A survey revealed that in 2018, Magdalen College had received a building permit for a subdivision that did not have affordable housing. The site was sold in January 2020, however, the existing plans are those presented through the College. Developments of this magnitude require a number of “affordable housing,” but Magdalen has been able to use exceptions to the law to circumvent this requirement, despite opposition from residents.

Magdalen stated that the progression of Dove House Farm in Cuddesdon was not eligible for affordable housing under national standards because it had fewer than 10 housing units. However, national rules also imply that a progression of more than 1000 m2 (such as the one that is being carried out lately on the site) still falls within the needs of affordable housing.

Affordable housing is a generic term for rented social housing, for eligible and intermediate people. It is provided to space properties whose desires are not fulfilled through the market (i.e. they cannot live at market prices). Magdalen’s application was seeking a full building permit to convert the indexed main barn on this site into a four-bed house, to convert 3 indexed barns for residential use (3 to four beds) and to create five new residential units: two 1 bedroom apartments, a 2 bedroom space and two 3 bedroom spaces.

Local government requires that when a new progression is created, a certain proportion of housing is affordable. This figure, at the time of Magdalen’s request to create residential conversions, was 40% for the South Oxfordshire district. In his initial 2014 plan planning application, Magdalen included 3 affordable housing. They have removed affordable housing from their 2018 application.

What does he say?

There are several exceptions imaginable to the Affordable Housing Act. One of the tactics in which developers were exempted in the past from needs is to conduct feasibility studies (due to a gap that has since been closed). While it can be shown that affordable housing deserves to be eliminated to achieve the sometimes accepted profit point (so Magdalen can earn cash with the project), the progression becomes “unsustainable.” As a result, the developer no longer has to meet the needs of affordable housing. However, the main points of feasibility studies are not intended for the public. The parish council stated before the argument was presented that there was no evidence in the request that the inclusion of affordable housing would make progression unsustainable. Despite this, Magdalen has succeeded in a sustainability argument opposed to the affordable housing structure on the Dove House Farm site.

The South Oxfordshire District Council responded to an Access to Information request with a very worded edition of the feasibility assessment, stating that ” the data of data decided whose disclosure may damage the commercial interests of the applicant making the plans. ».

Another explanation for why developers refuse to build affordable housing is the “vacant genuine property credit.” The law, enacted in November 2014, stipulates that developers will only have to make contributions to affordable housing for any land domain they charge on the property. For example, if the building of the land domain increases from 10,000 to 40,000 m2 (a building of 30,000 m2, or 3/4 of the domain of the final land), the developer will have to meet only 3/4 of the general demand for social housing. – 30% instead of 40%. This law aims to inspire small developers to build field dominance in new developments.

In this case, Magdalen used it to argue (in addition to the sustainability assessment) that, since they were cutting the land dominance of the assets (by 861 m2), they would not have to offer affordable housing at all. According to magdalen’s legal summary of the request for plans, the South Oxfordshire district council has authorized the lifting of affordable housing requirements.

In May 2016, the law replaced so that advances of up to 10 homes or land spaces of no less than 1000 square meters are exempt from housing requirements. Before promoting the land, Magdalen implemented the construction of nine houses, which is just below that threshold.

A spokesperson for Magdalen College said: “The scale of progression – less than 10 residential complexes – means that the original project, with the tithing barn still assigned for advertising use, is not eligible for affordable housing according to national guidelines. Magdalen only follows the rules then (and now) in force. However, the conversion of the barn will result in the creation of more than 1000 m2 of living area through progression, which will activate the threshold for affordable housing and cancel the exemption that can be granted to a progression of this magnitude.

Citing directly from the SODC committee report: “In this case, the number of units, at 9, is below the threshold of 11, but converting the barn into tithes for residential use will result in the creation of more than 1000 m2 of residential land domain progression, which means that the affordable housing threshold is activated. However, applicants argue sustainability because the CSH3 policy allows projects not to provide affordable housing if this would make progression unsustainable. Therefore, the explanation for the lack of affordable housing is, in fact, the argument of sustainability, not the number of residential units.

