TERENCE O'ROURKE LTD FOR BLENHEIM ESTATES AND PYE HOMES

TERENCE O'ROURKE LTD FOR BLENHEIM ESTATES AND
                                      PYE HOMES
Representation submitted by: Jacqueline Mulliner (j.mulliner@torltd.co.uk)

Do you agree with the proposed temporary 3-year housing supply requirement for Oxfordshire, which will end
on the adoption of the Joint Statutory Spatial Plan (planned by 31 March 2021, subject to examination)? No

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 This representation is submitted on behalf of Blenheim Estates and Pye Homes who individually and/or
jointly control a significant area of land within West Oxfordshire, Cherwell, Vale of Whitehorse and South
Oxfordshire districts. Some of this land has already been allocated or permitted for housing development,
some of the land has the status of an emerging allocation, specifically to help meet the unmet needs of Oxford,
and some is without planning status currently but is being actively promoted for sustainable residential
development either through the plan making process or planning application process (or both).

1.2 Both clients have a key interest and significant role to play in the delivery of homes to meet the aspirations
of the Growth Board and in meeting the objectively assessed housing need (OAN) across the Oxfordshire
Housing Market Area (HMA). This includes the apportioned needs of the individual districts (as set out in the
Strategic Housing Market Assessment) as well as the apportioned needs to assist with Oxford un-met need
through the Duty to Cooperate. The views expressed are made in this context.

1.3 Specifically, we object to the proposed temporary three-year housing supply requirement / threshold for
the reasons set out below.

2. BACKGROUND
2.1 We note the commitment in the draft Framework for the Government to explore with individual areas the
potential for planning freedoms and flexibilities “where this would increase the amount of housing that can be
delivered.” (draft NPPF 213). The Government also clearly continues to support a plan led approach to
development. Importantly however, it also continues its commitment to measures to ensure that the planned
level of growth is being delivered on an annual basis. This is the sole intention of the current requirements
regarding housing land supply.

2.2 We further note the Government commitment as set out in the Growth Deal Outline Agreement March
2017:

“Government recognises that planning for this level of ambition takes time to result in increased delivery on
the ground, and that these ambitions should be supported during the preparation of the JSSP. Therefore, we
will explore options to help ensure that the existing housing land supply position is not undermined, and
explore the impact of unplanned development whilst maintaining delivery as measured by the proposed
housing delivery test.” (paragraph 49)

2.3 We fully understand the position and support the view that planning for a significant uplift in supply will
take time, both with reference to the plan-making process and decision-taking process. On the face of it a
reduced housing land supply requirement could have been supported if it there was clear evidence that it
would, in fact, contribute to increasing the amount of housing to be delivered – the stated intent of the

flexibilities. However, there has been a significant change in circumstances since that time and, if it ever was
the case, it certainly can no longer be the case.

2.4 Before considering those changed circumstances it is relevant to highlight the following:

        • Oxfordshire authorities have, in recent years, consistently failed to meet their housing needs. The
        approach set out simply sends out the wrong message at the wrong time. The poor housing delivery
        record across Oxfordshire is evidence of a very real risk of the approach being grasped by authorities
        as an opportunity to frustrate housing delivery. This runs entirely contrary to the whole purpose of
        creating the Joint Statutory Spatial Plan – which is not to restrict housing growth until some time in
        the future, but to provide for the consistent delivery of appropriate and significant sustainable
        growth. The reality in Oxfordshire is that it is in need of a 5 Year Housing Land Supply requirement
        because it is that provision which has, through the planning appeal system, overcome negative
        resistance from local authorities and enabled the delivery of sustainable growth.

        • The 2014 SHMA requirement for 100,000 homes across Oxfordshire extends across the period 2011
        - 2031. There has already been significant delay in addressing current acute needs, both with respect
        to market demand and affordable demand, noting that the Oxfordshire Housing and Growth Deal
        Delivery Plan (paragraph 4.1.1) places particular emphasis on the 2018 – 2021 period in deploying the
        affordable housing fund for good reason.

        • The grant of planning permission for non-planned (speculative) development does not support
        unsustainable development – even in the absence of a sufficient housing land supply, the Framework
        only supports sustainable development.

        • The assertion that these measures are necessary to preclude the grant of planning permission for
        schemes that are inherently unsustainable is misconceived and disingenuous– the Framework does
        not provide scope to make unsustainable schemes sustainable.

        • It is incorrect to state that development that has come through the ‘unplanned’ route has
        contributed relatively little to infrastructure (Oxfordshire Housing and Growth Deal Delivery Plan
        paragraph 3.1.5). In particular, these schemes tend to provide at least a policy compliant amount of
        affordable housing and provide a significant suite of s106 benefits both directly and indirectly. These,
        by necessity, must be CIL compliant, as is the case with all developments – planned or otherwise.
        Whilst it is not always possible to make on-site provision, deliverable off site provision must be
        secured. The statement is unsupported by any evidence and simply incorrect.

