Inspectors’ comments on Statement of Common Ground between Oxford City Council and Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

We should like to thank both parties for this statement of common ground (SoCG).

These are our comments on the SoCG and on the suggested main modifications.

Policies H1 and H11

These will be the subject of discussions at the hearings, so we will not offer comment on these parts of the SoCG.

Policy SP20: Churchill Hospital Site

Policy SP21: Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre

Policy SP42: John Radcliffe Hospital Site

Parking

We are concerned that the proposed additional modification in red would be inconsistent with the approach taken on other sites. This can be the subject of discussion at the hearings in connection with these three sites.

Flexibility of uses

We have previously commented on the inflexibility of the wording of a number of policies (“planning permission will not be granted for any other uses”) and will be exploring the practical implications of this at the hearings in relation to allocated sites.

The distinction between operational uses, complementary uses and ancillary uses is too blurred. We are not convinced that inserting the term “ancillary uses” into the policy resolves this issue or is necessary for soundness. It is unclear why ancillary uses would not already be covered by the preceding text. This addition could simply open up arguments about what is an ancillary use and could prove ineffective.

What is meant by a complementary acceptable use? If housing is a complementary acceptable use, then why do extra care accommodation and elderly persons’ housing need to have an operational link to the hospitals? What are the planning reasons to require extra care accommodation and elderly persons’ accommodation to have such an operational link?

Why should employer-linked housing fall under the Council’s definition of “affordable” if housing generally is a complementary acceptable use.

The housing needs of particular groups will be discussed at the hearings.

Masterplan approach

We have commented previously that it is not appropriate for a development plan policy to state that planning permission will be granted in accordance with a masterplan or other document that has not itself been through the development plan examination process. Moreover, there is no masterplan at present so there is nothing for development proposals to accord with. The proposed text that requires planning permission to be in accordance with an agreed masterplan is therefore unsound and cannot be included in a main modification. It would be permissible to say, but only in the background text, that it is intended in the future to produce a masterplan for the site(s) and that when this is (these are) in place, development proposals should have regard to the masterplan(s).

Non-designated heritage assets

We agree that it is appropriate to remove these references in the interests of clarity and effectiveness.

Other heritage issues

It is not necessary for soundness to add a main modification that adds a reference to nearby heritage assets, because the plan must be read as a whole and Policy DH3 (as will be modified) covers the issue adequately.

Conclusion

Other than removing the reference to non-designated heritage assets, we do not accept the suggested main modifications for the reasons set out above. Flexibility of uses and the housing needs of specialist groups will be discussed at the hearings and we will also discuss whether a more flexible approach towards parking is required on the hospital sites. Following those discussions it will be possible to frame appropriate main modifications.

Jonathan Bore

Nick Fagan

12 November 2019