Oxford Local Plan 2042 Regulation 18 (Preferred Options) Consultation

Preferred Option: 

Allow and protect town centre uses in the city centre, and district centres first.  

As well as larger district centres, also define local centres. 

Apart from for town centre uses, distinguish between city and district centres and local centres in terms of the other types of uses permitted. For example, do not allow student accommodation in local centres, but in larger centres only (if local centres are defined, according to the NPPF they are ‘town centres’ and so suitable for all main town centre uses). 

Require an impact assessment for retail and leisure proposals outside of centres of a smaller threshold than the default 2,500m2 in the NPPF (currently required in OLP2036 for those of 350m2 or more), demonstrating that there will be no adverse impact on the vitality and viability of the existing centres, and that there is good accessibility by walking, cycling and public transport, and potentially including other criteria such as that there would not be unacceptable harm to adjoining land uses.  

Alternative Option 1 (considered detrimental): Do not distinguish between centres at all and allow the same uses in any defined centre.  

Alternative Option 2 (considered detrimental): Do not include a policy that sets a sequential approach requirement or criteria for town centre use proposals outside of centres.

Preferred Option: 

Designate frontages in the city centre and all district and local centres and require that a high proportion of this remains as Use Class E on the ground floor. The proportion to be set based on maintaining current thresholds, with some leeway for flexibility. 

Designate frontages in the city centre and all district and local centres but do not require a proportion to remain as commercial, business and services uses - only set criteria for what is expected in a ground floor frontage to bring activity and vibrancy to centres in terms of design and uses. 

Alternative Option 1 (considered detrimental): Do not designate active frontages.

Preferred Option: 

Protect local shared spaces and community assets with a policy that would resist their loss, unless set criteria can be met, for example they are to be replaced.  

Include a policy where planning will be granted for alteration and expansion of existing local community assets with relevant evidence from market research, although potentially preventing F2 shops from expanding so they become Use Class E and could be lost to housing or other commercial uses.  

Generally, support the provision of new local community assets in the city. These should be in an accessible location by walking, cycling and public transport. 

Seek to secure community use agreements on all new community and leisure facilities, particularly those within schools and colleges, as well as existing facilities that come forward for redevelopment. 

Alternative Option 1 (considered detrimental): Do not have a policy protecting local community assets - rely on national policy, or future national development management policies.

Alternative Option 2 (considered detrimental): Do not have a policy addressing provision of new local community assets; rely on national policy, or future national development management policies. 

Preferred Option:

Generally, support the provision of new local community assets in the city. These should be in an accessible location by walking, cycling and public transport. 

Seek to secure community use agreements on all new community and leisure facilities, particularly those within schools and colleges, as well as existing facilities that come forward for redevelopment. 

Alternative Option 1 (considered detrimental): Do not have a policy addressing provision of new local community assets; rely on national policy, or future national development management policies. 

Preferred Option: 

Protect existing learning and non-residential institutions with a policy that would resist their loss, unless justified by meeting a set of criteria such as that there is no longer a need or it is no longer feasible in that location, and/or that suitable re-provision can be made. 

Set out that permission will be granted for alteration and expansion of existing learning and non-residential institutions. 

Alternative Option 1 (considered detrimental): Do not have a policy protecting learning and non-residential institutions- rely on national policy, or future national development management policies. 

Preferred Option: 

Include criteria for assessing the suitability of proposals for learning and non-residential institutions such as schools, with criteria for assessing the suitability of unallocated sites that may be proposed for these uses, which will include issues such as likely impacts on amenity and traffic and whether they can be mitigated, including access, accessibility, size of site and neighbouring uses. 

Alternative Option 1 (considered detrimental): Restrict the locations where these uses would be allowed, for example to defined centres only, or to arterial roads and centres.  

Alternative Option 2 (considered detrimental): Do not have a policy for provision of new learning and non-residential institutions.

Preferred Option:

Protect cultural, social and visitor attractions in their current use, and include a criteria-based policy that only allows their loss or change to another attraction or community use if justified against a clear set of criteria that includes requirements for viability and marketing evidence, or replacement.

Alternative Option 1: Protect cultural, social and visitor attractions for those uses (but not necessary the exact use they are in, for example a cinema could be lost to a pub, or even loss to a community facility could be set out as acceptable in principle). This approach would still include a criteria-based policy that only allows their loss if justified against these.

Alternative Option 2 (considered detrimental):  Do not include a policy that protects existing venues. 

Preferred Option: 

Provide a criteria-based policy to assess the suitability of proposals, which looks at accessibility, environmental and transport impacts to determine the acceptability of proposals for these uses. This may specifically encourage some Sui Generis uses that are considered will fill gaps in provision or be particularly beneficial.  

Allow new cultural, social and visitor attractions in defined centres only. 

Alternative Option 1 (considered detrimental): Do not allow new cultural, social or visitor attractions.

Alternative Option 2 (considered detrimental): No Policy. Rely on other policies in the Local Plan and national policies where applicable.

Preferred Option: 

Require transport assessments/ statements and travel plans to review transport impacts and show transport measures proposed to mitigate them, for all development that is likely to have significant transport implications.

Require transport assessments/statements to also include construction management plans and service and delivery plans, where relevant. 

Alternative Option 1: Do not include a policy requiring transport assessments/statements, travel plans, construction management plans or service and delivery plans. 

Preferred Option: 

Require high levels of secure bicycle parking either indoors or external for residential and non-residential schemes to achieve best design outcomes.

Set more specific requirements for the type of bicycle parking for residential developments and workplaces to make sure e-bikes, trailers, tricycles etc. can be accommodated.  Require higher levels of well-designed and secure bicycle parking and ensure that showers and lockers are provided to support staff. 

Alternative Option 1 (considered detrimental):  Lower the residential and non-residential bicycle parking standards from existing levels.  

Alternative Option 2 (considered detrimental): No local policy standards .

Preferred Option:

Seek low car residential development across the city, subject to criteria to ensure accessibility to public transport and local shops.   

Consideration will be given in the policy to setting a threshold for the numbers of pooled cars/ car club spaces because larger sites have more scope for successful carpooling and more space for essential vehicles. 

Adopt parking standards for residential developments.

Seek low car non-residential development across the city. This could vary by accessibility of the area of the city and/or existing parking levels.   

Alternative Option 1: Adopt parking standards for non-residential developments.  

Preferred Option:

Seek the provision of electric vehicle charging infrastructure on all new residential developments with a dedicated parking space and on all non-residential development providing additional car parking bays.    

 Where there is no dedicated parking space and on street parking is proposed, appropriate infrastructure should be incorporated to enable the charging of electric vehicles on the street.   

 All blue badge and car club parking bays must be electrified.

Specify design standards for EVs being installed – e.g. in relation to impact on streetscape, safety etc. 

 Alternative Option 1 (considered detrimental): Do not seek any electric vehicle charging infrastructure on new residential developments or on non-residential developments and do not set any local design standards.