Skip to main content

Agenda item

Local Plan Annual Monitoring 2024/25

Purpose

Pre-decision scrutiny of an Executive report detailing the Council’s Local Plan Annual Monitoring Report for 2024/25.

 

Recommendation

That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee resolves to:

1.         Note the report and agree any recommendations it wishes to submit to the Executive.

Minutes:

The Principal Planning Policy Officer presented the Local Plan Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) for 2024/25 and highlighted that:

  • Three stages of Local Plan consultation had been completed and the fourth stage was underway, generating a positive level of engagement with over 600 comments submitted to date as well as high attendance at community engagement events.
  • The next stage would be the Draft Local Plan consultation in Spring 2026.
  • One Neighbourhood Plan had recently been made, making a total of 10 made plans with a further 7 in progress.
  • 1368 applications had been determined and over 1100 approved.
  • Permission had been granted for a net gain of 667 dwellings and 300 net dwellings had been completed in 2024/25, of which over 50% were affordable tenures. It was acknowledged that housing delivery had not kept up with identified need.
  • Progress had been made on the delivery of key infrastructure projects.
  • The Council was using Grampian conditions to ensure that sewerage infrastructure was in place prior to the occupation of new dwellings.

 

The Committee asked questions and noted from the responses of the Head of Planning and Principal Planning Policy Officer that:

  • The Draft Local Plan and accompanying Infrastructure Delivery Plan would draw on a range of robust evidence and facilitate a more proactive approach to ensuring that infrastructure would be phased appropriately to support the planned level of growth.
  • Grampian conditions were considered a last resort that the Council had had to rely on. The wording of conditions had been improving to make them more robust.
  • There was a robust policy on the water environment, including water supply and flood risk. The Council would review this policy as part of the Local Plan process.
  • The issue of sewerage capacity was not unique to Oxfordshire but was high on the agenda of the Oxford Growth Commission.
  • Policies were in place to ensure that a good proportion of new housing was affordable housing but the overall housing delivery figures were well below target. There were a number of approvals coming through which were expected to lead to an uplift in delivery but the target was very challenging.
  • The Council was under an obligation to work collaboratively with neighbouring authorities on housing delivery. Oxford City was looking to rebase its Local Plan from 2025 and discussions remained ongoing.
  • The Council did not capture data on the effect of applying the tilted balance (i.e. the numbers of applications approved that would have otherwise been refused if the Council was able to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply).
  • It was difficult to estimate when the Council would once again be able to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply but the Council was doing all it could to address the issue.
  • The Council had a dedicated officer tracking S106 agreements to ensure their delivery. All tiers of local government could bid for how S106 contributions would be used to mitigate the impact of development.
  • The introduction of CIL would provide some funding directly to town and parish councils and could be used more flexibly than S106.
  • Officers were being trained ahead of the introduction of CIL and a further briefing session would be arranged for Members on S106 and CIL.
  • The under-reporting of flooding was raised as an issue and the AMR could be amended to reflect this. It was suggested that the Council could engage with insurance companies and do more to encourage the reporting of flooding.

 

The Committee requested information about:

  • The number of pub conversions.
  • The typical time lags between approval and completion of new housing developments.
  • Whether developer funding tended to be inflation-linked.
  • Why the number of “at risk” heritage assets had fallen from 8 to 5 in the Historic England data and what the plan was to address the remainder.
  • The numbers of listed buildings that were damaged or at risk.
  • Solar farm approvals (in future AMRs).

 

The Committee commended the good quality of information contained in the report and thanked the officers.

 

Councillor Liz Leffman left the meeting at 7.13pm.

 

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages