Agenda and minutes

To record the attendance of substitute members, if any, who have been authorised to attend in accordance with the provisions of standing order 17(1), with notification having been given to the proper officer before the start of the meeting and to receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from:

Councillor Jason Fiddaman; Councillor Yvonne Constance was his substitute

Councillor Julie Mayhew Archer; Councillor Jerry Patterson was her substitute

To receive any declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests in respect of items on the agenda for this meeting.  

There were no disclosable pecuniary interests or other interests declared by members of the committee.

To receive notification of any matters, which the chairman determines, should be considered as urgent business and the special circumstances, which have made the matters urgent, and to receive any announcements from the chairman.

There was no urgent business

Any statements and/or petitions from the public under standing order 32 will be made or presented at the meeting.

Panel for the meeting

A panel of councillors and officers attended the meeting to answer public and committee questions. This comprised of:

• Councillor Matthew Barber, Leader of the Council
• Councillor Mike Murray, Cabinet member for the Local Plan
• Adrian Duffield, Head of Planning
• Sophie Horsley, Planning Policy Manager
• Mark Williams, Planning Policy Project Lead

Public Speakers

Members of the public asked questions under standing order 32 of the Council’s constitution. The Chairman heard the speakers by subject area and the panel responded by subject area. The questions are as submitted to the proper officer in advance of the meeting, although public speakers may have elected to expand these whilst delivering them at the meeting.

West Way, Botley

Ali Provan: “It obviously wasn’t clear in your earlier consultation whether Botley is a local service centre, or a district centre. We did not read that there would be a significant change in the nature of Botley, and certainly did not anticipate that it included a student campus at its centre, as now appears to be supported by the Vale. Do you plan to consult more widely on the options for Botley? 

Grant Nightingale: “The earlier Core Strategy document included a plan showing the area which we would all recognise as ‘Central Botley’. The later consultation document moved the boundary to the red line now shown, covering an area which is currently privately owned residential property. When and why was this change made? Was it before or after Doric proposed a comprehensive redevelopment on this exact area of land and was it discussed at all between the planning policy team and Doric?”

Caroline Potter: “Core Policy 11 of the draft Local Plan indicates a significant expansion of the land designated for ‘Botley Central Area’ in comparison to the existing local service centre. The western-most one-third of the proposed site (outlined in Figure 5.3) currently serves a residential function; on this land sits the 65 purpose-built age-restricted homes of Field House, the private flats of Vale House, and the Vicarage of St Peter & St Paul Church. This western block of land was not included when Vale officers consulted on the redevelopment of the West Way Shopping Centre in February 2012. Would the Cabinet Member for Planning Policy please explain why, and under whose direction, the Botley Central Area has been expanded to include this residential site, recognizing that:

·       no public consultation has been undertaken on such expansion,

·       Botley residents have objected strongly following its inclusion in the February 2013 Local Plan draft, and

·       no justification is given within the current Local Plan draft as to why this residential site should be included within a larger commercial development scheme

Mary Gill: “You wish to clarify that Botley should be a district centre, but we are not sure what this means in practice. In the Oxford context, each of the existing district serves a catchment of between 24,000 and 40,000 people. The local catchment that Botley currently serves is just over  ...  view the full minutes text for item Sc159

Proceedings for Scrutiny Committee discussion on the local plan

Following the contributions from members of the public, the Scrutiny Committee discussed the Local Plan under topic headings. Given the size of the local plan document and the shortage of time for debate the chairman asked the committee if they were agreeable to recording every point made and feeding these through to cabinet with a request that they consider all points in determining what to recommend to council. This would mean the scrutiny committee would not look for consensus or to take decisions on which issues to forward to cabinet. This was broadly agreed. The text below reflects questions raised by the committee and responses given by the panel.

The Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA)

Committee concerns and questions raised

·       Concerns were raised about the validity of the SHMA figures and therefore of the consultants’ reports.

·       The Cabinet member was asked to reconsider the validity of the SHMA and the basis on which the figures were arrived at and, therefore, the need to accept the SHMA numbers.

·       Concern was raised that accepting the SHMA figures, pre-supposes that employment predictions are correct: there are risks around this as it is particularly based on public investment predications. The Committee asked how the Council has verified the validity of these assumptions on public and private investment.

·       Objectively assessed housing need is not the same as a house building target.

·       Concerns were raised about the impact of housing development on traffic in the next 15 years, especially considering the current issues faced by traffic flow on the A34.

·       Scrutiny committee requires the proper information to scrutinise this and other processes – it was regrettable that many of the supporting documents – such as Infrastructure Delivery Plan - were not available at this time.

Panel responses to questions raised by the committee

·       The SHMA figures will be challenged through the Local Plan examination process and therefore the figures would have to stand up to robust external scrutiny.

·       The council has challenged the SHMA numbers through the SPIP (Spatial Planning and Infrastructure Partnership) and they are as robust as possible.

·       A lower house building target can only be set if the Council can demonstrate constraints and lack of land availability. Vale is not in this position.

·       The committee were referred again to the Cherwell inspector’s decision (Appendix 4 of the Committee report).

·       The Council does not have substantial and robust evidence to challenge the SHMA figures.

·       Extensive work had been conducted with the county council on a transport mitigation package to address growth.

·       Sensitivity testing to economic modelling and amendments can be made where necessary.

·       Much of the public investment presumed by the economic modelling is already committed and paid to the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) or is based around income generation powers which lie with this council (eg business rates).

Greenbelt/AONB/Site Selection

Committee concerns and questions raised

·       Cabinet was requested to remove greenbelt sites from the Local Plan as there has not been a  ...  view the full minutes text for item Sc160