Members of the public may ask questions of the Chairman of the Growth Board, or address the Growth Board on any substantive item at a meeting, subject to the restrictions set out in the public participation scheme.
The total amount of time allowed for public participation at a meeting shall not exceed 30 minutes, unless the Chairman consents to extend that time in the interests of the proper conduct of the business of the Growth Board.
A person speaking to the Growth Board may speak for up to three minutes. Board members may ask questions for clarification.
Asking a question
Questions (in full and in writing) must be received by 5pm on three working days before the Growth Board meeting. A written or verbal answer will be provided by the Chairman at the meeting. The questioner may ask a supplementary question directly related to either the original question or the reply received.
Addressing the Board
Notice of a wish to address the Growth Board by making a statement must be received by 12 noon on the working day before the Growth Board meeting.
Petitions
Petitions on matters directly relevant to matters in which the Growth Board has powers and duties must be received by 5pm on three working days before the Growth Board meeting. The representative of the petitioners may speak. Petitions are referred without discussion to the next meeting.
Questions, petitions and notice of addresses must be submitted to democratic.services@oxfordshiregrowthboard.org or delivered/posted to Democratic Services, South Oxfordshire District Council, 135 Eastern Avenue, Milton Park, Milton, OX14 4SB.
Minutes:
The Growth Board received five public questions from members of the public.
1. Daniel Scharf MRTPI
The majority of the constituent councils are now operating
under a “Climate and Environmental
Emergency”. It should be safe to assume that this will frame
and inform all their future operations and decisions, as well as
those of the Growth Board?
In terms of “growth”, will the Growth Board now
commission work on how its preoccupation with economic growth could
be made consistent with the need to reduce carbon emissions in very
short order (i.e. heading for zero by 2030), and reverse the
collapse of biodiversity due to operations both within the County,
and through impacts elsewhere, but attributable to its
activities?
Answer
In reply, the Chair commented that as the Growth Board was a joint committee of the six councils of Oxfordshire (together with key strategic partners), the priorities of the constituent councils will shape the Growth Board’s operations and decisions.
In terms of planning, the balancing of social, environmental and economic objectives will be tested locally and explored through the preparation of the Oxfordshire Plan, particularly through a robust and comprehensive Sustainability Appraisal process.
At this point, speaking as in her capacity as Leader of South Oxfordshire District Council, Councillor Cooper set out the approach of South Oxfordshire District Council in declaring a climate change and environmental emergency and at her invitation, the other Leaders present set out the approach of their respectve councils.
2. Daniel Scharf MRTPI on behalf of Antony Melville
For the operation of the Growth Board to succeed, there needs to be a high level of trust by the public in the land use planning system, beginning with ensuring that growth does not take place at the expense of the environment.
A very clear example of how trust has broken down is the proposal to build an Expressway between Oxford and Cambridge. The construction of a new road, to enable 1 million car dependent houses to be built along a 'corridor' of movement, will substantially increase carbon emissions during a period when these must be eliminated. The energy intensive process of manufacturing new electric vehicles and batteries will mean that electrification of the road system will not result in a significant reduction in net carbon, without there being significantly fewer vehicles, that would remove the need for any new road building. It will be very hard to trust in promises of biodiversity gains. The National Infrastructure Commission, (NIC) has itself stated that new road building is a spur to the growth of car and road freight traffic (see NIC Congestion, capacity and carbon 2017).
Has the Growth Board been provided with any evidence regarding:
- the impact of electrification or automation of road traffic?
- the prejudice that the threat of a new road would have on completion of the rail link (i.e. make it less likely and/or less viable)? or,
- the increase in traffic and congestion on the A34 and other feeder roads along its length and at either end?
I have had lengthy correspondence with the NIC and there are no answers to these questions.
Answer
The Chair replied that the agenda for the meeting included an update on the Oxford to Cambridge Arc which she hoped Mr Scharf would find informative. The proposal to build an Expressway between Oxford and Cambridge is being led by Highways England on behalf of the Department for Transport, not the Oxfordshire Growth Board.
Many of the Oxfordshire councils have raised questions about the Expressway proposals and/or sought further information.
Highways England has indicated that it expects to undertake consultation on route options this autumn. It is likely that more information will be made available at that time.
