Agenda item

Cllr Gordon, Cabinet Member for Environment and Economy, Robin Rogers, Director of Economy and Place, and Nicholas Glover, Head of Future Economy have been invited to present an update report on Shaping Oxfordshire’s Future Economy.

 

The Committee is asked to consider the report and raise any questions, and to AGREE any recommendations it wishes to make to Cabinet arising therefrom.

 

Cllr Gordon, Cabinet Member for Environment and Economy, and Nicholas Glover, Head of Future Economy attended to present an update report on Shaping Oxfordshire’s Future Economy. The Head of Future Economy highlighted to members his interest as Interim Managing Director of Enterprise Oxfordshire.

 

Introducing the report, the Head of Future Economy explained that Oxfordshire had a strong economy, highly significant research and innovation assets, a skilled workforce, and extremely high employment rates. However, he advised that productivity remained a key challenge and that the benefits of innovation-led growth had not flowed evenly across the county. Persistent deprivation in some areas, pressures in the foundational economy, difficulties in retaining and scaling businesses, and misalignment between housing, employment and transport infrastructure were highlighted as key challenges for the county’s economy.

 

The Committee heard that, given the uncertainty created by LGR, devolution, the proposed development corporation and wider institutional change, officers were not proposing a traditional long-term economic strategy . Instead, the focus had shifted to an investment plan for the short to medium term, intended to support businesses and residents while longer-term governance and spatial decisions were resolved.

 

The Head of Future Economy stated that the emerging investment pipeline was approximately £150 million, although no final decisions had been taken. He suggested that Enterprise Oxfordshire could provide a platform for delivery and for convening public, private and academic partners, but that some interventions might be better delivered by local government or other partners. The intention was to take proposals to Cabinet in July, with further development of interventions expected in September and beyond.

 

Members sought more detail about the leadership of Enterprise Oxfordshire. The Head of Future Economy clarified that he had been appointed Interim Managing Director of Enterprise Oxfordshire following the departure of the previous Chief Executive. His interim contract was due to end in July, although it was likely to be extended. Recruitment for a Managing Director was underway, with final interviews expected on 29 June and a recommendation due to be considered by the shareholder committee on 14 July. The Committee was advised that a candidate had also been identified for the role of Chair of Enterprise Oxfordshire and would be recommended to the Shareholder Committee for approval.

 

Members asked for greater clarity on the competing views referred to in the report around economic development, particularly in relation to the statement that developing a traditional economic strategy was exceptionally challenging. The Head of Future Economy explained that there were differing views across Oxfordshire about the appropriate economic model, including spatial questions around housing, commercial development, growth locations and the extent to which the benefits of Oxford’s universities and spin-outs should be spread across the county and beyond.

Members emphasised the importance of transparency and asked that the specific views of organisations be made clear where possible. The Head of Future Economy referred to LGR submissions as public documents that set out different perspectives on the county’s future economic model. The Cabinet Member for Economy and Environment added that the Council was operating in a challenging sequencing environment, with LGR and devolution processes running in parallel, but notwithstanding that, immediate action was still required to support inclusive growth and address persistent deprivation.

 

The Committee sought tangible examples of interventions that could improve productivity. The Head of Future Economy identified housing and public transport as major determinants, alongside inward investment, business support, high street support, support for high-growth businesses, and upskilling programmes. He noted that improving access to training, including through satellite provision with further education providers, could help address skills barriers. He cautioned, however, that local interventions would represent a relatively small proportion of the wider economy and that national policy would remain a significant factor.

 

 

Members asked about the impact of a previous £500,000 investment in mapping mobile phone signal across the county and whether any concrete steps had followed to improve productivity and connectivity. The Head of Future Economy advised that he was not aware of the detail but would take the question away and provide a written response to the Committee. It was confirmed that the response would be shared with all Committee members.

 

Members raised concerns that housing and transport decisions had not always aligned with employment opportunities. The Committee discussed the example of the former X35 bus service, which had connected communities including Faringdon and Stanford in the Vale with employment sites such as Harwell and Didcot. Members considered that the loss of such services made it harder for residents in growing communities to access good employment opportunities. The Head of Future Economy accepted that the point was fair and advised that these issues were live officer-level discussions within the Economy & Place teams. Members similarly raised concerns that rail and bus planning appeared insufficiently integrated and noted the need for greater synergy between public transport planning and economic development objectives.

