Agenda item

Members of the public may address meetings of the Scrutiny Panel, where notice is given to the secretariat no later than 4.00pm on Tuesday 3 March 2020. Notice of the subject of the address or the full question must be sent to democratic.services@oxfordshiregrowthboard.org The Chair will have discretion to manage the public participation as they see appropriate.

The Panel heard one address and received one question from members of the public.

1.    Dr Peter Collins on behalf of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England Oxfordshire (CPRE) made an address in which he referred to concerns previously expressed by CPRE that there was an overall lack of transparency around the Growth Board and that engagement, including with CPRE, needed to be built into the way it operated if it were to be democratic. CPRE had been recognised as a key stakeholder and this had been recognised by the Panel itself. He expressed concern that in his opinion, CPRE had not been involved enough in the development of the informal steering groups and working group supporting the Oxfordshire Plan 2050 given its history and expertise as an organisation. 

In response, the Chair commented that the Panel had previously supported CPRE’s involvement in discussions of matters around strategic growth as much as possible and that he was happy to reiterate that view to the Growth Board.

2.    Julia Benning on behalf of Need Not Greed Oxfordshire asked a question which was put in her absence. The question welcomed the report to the March Growth Board meeting about zero carbon housing and drew the Panel’s attention to the introduction by the West Midlands Combined Authority of a localised definition of affordable housing linked to incomes rather than house prices.

The question went on to refer to paragraph 42 of the Quarter 3 Housing and Growth Deal Progress Report which and quoted reference to the establishment of a series of ‘informal steering groups and working groups’ to oversee specialist topic workstreams of the Oxfordshire Plan 2050 including the workstream relating to an assessment of housing numbers.  The Panel was asked whether it had confidence in relation to the membership of the groups, their brief, use of consultants, consideration of the environment, setting of a localised definition of affordable housing and reporting arrangements back to local authority councillors and the public.

In response, the Chair commented that in his view the Panel could have reasonable confidence in the composition of the steering groups, but that it was reasonable to continue to ask how the work of the groups’ work would be reported back publicly. The Panel had been clear in its encouragement that the Growth Board put the environment at the forefront of its thinking and on the importance of affordable housing. A full response from officers to the technical elements of the questions put would be sent the questioner and the Panel following the meeting.

A short discussion took place regarding the merits of a common localised definition of affordable housing with a range of views expressed. It was noted that a common definition would require agreement of the five individual planning authorities, making that potentially more complex to achieve than in an area with a single local authority. It was felt by some members of the Panel that the Growth Board should be encouraging a common approach.

It was suggested that a list of the current local affordable housing definitions could be collated and brought back to the Panel.