3. Daniel Scharf MRTPI on behalf of Steve Dawe
There is a consensus that half the carbon associated with new housing is embodied in the building and associated infrastructure at practical completion, and before occupation [see National House Building Council (NHBC), the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) and the UK Green Building Council (UKGBC)]. This implies a moratorium on the use of concrete and masonry until the climate emergency is over, and meeting housing needs by concentrating on carbon negative materials and reducing the levels of under-occupation of the existing housing stock through incentivizing sub-divisions. 50% of houses in Oxford City have one and, more often, two spare bedrooms. Outside the City the number is closer to 80%.
In these circumstances, what specific measures are being taken by the Growth Board to ensure that 'embodied carbon' is taken fully into account to ensure that the building of housing, employment and associated infrastructure will approach net zero emissions by 2030?
Answer
The Chair responded that National Planning Policy allowed local planning authorities to set local requirements for building sustainability in a way that was consistent with HM Government’s zero carbon buildings policy and nationally described standards. Any local requirements for building sustainability must be informed by evidence and subject to consultation. The potential to establish Oxfordshire-wide requirements for building sustainability will be explored and tested through the Oxfordshire Plan process.
The issues of policy on zero carbon buildings was a matter for the local planning authorities rather than the Growth Board except for the Oxfordshire Plan 2050. Speaking as the Leader of South Oxfordshire District, South Oxfordshire is very keen to explore zero carbon building in future, but I am slightly concerned about the timing of any moratorium on the use of concrete and masonry. I hope that HM Government will soon upgrade building regulations which would be the easiest way of getting zero carbon buildings in place and that local councils do all that they can.
At the invitation of the Chair, Councillor Susan Brown commented on the question in relation to references to Oxford City. As part of its draft local plan, Oxford City had proposed very high environmental standards which would be considered as part of the local plan process and looked forward to an upgrade in national building regulations. In respect of empty rooms, the figure of 50% of houses in Oxford with one or more spare bedrooms was not recognised, rather her experience of Oxford was of people living in overcrowded conditions. There was a housing crisis in Oxford and a need to build new homes. Whilst there was a need to build to high environmental standards, she could not support a total moratorium on the use of concrete and masonry.
Daniel Scharf responded with a supplementary statement that the figures quoted had taken from the 2011 census. The Department for Housing, Communities and Local Government had informed him that building regulations would not cover the issue of embodied carbon because of the lack of an agreed methodology. For this reason, the organisations including the UK Green Building Council had been referenced and it was not possible to build out of the housing crisis without breaching carbon limits.
The Chair responded that, therefore, it looked likely that it would be up to local councils to achieve the highest standards that they could.
We note from the minutes of the Oxfordshire Plan 2050 Advisory Sub-Group, 18 April, that there is a table setting out the work required to develop the emerging evidence/evidence needed in support of the Plan. However, at the recent Oxfordshire Plan 2050 Stakeholder Forum, the Plan team appeared unable, or possibly unwilling, to answer the following question:
“Has an update to the Oxfordshire SHMA 2014 and/or an Oxford Green Belt Review been commissioned and, if so, will the Terms of Reference be made publicly available and when will the report/s be published?”
Can the Growth Board:
a) Please, give an answer to this question?
b) Undertake to make the table referenced above publicly available? (This would increase the transparency of the process and enable non-statutory organisations, that may well have access to vital and relevant evidence, to understand the timing and context in which this should be provided).
Answer
In reply the Chair commented that the Oxfordshire Plan will need to be supported by an appropriate level of evidence to satisfy an inspector that the plan is sound. This evidence will need to be appropriate to the scope, time period and geographical coverage of the Oxfordshire Plan.
The next stage of work on the Oxfordshire Plan includes identifying and testing options, including on levels of growth. As such further work on housing needs (to look at the whole plan period) is required inform those options. It is intended that the next stage of public consultation will explore and test those options and please feel free to participate in that consultation when it opens.
In 2015, consultants were commissioned by the Oxfordshire Growth Board to undertake an assessment of Green Belt within the County. The Councils are currently considering commissioning an update to the 2015 study to reflect more recent changes to Green Belt boundaries in emerging local plans as well as any recently completed development.