 

Concerns were also raised that the Science Vale Movement and Place Plan had given limited attention to buses and that there was no equivalent bus plan integrated with the rail strategy. Members also discussed bus franchising and considered that it could be important for developing an integrated public transport approach. The Cabinet Member advised that decisions such as bus franchising might be best taken by the authority that emerged from the devolution process. She noted that the Council’s ability to plan was complicated by LGR and devolution running in parallel, and that the productivity and investment plan was intended to focus on what could be achieved within the remaining lifetime of the current Council. The Head of Future Economy advised that some housing and spatial planning issues were unlikely to be resolved in the immediate future and would be influenced by LGR, the establishment of any development corporation, and the development of a spatial development strategy. International investors would take comfort from the Council’s rail plans and secured investment, but acknowledged that more work was needed on transport integration.

 

Members raised concerns that the report appeared to assume that growth was essential, without sufficiently testing whether this remained appropriate in a climate-constrained world. It was suggested that sustainability and climate resilience were treated as constraints rather than fundamental limits, and that greater attention should be given to total emissions, resource consumption, climate adaptation risks, wellbeing, health inequality, biodiversity recovery and carbon reduction.

The Cabinet Member stated that the Council considered growth to be essential, provided it was the right kind of growth: good, inclusive and green growth that enabled residents who had not shared in Oxfordshire’s prosperity to benefit from it. The Head of Future Economy acknowledged that productivity and growth had sometimes been conflated, and clarified that the intended focus was economic development: improving residents’ quality of life and standards of living rather than pursuing growth at any cost.

The Head of Future Economy advised that environmental sustainability, biodiversity net gain and related workstreams were important and had their own processes and resource bases. He stated that principles such as doughnut economics and future generations considerations should be applied when designing specific interventions, including business support and skills programmes. The Cabinet Member added that the approach aimed to address the way housing and employment patterns had contributed to long commutes, affordability pressures and exclusion from opportunities, and that the environmental and wellbeing benefits of this should be made more explicit.

 

Members expressed concern that economic development had not always appeared to receive sufficient priority or resource within the Council, and that reports needed clearer substance, measurable objectives and accountability. Examples were raised including the A40, RAF Brize Norton, Bicester Motion, rail connectivity, tourism and major local economic opportunities. The Head of Future Economy agreed that economic development was under-resourced across the county and that capacity, data and intelligence needed to be strengthened. He advised that Enterprise Oxfordshire had identified capacity to recruit a Head of Inward Investment and sector leads, and that the investment plan should include clear objectives, key results and measures so that progress could be monitored and challenged.

 

Members noted that farming and the rural economy had not been referenced by the report in line with its contribution to the local economy. Agriculture occupied a significant proportion of Oxfordshire’s land area and was important to productivity, even if not always framed in terms of growth. The Committee considered this a significant omission.

 

The Committee AGREED to make recommendations to Cabinet in relation to

 

-        Giving greater priority to economic development, supported by stronger use of data and intelligence, clearer objectives, and measurable outcomes.

-        Including in the forthcoming Oxfordshire Investment and Productivity Plan specific examples of how productivity related to local residents’ lives, including practical examples of green growth and inclusive economic development.

-        Addressing the misalignment between public transport and employment locations, and consider whether rail and bus planning required greater integration and synergy.

-        Ensuring the forthcoming Oxfordshire Investment and Productivity Plan explicitly evaluated alternative economic frameworks, including wellbeing economy, community wealth building and post-growth approaches, and demonstrated how any proposed growth would be compatible with Oxfordshire’s climate, biodiversity and nature recovery commitments.

-        That the Oxfordshire Investment and Productivity Plan addresses farming and agriculture issues

 

The Committee supported the proposal to convene a group of existing elected members to agree delivery principles and mechanisms for economic development across Oxfordshire, and suggested that this should have appropriate status within the Council, such as through a Cabinet advisory committee.

 

The Head of Future Economy agreed to provide a written response on the outcomes and next steps following the previous investment in mapping mobile phone signal across the county. The response was to be shared with all Committee members.