Agenda item

For action: To consider further recommended changes to the Homes from Infrastructure Programme because of a further review of the programme’s current cost pressures, to include an assessment of Oxpens bridge and an assessment of any additional schemes identified as being suitable for inclusion in the programme.

The Partnership considered proposals which represented the outcome of a joint approach across all local authority officers to seek to rebalance the Homes from Infrastructure programme (HfI). John McLauchlan, Head of the Infrastructure Planning Office, Oxfordshire County Council, commented that:

·           The concerns expressed by the Scrutiny Panel regarding report process were acknowledged. Because of the joint and collective approach to the development of the proposals there had been a degree of additional complexity to the sign off process which had unfortunately delayed circulation of the proposals to the Panel. This was regretted and lessons would be learnt.

·           A review of the Programme was required because it had become imbalanced resulting in a need for a net reduction of £6.495m.

·           While the criteria used to review the individual schemes within the programme had sought to recognise nuances around issues such as active travel and connectivity, a key part of the assessment criteria was the acceleration of housing as stipulated within the Oxfordshire Housing and Growth Deal. Other considerations included the protection of external funding already allocated within the Oxfordshire system.

·           Proposals to remove schemes from the programme or to reduce the HfI funding allocated to them did not mean that they were no longer regarded as vital infrastructure projects within the county. It remained a collective priority to seek to find alternative funding for those schemes.

·           Unfortunately, as a result of the significant inflationary pressures facing the construction industry, the original programme was no longer deliverable and it was felt that that current proposals was the most balanced programme that could be achieved.

Councillor Leffman, commenting on the proposals as both Leader of Oxfordshire County Council (the responsible authority for the HfI programme) and as the Chair of the Infrastructure Advisory Group, stressed to the Partnership that the proposals before them represented the best available outcome of a programme review based on a total funding envelope of £150m. Nevertheless, it was important to highlight that if HM Government did not make the final expected instalment of £30m (which had been expected in September) it would be necessary to revisit the review based on a budget of £120m. It also had to be recognised that there were significant inflationary cost pressures which were likely to persist in the medium term.

Councillor Leffman appreciated and understood the concerns raised by the public speakers and the Scrutiny Panel in relation to active travel, but while its promotion remained a key objective, the HfI had not been designed with it as a key criterion. Officers from across the county would still, however, continue to look for potential alternative funding mechanisms – including the possible application of S106 funding.

The Chair echoed Councillor Leffman’s comments regarding the objectives of the HfI programme. It had been designed and agreed with the Oxfordshire Housing and Growth Deal as a housing investment fund to support the acceleration of housing delivery and was not a transport fund. There was, nevertheless, a need to be ready to be able to bid at short notice for any extra sources of funding that might become available.

Councillor Levy agreed that the situation was unfortunate and acknowledged that given the circumstances the proposals represented the best available outcome. He stated that in his opinion, active travel and housing were inextricably linked and reminded the meeting that all of the local authorities represented were committed to the promotion of sustainable, healthy alternatives to the car – road schemes, therefore, did not need to be at the heat of housing delivery.

Moreover, while Councillor Levy acknowledged that the proposals had been considered by the appropriate body in the shape of Infrastructure Advisory Group, he, nevertheless, stated that in his view it was not entirely clear how the choices and decisions had been arrived at because the details of the assessment working had not been made available.

Councillor Smith stated her discomfort with the decision before the Partnership. While she understood and appreciated the acute time pressures, if the matter was before her own council, she would have expected additional information to have been made available regarding the proposals – thereby, allowing the public to understand the decision being made. Councillor Smith also made reference to the Scrutiny Panel’s query regarding the identity of the final decision makers (the Partnership or Oxfordshire County Council). In addition, she expressed the view that if there were to be deals in the future with HM Government to fund infrastructure over several years, there should be an insistence that the budget be index-linked. 

Councillor Smith acknowledged that the HfI programme was intended to provide infrastructure to accelerate and unlock the delivery of the 100,000 new homes agreed too. Therefore, in looking at the proposals the main consideration was housing and the importance of protecting funding that would bring forward the largest numbers of homes (for example, Lodge Hill junction and Witney). While recognising this fact, she was, however, unclear about the reasoning behind some of the changes to other schemes – in particular, the reduction in the allocation for the proposed Milton Heights bridge which would not only have unlocked 70 additional homes, but also enabled residents from Milton Heights to walk and cycle to Milton Park in line the ambitions contained with the Local Transport and Connectivity Plan. Notwithstanding these specific concerns, Councillor Smith understood the need for schemes to be deliverable within a short time scale and also recognised the objective of not losing funding. Therefore, on balance, she was prepared to support the proposals, but reiterated that removal of funding through the HfI programme did not mean the scheme was not considered to be important and officers would work with others to achieve this.

The Chair, in summing up, commented that his understanding was that the proposals had to be endorsed by the Partnership, but that their implementation rested with Oxfordshire County Council as the accountable body. He did, however, recognise that there was merit around considering how similar type of issues might be considered in the future to improve processes. With regard to the consideration of the index linking of the Housing and Growth Deal budgets, this was a valid point, but when it had been originally negotiated, inflation had been at historically low levels.

RESOLVED: That the changes to the Home from Infrastructure Programme as set out in the circulated presentation be endorsed by the Future Oxfordshire Partnership.