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 Wednesday 20 November 2024 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.

There were three representations from members of the public. The full text of the representations is available here, but a summary is set out below:

Ian Green on behalf of the Oxford Civic Society made an address in which he asked three questions:

1)     Did the Future Oxfordshire Partnership agree that the proposed reset was premature, (and as proposed flawed) because of current unknowns around strategic planning and that the granting of decision-making powers without scrutiny oversight would not be right?

2)     Was the Future Oxfordshire Partnership, as currently set up, not ideally suited to address the imminent Planning and Infrastructure Bill and Devolution White Paper? This was on the grounds that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill was expected to introduce strategic inter authority planning and a strengthened Duty to Cooperate which in the opinion of the Civic Society would be of benefit to Oxfordshire and essential for planning for longer term infrastructure beyond Local Plan horizons. The Devolution White Paper might include proposals around local government reorganisation which the Partnership was well placed to consider.

3)     Should the Future Oxfordshire Partnership, (in whatever form), be better orientated towards public debate, bearing in mind the anticipated challenges of the Bill and White Paper, as current arrangements for public discussion of strategic issues being considered by the Partnership was considered to be inadequate. This included the recent expression of interest by the Oxfordshire local authorities to HM Government around exploring devolution options.

In light of these issues, the recommendation of the Oxford Civic Society was that the recommendations set out in the Partnership Reset report not be agreed.

In the absence of Councillor Katherine Foxhall, Kevin Jacob read out an address to the Future Oxfordshire Partnership in her capacity as Co-Chair of the South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse District Councils’ Joint Scrutiny Committee and personally, as a member of Vale of White Horse District Council.

The Joint Scrutiny Committee had recommended to the Leaders of South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse District Councils that:

1)     The Terms of Reference (TOR) of the Partnership be limited to where the Partnership adds value and to avoid duplication. Devolution, Local Area Energy Plans (LAEP), PAZCO, and the use of task and finish groups for other areas were suggested as areas where the FOP can add value.

2)     The Oxfordshire Strategic Vision must be front and centre as the democratic basis of any future iteration of the Partnership. Thematic Priorities must derive from delivery of aims of this Vision.

3)     There must be more clarity on accountability, transparency and scrutiny. It was noted that Partnership Scrutiny members were also worried about the lack of reference to scrutiny in the Reset paper, particularly if the Partnership is to have some powers delegated to it. Any powers must have equally weighted scrutiny.

4)     Leaders of Councils should be in charge of the work programme and ensure real results, delivery of priorities and added value.

5)     South and Vale Joint Scrutiny are very concerned about majority voting remaining in the Terms of Reference, rather than consensus.

6)     If less work is being carried out by the Partnership, there should be less cost to member councils of the Partnership.

In her personal capacity as a member of Vale of White Horse District Council Councillor Foxhall added that Leaders needed to justify what the very clearly what the Partnership was for and that it should be democratic, transparent and accountable. Otherwise, there was the risk it would be regarded as funnelling resources towards a talking shop of the Leaders without any attempt to consider if was necessary of if resources could be better used elsewhere.

In the absence of Councillor Sarah James, Kevin Jacob read out an address to the Future Oxfordshire Partnership in her capacity as member of the Vale of White Horse District Council.

Councillor James set out that her overall impression having listened to the deliberations of the Partnership’s Scrutiny Panel was that there was confusion and contradiction regarding the current nature and powers of the Partnership, let alone the proposed reset and drew attention to what she regarded as responses that could be regarded as being contradictory around the Partnership’s current powers to take decisions from Councillor Leffman and Councillor Thomas.

A concern was that the Partnership’s purpose, areas of responsibility and responsibility are poorly defined and that the Scrutiny Panel has struggled to find a clear and effective role. This mattered because Partnership required resources to maintain it, either directly or indirectly and therefore it was important to examine what worked well and represented value for money and what duplication, distraction or even hindrance to the work of the councils individually.

Considering the discussions of the Panel, which had not given her a sense of confidence, there was a need for Leaders to have open and frank discussion of the expectations and aims of all partners so these could be understood.