The Oxford Growth Commission - Interim Report - 12 thoughts at Christmas
Daniel Lampard
15 Dec 2025
Nearly 7 years ago I took my young daughter to the first public consultation on the Oxfordshire 2050 Plan. She left – inspired to take her geography A-level (if not to become a Town Planner) but the housing crisis in Oxfordshire is no closer to be solved now than it was then.
But wait . . . amidst the joyful sounds of Christmas approaching . . . the long anticipated Interim Report of the
Oxford Growth Commission (OGC) has just been published. Here, whilst eating some mince pies and awaiting mulled wine, are my initial comments on this. In true festive tradition there are 12 of them . . .
- Wait for it – this is not the NPPF, nor the OGCs final version – nor “does it represent views of the Government” – but – it has a lineage via appointment by Matthew Pennycook based on a speech by Rachel Reeves - which shows clear intent from the Government to go “further and faster” to unlock growth in the Oxford – Cambridge corridor. It sets out clear markers on the both the thoughts of the OGC, and the Government on the urgency of unlocking growth – but it isn’t planning policy.
Planning for Development
- Oxford Citys boundary is no deterrent – following the abrupt halt of the Oxfordshire 2050 plan in 2022 and the difficulties Local Plans have had in traversing this geography – the OGC shows no constraints when it comes to geography. Whilst focussing on driving growth in Oxford it reflects the “innovation ecosystem” of which the city is the core and will seek to maximise growth opportunities through including “the County and wider area as appropriate.”
- Exoricating Local Plans – The OGC pull no punches in criticising the recent emerging local plans (including the SODC / VOWH JLP – currently in intensive case and the Cherwell Local Plan limbering up to the start line) as “local authorities generally are not planning to meet their minimum housing requirements on a County wide basis.” The OCG is highly critical of this backloading contending “there is no good reason for this, and it should be corrected to increase current momentum and prospects for new housing delivery.”
- Who’s in charge? – in fact Local Government Reorganisation (LRG) looms large - indeed the draft OCG Report was shared with the “County and City Councils” (both of whom have rapidly published press releases welcoming it) but not the Districts. This is vivid reflection of the new geographies within which the OGC will progress.
- And who will be? Whilst the importance of “ensuring the availability and allocation of suitable land in and around the City of Oxford” and the Citys estimate “that 40,000 new homes could be identified from limited Green Belt release in future local plan reviews” potential constraints lie ahead if, post LRG, this Green Belt remains split across local authority areas
- A plurality of transport: There will be “disincentives” to private car use and improved public transport (including buses and rail) – with many proposals for the latter – despite the concession of the priority of connecting the “part constructed” Eynsham Park and Ride with the road network.
- No withering of Net Zero in Oxfordshire – whilst the national political debate on Net Zero has seen a breakdown in consensus in recent months, and despite the net-zero-ification of Salt Cross generally being regarded as a factor delaying the sites delivery Net Zero will remain a pillar alongside “nature recovery and the environment”
And delivering it . . .
- Just do it ? Whilst planning remains a plan led system there is encouragement for “development that is ready to go should be enabled rather than delayed by the need for new plans”
- Many hands make light work – Homes Englands role as a Delivery 999 reponse is promoted – “by adding capacity . . . to support strategic sites,” acting as a partner in “the development of an affordable housing delivery plan” and indeed it ”may need to consider intervening to acquire sites which would otherwise remain stalled, if necessary by compulsory purchase order.”
- Placemaking is not an afterthought for the OCG – and “the development of larger strategic sites in Oxfordshire should adopt the placemaking standards recommended by the New Towns Taskforce”
- The usual problems – Oxfordshire is not exempt from the bugbears of developers and consultants nationally on housing delivery constraints and the OCG hope that water, sewerage, flood risk and nature recovery will be speeded up by new arrangements. S106 / S278 agreements should have unnecessary constraints removed – there is even a hint that within the heritage constraints of Oxford further work should be undertaken on “identifying appropriate locations for greater height.”
- A menu of sites - Appropriately for Christmas the OCG identify a menu of opportunity areas (not sites) – in and around Oxford forming “known opportunities for development” many with links with the economic and science framework of the County (including Culham, Milton Park and Harwell) as well as the embryonic New Town of Heyford Park. Progress on these sites forms one of several aspirations of the OGC over the next 12 months “when seeking to finalise our advice to Ministers in 2026.”
So a promising start by the Commission and much to digest in the coming weeks.
