Welcome to Oxfordshire Futures

The future of the city of Oxford cannot be separated from that of the wider surrounding area from where thousands of people travel in daily to work, shop and enjoy the city’s many cultural attractions. While Oxford’s nationally important knowledge-based economy grows, space to house the people who work in and support it is shrinking. Oxford is part of the Central Oxfordshire city-region, and planning for development must be on this basis. This is the theme of Oxfordshire Futures.

Read more on the ‘About’ page.

Infrastructure Strategy Stage 1 Response

The Oxfordshire LEP is preparing an Infrastructure Strategy (OXIS) for the county. The Stage 1 report was published for consultation and Oxford Civic Society has submitted comments to the LEP. While we welcome the joined-up thinking that OXIS demonstrates we believe that the early output presented in Stage 1 is seriously flawed.

OXIS comments link

Click the image to read the full report.

A report about ‘infrastructure’ should look at

  • physical infrastructure – communications, water and sewerage, energy etc.
  • social infrastructure – schools, medical services etc. and
  • green infrastructure – open spaces, access to countryside, etc.

An infrastructure strategy should start with what existing infrastructure can cope with and look at how future demands can be met. This means integrating these demands over the whole area; building houses, creating jobs, and providing services and communications in the most economically efficient and sustainable way.

Instead, OXIS tries to meet the demands of five Local Plans, all of which are being developed separately. It assumes that existing employment and housing growth projections are the principal drivers of development. It does not assess how deliverable these plans are, nor does it take account of the impact of the Oxford to Cambridge East – West Corridor. It gives little attention to the social and environmental characteristics of future growth, including reduced carbon emissions, preservation and enhancement of biodiversity and improved public health.

The proposed Oxfordshire Joint Spatial Plan (JSP) should form the basis for an infrastructure strategy, but OXIS does not mention this. It offers a series of short term fixes with no consideration of demand over 30 years or more. We recommend that as work on OXIS continues, linked with the JSP, a different approach is introduced: one where development is directed to where it contributes to the most efficient use of existing and new resources.

You can read our full response here, or click the image above.

Alternative Devolution Proposals Published

Oxford City, Cherwell and West Oxfordshire Districts have combined to draw up alternative proposals for the future structure of local government in Oxfordshire. They oppose the single unitary organisation favoured by the County, South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse District. Instead, the counter-proposals put a case for a Combined Authority, with the four districts, the City and the Oxfordshire LEP working through a strengthened Oxfordshire Growth Board.

Oxford Civic Society will be commenting fully in the near future. Meanwhile, our Chairman Ian Green was interviewed on BBC Radio Oxford on Monday 26 June in connection with our recent report comparing Oxford and Cambridge. Speaking about the differences in collaboration in the two cities and their regions, Ian said:

In Oxfordshire we have no agreement on the way in which the whole county will be governed. We have three of our six local authorities putting in a proposal to central government, and now in the last few days the three other local authorities putting in another proposal. In our view both of those proposals should really be withdrawn, and then a discussion with everybody, with all the stakeholders, to try to achieve a consensus on what the governance arrangements should be. And then let’s get together with a devolution proposal which will enable us to get the funding – the heavy duty funding – needed for the infrastructure for transport and health.

The three districts’ proposals, “Opportunity, Growth and Reform” can be downloaded from the link. The interview with Ian on BBC Radio Oxford is on iPlayer until 25 July. It starts at 38’35”.

Can Oxford learn from Cambridge’s growth success?

This article summarises the findings of an Oxford Civic Society study group which visited Cambridge in spring 2016 to find out what Oxford could learn about planning and development.The group concluded that Cambridge’s success story has much to teach us – about the role of local government, the contribution of the university and the dedication of key individuals committed to finding a shared vision.


Much has been made of the way in which the city of Cambridge and its region has excelled at attracting research-led investment, much of it associated with the university, and employment growth.  A success story that has evolved over 50 years has crucially seen the creation of essential infrastructure too, including housing provision. The city of Oxford and its region has made slower progress.  What then can Cambridge teach us?   

