Oxford Local Plan 2042 Regulation 18 (Preferred Options) Consultation

Preferred Option:

Specify design in accordance with energy hierarchy principles (including fabric-first) for all new development and permit no fossil fuel use in new buildings.

Mandate net zero carbon in operation (applying to regulated and unregulated energy) from adoption of the Plan. Measure performance using Energy Use Intensity (EUI) as primary calculation. Set targets for 

• total energy use (regulated and unregulated) in the building, and 

• energy use associated with space heating, and 

• this energy use to be met through equal amount of new renewable energy generation (ideally onsite). 

For challenging typologies of development that have exhausted all onsite options to meet operational energy demand in line with other policy requirements, accept offsetting as a way to mitigate impacts through paying to provide offsite retrofitting to existing buildings elsewhere. Set out strict principles for how/when this would be accepted including that this option is a last resort. This would be framed as ‘energy offsetting’ (rather than carbon offsetting) and tied to the energy calculations of demand versus generation for the development. 

Alternative Option 1:  Mandate net zero carbon in operation (applying to regulated energy only) from adoption of the Plan. Measure performance using Energy Use Intensity (EUI) as the primary calculation. Set targets for: 

• regulated energy use in the building, and 

• energy use associated with space heating, and  

• this energy use to be met through equal amount of new renewable energy generation (ideally onsite). 

Encourage net zero unregulated energy to be addressed as part of overall approach where possible (e.g. seek opportunities to reduce, and to meet through additional renewable generation capacity). 

Alternative Option 2: Mandate ‘net zero ready’ buildings, in line with the principles in the proposed Future Homes/Buildings Standard (which apply to regulated energy only). Measure compliance via national Building Regs calculations (e.g. SAP/ SBEM) demonstrating carbon reduction over notional building. 

Encourage net zero unregulated energy to be addressed as part of overall approach where possible. (e.g. seek opportunities to reduce, and to meet through additional renewable generation capacity) 

Alternative Option 2 (considered detrimental): Set no local standards on net zero carbon design of new buildings. Conform with the approach advocated by the Written Ministerial Statement 2023 and rely on national standards set out in Building Regulations, including the upcoming uplifts associated with Future Homes/Building Standard which is envisaged to deliver ‘net zero ready’ development from 2025 onwards. 

Preferred Option

Include high level principles for limiting embodied carbon, including the importance of retaining existing buildings where possible. Guidance would be expanded upon in accompanying technical advice note (TAN). 

(Unless superseded by future updates to Building Regulations (or other national policy)) Set more specific requirements for major development requiring a measurement of embodied carbon during construction through a recognised methodology and require applicants to demonstrate specific actions taken to reduce this as much as possible.  

Applicants would complete and submit a Whole Life Cycle Carbon Assessment demonstrating how embodied carbon has been quantified and reduced. 

Alternative Option 1: (Unless superseded by future updates to Building Regulations (or other national policy)) Set more specific requirements for major development requiring a measurement of embodied carbon during construction through a recognised methodology. 

Require applicants to demonstrate that they have kept embodied carbon levels to within a specific maximum target for embodied carbon on new developments. 

Applicants would complete and submit a Whole Life Cycle Carbon Assessment demonstrating how embodied carbon has been quantified and how they have aligned with policy target. 

Alternative Option 2 (considered detrimental): Do not include any policy requirement setting principles or targets/requirements for measuring embodied carbon.

Preferred Option:

Include a presumption in favour of retrofit measures for all existing buildings that are not heritage assets or in the setting of, subject to certain conditions, where these measures secure demonstrable carbon reduction/energy efficiency/climate adaptation. 

In relation to designated heritage assets and historic buildings, or proposals within conservation areas, set out that carbon reduction/ energy efficiency/climate adaptation measures will be considered as public benefits that may outweigh harm. 

Be explicit in setting out some key principles to follow, including the need for taking a Whole Building Approach to retro-fit. 

Expand on guidance through a Technical Advice Note (updated from the current version of TAN 15 supporting Local Plan 2036). This additional supporting guidance could expand on this complex topic such as by flagging measures that would be more or less likely to cause harm (e.g. permanent versus temporary), and how levels of harm would be assessed against public benefit. 

