Agenda item

Asking a question

Questions (in full and in writing) must be received by 5pm on Wednesday 22 July 2020 three clear working days before the Growth Board meeting.

Addressing the Board

Notice of a wish to address the Growth Board (in full and in writing) must be received by 12 noon on Monday 27 July 2020, the working day before the Growth Board meeting. 

Questions and addresses should be no longer than one side of A4 paper in Ariel 12 font. The address or question will be circulated to the Growth Board and read out by the democratic services officer or Chair on behalf of those who have submitted them. A response may be given at the meeting or a written answer supplied. The Chair will have discretion to manage the public participation procedure as they see appropriate.Public speakers may be invited to speak at the virtual meeting, subject to technical arrangements being in place. Written submissions may also be read out by the Chair or Democratic Services Officer where requested

Questions and notice of addresses must be submitted to democratic.services@oxfordshiregrowthboard.org

Charlie Hicks submitted a question which challenged the Growth Board to consider planning for Oxfordshire in 2050 from the perspective of people born in the 1990s. He advocated for the application of the good design principles used in the tech sector. These would primarily focus on the needs of future users rather than on the requirements of the present population.

The Chair thanked Charlie for raising the subject of engagement with young people. She stated that this was an important issue for her. In relation to the Growth Board, Councillor Smith responded that it was a collaboration of local council and system leaders with the purpose of coordinating efforts to maximise economic, housing and infrastructure developments in an inclusive and beneficial way.

The voice of young people was regarded as critical in informing work on the development of the Oxfordshire Plan 2050. Several workshops had already taken place which had put young people at the centre of the process – this has included one with the Voice of Oxfordshire’s Youth. In addition, a successful work placement had been offered to a student from the City of Oxford College with the express purpose of assisting with communicating and engaging with young people. It was, nevertheless, recognised that more could be done and that a wider diversity of voices needed to be heard. 

Decisions pertaining to the content of the Oxfordshire Plan 2050 would be taken by councillors within the county’s different local authorities. They had been elected to represent the views of all of their constituents. It was, nevertheless, also recognised that more could be done to improve the diversity of councillors.

Helen Marshall on behalf of CPRE Oxfordshire referred to the development of the Oxfordshire Growth Needs Assessment (OGNA). She asked the Growth Board whether it could provide reassurance to Oxfordshire’s residents that it would prioritise sustainable development and quality of life in light of concerns that the OGNA was merely a new version of the Oxfordshire Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA).

CPRE regarded SHMA as an inflationary growth strategy and were, therefore, alarmed that the same consultants were being used for the production of the OGNA. Moreover, CPRE had additional concerns relating to: the lack of publicly available terms of reference for the OGNA, the influence of the Local industrial Strategy and the Oxford to Cambridge Arc wide sales prospectus.  

The Chair responded that officers had confidence in the integrity of the firms undertaking work in relation to the OGNA. Further, their efforts were being professionally overseen. It was recognised that this was difficult and sensitive work given that there was little precedent to help inform the development of such a strategy.

The importance of transparency was also noted. The Growth Board was committed to providing this in respects of the OGNA once it had been developed. The Chair also commented that the OGNA work was not policy, nor was it the sole determining evidence for the shared ambitions and goals of the Oxfordshire local authorities or the Growth Board. Assurances were given that the Growth Board, and its constituent Local Planning Authorities, would be scrutinising both the emerging Oxfordshire Plan 2050 and its evidence base. They would ensure that sustainable development, well-being and quality of life would be at the heart of the Plan.

Julia Benning on behalf of Need Not Greed Oxfordshire (NNGO), submitted a question welcoming steps towards the inclusion of social and environmental considerations within the proposed revised Terms of Reference for the Growth Board. She, nevertheless, expressed concern that this would be meaningless whilst the emphasis of the Growth Board remained on managing the impacts of growth. The question advocated the adoption by the Growth Board of the ‘Doughnut Economic’ model as that used by the city of Amsterdam and asked the Growth Board to:

·          Amend the proposed purpose of the Board (as set out Para 1.1, Appendix 1, Agenda Item 5) to seek only sufficient economic growth to support organic population growth rather than unconstrained business expansion and jobs growth?

·           Ensure that this principle was enshrined in any Arc-wide prospectus?

·           Ensure that any such prospectus did not pre-empt the considerations of the Oxfordshire 2050 Plan and was prepared in an open and transparent manner, including public consultation and debate/vote at full council meetings?

·           And meanwhile ensure that the terms of reference for the OxCam Arc Leaders Group and Executive Sub-Group are subject to public debate and consultation, with no further meetings of the OxCam Arc Leaders/Chief Executives/Executive Group taking place unless such meetings are held in public (virtually, if necessary), with published agendas and minutes, and with the opportunity for members of the public to ask questions and address the Groups?

The Chair responded that as part of the Growth Board review over 250 responses, including that of NNGO, had influenced the shaping of the revised Growth Board Terms of Reference. She commented that the Terms of Reference for the Oxford to Cambridge Arc Leaders Group would be made public soon. As a non-statutory organisation, the Arc had no powers to decide on local planning matters and through regular updates to its meetings, the Growth Board was aiming to increase visibility of the working taken place at an Arc level. The Oxfordshire Plan 2050 would be central to public discussions and votes across local authorities.

Professor David Rogers submitted a written address quoting remarks made by the Growth Board Director in Item 10, Oxford to Cambridge Arc Update. These related to the Arc Leadership Group urging the development of a high-level prospectus ahead of the anticipated Comprehensive Spending Review and the example of a pitch submitted by the West Midlands Combined Authority. Professor Rogers expressed concern that the document cited did not mention protecting or enhancing the natural environment and, therefore, was not an appropriate approach for the Oxford to Cambridge Arc to follow.

In response, the Growth Board Director commented that the reference to the West Midlands Combined Authority was to highlight the type of document that could be potential produced and was not intended to convey an endorsement of its contents. The Arc’s narrative was one based on quality of life and the need for clean and green recovery.

Councillor Kate Gregory on behalf of the Thame Ward councillors of South Oxfordshire District Council submitted an address regarding the Thame to Haddenham combined walking and cycling route. She commented that the local community had recently become aware that the Growth Board funding for the dedicated cycle route to Haddenham Station had been withdrawn. It was believed that the reason for this decision was that the scheme no longer met the required criteria for the provision of infrastructure to support new homes in Thame. The Growth Board was asked to seek more flexibility from HM Government and Oxfordshire County Council in the use of infrastructure funding. Councillor Gregory stated that, in her view, the cycle route did support housing delivery and would provide a dedicated and safe commuter connection to Haddenham Station.

In response, the Growth Board Director commented that the funding provided under the Housing and Growth Deal was designed to deliver infrastructure to unlock and accelerate the provision of housing. In the case of the Thame and Haddenham cycle route, the significant reduction in the estimated levels of housing unlocked by the scheme, meant that it no longer met the required current value for money criteria. He, nevertheless, suggested that the scheme was a pertinent example of the current deal being overly focused on accelerating housing numbers rather than supporting greater quality of life and the Covid-19 recovery.

The Growth Board confirmed that they wished to work with Oxfordshire County Council to find a way to unlock the Thame to Haddenham scheme. They felt it was a worthwhile project and, therefore, it remained on the County Council’s Capital Programme. In addition, the frustration of the local community was understood and, therefore, more information regarding the basis of the decision would be published by the weekend if possible.

In discussion, Board members expressed support for the scheme in principle but acknowledged that it had failed to meet the current criteria for infrastructure deal funding. They, nevertheless, felt there was the potential funding for other funding streams to be explored.