Having reviewed the findings of an Oxford Innovation Engine ‘business oriented’ delegation to Cambridge in 2014, Oxford Civic Society (OCS) decided to send its own, more ‘citizen oriented’ mission to Cambridge in spring 2016. The aim was to consider what has been working in Cambridge that could or could not be applied in Oxford.

Tour group in square behind Ceres Building

Tour group in square behind Ceres Building

The differences between the two cities were clear:

  • Cambridge University had been able to inspire a collective vision, to speak with a single university voice, to engage with the local
    authorities and to be instrumental in influencing development across the city-region;
  • despite fragmentation of development planning and management responsibilities across several local authorities, a collective will enabled working together to create compatible and integrated development plans to achieve the vision;
  • public and community opposition to development was muted – perhaps because of a relatively less-sensitive environment, perhaps because of better engagement and understanding;
  • the management of development planning has been placed in the hands of high-calibre individuals, committed to delivering a real vision of the future of the whole city region.

Some things are similar however. Cambridge and its region has just as big a problem with housing availability and affordability as the Oxford region and equally big problems with traffic congestion.

Bland commercial architecture

Bland commercial architecture

A different policy context

The OCS delegation noted that it is only partially helpful to look at the way Cambridge has enjoyed alignment of development stakeholders to achieve a consensus vision of growth. The national policy context now is very different to the context that existed when Cambridge was planting the seeds of alignment so long ago.


Since the coalition government of 2010 we now have a central government-driven set of ‘localism’ policies which, in Oxfordshire, constrain the alignment of the parties involved:

  • there is a prevailing leadership stasis which is at least partially a product of entrenched district and city party-political allegiances. This is evident in the significant problems with allocation of the city’s unmet housing need in the neighbouring districts, Green Belt management and differing views on the justification for Oxfordshire’s economic growth;
  • the strategic regional and county development planning mechanisms which existed in the early days of the ‘Cambridge Phenomenon’ and which facilitated alignment, no longer exist. ‘Localism’ has led to reliance on a ‘Duty to Cooperate’ between local authorities for strategic planning that has proved to be ineffective in many areas, especially in Oxfordshire;
  • separated spatial planning at district/city level and transport planning at county level is a continuing major development constraint.


This could be a very rare opportunity to create a governance structure within Oxfordshire which enables leadership, transparency, efficiency, collaboration with the wider community and with the business community. These are all vital if we are to achieve the consensus vision of the future of Oxfordshire that is currently lacking.

However this great opportunity is at risk of not being seized locally. The spectacle of the Oxfordshire district councils and the County Council preparing devolution bids in ompetition with each other was profoundly disappointing. This stance can only be compared unfavourably with Cambridge which for some years has collectively known where it wants to go, recognised the difficulties and has worked hard collaboratively to achieve its ambitions.

Brexit and its implications

The Brexit vote has led to greater uncertainty and may mean loss of European funds for regional development and scientific research. It is likely to reduce some of the region’s comparative advantages thus heightening the importance of those which remain. More than ever, the Oxford city-region must contribute as much as it can to the national economy.

Oxford/Oxfordshire must innovate now because time has been lost and jobs and private investment could disappear in the aftermath of Brexit. In particular the public sector contribution to science-led growth is already constrained by lack of public resources rather than lack of public will. Both Oxford and Cambridge city-regions will need to be pursuing public-private partnerships to ensure adequate infrastructure support.

Residential terrace

Residential terrace


OCS concludes that a shared vision or ambition for growth is vital. Lack of vision is partially a lack of civic leadership, which we highlighted in our 2014 Oxford Futures report. One of our recommendations to deal with this problem was to introduce an Oxford Futures Commission which could act as a catalyst for the development of a vision around which a consensus could be built. Such a Futures Commission could be an integrated feature of devolved local government in Oxfordshire.

