/4 Five Mile Park – Neighbourhood 2.69 Protected public No apparent Loss of public open No apparent Unsuitable. Whilst the GSS scares the value and Recreation (unrestricted access) open space (SR.5) problems space problems quality of the park low, it concludes that we should Ground maintain quality, add required features and consider how value can be enhance. The GSS recommends protection through the planning system 12/5 Foxwell Drive Park – Neighbourhood 2.32 Protected public Site in elongated Loss of public open Adjacent to A40 so Unsuitable. Whilst the GSS states that the site could Park (unrestricted access) open space (SR.5) and would be space would be noise be surplus to requirements and that it value should difficult to develop impacts. Odd be reviewed based on further assessment, it would for housing shaped site, unlikely be difficult to develop for housing due to shape of that sufficient the site private open space could be created 12/6 Girdlestone Housing Amenity Land 0.36 None A number of Loss of public open No apparent Unsuitable. The development of this site would have Road Green (unrestricted access) mature trees on the space problems a detrimental impact upon the entrance to site Girdlestone Road due to the loss of trees that would be necessary. The GSS says to maintain quality, add required features and review value based on further assessment 12/7 Headington Square / Garden 2.19 Conservation area Significant number Affect on the No apparent Unsuitable. Development would have a significant House Garden (HE.7) of maturetrees on Conservation area problems detrimental affect on the conservation area and Headington House site and Listed Building Listed building and Listed wall is a listed building 12/8 Kersington Housing Amenity Land 0.49 None Site in an awkward Loss of open space No apparent Unsuitable. Due to the shape and size of the site, it Crescent shape and would outside dwellings in problems would not be possible to develop the site for Open Space be difficult to Kersington Crescent housing. Loss of open space meant for Kersington develop for housing and Amory Close Cresent and Amory Close residents 12/9 Land at David Housing Amenity Land 0.66 None Site in an awkward Loss of open space Site very close to Unsuitable. Due to the shape and size of the site, it Walter Close shape and would outside dwellings in busy A40 would not be easy to develop the site for housing. be difficult to Kersington Crescent Loss of open space meant for David Walter Close develop for housing and Amory Close residents. Noisy site 12/10 Land at Housing Amenity Land 0.61 None Site in an awkward Loss of open space No apparent Unsuitable. Due to the shape and size of the site, it Hawksmoor shape and would outside dwellings in problems would not be possible to develop the site for Road be difficult to Hawksmoor Road housing. Loss of open space meant for Hawksmoor develop for housing Road residents
58 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
12/11 Land at Jordan Housing Amenity Land 0.36 None Except southern Loss of open space No apparent Unsuitable. Due to the shape and size of the site, it Hill part of the site, outside dwellings in problems would not be possible to develop the site for a awkward shape so Jordan Hill significant number of dwellings. Loss of open space would be difficult to meant for Jordan Hill residents develop for housing 12/12 Land at Long Housing Amenity Land 0.18 None Unlikely to deliver Loss of open space No apparent Unsuitable. Due to the shape and size of the site, it Close 10 dwellings. Trees outside dwellings in problems would not be easy to develop the site for a on site Long Close and significant number of dwellings. Loss of open space adjoining roads meant for existing residents 12/13 Land at Rear Ecological 2.59 None Potential Loss of employment Would be a poor Unsuitable. of Pressed contamination of land environment for Steel Factory land future residents as site is within an industrial area and away from other residential areas. 12/14 Land at Willow Housing Amenity Land 0.39 Site adjacent to No apparent Site is the open No apparent Unsuitable. Due to the shape and size of the site, it Way Blackbird Leys problems space surrounding problems aside would not be possible to develop the site for regeneration Zone a tower block and from the housing. (DS.10) providing open overbearing nature space for Willow of the tower Way residents 12/15 Land at Housing Amenity Land 0.34 None Some mature trees Loss of open space No apparent Unsuitable. The site is important amenity space for Woodstock on site outside Woodstock problems the Woodstock Close flats Close Close flats 12/16 Land at Nether Housing Amenity Land 0.38 None Some mature trees Loss of open space Adjacent to busy Unsuitable. The trees on the site protect the existing Durford Close on site opposite Nether junction with dwellings from the junction Durford Close eastern bypass so could be noisy 12/17 Land off Housing Amenity Land 0.43 None Awkward shape Loss of open space Too constrained to Unsuitable. Due to the shape and size of the site, it Banbury Road site so would be for adjacent design a good would not be possible to develop the site for new difficult to develop dwellings scheme dwellings. Loss of open space meant for existing for housing without residents. affecting existing dwellings 12/18 Land off Housing Amenity Land 0.39 None Apart from the Loss of open space Too constrained to Unsuitable. Due to the shape and size of the site, it Comfrey Road southern part of the for adjacent design a good would not be possible to develop the site for a site, it is in an dwellings scheme significant number of dwellings. Loss of open space awkward shape meant for existing resident and would be difficult to develop for housing 12/19 Marston Park – Neighbourhood 4.36 Flood Zone 3 in part Access possible off Loss of public open Adjacent to flood Unsuitable. Whilst the GSS scores the value and Recreation (unrestricted access) (2.5ha remaining) Croft Road space plain which could quality of the park low, it concludes that we should Ground Protected public encroach upon maintain quality, add required features and consider open space (SR.5) remaining part of how value can be enhance. The GSS recommends site over time protection through the planning system. New play equipment proposed. Site partly within Flood Zone 3 12/20 Recycling Operational land 0.63 None. Adjacent to Likely Recycling centre Adjacent to busy Unsuitable. Important to retain existing use Centre Flood zone 3 contamination on would be lost road network so site environment not ideal 12/21 Redbridge Operational land 4.41 Park and Ride site Landfill site Loss of park and Adjacent to busy Unsuitable. Important to retain existing use Park and Ride (TR.9). Adjacent to ride site road network so
59 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
flood zone 3 environment not ideal 12/22 Ridgeway Park – Local 0.61 Protected public Not possible to Loss of recreation No apparent Unsuitable. Lack of access. The GSS says that quality Road (unrestricted access) open space (SR.5) create an access ground problems should be enhanced and the value should be Recreation to highway reviewed based on further assessment Ground standards to the site without removing an existing property 12/23 St. Edwards Square / Garden 0.51 None Site is within a Detrimental impact Very poor location Unsuitable School school. Access upon school for residential difficult buildings 12/24 The Oval Housing Amenity Land 0.41 None It’s a roundabout so None Very poor location Unsuitable. It is a roundabout access impossible for residential 12/25 The Oxford Operational Land 0.38 None Sloping site may None Close to Unsuitable. Unlikely to be a suitable environment for Hotel mean difficulties Wolvercote dwellings with design and roundabout so construction could be noisy 12/26 The Oxford Sports Ground 3.53 None Could be Loss of a popular No apparent Unsuitable. The facility is specialised and its loss will Stadium contamination on leisure, sports and problems be very detrimental to the Blackbird Leys area and the site entertainment Oxford facility 12/27 Ulfgar Road Ecological 1.44 Northern part of site Woodland site with Significant loss of Potential flooding Unsuitable. Loss of trees and associated wildlife likely (The Hurst) is Green Belt and ecological value. trees and wildlife problems and noisy to be significant. Woodland management plan Conservation area. Liable to site adjacent to onsite. Likely that application will be made to make groundwater railway site common land/town green. flooding. Adjacent to SLINC 12/28 Wadham Park Square / Garden 0.27 None Adjacent to flood Loss of open space No apparent Unsuitable, Whilst the GSS says that this area could Green Space (unrestricted access) plain which may intended for problems be surplus to requirements this area of land was encroach upon site residents of intended as amenity space for Goodson Walk in future Goodson Walk residents and its development would affect the setting of that development. Immediately adjacent to flood plain 12/29 Walton Well Green/Common 0.78 SLINC (NE.19). Trees on site would Water voles No apparent Unsuitable. Site valuable as open space for adjacent Road Open need to be recorded near the problems development. Could impact upon water voles. Space removed site Significant loss of trees 12/30 Williamson Housing Amenity Land 0.29 None Some mature trees Loss of open space Adjacent to busy Unsuitable. The trees on the site protect the existing Way on site opposite Williamson roundabout with dwellings from the roundabout way southern bypass so could be noisy Sites not in the Green Space Study 12/31 Balliol College University Sports 1.93 Protected open air No apparent Loss of valued No apparent Unsuitable. Site is a valued University sports ground. sports ground Ground sports facilities problems University sports adverse conditions Adverse affect on the character of the Conservation (SR.2); Conservation ground Area area (HE.7) 12/32 Bayards Hill School playing fields 1.55 Protected open air No apparent Loss of valued No apparent Unsuitable. Site is a valued school playing field Primary School sports facilities problems school playing field adverse conditions playing fields (SR.2) 12/33 Cheney School School playing fields 4.11 Protected open air No apparent Loss of valued No apparent Unsuitable. Site is a valued school playing field. playing fields sports facilities problems school playing field adverse conditions Adverse affect on the character of the Conservation (SR.2); Conservation Area area (HE.7)
60 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
12/34 Cherwell School playing fields 2.35 Protected open air Adjacent to flood Loss of valued No apparent Unsuitable. Site is a valued school playing field School central sports failities (SR.2); plain school playing field adverse conditions playing field 12/35 Cutteslowe School playing fields 0.90 Protected open air No apparent Loss of valued No apparent Unsuitable. Site is a valued school playing field Primary School sports facilities problems school playing field adverse conditions playing fields (SR.2) 12/36 Dragon School Sports Ground 8.27 Protected open air No apparent Loss of valued No apparent Unsuitable. Site is a valued school playing field. and Lady sports facilities problems school playing field adverse conditions Adverse affect on the character of the Conservation Margaret Hall (SR.2); Conservation Area. Site partly within Flood Zone 3 sports pitches area (HE.7); large proportion of the site is flood plain 12/37 Headington School playing fields 4.19 Protected open air No apparent Loss of valued No apparent Unsuitable. Site is a valued school playing field. School playing sports facilities problems school playing field adverse conditions Adverse affect on the character of the Conservation fields (SR.2); Conservation Area area (HE.7) 12/38 Iffley Mead School playing fields 0.72 Protected open air Adjacent to flood Loss of valued No apparent Unsuitable. Site is a valued school playing field School playing sports facilities plain on two sides school playing field adverse conditions fields (SR.2) 12/39 Jesus College University Sports 2.49 Adjacent Bartlemas Access off Loss of valued No apparent poor Unsuitable. Site is a valued University sports ground. sports ground Ground Conservation area. Bartlemas Close. University sports conditions Lincoln College intend to share the ground with See Bartlemas No apparent ground. Access to Jesus College in order to release their adjacent Conservation Area physical problems. new public open sports ground. Adverse affect on the character of Appraisal. Development space could be the Conservation Area Protected open air would have to created as part of sports facilities carefully consider the development (SR.2) the impact upon to benefit existing the neighbouring residents. Bartlemas Improvements to Conservation Area. the environment for pedestrians along Bartlemas Close 12/40 Jordan Hill University Sports 3.46 Protected open air No apparent Loss of valued No apparent Unsuitable. Site is a valued University sports ground sports ground Ground sports facilities problems university sports adverse conditions (SR.2) ground 12/41 Magdalen University Sports 1.51 Protected open air Adjacent to flood Loss of valued No apparent Unsuitable. Site is a valued University sports ground. College sports Ground sports facilities plain University sports adverse conditions Adverse affect on the character of the Conservation ground (SR.2); Conservation ground Area area (HE.7) 12/42 New Marston School playing fields 1.16 Protected open air Adjacent to nature Loss of valued No apparent Unsuitable. Site is a valued school playing field Primary School sports facilities conservation school playing field adverse conditions playing fields (SR.2) designation 12/43 New University University Sports 1.90 Protected open air No apparent Loss of valued No apparent Unsuitable. Site is a valued University sports ground. club and sports Ground sports facilities problems University sports adverse conditions Adverse affect on the character of the Conservation ground (SR.2); Conservation ground Area area (HE.7) 12/44 Oriel College University Sports 3.05 Protected open air No apparent Loss of valued No apparent Unsuitable. Site is a valued University sports ground. sports ground Ground sports facilities problems University sports adverse conditions Adverse affect on the character of the Conservation (SR.2); Adjacent to ground Area Bartlemas Conservation area (HE.7) See Bartlemas Conservation Area
61 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
Appraisal; adjacent to nature conservation designation (NE.19) 12/45 Oxford School School playing fields 6.06 Protected open air Adjacent to nature Loss of valued No apparent Unsuitable. Site is a valued school playing field playing field sports facilities conservation school playing field adverse conditions east (SR.2) designation 12/46 Oxford School School playing fields 1.51 Protected open air No apparent Loss of valued No apparent Unsuitable. Site is a valued school playing field playing field sports facilities problems school playing field adverse conditions west (SR.2) 12/47 Peers College sports Ground 6.42 Protected open air No apparent Loss of valued No apparent Unsuitable. Site is a valued college playing field. Site Technology sports facilities problems college playing adverse conditions may be redeveloped for new city academy College (SR.2) field playing fields 12/48 Rose Hill School playing fields 1.58 Protected open air No apparent Loss of valued No apparent Unsuitable. Site is a valued school playing field Primary School sports facilities problems school playing field adverse conditions playing fields (SR.2) 12/49 Rye St Antony School playing fields 2.53 Protected open air No apparent Loss of valued No apparent Unsuitable. Site is a valued school playing field. School playing sports facilities problems school playing field adverse conditions Adverse affect on the character of the Conservation fields (SR.2); Conservation Area area (HE.7) 12/50 Former St School playing fields 2.14 Protected open air Adjacent to flood Ensure impact no No apparent Suitable, subject to criteria in Policy SR.2 being Augustine’s sports facilities plain on two sides. adverse impact adverse conditions overcome School playing (SR.2) Subject to upon adjacent fields Oxfordshire County conservation are a Council clearing flood plain. position regarding statutory educational requirements. 12/51 St Christophers School playing fields 2.88 Protected open air No apparent Loss of valued No apparent Unsuitable. Site is a valued school playing field First School sports facilities problems school playing adverse conditions playing fields (SR.2) fields 12/52 St Edwards School playing fields 27.43 Significant Close to the Oxford Loss of valued No apparent Unsuitable. Site is a valued school playing field School playing proportion within Meadows Special school playing adverse conditions fields the flood plain Area of fields Conservation 12/53 St Johns University Sports 3.44 Protected open air No apparent Loss of valued No apparent Unsuitable. Site is a valued University sports ground College sports Ground sports facilities problems University sports adverse conditions ground (SR.2) ground 12/54 University sports University Sports 8.25 Protected open air No apparent Loss of valued No apparent Unsuitable. Site is a valued University sports ground. ground Iffley Ground sports facilities problems University sports adverse conditions Adverse affect on the character of the Conservation Road (SR.2); part of site in ground Area Conservation area (HE.7); part of site in flood plain. High building area (HE.9) 12/55 Wolvercote School playing fields 0.54 Protected open air Adjacent to Loss of valued No apparent Unsuitable. Site is a valued school playing field Primary School sports facilities conservation area school playing adverse conditions playing fields (SR.2) (HE.7) fields
62 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008 c) The approach to Green Belt land 5.20 The purpose of the Green Belt is to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another; to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land39. These principles formed policies NE.1 and NE.2 of the Oxford Local Plan. The draft South East Plan does not support a review of Oxford’s Inner Green Belt. The Panel report40 supports a partial review of the Green Belt around the southern edge of Oxford. This area is not within Oxford’s administrative boundary and is therefore not included within this SHLAA but it is referred to in Stage 9.
