Inspector Recommends Withdrawal of Joint Local Plan Over Duty to Cooperate Failures

The Inspectors examining the South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse Joint Local Plan (JLP) has issued a stark recommendation: the plan should be withdrawn. At the heart of this conclusion lies a fundamental failure to meet the Duty to Cooperate (DtC), a legal requirement under Section 33A of the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act.

(Source: Jim Barton)

What Went Wrong?

The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) is explicit. Local authorities must present comprehensive and robust evidence of attempts to work together and this cooperation must be tested at examination. The evidence submitted by South Oxfordshire and Vale included tabular records of meetings, participants and outcomes. However, the Inspectors noted that these tables revealed that engagement was reactive, procedural and passive, with little evidence of proactive attempts to resolve strategic cross-boundary issues.

In particular, the Councils failed to engage constructively with Oxford City Council (OCiC) on the critical question of how Oxford’s unmet housing needs beyond 2031/36 should be addressed.

Reluctance to Accept Unmet Need

The Inspectors highlighted that South and Vale consistently resisted the idea that Oxford City would generate unmet housing need after 2031/36. Given Oxford’s long-standing housing constraints and the application of the government’s Standard Method, the Inspectors argued it was obvious there was a reasonable prospect of unmet need emerging. Even if South and Vale disagreed with Oxford’s position, this did not absolve them from the responsibility to engage meaningfully.

Engagement That Went Nowhere

The record shows that rather than seeking compromise or offering alternatives, South and Vale focused heavily on challenging Oxford’s Housing and Economic Needs Assessment (HENA) and the Oxford Local Plan (OLP). This combative stance was not accompanied by constructive proposals. In fact, there was a significant gap in meaningful discussions between January and November 2024, during which engagement effectively stalled.

While resources were invested in contesting Oxford’s evidence through the examination process, the Inspectors was clear: legal battles are not a substitute for the active, ongoing, and constructive discussions that the DtC requires.

Outdated Commitments and Weak Statements of Common Ground

The JLP leaned heavily on commitments made under a Memorandum of Cooperation (MoC) and earlier plans from 2014, which were based on an outdated Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA). These commitments only covered unmet need up to 2031 (Vale) and 2036 (South Oxfordshire), leaving the question of Oxford’s needs beyond these dates unresolved.

The Statements of Common Ground (SoCG) provided also fell short. According to the PPG, SoCGs should address:

• each authority’s capacity to meet its own needs,

• the extent of unmet need, and

• agreements (or disagreements) on redistributing that need.

  
  

The Oxfordshire SoCG and the later bilateral SoCG between South and Vale and Oxford did none of this. Instead, they simply recited a chronology of meetings and legal arguments, failing to demonstrate genuine cooperation.

A Fundamental Breakdown

The Inspectors concluded that there has been a fundamental breakdown in cooperation between South and Vale and Oxford. The lack of constructive engagement meant that crucial cross-boundary housing issues remained unresolved and the gulf between the parties persisted.

Uncertainty over the exact level of unmet housing need in Oxford was no excuse. The Inspectors stressed that councils are required to maximise the effectiveness of plan-making by engaging actively and continuously, even where disagreements exist. By choosing not to engage, South and Vale left “little prospect of difficult but important cross-boundary issues being resolved”.

The Consequence: Withdrawal

Similar to the Oxford City Plan, the Inspectors found that the Councils had not met the Duty to Cooperate, a failure that cannot be rectified during examination. The only viable outcome is for the JLP to be withdrawn.

Why This Matters

This recommendation underscores the high bar set by the Duty to Cooperate. Passive or defensive engagement is not enough. Authorities must demonstrate a proactive commitment to resolving strategic issues, even where disagreements are deep-rooted.

For communities and stakeholders across Oxfordshire, the decision represents both a setback and a warning. Without genuine cooperation, Local Plans risk collapse at examination, delaying the delivery of much-needed homes and infrastructure.

--

To read the Inspector's Report, see here.