They call themselves POETS, or Planning Oxfordshire’s Environment and Transport Sustainability. A dozen former Oxfordshire planners, sustainability experts and one or two academics have launched an attack on the latest draft of the Oxford local plan, according to PLANNING 18 January 2024, by Samantha Eckford. These experts ought to know what they are talking about, several being professionally experienced planners in the Oxford sub-region. They will know and understand the spatial opportunities and weaknesses of this area. So their criticisms ought to be convincing, and their solutions ought to convincing to an objective observer.
The conflict is simple. Oxford City Council says it is trying to plan for the housing needs of their town’s future, unfortunately only until 2040. Bizarrely the city council and POETS seem to agree the world stops in 2041. Neither has much to say after that.
Louise Upton, the city council’s cabinet member for planning says the council has ‘searched for every available piece of land for housing within its area’…………adding that Oxford has a ‘very limited capacity, and it is clear we do not have enough space within our boundaries to accommodate our needs’. Instead POETS say the projected housing that Oxford wish to export to their neighbours result will place a burden for the overspill housing on the surrounding districts. Which POETS say they do not want. Unlike Michael Gove’s ambitious, but undeliverable plan to treble the size of Cambridge,in a similar or little longer timeframe, the POETS do not share Gove’s clumsey courage, to grasp the spatial nettle. His Cambridge spatial solution lacks foresight, and essentially will wrap the growth around the town but his solution is at least a first step down the path of reality of delivery.
POETS solution is very different. Instead of using their spatial skills to say where the new homes should, and should not go, they propose eight principles. Most of these are sensible, worthy but in practical terms useless. They offer no spatial advice. Despite their combined local expertise this is certainly not planning leadership. Unfortunately this omission suggests they are on the side of the nimbies, not in the side of fairness to the next generation nor are they on the side of the nation’s future prosperity. Their first objective seems to be protection of the status quo, ie. no change. If eight sensible planning principles cannot be turned by local experts in one, two or more spatial solutions, it suggests the expertise of the planning profession has severe limitations which will fail our young people. Is this true? Is this their intention?
My solution, seeks in realistic terms to answer the question, ‘surely a long term economic growth strategy, the paramount objective needs to bring into alignment the unfortunate but deep rooted conflict between local agenda preferring no change and the national agenda to build, without adding another layer of bureaucracy’.
I accept resolving local versus national conflict is tough, and can only happen with the oxygen of local support for spatial change near local residents. Without it government initiatives, attempts to promote growth will be becalmed. The question then is how do win local support for local change for the building changes the nation needs? Support must come from the grass-roots of local communities who will be the hosts. Residents who enjoy the financial and lifestyle benefits long term land protection policies (green belt, AONB’s, conservation areas etc) generate, because they rule out the spatial changes their areas need provide, to support future prosperity it is fair they must pay the residents of host locations financial incentives so protected residents who export their overspill demand to willing host locations share the burden.
For example, around Oxford local councils must decide if they want to become hosts, offering new employment and housing for their future generations at fair prices, or remain resistant to local change, accepting their house prices and rents will worsen. Oxford city council in turn must decide which areas will be protected from new higher density building policies, ensuring these residents know their continuing protection means an overspill charge will be added to their rates.
Ian Campbell
19 January 2024
