Agenda item

To receive questions from councillors in accordance with Council procedure rule 33.

 

A.   Councillor Judy Roberts to Councillor Roger Cox, Leader of the council

The chairman of the Local Government Association's Brexit Taskforce has said "the UKs exit from the European Union will have a significant impact on local government. Brexit will ultimately be judged on the success of failure by local areas; real people in real communities. Councils are taking a lead on preparations for Brexit because our residents and our local businesses expect us to be ready." What has Vale of White Horse District Council done in terms of an analyses of the potential impact on local business, employment and the services we deliver? And what mitigation is being put in place to protect Vale residents, housing provision and our Enterprise Zones?        

 

B.   Councillor Helen Pighills to Councillor Mike Murray Cabinet member for Development and Regeneration

A year has now passed since, the then Leader, Councillor Barber formally announced plans to turn Old Abbey House in Abingdon into council owned social housing. Please can the Cabinet member update us on this development and when residents can expect a planning application to be submitted for consultation?

C.   Councillor Catherine Webber to Councillor Roger Cox, Leader of the council

In the leader’s press statement responding to the announcement that the Expressway will be using a route through Corridor B, the leader stated that “we” support the “principles” of the Expressway but mentioned concerns about any route going west of Oxford. 

i     Can the leader please explain what exactly are those principles he supports?

ii    But why is the leader not fighting to protect other Vale residents in harm’s way, communities and environment to the east of Oxford such as Sunningwell, Radley, Marcham, Shippon, Wootton, and Abingdon?

D.   Councillor Emily Smith to Councillor Roger Cox, Leader of the council

Given there has not been any public consultation on the Oxford to Cambridge Expressway, and none is expected for another year, Councillor Cox’s position on the Highways England Stakeholder group will be a vitally important opportunity to ensure Highways England understand the views of Vale residents and potential impacts of routes through communities in corridor B.

However, full Council has not yet debated a position on the Expressway or canvassed the opinions of members, parish councils and residents about the significant environmental and social impacts on Vale communities.

How is the leader planning to collect and understand the views and concerns of local members and parish councils to ensure he and the Cabinet are fully appraised of the impact of each route before representing us at the first Highways England stakeholder meeting in November?

E.   Councillor Bob Johnston to Councillor Roger Cox, Cabinet member for Planning?

In December 2014 Council passed a motion as follows "Council believes the present system of s106 negotiations leaves much to be desired, and that the council should continue to revise the process to produce a system which is more open, more transparent and includes input from parish and town councils". What decisions and actions have been taken since then to create a more open and transparent system and to include town and parish councils in the s106 process?

  

F.    Councillor Emily Smith to Councillor Alice Badcock, Cabinet Member for Community Services 

The Vale’s Local Leisure Facilities Strategy published in 2016 was submitted as one of our detailed policies for Local Plan Part 2. Page 29 and 38 highlight the replacement of the Louie Memorial Pavilion and the 4^th Oxford Scout Hut in North Hinksey as High priority for funding during this financial year (2018/19). But, as we learned at the last full council meeting the Botley service centre area has not received any funding from the Vale for leisure for the last 4 years, nor is any planned.

What is the Cabinet member doing to ensure that this High priority project happens?

G.   Councillor Debby Hallett to Councillor Roger Cox, Leader of the council

The Vale of White Horse Residents’ Survey 2018 highlighted “large increases in negative attitudes in terms of the council needing to be more open and honest”. What does he think are the top reasons for these results, and what is Cabinet planning to do to rectify this perception?

 

 

A.   Councillor Judy Roberts to Councillor Roger Cox, Leader of the council

The chairman of the Local Government Association's Brexit Taskforce has said "the UKs exit from the European Union will have a significant impact on local government. Brexit will ultimately be judged on the success of failure by local areas; real people in real communities. Councils are taking a lead on preparations for Brexit because our residents and our local businesses expect us to be ready." What has Vale of White Horse District Council done in terms of an analyses of the potential impact on local business, employment and the services we deliver? And what mitigation is being put in place to protect Vale residents, housing provision and our Enterprise Zones?

 

Answer:       

Councillor Cox responded as follows:

Until a decision and deal is made about it being a hard or soft Brexit, it is difficult to analyse the potential impact with any certainty. Once more information is available about the deal and policy implications, the economic development team will be in a position to work with partners to make sure Vale businesses make the most of the post-Brexit opportunities.

