Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of councillors Julia Bricknell, Angela Lawrence, Ron Mansfield and Margaret Turner.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the Council minutes of the meeting held on 23 October 2013 (previously published). 

RESOLVED: to adopt the minutes of the meeting held on 23 October 2013 as a correct record and agree that the Chairman signs them.

To receive any declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests in respect of items on the agenda for this meeting.  

None.

To receive any announcements from the chairman.  

The Chairman advised that for the benefit of the public the West Way item would be considered following the public questions. He sought, and received, Council’s agreement to suspend standing order 31(1) to require councillors to stand when addressing Council for the items following the West Way petition item.

Any statements, petitions and questions from the public under standing order 32 will be made or presented at the meeting.

A. Steven Corrigan, Democratic Services Manager, read out the following question on behalf of  Dr Les Clyne to Matthew Barber, Leader of the council.

"Please could the Leader of the Council comment on the following observations and question:

On Wednesday 4 December the Vale Planning Committee ratified a recommendation from officers that the Grove airfield development should go ahead with in the order of 35 per cent affordable housing on the site. When Councillor Hayward queried the term 'in the order of 35 per cent' no clear response was given by the Development Manager. Policy H5 of the Vale states that 40 per cent of dwellings shall be affordable housing. In fact the officers report says that at present the developers are only willing to offer 32 per cent. Whilst it is commendable that the Planning Committee has recommended a minimum of 30 per cent affordable rented in line with Policy H5 and supplementary Vale housing guidance, it is regrettable that;

1. they have not met the 40 per cent overall target for rented and shared ownership;
2. that it was not explained clearly to the meeting in general, and councillors in particular, that the officers recommendation breached the Vale's policies.

Is it possible to instruct the officers to obtain at least 40 per cent via the Section 106 negotiations, or failing that at least 35 per cent, in both cases without jeopardising the 30 per cent minimum affordable rented requirement approved by the committee (in view of the continuing escalation of applicants on the Vale's housing waiting list, up from 1175 in April 2013 to 1272 by 29 November 2013)”?

Councillor Matthew Barber responded that it was not possible to instruct officers to obtain at least 40 per cent. It would be possible to instruct officers to get the highest proportion possible given the viability assessment and the need for other infrastructure, and we will do so. He was happy to say that in the case of 40 per cent or 35 per cent he would wish to maintain the 30 per cent minimum of affordable rented accommodation.

He undertook to provide a written response to Dr Clyne.

B. Question from Dr Peter Harbour to Matthew Barber, Leader of the council

“Will the Leader of the council please join and arrange for discussions between the Pool Friends and senior representatives of recreation and leisure (officers and councillor) to explore how to improve the presentation of the pool, to note the help the Friends have offered and to recognise that the Abbey Meadow is a major attractor as a riverside focus for Abingdon on Thames”?

Councillor Matthew Barber confirmed that he had spoken to Dr Harbour and was looking to arrange a meeting early in the new year.

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. 

None.

A petition has been handed in objection to the current proposals for the redevelopment of the West Way shopping centre and the surrounding area on the grounds that the proposed uses, scale and character of development are entirely inappropriate for the local community. The full wording of the petition is set out below:

“We the undersigned petition the council to Not allow the current plans for redevelopment of the West Way shopping centre and the surrounding area to proceed and to reopen discussion with the community on a smaller scale redevelopment, in line with the ideas put forward by the Council for consultation in 2012.

We the undersigned object to the current proposals for redevelopment of the West Way shopping centre and the surrounding area on the grounds that the proposed uses, scale and character of development are entirely inappropriate for the local community.

We urge Vale of White Horse District Council not to allow these plans to proceed and to reopen discussion with the community in discussion on a smaller scale redevelopment, in line with the ideas put forward by the Council for consultation in 2012”.

The petition has both hard copy (in excess of 660) and e-petition signatures (75 at the time of publication of this agenda) in support of it.

The council’s Petition Scheme states the following regarding petition debates at Council meetings:

When petitions containing more than 500 signatures are submitted, the petition organiser will be given five minutes to present the petition and the petition will then be discussed by councillors.  Council will decide how to respond to the petition at this meeting.

In response to a petition, Council may decide to

·       take the action the petition requests;

·       not to take the action requested for reasons put forward in the debate;

·       to commission further investigation into the matter, for example by a relevant committee;

·       make recommendations to Cabinet, where the issue is one on which the Cabinet is required to make the final decision.