Similarly, OCS recommended Development Forums which would help to ensure the collaboration of the wider community and business community in more local (e.g. district) development decisions. These could also be integrated into devolved local government in Oxfordshire.

Both of these recommendations would help to ensure a more adequate response to public and community opposition to development which is evident in Oxford and its region to an extent not evident in Cambridge and its region. Collaboration with the wider community would allow for more effective debate on the justification for economic growth and its environmental and social implications. It would enable consensus to be achieved on sustainable developments.

OCS also hopes that the University of Oxford will significantly contribute to the vision and consensus building with an up-to-date and clear strategy for its science-led business development. Successful progress requires nothing less.

County decides to submit Better Oxfordshire proposal

On 14 March 2017, 11 days after ‘Better Oxfordshire’ was published, Oxfordshire CC’s Cabinet met to decide whether to submit their proposal to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. This despite the opposition of the City Council and two District Councils – Cherwell and West Oxfordshire.

Members of the public are allowed a few minutes to address the Cabinet. Ian Green a member of Oxford Civic Society’s Executive Committee and Chairman of the Oxfordshire Futures group spoke on our behalf as follows:

Councillor Hudspeth and Cabinet members – thank you for this opportunity to make a statement.

I am speaking on behalf of the Oxford Civic Society and its associated Oxfordshire Futures Group.

We thoroughly reviewed the ‘One Oxfordshire’ proposal and submitted our detailed comments in response to the County’s request. We have also reviewed the ‘Better Oxfordshire’ proposal and have submitted comments.

Our review of the more recent proposal leads us to the same conclusion we reached after reviewing the first draft: the proposal is not ready for public consultation and is certainly not ready for submission to central government

  • The overall governance arrangements which will replace the existing district and city councils remain too vague and it is not possible to assess how the reorganisation will revitalise local democracy and improve service delivery and value. We doubt that the proposal will strengthen accountable leadership.
  • The proposal for the governance arrangements for the City of Oxford do not seem to take into account its crucial economic role in the county and the complexity of the city’s economic, social and environmental challenges. But the proposal is too vague to enable an assessment of its impact on city management effectiveness.
  • Not enough evidence is drawn from governance arrangements made or being made in comparable contexts – and some of the evidence cited is of doubtful value as the contexts are not comparable (Salisbury for example) or not fully explained (Wiltshire and the separation of Swindon from Wiltshire). There is no mention of Cambridgeshire.

The Secretary of State is interested in workable governance arrangements which will deliver better local service delivery, greater value for money, stronger and more accountable leadership and significant cost savings.

A proposal which is not fully thought through and which is supported by only 3 of the 6 local authorities comprising Oxfordshire does not demonstrate the capacity to deliver these.

We very much hope that the Cabinet will decide that more efforts to achieve a consensus are needed and that a submission to the Secretary of State at this stage is premature.

We hope that consensus within Oxfordshire can be achieved and with constructive collaboration governance arrangements can be agreed which will enable Oxfordshire to contribute more effectively to the national economy and to efficiently provide ever improving quality of life for all its residents, workers and visitors.

Thank you.

To our regret the Cabinet, none of whose members represents a division within Oxford city, decided to go ahead and send ‘Better Oxfordshire’ to the government for approval.

Better Oxfordshire? Not really.

Three days after consultation on ‘One Oxfordshire’ closed the County published ‘Better Oxfordshire‘, a 148-page revised proposal for a unitary council. Despite giving some extra details the new version does not address most of the points we raised, and is certainly not ready for submission to the Secretary of State. This is the text of a letter we sent to County and supporting District leaders on 10 March.

For the attention of: Leaders Oxfordshire County Council, Vale of White Horse District Council and South Oxfordshire District Council.

cc Leaders of Oxford City Council, West Oxfordshire District Council, Cherwell District Council and Andrew Smith MP, John Howell MP, Nicola Blackwood MP, Ed Vaizey MP, Victoria Prentis MP, Robert Courts MP

Dear Councillors Hudspeth, Barber and Cotton,

Oxford Civic Society provided comments on the draft of the One Oxfordshire proposal on February 28th 2017 along with an attachment which was a matrix assessing the proposal against a number of governance criteria (differing slightly from the criteria used by yourselves). Receipt of our comments was acknowledged by the County on February 28th.

