Agenda item

To consider the report of the head of development, regeneration and housing on the proposed Didcot Garden Town Delivery Plan – report attached.

Neville Harris, an independent town and county councillor for Didcot Ladygrove, asked a question about the potential financial implications of this plan, given that South and Vale district councils were not signed up to the Oxfordshire Growth Bid for infrastructure funding.

Phil Armstrong, a resident of Didcot, raised issues concerning the potential relocation of the station and the impact on residents.

Simon Hewerdine, an independent town councillor for Didcot Ladygrove, spoke objecting to the Didcot Garden Plan which he claimed was inaccurate and misleading and that the public consultation was inadequate, particularly in consideration of the closure of Cow Lane.

South Oxfordshire District Council Leader John Cotton, Vale of White Horse District Council Cabinet member Mike Murray and Gerry Brough, Interim Head of Development and Regeneration, attended committee for this item.

Councillor John Cotton introduced the report which provided the Joint Scrutiny Committee with an opportunity to;

·           review and comment on the contents of Didcot Garden Town Delivery Plan;

·           be informed of the results of the recent public consultation process; and

·           be re-assured that officers had addressed the main constructive issues arising from the public consultation process.

The Didcot Garden Town Delivery Plan had been produced over a one year period and had involved:

·           a considerable number of interactions between local stakeholders, business and community groups and the external technical consultants employed to work on each of the document’s main chapters;

·           a number of large stakeholder group and resident group meetings, where ideas had been proposed and relevant feedback has been used to modify and improve these ideas (and in some cases to reject them and remove them from the plan);

·           interaction between council officers, local schools, various community interest groups and parish councils;

·           close working between council officers, to make sure the delivery plan was fully consistent with both councils’ emerging Local Plans;

·           close working with government civil servants in the Department for Communities and Local Government, to secure the capacity funding needed to pay for key staff and external technical consultancy assistance, so that the delivery plan could be produced, and a start could be made on implementing some key projects, at minimal cost to South and Vale council tax payers.

The delivery plan production process had been overseen by a project advisory board comprising the Leaders and lead Cabinet members for development of both Councils, South and Vale’s Chief Executive and the councils’ Interim Head of Development, Regeneration and Housing.

The vision for Didcot Garden was to:

·           provide new houses, to meet the needs of a growing local economy;

·           create more and better publicly accessible open spaces;

·           integrate advanced, sustainable technologies within Didcot;

·           develop Didcot’s two Enterprise Areas; and

·           implement a number of key projects linked to four key programmes areas, namely:

o   The Town Centre

o   The Gateway Spine

o   The Cultural Spine, and

o   The Garden Line.

A final version of the Delivery Plan was due to be submitted to South and Vale cabinets on 5 and 6 October.

Councillors Mike Murray and John Cotton addressed the public comments.

Possible Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF) Bid and the Oxfordshire Growth Bid

The County Council were of the view that these two funding bids were directly linked. However, South and Vale Councils were clear that the two bids were parallel, but not interdependent. Although the Vale Council was broadly supportive of the arrangements suggested by the County Council through the growth bid, there were some issues of sovereignty still to be resolved. Both South and Vale were of the view that there were alternative ways of accessing government funding than through the growth bid. The Didcot Garden Town plan had a high likelihood of being successful, if it were submitted as a priority HIF bid, as it offered significant job growth and new homes. South had not yet signed up to the growth deal because there were significant queries about the content of the deal. Both councils were fully supportive of the inclusion of Didcot Garden Town as one of the projects included in Oxfordshire’s HIF bid.

The potential relocation of the railway station.

Wherever development was mooted close to where people live it causes concern and uncertainty, but this is an inevitable side effect of consultation. The station had no need to be an ugly and obtrusive building, visual impact would need to be taken into account, impact on local residents. The station relocation was only one of several options for improving rail services at Didcot, and a lot of work needed to be done before any decisions could be made in relation to potential redevelopment of the station. The onus was on the councils to resolve the station matter as soon as possible, to determine the best option, and to ensure good design and mitigation.

Green spaces

There was no plan to reduce the overall amount of green space but the green spaces might be moved around. The ambition of the plan was to make Didcot a much greener space overall.

Public Consultation

·           Although only 38 percent of respondents had strongly agreed, or agreed with the project, overall there was a strong predisposition of those who oppose a project to respond negatively to a consultation. There were also a significant number of people who had chosen not to express an opinion one way or the other. There had been a significant amount of information provided about the project and people in Didcot were very well informed. Councillors were of the opinion that there was a strong sense of support from the residents for the overall project, and that most of these people had not participated in the consultation.

·           A significant amount of public engagement had taken place, including with younger people, but these were more difficult to engage through traditional methods.

·           The councils were committed to undertaking the project with the support and cooperation of the community, however, that did not mean that all parts of the project would be without controversy.

The committee explored the question of whether the project would be able to go ahead without further funding from the government. Cabinet members confirmed that other pots of money, such as S106 and CIL contributions, possible use of reserves, creative use of money, and enterprise zone money, were all options which could be explored to meet any funding gap.

There were some queries regarding details of the document. However, the committee accepted that this was a high level document which set out the broader vision for the plan.

The committee wondered why the proposed closure of Cow Lane had not been rejected from the plan given the level of public objection. It was explained that there was a limited range of options available due to the existing infrastructure and population. A full microsimulation model was being developed to examine the potential changes to the existing traffic management system. Once completed, this would produce more information which would be factored into future decision making. The potential closure of Cow Lane remained in the plan until sufficient data was available to determine whether or not this would be a viable and beneficial option.

The committee considered whether the surrounding villages would become suburbs of Didcot. It was clear that there would be an area of influence outside of Didcot, but decisions still needed to be made as to where the boundary of this should be and exactly what this would mean. It was likely that it would be better to be inside the area of influence rather than outside as all areas close to Didcot would be influenced by the garden town, but those villages within the area of influence would benefit from policies which avoided the coalescence of settlements etc.

RESOLVED

To commend the report and the Didcot Garden Town Delivery Plan.