Agenda and minutes
PDF 114 KBVenue: The Ridgeway (main hall first floor), The Beacon, (formerly Wantage Civic Hall), Portway, Wantage, OX12 9BY
Contact: Steven Corrigan, Democratic Services Manager 01491 823049 Email: steven.corrigan@southandvale.gov.uk
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
Apologies for absence To receive apologies for absence. Minutes: None. |
|
|
To adopt and sign as a correct record the council minutes of the meeting held on 16 July 2014 (attached). Minutes: RESOLVED: to adopt as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 16 July 2014 and agree that the chairman sign them. |
|
|
Declarations of interest To receive any declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests in respect of items on the agenda for this meeting. Minutes: None. |
|
|
Chairman's announcements To receive any announcements from the chairman. Minutes: Mr Badcock, Chairman of Council, informed Council that a Thanksgiving Service for the life of Mrs Ann Ducker, MBE, former Leader of South Oxfordshire District Council, would take place on Thursday 6 November at Dorchester Abbey followed by refreshments at Little Stoke Manor. The family had requested no flowers and no black with any donations made to Sue Ryder.
The Chairman provided a reminder that the deadline for tickets to his charity dinner in aid of the Royal British Legion and the National Eczema Society was 24 October. The dinner would be held at Dalton Barracks, Abingdon.
He reported that on 11 October at the annual community awards 58 of the 71 nominees attended to receive certificates of appreciation. He thanked those councillors who made nominations and hosted tables.
On 1 August representatives of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community had visited him and the vice-chairman. The community worked to promote understanding, respect and peace between all people. As part of their centenary celebrations the community had raised half a million pounds for British charities including the Poppy Appeal, carried out a national blood donation drive to save lives, embarked on a feed the homeless programme to provide 20,000 meals this year and initiated a national environmental campaign to plant 50,000 trees. The community had donated £500 for one of his charities, the Thames Valley and Chilterns Air Ambulance Trust. Complimentary copies of ‘Life of Muhammad’ and ‘World Crisis and Pathway to Peace” books were available for interested councillors.
The Chairman advised that for the benefit of the public the Local Plan item would be considered following the public questions. |
|
|
Statements, petitions and questions from the public relating to matters affecting council. Any statements, petitions and questions from the public under standing order 32 will be made or presented at the meeting.
Minutes: The chairman reported details of those members of the public who had submitted questions, registered to make statements or given notice to present a petition to the meeting.
In accordance with Standing Order 32(7) the chairman agreed to allow up to 30 minutes for questions and to prioritise those questions from members of the public attending the meeting. He also agreed that those questions submitted by members of the public who were unable to attend the meeting would be included in the minutes with a written response to follow. This process would allow all members present at the meeting to ask and receive a response to their question within the 30 minute period. The written responses to questions not read out at the meeting, whilst not appearing in the minutes, would appear on the council's website with the minutes.
A. Questions asked at the meeting:
i. Dr Peter Collins, representative from the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England, asked the following question
“In view of • the damage to the highly prized Vale countryside which will result from adoption of the District Council’s draft Local Plan to 2031 Part 1, in particular in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the Green Belt; • the adoption by the Vale of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment ( SHMA) figures without proper scrutiny then or since, or paying due heed to the most expert advice cogently making the case that the aspirational figures, full of identifiable flaws, produced to justify the SHMA figures, could not give rise to sustainable development and hence comply with the National Planning Policy Framework(NPPF);
•no change having been made in deriving house-building targets in respect of social, economic and environmental constraints, as is the Vale Council’s responsibility and indicated as required in the SHMA report, where clearly such constraints exist; •the lack of a ‘Plan B’ which could take into account a failure to meet targets during the planning period or any indication of how the year-by-year progress towards targets will be managed; •the likelihood that using the SHMA figures will result in the Vale never approaching its 5-year housing land supply target; •the whole process of arriving at the SHMA figures not having involved proper consultation of local people and leaving a ‘democratic deficit’ calling out for repair; •the lack of any possibility of producing the necessary infrastructure to accompany the proposed development, in respect of schools and especially roads and transport; would the Council agree that the SHMA figures, and indeed the whole growth strategy, require a fuller justification before the draft Local Plan goes for public consultation, and say when it will be testing the SHMA figures in an open public forum, using independent experts to question all aspects of the methodology and its consequences?” Councillor Mike Murray, Cabinet member for planning policy, responded as follows: “The suspended Cherwell Local Plan Inspector’s letter represents the best available guidance for the most appropriate target for our housing numbers, and leads us ... view the full minutes text for item 35. |
|
|
Draft Local Plan to 2031
Cabinet, at its meeting on 3 October 2014, considered the report of the head of planning on the draft Local Plan 2031. The report set out an overview of the main changes to the draft plan and asked Cabinet to recommend the Council to agree the draft Local Plan 2031 Part 1: Strategic Sites and Policies for publication for the purposes of pre-submission (Regulation 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) Regulations 2012) public consultation, and thereafter for submission to the Secretary of State for independent examination, together with supporting evidence base studies, topic papers and summaries of the consultation responses received (Regulation 22).