Magdalen also stated that even in the absence of affordable housing, “the allocation was only marginally viable for the University. No advertising developer would have removed it from scratch, but the University has a long-term vision and takes day-to-day management jobs seriously. , adding make sure that a beautiful indexed construction has a safe future.

Local concerns

The minutes of the parish council assembly in February 2018 show that an organization of villagers has raised considerations about the request for plans at Dove House Farm, i.e. the lack of affordable housing. The report of the South Oxfordshire District Council Committee, dated 23 May 2018, includes a response from the Cuddesdon Parish Council. It states that the parish council “considers it essential that affordable housing be included, so that the local population has it in perpetuity, for the long-term intelligence of the community.” The reaction also mentions the option that “future generations will be expelled from the village due to the maximum burden of housing.”

One of the villagers in Cuddesdon said the barn “has been collapsing probably for 30 years or more.” They also said: “You can simply say that there is some kind of ethical duty to a village from which you have earned cash for about a hundred years, I think […] can simply say that there is an ethical duty to think of The Village.”

On the choice others have to leave the village for lack of housing enabled, they said there are “other people whose families have been in the village, who had to leave because they cannot locate houses that can or can.” hire in town.” So it may have been an opportunity to do something.”

Finally, they presented the feasibility assessment as the use of a loophole, stating: “They have shied away from the position of maintaining the barn over the years. So they boosted the position they deserve to have spent in development.”

In reaction to this statement, Magdalen stated that “at the time of final consent to make the plans in May 2018, the College had already spent or committed more than 300,000 euros for the building, adding paintings of primary structural stabilization and a magnificent new stone tile”. Roof To say that the College intentionally delayed the paintings to influence the viability of the entire assignment is simply incorrect.

The broader context

Moreover, if knowledge recommends that the degrees of poverty in Oxford have declined, it is imaginable that this is because of gentrification. The Cherwell area, where housing is less expensive than Oxford, experienced an increase in deprivation between 2015 and 2019. This confirms the option that Oxford’s poorest families have moved from the city to neighboring cities due to a lack of affordable housing.

A 2017 Cherwell article on university-owned land describes several questionable advances in schools in rural areas. It mentions the dating between Corpus Christi and the village of Lower Heyford, as well as the one between St John’s and Fyfield Parish. The CONCEPT NIMBY (not in my garden) cited it as an explanation of why villagers do not appreciate the wonderful advances in their area.

Magdalen “totally agrees that there is a shortage of affordable housing, in the broadest sense, in And around Oxford.” The College stated that “the fundamental cause is the inability to create a sufficiently good source in the region at a time when demand is developing rapidly, while making such an offer, as it is more expensive for the source than it deserves to be. has made constant and public representations before the Oxford City Council and SODC in their processes of drawing up local plans in a higher housing source and continues to do so.

The 2016 public consultation report for the Oxford 2036 Local Plan includes many comments from the University and schools that oppose the affordable housing structure. Along with other Oxford schools, Magdalen said that “affordable housing policy restricts the source of housing. The plan means that no progress from 10 sets or less is required to obtain affordable housing. In this report, Magdalen alone expressed a preference for a “lower percentage obligation” for affordable housing.

The parish council of Cuddesdon and Denton declined to comment.

During this investigation, several links have replaced Internet addresses and, if they are of the correct type at the time of publication, if Internet sites or documentation are not available, notify publishers immediately. You can tap [email protected] to get the recorded versions of all links.

Image credits: Saville’s, Tom Rumble and Olly Boyo

Did you enjoy reading this article? Sign up for our weekly mailing list for a summary of our most productive items of the week – click here to register

Want to contribute? Join our contributors group here or email us – click here for contact details