5.21 The Core Strategy preferred options document conducted an initial broad review of Oxford’s inner Green Belt (Green Belt within Oxford’s administrative boundary) to consider whether there was any potential for development. Table 13 lifts the information from the Core Strategy document and identifies the areas referred to in Figure 7.
Table 13: Broad review of Oxford’s inner Green Belt Map Broad Area Potential for development ref Unsuitable. Nearly all the land is in the flood plain and Oxford Meadows SAC Land west of Oxford GB1 except a piece of open space segregated from Oxford by a railway line. Area not including Port Meadow suitable for development Unsuitable. Nearly all is in the flood plain except for a non-strategic piece of land GB2 Land south of City Centre also designated for nature conservation value. Area not suitable for development Land at Northern GB3 May be some suitable in some locations gateway/Pear Tree Unsuitable. In the flood plain, and an important publicly accessible open space. Land north of ring road at GB4 Area not suitable for development. Policy SR.6 in the Local Plan seeks to extend Cutteslowe Park the park Unsuitable. Designated for nature conservation value. Area not suitable for GB5 Land at Shotover development. Land at Horspath Road is an open air sports facility which currently fulfils the purpose of the Green Belt. Area not suitable for development Unsuitable. Core outdoor sports facility including Oxford City Football Club and Land at Marston junction GB6 OxRad. Important publicly accessible open space. Area not suitable for with eastern by-pass development May be some suitable in some locations but majority of area not suitable for Land north of City centre development. Much is in the flood plain and designated for nature conservation GB7 (Marston/ Summertown value. Area important in fulfilling the function of the Green Belt (PPG2) by gap) protecting the gap between Marston and Summertown. May be minor areas that could be considered in Site Allocations DPD
5.22 In summary, there is only considered to be potential for development in the areas of Green Belt land at the Northern Gateway/Pear tree interchange (Reference 3) and between Marston and Summertown (Reference 7) but only in the form of small scale areas.
5.23 These two areas are considered in further detail for their potential for development. Green Belt land is excluded for assessment if it is within the flood plain or has a nature conservation designation. The remaining areas are listed in Table 14. Each of these sites is assessed for their suitability for housing. All sites within Table 16 are shown in Figures 8 and 9.
39 Planning Policy Guidance 2: Green Belts (Jan 1995) Department of the Environment 40 South East Plan Examination in Public - Report of the Panel (29 August 2007) 63 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
Figure 7: Broad areas of Green Belt within Oxford’s administrative boundary
64 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
Table 14: Sites not in the planning process: Green Belt land (Northern Gateway and Marston/Summertown areas only) Map ref Total site Physical problems or (Figures 8 Site name Existing use Policy restrictions Potential impacts Environmental conditions Site suitable for housing? size (ha) limitations and 9) West part of Unsuitable. The Value score in the Sunnymead Neighbourhood Protected public Adjacent to flood GSS is greater than 50% and 14/1 2.66 Loss of valued public open space No apparent poor conditions Recreation Park open space (SR.5) plain recommends protection through the Ground planning system Would require A protected open Unsuitable. This whole area of Green significant new road Would encourage the Land between air sports facility Belt is important in maintaining the Farmland / networks off existing coalescence of Marston and 14/2 Summertown 82.34 (SR.2); nature No apparent poor conditions gap between Marston and grassland network. Areas Summertown and be contrary to and Marston conservation Summertown. The need for this adjacent to flood the aims of the Green Belt (NE.19); SSSI (NE.18) purpose remains plain Protected open air Unsuitable. The Weighted Quality sports facilities and and Value score in the GSS is greater open space (SR.2 than 50% and recommends and 5); No apparent poor conditions. Adjacent to flood Loss of valued public open space protection through the planning 14/3 University Parks City Park 29.02 Conservation Area Good walking access to local plain and historic park system. It is the most valued site (HE.7); Historic Park facilities and public transport within the City centre Urban Village (HE.8); High Buildings and provides access to most of the area/view cones City centre’s population (HE.9&10) Protected open air Unsuitable. The value of this sports Part of New sports facilities (SR.2); No apparent poor conditions. University Sports Adjacent to flood Potential impacts on the pitch to New College will be high as it 14/4 College Sports 1.70 Conservation Area Good walking access to local Ground Plain. Conservation Area is their main pitch. Site unlikely to be Ground (HE.7); High Buildings facilities and public transport released for development Area HE.9) Part of Trinity Unsuitable. The value of these sports College and University Sports Protected open air Loss of Trinity and Magdalen No apparent poor conditions. pitches to the two Colleges will be Adjacent to flood 14/5 Magdalen Grounds and 8.48 sports facilities (SR.2); College’s main sports ground and Good walking access to local high as they are their main pitches. Plain. College Sports garden View Cone (HE.10) Magdalen’s Fellows Garden facilities and public transport Site unlikely to be released for Ground development No apparent potential impacts. Poor living conditions as site Site would only be Unsuitable. Poor environmental Land north of Agricultural Could potentially be considered cut off from neighbouring accessible off a conditions of future occupiers due to 14/6 Pear Tree Park land and 2.03 None within the Northern Gateway area residential area by railway narrow track across isolated location and unsuitable and Ride buildings of search for future non-residential line. Noisy from Pear Tree an embankment access. development junction Agricultural Residents at northern part land, works, Site could affect nearby Oxford Suitable. Subject to noise issues and Land West of Part of site within Site maybe accessible may experience noise issues 14/7 open space 7.78 Meadows Special Area of impact upon Conservation Area. Oxford Hotel conservation area off Godstow Road from Pear Tree junction and associated with Conservation (Area includes Site 10/16, Table 10) railway hotel Unsuitable. GSS scores site with a low Protected public Loss of unrestricted public open Site likely to be noisy due to value and that site could be surplus. Green / open space (SR.5); Site accessible off 14/8 Goose Green 1.95 space. Site could affect nearby proximity to major road and However, Quality rating is greater Common Conservation Area Godstow Road Oxford Meadows SAC rail that 50%. Suggests further assessment (HE.7) is required Loss of mature trees in Loss of public open space. Harm Site likely to be noisy due to Wolvercote Land adjoining Conservation Area 14/9 1.37 Conservation area. to Conservation area. Site near proximity to major road and Unsuitable Lock canal (HE.7) Awkward shape site Oxford Meadows SAC rail
65 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008 d) Core Strategy strategic sites 5.24 Five strategic sites have been suggested in the Core Strategy Preferred Options41 for development. A variety of options have been suggested which include residential. Three of the sites are designated as Safeguarded Land which is land between the Green Belt and the edge of the built up area that has been protected in the Local Plan to meet possible longer-term development needs. The Core Strategy is reviewing whether or not safeguarded land is now required and the SHLAA should assess it’s suitability for housing.
5.25 Southfield golf course (West and East) has been included within the Core Strategy as a strategic option for development for housing and so its potential suitability for housing is also assessed. Table 15 assesses the suitability of the Core Strategy strategic sites. All sites within Table 15 are shown in Figures 8 and 9.
41 Oxford 2026 Core Strategy – Preferred Options (March 2007) Oxford City Council 66 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
Table 15: Core Strategy Strategic Sites Map ref Total site Policy (Figures 8 Site name Existing use Physical problems or limitations Potential impacts Environmental conditions Site suitable for housing? size (ha) restrictions and 9) Suitable except on flood plain. Could potentially Loss of sports facilities/land for Private sports rearrange protected sports Summertown Part of the site is in the flood plain Summerfield School, Wadham pitches and Protected No apparent poor pitch provision. There is a Safeguarded where development would have to College and St Johns College but golf course. open air conditions. Good shortage of publicly Land and be avoided. Vehicular access likely could provide new public open 15/1 Private 23.05 sports walking access to local accessible open space in adjoining off Marston Ferry Road/Ferry Pool space. Additional housing may school facilities facilities and public Summertown and Summerfields Road. Access onto Banbury Road require new/expanded schools. dwellings. (SR.2) transport development of this site could School land likely to be difficult Ensure appropriate pedestrian Fields. create new open space for crossings for Cherwell school Summertown residents. Site partly in Flood Zone 3 Site likely to be noisy due to proximity to major road and rail. Conditions Site being considered for for future residents would Pear Tree Access to site difficult as likely to be employment use and be poor as site cut off Unsuitable. Poor environment 15/2 Safeguarded Agricultural 16.0 None onto major A roads development for housing would from neighbouring for potential residents Land prevent this residential area by railway line and major road. Poor access to local facilities Agricultural, Strip of land Development could improve and If bus access across A40 allotments, at northern bring new facilities for the existing Some residential access could be off not secured, there would open air sports edge of site is Barton residents. Bus access Barton Barton Village road but unlikely to be poor integration of Suitable, provided access facilities, Flood Plain. across A40 could integrate Barton 15/3 Safeguarded 35.6 suitable for large amount of traffic. new residents with issues resolved. Small area of public open Adjacent to better with main Oxford area. Land Other access options would need to Oxford. Exacerbate site within Flood Zone 3 space, SLINC so a Retention of existing amount of be explored traffic onto Green Road electricity sub- buffer would allotments /sports pitches/open roundabout station be required space important Loss of ‘green wedge’ through Oxford. Loss of golf course with Access likely to be difficult. Bartlemas access for non-members. Difficult Protected No apparent poor Close/Barracks Lane appear an to integrate new residents with Unsuitable. Ecological survey Southfield open air conditions. Within options but may not be suitable for existing residents due to nature has revealed protected 15/4 Golf Course Golf course 25.4 sports reasonable walking large amounts of traffic. Site adjacent conservation buffer. species on site (badgers and (West) facilities distance of public to nature conservation designations Development of the site could bats) (SR.2) transport and near to SSSI. create new publicly accessible open space. Protected species on site (badgers and bats) Protected Access off Hollow Way/Barracks Unsuitable. Development Would reduce size of golf course. Southfield open air Lane. Preliminary indications are that would affect patterns of run Could provide improved active No apparent poor 15/5 Golf Course Golf course 7.7 sports development of this site will have a off which would have a frontage along Hollow Way for conditions (East) facilities significant negative impact upon the significant effect on the pedestrians (SR.2) SSSI nearby SSSI
67 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008 e) Nature Conservation sites 5.26 European and national designations (SAC and SSSIs) were excluded in Stage 2. Locally designated nature conservation sites are recognised as having lower status than nationally or European designated sites and, to ensure a robust SHLAA, shall be assessed.
5.27 The assessment began with all Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation (SLINCs), Wildlife corridors and Local Nature Reserves (LNRs). These sites were then filtered:
The criteria used for identifying sites were: (i) Sites that could accommodate 10 or more dwellings (generally greater that 0.25 hectares) Sites were excluded if: (ii) it falls within flood zone 3; (iii) it is open space already surveyed by the Green Space Study (dealt with in Stage 4 (ii)) and scores an medium or high Value score42 and/or an average or good Weighted Quality score 43; (iv) it was identified in the initial desktop review (Stage 3 above); Core Strategy Strategic site as these are dealt with in section 5 (iv) or in the Green Belt as this is dealt with in section 5(iii).
5.28 The remaining sites are listed in Table 16 and are assessed for the suitability for housing. All sites within Table 16 are shown in Figures 8 and 9.
