Members of the public may address meetings of the Scrutiny Panel where notice is given to the secretariat no later than 4.00pm on Wednesday 22 January 2020. Notice of the subject of the address or the full question to be asked must be sent to democratic.services@oxfordshiregrowthboard.org The Chair will have discretion to manage the public participation procedure as they see appropriate.
Minutes:
The Panel heard two questions from members of the public.
1. Sue Haywood on behalf of Need not Greed Oxfordshire had submitted a written question which referred to the notes of the Oxfordshire Plan 2050 Sub-Group held on 14 November 2019 relating to a presentation the Sub-Group had received in respect of influencers on the Oxfordshire Plan 2050. The notes acknowledged the influence of several regional and national strategies on the spatial scenarios and scale of growth within which the Oxfordshire Plan 2050 would subsequently have to work within. Two observations were highlighted.
Firstly, concern how, and with what specification, the brief for testing different spatial and scale of growth scenarios was being developed as it was probable some ‘influencers’ could predetermine and constrain the options available. The Scrutiny Panel had previously requested greater information and transparency and was now urged to ask the Growth Board for the opportunity to comment on the brief for testing given the long-term significance on Oxfordshire's councils of the outcomes.
Secondly, she said that given the overwhelming vote by the Panel in favour an earlier recommendation that Highways England attend the November 2019 Growth Board the Panel was asked to revisit the recommendation again and press for a plan of how and when the Growth Board might have a collective position on the issue of the Expressway.
In discussion, members of the Panel commented that it was in everyone’s interest for HM Government to clarify the future of the Expressway as soon as possible and that the Growth Board should continue to seek the attendance of Highways England at a Growth Board meeting. The concerns expressed within the question regarding transparency of growth scenario briefings for the Oxfordshire Plan 2050 and risk of those influencers impacting on the preparation of the Plan was also acknowledged by the Panel.
The Chair commented that he would communicate these comments to the Growth Board as part of his report to them.
2. Peter Collins on behalf of the Campaign for Protection of Rural England, (CPRE) Oxfordshire had submitted a written question which referred to the review of the Growth Board and in general supported the direction of travel, particularly as set out in the new Common Purpose. CPRE agreed that at least some of the problems of the Growth Board, in their view, were connected to issues around communication and that improvements would be welcomed and drew attention to the publication of the review report 24 hours before the deadline to register questions for the Scrutiny Panel. CPRE disagreed that ‘almost all criticisms that were received of the Growth Board could be traced back to a cause of ineffective communications’ and felt that this had been an insult those who had been trying to engage with, influence and challenge the Growth Board’s activities and lets Growth Board members off the hook in terms of any thorough assessment of its strengths and weaknesses.
Mr Collins expressed the view that the Growth Board had been instrumental in allocating the quantities of unmet need between the local authorities and choosing sites to build it on (although leaving the formal decision to the individual councils). In addition, he said the recent interference by the Secretary of State in the South Oxfordshire Local Plan process had raised significant questions about the claimed sovereignty of local authorities.
The Panel was asked a) whether it supported the intervention of the Secretary of State in the South Oxfordshire Local Plan and, if not, how it felt the Growth Board should respond and b); if it agreed that CPRE, considered in an earlier Scrutiny meeting as a key non-statutory consultee, should be involved far earlier in Growth Board discussions, such as how the Board should deal with the matter of strategic growth and unmet need across the County.
In response, the Chair commented that his understanding was that the Panel continued to support the involvement of CPRE in Growth Board discussions around matters of strategic growth and unmet need across the county as much as possible. This was supported by the Panel.
The meeting was advised that it was not within the role or remit of the Scrutiny Panel to take a collective view on matters related to an individual local planning authority’s Local Plan.
A discussion took place, with a range of views expressed on whether the Panel should take a view on the issue. Concern was expressed during the discussion that the Panel was entitled to give a view unless explicitly prohibited by specific legislation or case law whereas the view was also expressed that whilst nothing constrained the ability of individual Councillors to comment, expressing a collective view as Panel would not be helpful. It was agreed that a copy of the officer advice should be circulated to the Panel.