Council is invited to make any recommendation to Cabinet.

In accordance with the council’s Petition Scheme that provides for a Council debate of petitions containing more than 500 signatures, Council considered the following petition

“We the undersigned petition the council to not allow the current plans for redevelopment of the West Way shopping centre and the surrounding area to proceed and to reopen discussion with the community on a smaller scale redevelopment, in line with the ideas put forward by the Council for consultation in 2012.

We the undersigned object to the current proposals for redevelopment of the West Way shopping centre and the surrounding area on the grounds that the proposed uses, scale and character of development are entirely inappropriate for the local community.

We urge Vale of White Horse District Council not to allow these plans to proceed and to reopen discussion with the community in discussion on a smaller scale redevelopment, in line with the ideas put forward by the Council for consultation in 2012”.

Supporters of the petition presented two large scrolls with over 2,000 signatures and unfurled them at the meeting. 

Dr Caroline Potter addressed Council on behalf West Way Community Concern in objection to Doric’s proposals. Whilst local residents supported the regeneration of the area and would welcome an improved centre the current proposals were not suitable for a suburban neighbourhood. She raised the following points:

• The public consultation had failed to have regard to local views with no changes made to the scheme
• The proposals would turn the shopping centre into an out of town retail park with the loss of independent shops
• The proposals would change the character of the area
• Residents of Field House would be forcibly relocated
• The area would suffer road congestion

Councillor Debby Hallett moved and Councillor Matthew Barber seconded the following motion:

"Council acknowledges the strong local opposition to the proposals outlined by Doric Properties for the redevelopment of the West Way area, Botley, on the grounds that residents feel their scale is inappropriately large and completely out of character for a suburban residential area.

Council urges Cabinet to do all they can to persuade Doric Properties to meet with residents and work in partnership with the local community of Botley to find a way forward."

In moving the motion Councillor Debby Hallett stated that local residents should have a say on the scheme which would have a major impact on  their community and lives and as such council should ensure this happens.

In seconding the motion Councillor Matthew Barber acknowledged the scale of concern as shown by the petition and although the council had limited powers to change the detail it could and would encourage Doric to work with local residents.

RESOLVED:

That Council acknowledges the strong local opposition to the proposals outlined by Doric Properties for the redevelopment of the West Way area, Botley, on the grounds that residents feel their scale is inappropriately large and completely out of character for a suburban residential area.

Council urges Cabinet to do all  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

To receive petitions from members of the council under standing order 13 (if any).

None.

To receive questions from members of the council under standing order 12.

1.         Question from Councillor Gervase Duffield to the Leader of council, Councillor Matthew Barber

What effects if any will the sale by Lloyds Bank to Aberdeen Asset Management of parts of their Scottish Widows cluster (ie, the Investment Partnership) have on central Abingdon precinct developments, and will Lloyds discuss with the Council's investment managers any further sales from the cluster which might affect central Abingdon development?

2.         Question from Councillor Andrew Skinner to the Leader of council, Councillor Matthew Barber

Will the Leader agree that to reduce the benefits under the Council Tax Reduction Scheme for some of the most vulnerable people in the Vale in order to save less than £20,000 per annum is something which should be avoided at all costs ?

3.         Question from Councillor Jenny Hannaby to the Leader of council, Councillor Matthew Barber

Please can he outline the timetable for improving the road network in the Wantage Grove area, which, as he is aware, is about to see construction of a large number of new houses and also outline how he expects these vital road improvement to be paid for?

4.         Question from Councillor Bob Johnston to the Leader of council, Councillor Matthew Barber

Has the Leader been approached by the Leader of the County Council on the subject of railway electrification, as he seeks an appropriate financial contribution from the Vale to expedite the project in a similar way to that of the East/West Railway?

5.         Question from Councillor Catherine Webber to the Leader of council, Councillor Matthew Barber

Is the Leader aware that the Abingdon Arts Festival will not now be happening next year, or for the foreseeable future, purely as a result of his own policies on revenue grants?

6.         Question from Councillor Debby Hallett to the Leader of council, Councillor Matthew Barber

In recent months, the major issues affecting this Council have been the proposed move to Crowmarsh, and the future development of Westway, Botley. These issues are ongoing and both have serious implications for the reputation of the Council. The common thread that runs through both these issues, is the feeling that there has been little or inadequate consultation with the public and that their views are being ignored. Please would the Leader comment on this?