All of the evidence that will inform the choices to be made in the Oxfordshire Plan will be made publicly available in order that the options being tested, or later, the draft policies being promoted, can be considered in the light of the evidence available.
The table that has been shared with the Member Sub-group is a living list of the various streams of work being progressed to build the required evidence base, and is shown below:
|
Stream of work/Document |
Lead/Notes |
|
Sustainability Appraisal |
LUC commissioned |
|
Infrastructure Delivery Plan |
County Council leading on work |
|
Green Belt Assessment |
Considering commissioning an update to the 2015 study |
|
Local Industrial Strategy |
OxLEP leading on work |
|
Housing Needs Assessment and Economic Forecasting - part 1 |
Iceni Projects Ltd commissioned |
|
Employment Land Needs Assessment |
Included in above commission |
|
Living Labs |
County Council and LEP carrying out work |
|
Future role of town centres |
Topic paper |
|
Strategic Housing and Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) and Call for Ideas |
Oxfordshire Plan Team |
|
Viability/Deliverability |
To be commissioned later in project |
|
Health Impact Assessment |
Authority health specialists working on project |
|
Strategic Environmental Assessment |
Part of SA |
|
Habitats Regulation Assessment |
Ricardo commissioned |
|
Landscape, Heritage and Natural Capital |
Authority specialists working on project |
|
Strategic Flood Risk Assessment |
Use a combination of all five districts SFRA data |
|
Water Cycle Study |
Being commissioned |
|
Transport and connectivity |
To be commissioned with the County Council |
|
Energy |
Authority specialists working on project |
The Oxfordshire Plan 2050 is ostensibly shown to have both an "influencing" as well as "influenced by" relationship with both the Oxfordshire Local Industrial Strategy (LIS) and the Ox-Cam Arc. Indications are the LIS may be signed off by Government in early summer, risking pre-determining the Plan’s outcomes. Why, therefore, is there so limited visible discussion to date about these at Growth Board meetings or its subcommittee meetings or by the Growth Board's constituent local authorities’ committees?
Answer
The Chair replied that: The Oxfordshire Local Industrial Strategy had been developed over a number of months with several key stakeholder meetings with presentations on its progress from time to time through the Growth Board and a presentation was also given to the Oxfordshire Leader’s meeting recently. While the Growth Board reviews this strategy in its remit overseeing the Housing and Growth Deal (the LIS is part of our Deal), the governance for its adoption is through the Oxfordshire Local Enterprise Partnership. Once adopted it will be one strategy of many that will have influence to some extent on the emerging Oxfordshire Plan. Whilst non-statutory in nature it is still valuable evidence and strategic direction which needs to be considered and taken account of in the emerging Oxfordshire Plan. These were ongoing processes, not one offs and would need to be kept up to date.
As for the Oxford to Cambridge Arc, this will have little impact on the Oxfordshire Plan in the immediate future until more was known about it; over time, this may change to have greater influence and all these things would be kept up to date and under review. As outlined in the Spring Statement there is a commitment between local authorities and LEPs in the Arc to work collaboratively with Government to develop a shared ambition. It is expected the Growth Board and its constituent members will be active as that work develops which was still at the beginnings. If it did progress, the Arc would have an impact on the Oxfordshire Plan 2050 and if and when there was a material impact, due consideration for such impact will be considered by the Growth Board by updates. A key message was that the Oxford to Cambridge Arc was new and arrangements were still evolving.
Supplementary question
Sue Haywood asked a supplementary question. The comments made by the Chair of the Growth Board at the Scrutiny Panel meeting on 30 May and earlier that day about a review of the Growth Board’s processes in light of the new and developing relationships were welcomed. It had been a concern of Need Not Greed members that a number of matters had not come out to councillors in the individual Growth Board authorities for meaningful discussion, such as the intended Joint Declaration. Therefore, would the review of the Growth Board be able to consider the timing and dissemination of knowledge about the Growth Board to local councillors?
Supplementary answer
The Chair replied that she hoped that would be the case and that relevant timings would need to be part of the review including the timing of the Scrutiny Panel relative to the Growth Board meeting itself. In principle it was hoped that things would improve including the Growth Board’s communication with the public, councillors and local organisations.