Agenda item

Public participation

Asking a question and addressing the Board
Questions or requests to make an address (in full and in writing) must be received by 5pm on 2 June 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 Board and public speakers will be invited to speak at the meeting. 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

 

Note: This meeting may be recorded for live broadcast via the Growth Board’s YouTube Channel - at the start of the meeting the Chair will confirm the meeting is being filmed. By registering to speak you are consenting to being recorded and to the use of those video and audio recordings for webcasting.

Minutes:

The Chair indicated that in light of the meeting time constraints summary answers would be provided initially, but full responses would be made in writing and published in due course.

 

Michael Tyce made an address on behalf of CPRE Oxfordshire in which he expressed the CPRE’s caveated congratulations to the Growth Board for its expressed commitment to local planning decision making within the Oxford to Cambridge Arc as set out in its response to the Scrutiny Panel recommendation 6 on 22 March. In the CPRE’s view it was important for the planning decisions to be taken by those most affected by them, but it was concerned that the Growth Board’s response was open to misinterpretation as the statement that planning decisions should be taken at the “at the right level” could be taken to mean different things and that it was unclear whether a ‘planning decision’ related narrowly to the individual planning applications or more widely to include spatial strategies.

 

Mr Tyce expressed the view that the issue around the level of planning decisions was linked to the principle of whether wider plans for the Oxford to Cambridge Arc would be developed led by the informed wishes of local people and local decision making, or an approach which was primarily one of decisions centrally imposed by HM Government.  The Growth Board’s response to the Scrutiny Panel recommendation did not go far enough and should be clear and unequivocal. The public deserved to know how the process for the Arc was to be conducted and therefore it was unfortunate in his view in the spirit of engagement and transparency, that there had not yet been any consultation of the emerging Oxfordshire Plan 2050 spatial options with stakeholders like the CPRE and the public. This was a missed opportunity to gain valuable insights.

 

Whilst the CPRE recognised the need and potential benefits of economic growth and welcomed the recognition within the Oxfordshire Strategic Vision of the environment of being of equal value, absolute constraints on the amount of development in Oxfordshire were required to preserve quality of life and the county’s exceptional qualities.

 

The Chair responded to the address stating Growth Board members were happy to confirm their view that planning decisions should be taken at the local level wherever possible, using the local development framework which includes adopted local plans and neighbourhood plans.  Of course, the Board was obliged to have regard to national planning policy, and it was expected that the government led Arc Spatial Framework would in due course form an addition to national policy.  The Board did not expect the Arc Spatial Framework to supersede local plans or the Oxfordshire Plan 2050. The Growth Board believed it should focus on matters of regional significance and take a leading role in the national response to climate change. 

 

Ian Ashley asked a question on behalf of Need Not Greed Oxfordshire which asked local elected leaders to start joining up thinking around climate change and the natural world, informed by the societal changes arising from the Covid-19 pandemic, in particular the importance of good public health. Mr Ashly expressed the view that this required local leaders to keep their election pledges and oppose nationally led measures which would overheat the economy of the South East. Local leaders also needed to deal with a chronic underfunding of local government which previous leaders had tried unsuccessfully to address by commitments to provide housing in excess of local need. Local authorities in Oxfordshire were invited to withdraw from the Oxford to Cambridge Arc Leaders Group which it was argued had entrenched rather than addressed these issues.

 

The Chair responded that the view of the Growth Board was that it would  be unhelpful to disengage from regional discussions that affect Oxfordshire’s future, particularly when the Arc Leaders Group had been set up to give a voice to local leaders in responding to the Government’s Arc agenda. Thinking was increasingly joined up across the Arc with respect to climate change and the natural world, and this could be seen between the Arc Environment Principles, the Oxfordshire Strategic Vision, and a range of local action plans. The Growth Board expected to see an Arc Environment Strategy being developed soon. The Board had also lobbied HM Government on issues such as flooding and building standards to strengthen ability to act locally on climate change.  The Growth Board recognised the complexity and diversity of opinions when it comes to housing numbers, and we will pay close attention to the responses to the forthcoming consultation on the Oxfordshire Plan.

 

Councillor Jane Murphy asked a question which congratulated Councillor Smith for her actions as Chair of the Growth Board in the previous year and which referred to the achievements of the Board often not being fully recognised with many incorrect pre-conceptions around the role of the Board. Councillor Murphy expressed the view that rather than it being Oxfordshire’s enemy, engagement by the Growth Board with the Oxford to Cambridge Arc would be key to achieving collective aims to take forward policies around climate change, net zero and biodiversity. However, the name of the Growth Board was misleading, and the Growth Board was asked to reconsider this at its next meeting.

 

At the invitation of the Chair, Councillor Smith thanked Councillor Murphy for her kind remarks and commented that as she has set out earlier in the meeting, she felt that a name change for the Growth Board was needed and she wished to work with colleagues on this. In respect of the Oxford to Cambridge Arc she wished to clarify that the Oxford to Cambridge Arc was a HM Government project, not a Growth Board one and the spatial framework that was under development by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government might or might not, assist Oxfordshire in achieving net-zero and bio-diversity gains. Whilst Oxfordshire’s representatives on the Arc Leaders Group would continue to represent local concerns and issues there was no guarantee that these would be listened to. The action being taken through engagement with the Arc was with the aim of lobbying HM Government to take actions which would be as positive for local people and the environment as possible. 

 

Suzanne McIvor asked a question on behalf of Cherwell Development Alliance which referred to the principles expressed in the Oxfordshire Strategic Vision around reflecting local people’s opinions and priorities and expressed concern that these priorities had not themselves been subject to statutory consultation. Ms McIvor then expressed her view that the Oxfordshire Strategic Vision would not, despite announcements to the contrary by the Growth Board, have any effective influence over the development of the Oxfordshire Plan 2050. The Board was asked to explain how the Strategic Vision could be a ‘cornerstone’ of OP2050 if
fundamental aspects of the Strategic Vision, such as measuring outcomes and reporting, would still be incomplete during the period when the Oxfordshire Plan 2050 the Regulation 18, Part 2 consultation was taking place.

 

The Chair responded that the Strategic Vision had now been agreed by each of the six councils of Oxfordshire. As a result, the Growth Board would expect to see that the upcoming Oxfordshire Plan 2050 consultation had taken account of the Vision and its content.

 

Suzanne McIvor asked a question on behalf of Cherwell Development Alliance which referred to the legal status of the Oxfordshire Strategic Vision and stated the view of the Cherwell Development Alliance that the Strategic Vision would not strengthen the Board’s approach to strategic plan making. The Board was asked whether it had clarified its thinking on whether the Strategic Vision strengthened the Board’s approach to strategic plan-making and if so, what was the result and whether a legal opinion on this issue had been sought.

 

The Chair responded that the Board was confident that the Strategic Vision strengthens its approach to strategic plan-making by providing a clear vision of what the Board wanted Oxfordshire to look like in 2050, based on feedback from residents. With regards to the legal opinion, this commission was ongoing as part of wider legal opinion on the development of the Oxfordshire Plan.

Supporting documents:

 

Contact us - Democratic services

Phone icon

01235 422520
(Text phone users add 18001 before dialing)

Address icon

Vale of White Horse District Council
Abbey House, Abbey Close,
Abingdon
OX14 3JE