PROGRESS REPORT February 2021 for Members of the Executive Committee Items included here are for information and reference. Please address any comments or queries to the relevant contributor. 1. Oxfordshire Futures Group Ian Green 723289 This report is experimental, attempting to show what progress has been made by the OFG towards achieving the Society’s Aims. Aim 1 – Influence the development of Oxford as a city where people enjoy living, working and visiting Aim 2 – Inform its members - and others – about Oxford: its key qualities, as well as its problems, with constructive and soundly based proposals for its further improvement Aim 3 – Co-operate with Oxford’s residents’ associations and civic societies nationally to develop – and campaign for – community led solutions to shared problems Aim 4 – Learn from other cities, in both the UK and abroad, where creative strategies might be helpful to Oxford. 1.1 STRATEGIC PLANNING 1.1. 1 The ARC The Government has announced its intention to create a 'Spatial Framework' and a new 'Growth Body' to oversee the preparation and implementation of the Framework. The spatial framework will have the status of national planning policy. It was also announced that a Growth Body for the Oxford-Cambridge Arc will also be established. It is not clear from the document what form this Body will take. Planning for sustainable growth in the Oxford-Cambridge Arc (publishing.service.gov.uk) The announcements have re-ignited concern about the remoteness of decision making from communities and locally elected representatives. CPRE and the POETs have led the way in expressing their concern1. CPRE has noted that the vision for Oxfordshire which is currently being identified and which will be considered by CPRE as being in line with local people’s aspirations is a line of defense against an Arc agenda imposed by central government. Similarly, CPRE notes that the Oxfordshire Growth Board has said that the Oxfordshire 2050 Plan is intended to meet the needs of local people and match their vision of the County’s future, and to be fully consulted on and tested through Public Examination. If the Arc spatial framework has the status of national planning policy, local authorities will need to confirm consistency when revising their Local Plans, including the jointly 1 The intervention of the Secretary of State in the South Oxfordshire Local Plan preparation, the judicial review of part of the Cherwell District Council’s Local Plan and the widespread unpopularity of the recent Planning for our Future White Paper all add up to widespread and increasing concern about democracy – the effectiveness of locally elected representatives and the role of communities. Page 1 of 14 prepared Oxfordshire 2050 Plan and including meeting jobs and housing growth targets. The dangers highlighted by CPRE are evident. But, government commitment to the Arc is also evident. Arguments about economic, jobs and housing growth levels will be very difficult to resolve if they are not enriched by equal concern being given to the environmental and social benefits of the ARC and responsiveness to local plan and joint spatial plan priorities e.g., priorities established by elected representatives in established governing bodies – the district / unitary authority councils. The MHCLG report claims that this is the intention. It has clearly been met with skepticism, including by Buckinghamshire Council that has withdrawn from the Arc Leaders Group. (See also ‘Challenge the Arc’ a nascent anti-Arc movement). www.challengethearc.co.uk Ideally the remaining preparation of the Oxfordshire 2050 Plan and the multiple associated strategic plans (with demonstrable evidence of environmental and social strategic planning) would work in tandem with the ARC spatial framework, contributing the values and priorities of the Oxfordshire Councils. However, the MHCLG timeline for ARC activities is described as follows: Developing a vision for the future of the Oxford-Cambridge Arc – We will undertake wide public engagement to shape a vision for the area, through a consultation in summer 2021. Towards a Spatial Framework – We will develop options for turning the vision into policy, based on engagement and initial evidence gathering and analysis. We will publish these options for consultation in spring 2022. Draft Spatial Framework – To finalise the Spatial Framework, we will consider responses to this consultation, and undertake spatial analysis, option testing, impact assessments and stakeholder engagement. We will publish a draft Spatial Framework for consultation in autumn 2022, with implementation of the final Framework shortly after. The implication is that the proposed consultation on Arc spatial options in Spring 2022 will be nine months after the equivalent exercise on the recently rescheduled Oxfordshire Plan 2050. This is not working in tandem although it could enable the values and priorities of the Oxfordshire 2050 Plan to be evident to the MHCLG planning team? 1.1.2 Oxfordshire Local Transport