Agenda item

Councillor John Howson had given written notice of the following question to Councillor Constance, Cabinet member for Environment:

‘With the reduced flow of traffic entering the City of Oxford from the west, would you consider diverting traffic from Frideswide’s Square along Park End Street and New Road to Worcester Street. Hythe Bridge Street, with its narrow pavements where social distancing is impossible, could then become a pedestrian route from Frideswide’s Square to the junction with Worcester Street with the only vehicle access to local properties. This change would make a secure cycling and walking route into the city centre. A temporary arrangement, as with the recent experiment in George Street, would test the benefit of this arrangement to both pedestrians and cyclists.’ 

Councillor Constance replied:

‘We recognise that footways are narrow and pedestrian flow is heavy along Hythe Bridge Street, but we do not believe that diverting traffic in this way would be a suitable solution at present. Traffic levels appear to be only slightly less than pre Covid-19 and this diversion would need the recent changes to the George Street/Worcester Street/Hythe Bridge Street junction to be removed. The significant benefits for pedestrians and cyclists that have been achieved as a result of this junction improvement would be lost and the additional general traffic using Worcester Street south would have a negative impact on buses and their passengers.’

Supplementary question: Councillor Howson asked whether in view of the narrow footways and high pedestrian flow along Hythe Bridge Street there were any solutions that the cabinet member could offer to assist with social distancing particularly between Upper Fisher Row and the junction with George Street. Councillor Constance replied that there were no current proposals but that officers would consider Councillor Howson’s question and if there were any solutions that presented themselves Councillor Howson would be kept informed.

Councillor John Sanders had given written notice of the following question to Councillor Constance, Cabinet Member for Environment:

‘Will the cabinet member explain how it has come to pass that after a decade and more of fudge, error and delay this Council still does not have a valid Minerals and Waste Local Plan, that is now to be postponed again by at least two years to 2023?’    

Councillor Constance replied:

‘The Council does have an adopted Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Part 1 Core Strategy. This was adopted by Full Council in 2017 and sets out the vision, objectives, spatial planning strategy and policies for meeting development requirements for the supply of minerals and the management of waste in Oxfordshire over the period to 2031.  The Core Strategy provides the Policy on which the determination of all minerals and waste development management decisions are made. The Core Strategy also provides a policy framework for identifying sites for new minerals and waste developments in Part 2 of the plan - the Site Allocations Plan.

“We are now working on preparing the Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Part 2 Site Allocations Plan (Sites Plan). The Sites Plan, upon adoption, will identify the mineral extraction and waste management sites needed to deliver the policies within the Core Strategy up to 2031. The Sites Plan will sit alongside Part 1 and will not replace it. Together they will form the Minerals and Waste Local Plan for Oxfordshire.

Work commenced on the Sites Plan following adoption of the Core Strategy, and the first consultation on the Part 2 work took place in 2018, then a further consultation on Preferred Site Options took place earlier this year.  There were several unexpected material considerations that emerged through this recent public consultation which challenged the robustness of the evidence base underpinning the selection of preferred site options. For example, one of them included evidence which suggests significantly less sand and gravel at one of the preferred sites, the Nuneham Courtenay site than was estimated in the nomination by the operator.

As a result, we are working on a revised timeline for the preparation of the MWLP Part 2 which will take account of the need to extend public consultation on the preferred options stage. A report will come back to Cabinet setting out the reasons for the delay and a revised timeline, but I hope you’ll agree it is important to undertake this additional work now in order to ensure our Plan is found sound at Examination.’

Supplementary question:  Councillor Sanders commented that the Minerals and Waste Plan had been in preparation since September 2005 with many iterations, resulting in so many delays to Part 2 of the Core Strategy that even Part 1 was becoming obsolete and would need to be revised. He asked whether after farming much of the work out to 2 consultancies that subsequently failed us the Cabinet Member accepted that it would have been better to concentrate on growing and training our own staff and admit that with only half of 2010 staffing levels this Council is failing its citizens.

Councillor Constance refuted the charge that the Council was failing its citizens and stated that although Councillor Sanders was right to note the delay it was with the intention to move with greater certainty towards a Minerals and Waste Plan that will be found sound. The approval of the Strategy stands, and the issue is the selection of sites. We have found in the full consultation on the first selection of sites significant problems we wish to address. This does mean that we feel obliged to review the selection of sites in the light of that consultation and this was supported at the Minerals & Waste Working Group as necessary to review sites for which there are alternatives. This would cause a delay on final site selection to March 2023, but it is better that we make progress to what we feel is a sound Strategy rather than one we feel will be resisted or rejected at Inspection.