42 Weighted Quality Score, Appendix A, Green Space Study (Feb 2007 update) Scott Wilson 43 Value Score, Appendix B, Green Space Study (Feb 2007 update) Scott Wilson 68 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
Table 16: Local Nature Conservation sites Map ref Total site Policy (Figures 8 Site name Existing use Physical problems or limitations Potential impacts Environmental conditions Site suitable for housing? size (ha) restrictions and 9) Wildlife Cherwell corridor Site close to A40 so Agriculture/ Isolated site requiring new access Development may affect wildlife Unsuitable. Site is fragmented 16/1 Bridge, Hall 1.89 (NE.20); potentially noisy woodland off busy road corridor from existing residential areas Farm Green Belt conditions (NE.2) Wildlife Unsuitable. Shape of site Corridor corridor Shape of site does not lend itself Adjacent to railway so unsuitable for significant Development may affect wildlife 16/2 adjacent to Woodland 0.62 (NE.20); easily to development. Site very potentially noisy housing development. Would corridor railway Green Belt close to Flood Zone 3 conditions require significant tree loss. (NE.2) Close to SAC Adjacent to A34 so Unsuitable. Would require Duke’s 16/3 Greenfield 5.36 SLINC (NE.19) No apparent problems Development may affect SLINC potentially noisy significant loss of trees. Likely Meadow conditions to be very noisy. Close to SAC Unsuitable. Development SLINC (NE.19); would significantly adversely Conservation Development may affect SLINC. Close to A34 so Godstow affect the setting and 16/4 Agriculture 3.13 Areas (HE.7); Site very close to Flood Zone 3 Phleum phleoides (Purple-Stemmed potentially noisy Abbey Field character of the Green belt Cat’s Tail) recorded on site conditions Conservation Area. Close to (NE.2) SAC Unsuitable. Development SLINC (NE.19); would significantly adversely Godstow Conservation Close to A34 so affect the setting and 16/5 Bridge Agriculture 0.30 Areas (HE.7); Site very close to Flood Zone 3 Development may affect SLINC potentially noisy character of the Meadow Green belt conditions Conservation Area. Shape of (NE.2) site does not lend itself to development. Close to SAC Land adjacent SLINC (NE.19); Shape of site does not lend itself Unsuitable. Shape of site River 16/6 River Thames 1.29 Green belt easily to development. Site very Development may affect SLINC Close to flood plain unsuitable for housing embankment north of (NE.2) close to Flood Zone 3 development. Close to SAC Binsey Development may affect SLINC. Land Stictopleurus punctatonervosus adjacent to (Rhopalid bug), Metrioptera roeselii Unsuitable. Site was retained SLINC (NE.19); Cowley (Roesels’ Bush Cricket), No apparent poor as part of Bus Depot 16/7 Grassland 0.65 View Cones No apparent problems Marsh Conocephalus discolor (Long conditions development for nature (HE.10) Recreation Winged Conehead), Acanthiophilus conservation value Ground helianthi (Gall Fly) and Lygus pratensis (Plant Bug) recorded on site SLINC (NE.19); Development may affect SLINC. Land View Cones Natrix natrix (Grass snake) recorded adjacent Pasture and No apparent poor Unsuitable. Access difficult 16/8 1.66 (HE.10); Access difficult on site. Designation as a SLINC was new Marston woodland conditions and impact upon landscape Green Belt recent in 2005. Development may Pasture (NE.2) have landscape impact Land SLINC (NE.19); adjacent Conservation Close to A34 so Unsuitable. Access difficult. 16/9 Wolvercote Agriculture 1.33 Areas (HE.7); Access difficult Development may affect SLINC potentially noisy Likely to be very noisy Meadows Green belt conditions SSSI (NE.2)
69 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
Wildlife Corridor Land near (NE.20); Site very close to Flood Zone 3. Close to A34 so Development may affect wildlife Unsuitable. Shape of site not 16/10 Godstow Woodland 0.28 Conservation Shape of site does not lend itself potentially noisy corridor suitable for development Road Areas (HE.7); easily to development conditions Green belt (NE.2) Land to rear Development may affect SLINC. Close to eastern bypass of Unsuitable. Would involve a 16/11 Woodland 0.55 SLINC (NE.19) Would require significant tree loss Triturus cristatus (Great crested newt) so potentially noisy Dorchester significant loss of trees recorded on site conditions Close Development may affect SLINC. Larus ridibundus (Black headed gull) 16/12 Linkside Lake Lake 1.80 SLINC (NE.19) It is a lake Site would be wet Unsuitable. It is a lake recorded on site. Designation as a SLINC was recent in 2005 SLINC (NE.19) Unsuitable. Access difficult Littlemore Development may affect SLINC. Protected Would require significant tree loss. and significant tree loss. Part 16/13 railway Woodland 0.28 Designation as a SLINC was recent in Isolated site GTE Corridor Access would be difficult of site within GTE protected cutting 2005 (TR.8) route SLINC (NE.19); View Cones Development may affect SLINC. Milham Ford Pasture and (HE.10); Shape of site does not lend itself No apparent poor Unsuitable. Shape of site not 16/14 1.04 Platystoma seminationis (Picture School land trees Protected easily to development conditions suitable for development winged fly) recorded on site Open Space (SR.2, SR.5) No apparent poor Unsuitable. Significant tree 16/15 Oriel Wood Woodland 1.00 SLINC (NE.19) Would require significant tree loss Development may affect SLINC conditions loss. Development may affect SLINC. Oxford 16/16 Canal 2.62 SLINC (NE.19) It is a canal Arvicola terrestris (Water vole) Site would be wet Unsuitable. Site is the canal Canal recorded on site A significant proportion Oxford of the site likely to be Unsuitable. Access difficult 16/17 Scrubland 2.99 SLINC (NE.19) Access difficult Development may affect SLINC Canal marsh very noisy as it is and likely to be noisy adjacent to the A34 Wildlife Corridor (NE.20); St Edwards Island site, access problems. Development may affect wildlife Unsuitable. Significant tree loss 16/18 Woodland 0.31 Conservation Isolated site Boat yard Would require significant tree loss. corridor and access difficult Areas (HE.7); Green belt (NE.2) Development may affect SLINC and wildlife corridor. Prunella modularis Stansfeld SLINC (NE.19); (Dunnock), Hyacinthoides non-scripta Close to eastern bypass Unsuitable. Significant tree Outdoor 16/19 Woodland 6.98 Conservation Would require significant tree loss (Bluebell), Natrix natrix (Grass snake), so potentially noisy loss. Valuable educational Education Areas (HE.7) Triturus cristatus (Great crested newt), conditions centre. Centre Anguis fragilis (Slow worm), Cygnus olor (Mute swan) recorded on site Unsuitable. Shape of site SLINC (NE.19); Development may affect SLINC. Victoria Arms Agriculture/ Shape of site does not lend itself unsuitable for significant 16/20 5.84 Green belt Emberiza citrinella (Yellowhammer) Isolated spinney woodland easily to development housing development. (NE.2) recorded on site Isolated site
70 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008 Summary of Stages 4 and 5 5.29 Stage 4 and 5 consisted of first identifying new sites in Oxford and then assessing their suitability for housing. It ensured that a detailed map survey of the whole of the built up area was undertaken in order to identify all potential sites. It then assessed the non-built up areas by assessing Green Belt land and open space, with the assistance of the Green Space Study. Finally it assessed the suitability of the sites identified in the Core Strategy Preferred Options and sites of local importance for nature conservation.
5.30 All stage 4 and 5 sites are shown in Figures 8 and 9. Sites identified during Stage 4 and 5 as suitable for housing will be taken forward to Stages 6 and 7.
71 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
72 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
73 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
74 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
STAGES 6 and 7 Estimating the housing potential of each site and assessing when and whether sites are likely to be developed
Stage 6 – Estimating the housing potential of each site 6.1 The Practice Guidance recommends that the potential capacity of each site should be guided by the existing or emerging plan policies, specifically local level policies. The SHLAA will therefore consider as the main guidance: • Oxford Local Plan 2001-2016 specifically policies CP.6 (Efficient use of land and density); HS.8 (Balance of dwellings); HS.22 (Provision of new public open space) – see Appendix 8 for extracts • Balance of Dwellings Supplementary Planning Document (emerging) and Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document • Core Strategy Preferred Options specifically options relating to mix of housing and density • West End Area Action Plan Housing Background paper (CD23)
6.2 It is considered that these policies provide a sufficient basis to make a local judgement which is adjusted for any individual site characteristics and physical constraints. Where it is difficult to judge capacity based on these policies, a scheme may be sketched on a plan of the site or a relevant existing scheme may be used to assist an estimate of capacity.
6.3 Density multipliers are an acceptable method for quantifying supply from new identified sites. The Local Plan includes a minimum residential density of 40 dwellings per hectare although on the majority of sites, higher densities are more appropriate as illustrated in the Annual Monitoring Report44. An appropriate density will also need to consider the mix of dwellings that would be expected on residential sites in order to comply with Policy HS.8 of the Local Plan and the strategic mix in the Affordable Housing SPD plus the emerging Balance of Dwellings SPD.
6.4 There is a need for care when applying density multipliers. This is because the density at which a site can be developed will vary depending not just on the policy context but on its size, configuration and the need for supporting facilities such as public open space.
6.5 An approach to address this complexity would be to vary the net density depending on the size of the site, and to vary the density depending on the location of the site (higher densities would be more appropriate in the City and District centres). Generally speaking a good mix of dwelling sizes can be achieved at a density of approximately 50-60 dwellings per hectare (dph). A density of 55 dph will be assumed as the starting point for most sites whilst also then altering that density to consider specific constraints or requirements of the site. The mix of dwelling sizes within the draft Balance of Dwellings SPD will also be considered. Consultees may have suggested alternative densities when submitting sites which will be considered on a site by site basis. It is recognised that there are some drawbacks to using density multipliers over a design based approach. However, at a strategic level it is considered a robust and expedient method.
6.6 Table 17 lists suitable sites and assesses their capacity. It notes specific design requirements or constraints that would affect the capacity of the site. The capacities are not based on detailed designs for each site so a capacity stated within the SHLAA should not be assumed as acceptable for
44 Indicator 3, Annual Monitoring Report 2006, Oxford City Council 75 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008 the purpose of development control decisions and should not prejudice any decision that may be made on the site at a later date.
Open space provision 6.7 10% of the gross site area is normally required as public open space45 where there is a shortage of public open space in the vicinity (generally less than 5.75ha of unrestricted open space per 1000 population). The Green Space Study46 summarised the areas of Oxford where public open space is lacking and Appendix 9 shows the areas of Oxford that fall below this standard. Suitable sites not yet in the planning process (Tables 10-16) within these areas will assume a requirement for 10% open space provision so will have their site size reduced by 10%. This is a general approach for the SHLAA and does not presume that sites outside these areas will not require 10% open space provision should an application be submitted. Nor does it determine that 10% will always be acceptable on those sites which it has been applied to but for the purpose of estimating a capacity this is considered the most straight forward.
Viability 6.8 The housing potential of a site affects its economic viability. If the value of the developed site is similar to or less than the site’s existing value, or alternative use value, then a site is less likely to be developed. The Valuation Office Agency have completed a study47 for the City Council that assesses the financial viability of 12 sites in Oxford which include design and densities appropriate to Local Plan requirements as well as the relevant developer contributions48, including affordable housing. The study concluded that viability was maintained on 9 of the sites tested. On only 1 site was development not viable and on 2 sites was viability borderline with the existing use/alternative use value. Smaller sites with an existing dwelling(s), whose value would be lost through redevelopment, may need to be more carefully considered for their viability. However none of the sites identified in Table 17 are of this type so in the absence of full appraisals of each site, but on the evidence in the previously undertaken study, it is considered that there is unlikely to be a problem with viability on sites identified as suitable.
6.9 The Local Plan affordable housing policy (HS.5) and Affordable Housing SPD allow for negotiation on the level/tenure of the affordable housing if non-viability is proven by the applicant (and agreed by the City Council) so there would generally always become a point whereby the site was viable although the question would remain as to whether the existing/alternative use value was greater.
Stage 7 – Assessing when and whether sites are likely to be developed 7.1 The Practice Guidance breaks Stage 7 down into 4 sections:
Stage 7a Assessing suitability for housing (this stage was brought forward into Stages 3 and 4)
Assessing availability for housing (a site is considered available when there is confidence that Stage 7b there are no legal or ownership problems and where the owner has expressed an intention to sell to a developer – see paragraph 6.12)
Assessing achievability for housing (a site is considered achievable where there is a reasonable Stage 7c prospect that housing will be developed on the site at a particular point in time and is affected by market factors, cost factors and delivery factors)
Overcoming constraints (Constraints include investment in new infrastructure, fragmented land Stage 7d ownership, environmental improvements. Where constraints have been identified, the SHLAA should consider what action would be needed to remove them)
45 Policy HS.22, Oxford Local Plan (Nov 2005) Oxford City Council 46 Table 5.7 Oxford City Green Space Study (Feb 2007 update) Scott Wilson 47 Planning Obligations Viability Study for Oxford City Council (April 2007) District Valuer South East 48 Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (April 2007) Oxford City Council 76 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
7.2 Using the outcome of these stages, the assessment then determines whether the site is deliverable or developable. Definitions are as follows:
• the site is available now (available) Deliverable49 over • offers a suitable location for housing development (suitable) years 1-5 • there is a reasonable prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years from the date of adoption of the Core Strategy from 2009-2014 (achievable) • site should be in a suitable location for housing development Developable50 • there should be a reasonable prospect that it will be available for and could be over years 6-10 developed in 6-10 years time (2015-2019)
• site should be in a suitable location for housing development Developable51 • there should be a reasonable prospect that it will be available for and could be over years 11-15 developed in 11-15 years time (2020-2024)
7.3 In order to be confident that a site would be available, the landowner or developer in control of the site was contacted in early 2008 to ascertain the likelihood of the site being brought forward for development. An enquiry was made on sites that were deemed as deliverable but where further confirmation was required. It was not considered necessary to contact owners of sites going through the planning process as activity is obviously taking place regarding the redevelopment of those sites. Nor was it considered necessary to contact landowners where it had been the landowner that had contacted the City Council during earlier consultation as they were clearly proactively considering the future redevelopment of their sites. So the enquiries focussed upon residential and employment sites allocated in the Local Plan and any deliverable sites identified in Stage 5 where there was no obvious recent activity indicating future redevelopment. Enquiries were made into 4 sites: Cooper Callis, Leiden Road, Manor Ground and Wolvercote Paper Mill.