and Connectivity Plan The 'Vision' for the Oxfordshire Local Transport and Connectivity Plan has now been published for comment. Consultation Homepage - Local Transport and Connectivity Plan - vision consultation - Oxfordshire County Council Consultation Portal The Local Transport and Connectivity Plan (LTCP) is the long-term countywide transport strategy. The plan also takes into account the strategy for digital infrastructure and for connecting the whole county. The vision sets the direction for transport in Oxfordshire and outlines a long-term ambition for transport to 2050. The policies and transport schemes included in the LTCP document will all be aligned with the Vision. The consultation runs until 29th March 2021. It is expected that the Transport Group of the OCS will respond. Initial reactions are that it is another weak document (see notes of the Transport Group meeting of 19th February in the Progress Report). Page 2 of 14 1.1.3 Strategic Rail Please see notes of the Transport Group meeting for more details. In terms of strategic planning and especially the scope for using rail effectively in a central Oxfordshire ‘metro- system’ it was disappointing to note the apparent intention to cut 4-tracking to just Oxford to north of Radley. This will diminish the demand for and efficiency of the proposed housing development at Culham. A full report on the next stage of ORCS at the next Growth Board meeting. It was suggested that the Society should write to the heads of the Councils about providing a proper rail service and it is suggested that this is considered after seeing the latest ORCS report. In the meantime two community led rail initiatives have re-emerged: https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/19111767.wantage-mp-launches-survey-need-new- railway-station-grove/ https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/19110938.plans-rail-link-witney-oxford-submitted/ 1.1.4 Conclusions concerning OCS Aims The problems are clear. OCS needs to develop sound proposals to overcome apparent problems if we are to influence the development of Oxford (a lot of time is spent just keeping up with events in what is a very complicated development planning context!) - AIM 1. Associated with this the problems and proposals need to be explained widely, and we are not doing this effectively – AIM 2 We could support local initiatives (the Wantage / Grove and Witney rail initiatives) – AIM 3 The proposed program of 4 seminars on strategic planning ‘Planning for our Future’ (now confirmed for May 15th and May 22nd) should ensure progress with Aim 1 and 2. There may also be some progress with Aim 4. 1.2 OXFORD WEST END SPATIAL FRAMEWORK 1.2.1 West End and Osney Mead SPD As noted in the previous OFG Progress Report, the Oxford City Council has invited consultancies to provide quotations to produce a West End Spatial Framework (West End and Osney Mead SPD). It is understood that interviews are taking place and that work should start in very early March. The OCS will need to engage with the consultants at an early stage and Tom Bridgman has suggested a discussion on all things concerning the West End and Osney Mead on either 23rd March or 26th March. 1.2.2 Oxpens Based on information being provided to the Oxford City Council Scrutiny Committee on March 2nd, OxWED (the City Council / Nuffield College consortium) has assembled a multidisciplinary team, led by architects and masterplanners, Hawkins/Brown, and including landscape architects, Gillespies, and planning agents, Prior & Partners. BDP and more recently Elementa have been providing input on sustainability, whilst a number of local firms have been working on the project, including AKSWard and Glanville. Page 3 of 14 The OxWED and its professional team has produced an initial masterplan to inform the planning strategy and the delivery and viability assessments. This work has been subject to pre-application advice from the Planning Service and a workshop with the Oxford Design Review Panel2. The intention is that the masterplan will form the basis of stakeholder and public engagement in the summer of 2021. While indicative at this stage and subject to further work, viability testing and a ultimately the grant of planning permission, the masterplan demonstrates that the 6 hectare site has huge potential. The mix and quantum of uses has not been agreed, and is subject to further design, planning and delivery considerations. However, the work to date demonstrate capacity for 120,000 sq. m. of mixed-use development, including nearly 70,000 sq. m. of commercial floorspace (which could include space for the science and tech sectors, as well as a hotel, and could support well over 3,000 jobs), together with around 450 dwellings. The expectation is that the residential mix will be brought forward in a policy complaint way, with a range of housing types (including market and affordable housing, alongside potential other uses such as student and later living) to create a multi- generation, mixed tenure community.