Oxford Local Plan 2042 Regulation 18 (Preferred Options) Consultation

Preferred Option: 

Identify a network of green and blue infrastructure for protection, informed by the green infrastructure study. Incorporate multi-functional green spaces of varying sizes, with clear criteria for inclusion in the network. All spaces in the network would be treated with equal protection, based on presumption against any net loss (because being a part of a network means that it would be challenging for them to be replaced elsewhere).

In addition to the network, have a series of separate policy protections based on different types of greenspaces (e.g. outdoor sports, biodiversity sites, allotments and greenbelt) and address each specifically. Note that none of these designated sites are considered surplus.

Only allow the loss of trees, hedgerows and woodland where it is clearly justified (level of justification to be considered against quality of tree) and any loss mitigated. Require developers to demonstrate how the retention of existing trees/hedgerows and the planting of new trees/hedgerows has been considered (applying BS.5837:2012 Guidance or future equivalent) in the design and layout of new development and outside space. This should include protection and/or enhancement of tree canopy cover.

Planning permission will not be granted for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of ancient woodland or ancient or veteran trees except in wholly exceptional circumstances.

Alternative Option 1: Do not define a network of green spaces but assign individual protection to larger strategic sites including public parks, biodiversity sites, allotments, cemeteries and outdoor sports, with sets of criteria relevant to each. Include the wording from the NPPF that sets out protection for all green spaces unless they are surplus or can be reprovided.

Alternative Option 2 (considered detrimental): Do not include a policy protecting green and blue infrastructure and defer to national policy/standards.
 

Preferred Option: Require green and blue infrastructure features on all new development – guide expectations through tailored requirements in different areas of city or on different scales of site including:
i. On specific green corridors
ii. Compliance with Urban Greening Factor to demonstrate net gain
iii. % new open space on larger sites
iv. Bespoke guidance on greening within allocations policies.

Require open space as percentage of site area on larger sites and all other new development to include green and blue infrastructure features. Set out principles for what should be included. Leave requirements flexible, to respond to the site’s specifics.

Alternative Option 1 (considered detrimental): Set out a specific quantity standard of the number of hectares per 1,000 population for green space provision on all new developments in city.

Alternative Option 2 (considered detrimental): Do not include a policy for providing new green infrastructure, defer to national policy/standards.

Preferred Option: Incorporate the use of an Urban Greening Factor (UGF) into policy, requiring proposals to demonstrate a betterment in score (above a minimum) as part of the design of the development.

The scale of application of the UGF tool could be across select sites/areas of the city, whilst its use is encouraged but not mandatory elsewhere. Potential areas of application could be:
• Major applications
• Specific site allocations which are not already sufficiently green
• Retail/district centres
• Areas of deficit of green surface cover and/or heightened climate risk

Alternative Option 1: The scale of application of the UGF tool could be mandatory across all developments in the city.

Alternative Option 2: Do not incorporate an UGF into policy.

Preferred Option: Set out a hierarchy for how 10% net gain as required through Environment Act should be delivered, particularly where on-site net gain is not possible. Guidance would seek to secure off-site delivery in the local neighbourhood in first instance, then within city boundary, then county. Off-site delivery within Oxfordshire, if no opportunities are available in the city, would be sought within the opportunity areas of the forthcoming Local Nature Recovery Strategy, and the Oxfordshire Nature Recovery Network. Payment to a body managing schemes would be the final option in the hierarchy.

Alternative Option (considered detrimental): Require higher than 10% net gain on certain sites, in excess of the minimum requirements of the Environment Act.

Alternative Option (considered detrimental): Do not include a policy addressing biodiversity net gain requirements as set out in Environment Act, defer to national guidance/policy.

Preferred Option:

Policy with prescriptive requirements to secure biodiversity features on site. 

• Could require a specific number of enhancements on each site selecting from a pre-defined ‘biodiversity points list’ (e.g. bat box, bird box, wildflowers). 

• Points could be broken down into several pots/categories. 

• Potentially different points targets for householder, minors and majors applications. 

Could potentially be supported by updated Technical Advice Note (TAN). 

