Agenda item

Public participation

Asking a question

Questions (in full and in writing) must be received by 5pm on Wednesday 27 May 2020 three clear working days before the Growth Board meeting.

 

Addressing the Board

Notice of a wish to address the Growth Board (in full and in writing) must be received by 12 noon on Monday 1 June 2020, the working day before the Growth Board meeting. 

 

Questions and addresses should be no longer than one side of A4 paper in Ariel 12 font. The address or question will be circulated to the Growth Board and read out by the democratic services officer or Chair on behalf of those who have submitted them. 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 democratic.services@oxfordshiregrowthboard.org

Minutes:

 

Julia Benning on behalf of Need Not Greed Oxfordshire submitted a question. It challenged what was felt to be an implicit assumption that, despite the impacts of Covid-19, the Oxford to Cambridge Arc and the Expressway would go ahead unchanged. It also articulated the view that a greater emphasis needed to be placed on the provision of green infrastructure within the Oxfordshire Infrastructure Strategy. The Growth Board was asked to provide answers to the following specific questions.

 

a)             How will it put environmental considerations, including climate change but also biodiversity, food production and access to green space, at the heart of the OxIS revision, including decision-making on spatial strategy, and how will this be reflected in the brief to external consultants?

John Disley, Infrastructure delivery Manager at Oxfordshire County Council, responded that it was recognised that the OxIS update would need to be developed in the context of a changed policy environment. In particular, the updated objectives as set out in section 2 of the Outline Project Brief and Scope of Work reflected the key theme of the Environment (including addressing the climate emergency). The external consultants work would need to build on the latest evidence base. This would help to ensure that OxIS reflected the infrastructure priorities across this entire area.

The OxIS update was proposed to be carried out in two stages to align with, and support, the Oxfordshire Plan 2050 Regulation 18 (spatial options) and Regulation 19 (submission consultations. This would allow it to develop iteratively through the consultation process. The expectation was that the OxIS update would form the infrastructure evidence base for the Oxfordshire Plan.

 

b)             Which partners/stakeholders does the Growth Board propose to work with to ensure that the evidence base is available and used to best effect to support the necessary step-change of investment in Oxfordshire’s green infrastructure and to guide any funding obtained to where it can be most effective (rather than simply a rather random wish-list of projects, no matter how noteworthy)?

 

John Disley responded that it was planned to engage with a wide variety of key infrastructure stakeholders including those involved in the delivery of green infrastructure, utilities, education, health facilities and transport. This would ensure that the Growth Board had the most up-to-date data set for OxIS, and that the relevant policy and strategy was understood and reflected in the work. Wider engagement on the draft Stage 1 study was planned in early 2021 (alongside the first Oxfordshire Plan consultation) This would ensure that wider stakeholders had the opportunity to review and comment on outputs prior to the finalisation of the study.

 

Charlotte Ritchie submitted a question in relation to the Oxford City Council Local Plan. In view of the fact that:

a)     Any investment in infrastructure to boost local economies should and will take place in the north of England, and that

b)     Oxford's 'housing need' is unclear, and that

c)     The Green Belt, once destroyed cannot be reclaimed, that its destruction contradicts the aims of sustainability, biodiversity and ecosystemic balance, and in particular government policy as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs:7-14,117-123 and 133-147, and that

d)     Working practices including the use of offices and transport, post Covid 19, will change.

 

Was it not time for the Growth Board to request a review of the local plan, and to meet any unmet housing need using brownfield areas, and in particular, redeveloping the Botley Road/Western gateway to the City (currently occupied by carparks and superstores) and the Oxford Business Park areas that are within the ring road, and which are currently under-utilised and are likely to become more so?

 

The Chair responded that the Growth Board oversaw the preparation of the Oxfordshire Plan 2050, which when adopted by the District and City Councils, would set an overarching strategic framework for the county. It was not the Growth Board’s place to request a review of individual Local Plans, as asked by the question, which was a matter for the individual statutory planning authorities.

 

The Oxfordshire Plan was still very much in early development, and its content was still a matter for ongoing discussion and engagement with the public. While the Plan would include a spatial strategy, which will seek to direct where future growth was best planned, it was not intended to provide specific allocations or detail on individual sites. 

In response to the previous questions, Councillor Brown commented that the Oxford City Local Plan had been through a long and thorough period of development and consultation. It had now been subject to a public examination and the inspector had agreed with the plan’s conclusions in respect of Oxford City’s future housing needs. 

Giles Lewis, on behalf of Cherwell Development Watch Alliance submitted a written address to the Board asking it to agree that the Covid-19 emergency should be used as an opportunity to revise Oxford City’s housing needs assessment downwards. A letter had been sent by the Alliance to Robert Jenrick citing evidence from the Office of National Statistics that the currently identified level of housing need had been exaggerated and was unrealistic.Concerns were also expressed over what was regarded to be a continuation of the Oxfordshire Plan 2050 trajectory of economic growth, more homes and further infrastructure. In addition, there were fears that the Plan was set within the context of Oxfordshire being a contributor to the Oxford to Cambridge Arc and wider sub-regional ambitions.

 

Bev Hindle, Growth Board Director, responded that it was not the place of the Growth Board to comment on individual local plans, as those matters were best taken up with the relevant local planning authorities. The Oxfordshire Plan was looking ahead for the next 30 years and needed to take account of expected changes in the context in which it would sit. The Oxfordshire Plan was looking to plan for the next 30 years and needed to take account of expected changes in the context in which it would sit. This needed to be reflected on and responded to through the evidence base that was gathered. The public and partners were invited from 2 June to contribute to this discussion through the Oxfordshire Open Thought platform to provide their views on exactly these types of issues.

Supporting documents:

 

Contact us - Democratic services

Phone icon

01235 422520
(Text phone users add 18001 before dialing)

Address icon

South Oxfordshire District Council
Abbey House, Abbey Close,
Abingdon
OX14 3JE