Publication Note:  A previously published exempt report has been replaced by a publicly accessible version. The agenda has been restructured to reflect this amendment, with the revised report now listed under public business. Exempt information is contained within appendices pursuant to Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. Should the Scrutiny Committee wish to discuss matters relating to the information set out in Appendices 3 and 4, it will be necessary for the Scrutiny Committee to pass a resolution to exclude the press and public from the meeting (as set out in agenda item 5).

On 16 October 2024, Cabinet made a decision to enter into an Option Agreement for the disposal of land at Foxwell Drive.

The Committee is asked to consider the call-in for this Cabinet decision.

The Scrutiny Committee considered the call-in of the Cabinet decision in relation to the agreement to enter into an option agreement on land at Foxwell Drive made at the Cabinet meeting on 16 October 2024.

The Committee received a public address from James Malcomson, Chair of Friends of Old Headington, who spoke on concerns including the need for public consultation on the loss of green space, clarity on the Risk Register, potential conflicts of interest, implications for the Oxford Local Plan, and suggestions for transparency and timing. A copy of his address has been included to the minutes pack.

Cllr Roz Smith was then invited to address the Committee, noting that she was a Trustee for Oxford Preservation Trust and a member supporting the call-in of the cabinet decision. Cllr Smith spoke on concerns relating to the disposal of land including the loss of open space and nature corridor, the length of time of the option agreement, and the need for greater scrutiny of potential conflicts of interest. She highlighted the Council’s priority to maintain and improve parks, noting the importance of preserving the 'tiny forest' that benefit local residents, and the reputational risk and broader impact on the Council.

The Chair thanked Mr Malcomson and Cllr R Smith for their contributions.

The Chair welcomed Jane Winfield, Head of Corporate Property, Ted Bowler, Corporate Asset Manager, and Emma Jackman, Head of Law and Governance, who were in attendance to answer questions from the Committee.

The Committee discussed concerns regarding the separation of planning and land disposal processes, particularly the implications of attaching a planning consent condition to an option agreement for the sale of land. It was clarified that attaching such conditions was standard practice to protect the interests of both buyer and seller, ensuring the land's value reflected potential planning outcomes.

Questions were raised about transparency in the drafting of the option agreement, with assurances given that exempt papers outlining key terms had been provided to Cabinet and Scrutiny. The discussion also addressed the robustness of the Council's governance processes, ensuring professional and independent handling of planning applications, including those involving Council-owned land.

The Committee was reminded that the current matter concerned the principle of the option agreement, with the planning process to follow standard procedures, including public consultation and decision-making. It was clarified that, whilst not relevant to the option agreement, the Local Plan remained under review and would be a matter for determination by the Full Council. The status of the land (and not the option land per se) at the time of any future planning application would depend on its designation at that point.

It was confirmed that the land was not formally classified as open space, and it was only changing the basis on which the land was held by the Council.

The Committee further discussed the visibility of draft terms of the agreement and explored alternatives to the proposed arrangement. It was clarified that the draft heads of terms from the cabinet report had been in the confidential appendix provided to the Committee would serve as the basis for the legal agreement. The Council's duty to achieve the best value for land disposal and its commitment to efficient land use was highlighted. Members were informed that the Constitution restricted access to draft agreements during negotiations due to their commercially sensitive nature, a provision that applied to both councillors and Freedom of Information requests. Once the option agreement was finalised and signed, these restrictions would be lifted, and the terms could be made available with appropriate redactions for commercial sensitivity.

The Committee asked for clarification about clauses in the option agreement pertaining to the relocation of trees if they were to be removed to provide access to the site. It was noted this matter could be discussed with Ruskin College, as it had informally considered how the forest would be managed if the option agreement were triggered. In addition, it was stated there was alternative Council land that could be used for the reprovision of trees if necessary.

Cllr Ottino expressed confidence in the professionalism and thoroughness of the Officers involved in preparing the report and advising Cabinet on the option agreement, stating that he was reassured by their approach and the quality of their work. He further highlighted his trust in the planning officers and the Planning Committee to handle any future planning applications fairly and professionally. The Committee shared this confidence, affirming that Cabinet was provided sound advice, and that proper decision-making procedures would be followed for any future planning application.

The Committee was advised of the possible resolutions it could adopt, as set out in Part 17.7 of the Constitution. Those being: to support the original decision; to refer the decision back to Cabinet with or without comments; or to refer comments on the decision to Council that recommends changing the budget or policy framework.

Cllr Ottino proposed supporting the original decision, and was seconded by Cllr Qayyum. On being put to the vote, the Committee agreed to uphold the original decision.