Any statements, petitions and questions from the public under standing order 32 will be made or presented at the meeting.
Minutes:
A. Councillor June Stock, Chairman of Grove Parish Council, made the following statement on behalf of Grove Parish Council.
“The Vale of White Horse District Council, on its website has a Customer Service Charter which states that it will provide a full reply within seven working days to all letters and emails.
Grove Parish Council has written numerous emails on a number of occasions since 1 January 2015 to which we have not received full replies let alone in the promised seven working days. Would the Council please explain why this failure has occurred?
On the 17 July 2015, the Vale of White Horse District Council informed the parish council that any further requests for updates and or questions relating to the Grove airfield development “are to be filtered through the elected district council representatives of Grove and this is an expectation of officers and ensures clear lines of communications with messages not being mixed”.
The parish council totally disagree with this policy as it inhibits parish council officers talking directly to district council officers on specific matters such as the Grove Airfield Development and to date the district council representatives for Grove have not given any substantial information to update the parish council at their full Council meetings.
On 4 January 2016, Grove Parish Council asked for a meeting with a member of the Planning Department to discuss the Grove airfield site. The earliest date given by the Planning department was Wednesday 30 March 2016 (the Wednesday after Easter). It was suggested by the planning department that the meeting would include following:
30 March, (at the time) was nearly three months off and this timescale is totally unacceptable.
Is the only way we can get a speedier response is for the parish council to turn up at your offices and wait our turn to be seen as per your Customer Service Charter?
Your published complaints procedure states that a full reply will be sent within 20 working days or, if more complicated, 28 working days. It should be apparent that our chasing emails are complaints so that you have failed on a second level of your Charter.
The parish clerk wrote to the chief executive on 4 January 2016 and requested the following;
“David, as you already know, the parish council have become increasingly concerned at the lack of communication between the district council and the parish over planning matters, specifically the Grove airfield development.
Through my own endeavours and with no assistance from the district council, I have been able to make contact with Persimmon Homes and all they have been able to tell the parish council is that they are working to resolve issues regarding the signing of the s106 agreement in respect of the Grove airfield development.
Therefore, can you please ensure that the district councillors elected for Grove are fully briefed on the Grove airfield development so they are able to report at the next parish Council meeting to be held on 26 January 2016 or instruct a senior planning officer to attend and update this Council accordingly”.
This request was made via email but again this has failed to elicit a response!
We represent a large number of people: how can we expect them to respect us or the Vale of White Horse District Council if we, their parish council, cannot get the courtesy of the district council following their own Customer Service Charter?”
The chairman requested Councillor Cox, Cabinet member for development management, to take the points raised in the statement up with officers and offered him the opportunity to respond to the issues raised. Councillor Cox responded as follows:
“I am sorry to learn of Grove’s disappointment with our perceived lack of responses and the perception that we had not responded to a meeting request.
I have investigated this matter and I can advise Council that since the date referred to, 1 January 2015, council officers have sent 31 emails to Grove Parish Council in relation to the Grove airfield development. Officers cannot locate any emails asking for updates that they have not replied to and, indeed on 1 February the planning manager asked the parish council chairman to give us details of these so we could investigate the matter. We have not yet received any.
On 5 October 2015 the planning officer advised the parish council that the developer had been unable to sign the section 106 agreement and we could not say when this would happen. This was followed by a further position statement, and several verbal confirmations that until the developers were able to acquire all the land the council could take no action. On 4 January the planning manager again provided a statement that there had been no progress.
Grove Parish Council did not ask for a meeting to discuss Grove airfield. The planning manager wrote to the parish council on 23 December offering a meeting to discuss general planning matters and explore how we could improve working arrangements. The parish council clerk responded that the parish council would welcome a meeting. The parish clerk noted that he had been asked some time before to organise a meeting with the planning officers but, unfortunately he had been busy with other matters.
A date of 16 March has been fixed for a meeting with the parish council to discuss general planning matters as offered in the planning manager’s email of 23 December.
The district council is extremely keen to see progress on Grove airfield, however, we have no valid role in any negotiations the developer may be engaged in regarding the development. As noted in the parish chairman’s statement Persimmon Homes have advised that they are working to resolve issues regarding the signing of the Grove airfield section 106 agreement.
This bland statement by the developer is the same information as is available to the planning service. We regret that the parish council does not accept that we have no further information.
As soon as progress is made on the land negotiations such that the section 106 agreement can be finalised, I and officers will be delighted to provide further information to the parish council.”
B. Mr Steven Corrigan, Democratic Services Manager, read out the following question on behalf of Ms Helen Marshall, Director of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England to Matthew Barber, Leader of the council:
“Noting the various financial reports to be considered by the Council, we wonder what consideration is being given to the forthcoming ‘refresh’ of the Oxfordshire Strategic Economic Plan and whether, given the lack of public consultation last time round, the draft of the revised document will be subject to debate at a full Council meeting?”
In response Councillor Barber confirmed that there would be wider consultation in May before the Local Enterprise Partnership Board ratification in June. The matter was an executive function and therefore not an issue for full Council although presuming the Strategic Economic Plan progressed as intended he said that he anticipated that councillors would have the opportunity to consider any response from the Vale.