At its meeting Cabinet considered the views aired at the Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 25 September 2014 as set out in the draft minutes of the Scrutiny Committee meeting (available on the council’s website). The report considered by Cabinet at its meeting on 3 October 2014 and a schedule of substantive changes circulated at the Cabinet meeting are attached.
The following documents, that have informed the plan making process, are available on the council’s website with the agenda for this meeting:
· Local Plan 2031 Part 1(Publication Version) · Sustainability Appraisal Report · Habitat Regulations Assessment Report · Consultation Statement and summary report · Infrastructure Delivery Plan
At its meeting on 3 October 2014 Cabinet authorised the head of planning in consultation with the Cabinet member for planning policy, to make minor changes and corrections to the Local Plan prior to Council on 15 October 2014. Any such changes will be reported to Council.
RECOMMENDATION to Council:
1. that the Pre-submission draft Local Plan 2031 Part 1: Strategic Sites and Policies, associated documents (submission Policies Map, Sustainability Appraisal, Appropriate Assessment, Infrastructure Delivery Plan, Consultation Statements) and supporting evidence base studies and topic papers, be published for Pre-Submission public consultation for a period of six weeks under Regulations 19 and 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) Regulations 2012,
and thereafter;
2. to authorise the head of planning in consultation with the Cabinet member for planning policy to submit the Submission Local Plan 2031 and all associated documents together with the summarised Pre-Submission public consultation responses to the Secretary of State for independent examination under Regulation 20 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) Regulations 2012; and
3. to authorise the head of planning in consultation with the Cabinet member for planning policy, to make minor changes and corrections to the Local Plan prior to both the publication for consultation and submission.
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Cabinet, at its meeting on 3 October 2014, considered the report of the head of planning on the draft Local Plan 2031 and the views aired at the Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 25 September 2014. The report set out an overview of the main changes to the draft plan. Cabinet resolved to recommend the Council to agree the draft Local Plan 2031 Part 1: Strategic Sites and Policies for publication for the purposes of pre-submission (Regulation 19 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) Regulations 2012) public consultation, and thereafter for submission to the Secretary of State for independent examination, together with supporting evidence base studies, topic papers and summaries of the consultation responses received (Regulation 22).
Councillor Matthew Barber moved and Councillor Mike Murray seconded a motion to approve Cabinet’s recommendation subject to an amendment to the classification of Botley to ensure Oxford City Council’s policies on district centres as defined in their Local Plan would not apply to Botley as set out below:
To remove the phrases
from policy boxes 3 and 11 respectively, and placing the wording that indicates Botley is equivalent to a district centre in the Oxford city context within the clarification text in paragraphs 5.28 to 5.31.
RECOMMENDATION to Council:
1. that the Pre-submission draft Local Plan 2031 Part 1: Strategic Sites and Policies, associated documents (submission Policies Map, Sustainability Appraisal, Appropriate Assessment, Infrastructure Delivery Plan, Consultation Statements) and supporting evidence base studies and topic papers, be published for Pre-Submission public consultation for a period of six weeks under Regulations 19 and 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) Regulations 2012,
and thereafter;
2. to authorise the head of planning in consultation with the Cabinet member for planning policy to submit the Submission Local Plan 2031 and all associated documents together with the summarised Pre-Submission public consultation responses to the Secretary of State for independent examination under Regulation 20 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) Regulations 2012; and
3. to authorise the head of planning in consultation with the Cabinet member for planning policy, to make minor changes and corrections to the Local Plan prior to both the publication for consultation and submission.
Councillor Jerry Patterson moved and Councillor Richard Webber seconded the following amendment:
To refer the matter back to the Cabinet for reconsideration and to request the Cabinet to make the following amendments:
1. On page 67 “The Oxford Green Belt”, amend paragraph 5.39 to read “The purpose of the Oxford Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl around Oxford, to prevent coalescence of settlements, to preserve the setting of Oxford, to safeguard the countryside, and to assist urban regeneration by encouraging development of brownfield and urban land.”
