Agenda item

Asking a question and addressing the Partnership
Questions or requests to make an address (in full and in writing) must be received by 5pm on 21 September 2022, three clear working days before the Future Oxfordshire Partnership meeting.

Questions and addresses should be no longer than one side of A4 paper in Arial 12 font. The address or question will be circulated to the Partnership 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 futureoxfordshirepartnership@southandvale.gov.uk

Note: This meeting may be recorded for live broadcast. 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.

At the beginning of the item, the Chair commented that full written responses

to public speakers as submitted would be provided in due course, but that the points raised would be taken into consideration as part of the Partnership’s discussion of the substantive agenda items they related to. A summary of the submitted questions is presented below:

Ian Green, on behalf of the Oxford Civic Society, made an address setting out several recommendations relating to the ending of the Oxfordshire Plan 2050 programme. He commented on the achievements made during the preparation of the Plan and suggested that the Partnership agree to the holding of public discussions on making the best use of this work.

The Oxford Civic Society recognised that in order to update the Local Plans of the district and city council, some form of agreement would need to be reached regarding both distribution and an Oxfordshire growth rate – this will be necessary as part of the legislative requirements of the Duty to Cooperate. As it is also important to continue to seek to optimise strategic infrastructure investment, Mr Green recommended that the Partnership publicly identify the strategic transport implications of each local authority establishing its own rate, pace, and distribution of housing growth. He also proposed that the Partnership agree that there should be a public debate on how the council’s separate Local Plans could be coordinated, synchronised, and integrated into Oxfordshire’s strategic plans.    

Finally, because an Oxfordshire spatial plan would have been a useful tool to optimise strategic investment and achieve economic, social, and environmental goals, the Partnership was asked whether the ending of the Oxfordshire Plan 2050 programme was a mistake which could send a negative message to HM Government and private sector investors.

Suzanne McIvor, on behalf of Need Not Greed Oxfordshire (NNGO), referred to the preparation of Oxford City Council’s Preferred Options document for its Local Plan 2040 which was due to go for public consultation at the start of October. As part of these activities, Oxford City had signalled its intention to commission work to establish its housing need using a methodology agreed with as many of its neighbouring authorities as possible. Mrs McIvor expressed NNGO’s view that Oxford City did not intend to adopt the standard method of calculating housing need but were instead attempting to find an alternative method which would result in higher levels of housing. In addition, Oxford City would also be looking to other districts to help with the housing needs that could not be met within its own boundaries.

The Partnership was also informed that independent planning consultants commissioned by the Cherwell Development Watch Alliance had, after a review of the Oxfordshire Growth Needs Assessment, concluded that based on projections from the Office for National Statistics there was an argument that a lower housing need figure could apply in Oxford City. In light of these issues the Partnership was asked if it:

1.     Agreed that the Duty to Cooperate was not a duty to cater for the growth ambitions of any particular local authority.

2.     Agreed that, given the fact that the OGNA was heavily criticised by a wide range of parties:

a.     It would not be appropriate to use the same consultants in taking forward preparation of an evidence base for any of the emerging Local Plans

b.     The tendering process for any such consultants should consider the amount of work they carry out for developers.

Professor Richard Harding, on behalf of CPRE Oxfordshire, referred to the end of the Oxfordshire Plan 2050 programme and the concerns of the CPRE given its support for spatial planning within Oxfordshire. In their view it was unfortunate that the councils pursuing what the CPRE regard as an aggressive growth agenda could not be persuaded that this would be in conflict with the Oxfordshire Strategic Vision. The Partnership was asked:

1.     How the public could be provided with a transparent and clear explanation as to where it had been possible through the Oxfordshire Plan 2050 programme for councils to reach agreement and where it had not, including reasons.

2.     If, as had been indicated, the inability to reach agreement had related to housing need alone, was it not possible to move forward with a broad spatial strategy that could guide development

3.     That there had been a number of strong emerging policies such as zero carbon that logically would best be applied at Oxfordshire level. Had these policies been agreed to, and if so, how could they now be taken forward. If they had not, how could they be agreed through a Local Plan based approach? 

4.     How could policies on renewables to taken forward?

Councillor Charlie Hicks, Oxfordshire County Council, had submitted a written question relating to the application of County Council policies – as set out in the Local Transport and Connectivity Plan (LTCP) – to the criteria used for the review of the Homes from Infrastructure programme (HfI). The Partnership was asked whether officers had been guided by the policies agreed at the start of the Housing and Growth Deal or whether references in past papers which suggested that the LTCP should be aligned to the work of the Partnership were correct. Councillor Hicks stated that if it was determined that Oxfordshire County Council policies did have weight for decisions relating to the HfI, in his review the current review of that programme would have to be rerun.

Dr Alison Hill, on behalf of Cyclox, made an address in relation to the review of the Homes from Infrastructure programme (HfI). In their view, higher priority had been given to road schemes which Cyclox consider would increase road traffic than to those projects which would promote and encourage active travel. Dr Hill expressed particular concerns regarding the suggested changes to the Woodstock Road scheme (which would have created the first safe cycling infrastructure along any of Oxford’s roads and had been developed following extensive stakeholder engagement) and the cost of the proposed Oxpens Bridge scheme (which is in the view of Cyclox in the wrong location). Overall, it was felt that the process leading up to the consideration of the proposals had been opaque, had not involved stakeholders and had failed to address the policies of the Local Transport and Connectivity Plan (LTCP).  

Robin Tucker, on behalf of the Coalition for Healthy Streets and Active Travel (CoHSAT), made an address in relation to the review of the Homes from Infrastructure programme (HfI). CoHSAT requested that the Partnership take into consideration that, although not part of the HfI programme, these schemes funded by the national Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF1) process were already contrary to the Local Transport and Connectivity Plan and the climate policies of Oxfordshire County, Vale of White Horse District and South Oxfordshire District Councils.

CoHSAT were also of the view that the impact of cost increases to capital works had fallen most heavily on sustainable transport with the proposed deletion of the Milton Heights project and significant reductions to the Woodstock Road scheme. In addition, they have concerns regarding both cost and location of the Oxpens Bridge proposal.

Councillor Lawrence Fouweather, Oxford city Council, asked several questions regarding the review of the Homes from Infrastructure programme (HfI). He expressed concerns regarding the decision-making process and commented that there was a danger of it being seen as decisions being made behind closed doors without oversight, scrutiny, or public engagement.

Councillor Fouweather also asked whether members of the Partnership had taken the opportunity to revaluate the proposals in view of the concerns expressed about the Oxpens Bridge scheme and went on to enquire if they had considered the cost benefit of this project compared to that at Milton Heights. He also wanted to know whether the Partnership had been able to properly factor in the various ways of using funding to support active travel on the Woodstock Road (including the scheme already paid for through the Housing and Growth Deal) and whether consideration had been given to how the impact of the large development in the North of Oxford might be supported.