Agenda item

Asking a questionand addressing the Board

Questions or requests to make an address (in full and in writing) must be received by 5pm on Wednesday 20 January 2021 three clear working days before the Growth Board meeting.

Questions and addresses should be no longer than one side of A4 paper in Arial 12 font. The statement or question will be circulated to the Panel and public speakers will 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 or if the person making the request for public speaking is not able to attend the meeting.  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. Questions and notice of addresses must be submitted to democratic.services@oxfordshiregrowthboard.org

Councillor Debby Hallett, Deputy Leader of Vale of White Horse District Council, submitted a question which was put in her absence. The question referred to concerns about the affordability of housing with Oxfordshire (this had been the subject of an earlier question to the Growth Board in 2019). It requested an update on the work done to establish the accurate scope and nature of the county’s affordability issues. It also asked what decisions had been taken by either the Oxfordshire Plan 2050 team, or the wider Housing and Growth Deal Team, to consider the issues affecting the affordability of housing. 

In response, the Chair commented that the task of establishing the need for affordable housing within Oxfordshire – including an assessment of the scale, type and rent levels – was the responsibility of the district councils. A summary of their different strategies had been provided to the Growth Board Scrutiny Panel (this was available within the full written response to the question).

All of Oxfordshire’s local authorities recognised that market rents within the county were at such a level that the charge allowed by the national definition of affordable housing would still not be within the price range of many working people. The Housing and Growth Deal programme, nevertheless, through funding, supported the ambitions of the districts to provide affordable housing. In its first two years, 528 affordable housing units (split between different housing tenures) had been delivered by the Deal – a further 794 units would be delivered during the rest of the programme period. 

While the Affordable Housing Subgroup had considered whether the Growth Board could adopt a localised definition of affordable housing, it had concluded that this was a matter for districts to determine – in their role as local planning authorities. Work was, however, being undertaken within the county to develop a policy approach to help address issues around the affordability of housing. For example, as part of the Oxfordshire Plan 2050, evidence base data and existing strategies would be considered as part of the Growth Needs Assessment.

The Growth Board recognised and supported the view of all of Oxfordshire’s councils that securing genuinely affordable housing was a priority. It would, therefore, continue to work to support that ambition.

Michael Tyce submitted a question on behalf of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE Oxfordshire). The question referred to future new housing numbers for Oxfordshire and a suggestion that the National Infrastructure Commission was proposing an additional one million homes within the Oxford to Cambridge Arc – of which 250,000 would be allocated to Oxfordshire. Although these figures have been disowned, a report from Bidwells Property Consultants had claimed that the figures would be 50% higher over both the Arc and Oxfordshire. The Board was, therefore, asked, in light of comments attributed to the Chair, what figure for new housing it would seek to moderate towards?  

In response, the Chair stated that, as both a member of the Arc Leaders Group and as one of the Growth Board’s representatives on the Oxford to Cambridge Arc, specific housing numbers/targets had not featured as part of their discussion with MHCLG. Further, the housing numbers identified in the question did not have any status in planning policy and that the only known housing figures for Oxfordshire were those identified in the district’s local plans.

The development of the Oxfordshire Plan 2050 would include a new assessment of housing need based on tested evidence base. Once this work had been completed, there would be a wide-ranging public consultation on several to gather the views of residents and test options further. Speculation about the outcome of that work and of the consultation was therefore not appropriate. HM Government had identified the Oxford to Cambridge Arc as a economic region to invest in and the Growth Board’s ‘objective’ in relation to this HM Government led project was to continue to engage with its neighbours and partners across the Arc to ensure the best possible outcomes for Oxfordshire.

With the permission of the Chair, Michael Tyce asked a supplementary question. The Growth Board was asked whether it was still the plan, (despite evidence which in the opinion of the CPRE was to the contrary) for Oxfordshire to produce an Oxfordshire Plan 2050 plan almost entirely founded upon the ambitions of local people for the future of the county, or was the plan at best, to modify whatever ‘growth at all costs’ plan was handed down by HM Government over the heads of Oxfordshire’s people? 

In response, the Chair stated that the Oxfordshire Plan 2050 would be based on the needs and wants of the county – as shaped and directed by the Oxfordshire Vision.  

Andrew Down, Chair of the Growth Board Executive Officer Group, added that the Oxfordshire Plan 2050 would be a local plan. It would, therefore, have to be considered and adopted by each of the local planning authorities within the county.

Moreover, while it was not possible to state with certainty what the Oxford to Cambridge Arc Strategic Framework – a HM Government initiative – would say, it did not currently refer to housing numbers. Nevertheless, the expectation was that while the Framework would not be statutory, it would, to some extent, form part of national policy. Consequently, the Growth Board would be obliged to take it into account – it would not, therefore, be possible for Oxfordshire (or any local authority within the Arc geographical area) to avoid its implications.