2. On page 67 “The Oxford Green Belt”, delete paragraphs 5.40, 5.41 & 5.42.
3. On page 69, in Core Policy 13, first ... view the full minutes text for item 36. |
|
|
Urgent business To receive notification of any matters which the chairman determines should be considered as urgent business and the special circumstances which have made the matters urgent. Minutes: The chairman advised that he had permitted an urgent question from Councillor Jim Halliday to Councillor Matthew Barber, Leader of the council, because it related to an issue that arose since the deadline for submission of questions and a delay to the next scheduled meeting would prejudice the council’s ability to oppose the decision (see minute 39 urgent question). |
|
|
Petitions under standing order 13 To receive petitions from members of the council under standing order 13 (if any). Minutes: None. |
|
|
Questions under standing order 12 To receive questions from members of the council under standing order 12 .
1. Question from Councillor Patrick Lonergan to the Leader of the Council, Councillor Matthew Barber
Could the Leader please give a detailed financial breakdown of the planned upgrade to the Lodge Hill junction – including a) its total cost, b) the hoped-for contribution from the CIL, Section 106 contributions, grants, and any other sources of funding, and also state the number of homes that will be needed to be built to deliver the required CIL and Section 106 contributions?
2. Question from councillor Jenny Hannaby to the Leader of the Council, Councillor Matthew Barber
Could the Leader please give a detailed financial breakdown of the plans to deliver the NE Wantage link road - including a) its total cost, b) the hoped-for contribution from the CIL, Section 106 contributions, grants, and any other sources of funding, and also state the number of homes that will be needed to be built to deliver the required CIL and Section 106 contributions?
3. Question from Councillor Richard Webber to Councillor Mike Murray, Cabinet member for planning policy
Please could he tell the Council how many Vale communities have to date formally embarked on Neighbourhood Planning by submitting an application for designation?
4. Question from Councillor Judy Roberts to Councillor Mike Murray, Cabinet member for planning policy
In its proposed Local Plan, the administration places much hope on the Planning Inspector’s acceptance of the Liverpool approach. Does the Cabinet member agree this is a risky policy?
5. Question from Councillor Jerry Patterson to Councillor Mike Murray, Cabinet member for planning policy
Does he agree that the Council should affirm the importance of the Green Belt protection and ensure robust safeguards are not undermined when assessing unmet housing needs?
6. Question from Councillor Julie Mayhew-Archer to Councillor Elaine Ware, Cabinet member for economy, leisure and property Can you provide an update to Council on progress towards a trial of automatic number plate recognition in the Charter multi-storey car park in Abingdon?
7.
Question from Councillor Sandy Lovatt to Councillor Jim Halliday, Chairman of the Scrutiny
Committee
In light of the Inspector's letter at Cherwell
District Council's Examination in Public does Councillor
Halliday agree that the Council should
use the Vale's Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) from the Oxfordshire
Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) as the District's
Housing Target for the Vale Local Plan 2031?
8.
Question
from Councillor Yvonne Constance to
Councillor Jim Halliday, Chairman of
the Scrutiny Committee For the benefit of the Council can Councillor Halliday please detail any specific alternative proposals or amendments to the plan which would be acceptable to a Local Plan Inspector which have been proposed via the Scrutiny Committee or from his own political group?
Minutes: 1. Question from Councillor Patrick Lonergan to the Leader of the Council, Councillor Matthew Barber
‘Could the Leader please give a detailed financial breakdown of the planned upgrade to the Lodge Hill junction – including a) its total cost, b) the hoped-for contribution from the CIL, Section 106 contributions, grants, and any other sources of funding, and also state the number of homes that will be needed to be built to deliver the required CIL and Section 106 contributions?’ In response Councillor Barber stated that the total scheme cost of the option currently promoted is estimated at £13.3 million. This scheme design requires approval by the Highways Agency, due to the impact on the A34 Trunk Road. Other options would cost more.
Around £4million will be available from the CIL and section 106 contributions. He would respond in writing on the number of houses required to deliver the funding.
In response to a supplementary question Councillor Barber responded that the Local Enterprise Partnership had not formally agreed funding for the project but had commissioned assessment work.