7.4 PPS3 does not appear to allow for sites that may not be available now but that are very likely to come forward within the first 5 years. The first five years of the DPD extends from 2009-2014 (Table 1) and in Oxford there are a number of sites that are not available now but will be in time for development to occur by 2014. This means that there are occasions where a site is referred to as ‘developable’ over the years 1-5. These sites are kept separate from Oxford’s first 5 years of ‘deliverable’ sites to ensure that the SHLAA methodology is robust and that it is clear how many dwellings Oxford can deliver over the first 5 years. The following category is therefore added to the three PPS3 categories above:
• the site is not available now Developable over • offers a suitable location for housing development (suitable) years 1-5 • there is a reasonable prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years from the date of adoption of the Core Strategy from 2009-2014 (achievable)
7.5 Table 17 lists all suitable sites (from Tables 2-8, 10-12, 14-16) and gives an estimate of their capacity, bearing in mind the policy considerations set out in Paragraph 6.1. The time scale for development has also been reviewed taking into account most recent information including whether the site is currently vacant, whether there have been pre-application inquiries about the site and any recent changes in circumstances. Timescales for development in the draft SHLAA were based on a short, medium and long term from 2006-2026, however, the Practice Guidance requires timescales to be judged on a 15 year period from the date of adoption of the DPD (2009-2024). Likely timescales have therefore been amended to reflect the new time periods set out in Table 1.
49 Paragraph 54, Planning Policy Statement 3, Annex C (November 2006), CLG. 50 Paragraph 56, Planning Policy Statement 3, Annex C (November 2006), CLG. 51 Paragraph 56, Planning Policy Statement 3, Annex C (November 2006), CLG. 77 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008 7.6 To assist in future flood risk assessments and sequential testing, a column is included indicating the flood zone as defined in PPS2552. The approach to assessing sites within Flood Zones 3a and 3b is set out in Paragraph 2.3. Draft data prepared for Oxford’s city-wide Strategic Flood Risk Assessment53 is used to determine which Flood Zones the sites in fall into. • Flood Zone 1: Low Probability (annual probability of less than 1 in 1000 of flooding from a river); • Flood Zone 2: Medium Probability (annual probability of between 1 in 100 and 1 in 1000 of flooding from a river); • Flood Zone 3a: High Probability (annual probability of 1 in 100 or greater of flooding from a river); • Flood Zone 3b: The Functional Flood Plain (annual probability of 1 in 20 or greater of flooding).
52 Table D.1, Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk, (December 2006), CLG 53 Oxford City-wide Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (Draft data of 11 January 2008), Atkins 78 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
Table 17: Summary table of suitable sites: Assessment of the deliverability, developability and capacity of suitable sites Is the site Deliverable or Map reference achievable Flood Overcoming constraints Estimated Site name Site is available now? (Stage 7b) developable? Site size Issues affecting capacity (Appendix 11) within 5 years Zone (Stage 7d) capacity (Stage 7) (Stage 7c) STAGE 3 Residential sites in the Local Plan and West End AAP (Summary of suitable sites in Tables 2 and 3) Capacity based upon application Site 1 Albion Place Car Park Yes. Under construction Yes, 2009-2014 2 - Deliverable 0.12 14 number 07/00089/CT4 Flood Zone 3 therefore Majority Mixed use required on site. Site within No, occupied by University of appropriate flood Site 2 Arthur Street Yes, 2009-2014 3b, small Developable 0.31 City centre so higher densities are 20 Oxford protection/ mitigation section 3a appropriate required Mixed use required on site. Small retail units on ground floor at southern end of Between Towns Road, offices towards northern end. Residential potentially Site 3 Between Towns Road No, occupied Yes, 2009-2014 1 - Developable 0.56 45 above shops and adjacent to Coleridge Close. Site within District centre so higher densities are appropriate Application permitted Nov 07 for ‘stop gap’ redevelopment not including Site 4 BMW Garage Yes. Vacant No, 2014-2019 1 - Developable 0.26 10 residential (07/02270/FUL) but potential remains for full redevelopment Yes. Vacant. Application Capacity based upon application Site 5 Canalside land Yes, 2009-2014 3a - Deliverable 0.49 54 submitted number 07/01234/FUL Mixed use required on site. Site within Yes. Vacant. Agent confirm City centre so higher densities are Site 6 Cooper Callas site owners keen to redevelop site Yes, 2009-2014 3a and 3b - Deliverable 0.10 10 appropriate but must consider mix set within 1-2 years out in West End AAP Mixed use required on site. Site within No, occupied by Oxfordshire City centre so higher densities are Site 7 County Hall No, 2014-2019 1 - Developable 0.33 65 County Council staff appropriate but must consider mix set out in West End AAP Priority is for retail development. Residential on upper floors only. Site Site 8 Cowley Centre No, occupied by tenants No, 2014-2019 1 - Developable 3.65 50 within District centre so higher densities are appropriate No, occupied by Oxford City Majority Flood Zone 3 therefore Council City Works department 3b, appropriate flood Site 9 Cowley Marsh Depot site No, 2014-2019 Developable 1.70 Mixed use required on site. 75 who would require a new site to remainder protection/ mitigation relocate to 1 required Capacity based upon application Site 10 Cutteslowe Court Yes. Under construction Yes, 2009-2014 1 - Deliverable 0.33 33 number 06/01655/FUL No, Ewert Place occupied by Mixed use required on site. Site within Site 11 Diamond Place University of Oxford who would Yes, 2009-2014 1 - Developable 1.69 District centre so higher densities are 50 relocate appropriate Capacity based upon application Site 12 Elsfield Hall No, occupied Yes, 2009-2014 1 - Developable 0.36 24 number 02/00328/FUL
79 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
Mixed use required on site. Site within 1, 2 and City centre so higher densities are Site 13 Island site No, occupied Yes, 2009-2014 - Developable 0.87 38 3a appropriate but must consider mix set out in West End AAP Flood Zone 3 therefore 3a and appropriate flood Capacity based upon application Site 14 Lamarsh Road Yes, permission granted Yes, 2009-2014 small area Deliverable 2.25 17 protection/ mitigation number 06/01032/RES 3b required 1 with Capacity based upon application Site 15 Leafield Road Yes. Near completion Yes, 2009-2014 small area - Deliverable 0.83 38 number 03/02254/FUL 3b Joint working group progressing feasibility study of moving health Community centre and primary health Site 16 Leiden Road site facilities to new Wood Farm Yes, 2009-2014 1 - Deliverable 0.52 18 care facilities required on site Primary Sch. Completion estimate of Leiden Road site is 2010 190 1, 2 and Capacity based upon application Site 17 Lucy’s Factory site Yes. Under construction Yes, 2009-2014 - Deliverable 2.10 (remainin 3a number 04/00387/FUL g) Yes. Vacant. Application Capacity based upon application Site 18 Mabel Pritchard School Yes, 2009-2014 1 - Deliverable 0.42 46 submitted number 07/01440/RES Priority use for site is retail. Site within No, occupied by Oxfordshire City centre so higher densities are Site 19 Macclesfield House Yes, 2009-2014 1 - Developable 0.25 23 County Council staff appropriate but must consider mix set out in West End AAP Mixed use required on site. Site within City centre so higher densities are Site 20 Magistrates Court No, occupied No, 2014-2019 2 - Developable 0.17 10 appropriate but must consider mix set out in West End AAP Yes. Landowner Nuffield Hospitals had not fulfilled legal agreement to provide 27 affordable and key worker units on the remainder of site. Discussions with Oxford City 27 Remaining affordable Capacity based upon application Site 21 Manor Ground Council recent and ongoing to Yes, 2009-2014 1 Deliverable 1.71 (remainin housing number 00/02117/NFY seek conclusion to delivering g) housing on remaining part of site possibly by selling remaining land to an RSL. Planning permission already granted. Capacity based upon application numbers 03/00302/OUT and 06/01984/RES. This reserved matters permission for 47 dwellings only covers Site 22 Milham Ford School Yes. Under construction Yes, 2009-2014 1 - Deliverable 1.99 47 about half of the development site boundary. Existing Milham Ford School building (to be retained) to be used by Oxford Brookes for academic use No, occupied by Northfield Site 23 Northfield House Special School which would have No, 2014-2019 1 - Developable 0.70 No specific issues 35 to relocate No, occupied by Northfield School Residential development should not Site 24 Northfield School site No, 2014-2019 1 and 3b - Developable 3.32 50 which would have to relocate generally extend beyond area
80 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
currently occupied by buildings (approx 0.95ha). Linear park required adjacent Northfield Brook. Habitat buffer. Large portion of the site in flood plain Site within City centre so higher Nursery and Osney Site 25 No, occupied Yes, 2009-2014 3a - Developable 0.43 densities are appropriate but must 25 Warehouse consider mix set out in West End AAP Site vacant. Permission granted Osney Mill and Works, Mill Capacity based upon application Site 26 (legal agreement signed) on 15th Yes, 2009-2014 2 and 3a - Deliverable 0.73 12 Street number 03/02502/FUL January 2008 Mixed use required on site. Site within Oxford and Cherwell 1, 2, 3a City centre so higher densities are Site 27 No. Occupied by college Yes, 2009-2014 - Developable 3.14 40 Valley College and 3b appropriate but must consider mix set out in West End AAP Only Becket Street Car Park suitable for Widening of station Oxford Railway Station Majority 1, residential. Site within City centre so track likely to be Site 28 and Becket Street Car No. Functioning car park Yes, 2009-2014 small Developable 3.03 higher densities are appropriate but 70 required to improve Park section 2 must consider mix set out in West End station infrastructure AAP Mixed use required on site. Site within 1, 2, 3a City centre so higher densities are Site 29 Oxpens Road site No. Occupied Yes, 2009-2014 - Developable 7.33 240 and 3b appropriate but must consider mix set out in West End AAP Yes. Vacant. Application Capacity based upon application Site 30 Railway Lane Yes, 2009-2014 1 - Deliverable 0.97 85 submitted number 07/01186/FUL Mixed use required on site. Site within Majority 1, No, requires relocation of fire City centre so higher densities are Site 31 Rewley Road Fire Station No, 2014-2019 small strip - Developable 0.47 40 station appropriate but must consider mix set 2 out in West End AAP Scale of new buildings needs to be appropriate to the Conservation Area. Ruskin College, Dunstan Trees to be retained. Masterplan does Site 32 No, occupied Yes, 2009-2014 1 - Developable 1.77 20 Lane not show self contained units but some could be accommodated for key workers Flood Zone 3 therefore Scrap yard, Jackdaw appropriate flood Site 33 Still used as a scrap yard Yes, 2009-2014 2 and 3a Developable 1.54 Mixed use required on site. 70 Lane protection/ mitigation required Mixed use required on site. Site within Site 34 Suffolk House No, occupied Yes, 2009-2014 1 - Developable 0.21 District centre so higher densities are 15 appropriate. Capacity based upon application Site 35 St. Augustine’s School Yes. Under construction Yes, 2009-2014 1 - Deliverable 1.49 74 number 05/01118/RES Mixed use required on site. Site within No, occupied and requires City centre so higher densities are Site 36 Telephone Exchange No, 2019-2024 2 - Developable 0.40 27 relocation of equipment appropriate but must consider mix set out in West End AAP Mixed use required on site. Site within Land to the West of St. City centre so higher densities are Site 37 Aldate’s and south of No, occupied by tenants Yes, 2009-2014 1 - Developable 1.00 20 appropriate but must consider mix set Queen Street out in West End AAP
81 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
Site within City centre so higher St Aldate’s Police Station No, requires relocation of police Site 38 No, 2014-2019 2 and 3a - Developable 0.41 densities are appropriate but must 30 and land to the rear station consider mix set out in West End AAP Compulsory Purchase Yes, 2009-2014 Inquiry to try to Westgate Shopping (Compulsory overcome legal Capacity based upon application Site 39 Centre and Abbey Place Yes, partly. 1 and 2 Deliverable 3.04 127 Purchase Inquiry challenge made by number 06/01211/FUL Car Park due in 2008) existing residents on part of site 20 Yes. Yes. Will be registered as Capacity based upon application Site 40 Windmill School Yes, 2009-2014 1 - Deliverable 0.53 (remainin complete in 07/08 number 05/01602/RES g) Further research Mixed use required on site. Site within required regarding City centre so higher densities are Site 41 Worcester Street Car Park No Yes, 2009-2014 1and 2 historic environment Developable 0.54 18 appropriate but must consider mix set appraisal and potential out in West End AAP for canal basin Design must carefully consider Yes. Oxford University Press keen to Adjacent to Flood Zone interface with area of ecological pursue development of the site 1, 2 and Site 42 Wolvercote Paper Mill Yes, 2009-2014 3. Part of site within Deliverable 4.65 value. Capacity based on recent 200 and anticipate development 3a Flood Zone 2 masterplan which includes some within 5 years employment and community facilities Total for 2009-2014 (deliverable) 1012 Total for 2009-2014 (developable) 718 Total for 2014-2019 (developable) 365 Total for 2019-2024 (developable) 27 Total 2,122 Employment sites (Summary of suitable sites in Table 4) If site became available, preference Oxford University would be to demolish existing building Majority Training Corps likely to No, occupied by Oxford University and redevelop as a mixed use Site 43 Falklands House No, 2014-2019 3a, partly want to stay on the site Developable 0.22 16 Training Corps development (offices on the ground 2 for the foreseeable floor) and residential. City centre site. future. Flood Zone 3. Capacity based on 75 dph No, occupied. Site owned by Maintenance Depot, Oxfordshire County Council who Surrounding residential is low density Site 44 Yes, 2009-2014 1 - Developable 0.23 10 Lanham Way have expressed an interest in therefore capacity based upon 45 dph developing the site Total for 2009-2014 (deliverable) 0 Total for 2009-2014 (developable) 10 Total for 2014-2019 (developable) 16 Total for 2019-2024 (developable) 0 Total 26 Non-residential allocations (Summary of Table 5)
None suitable Suitable sites with planning permission (Table 6) (with 10% discount applied to each site, see Table 6) 138 - 140 London Road, Capacity based upon application Site 45 Yes. Development commenced Yes, 2009-2014 1 - Deliverable 0.06 14 Headington number 04/01311/FUL
82 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
