Agenda and minutes

Councillor Mike Badcock reported that, together with the chairman of South Oxfordshire District Council, he was proud to support the ‘Lights out’ event between 10pm and 11pm on 4 August 2014 – a nationwide event where the UK would plunge into darkness to mark one hundred years since Britain entered World War 1. He encouraged councillors to join him in the event by arranging for one prominent building in their ward to switch off all of its lights for the designated period and place a candle or lamp in one room visible from outside.

The Chairman’s Community Awards Lunch would take place on 11 October at The Beacon in Wantage. Nomination forms were available at the meeting and should be returned by 22 August.

The Chairman’s Dinner would take place on 7 November with proceeds going to the Poppy Appeal.

He congratulated Councillor Matthew Barber on the birth of his daughter, Lucy, and welcomed Councillor Julia Reynolds to the council following her election to the vacant seat in the Wantage Charlton Ward on 10 April. 

Dr Les Clyne made the following statement to Councillor Matthew Barber, Leader of the council.

Complaint about possible policy breaches in major Vale housing developments.

 “The Section 106 agreements for Grove airfield and Crab Hill developments   are being progressed under strict, non negotiable, instructions from the Planning Committee that a minimum of 30% affordable rented housing shall be realised. I understand from recent conversations with Stuart Walker and Anna Robinson that officers may be downplaying these requirements whilst negotiating with developers. I feel that this implies that Adrian Duffield, as Head of Planning, and Anna Robinson, as the Strategic Director, may be exceeding their authority in allowing this to happen, and that instead they should instruct Cathie Scotting (Grove), and Stuart Walker (Crab Hill), only to negotiate with the developers within the parameters laid down by the Planning Committee in both cases, which did allow for flexibility in relation to the shared ownership element (down already from 10% to around 5%), but not in relation to the affordable rented element”.

Dr Clyne referred to an article in the Wantage and Grove Herald which implied delays in the delivery of housing.  

Mr William Selby-Lowndes, representative of Great Coxwell Parish Council, addressed Council in objection to the community governance review proposal in CGR11 to move land south of Faringdon bounded by the A420 and Coxwell Road from Great Coxwell parish into Great Faringdon parish. He made the following points:

·         No planning permission had been granted with several matters still outstanding

·         The current physical boundary provided a clear delineation between the parishes

·         The proposed development would not make Great Coxwell Parish Council too unwieldy

·          Future residents of the development should have a say.

Ms June Stock, Chairman of Grove Parish Council, addressed Council in support of the community governance review proposals in CGR13, to move that part of Grove Technology Park that lies within East Challow Parish into Grove parish, and CGR24, to extend the boundary of Wantage parish at Stockham Farm and Crab Hill. The proposal in CGR13 would provide a logical boundary for Grove and place the technology park in the parish of its name and the proposal in CGR24 would provide effective and convenient representation.

1.                    Question from Councillor Debby Hallett to Councillor Mike Murray, Cabinet member for planning policy

‘The Vale consulted on its draft Local Plan 2029 in February 2013. How many responses were received, and could the Cabinet Member please tell me when the consequential changes made to that first draft Local Plan 2029 will be made public, and how he intends to highlight what has changed between the drafts?’

Councillor Murray responded that the council had received 2340 responses. The consequential changes would be made public when the council publishes the pre-submission version of the Local Plan scheduled for later in the year. The Consultation Statement will identify the changes made to the Local Plan in light of the consultation.

In response to a supplementary question on the purpose of the consultation Councillor Murray responded that consultation was a statutory requirement and ensured that residents had the opportunity to comment on the challenges facing the council.

2.    Question from Councillor Jerry Patterson to Councillor Mike Murray, Cabinet member for planning policy 

‘What is our five year housing land supply status as of this evening, and how is that calculated?’

In response Councillor Murray stated that the latest version of the five year housing land supply statement was published in August 2013 which reported 4.4 years supply. This remained the published position until the receipt of site completion data and forecasts from developers. The next statement would be published alongside the Local Plan pre-submission consultation. He explained how the housing land supply is calculated as set out in the table below:

As his supplementary question Councillor Patterson asked if Councillor Murray considered an annual statement sufficient.

Councillor Murray responded that this was the standard approach and that the information provided was better than the option of providing no information.

3.    Question from Councillor Debby Hallett to Councillor Elaine Ware, Cabinet member for economy, leisure and property

‘What is the current policy for deciding about letting empty units in West Way Centre?’

Councillor Ware responded that under the contract with Doric Properties for the sale of the West Way Shopping Centre the council retained the right to manage and deal with the centre in the ordinary course of estate management.

As her supplementary question Councillor Hallett asked what Doric’s role was in the day to day management of the West Way  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

    Council considered the report of the Chief Executive on behalf of the Community Governance Review Working Group. The report invited Council to make final decisions in respect of its community governance review of the Vale of White Horse.

