To receive any questions or statements from members of the public that have registered to speak.
Minutes:
Two members of the public had registered to ask a question as set out below.
A. Mr Illingworth had submitted the following question to the Leader of the council but was unable to attend the meeting.
“This Council is currently contributing to the £120,000 cost of the review and update of the Oxfordshire Strategic Economic Plan, which is being led by the Oxfordshire Local Enterprise Partnership (OxLEP).
In the past, the Strategic Economic Plan has been largely developed in a silo and signed off behind closed doors but has gone on to have significant impacts including influencing housing targets and the contents of Local Plans, as well as broader strategies such as transport.
In the light of our climate and biodiversity emergencies, we know a step-change is required in how we consider these issues. For example:
· The House of Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee states that behavioural change is essential for achieving climate and environment goals, and for delivering wider benefits;
· The BEIS Independent Net Zero Review, published on 13th January states, ‘None of this will happen without a step change in the government’s approach to delivering net zero’; and the
· Oxfordshire Net Zero Route Map & Action Plan Final Report.
The size of the challenge to achieve net zero carbon by 2050 at latest will require a considerable step change in activity. We need to embed climate change into decision making across Oxfordshire’s local authorities.
But indications from the series of workshops led by OxLEP suggest that:
· The primary aim remains economic growth, with the environment, net zero and wellbeing featuring as issues to be managed rather than front and centre.
· The timetable appears to be focused on speed (getting it done and dusted by June initially, but now the autumn) which apparently does not allow time for public consultation.
· Overall, the level of engagement has been low and primarily focused on members of the Future Oxfordshire Partnership, including the universities and OxLEP. There has been very little representation from the diverse Oxfordshire population, including those economic and socially disadvantaged communities that might be viewed as having the most to gain from a robust Strategic Economic Plan.
Given the above, can the Leader:
a) Explain why the SEP review is being pushed through at such speed and without meaningful engagement with relevant communities?
b) Provide reassurance that the draft new Strategic Economic Plan will at the very least go through a full Scrutiny process and be brought to a full Council meeting for approval, prior to the Leader voting on it at an OxLEP Board Meeting?"
Councillor Fawcett, Deputy Leader and Cabinet member for strategic partnerships and place undertook to provide a written response.
B. Mr Salmons asked the following question of Councillor Thomas, Leader of the council:
“Residents living on Great Western Park, Didcot continue to endure the use of a site at the northern edge of the estate as a temporary construction compound by the developers and their subcontractors.
The use of the site for this purpose is not only an eyesore, but
generates noise, dust, and smells which are detrimental to
neighbouring residential uses. It also presents a risk to
wildlife, including deer who are often seen clambering on
piles of building waste stored precariously on the
site. It is a far cry from the wildflower meadow approved for
the site ten years ago.
The continued use also appears to be delaying the delivery of the
long-overdue allotments immediately to the north of the site, as
well as the approved landscaping arrangements for the wider
area of public open space, which remains inaccessible to
residents, despite many having purchased their homes over a
decade ago.
The compound is clearly no longer reasonably required in
connection with the Great Western Park development. The last
homes were completed some time ago. Officers are aware,
through their discussions with the developers, that at least
some of the material stored on the site is intended to be used
on a completely different development.
Documents obtained in response to a FOI request reveal the
developers pleaded with the Council to have these areas of
public open space adopted over a year ago. It appears even
they no longer want this use to continue.
The issue has been raised multiple times with local Councillors,
and formal allegations have been received by the Council, but
Planning Officers have refused to take action, claiming there
is no evidence of a planning breach.
Could the Leader of the Council clarify whether the Council's
failure to take action on this matter is in any way related to
the scandalous scheme this Council has been advancing
alongside South Oxfordshire District Council to repurpose the
site as a permanent grounds maintenance depot for its own use, for
which the temporary use has been cited as an
excuse?"
Councillor Thomas undertook to provide a written response to the question.
Four members of the public addressed Council in support of Motion B at agenda item 12 as detailed below:
· Matt Twiss, Chair of the Anderson Place Residents’ Association.
· Carl Simpson, representing Jim French who was unable to attend the Council meeting – both residents of Anderson Place.
· Mark Bradfield, of Letcombe Brook Project.
· Gavin Attard, a resident of Steventon and member of GARD (Group Against Reservoir Development)
They made the following points:
· There were deficiencies in the planning system that, on the face of it, permit developers and utility providers to design, approve and construct what appears to be, non-compliant infrastructure.
· Housing development had given rise to significant public health and safety risks, actual raw sewage contamination and hefty ongoing costs for all current and future residents.
· Developers, planning and Thames Water all have a critical role to play to ensure that the correct infrastructure is put in place, from the outset, in order to eliminate all risk of sewage flooding incidents.
· Questioned whether the Pump Station at Anderson Place was built to the correct standards and what can be done to ensure that it is acceptable to be adopted by Thames Water.
· The Environment Agency had insufficient resources, due to budget cuts, to adequately monitor water quality.
· Existing sewage treatment works in Wantage did not have the capacity to deal with the existing population and, with increased house building and population growth, there was an urgent need for investment to upgrade the facility.
· Suitable planning conditions required to ensure sufficient capacity was added prior to building or occupation. Without such measures the water quality would continue to deteriorate causing environmental damage and a risk to public health.
· The parallel issue relating to lack of maintenance and investment was the leakage of supplied water – Thames Water has the largest percentage leak rate of any UK water company and only intend to reduce leakages in Oxfordshire by 14% by 2050 in contrast to a target of 50% across their area.