The Executive Director of City Regeneration and Housing has submitted the final report and recommendations from the Roger Dudman Way independent review.

Officer recommendation: That the Committee

1. Receive the final report of the independent review overseen by the Working Group and note the findings and recommendations.

2. Endorse the proposals to address the recommendations with an action plan and embed best practice.

3. Thank Mr Vincent Goodstadt, the independent reviewer and Dr Lucy Natarajan for their work, and the members of the Working Group for their contributions.

This item is attached as a supplement.

The Executive Director of City Regeneration and Housing submitted a report (previously circulated, now appended) concerning the final report and recommendations from the Roger Dudman Way independent review.

David Edwards (Executive Director of City Regeneration and Housing) presented the report to the Committee and provided some background and context. He emphasised that the review carried out had been independent, and that the conclusion it reached was that the Council had met its statutory duties when considering the Roger Dudman way application. However, the review report also made a number of recommendations that would assist the Council to embed best practice in its procedures in future. These recommendations were a package, which the Committee was invited to consider and encouraged to adopt.

Nicky Moeran (on behalf of the Save Port Meadow Campaign Group) said that the group was unable to endorse the review report as it stood, for the reason that it did not address a number of key questions. These questions had been deemed to be beyond the remit of the review. The Save Port Meadow Campaign Group would remain active and vigilant in holding the Council to account.

Councillor John Goddard was the Chair of the Working Group that was established in order to consider the planning processes associated with the Roger Dudman Way application. He observed that it had been a worthwhile exercise, that the history of the site had been explored, but that it was now time to grasp the opportunity to move on and make changes and improvements to meet best practice standards.

Members of the Committee then made the following observations:-

·         The recommendations made in the review report are extensive and will have a significant impact;

·         The action plan is far from trivial, it has budgetary implications, and it is to be hoped that the Council can progress this quickly;

·         Clarity on the interpretation of “design and context related to the surrounding area” was much needed, and should be included in the review report;

·          It was noted that many items in the proposed Action Plan were already in hand, and that a design panel already existed;

·         It was hoped that the suggested group of experts could be established quickly;

·         It was acknowledged that some aspects to the proposed Action Plan would require finance – but the Council did need to know exactly what was required first;

·         Members of the Working Party would very much welcome being kept up to date with the progress of establishing the Experts’ Group as well as the progress of the Action Plan;

·         Would it be possible to establish a “standing panel” of officers, Councillors and various specialists with local and planning knowledge to look at any application that would have a major impact upon the City?

·         It would be helpful for pre-application discussions related to major applications to be recorded in some way;

·         Pre-application discussions were the best time to influence the outcome and a good time to involve people who might be affected;

·         There should be better use of IT;

·         Consultation should first consider who might be affected by a proposal, and then real efforts should be made to reach out to them;

·         There should be real and consistent engagement between the Universities, major employers and the City Council, as their future and that of the City was symbiotic;

The Chair clarified, in response to comments from the Save Port Meadow Campaign Group, that the independent reviewer, Mr Goodstadt, had added some issues that they raised; and where he had not done so, it was because he felt them to be beyond the scope of the review or based upon a false premise.

He further suggested that the review report should be circulated to all members of Council as quickly as possible. A statement would be made at the next meeting of Council, and Council would be asked to ensure that provision was made in the Budget for the cost of establishing and running the suggested design review panel.

The Executive Director of City Regeneration and Housing indicated that he had prepared an informative note concerning the amount of student accommodation provided on this site. The members of the Committee had not been misled on this point. Mr Goodstadt would add this to the review report.

Resolved to:

(1)  Receive the final report of the independent review overseen by the Working Group, and note the findings and recommendations;

(2)  Endorse the proposals to address the recommendations with an Action Plan and embed best practice, and direct officers to carry out the actions stated, reporting to City Executive Board as required; the review report to be circulated to all members of Council as soon as possible and Council encouraged to make a budget allowance for the establishment and operation of the design review panel;

(3)  Thank Mr Vincent Goodstadt, the independent reviewer, and Dr Lucy Natarajan for their work, and the members of the Working Group for their contributions.