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:

·         South Councillor John Walsh; substitute Jeannette Matelot

·         Vale Councillor Alice Badcock

To adopt and sign as a correct record the minutes of the committee meeting held on 22 September 2016 (attached). 

The committee agreed that the minutes of the meeting of 22 September 2016 were an accurate record and the Chairman signed them as such.

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

None.

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

None.

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

Colin Thomas, Annie Thomas and Tony Wood had registered to address the committee (see Minute 30 below).

Representatives of OxLEP have been invited to the Committee to give a presentation on and answer members’ questions on the SEP.

Nigel Tipple, Chief Executive and Dawn Pettis, Economic Development Strategy Officer, are expected to attend. 

OxLEP representatives Nigel Tipple, chief executive and Dawn Pettis, strategy manager, attended to give a presentation on and answer questions on the Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) and to answer questions on both this and on the partnership.

The presentation covered the following:

The SEP refresh timetable

A snap-shot of the priorities and actions

The purpose of the SEP

Colin Thomas, a representative of Sunningwell Parishioners Against Damage to the Envionment (SPADE), asked the following question:

“Across the country LEPs are driving up housing targets on the back of unrealisable growth projections. Oxfordshire is no different, with the LEP, promoting rates of growth that have never consistently been achieved. It is a flimsy basis on which District authorities are being forced to release more and more land for housing. The LEP promotes the idea that this area will economically out-perform other areas – but every other LEP seems to think the same and that its areas will be at the leading edge of something or other and out-perform the others. Each is competing for the same workers to fulfil its aspirations for growth, and each is planning to build houses for those same workers. 

Mr Tipple - your own analysis of consultation responses to the SEP refresh shows an overwhelming criticism of the growth targets.  If you will not take note of the overwhelming responses to the consultation, will you in the light of Brexit, which will limit the total workforce available, with your partner local authorities now re-examine those growth targets so that district authorities like the Vale and South are not in the position of being forced to feed land grabbing developers which will do absolutely nothing to deliver truly affordable housing so badly needed by the people of the Vale?”

The OxLEP representatives replied that the growth targets in the SEP had been drawn up in consultation with Oxfordshire’s local authorities.  In the last four years 29,000 jobs had been created and housing completion rates had increased significantly.

Annie Thomas, a representative of SPADE asked the following question:

“The LEP claims in the executive summary of the redrafted SEP that the SEP “responds to substantial engagement from the county’s businesses, universities, research institutions, local authorities, voluntary and community sectors, and many of its residents”.

We remind you that only 262 responses to the SEP refresh public consultation were received.  73% of the responses raised extreme concerns over the aggressive growth strategy being proposed.  It appears the LEP failed to adequately engage the business community (and even after having a hastily convened second go, possibly at the bequest of the criticism from Local Authorities) the LEP still has written responses from only 15 businesses.

We believe that this is not the “wide endorsement” the LEP claims. Our question to you as members is “are you, as the only democratically people with a democratic mandate in the South and Vale responsible for local planning, willing to endorse a plan which shapes the future of our communities to 2031 and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

To review the attached scrutiny work schedule. Please note, although the dates are confirmed, the items under consideration are subject to being withdrawn, added to or rearranged without further notice.

The committee noted its current work schedule.