Oxford Local Plan 2042 Regulation 18 (Preferred Options) Consultation

Preferred Option: 

Include a set of policies relating to designated assets that reflects the NPPF (including Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings, Registered Parks and Gardens, and Scheduled Monuments), that set out how impacts on designated heritage assets will be assessed, when mitigation is required, and how harm should be balanced against benefits, including Oxford-specific detail in relation to what harm and benefits may be for different types of assets in Oxford/in different parts of Oxford. 

Alternative Option 1: Include a policy or set of policies for designated heritage assets (e.g. listed buildings, conservation areas) that reflects the NPPF but does not include Oxford-specific detail in relation to harm and     benefits.       

Alternative Option 2 (considered detrimental): No specific policy, rely on NPPF requirements or National Design Guide as template.

Preferred Option: 

Include a policy that requires development to consider heritage assets of local importance. The policy would also set out criteria for assessing whether an asset has locally important heritage interest, and how to identify non-designated heritage assets. 

Alternative Option (considered detrimental): No specific policy, rely on NPPF requirements or National Design Guide as template. 

Preferred Option:

Continue to define the City Centre Archaeological Area. For all sites where archaeological deposits or features are suspected, require the incorporation of sufficient information to define the character, significance and extent of such deposits including a heritage assessment and full archaeological desk-based assessment if the initial assessment suggests this is relevant.

Require a holistic management plan for key historic college owned and occupied sites in the City Centre Archaeological Area when development is proposed. These should take a holistic view of the whole college site and should consider features that should guide the location of new development within the site, including best location for basements in terms of impacts on archaeology (and cumulative impacts). 

Where proposed development would impact on archaeological or paleoenvironmental features and deposits, it will only be supported where the harm to such deposits and features can be eliminated or where, by agreement, mitigated to an appropriate level, conserving the remains and the significance of the archaeological or paleoenvironmental asset better revealed and understanding of that significance enhanced (by agreed measures). 

Map more areas as archaeological areas where it is known there are likely to be deposits/not allocate sites where archaeological deposits or features are expected to be present and require heritage assessments with potential desk-based assessments if needed. 

Alternative Option 1 (considered detrimental): Do not include a policy about archaeology but rely on national policy instead.

Preferred Option: 

Include a policy that requires high quality design and include a checklist to set out key principles of what this means in detail (including principles for materials, layout, potentially secure by design, etc.), requiring that the Design and Access statement or other submission alongside the planning application covers the relevant aspects of good design. 

Exempt householder applications and changes of use without external alteration from needing to include answers to the relevant checklist questions in their submission. 

Alternative Option 1: Include householder applications and/or changes of use applications in the requirement to follow the checklist. 

Alternative Option 2: Include a generic design policy but be less specific e.g. have requirements for good quality design but do not rely on a checklist. 

Alternative Option 3 (considered detrimental): No specific policy, rely on NPPF requirements or National Design Guide as template.

Preferred Option: 

Have a policy requiring that development proposals make the best use of site capacity, in a way that is compatible with both the site itself and the surrounding area, with building heights and massing at least equivalent to the surrounding area, and bearing in mind that largerscale proposals will be suitable in many situations.

Alternative Option 1: Have minimum density requirements for district centres and the city centre only. 

Alternative Option 2: Have minimum density requirements to cover the whole city, for various types of location such as suburban, gateway, district and city centre.

Preferred Option: 

Continue to define the area within a 1,200 metre radius of Carfax tower as the Historic Core Area. This area contains all the buildings that comprise the historic skyline, so new developments that exceed 18.2m in height will intrude into the skyline. Require that any buildings above this height are limited and bulk, only thin, delicate and of the highest design quality, demonstrated by stringent appraisals to inform and explain design choices. 

Continue to refer to the High Buildings Technical Advice Note (TAN) (or an updated version) as the key evidence base for deciding appropriate heights, designing higher buildings and appraising applications. 

Continue to define view cones, which are the areas within a view from historic viewing places from where the ‘dreaming spires’ can be most clearly seen. Include a policy that requires design within the view cones to avoid harming the views of the spires. 

Alternative Option 1 (considered detrimental): Include an absolute height limit in the city centre that does not interfere with the spires.

Preferred Option: 

Require an HIA for all developments over a certain size- for example for major developments (as currently).  This requirement could be integrated with others such as demonstrating resilient design and construction. 

Alternative Option 1: Include a requirement for HIAs, not just based on a size threshold but other factors such as socioeconomic, health or environmental factors that could trigger the need for a more extensive HIA.  Wider categories for development that will be subject to an HIA.  

Alternative Option 2 (considered detrimental): No specific policy requirement, rely on NPPF.

Preferred Option: 

Extend the policy to also include expectations for daylight, privacy and sunlight for new non-residential buildings (types to be specified but likely to include offices and similar workspaces, potentially healthcare facilities but may exclude manufacturing and warehouses, retail units), to ensure good working conditions and to ensure consideration of impacts on neighbouring buildings. This will also need to be considered alongside shading and overheating impacts.  

Include a policy with requirements to ensure adequate daylight, privacy and sunlight to new residential developments. 

Alternative Option 1 (considered detrimental):  Do not include a policy on privacy, daylight or sunlight for any type of development.

Preferred Option: 

Apply Nationally Described Space Standards. In flatted schemes, require communal areas to be designed to enable neighbours to meet and interact, for example some fixed seating, wider areas of
corridor or lobby space. 

Alternative Option 1 (considered detrimental): Do not include a policy on internal space standards (if the national standards are not adopted locally then they do not apply).

Alternative Option 2 (considered detrimental): Include a policy but do not follow the Nationally Described Space Standards.

Preferred Option:

Include an outdoor amenity space requirement for all residential units, with size standards. This could allow flexibility between communal and private space and balconies would be included to ensure flats are deliverable. Include a requirement for outdoor areas where neighbours can meet or interact. 

Alternative Option 1: Include a policy that sets out broad principles required for amenity space for housing but no size requirement. 

Alternative Option 2: Set a requirement for outdoor amenity space for larger non-residential developments.

Preferred Option:

Seek to ensure that a % of affordable homes and market homes (dependent on needs, viability and practicality but currently 100% affordable and 15% market) are constructed to accessible and adaptable homes standards set out in Part M4(2) and M4(3) of the Building Regulations. For M4(3) for Social Rent these should be able to be adapted to the needs of the household who will be occupying them, ahead of their occupation.

Introduce specific exceptions to the requirement for accessible and adaptable homes for practical reasons, for example provision of lifts is disproportionately expensive for flats of less than three or four storeys or for a small number of flats (fewer than 10) sharing one lift core, so upper floors would not need to conform.

Altternative Option (considered detrimental): No specific policy, rely on NPPF requirements or National Design Guide as template.

Preferred Option: 

Requires that bin and bicycle stores and external servicing features should be considered from the start of the design process and set criteria to ensure they meet practical needs but do not detract from the overall design, that external servicing features are integrated into the design or positioned to minimise their impact and that high quality materials are used. Include compulsory requirements, setting out binding design codes depending on location, building type etc, and requiring fire-safe spaces with adequate electric supply for charging. 

Alternative Option (considered detrimental): No specific policy, rely on NPPF.