7.         Question from Councillor Jim Halliday to the Leader of council, Councillor Matthew Barber

Please could the Leader list a) the sum allocated for the festival grants budget in FY 2012/13 and FY 2013/14, b) list all festival grants actually paid out in FY 2012/13 and to date in FY 2013/14 - giving in each case the sum paid, the name of the Festival and the date the grant was paid ? 

8.         Question from Councillor Pat Lonergan to the Leader of council, Councillor Matthew Barber

Does the Leader share the frustration of Abingdon councillors about the length of time that it is taking  to fill empty  ...  view the full agenda text for item 49.

1.         Question from Councillor Gervase Duffield to the Leader of the council, Councillor Matthew Barber

What effects if any will the sale by Lloyds Bank to Aberdeen Asset Management of parts of their Scottish Widows cluster (ie, the Investment Partnership) have on central Abingdon precinct developments, and will Lloyds discuss with the Council's investment managers any further sales from the cluster which might affect central Abingdon development?

Councillor Matthew Barber responded that there would be no impact on the project.

In response to a supplementary question he confirmed that councillors would be kept informed of any further developments.

2.         Question from Councillor Andrew Skinner to the Leader of the council, Councillor Matthew Barber

Will the Leader agree that to reduce the benefits under the Council Tax Reduction Scheme for some of the most vulnerable people in the Vale in order to save less than £20,000 per annum is something which should be avoided at all costs ?

Councillor Matthew Barber responded that savings had to be made and the scheme was fair.

In response to a supplementary question he stated that detail of the savings to the Vale of renting Abbey House would be included in Cabinet’s budget proposals.

3.         Question from Councillor Jenny Hannaby to the Leader of the council, Councillor Matthew Barber

Please can he outline the timetable for improving the road network in the Wantage Grove area, which, as he is aware, is about to see construction of a large number of new houses and also outline how he expects these vital road improvement to be paid for?

Councillor Matthew Barber undertook to provide a written response.

4.         Question from Councillor Bob Johnston to the Leader of council, Councillor Matthew Barber

Has the Leader been approached by the Leader of the County Council on the subject of railway electrification, as he seeks an appropriate financial contribution from the Vale to expedite the project in a similar way to that of the East/West Railway?

Councillor Matthew Barber responded that he had not been approached but he had put the issue of bridge works in South Hinksey and Grove on the Oxfordshire leaders’ agenda.

In response to a supplementary question he confirmed that he would be happy to consider helping if approached particularly in respect of a new station at Grove/Wantage.

5.         Question from Councillor Catherine Webber to the Leader of the council, Councillor Matthew Barber

Is the Leader aware that the Abingdon Arts Festival will not now be happening next year, or for the foreseeable future, purely as a result of his own policies on revenue grants?

Councillor Matthew Barber responded that the Abingdon Arts Festival had not applied for a grant although 19 other festivals had.

In response to a supplementary question he confirmed that the Abingdon Arts Festival could still submit an application.

6.         Question from Councillor Debby Hallett to the Leader of the council, Councillor Matthew Barber

In recent months, the major issues affecting this Council have been the proposed move  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49.

To consider the following recommendations from Cabinet, individual Cabinet members, or committees since the last Council meeting. 

A.        Delivering Accelerated Housing Growth in Science Vale, Southern Oxfordshire

Cabinet, at its meeting on 6 December 2013, will consider a report to approve a project that will accelerate housing growth across the Science Vale area of South and Vale and ask that both Councils establish budgets to allow the project to proceed.

The report of the Strategic Director, which Cabinet will consider on 6 December, was circulated to all councillors. Please bring this report to the meeting.

The recommendations of Cabinet will be circulated to councillors prior to the Council meeting.

B.                Council tax reduction scheme 2014/15

Cabinet, at its meeting on 6 December 2013, will consider a report on a council tax reduction scheme for 2014/15.

The report of the Head of Finance, which Cabinet will consider on 5 December, was circulated to all councillors. Please bring this report to the meeting.

The recommendations of Cabinet will be circulated to councillors on Friday 6 December.

C.        Council tax base 2014/15

Cabinet, at its meeting on 6 December 2013, will consider a report on the council tax base for 2014/15.

The report of the Head of Finance, which Cabinet will consider on 6 December, was circulated to all councillors. Please bring this report to the meeting.

The recommendations of Cabinet will be circulated to councillors priot to the Council meeting.

