Any statements, petitions, and questions from the public under standing order 32 will be made or presented at the meeting.
Minutes:
Four members of the public had registered to address Cabinet as follows:
1 Dr Les Clyne has asked Democratic Services to read the following statement regarding the Grove airfield development:
“At the Council meeting on December 16th 2015, in response to a question from me to the meeting, Councillor Barber agreed to provide me with some written information. As the draft minutes state:
'In response Matthew Barber thanked Dr Clyne for his question and continued interest in this matter. He confirmed that the council had requested updates and every deadline had been missed. He confirmed that he would provide Dr Clyne with an update when further responses were received and provide a written response of this answer with additional information about responses received to date.'
I have asked again for the 'additional information about responses received to date.' since the deadline for getting this information after the Council meeting has passed, but to date (13 January 2016) I have received nothing. Please could the Leader keep his promise and send me the information about the developers' responses to date concerning the latest delays to the Section 106 agreement for the Grove airfield development, otherwise I will have to request it via the Freedom of Information route which takes another 20 working days.”
The Democratic Services Officer read the following reply from Councillor Matthew Barber that was sent to Dr Clyne on 13 January 2016:
“The developers of Grove airfield are continuing to negotiate with several land owners to reach agreement on land acquisitions. Once we receive confirmation of a successful outcome we will work speedily towards completion of the section 106 planning agreement. At this time we don't have any reliable information on timescales and we'd rather not speculate as we aren't in control of the negotiations. We are very frustrated by the delay.”
2 Dr Stephen Parkinson made a statement urging Cabinet not to adopt the Botley Centre supplementary planning document. He questioned what had happened to the stated aim of the document, why consultation responses had been ignored, and why no protection had been given to Field House. He questioned why the revised document used a changed terminology from development ‘site’ to ‘study area’. He concluded this by-passed criticism and conflicted with community needs.
3 Mary Gill asked why the council intended to adopt the Botley Centre supplementary planning document? She believed that the document was an area action plan, not a supplementary planning document, as it was based on Doric’s failed planning application and prepared in the light of Mace’s intentions. Instead it should consider reasonable alternatives. She questioned the justification for the policies in the document, such as an eight-storey element to a corner building on the site. She believed that the council had not maintained a separation between the council’s property and planning functions.
4 Neil Rowley on behalf of Savills made a statement in support of the supplementary planning document. While his client did not support every aspect of the document, he believed it provided a reasonable framework within which to work.