Alternative Option 1: Policy that requires biodiversity features/ecological measures but is not prescriptive about what measures are incorporated/or how much/or the standard of those measures. 

Could potentially be supported by updated TAN. 

Alternative Option 2: No bespoke policy on supporting biodiversity on site, instead, via complimentary policies (e.g. sustainable design and construction), include requirements to incorporate general ecological enhancements. 

Alternative Option 3: Do not include a policy for protecting and enhancing on site biodiversity, defer to national policy/standards. 

Preferred Option:

Include policy requirements that seek to ensure applicants identify/assess/protect any existing habitat of value on a site.

Include a policy which protects the city’s network of national and local designated sites from development. Define hierarchy within the network, with level of protection based upon importance/value of species/habitat they have been designated for such as: 

• International designations (SAC) 

• National designations (SSSIs) 

• Local sites like Local Wildlife Sites and Oxford City Wildlife sites. 

• Priority habitat. 

Reiterate national guidance for how to deal with irreplaceable habitats. 

Set out that proposals will need to consider a range of potential impacts depending on the context of application and proximity to any protected site(s), particularly, but not limited to: 

• Loss of protected land 

• Recreational impacts 

• Changes to the hydrological regime (groundwater, primarily), 

• Impacts on water quality  

• Impacts from air pollution. 

Alternative Option 1: Include separate policies focussed on specific sensitive areas in the city, e.g. in proximity to the Lye Valley, or the SAC, with bespoke requirements focussed on particular risks (e.g. changes to groundwater flows).  

Alternative Option 2 (considered detrimental): Do not include a policy for protecting and enhancing on site biodiversity, defer to national policy/standards.

Preferred Option: 

Reiterate national policy and set out requirements for when an FRA will be required, particularly where there is less certainty within national policy (e.g. extensions). Include expectations for how flood risk ought to be assessed, avoided, managed and mitigated. This will include where flood risk could be impacted off-site.

For extensions proposed within floodzone 3b – set out some key principles/requirements that will need to be met to address flood risk before these will be permitted.

Prevent self-contained basement flats in areas at risk from fluvial flooding.

Prevent culverting of open watercourses.

Allow only water compatible uses and essential infrastructure in undeveloped flood zone 3b. However, allow limited development (e.g. redevelopment of existing structures) on brownfield within zone 3b, with high standard of mitigation, where built footprint of a site is not increased and where risk is demonstrably decreased. Apply sequential test for development in other flood zones in accordance with national policy. In any circumstance where proposal would conflict with safe access and egress requirements, it would be refused.

Allow only water compatible uses and essential infrastructure in undeveloped flood zone 3b. However, allow limited development (e.g redevelopment of existing structures) on brownfield within zone 3b, no restriction on built footprint change if risk is demonstrably decreased. Apply sequential test for development in other flood zones in accordance with national policy. In any circumstance where proposal would conflict with safe access and egress requirements, it would be refused.

Alternative Option 1 (considered detrimental): Prevent development of greenfield sites within flood zone 3a, but with specific exemptions (e.g. for allocated sites).

Alternative Option 2 (considered detrimental): Do not include a policy about flood risk but rely on national policy instead.

Preferred Option:

Require SuDS on all new developments (including minors), unless this is shown not to be feasible, and include guidance on how they should be implemented. Incorporate hierarchy style approach to SuDS design, prioritising green SuDS and maximising multifunctionality.

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 of 100 dwellings or more; non-residential development of 7,200sqm or more; or student accommodation of 250 study bedrooms or more.

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

Preferred Option: 

Require assessment of impacts on ground/surface water flows where a development is in proximity of a protected/sensitive site e.g. Oxford Meadows SAC, Lye Valley SSSI. Only permit development where no adverse effects would result.

Include a bespoke policy for the Lye Valley to consider the impact of development upon the hydrogeology of the Lye Valley SSSI – this would be informed by the results of the Lye Valley hydrogeological study and may need to be supported by separate guidance.

Alternative Option (considered detrimental): Do not address ground water and surface water impacts on sensitive sites.