Agenda item

Public participation

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 Wednesday 21 November 2018.  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 Monday 26 November 2018. 

 

Petitions

Petitions on matters directly relevant to matters in which the Growth Board has powers and duties must be received by 5pm on Wednesday 21 November 2018.  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@southandvale.gov.uk or delivered/posted to Democratic Services, South Oxfordshire District Council, 135 Eastern Avenue, Milton Park, Milton, OX14 4SB. 

Minutes:

The Growth Board received three questions and one statement. 

 

1.         Question from Councillor Suzanne Bartington (Oxfordshire County Councillor for Witney North and East Division):

 

The UK was at the forefront of negotiating the Sustainable Development Goals and the 2030 Agenda – the global framework for tackling the most pressing global challenges of our time.  Agreed by world leaders at the UN in 2015, the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) succeed the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).  The SDGs are universal with all signatories expected to contribute to them internationally and deliver them domestically, however progress has been variable across the UK.  How does the Growth Board plan to embed the SDGs within the vision for Oxfordshire and embed relevant indicators to measure progress towards delivery?” 

 

In reply, the chairman reported that in terms of the Joint Statutory Spatial Plan, all councils were clear that the challenge for Oxfordshire was to plan for future growth in a sustainable way.  The advantages of the Joint Statutory Spatial Plan was that long-term comprehensive planning offered benefits over and above the usual approach to spatial planning.  The Joint Statutory Spatial Plan would set a framework for the future of Oxfordshire and would seek to help address a number of the Sustainable Development Goals, in particular to help ensure healthy lives and promote wellbeing (goal 3), promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth (goal 8), promote the building of resilient infrastructure (goal 9), make human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable (goal 11), and take action to combat the impacts of climate change (goal 13). 

 

2.         Question from Helen Marshall on behalf on the Oxfordshire Branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE Oxfordshire):

 

“Ref. Agenda item 7 – Feedback from sub-groups

 

As Growth Board members are hopefully aware, CPRE Oxfordshire has sought from the start to respond to the Joint Statutory Spatial Plan process in a positive and constructive way and we have welcomed the Growth Board’s recognition of the value we could add as an informed stakeholder.  It would therefore be disappointing, to say the least, if meaningful engagement should fail at such an early stage.

 

We are most surprised to note that an outline version of the JSSP Regulation 18 consultation document was due to be brought to a meeting of the Advisory Sub-Group on 15 November, which we assume has now taken place.  At the October meeting, this is described as a ‘skeletal document, however what the document would say is broadly known’. 

 

However CPRE and, we assume, other stakeholders have not yet been involved in any detailed discussions to inform this document. 

 

We ask the Growth Board to:

(a)      Confirm what level of detail this document covers, including whether it has begun the process of identifying broad areas for growth

(b)      Confirm specifically how and when stakeholders will be involved in discussions relating to its content

(c)       Explain what information and evidence the Board currently considers will be required to support the biodiversity & natural environment and green infrastructure strategic policies proposed in the JSSP Scoping Document, and what resource will be made available to achieve this?” 

 

The chairman replied:

(a)      Work had commenced on sketching out the scope and structure of the Joint Statutory Spatial Plan for Oxfordshire that would be published for consultation in February/March 2019, as identified in the Local Development Scheme.  Over the coming weeks, the officer team responsible for the preparation of the plan would continue to gather evidence and background information, and engage with partners and stakeholders to begin fleshing out the content of that document.  Work had not commenced on identifying broad areas for growth.

(b)      Engagement would be an on-going process throughout the project and not limited to the formal consultation stages.  A Joint Statutory Spatial Plan launch event was planned for December and invitations would go out to over 100 stakeholder bodies (including the CPRE) in the coming days.  This was one step in the engagement process but would provide valuable input into the consultation document.  A communications and engagement advisor had been appointed to the officer team and would be working up a more detailed communications and engagement plan for the project.

(c)       The level of information and evidence required to support the Joint Statutory Spatial Plan would be built up as the project progresses.  At this early stage of the plan-making process, officers already had access to good quality baseline information and would seek to add to this for the later stages of the project.  Conversations were underway with officers of the councils and Thames Valley Record Centre to ensure the appropriate evidence would be available at the right times and procured in a timely manner.  The Joint Statutory Spatial Plan budget had provision for commissioning advice, data and analysis from expert bodies/consultants.

 

Helen Marshall replied with a supplementary statement.  Whilst recognising the challenging timescales and problems with staff recruitment, could the Growth Board remember the challenges the CPRE, and other stakeholders, had themselves to engage with tight timescales imposed by the Growth Board, and work with stakeholders to address that. 