Capacity based upon application Site 46 69 The Slade, Headington Yes. Development commenced Yes, 2009-2014 1 - Deliverable 0.10 11 number 03/02175/FUL Beckley View House and Capacity based upon application Site 47 Brome Place Garage Yes. Development commenced Yes, 2009-2014 1 - Deliverable 0.55 27 number 05/00641/FUL Block, Fettiplace Road Garages and Land East Capacity based upon application Site 48 Of Warren Crescent, Yes. City Council own the land Yes, 2009-2014 1 - Deliverable 0.37 18 number 02/02348/FUL Headington Existing residents would need to be Yes. Application made by the accommodated Hernes House Residential Capacity based upon application Site 49 owner Oxfordshire Mental Yes, 2009-2014 1 elsewhere. Likely that Deliverable 0.23 24 Home, 3 Hernes Crescent number 05/02159/RES Healthcare Trust Oxfordshire Mental Healthcare Trust would arrange Lawn Upton House, Capacity based upon application Site 50 Sandford Road, Yes. Permission granted on appeal Yes, 2009-2014 1 - Deliverable 0.85 numbers 04/02282/FUL and 22 Littlemore 04/02293/FUL Properties are currently occupied but there is a Properties are currently occupied Rose Hill Orlit phased re-housing Capacity based upon application Site 51 but owned/managed by the City Yes, 2009-2014 1 Deliverable 3.31 67 redevelopment programme planned as number 05/00639/OUT Council. part of the construction process Morris Motors Athletic Capacity based upon application Site 52 and Social Club, 129 Yes. Development commenced Yes, 2009-2014 1 - Deliverable 2.64 numbers 02/02046/FUL and 60 Crescent Road 05/01717/VAR Rear Of 25, 27 And 29 Capacity based upon application Site 53 Yes. Application made by owners Yes, 2009-2014 1 - Deliverable 0.31 10 Abberbury Road number 04/01626/OUT Royal British Legion Club, Capacity based upon application Site 54 Yes. Development commenced Yes, 2009-2014 1 - Deliverable 0.31 16 Hadow Road, Marston number 03/01351/FUL Site Of 78 St Clements Street And 1-4 Sunset Capacity based upon application Site 55 Yes. Development commenced Yes, 2009-2014 1 - Deliverable 0.11 15 Cottages, St Clements number 03/02393/FUL Street Capacity based upon application St Nicholas House, Yes. Site tendered by owner Site 56 Yes, 2009-2014 1 - Deliverable 0.29 number 04/01106/OUT and 26 Littlemore (Oxfordshire County Council) 07/01441/RES Travis Perkins, Chapel Yes. Application made by the Current occupier would Capacity based upon application Site 57 Yes, 2009-2014 1 Deliverable 0.72 57 Street owner relocate number 04/02259/OUT Block Of Garages, Capacity based upon application Site 58 Yes. City Council own the land Yes, 2009-2014 1 - Deliverable 0.14 11 Holland Place number 06/01765/FUL Part of the site has been released to Territorial Army Centre developers but the Capacity based upon application Site 59 Slade Barracks Infantry, Yes. Site sold to Berkeley Homes Yes, 2009-2014 1 Territorial Army are to Deliverable 1.78 number 07/02261/FUL. Application 72 Mascall Avenue vacate the remainder includes student accommodation of the site in December 2008 Total for 2009-2014 (deliverable) 450 Total for 2009-2014 (developable) 0 Total for 2014-2019 (developable) 0 Total for 2019-2024 (developable) 0
83 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
Total 450 Total with 10% discount 405 Sites where permission refused but principle acceptable (Table 7) (*with 45% discount applied to each site, see Table 7) New application Capacity based upon application Yes. Application made by the required that Site 60 8 Headley Way Yes, 2009-2014 1 Deliverable 0.20 number 04/02479/OUT and amended 10 owner overcomes the reasons based upon reasons for refusal for refusal New application Capacity based upon application Yes. Application made by the required that Site 61 86-88 Old Road Yes, 2009-2014 1 Deliverable 0.19 number 04/00940/FUL and amended 10 owner overcomes the reasons based upon reasons for refusal for refusal Capacity based upon application New application number 07/00733/FUL and amended Land Rear Of 274 and Yes. Application made by the required that Site 62 Yes, 2009-2014 1 Deliverable 0.11 based upon reasons for refusal. Appeal 8 276 Woodstock Road owner overcomes the reasons submitted. (New application for refusal 07/02355/FUL submitted post 31/03/07) New application Capacity based upon application Rear Of 40-47 Juxon Yes. Application made by the required that Site 63 Yes, 2009-2014 1 Deliverable 0.09 number 03/01508/FUL and amended 8 Street owner overcomes the reasons based upon reasons for refusal for refusal Total for 2009-2014 (deliverable) 36 Total for 2009-2014 (developable) 0 Total for 2014-2019 (developable) 0 Total for 2019-2024 (developable) 0 Total 36 Total with 45% discount 18 Suitable sites pending decision (Table 8) (**with 25% discount applied to each site, see Table 8) Yes. Application made by the Capacity based upon application Site 64 Beenhams Yes, 2009-2014 1 - Deliverable 0.40 20 owner number 06/01099/FUL King of Prussia, 76 Rose Yes. Application made by the Capacity based upon application Site 65 Yes, 2009-2014 1 - Deliverable 0.32 8 Hill owner. Site vacant. number 06/02082/FUL Yes. Application made by the Capacity based upon application Site 66 266 And 268 Iffley Road Yes, 2009-2014 1 - Deliverable 0.14 13 owner number 06/02423/FUL Yes. Application made by Capacity based upon application Site 67 Sunnymead Court developer but owned by the City Yes, 2009-2014 1 - Deliverable 0.23 12 number 07/01872/FUL Council Total for 2009-2014 (deliverable) 53 Total for 2009-2014 (developable) 0 Total for 2014-2019 (developable) 0 Total for 2019-2024 (developable) 0 Total 53 Total with 25% discount 39 Basic desktop study (Summary of suitable sites in Table 10) Development of the site has the potential to create new publicly Former Barton Road Yes. Developer shown interest in Site 68 Yes, 2009-2014 1 - Deliverable 1.02 accessible informal and formal local 35 Cricket Ground the site open space. 0.7h likely to remain for residential. Suburban location.
84 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
Capacity based upon approximate density of 50 dph and Balance of Dwellings SPD. Site currently used for Capacity only considers the part of the Yes. Site owned by Oxfordshire education support site currently occupied by buildings. County Council who have services as an office Suburban location. Capacity based Site 69 Harlow Centre and Site Yes, 2009-2014 1 Deliverable 1.06 47 expressed an interest in base which the County upon approximate density of 50 dph developing the site Council plan to and Balance of Dwellings SPD. At least relocated 10% open space assumed Design will need to consider the relationship between the site and the large plots to the west of the site to Yes. Site owned by Oxfordshire County Council would ensure there is no significant impact County Council. Considerable replaced beds upon the openness and character of Site 70 Iffley House, Iffley Yes, 2009-2014 1 Deliverable 0.59 21 developer interest following elsewhere and in other these plots. Retention of trees within marketing ways the Conservation Area. Capacity based upon approximate density of 40 dph and Balance of Dwellings SPD. At least 10% open space assumed Constrained site but within District Yes. Owner has expressed interest centre so higher densities are Land Adjacent TKMaxx, Site 71 in providing residential as part of Yes, 2009-2014 1 - Deliverable 0.05 appropriate. Site would include retail 10 John Allen Centre wider development and other community facilities too. Residential on upper floors Site is adjacent to the very sensitive Bartlemas Conservation Area. Lincoln College plan to Development may be acceptable on Lincoln College Sports Yes. Owner has expressed interest would share the sports the eastern part of the site only Site 72 Yes, 2009-2014 1 Deliverable 2.34 68 Ground, Bartlemas Close in allowing site to be developed. ground of Jesus (1.25ha). Capacity based upon College approximate density of 55 dph and Balance of Dwellings SPD. At least 10% open space assumed Site is within existing medium density residential area. A lot of on street Yes. Site owned by Oxfordshire County Council would parking exists in the area so careful County Council who have replaced beds design would be required to prevent Site 73 Longlands, Blackbird Leys No, 2014-2019 1 Developable 0.44 24 expressed an interest in elsewhere and in other exacerbating this problem. Capacity developing the site ways in the long term based upon approximate density of 60 dph and Balance of Dwellings SPD. At least 10% open space assumed Site is within existing medium density Yes. Site owned by Oxfordshire County Council would residential area. Capacity based upon County Council who have replaced beds Site 74 Marston Court No, 2014-2019 1 Developable 0.42 approximate density of 60 dph and 23 expressed an interest in elsewhere and in other Balance of Dwellings SPD. At least 10% developing the site ways open space assumed Site would need to provide new community facilities on site perhaps also accommodating any loss from Yes, site owned by Oxford City Sutton Road Hall site. Approximately Northway Centre, Site 75 Council who have expressed an Yes, 2009-2014 1 - Deliverable 0.78 0.26ha may remain for residential. Site is 14 Maltfield Road interest in developing the site within existing medium density residential area. Capacity based upon approximate density of 60 dph and Balance of Dwellings SPD. At least 10%
85 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
open space assumed Site is within existing medium density Yes. Site owned by Oxfordshire Current educational residential area. Capacity based upon County Council who have use will be delivered in Site 76 Ormerod School Yes, 2009-2014 1 Deliverable 1.40 approximate density of 60 dph and 75 expressed an interest in a different way in a Balance of Dwellings SPD. At least 10% developing the site new property open space assumed Yes. Site owned by Oxfordshire Site is within existing suburban County Council who have Uses will be relocated residential area. Capacity based upon Site 77 Shotover View Yes, 2009-2014 1 Deliverable 0.58 30 expressed an interest in to a new office approximate density of 50 dph and developing the site Balance of Dwellings SPD Site is within existing medium density residential area. Community use that would be lost could potentially be Yes, site owned by Oxford City Sutton Road Hall, provided as part of new facilities on the Site 78 Council who have expressed an Yes, 2009-2014 1 - Deliverable 0.18 10 Northway Northway Centre site Capacity based interest in developing the site upon approximate density of 60 dph and Balance of Dwellings SPD. At least 10% open space assumed Site is within existing medium density Yes. Site owned by Oxfordshire County Council would residential area. Capacity based upon County Council who have replaced beds Site 79 Townsend House, Barton No, 2014-2019 1 Developable 0.44 approximate density of 60 dph and 24 expressed an interest in elsewhere and in other Balance of Dwellings SPD. At least 10% developing the site ways open space assumed Yes, site owned by Oxford City Development at Council who have expressed an Union Street Car Park, theoretical stage and Capacity based upon public exhibition Site 80 interest in developing a carbon No, 2014-2019 1 Developable 0.25 20 Cowley Road feasibility studies are undertaken in May 2007 neutral residential and retail currently underway development on the site Total for 2009-2014 (deliverable) 310 Total for 2009-2014 (developable) 0 Total for 2014-2019 (developable) 91 Total for 2019-2024 (developable) 0 Total 401 STAGE 5 Detailed map survey (Summary of suitable sites in Table 11) None suitable Open Space (Summary of suitable sites in Table 12) Yes, owned by Oxfordshire County Access to be resolved, Site within existing low/medium density Council who have expressed likely from adjacent residential area and adjacent to new Former St Augustine’s interest in seeking redevelopment development site. development. Capacity based upon Site 81 Yes, 2009-2014 1 Deliverable 2.14 100 playing fields of the site. A strip of land adjacent Oxon CC to clear with approximate density of 50 dph and to former school site is owned by statutory educational Balance of Dwellings SPD. At least 10% Banner Homes requirements open space assumed Total for 2009-2014 (deliverable) 100 Total for 2009-2014 (developable) 0 Total for 2014-2019 (developable) 0 Total for 2019-2024 (developable) 0 Total 100
86 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
Green Belt Land (Summary of suitable sites in Table 14) Site not adjacent to existing residential but close to Upper Wolvercote. Consideration of the impact upon the Conservation Area may affect capacity. In the absence of noise Owned by St Johns College who Land West of Oxford data, it is assumed that the north half of have been in discussions with the Hotel (includes Land the site may experience noise Site 82 Council regarding the Pear Tree Yes, 2009-2014 1 - Deliverable 7.78 140 north of Godstow Road problems and therefore will be DPD and the area’s future Site 10/16 in Table 10) excluded from having capacity. Part of development site may be required for landscaping to mitigate against traffic noise. This leaves approximately 3.67ha. Capacity based upon approximate density of 50 dph and Balance of Dwellings SPD Total for 2009-2014 (deliverable) 140 Total for 2009-2014 (developable) 0 Total for 2014-2019 (developable) 0 Total for 2019-2024 (developable) 0 Total 140 Core Strategy strategic sites (Summary of suitable sites in Table 15) If the site becomes available, some Consultation with land likely to be retained for landowners will operational purposes reducing No (no date can Majority 1, continue into the future Summertown capacity. Part of site flood plain and No, site is required for operational specified with SE corner but constraint remains Safeguarded Land and protected private open space. Site 83 purposes by Summerfields School current of site until site not needed by Developable 23.1 200 adjoining Summerfields Capacity includes need for new and Wadham College landowner partly in 2, the landowners. Less School land publicly accessible open space within position) 3a and 3b land may become the site and based upon 50 dph and available than was Balance of dwellings SPD. At least 10% originally considered open space assumed Options for accessing Capacity reduced due to need for the site need new publicly accessible open space Majority 1, appraising. Type and Yes, majority of site owned by within the site and based upon 50 dph strip on location of access Barton Safeguarded Oxford City Council who have and Balance of dwellings SPD. Some Site 84 No, 2014-2019 northern required ultimately Developable 27 800 Land expressed an interest in local facilities likely. At least 10% open edge in depends on the land developing the site space assumed (site boundary 3b use(s) envisaged on the excludes protected public open space site. This will affect cost and sports pitches to east of the site) and timescale Total for 2009-2014 (deliverable) 0 Total for 2009-2014 (developable) 0 Total for 2014-2019 (developable) 800 Total for 2019-2024 (developable) 0 No date 200 Total 1000 Nature Conservation sites (Summary of suitable sites in Table 16) None suitable
87 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
88
STAGE 8 Review of the assessment
Summary of capacity 8.1 Table 18 provides a summary of Table 17 by totalling the number of dwellings on deliverable and developable sites from each of the sources of survey. Table 18 excludes any reference to dwellings from windfall sites.