        • The recent increases in delivery across Oxfordshire can be attributed in part at least to the grant of
        planning permissions under the tilted planning balance, in the absence of up to date development
        plans. Even then (with a five-year supply requirement and provisions within the Framework (in place
        since 2011) the Oxfordshire authorities have consistently fallen short of delivering sufficient land
        supply to meet the OAN.

3. CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES
3.1 Since the commitment was made, three material circumstances have changed.

3.2 First, the role of the JSSP has become less relevant and certainly not critical to the provision of the
necessary level of growth across the majority of Oxfordshire (100,000 homes) between 2011 – 2031, with the
possible exception of South Oxfordshire – a matter to which we return below. This is because, West

Oxfordshire, Cherwell and the Vale of White Horse are already planning for their respective share (covering
the individual district share as well as a share of the Oxford un-met need). These plans respond to the County
wide agreement to meet the unmet housing need of Oxford and are well advanced:

         • West Oxfordshire – Examining Inspector Report awaited

         • Vale of White Horse – Examination commenced

         • Cherwell – Examination pending

3.3 With respect to the current plan period to 2031, there is no more to be done in terms of the distribution of
housing and spatial strategy for housing outside the scope of these local plans. The JSSP has no role in this and
cannot reconsider the distribution with respect to these authorities over the next 13 year period. Of course,
that is not to say that the JSSP does not have a different but equally important role, given the need to align
infrastructure funding with housing delivery and the objective to consider the period beyond 2031 to 2050.

3.4 Second, it has become evident that the authorities already intend to impose phasing measures with
respect to the delivery of housing, effectively delaying delivery to specifically accommodate the process of
plan-making and decision taking with respect to the full OAN within the HMA. Note that the OAN identified in
the Oxfordshire SHMA commences in 2011.

3.5 For example, West Oxfordshire has sought to delay delivery until post 2021, the modified plan (post
examination) confirms:

“Joint working has been taking place between the Oxfordshire local authorities and co-ordinated via the
Oxfordshire Growth Board (OGB). As part of this process it has been agreed that West Oxfordshire will
accommodate 2,750 homes in the period between 2021 and 2031 to assist Oxford City with its unmet housing
need. In order to meet this apportionment, and deliver the District’s own housing needs, 935 dwellings per
year will need to be delivered between 2021 and 2031 (excluding past backlog). This rate of delivery is nearly
double the historic long term housing delivery rate in the District and will be extremely challenging for the
house building industry to deliver.

The total level of housing provision in West Oxfordshire in the period up to 2031 will therefore be at least
15,950 homes. This comprises 13,200 homes in the period 2011 – 2031 to meet West Oxfordshire’s own
identified housing needs and a further 2,750 homes in the period 2021 – 2031 to assist with the unmet
housing needs of Oxford City.” (West Oxfordshire Draft Local Plan 2031Including Further Main Modifications,
February 2018, paragraphs 5.14 and 5.15 _ my emphasis)

3.6 The examining Inspector, has indicated that he is minded to find this plan sound, subject to the main
modifications being made, although the final report is due, at this point in time we can assume that the phased
requirement, to help meet the requirements of the HMA, will be adopted.

3.7 Equally, in Cherwell, the local planning authority is seeking to take the same approach and phase delivery
with respect to the wider HMA (Oxford unmet need) post 2021 through the Partial review of the plan. The
Cherwell Local Plan 2011 – 2031 (Part 1) Partial Review – Oxford’s Unmet Housing Need (July 2017) has been
submitted for examination with some focussed changes (February 2018). This has a double element of phasing
within it, in that the housing trajectory makes it clear that the unmet need from Oxford will not start to be met
until 2021 with a corresponding requirement of 4,400 homes 2021 – 2031, equivalent to 440 dpa, but that in
the first five year of that period the expectation is that only 1,700 homes will be provided, equivalent to only
340 dpa (Partial Review Proposed Focussed Changes and Minor Modifications Appendix 3’Housing Trajectory).

3.8 Further, the Cherwell Partial review seeks to ring-fence provision and further protect the district against
the consequences of a five-year housing land supply shortfall as follows:

“The Plan seeks to ensure that the necessary housing supply will be maintained by managing planned delivery
and maintaining a separate five year supply of housing sites to specifically meet Oxford’s unmet needs within
Cherwell (policy PR12a). It also makes clear that applications for planning permission for development to meet
Oxford’s needs that is not allocated in the Plan will not be supported unless the Council has taken a formal
decision that additional land beyond that allocated is required to ensure the requisite housing supply, that the
demonstrable support of the local community has been gained through pre-application consultation and
subject to other criteria.” (Executive Summary, paragraph xxi)

3.9 If the plan is adopted in this format, then there is already significant recognition of the time necessary to
commence delivery under the planned approach and the three year threshold will merely seek frustrate the
ability to keep pace with necessary delivery rates (should any of the allocated or committed sites delay) across
the rest of Cherwell with no good reason, given that the Cherwell Part 1 plan was adopted July 2015.

3.10 The housing trajectory for the Vale of White Horse proposes a slightly different timescale, in adding
Oxford’s unmet-need element to its own requirement from 2019. But still there is a phased approach.