 

3.         Question from Sue Haywood on behalf of the coalition Planning for Real NEED not Spectacular GREED in Oxfordshire:

 

Need Not Greed Oxfordshire (NNGO) is a coalition of 35 groups from across the county, together representing thousands of community members.  At a meeting in the Spring, and in further conversations with Growth Board Members, NNGO was grateful to hear that its involvement in the JSSP process would be welcome, with rhetoric that suggested opportunities whereby we could add value in bringing evidence and issues for consideration that are pertinent to a broader sustainability agenda for Oxfordshire actively into the decision-making processes and in particular would be well placed to contribute valuable voice and appropriate insights about rural community needs and the rural economy.  

 

We have noted the changing JSSP timetable, and acknowledge the challenges that the Growth Board and project team are having to manage, yet some of the reports presented to this meeting suggest a number of activities are progressing for which we would have expected stakeholder engagement to have been necessary in order to provide any meaningful basis and evidence and struggle to see how and when the stakeholder input required for this could have been undertaken.  An example of this is the proposed production of the draft Regulation 18 document for the JSSP Panel, albeit just "testing options" at this stage, but difficult to reconcile when even the consultation on the Statement of Community Involvement has yet to start.  NNGO would therefore ask:

·         In light of its previous indications, how specifically does the Growth Board see NNGO adding value to the JSSP process and where in the structure would this occur? 

Also, given the changing timetable, how does the Growth Board see meaningful wider public engagement, as well as just consultation processes, happening, what changes to the LDS and Statement of Community Involvement might now need to be made, and who will do this (will locally elected members have an opportunity to input to this process for example)?” 

 

The chairman reported that:

(a)      Engagement would be an on-going process throughout the project and not limited to the formal consultation stages.  A Joint Statutory Spatial Plan launch event was planned for December and invitations would go out to over 100 stakeholder bodies (including one for NNGO) in the coming days.  This was one step in the engagement process but would provide valuable input into the consultation document.  A communications and engagement advisor had been appointed to the officer team and would be working up a more detailed communications and engagement plan for the project.

(b)      The key milestones of the Joint Statutory Spatial Plan project were set out in the Local Development Scheme that had been approved and adopted by all councils in September/October 2018.  Those milestones had not been amended.  The Statement of Community Involvement was approved for public consultation at the same meetings of the councils.  That public consultation was programmed to begin in the next week and would run for an extended period of six weeks to take into account the Christmas break.  The intention was that a report will go to all councils in January seeking approval and adoption of the Statement of Community Involvement (subject to any amendments that were necessary following the public consultation) and also approval of the spatial plan consultation document to commence public consultation which would run in February and March.  The decision makers at every stage of the Joint Statutory Spatial Plan project would be the elected members of the district councils.  County councillors would receive the same reports in the same timetable as the district councillors. 

 

Sue Haywood asked a supplementary question.  Whilst welcoming the opportunity to take part in the stakeholder event, would there be an opportunity to change the scope of the spatial plan and its Local Development Scheme? 

 

The chairman replied that every suggestion would be given proper consideration. 

 

4.         Statement from Helen Gee, a South Oxfordshire resident (read out in her absence):

 

“I understand that the Oxfordshire Growth Board will hold its next meeting on 27 November.  I would like to write, as a resident of South Oxfordshire, and register my wholesale objection to the completely undemocratic nature of this Board.  It does not, in any way, represent the wishes of the people of Oxfordshire.  It appears, from your minutes of the 25 September meeting, that you have 6 voting members who seem to have complete authority to make decisions which will affect the lives of thousands of people in the county.  I cannot understand how the Oxfordshire Growth Board, as an unelected body, has this power. 

 

I see that the Board has resolved a statement that it welcomed the principle of the proposed expressway as a way to ‘relieve traffic pressure on the A34 and separate local traffic from national traffic’.  This is not the view of a vast majority of people in the county and is highly unrepresentative.  I am extremely angry that the Growth Board appears to be pushing for the A34 to be a road for ‘local traffic’ and thereby supporting a new motorway to the south of Oxford.  This would destroy miles of rural land, Green Belt and village communities.  It is completely unnecessary and would have an extremely detrimental effect on the current residents of the affected areas. 

 

On a connected note, I believe that there is clearly another agenda here – to do with housing and the Oxfordshire Housing and Growth Deal, which seems to be a Government bribe to override the views of the current residents of Oxfordshire and impose unreasonable and outrageous levels of house building. 

 

I note that the minutes of 31 July state that the Growth Board is entering into an intensive period of engagement with stakeholders.  I believe that we, the people who live in Oxfordshire, are stakeholders and yet our views, expressed individually and though our Parish Councils are not being listened to. 

 

The 31 July ‘Oxfordshire Housing and Growth Deal Update’ states that it anticipates that the deal will ‘realise significant long term economic benefits to the UK’.  This seems nonsensical when there are other regions in the UK that are far more in need of Government money, infrastructure and an economic boost. 

 

The Growth Board’s stance on both the Expressway and the housing and growth plans for Oxfordshire are not consistent with the view of the residents (stakeholders) of Oxfordshire.” 

 

The chairman thanked the four members of the public for their participation. 

 

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