Table 18: Summary of capacity and timescale for delivery (no windfalls)
Site status and timescale Number of dwellings
Apr 2014 – Apr 2019- Apr 2024 – Apr 2009- Mar 2014 Mar 2019 Mar 2024 Mar 2029 Total (years 1-5) (years 6-10) (years 11-15) (years 16-20) Deliverable sites Developable sites Developable sites Developable sites Residential allocated 1,012 718 365 27 0 2,122 sites Employment sites 0 10 16 0 0 26 Non-residential 0 0 0 0 0 0 allocated sites Suitable sites with planning permission 40554 0 0 0 0 405 (large) Suitable sites with planning permission 62055 0 0 0 0 620 (small) Sites where permission refused but principle 1856 0 0 0 0 18 acceptable Suitable sites pending 3957 0 0 0 0 39 decision Basic desktop study 310 0 91 0 0 401
Detailed map survey 0 0 0 0 0 0
Open space 100 0 0 0 0 100
Green belt land 140 0 0 0 0 140 Core Strategy strategic 0 0 800 0 0 800 sites Nature conservation 0 0 0 0 0 0 sites Total 2,644 728 1,272 27 0 4,671
Risk Assessment Overcoming constraints 8.2 It is difficult to assess the likelihood of a site coming forward for development. A number of suitable sites have constraints that need to be overcome which have been set out in Table 17.
Future market conditions 8.3 A major factor influencing the likelihood of sites coming forward for development are the market conditions and viability of sites.
54 includes discount, see Table 6 55 includes discount, see paragraph 3.19 and Appendix 6 56 includes discount, see Table 7 57 includes discount, see Table 8 89 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
8.4 A Planning Obligations Viability Study58 (POVS) was undertaken in April 2007 to assess the viability of a selection of sites in Oxford taking into consideration the Section 106 requirements of the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document including 50% affordable housing provision and a mix of dwelling sizes. 12 sites were assessed located across Oxford and ranged from 13 to 188 dwellings in size. An extract from the POVS is reproduced below:
“The results of the study were that the combined obligations of 50% affordable housing (with no social housing grant) and revised S106 requirements significantly alter the economics of some of the, particularly smaller, tested developments such that considerable reductions in land value are required to make a development viable. Where the land value exceeds the existing or alternative use value of the site, the development is still technically viable, but land supply may be affected whilst landowner’s expectations adjust.
This study, at the request of Oxford City Council, assumes no Social Housing Grant is available to support the affordable element of these developments. If this grant is available then this will increase the bid of the RSLs for their part of the development and improve the overall viability. This study therefore is designed to assess viability in a no grant, worst-case scenario.
The overall results of the study are that, in our opinion, viability is maintained on nine of the sites studied. Five of the sites involve significant falls in land value but are considered sufficiently above existing/alternative use value to proceed once the market has re-aligned. One of the sites generated a land value marginally below the pre-existing use value and would not be viable. Two of the sites generate land values that are close to existing/alternative use value and make it questionable that the sites would come forward for development without a compromise on requirements or the availability of social housing grant. However, in the case of the Northfield School site (Site 6), an equally determinant factor to its redevelopment would be the natural cessation of the current use.”59
8.5 8 of the sites tested by the POVS are in Table 17’s list of suitable sites in this SHLAA. It should also be noted that one of the viable sites tested in the Viability Study was for a commercial development only.
8.6 The POVS considers recent information on costs, values and market conditions and is considered to be robust evidence to show the viability of suitable sites within Oxford. The risk of large sites not coming forward for development due to the current market conditions is therefore considered to be low.
8.7 It is difficult to predict with any certainty what will happen in relation to the housing market over the next 15-20 years, and in any event, the cyclical nature of the market means that any slow down is likely to be reversed over the course of the Plan. However some comment can be made on how particular characteristics of Oxford will influence how the Oxford housing market will react to any slow down or slump in the market.
8.8 The requirement for housing (both market and affordable) can be separately analysed into housing need and housing demand. If households are less able to gain credit, demand will fall and there will be a slow down in the market. Where existing need is high, as it is in Oxford60, this need still remains even if there is a slow down in the housing market. However, because the need will remain high within Oxford, even with future house building, Oxford will be less affected by a slow down in the market than other areas where the need is less.
58 Planning Obligations Viability Study (April 2007) District Valuer Services - Valuation Office Agency 59 Executive summary paragraphs 7, 9 and 10, Planning Obligations Viability Study (April 2007) District Valuer Services - Valuation Office Agency 60 Oxfordshire Housing Market Assessment (2007) Tribal Group 90
8.9 If a fall in nominal values does occur, this may impact upon windfall sites, as the perceived financial advantage or bringing sites forward will fall. It would however be expected that this would be a temporary effect, and it’s effect over the course of the Plan is likely to be low.
8.10 There are currently more jobs in Oxford than there are people of working age. This means that a slow down in the housing market would have less impact on the Oxford housing market than it would in other places where the ratio is reversed. The existence of a greater number of jobs keeps demand strong in Oxford.
8.11 Some large cities in the UK are experiencing high vacancy rates in new-build flats. This is because there has been an over supply of this type of dwelling. A slow down in the market would further exacerbate this problem in those areas. Whilst there have been plenty of new developments of flats in Oxford61, Oxford has not delivered flats to such an extent to have suppressed demand. This is because of the huge demand that exists in Oxford now and in the future62.
8.12 Recent years have seen a substantial increase in properties bought in order to let them out as an investment (BTL). Typically, rental payments are now somewhat below the level of mortgage interest for a given period, resulting in a negative yield, and investors have been relying on capital growth. If this capital growth slows, BTL will become less attractive to investors. This will have an effect on the viability of sites for development. However, once again Oxford is less exposed than other areas as the number of BTL properties (typically 2 bedroom flats) built recently has not satisfied demand.
8.13 Properties let to students, and other shared houses have been a feature of the Oxford market for many years, and this sector is less exposed to a potential down turn for the simple reasons that the average property has been held for longer and interest payments on debt are less, whilst yields are higher.
8.14 In summary, a slow down or slump in the housing market is likely to be felt less in Oxford than other areas due to the circumstances existing in Oxford that are described above. Taking this into account it is not considered that sites will be significantly hampered nor that windfalls would be severely reduced in Oxford if the market slowed down. It would be a mistake for planners to have a knee-jerk reaction to a slump by reducing supply because the housing market would eventually pick up again. Similarly, it would not be wise to assume that there would be a drastic reduction in windfalls in Oxford for the same reason.
Implications for housing policy in Oxford PPS3 and the South East Plan 8.15 PPS3 requires that Oxford City Council must identify sufficient specific deliverable sites for the first 5 years (2009-14). The Proposed Changes to the South East Plan63 sets a target of 400 dwellings per year for Oxford which equates to 2,000 dwellings over 5 years. Table 18 shows that there are enough deliverable and identifiable sites in Oxford to provide 2,644 dwellings over the first 5 years which is 32.2% above the target required. This is without relying on windfalls.
8.16 PPS3 requires that Oxford City Council should identify a further supply of specific developable sites for years 6-10 (2014-19). Table 18 shows that the remaining developable sites from 2009-14 (728) plus the sites from years 2014-19 (1,272) equates to 2,000 dwellings. This matches the 5 year draft South East Plan panel report target of 2,000 dwellings. This is without relying on windfalls.
61 Paragraphs 28-29, Balance of Dwellings Supplementary Planning Document (Jan 2008) Oxford City Council 62 Oxfordshire Housing Market Assessment (2007) Tribal Group 63 Secretary of State’s Proposed Changes to the South East Plan (17 July 2008) 91 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008 8.17 PPS3 says that, where possible, sites should be identified for years 11-15 (2019-24). Table 18 shows that only one site can been identified for years 11-15. There is no requirement in PPS3 to identify sites for years 16-20 (2024-29).
The Core Strategy 8.18 Oxford’s Core Strategy will have a time period of 2006-2026 in order to match that of the South East Plan. The SHLAA practice guidance expects information on sites from the date of adoption of the Core Strategy, which will be in 2009. This clearly leaves 3 years (2006-09) of completions that have not yet been counted for their contribution towards housing delivery and that must be included to assess whether or not the Core Strategy housing target could be met.
8.19 There were 821 dwellings completed during 2006-0764. Completions for years 2007-08 and 2008-09 must be estimated (figures for 2007/08 will be available in autumn 2008 and will be shown in the annual review of the SHLAA). It is possible that some of the residential allocated sites listed in Table 17 will start to come forward prior to the start of the first time period of 2009-2014. It is also likely that windfalls will continue to come forward during 2007-09 but with the likelihood of a slow down as explained in Stage 10, so the cautious figure of 200 dwellings per year is used. Years 2007-09 come prior to the official first 10 years of land supply from adoption of the Core Strategy so it is considered that windfalls can be referred to in these two years without disturbing the overall evidence of the SHLAA for the purposes of PPS3.
8.20 Table 19 shows the distribution of housing according to Table 18. It also includes the years 2006-09 in order to demonstrate the distribution of housing over those early Core Strategy/South East Plan years. It shows Oxford City Council would be 2,108 dwellings short of achieving their Core Strategy target which would require an additional 87.2 dwellings per annum from windfalls from 2007/08 onwards (see Stage 10). Identified sites are concentrated in earlier years with identified sites tailing off in the latter years. It is likely that further new sites would be identified throughout the lifetime of the Core Strategy document and future reviews of the SHLAA to contribute to the target. Further sites may also be identified during the production of the Site Allocations DPD.
New Growth Point 8.21 Oxford City Council was granted New Growth Point (NGP) status in October 2006 and on this basis is expected to provide at least 20% more units than its allocation in RPG9 which was established in the Oxfordshire Structure Plan as 43365 dwelling per annum. A 20% increase equates to 519 dwellings per annum. As a NGP we are therefore committed to providing 519 dwellings per annum in the period 2006-2016 (5,190 over the 10 years) and 400 dwellings per annum in the period 2017-2026. Table 19 shows that based upon evidence in the SHLAA, Oxford could deliver 5,111 dwellings between 2006-16 which is just short of the requirement of being an NGP by 85 dwellings.
