The consultation can be found here:
https://consultation.oxford.gov.uk/planning-services/oxford-local-plan-2045-reg19-consultation
Questions about Land at Meadow Lane (SPS8):
Please see below for:
- A brief explanation of the terms used for soundness and legality.
- Suggested responses to use for the section on the Horse Fields allocation (Land at Meadow Lane SPS8), to convey that you believe it is unsound and not legal. You can use these verbatim but ideally please adapt in your own words as far as possible.
Explanation of terms used for soundness (1 – 3) and legality (4)
1. Policy is positively prepared
Policy provides a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet objectively assessed needs and is informed by agreements with other authorities and is consistent with achieving sustainable development.
2. Policy is justified
Policy is an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and is based on proportionate evidence.
3. Policy is effective policy
Policy is deliverable over the Plan period.
4. Policy is consistent with national policy
Policy enables sustainable development consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and other relevant Policies.
Policy SPS8 Land at Meadow Lane
https://consultation.oxford.gov.uk/planning-services/oxford-local-plan-2045-reg19-consultation/consultation/subpage.2026-01-26.4731794386
Suggested answers to the four questions are given in italics
355. “Do you consider that Policy SPS8 is sound?”
Yes
No
356. “If you do NOT consider policy SPS8 to be sound, please select your reasons why from the choices below. Please give precise details for your reasons in the box below – if you wish to support the soundness of the policy please also use this box to set out your comments.”
Policy is NOT positively prepared
It is not positively prepared as it disregards and misinterprets the clear evidence that has emerged that this site is not suitable for sustainable development. The policy appears to seek to rely on a flawed assumption that because it was in Local Plan 2036 that this is sufficient. Any development here is unsustainable and would cause very high levels of harm to the ecology, and to the rural Iffley Conservation Area, which can neither be justified nor mitigated. Access is difficult and would endanger users of the Principal Quiet Route for Active Travel along Meadow Lane and Church Way. The site is partly in Flood Zone 3 and there is an ongoing objection from the Environment Agency.
Policy is NOT justified
The site has no minimum housing allocation (i.e. a ‘zero’ allocation). The Council is therefore accepting that the site is so constrained that it may be unable to deliver any development in a sustainable and/or policy compliant manner. It is therefore unjustifiable to allocate it.
The new evidence from the Council’s own surveys since the Horse Fields was allocated to the current Local Plan 2036 shows how sensitive this site is: 15 constraints have been identified – the highest number of any site on the new Local Plan.
The reasonable alternatives for housing in Oxford are on the brownfield sites currently designated for employment. A new employment policy (Policy E1) makes it possible for land-owners to deliver housing alongside employment on these sites. It would be even more effective to redesignate them for housing, particularly as there have been so many ‘windfall’ sites for new tech companies in redundant retail and offices e.g. Clarendon Centre, Botley Road.
Policy is NOT effective
Again, a zero allocation makes no guaranteed or reliable contribution to meeting housing needs and so cannot be effective. Oxford City Council have not been able to deliver housing on the Horse Fields over the 5 year period of the current Local Plan. They have now learnt about how sensitive the site is, in particular for ecology, the conservation area and access and have reduced the number of houses on the allocation from 32 to effectively zero, with no certainty of being able to deliver any housing at all. This is clearly not an effective policy.
357. “Do you consider that Policy SPS8 is legally compliant? If you do NOT consider policy SPS8 to be legally compliant, please give precise details for your reasons in the box below – if you wish to support the legal compliance of the policy please also use this box to set out your comments.”
Yes
No
The fact that the policy is not positively prepared, effective or justified means that it cannot meet the tests of soundness or legal compliance.
358. “Please set out, as precisely as possible, what change(s) you consider necessary to make the policy legally compliant and sound, in respect of any legal compliance or soundness matters you have identified above. You will need to say why the suggested change will make the Local Plan legally compliant or sound. It will be helpful if you are able to put forward your suggested revised wording of any policy or text.”
Any development at Land at Meadow Lane SPS8 (known locally as the Horse Fields) would be unsustainable and cannot be delivered in a viable fashion in accordance with local and national policy. This makes the allocation unsound, and site SPS8 should be deleted from LP 2045