Contact Officer: Sebastian Johnson, Strategic Policy and Partnership Manager. Tel: 01865 252317, email: srjohnson@oxford.gov.uk

The Executive Director, Regeneration and Housing, submitted a report (previously circulated, now appended) concerning the Council’s City Deal Bid to the Government. The Committee welcomed Councillor Bob Price (Board Member for Corporate Governance, Strategic Partnerships and Economic Development) and David Edwards (Executive Director, Housing and Regeneration) to the meeting. Cllr Price introduced the report and provided some background and context to it.

Councillor Price explained that City deal had changed a great deal since its inception. The focus was on growth, economic development and high-tech development. Transport and the development of necessary skills were key to this.  Bids had been made to improve and develop the A40 and A34 transport links.

There were three especially important skills elements:-

•    The creation of 500 additional apprenticeships between 2015 and 2020;

•    An increase of up to 50% in training contracts in the retail, hospitality and catering sectors;

•    An expansion of the Oxfordshire apprentice programme that links careers advice and access to apprenticeships in order to draw funding into the county.

As laid out in the report, the City Deal group would present their bid to the Ad Hoc Ministerial Group on 24th October.

Sietske Boeles (on behalf of CPRE Oxford) addressed the Committee. She asked about the governance and democratic accountability of the City Deal Joint  Statutory Committee (JSC), public consultation, and scrutiny of the bid at local level.

The Committee then considered the following issues:-

Governance

The Committee noted that the JSC would look after the deal part of the City Deal. Any applications for road and house building would be under normal local control and the planning system. Voting rights on the JSC were limited to elected members.  The City Deal had been agreed between the participating local authorities, but refined to reflect each Council’s wishes.

It was noted that the Treasury was the determining partner because of funding. Scrutiny of the JSC’s spending could take place through the Council’s normal budget process.

The City Council would not know until the end of 2013 whether or not the City Deal bid had been successful, but Councillor Price felt there would be a role for scrutiny once this was known.

Public Involvement

The Committee felt that there was a need to make the City deal relevant to the public, but focussing on housing and jobs as things that would affect people’s lives. There was a need to provide high-tech, high-wage jobs for people within Oxford.

Role of the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP)

The Committee noted that the LEP, although it had representation from Oxfordshire County Council on it, did not report to anyone. There were no “big hitters” involved in the LEP, and industrial input into it was relatively low. The two universities were involved with City Deal - but they were not industries. However, the LEP was the way to channel some growth funding and there was a need for the LEP and the City Deal processes to work together.

Housing

The City Council’s focus was on housing at Barton with smaller sites at Oxpens and the Northern gateway.  If the bid for the Churchill site was successful it would be subject to the normal planning process. The City Council was aware that it could not meet the pressure on housing within the city’s current boundaries. There was an aspiration to build south of Grenoble Road, but as this had not yet been agreed with the other Council in whose area this land lay, this remains an aspiration.

CPRE did not accept that there was a case for expansion to the south of Grenoble Road. The City Council felt that it was preferable to provide housing in an area where it was known there were jobs, rather than having a workforce travelling for some distance in order to access those jobs. The City Council needed to keep pressing this case.

Apprenticeships and skills.

The Committee observed that there was a good deal of city-based activity concerning jobs, skills and apprenticeships, and as a result it was important that good career information was also provided. There was a desire to ensure the City had a skilled workforce that was equipped to take on the new jobs.

It would be important to involve schools and the education system at an early stage so that people were prepared for the forthcoming opportunities. This was not something that could wait – it was important to start preparing now.

The Committee noted that the Oxford Skills Board was working well and that it aimed to develop a county-wide careers advice service by involvement with schools.

Recommendations to CEB on 9th October:

The Committee resolved to make the following recommendations:-

(1)       For the expected future reports (recommendation 4 in the report) to establish the principle of public scrutiny through Local Authority Scrutiny Committees and discuss how this might work.

(2)       In developing the ambitions and programmes within the “Skills “ heading for Joint Committee Members to ensure that education, training and apprenticeship programmes are accessible to all through local schools and other educational bodies with an emphasis on early advice and guidance to young people so they are “work ready” for real jobs.  The emphasis of these programmes should be in areas of highest deprivation.    

The Committee thanked Councillor Price and David Edwards for their attendance at the meeting and their informative presentation.