64 Indicator 1, Oxford’s Annual Monitoring Report 2006, Oxford City Council 65 Policy H1, Oxfordshire Structure Plan 2016 (Oct 2005) Oxfordshire County Council 92 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
Table 19 Distribution of housing based upon Table 18 (no windfalls during years 1-20) plotted against the variety of relevant targets
Calendar year 06/ 07 07/ 08 08/ 09 09/ 10 10/ 11 11/ 12 12/ 13 13/ 14 14/ 15 15/ 16 16/ 17 17/ 18 18/ 19 19/ 20 20/ 21 21/ 22 22/ 23 23/ 24 24/ 25 25/ 26 26/ 27 27/ 28 28/ 29 Shortfall/ Total Target surplus SHLAA year - - - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
A. PPS3 5 years 2,644 2,644 2,00066 +644 deliverable (deliverable) supply
3,372 B. PPS3 15 years 1,272 27 4,691 6,00067 -1,329 supply (deliverable and developable)
C. Core 3,372 82168 1,272 27 0 0 5,892 8,00069 -2,108 Strategy/ South (deliverable and developable) East Plan 200* 200*
3,372 D. New 82170 50871 5111 5,19672 -85 Growth Point (deliverable and developable) 200* 200*
66 using South East Plan Panel report average of 400 dwellings per annum: 400 x 5 = 2,000 67 using South East Plan Panel report average of 400 dwellings per annum: 400 x 15 = 6,000 68 actual completions 69 using South East Plan Panel report average of 400 dwellings per annum: 400 x 20 = 8,000 * windfalls prior to start of Core Strategy/SHLAA period. See paragraph 8.19 70 actual completions 71 total for years 6-10 prorata to 2 years (1,272/5)x2=508 72 target set as 20% greater than RPG9/Oxfordshire Structure Plan target in order to achieve New Growth Point status
93 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008 Housing trajectories 8.22 The review of the assessment must include a housing trajectory based on the information collated in the previous stages. Housing trajectories illustrating targets B and C of Table 19 (PPS3 and Core Strategy/SEP targets) are at Appendix 10 along with the raw data tables.
Review of the Assessment 8.23 Table 19 shows that the available land as identified in previous sections of this SHLAA has the potential to meet the required 5 years supply of deliverable sites. However, there are not enough identifiable sites to meet the full 15 year PPS3 period, nor the 20 year Core Strategy period. Whilst it is not expected73 that a planning authority must identify every single site that will make up the target, if the SHLAA does find a shortfall in the potential supply from identifiable sites, the planning authority can consider (in a DPD) whether to identify broad locations for future housing growth, which may involve the need to review green belt boundaries or to seek to make a case to include an allowance for windfalls74. The SHLAA is expected to provide appropriate evidence to assist in this decision making process.
8.24 The three potential further sources of sites suggested by guidance are:
a) Reviewing Green Belt boundaries; b) Identifying broad locations; c) Making a case for an allowance for windfalls. a) Reviewing Green belt boundaries 8.25 With regards to Green Belt boundaries, a small scale review has already been undertaken in Stage 3. For the purpose of the SHLAA, the presumption was in favour of generally retaining existing internal Green Belt boundaries so as to accord with current policy guidance but individual sites were considered if it was felt that their loss to development would not significantly compromise the aims of the Green Belt of checking unrestricted sprawl and preventing the coalescing of settlements. The single site identified in Stage 3 that was considered suitable was Site 82 (Land west of The Oxford Hotel) in Table 17 where the site is bounded by existing busy roads, the railway line and canal so it was less likely to encourage sprawl outside of it’s site boundary. It was also not considered to serve a purpose of preventing settlements coalescing due to its position enclosed within these major transport routes. The potential housing from this site has already been included within capacity totals in Table 18. b) Identifying broad locations 8.26 Identifying broad locations is discussed in Stage 9. c) Making a case for an allowance for windfalls 8.27 The final option available to consider is that of making a case for the allowance of windfalls. This is discussed in Stage 10.
73 Paragraph 55, Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (Nov 2006) DCLG 74 Paragraph 45, Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments: Practice Guidance (Jul 2007) CLG and Page 8, Strategic Housing Land Availability and Development Plan Document Preparation (Jan 2008) Planning Officers Society STAGE 9 94 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008 STAGE 9 Identifying and assessing the housing potential of broad locations
9.1 Broad locations are areas where housing potential is considered feasible and will be encouraged in existing or future Plans. The term covers: • Areas outside existing settlements such as possible urban extensions; and • Areas within settlements where planning policy seeks to promote development.
Areas outside existing settlements such as possible urban extensions 9.2 The South East Plan Panel Report75 supports an urban extension to the south of Oxford. This area is not within the City Council’s administrative boundary so this SHLAA does not assess the suitability and deliverability of that site. Being outside of Oxford’s boundary, Oxford’s housing targets do not include the potential urban extension so the fact that this SHLAA does not assess the urban extension does not affect Oxford’s housing land supply.
Areas within settlements where planning policy seeks to promote development 9.3 Broad locations within settlements should only be included where existing or proposed planning policy actively encourages additional housing e.g. through infilling or redevelopment76. There are no current Local Plan or proposed LDF policies which actively encourage redevelopment in particular areas of Oxford. Whilst higher densities will be sought in some areas, such as the city centre and district centres, this does not mean that the likelihood of these developments occurring is any greater than sites outside these areas. This issue is discussed further in the context of windfalls in Stage 10. The boundaries of the district centres will be reviewed in a future DPD.
9.4 The City Council is considering urban renewal projects in some areas of regeneration. In future reviews of the SHLAA it may be possible to identify some of these as broad areas for development.
Strategic Sites 9.5 Draft PPS1277 refers to ‘strategic site’s with broadly a similar meaning. Where it is anticipated that a strategic site or sites will be allocated in the Core Strategy, they should be delineated in outline78. Table 15 lists all sites identified in the Core Strategy Preferred Options and assesses their suitability for housing. Table 17 lists the two strategic sites that are considered suitable for housing (Barton and Summertown sites).
Summary 9.6 It is considered that the potential of broad locations has been fully considered. The potential capacity of identified strategic sites has already been included within capacity totals of Table 18.
75 South East Plan Examination in Public - Report of the Panel (29 August 2007) 76 Page 5, Strategic Housing Land Availability and Development Plan Document Preparation (Jan 2008) Planning Officers Society 77 Draft Planning Policy Statement 12 (Streamlining Local Development Frameworks Consultation) (Nov 2007) DCLG 78 Page 4, Strategic Housing Land Availability and Development Plan Document Preparation (Jan 2008) Planning Officers Society 95 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008 STAGE 10 Determining the housing potential of windfalls
How to make a case for using windfalls 10.1 PPS3 says that “Allowances for windfalls should not be included in the first 10 years of land supply unless Local Planning Authorities can provide robust evidence of genuine local circumstances that prevent specific sites being identified. In these circumstances, an allowance should be included but should be realistic having regard to the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, historic windfall rates and expected future trends.”
10.2 Information received from conferences and discussions with relevant Government officers suggests that a reliance on windfalls should be based on more that just the scenario set out in the paragraph above. The suggestion is that there must be a positive planning policy in place, or likely to be in place over the course of the Plan, that actively encourages windfall developments in particular parts of Oxford.
10.3 This section will therefore consider the extent to which: a) there are genuine local circumstances in Oxford that prevent specific sites being identified; and b) there are positive planning policies actively encouraging windfalls in parts of Oxford. a) Genuine local circumstances 10.4 The Oxford-specific factors that have lead to likely shortfall in meeting the targets, relate to the constrained boundaries of the administrative area, the extensive area liable to flooding, and the existence of areas protected for European and National nature conservation reasons.
10.5 Past years have seen an overprovision of housing, often significantly above the target required79, many of which were windfall developments of infills, conversions and redevelopment. Developers have been creative at seeking opportunities for such development which has reduced the available land for such development in the future. Around 50ha of employment land in Oxford was lost to residential development between 1985 and 2002. During the earlier period the gradual loss of employment sites was on a case-by-case basis and during the latter period, the loss of employment land was a result of policies at the time seeking the delivery of more housing. The potential for employment land to contribute to delivering housing in the future has therefore become very restricted. Current Local Plan policies80 and the forthcoming Core Strategy81 also seek to prevent the loss of existing employment sites to other uses.
10.6 The Green Space Study82 also identified a shortfall of public open space in many areas of Oxford so there are limits to the extent to which this type of land could be used for housing (Stage 3). Local Planning policies83 seek to protect existing public open space. It should also be remembered that the more housing that is developed, the greater pressure is put on existing public open spaces and the greater the need for new public open spaces to serve new households84. Areas important for nature
79 Indicator 1, Oxford Annual Monitoring Report 2007, Oxford City Council 80 Policies EC.2, EC.4, EC.5 of the Oxford Local Plan 2001-2016 81 Policy CS30 of the Core Strategy Submission document 82 Oxford City Green Space Study (Feb 2007 update) Scott Wilson 83 Policies SR.2, SR.5, SR8 of the Oxford Local Plan 2001-2016; Policy CS23 of the Core Strategy Submission document 84 Policies HS.22, HS.23 of the Oxford Local Plan 2001-2016; Policy CS23 of the Core Strategy Submission document 96 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008 conservation value are protected by European and National designations or by local planning policies85.
10.7 The SHLAA is considered to be a comprehensive survey of land in Oxford and did not inappropriately exclude any particular land type. Maps A-F in Appendix 12 illustrate the extent of the SHLAA survey and show that the SHLAA was comprehensive and did not ignore particular land types in the assessment.
10.8 These reasons, and in particular the full extent of the SHLAA survey, are considered to illustrate the specific circumstances in Oxford that have lead to the inability to identify enough suitable sites to meet the targets required. b) Positive planning policies encouraging windfalls 10.9 The Oxford Local Plan and forthcoming Core Strategy and West End AAP DPDs do not have any policies explicitly promoting windfall development in particular areas of Oxford. However, it is questionable whether such an ‘encouragement’ policy would actually result in an increase in windfalls in a particular area anyway. The rate of windfall delivery is primarily influenced by the economy and market at the time, as well as land availability, so it is not considered that a policy encouraging windfalls in a particular area would result in more windfalls coming forward. In fact, it is likely to have the opposite effect as applications for windfalls outside such a policy area may be looked upon unfavourably due to the fact that they are not within the policy area. It is considered unrealistic that a sustainable urban local authority like Oxford would actually wish to have such a policy promoting windfalls in specific areas when all areas are generally equally suitable, and where windfalls are generally supported city-wide, providing other Local Plan policies are complied with. Providing that detailed design issues are acceptable, it is difficult to refuse an application for windfall development on any previously developed site (unless there is a policy basis in place to prevent the loss of the existing use, or if the site is already identified for alternative use). Such a policy would reduce the overall area considered suitable for windfalls and is likely to have no overall effect in increasing housing delivery which is why an area specific windfall policy does not exist in Oxford.
10.10 If a case for using windfalls depends upon having a policy showing direction of growth for windfalls, Oxford’s case can only focus on the fact that existing policies do have the effect of focussing windfall development to certain areas of Oxford, but without have a single policy stating as such.
10.11 Policies exist within the Local Plan and Core Strategy directing windfall development to previously developed land86. The built up area of Oxford covers 2,650ha (58.1% of the administrative area).
10.12 The Core Strategy follows guidance in PPS25 preventing residential development in Flood Zone 3b and restricting it in Flood Zones 3a87. It focusses development to non-flood prone areas by restricting it in the areas most susceptible to flooding. Of the built up area, Flood Zones 3a and 3b cover 213ha.
10.13 The intention is that these particular Oxford Local Plan policies will be saved and that the Core Strategy will be adopted in Dec 2009 so future years will see windfall development focussed to an identifiable 2,437ha area of Oxford (an area covering 53.4% of the administrative area). Figure 10 illustrates this area.
85 Policies NE.18, NE.19, NE.20 of the Oxford Local Plan 2001-2016; Policy CS14 of the Core Strategy Submission document 86 Policies HS.1 and HS.2 of the Oxford Local Plan 2001-2016; Policy CS3 of the Core Strategy Submission document 87 Policy CS13 of the Core Strategy Submission document 97 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
Figure 10: Area where planning policy facilitates windfall development
Annual rate and pattern of redevelopment 10.14 Having attempted to justify the use of windfalls, the Local Planning Authority is expected to come to an informed view as to: • whether the annual rate is likely to increase or decrease; • whether the pattern of redevelopment is likely to remain the same, grow or decline; • whether the current market conditions are likely to stay the same, worsen or improve in the future
10.15 Windfalls from small and large sites are discussed below in the context of these issues.
98 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008 Small site windfalls 10.16 Small site windfalls are unidentified small sites (generally 10 dwellings/0.25ha or less). The assumed yield from future small windfall sites is estimated by assessing the number of dwelling completions on different types of land (sources) each year during the period from 1st April 2001 to 31st March 2007.
10.17 The Urban Capacity Study Update (2003) (UCS) showed that the average number of completions on small sites between 1991 and 2001 was 150 per year. More up-to-date data was available for the Urban Potential Study88 (2005) (UPS) and monitoring showed that on average approximately 200 dwellings were permitted on small sites per year between 2001 and 2005. Whilst this data referred to permissions, this suggests that the projected rate of small site provision of 150 dwellings per annum, as set out in the UCS, was an underestimate.
10.18 To take account of this increase while still recognising the past trend of 150 completed dwellings per annum, a conservative estimate of 175 dwellings per annum was considered realistic in the UPS. Since the UPS was published, small site windfall completions have remained above 200 dwellings.
10.19 For each site where completions occurred, the description of development (taken from the planning application) and the proposed and existing land uses were used to identify the relevant capacity source. It should be noted that while best endeavours were used to classify past developments into the capacity sources set out in the draft SHLAA guidance, an element of subjectivity was required to do so (see Figure 11).