Alternative Option 1: In relation to designated heritage assets and historic buildings, or proposals within conservation areas, set out that carbon reduction/ energy efficiency/climate adaptation measures will be considered as public benefits that may outweigh harm. 

Be explicit in setting out some key principles to follow, including the need for taking a Whole Building Approach to retro-fit. 

Additionally, set out in the policy the retro-fit measures that would be more or less likely to cause harm (e.g. permanent versus temporary), and how levels of harm would be assessed against public benefit. Expand on this through guidance in an updated version of Technical Advice Note 15. 

Alternative Option 2 (considered detrimental): Do not include policy addressing retrofitting of existing buildings and/or heritage assets.

Preferred Option:

Require Air Quality Assessments (AQAs) for all major developments, and any other development considered to have a potentially significant impact on air quality.  

The AQA must consider all the different sources of air pollution during operational and construction phases (including but not limited to: transport, heating, dust generated from construction activities, etc). Any resultant significant impacts on air quality inside an AQMA must be mitigated.  

Require all new major developments within the city’s AQMA to comply with the locally-set, more stringent, air quality standard for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) set out in the city’s latest air quality action plan (AQAP) (currently a target of 30μg/m3) as well as compliance with current national air quality objectives (unless superseded by local standards).   

Alternative Option 1 (considered detrimental): Do not include a policy about air quality assessments but rely on other regulatory regimes.

Preferred Option: 

Include a bespoke policy on water resources and water quality. This would include various requirements such as requiring measures to limit water use and conserve water, including meeting the tighter Building Regs water use limits. Also, measures to mitigate impacts on water quality, such as use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDs). 

Expect that foul water is separated from surface water drainage on development sites. 

 Require a Foul and Surface Water Drainage Strategy for all new build residential development and non-residential development above a certain threshold. 

Alternative Option 1 (considered detrimental): Do not have a bespoke policy but instead incorporate water resources/ quality considerations into other policies about managing the impacts of development. 

Alternative Option 2 (considered detrimental): Do not include any policy direction about water quality but rely on other regulatory regimes and national policy.

Preferred Option: 

Set out requirements/principles for conserving and enhancing soils. 

Set out additional standards for the protection of peat reserves including no loss/dewatering of these reserves. 

Alternative Option 1 (considered detrimental): No additional policy for addressing soil quality or protection of peat.

Preferred Option:

Include a policy that requires the submission of details of investigations of any site suspected to be contaminated and details of remedial measures which must then be carried out. 

Alternative Option 1:  Do not include a policy about land quality but rely on national planning policy and other regulatory regimes.  

Preferred Option: 

Require that new proposals do not result in unacceptable impacts on amenity as a result of noise, nuisance from light, dust, fumes etc.

Continue to require that impacts of developments must be mitigated to ensure that the amenity of communities, occupiers and residents are protected. 

Alternative Option (considered detrimental): Do not include a policy but rely on national planning policy and other regulatory regimes. 

Preferred Option:

Set out a discrete adaptation/ resilience policy, whilst continuing to address risks in other policies where relevant. Ask applicants to demonstrate how they have designed in accordance with policy via the design checklist or a separate checklist. Cross referencing to other relevant policy requirements (e.g. flooding) as well as incorporating other specific requirements such as:

• Need for climate resilience impact assessment; 

• Details of a cooling strategy (for the building and surrounding spaces in large schemes, addressing alignment and shading) intrinsic to the design (not having implications for carbon use), including measures for addressing overheating risk for lifetime of development; 

• Measures to conserve/recycle water; 

• Flood resistance/resilience measures; 

Supporting infrastructure such as electricity supply and broadband designed to function in extreme weather conditions (such as prolonged periods of very high temperatures or heavy rainfall). 

Alternative Option 1: Require major development to achieve certification against a recognised sustainability assessment e.g. BREEAM/HQM. 

Alternative Option 2: Address climate risks as theme purely through other policies e.g. design flood risk, green infrastructure. No requirement for specific policy addressing issue. 

Alternative Option 3 (considered detrimental): No policy on climate adaptation/resilience – rely on national guidance.