C.                Council tax reduction scheme grant for town and parish councils

Cabinet, at its meeting on 6 December 2013, will consider a report on the distribution of the council tax reduction scheme grant to parish and town councils.

The report of the Head of Finance, which Cabinet will consider on 5 December, was circulated to all councillors. Please bring this report to the meeting.

The recommendations of Cabinet will be circulated to councillors on Friday 6 December.

Council considered the following recommendations from Cabinet.

A.        Delivering Accelerated Housing Growth in Science Vale, Southern Oxfordshire

Council considered Cabinet’s recommendations, made at its meeting on 6 December 2013, to approve a project to accelerate housing growth across the Science Vale area of South and Vale and establish budgets to allow the project to proceed.

RESOLVED: to

1.     approve a revenue budget to accelerate housing growth in the Science Vale area, in 2013/14 of £500,000 funded from a £1.025 million capacity fund grant;

2.            approve a revenue budget, in 2014/15 of £535,000 funded from the second tranche of capacity fund grant. 

B.                Council tax reduction scheme 2014/15

Council considered Cabinet’s recommendations, made at its meeting on 6 December 2013, on a council tax reduction scheme for 2014/15.

Councillor Richard Webber requested that his views be recorded in the minutes. He stated that the council had a duty to the people of Vale and especially the disadvantaged. The scheme proposed would impact on those people least able to afford to pay their council tax.

In accordance with standing order 29(3), at the request of more than a fifth of councillors present, the chairman asked for a recorded vote. Votes on the recommendations were recorded as follows:

RESOLVED: to

1.            adopt for 2014/15 onwards, the 2013/14 adopted council tax reduction scheme but with the following amendments:

·        entitlement for working age claimants will be capped at 91.5 per cent of their council tax liability, except for these protected groups - people with disabilities, war widows and war disabled pension recipients

·        removal of the second adult rebate scheme

·        entitlement for properties in bands F, G and H will be capped to band E council tax levels

·        the current four week “run on” entitlement will be extended for thirteen weeks when a claimant moves into work.  Any rules concerning eligibility for the run on remain the same

·        personal allowances and non-dependent deductions for working age claimants will be uprated by one per cent each financial year commencing 1 April 2014

2.      establish a hardship fund to assist claimants who may face difficulties  meeting their council tax liability. 

C.        Council tax base 2014/15

Council considered Cabinet’s recommendations, made at its meeting on 6 December 2013, on the council tax base for 2014/15.

RESOLVED:

(a)         To agree that, in accordance with the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

To consider the report of the Independent Remuneration Panel. 

Council considered the independent remuneration panel’s report on the  councillors’ allowances scheme.

RESOLVED: to

1.                  increase only the basic allowance for 2014/15, in line with the staff pay increase for 2014/15, up to a maximum of two per cent; and

2.                  amend the councillors’ allowances scheme to allow councillors to claim travel expenses to and from the council’s offices, or childcare or dependent carer’s allowances, if an officer of the council has invited a councillor to a meeting.  When making the claim, the councillor must provide written evidence of such an invitation. 

To consider the report of the Head of Legal and Democratic Services on proposed changes to the council’s constitution (attached).

Council considered the report of the Head of Legal and Democratic Services on proposed changes to the council’s constitution. The proposed changes, supported by the Constitution Review Task Group, were recommended to come into effect from 1 January 2014 with the exception of the revised budget and policy framework procedure rules and budget setting protocol that would come into effect immediately in preparation of the 2014/15 budget.

Council agreed not to proceed with changes to standing order 31(1) to provide that councillors stand at this time.

RESOLVED: to

1.                  agree the revised delegation 1.2 to the Head of Economy, Leisure and Property attached as appendix one to the report of the Head of Legal and Democratic Services to Council on 11 December 2013 with effect from 1 January 2014;

2.                  agree the delegation in respect of the national non-domestic rates 1 form (NNDR1) set out in paragraph seven of the report of the Head of Legal and Democratic Services to Council on 11 December 2013 with effect from 1 January 2014;

3.                  agree the amendments to the financial procedure rules set out in paragraph 12 of the report of the Head of Legal and Democratic Services to Council on 11 December 2013 with effect from 1 January 2014;

4.                  agree the revised budget and policy framework procedure rules and budget setting protocol set out in appendix two to the report of the Head of Legal and Democratic Services to Council on 11 December 2013 with immediate effect;

5.                  agree the proposed amendment to standing order 29(3) as set out in paragraph 14 of the report of the Head of Legal and Democratic Services to Council on 11 December 2013 with effect from 1 January 2014;

6.                  authorise the Head of Legal and Democratic Services to make the necessary changes to the council’s constitution to reflect the changes set out in the report of the Head of Legal and Democratic Services to Council on 11 December 2013;

7.         authorise the Head of Legal and Democratic Services to make any minor or consequential amendments to the constitution required for clarification, consistency and compliance with the council’s style guide.