In accordance with standing order 27, the chairman asked Council whether it wished to continue the meeting for a further thirty minutes to complete the remaining business or finish the meeting at this point. Council, by assent, agreed to continue for a further thirty minutes. 2. Question from Councillor Jenny Hannaby to the Leader of the Council, Councillor Matthew Barber
‘Could the Leader please give a detailed financial breakdown of the plans to deliver the NE Wantage link road - including a) its total cost, b) the hoped-for contribution from the CIL, Section 106 contributions, grants, and any other sources of funding, and also state the number of homes that will be needed to be built to deliver the required CIL and Section 106 contributions?’ Councillor Barber responded that the total cost of the Wantage Eastern Link road that passes through the Crab Hill area is estimated at £15 million. Expected funding for the road will come from s106 contributions as the two major contributing schemes, Grove airfield and Crab Hill predate CIL. Contributions to the value of just over £12 million have been agreed to date with £4.5 million Local Transport Board funding to help fund the middle section of the link road early. The two end sections are being provided by the Crab Hill developers as they’re required to give access to their site. In response to a supplementary question Councillor Barber undertook to provide written details of the source of funding for the balance of the middle section of the link road.
3. Question from Councillor Richard Webber to Councillor Mike Murray, Cabinet member for planning policy
‘Please could he tell the Council how many Vale communities have to date formally embarked on Neighbourhood Planning by submitting an application for designation?’ Councillor Murray responded that as of 9 October 2014 10 communities had submitted applications for designation.
In response to a supplementary question Councillor Murray confirmed that he was hopeful that ... view the full minutes text for item 39. |
|
|
Recommendations from Cabinet, individual Cabinet members, and committees
To consider the following recommendation from Cabinet.
Treasury management outturn 2013/14
Cabinet, at its meeting on 3 October 2014, considered a report on the outturn performance of the treasury management function for the financial year 2013/14.The report considered by Cabinet at its meeting on 3 October 2014 is attached.
RECOMMENDATION: to
(a) approve the treasury management outturn report 2013/14; and
(b) approve the actual 2013/14 prudential indicators within the report.
Minutes: Treasury management outturn 2013/14
Council considered the Cabinet’s recommendation, made at its meeting on 3 October 2014, on the outturn performance of the treasury management function for the financial year 2013/14 and the approval of the actual 2013/14 prudential indicators in accordance with the requirements of the CIPFA Treasury Management Code of Practice and Treasury Management Practice 6.
RESOLVED: to 1. approve the treasury management outturn report for 2013/14; 2. approve the actual 2013/14 prudential indicators within the report of the head of finance to Cabinet on 3 October 2014.
|
|
|
Report of the leader of the council (1) Urgent cabinet decisions
In accordance with the overview and scrutiny procedure rules, a cabinet decision can be taken as a matter of urgency, if any delay by the call-in process would seriously prejudice the council’s or the public’s interest. Treating the decision as a matter of urgency must be agreed by the chairman of the Scrutiny Committee and must be reported to the next meeting of the council, together with the reasons for urgency.
To receive any details of urgent cabinet decisions taken since the last ordinary meeting of the council, (if any).
(2) Delegation of cabinet functions
To receive details of any changes to the leader’s scheme of delegation.
(3) Matters affecting the authority arising from meetings of joint committees, partnerships and other meetings
To receive the report of the leader (if any). Minutes: The Leader of the council referred to the Drayton Road issue which was the subject of an urgent question earlier in the meeting |
|
|
Notices of motion under standing order 11 To receive notices of motion under standing order 11.
(1) Motion to be proposed by Councillor Bob Johnston, seconded by Councillor Jenny Hannaby
Council calls on officers to report on how the Vale could make and support the business case for a new express train service from Bristol to Bedford, stopping at Wantage/Grove, Didcot, Oxford, Bicester and Milton Keynes.
(2) Motion to be proposed by Councillor Jerry Patterson, seconded by Councillor Judy Roberts
This Council believes that the Green Belt Review as undertaken in support of the latest iteration of the Local Plan is only a partial review and until the County as a whole undertakes a whole Green Belt Review, the proposed “nibbling at the Green Belt” delivers relatively few houses but sets a dangerous precedent for the future.
Minutes: Council considered the following motion submitted under standing order 11.
(1) Motion proposed by Councillor Bob Johnston and seconded by Councillor Jenny Hannaby
Council calls on officers to report on how the Vale could make and support the business case for a new express train service from Bristol to Bedford, stopping at Wantage/Grove, Didcot, Oxford, Bicester and Milton Keynes.
RESOLVED: To call on officers to report on how the Vale could make and support the business case for a new express train service from Bristol to Bedford, stopping at Wantage/Grove, Didcot, Oxford, Bicester and Milton Keynes. (2) With the consent of Council the following motion was withdrawn.
This Council believes that the Green Belt Review as undertaken in support of the latest iteration of the Local Plan is only a partial review and until the County as a whole undertakes a whole Green Belt Review, the proposed “nibbling at the Green Belt” delivers relatively few houses but sets a dangerous precedent for the future.
|