     Councillor Matthew Barber moved and Councillor Charlotte Dickson seconded the following motion with strikethrough showing the words deleted and bold the words added to the working group recommendations. In supporting the motion councillors expressed the view that Council had a responsibility to ensure the correct decisions were made. The changes to the working group recommendations took account of parish council views and allowed further consideration of a number of matters which were the subject of future housing developments.

That Council:

(a)  to supports its the Community Governance Review Working Group’s final recommendations in relation to each item subject to a community governance review, which are set out in appendices A and B of this report, with the exception of CGR8 (Chilton, East Hendred and Harwell), CGR11 (Great Faringdon and Great Coxwell), CGR13 (Grove and East Challow), CGR18 (Kingston Bagpuize with Southmoor and Fyfield and Tubney), option two in CGR21 (Radley and Kennington) and CGR24 (Wantage, Grove and Lockinge)

(b)  rejects CGR8 (Chilton, East Hendred and Harwell) because Council agrees with Harwell Parish Council that no problems result from the existing boundaries and that there is little merit in the proposed changes given the possibility of further development

(c)  rejects CGR11 (Great Faringdon and Great Coxwell) because Council agrees with the views expressed by Great Coxwell Parish Council and considers the proposed changes to be premature and could be the subject of a future review

(d)  rejects CGR13 (Grove and East Challow) because Council agrees with the views of East Challow Parish Council but requests the Community Governance and Electoral Issues Committee to consider undertaking a further review of this area after May 2015

(e)  supports an amended proposal in relation to CGR18 (Kingston Bagpuize with Southmoor and Fyfield and Tubney) to transfer a more limited area of land as shown on the revised map 18, tabled at the meeting, to accord with the views expressed by Kingston Bagpuize with Southmoor and Fyfield and Tubney Parish Councils

(f)   requests the Community Governance and Electoral Issues Committee to consider undertaking a wider review of the boundary between Sunningwell, Kennington and Radley parishes than that proposed by option two in CGR21 (Radley and Kennington) after May 2015, in accordance with option one proposed by the Community Governance Review Working Group

(g)  requests the Community Governance and Electoral Issues Committee to consider undertaking a wider review than that proposed by CGR24 (Wantage, Grove and Lockinge) after May 2015, to take account of future development

(h)  to establishes a Community Governance and Electoral Issues Committee comprising eight members made up four Conservative and four Liberal Democrat councillors, namely Councillors Marilyn Badcock, Batts, Constance (chairman), Jeanette Halliday, Hoddinott, Thomson, de Vere (vice-chairman) and Catherine Webber and to appoint all other councillors from the relevant political groups  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

Council considered the following motions submitted under standing order 11

(1)  Motion proposed by Councillor Richard Webber and seconded by Councillor Dudley Hoddinott

‘Council requests that Cabinet commit to a feasibility study and a public consultation for one or more new settlements in the Vale as solutions to our long term need for housing.’

In supporting the motion councillors noted that the current public consultation made no mention of the possibility of a new settlement to meet the housing delivery targets. The current policy of building houses near towns and villages was not supported because of concerns regarding the lack of infrastructure, traffic concerns, the lack of jobs in the vicinity of the new homes and the impact on the countryside. A new settlement, comprising two or three village communities, would provide the opportunity to design sustainable communities with planned infrastructure, schools, businesses and other facilities which would allow extra houses to be added over time and take the pressure off other towns and villages in the district. Reference was made to similar developments in Cambridge and Poundbury.

Other councillors, whilst supporting the idea in principle, expressed the view that the proposal would not contribute to the current Local Plan process and the requirement to address the council’s housing supply shortfall, would present greater infrastructure challenges than smaller developments and take many years to plan and implement.               

An amendment, moved by Councillor Mike Murray and seconded by Councillor Yvonne Constance, was accepted by the mover and seconder of the original motion with the consent of Council – additional words shown in bold and deleted words shown by a strikethrough.

‘Council requests that commends Cabinet for being committed to continue to explore all possibilities to address our long term need for housing, including investigating the feasibility of one or more new settlements commit to a feasibility study and a public consultation for one or more new settlements in the Vale as solutions to our long term need for housing.’

With the consent of Council the mover and seconder accepted a proposal by Councillor Jim Halliday to add the words ‘and carry out appropriate public consultation’ at the end of the motion.

RESOLVED:

Council commends Cabinet for being committed to continue to explore all possibilities to address our long term need for housing, including investigating the feasibility of one or more new settlements and carry out appropriate public consultation.

(2)  Motion proposed by Councillor Julie Mayhew-Archer and seconded by Councillor Judy Roberts

‘Council urges the Cabinet to consider improvements to the Vale car parks, which businesses and the public would welcome, such as a pay on return or a number plate recognition system. This would prevent the growing number of fines which alienate people, particularly visitors, but have earned this council an astonishing £100,000 last year.’

Those councillors in support of the motion expressed concern at the level of fines collected which caused frustration for both visitors and businesses. Fines punished forgetful shoppers and were disproportionate to the offence. The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.