The terms of reference of the Panel state:

Members of the public may address meetings of the Scrutiny Panel, where notice is given to the secretariat no later than 4.00pm on the last working day before the day of the meeting.

The Chair will have discretion to manage the public participation procedure as they see appropriate, including rejecting frivolous, defamatory or offensive questions and managing the time afforded to public addresses.

Notice of a wish to address the meeting, including the subject of the address or the full question to be asked, must be sent to democraticservices@oxford.gov.uk

by 4.00pm on Wednesday 21 November 2018.

The Chair’s decision will be final.

The Panel heard one address and two questions from members of the public.

Adrian Townsend, in summary, spoke about the lack of accountability, transparency and engagement of the Growth Board. He considered that most parish councils and communities were unaware of the Board’s existence. He asked for a directly elected Board solely comprising one member from each district, plus parish council co-optees from each district’s area. He also asked that the Growth Board be asked to formally retract their statement on the Expressway.

Sue Haywood, representing Need Not Greed Oxfordshire, sent a written question, asking the Panel:

• what further impact they feel that the recent NIC statement will now have on the governance structures and local accountability, 
• what opportunity is there to protect local accountability, 
• whether the key documents in which any mandate and process for the JSSP is currently defined - including the Statement of Common Ground and Terms of Reference for the Growth Board, and the LDS, Scoping Document and Statement of Community Involvement - will require revision in light of any "new governance structures" that might be introduced, and 
• by what process (and with what opportunity for local consultation) will this be done if this is to happen?

Peter Collins, representing CPRE, asked the Scrutiny Panel to:

• Confirm that this draft document (outline version of the JSSP Regulation 18 consultation document) exists and was considered at last week’s Advisory Sub-panel.
• If so, to consider how this sits alongside the Growth Board’s commitment in the draft Statement of Community Involvement to ‘early, proportionate and meaningful engagement between plan makers and communities, local organisations, businesses, infrastructure providers and statutory consultees’ and  the ‘initial scoping of key issues and options with stakeholders’.

The Panel asked that the Chair convey the substantive points to the Board.

In discussion about the issues raised the Panel commented:

1.    They would not recommend disbanding or reconstituting the Growth Board: however the Panel would like to be consulted on any changes to terms of reference of the Board or sub-groups.

2.    The Panel noted its own and all three public speakers’ concerns over what appeared to be a lack of transparency around decision making, remoteness of the Growth Board from grass-roots bodies and representatives, and a lack of ability to influence and understand the rationale for major decisions. This appeared to be, in the perception of those members of the public attending Growth Board meetings, to be perennial issue for the Growth Board and has also been raised by speakers in different forums. These concerns covered areas such as a lack of transparency at the Board meetings and being unable to contribute to or see development of the high-level strategies prepared by OxLEP and the Board.

3.    The Panel noted that although information was available on the Growth Board’s website this was not always the most obvious site for either elected members or the public to view frequently and so key information could easily be overlooked.

4.    The Panel discussed, from their position as newcomers to the Board’s processes, improving the Board’s transparency and engagement.

The Panel agreed recommendations to the Growth Board:

1.         That the Growth Board establishes a clear pro-active process for informing district, county and parish councillors about their work and future consultations and decisions.

This may take the form of a circulated newsletter or bulletin sent out by the Board’s programme officer, and should not rely solely on the information posted on the Board’s website.

2.         That the Growth Board takes formal votes on all items for decision, and records in the minutes each Leader’s individual vote, to increase transparency. about decisions and each Council’s stance.

3.         That the Growth Board remains fully committed to encouraging public engagement in the Board’s work.