3.11 Third, it has become clear that South Oxfordshire Council is going to strongly resist meeting its full share
of the 100,000 homes, including its apportionment of the unmet need from Oxford (See South Oxfordshire
Cabinet committee Papers 10 May 2018). Further, that there are significant delivery constraints with the
Council’s preferred allocation, which has set back the timetable for plan progress. This alone introduces a
significant degree of uncertainly within the Growth Deal local plan process, in terms of the collaboration, level
of delivery and timescales for that delivery. In that context alone, it would be premature to introduce a three-
year threshold at the start of the JSSP s23 process if the county is operating with some plans in place and
others not.

3.12 Overall, it is clear that all of the districts are, through their local plans, seeking to introduce a phased
approach to delivery, allowing for a planned approach followed by planning applications. Whether we agree
with this or not, this is a flexible approach.

3.13 Introducing further flexibility, with a three-year threshold will only frustrate the potential for a positive
response from the development sector should delivery slip beyond the phased planned approach, and in
Cherwell in any event with respect to housing unrelated to the wider HMA. There is no justification for the
double (or even triple) protection that the three-year threshold gives to the Oxfordshire authorities. This is
contrary to the imperative to boost supply and, in particular, runs counter to the need to rapidly increase the
provision of affordable housing in Oxfordshire.

4. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
4.1 Given the stated objective to increase delivery, it is clear that the three-year threshold will provide an
unacceptable level of additional flexibility to push back delivery even further with very little consequence or
ability for the development sector to respond positively through the introduction of more immediate (in terms
of delivery) sustainable sites that have passed the test at NPPF 14.

4.2 This conflicts with the very concept of growth, placing the breaks on at the wrong time, particularly
considering the economic consequences. It signals an acceptance that development can be pushed back
beyond even a phased planned approach. There is no rush and no incentive for councils to make difficult
decisions. The five-year supply provisions were introduced for very good reason, to ensure that the planned
delivery is effective, recognising that there is a requirement for a range of deliverable sites to maintain the
boost in the supply of housing recognising that it takes time to deliver housing sites through the planning and
construction process. With a smaller pool of site to deliver from, inevitable as a consequence of three-year

provisions, delivery will be slower. Conversely, the evidence is that the larger to pool and range of sites (in
terms of location and scale) the greater capacity to achieve a significant step change in delivery, important in
Oxfordshire because the need is past, current and future, with shortfall already accumulated. It is notable that
the five-year housing land supply provisions have been retained through the draft NPPF and have been
demonstrably effective in recent years in boosting the supply of housing, through plan making and decision-
taking, particularly in areas such as Oxfordshire where there has generally been a dismal record of delivery.

4.3 Further, there is a significant degree of concern that the delay in delivery places too much pressure too late
in the time period and fails to encourage the effective delivery of sustainable growth. We note the conclusions
of the ‘Independent Review of Build Out Rates Draft Analysis’ by Rt Hon Sir Oliver Letwin MP (June 2018)
which highlights a that the fundamental driver to build our rates once planning permission is granted for large
sites appears to be the market absorption rate. Until there is a positive plan to address this, backloading
delivery and expecting delivery rates to significantly increase towards the back end of the plan period is
misconceived. Maintaining some pressure on the system to deliver in the early years is imperative. The five
year supply is an essential tool to enable the release of sites to plug delivery rates if necessary and encourage
the effective delivery of sustainable development to meet economic and social objectives.

4.4 Highlighted above is reference to the history of delivery in Oxfordshire and the resistance of South
Oxfordshire in meeting its share of the unmet need. In terms of plan making, the record of slow progress
persists with local plan timetables in Local Development Schemes rarely being met. With this record in mind,
there can be little confidence that the timescales for plan production will be adhered to. If there is delay, the
three-year provision will be in place for longer than envisaged thereby placing even more stain on the back-
end of the plan period to deliver an even greater step up in delivery (already significantly backloaded).
Notwithstanding the in principle objection to the introduction of a three-year housing land supply provision in
place of the five-year provision, any freedoms that are given must be conditional on certain and inflexible
timescales to specified parts of the plan making process with some clear action for recourse, including
facilitating a positive response from the development industry, in the event that timescales are not met.

4.5 In the above context the suggested flexible approach sets a dangerous precedence for others to follow suit,
running contrary to the aims and objectives of delivering sustainable development.

4.6 It may be the case, also, that the imposition of a reduced threshold across the whole of the County, may
discourage the progression of neighbourhood planning – including the allocation of housing sites in those
neighbourhood plans – given that there would be no perceived additional benefit of protection to be gained.
This is an important factor in considering the implications of the flexibility, yet we have seen no evidence that
this has been considered.

5. CONCLUSION
5.1 In conclusion, we see no justification for the imposition of further flexibility beyond that which is already
being sought through the plan making process and will undergo formal examination. The reduced threshold
will merely act to frustrate the achievement of sustainable development across Oxfordshire and preclude the
proper effect of the presumption in favour of sustainable development which applies through plan making and
decision taking. We consider it is unjustified in Oxfordshire and strongly object.

Please note that we have also submitted this representation in hard copy so that highlighted sections can be
seen.