Table 20: Small site windfall completion trends
Net completions per year - small site windfall Source breakdown 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 Total
Subdivision of existing housing 12 42 74 97 134 54 413
Flats over shops 3 2 3 4 2 1 15
Intensification of existing areas 31 20 47 57 42 109 306
Redevelopment of existing housing 28 3 23 33 41 58 186
Previously developed vacant & derelict land and buildings 2 24 16 17 22 0 81
Conversion of commercial 10 5 8 5 16 0 44
Total 86 96 171 213 257 222 1,045
88 Oxford’s Urban Potential Study update (2005) Oxford City Council 99 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
Subdivision of existing 160 housing
140 Flats over shops
120 Intensification of existing areas 100 Redevelopment of existing 80 housing Previously developed 60 vacant and derelict land and buildings Conversion of commercial 40
20 Net housing completions - small site windfalls 0 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 Year
Figure 11: Pattern of small site windfall completions
10.20 There are a number of reasons why the rate of small windfall completions could continue during the Plan period: • the housing market in Oxford remains strong, with a continued demand and high prices achieved in Oxford; • PPS3 promotes efficient use of land and high densities have continually been achieved in Oxford; • intensification of existing residential plots and redevelopment of existing residential has been relatively consistent and is popular method of developers; and • the rate of conversion of commercial buildings has stayed relatively consistent over the period 2001-2007. This is likely to continue as long as there are sufficient properties available for conversion. However this type of development must be viewed in the context of the protected employment sites identified in the Local Plan. The availability of such land is therefore unlikely to continue indefinitely but, because of the high demand for residential developments, the trend rate is unlikely to decrease in the short to medium term.
10.21 As well as considering the average completions per year, the increase per year is also important. 2001- 06 shows a notable increase in the number of dwellings completed per year, but 2007 saw a slight reduction. This overall increase may be for a combination of reasons: • reduction in the threshold for affordable housing adopted in the Oxford Local Plan 2001-2006 encourages developers to seek more inventive ways of delivering housing on smaller sites; • the number of smaller households continues to increase nationally and this increased demand for small dwellings can be partly met by houses converted into flats (when complying with the Balance of Dwellings SPD) as they deliver small dwellings that contain the minimum requirements of a single person/small households.
10.22 There are also a number of reasons why the rate of small windfall completions could slow down or decrease during the Plan period: • development of dwellings in the flood plain (including infill dwellings) will be more restricted as a result of PPS25 and in the Core Strategy, which could rule out a proportion of Oxford’s existing built up area for housing; • general concern that residential areas of Oxford are becoming too crammed as a result of infill and backland developments, the consequence of which could be a slow down in the amount of applications granted permission for such developments in future;
100 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008 • the prevention of subdivision of some houses into flats as part of the Balance of Dwellings SPD will result in a drop in the number of small site windfalls from subdivision. Local concern over the loss of family dwellings may have contributed to a reduction in the number of dwellings from subdivisions; • the housing market nationally is experiencing a slow downturn which could have a knock on effect on housing development, however, Oxford’s housing market tends to remain strong and so any downturn is likely to be less in Oxford than elsewhere. This is explained further under Future market conditions in Stage 8.
10.23 The City Council has adopted the Balance of Dwellings SPD89 which seeks to ensure that a range of dwellings sizes are delivered. The SPD also addresses the high proportion of family sized dwellings that are being lost through subdivisions. This has the potential to reduce the number of dwellings delivered as a result of subdivision. PPS390 places great emphasis on delivery of a wide range of dwelling sizes, especially family housing. Therefore it is appropriate to take this into consideration when assessing future estimates from small windfall sites.
Large site windfalls 10.24 Large site windfalls are unidentified large sites (generally 10 dwellings/0.25ha or greater). In the UPS and UCS, a large site was considered to be 0.4ha or more. But the definition of a large site is now 0.25ha or more. This means that there are potentially more large sites to determine trends from than the previous studies.
10.25 The use of historic trends to establish an allowance for such large windfall sites is not as robust compared to small site windfalls as the sample size of sites is be smaller, and extrapolating the average may be slightly crude but it does gives a good indication of whether or not projected yields have been accurate in the past and can give some indication of future yields from large sites. It is also useful to consider the number of dwellings permitted on large sites (permissions) as this can give some indication of the future trend of completions (see Figure 12).
10.26 Dwellings contributed from large windfall sites are only sourced from a few sites and could come forward at irregular times across the Plan period, so the City Council cannot predict when the large windfall sites will become available. It is therefore appropriate to convert the number of dwellings into an annual average in order to spread the contribution evenly across the Plan period.
10.27 The strategic mix required for affordable dwellings set out in the Affordable Housing SPD and the mix set out in the Balance of Dwellings SPD will have the effect of reducing densities due to the requirement for more family sized dwellings. This will result in slightly fewer dwellings from the large sites that do come forward but is unlikely to effect the numbers of sites that come forward.
Table 21: Large site windfall trends
Net dwellings - large site windfalls 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 Total Average
Completions 188 75 170 174 106 120 833 138
Permissions 204 94 171 261 324 33 1,087 181
89 Balance of Dwellings Supplementary Planning Document (Jan 2008) Oxford City Council 90 Paragraphs 20-24, Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (Nov 2006) DCLG 101 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
350 Completions on large windfall sites
300
Permissions on large 250 windfall sites
200
15 0
10 0
50
0 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 Year
Figure 12: Pattern of large site windfalls completions and permissions
10.28 Figure 12 shows that completions fluctuate considerably and the recent drop in permissions may be due to a combination of the shortage of sites, the reduced affordable housing threshold, but also the irregular times at which large sites become available. Future reviews of the SHLAA will assess whether this is a temporary blip or the start of a more long-term decline in permissions.
10.29 Whilst the number of dwellings completed over the past 6 years on small and large windfall sites are similar (1,045 and 833 respectively), the number of large sites are much less. Any change in trend is likely to have a more significant effect on the dwelling yield from large windfall sites than from small sites, so caution should be taken in estimating future yield from large windfall sites. The average number of completions on large windfalls sites over the past 6 years is 138 dwellings.
10.30 The UPS only included a modest allowance of 300 dwellings from large windfall sites over the 20 year Plan period (or 20 dwellings per year). However, the definition of a large site at that time was 0.4 ha or more. With a definition of 0.25 ha or more, the yield of dwellings from large windfall sites will be greater than estimated in the UPS and Local Plan.
Future market conditions 10.31 The analysis of future market conditions at Stage 8 should be referred to.
Estimated supply 10.32 Taking the above issues on board it is considered that the yield from small site windfalls should be estimated at 100 dwellings per year. Whilst there has been an overall increase over the past few years, it has been decided to take a cautious approach in light of the recent adoption of the Balance of Dwellings SPD. If the market slows down, there is likely to be some impact on the Oxford housing market however, due to the cyclical nature of the housing market, this is likely to pick up again. Similarly with regards to large site windfalls, it is considered that the yield should be estimated at a cautious 100 dwellings per year because of the limited amount of suitable sites likely to come forward and at irregular intervals.
10.33 It is appreciated that it is difficult to estimate windfalls accurately, especially beyond 5 years into the future, but trends will be monitored which will enable projected yields to be updated in the future.
10.34 Table 22 duplicates Table 18 but includes capacity estimated from windfall sites during years 1-20 (2009-2029).
102 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
Table 22: Summary of capacity and timescale for delivery (windfalls years 1-20)
Site status and timescale Number of dwellings
2009-2014 2015-2019 2020-2024 2025-2029 Total (years 1-5) (years 6-10) (years 11-15) (years 16-20) Deliverable sites Developable sites Developable sites Developable sites Residential allocated 1,012 718 365 27 0 2,122 sites Employment sites 0 10 16 0 0 26 Non-residential 0 0 0 0 0 0 allocated sites Suitable sites with 405 0 0 0 0 405 planning permission Suitable sites with 620 0 0 0 0 620 planning permission Sites where permission refused but principle 18 0 0 0 0 18 acceptable Suitable sites pending 39 0 0 0 0 39 decision Basic desktop study 310 0 91 0 0 401
Detailed map survey 0 0 0 0 0 0
Open space 100 0 0 0 0 100
Green belt land 140 0 0 0 0 140 Core Strategy strategic 0 0 800 0 0 800 sites Nature conservation 0 0 0 0 0 0 sites Windfalls Windfalls Windfalls Windfalls
Small windfall sites - 500 500 500 500 2,000
Large windfall sites - 500 500 500 500 2,000
Total 2,644 1,728 2,272 1,027 1,000 8,671
Housing trajectory that includes windfalls in years 1-20 of land supply 10.35 Housing trajectories taking into account windfalls and illustrating targets B and C of Table 23 (PPS3 and Core Strategy/SEP targets) are at Appendix 10 along with the raw data tables.
103 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
Table 23 Distribution of housing based upon Table 22 (windfalls during SHLAA years 1-20)
Calendar year 06/ 07 07/ 08 08/ 09 09/ 10 10/ 11 11/ 12 12/ 13 13/ 14 14/ 15 15/ 16 16/ 17 17/ 18 18/ 19 19/ 20 20/ 21 21/ 22 22/ 23 23/ 24 24/ 25 25/ 26 26/ 27 27/ 28 28/ 29 Shortfall/ Total Target surplus SHLAA year - - - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
A. PPS3 5 2,644 years 2,644 2,00091 +644 deliverable (deliverable) supply
PPS3 15 4,372* B. 2,272* 1,027* 7,671 6,00092 +1,671 years supply (deliverable and developable)
C. Core 4,372* Strategy/ 82193 2,272* 1,027* 200* 200* 9,292 8,00094 +1,292 South East (deliverable and developable) Plan 200* 200*
4,372* D. New 82195 90896 6,511 5,19697 +1,315 Growth Point (deliverable and developable) 200* 200*
91 using South East Plan Panel report average of 400 dwellings per annum: 400 x 5 = 2,000 * includes windfalls 92 using South East Plan Panel report average of 400 dwellings per annum: 400 x 15 = 6,000 93 actual completions 94 using South East Plan Panel report average of 400 dwellings per annum: 400 x 20 = 8,000 95 actual completions 96 total for years 6-10 prorata to 2 years (2,272/5)x2=908 97 target set as 20% greater than RPG9/Oxfordshire Structure Plan target in order to achieve New Growth Point status
104 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008
Glossary
Achievable There is a reasonable prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years
AMR Annual Monitoring Report - This document assesses the implementation of the Local Development Scheme and the extent to which policies in Local Development Documents are being achieved. This report is be prepared annually and forms part of the LDF
AAP Area Action Plan – used to provide a planning framework for areas of change and areas of conservation. Area Action Plans will have the status of Development Plan Documents Available The site is available now
BTL Buy to Let - the investment strategy of buying a residential property to be let for profit Capacity An esitmation of the potential number of dwellings that could be achieved on the site. Capacities should not be assumed as acceptable for the purpose of development control decisions and should not prejudice any decision that may be made on the site at a later date
CLG The department for Communities and Local Government which determines national policies on different aspects of planning
Core Strategy Sets out the long-term spatial vision for Oxford, the spatial objectives and strategic policies to deliver that vision. The Core Strategy will have the status of a Development Plan Document Deliverable To be deliverable sites should, at the point of adoption of the relevant LDD: Available, Suitable and Achievable Developable To be developable, a site should be in a suitable location for housing development and there should be a reasonable prospect that the site is available for, and could be developed at the point envisaged
DPDs Development Plan Documents - as set out in Section 38(6) of the Act, an authority’s development plan consists of the relevant Regional Spatial Strategy (or the Spatial Development Strategy in London) and the Development Plan Documents contained within its Local Development Framework
Green Belt An area of undeveloped land, usually encircling a city where the planning policy is to keep it open in order to prevent urban sprawl GSS Oxford Green Space Study - Assessed the quantity, quality and access to open space within the City
LNRs Local Nature Reserves - places with wildlife or geological features that are of special interest locally LDD Local Development Document - the collective term in the Act for Development Plan Documents, Supplementary Planning Documents and the Statement of Community Involvement
LDF Local Development Framework. A non-statutory term used to describe the portfolio of local development documents. It consists of development plan documents, supplementary planning documents, a statement of community involvement, the
105 Oxford’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment August 2008 local development scheme and annual monitoring report. LDS Local Development Scheme - a project plan for the preparation of local development documents.
Oxford Local Plan The adopted Oxford Local Plan sets out the policies and proposals for future development and land use in Oxford for the period 2001 to 2016
PPS Planning Policy Statement – A document that sets out the Government’s planning policy on a particular issue Practice Guidance Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments: Practice Guidance (Jul 2007) CLG
Representation A comment or set of comments made in response to a planning consultation or application RSS Regional Spatial Strategy – a document covering an English region that sets out a spatial planning policy framework SACs Special Areas of Conservation - Are areas that have been designated at a European level for their important for nature conservation Safeguarded Land Land between the Green Belt and the edge of the built up area that has been protected in the Local Plan to meet possible longer-term development needs SEERA South East England Regional Assembly – The Regional Planning Body for the South East, who are responsible for producing the South East Plan (SEP) SEP The South East Plan (Draft) which, when adopted, will constitute the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) for the South East region
SEP Panel Report A Panel appointed by the Secretary of State to carry out independent testing of the draft Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East (The South East Plan)
SHLAA Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment – A study of the opportunities that exist to meet housing need
Site Allocations DPD A Development Plan Document that allocates land for specific or missed uses. Policies will identify any specific requirements for individual proposals
SLINCs Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation – A site containing important habitats, plants and animals in the context of Oxford
SPD Supplementary Planning Document - provide supplementary information in respect of the policies in Development Plan Documents. They do not form part of the Development Plan and are not subject to independent examination SSSIs Site of Special Scientific Interest - areas identified by Natural England as being of special interest for their ecological or geological features
Strategic sites A list of broad locations all considered as having potential for significant development
Suitable The site offers a suitable location for development now and would contribute to the creation of sustainable, mixed communities
Windfall A site that becomes available for development (usually housing) during the Plan period that has not already been identified as a potential development site
106