On March 3rd a revised draft proposal ‘Better Oxfordshire’ was published. In particular this revised proposal discusses in more detail local representation and arrangements to formulate proposals for Oxford city governance. The revised proposal also includes opinion poll results which purport to show significant support for the single authority concept (rather than the full One Oxfordshire proposal) and with no survey methods readily available for scrutiny.

We were surprised to see the revised proposal issued so quickly and having reviewed it in detail it is clear that it was in preparation long before the closing date of the consultation on the first draft. It is perhaps for this reason that it fails to address most of the points made in our response to the consultation.

Our detailed review of the revised proposal leads us to the same conclusion we reached after reviewing the first draft: the revised proposal is not yet ready for consultation and is certainly not ready for submission to the Secretary of State, DCLG. Key deficiencies are that the proposed overall governance arrangements remain too vague, that there are no firm proposals for the governance arrangements for the City of Oxford and that not enough evidence is drawn from governance arrangements made or being made elsewhere in comparable contexts.

We hope that at the County Council Cabinet meeting on March 14th the decision will be taken to put more detailed thinking into the proposal and to re-engage the citizens of Oxfordshire with another consultation. We also very much hope that the proposal is not submitted to the Secretary of State at the end of this month as planned. We suggest that no matter what the opinion poll suggests, it is the case that 2 District Councils and the City Council are not on board. Submission of a proposal with only partial support from the local authorities comprising Oxfordshire could embarrass the Secretary of State who is only interested in workable governance arrangements which will deliver better local service delivery, greater value for money, stronger and more accountable leadership and significant cost savings. A proposal supported by only 3 of the 6 local authorities comprising Oxfordshire does not demonstrate the capacity to deliver these.

One Oxfordshire – OCS response

This is a summary of our comments on Oxfordshire County Council’s “One Oxfordshire” proposals for a single unitary authority to run all local services in the county. You can read our full submission here.

These comments should be read together with our “Gap Analysis”. The competing consultants’ reports commissioned by the County and the City/Districts focused almost exclusively on financial efficiency. The Gap Analysis looks instead at issues of governance, accountability, civic engagement and democratic processes.

Our overall conclusion on the County’s proposals is that they are fatally incomplete. The problems of governance in Oxfordshire are not addressed, and there is no attempt to look at and learn from how other counties (e.g. Cambridgeshire, Wiltshire) have tackled these issues.

The effect of replacing District Councils with Area Boards is not explored in enough detail. In the special case of Oxford City, the proposal is silent on how a unitary authority would protect or enhance the City’s nationally important economic prosperity, academic excellence and world-class heritage.

We suggested a number of questions and issues that need answers before One Oxfordshire can be taken further. This is a selection:

  • The proposals do not include an elected Mayor, but with the right powers a Mayor might be able to achieve a coherent vision which the dissenting councils have failed to do.
  • How many local councillors would there be? What areas would they represent? How would those areas be decided – by population, geography, the size of their economy?
  • What would the powers and responsibilities of the Area Boards be? How many would there be and how would their boundaries be drawn?
  • Similarly, how would Parish Councils, Town Councils and unparished areas be involved? Would they welcome more powers and do they have the capability to use them wisely?
  • Public engagement with the LEP and Growth Board is currently weak or absent. How will the One Oxfordshire model improve this?

We strongly suggest it would be a mistake if two competing proposals – One Oxfordshire from the county and two districts, and an alternative from the other two districts and the city – went forward to central government. The failure to reach a consensus is damaging Oxfordshire’s credibility as somewhere worthy of investment, and is a constraint on efforts to address the serious issues of deprivation or to improve the quality of life for all its residents.