On 15th June, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) used the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to make a designation against the Oxfordshire authority for the quality of decision-making on major planning applications.

This means applicants for major developments can now choose whether to submit their applications to the council or to the Planning Inspectorate.

Cherwell joins nine other councils with designations, including South Tyneside, Malvern Hills and Epping Forest. 

Cherwell’s designation was based on performance data from planning appeals for major developments between April 2023 and March 2025.

The council has argued that just over 11% of these decisions were overturned, just above the government’s threshold of 10%. It also says the latest data indicates that the council’s performance will be under the 10% threshold at the end of the current monitoring period.

•   The Finance Professional Show 2025: The Video
•   Housing minister visits self-build community
•   117 home development rejected

In expressing disappointment with the MHCLG’s decision, Cherwell District Council has also highlighted that it deals with “a significant number” of major development applications which are “often contentious and decisions can be finely balanced.”

The council is now engaging with the MHCLG in an attempt to reverse this designation. 

"This decision is disappointing and, frankly, frustrating,” said councillor Lesley McLean, leader at Cherwell District Council. 

“The government appears more interested in judging Cherwell’s past performance than recognising the progress being made today.”

McLean took issue with major developments in the region being decided by people who don’t live locally, which she says is “outside the democratic process.”

She added: “Elected councillors, supported by knowledgeable and professional officers, are the right people to guide new development in north Oxfordshire.
“District councils have been expected to operate effectively despite a constantly changing and uncertain policy landscape, and this also appears to have been overlooked in reaching this decision.”