To receive any questions or statements from members of the public that have registered to speak.
Minutes:
Two members of the public had registered to ask a question as set out below.
A. Mr Curtis had submitted the following question to the Leader of the council but was unable to attend the meeting.
“This Council is currently contributing to the £120,000 cost of the review and update of the Oxfordshire Strategic Economic Plan, which is being led by the Oxfordshire Local Enterprise Partnership (OxLEP).
In the past, the Strategic Economic Plan has been largely developed in a silo and signed off behind closed doors but has gone on to have significant impacts including influencing housing targets and the contents of Local Plans, as well as broader strategies such as transport.
In the light of our climate and biodiversity emergencies, we know a step-change is required in how we consider these issues. For example:
· The House of Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee states that behavioural change is essential for achieving climate and environment goals, and for delivering wider benefits;
· The BEIS Independent Net Zero Review, published on 13th January states, ‘None of this will happen without a step change in the government’s approach to delivering net zero’; and the
· Oxfordshire Net Zero Route Map & Action Plan Final Report.
The size of the challenge to achieve net zero carbon by 2050 at latest will require a considerable step change in activity. We need to embed climate change into decision making across Oxfordshire’s local authorities.
But indications from the series of workshops led by OxLEP suggest that:
· The primary aim remains economic growth, with the environment, net zero and wellbeing featuring as issues to be managed rather than front and centre.
· The timetable appears to be focused on speed (getting it done and dusted by June initially, but now the autumn) which apparently does not allow time for public consultation.
· Overall, the level of engagement has been low and primarily focused on members of the Future Oxfordshire Partnership, including the universities and OxLEP. There has been very little representation from the diverse Oxfordshire population, including those economic and socially disadvantaged communities that might be viewed as having the most to gain from a robust Strategic Economic Plan.
Given the above, can the Leader:
a) Explain why the SEP review is being pushed through at such speed and without meaningful engagement with relevant communities?
b) Provide reassurance that the draft new Strategic Economic Plan will at the very least go through a full Scrutiny process and be brought to a full Council meeting for approval, prior to the Leader voting on it at an OxLEP Board Meeting?"
Councillor Bennett, Cabinet member for economic development and regeneration, responded as follows:
“I am answering this question as the cabinet member for economic development and regeneration in recognition that the Leader has a personal responsibility as an OxLEP Director and therefore does not represent the council at OxLEP Board.
a) The Strategic Economic Plan is a document wholly owned and developed by OxLEP and South Oxfordshire District Council has no remit in the development of the SEP, other than through the various workshops attended by officers and members. The question of engagement is one for OxLEP to respond to as the owner of the SEP and clearly South Oxfordshire would support the need for wide engagement with our communities in development of any strategy.
b) This Council has not financially contributed to the SEP, nor will not be seeking to formally review or adopt the document. I understand OxLEP will not be providing the Council with an opportunity to review or comment on the document prior to it being presented to FOP in July. The Future Oxfordshire Partnership has its own scrutiny panel and I hope that this document will be examined through that process”.
B. Mr Salmons asked the following question:
"Many Councillors will by now be familiar with the Great Western
Park depot scandal — the shameful scheme advanced
by this Council to tarmac over land designated for a
wildflower meadow in Didcot and convert it into a permanent
grounds maintenance depot for South and Vale.
The public outcry generated by this proposal when it came to light
earlier this year made it crystal clear the public are opposed in
principle to this scheme, but by all accounts the Council is
pressing ahead regardless.
When the original planning application was withdrawn, the
planning agent acting on behalf of the Council stated: "It is
our clients intention to resubmit the application in due
course following a period of engagement with local residents
[...]"
The latest SODC Climate Action Plan performance report gave a
hint as to what that engagement might look like. It stated:
"Due to the high profile and sensitive nature of the site, it
was agreed to withdraw the planning application and look at a
more thorough comms campaign post elections [...]"
Could the Cabinet Member for Finance and Property Assets explain
to the residents of Didcot how the Council is able to find
millions upon millions of pounds to build itself a plush new
office on the most valuable land in their town, but is
apparently no longer able to afford rent on an industrial unit
for their grounds maintenance service, and must therefore
deprive the town's residents of the wildflower meadow they
were promised when they purchased their homes?"
Councillor Barker undertook to provide a written response to the question.