(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).  

Matthew Barber, Leader of council, provided an update on the City Deal negotiations.

Further information would be provided in the information sheet or at the next Council meeting.

To receive notices of motion under standing order 11.

1.      Motion to be proposed by Councillor Gervase Duffield, seconder to be confirmed:

“That this Council welcomes Ofwat’s rejection of the recent Thames Water price increase application, and hopes that Ofwat will be specially vigilant on large applications costing vast sums where these can be undercut by reliable cheaper methods”.

2. Motion to be proposed by Councillor Ron Mansfield, seconded by Councillor Tony de Vere

“Council urges the Cabinet to include appropriate sums for maintenance in its proposed capital budget for 2014/15 and subsequent years to permit the Abbey Meadows Swimming Pool to remain open so that Vale residents can continue enjoy this facility”.

3. Motion to be proposed by Councillor Jim Halliday, seconded by Councillor Julie Mayhew-Archer

“Council urges the Cabinet to allow any monies unspent (as at 31 March 2014)  by the four Area Committees - both for Capital Grants and New Homes Bonus Grants -  to be carried forward to the next financial year and added to any new allocations that be awarded to the given Area Committee during the 2014/15 budget round”.

4. Motion to be proposed by Councillor Dudley Hoddinott, seconded by Councillor Jenny Hannaby

“Council urges the Cabinet to include an appropriate sum in its proposed revenue budget for 2014/15 to allow for the community revenue grants scheme to be re-established in order that community groups and organisations may continue to promote the vitality of the District and the well-being of the community”.

1.      Having received the consent of Council to alter a motion of which he had given notice, Councillor Gervase Duffield moved and Councillor Tony de Vere seconded the following motion – additional words shown in bold:

“In the light of Thames Water's continuing interest in a major local reservoirthis Council welcomes Ofwat’s rejection of the recent Thames Water price increase application, and hopes that Ofwat will be specially vigilant on large applications costing vast sums where these can be undercut by reliable cheaper methods. This Councilrequests the Chief Executive to convey this motion to Ofwat, Thames Water, and the Vale area MPs, and the Water Minister”. 

In supporting the motion councillors expressed the view that under current arrangements water companies were encouraged to design and build huge schemes, paid for by customers, to increase their asset base and reduce their tax liability. The interests of the consumer were not currently the primary concern of the water companies. Repairing leaks did not generate income whilst large capital infrastructure projects did. In the case of infrastructure projects more weight should be given to the views of local residents and social and environmental issues.

RESOLVED:

That in the light of Thames Water's continuing interest in a major local reservoirthis Council welcomes Ofwat’s rejection of the recent Thames Water price increase application, and hopes that Ofwat will be specially vigilant on large applications costing vast sums where these can be undercut by reliable cheaper methods. This Council requests the Chief Executive to convey this motion to Ofwat, Thames Water, and the Vale area MPs, and the Water Minister. 

2. In view of his absence, Councillor Ron Mansfield had authorised Councillor Richard Webber to move the motion of which he had given notice.  Councillor Tony de Vere seconded the motion

“Council urges the Cabinet to include appropriate sums for maintenance in its proposed capital budget for 2014/15 and subsequent years to permit the Abbey Meadows Swimming Pool to remain open so that Vale residents can continue enjoy this facility”.

In supporting the motion a number councillors paid tribute to the work of the Friends of Abbey Meadows Outdoor Pool, the importance of the facility in attracting people to the area, the need to protect the capital infrastructure and the relatively low level of support provided by the district council compared to that of the town council.

RESOLVED:

To urge the Cabinet to include appropriate sums for maintenance in its proposed capital budget for 2014/15 and subsequent years to permit the Abbey Meadows Swimming Pool to remain open so that Vale residents can continue enjoy this facility.

3. Motion proposed by Councillor Jim Halliday and seconded by Councillor Julie Mayhew-Archer

“Council urges the Cabinet to allow any monies unspent (as at 31 March 2014) by the four Area Committees - both for Capital Grants and New Homes Bonus Grants - to be carried  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.