 

As at 1 October 2018 there were 36 companies in the Vale that are EU owned. To mitigate any negative impact on Vale businesses and the local workforce, the economic development team has taken the following proactive steps:

• Partnering with the Department of International Trade (DIT) inward investment team to personally visit key foreign owned businesses in the district to discuss their plans post-Brexit and the support available at a local, county and national level. To date, foreign owned businesses in the Vale have not expressed significant concern as the policies that will impact them have not been decided (e.g. customs, migration laws etc).
• Partnering with OxLEP's inward investment team and the DIT Capital Investment team to identify and promote opportunities for Vale businesses in non-EU markets. This includes identifying capital investment opportunities to foreign investors. This relates to the DIT work to secure free-trade agreements with non-EU countries including Australia and New Zealand. Officers are working with DIT to open a dialogue with relevant businesses in Australia.  
• The Oxfordshire Local Industrial Strategy outlines how the government investment can support local businesses post-Brexit. This includes increasing productivity and growth opportunities. As the council's representative on the LIS steering group, the importance of Vale businesses and their growth potential are highlighted and considered when formulating the growth opportunities. 
• The government has announced that EU citizens who reside and work in the UK before 31 December 2020 will be allowed to remain. Anecdotally, some businesses who employ EU migrants have had a few return to their country of origin but these numbers are small. The economic development team is connected with EY which provide the latest legal information about migration laws, policy and processes. When the government decides the post-Brexit migration laws, the information and interpretation by EY will be shared with local businesses. At a recent workshop EY advised employers to identify their employees who are EU nationals and to advise them of the support available.

The Partnerships and Insight team are working on a light touch analysis of the potential implications of Brexit, this will cover aspects around the economy, workforce and legislation impact.

Supplementary question:

In response to a supplementary question Councillor Cox confirmed, subject to taking advice, that the Partnership and Insight team’s analysis of the potential implications of Brexit would be published.

 

B.   Councillor Helen Pighills to Councillor Mike Murray Cabinet member for Development and Regeneration

A year has now passed since, the then Leader, Councillor Barber formally announced plans to turn Old Abbey House in Abingdon into council owned social housing. Please can the Cabinet member update us on this development and when residents can expect a planning application to be submitted for consultation?

In the absence of Councillor Mike Murray, Councillor Ed Blagrove responded as follows:

“Since the announcement that we were to investigate the provision of affordable housing at Old Abbey House, officers have, in conjunction with the Council’s advisors, been exploring the potential for conversion or appropriate redevelopment of the building. Old Abbey House sits in a much valued and sensitive location, and opportunities are being carefully considered in the context of these and other constraints in respect of conversion or sensitive redevelopment of the site. In support of this, discussions have taken place with relevant officers with regards to site constraints and how it could be appropriately brought forward for this use. It is important that this process is properly carried out to ensure that any future planning application carries the best prospects for the successful future development or refurbishment of Old Abbey House”.

Supplementary question:

Councillor Pighills asked the following supplementary question:

Has the fact that they have been focussed on Old Abbey House meant that they have not looked for an alternative and more appropriate location for council owned social housing, for example have they approached the developers at the North Abingdon site to see if the quota of social housing on that site could be increased?

 

Answer:

Councillor Blagrove responded that Councillor Murray, as the responsible Cabinet member, would provide a written response.

C.   Councillor Catherine Webber to Councillor Roger Cox, Leader of the council

In the leader’s press statement responding to the announcement that the Expressway will be using a route through Corridor B, the leader stated that “we” support the “principles” of the Expressway but mentioned concerns about any route going west of Oxford. 

i     Can the leader please explain what exactly are those principles he supports?

ii    But why is the leader not fighting to protect other Vale residents in harm’s way, communities and environment to the east of Oxford such as Sunningwell, Radley, Marcham, Shippon, Wootton, and Abingdon?

Answer

Councillor Cox responded as follows:

 

My statement actually said that I support the principles of the Oxford Cambridge corridor, not the proposed expressway.  Those principles include economic growth, provision of housing for future generations, and improved transport connectivity.

The concerns I expressed were about an expressway route potentially going to the west of Oxford and I did not include or exclude any particular communities in the Vale on the basis of geography.  Officers and I will continue to engage with Highways England at every opportunity.

Supplementary question:

In response to a supplementary question regarding views of residents, Councillor Cox stated that local ward councillors had a role in feeding these back to the council.

D.   Councillor Emily Smith to Councillor Roger Cox, Leader of the council

Given there has not been any public consultation on the Oxford to Cambridge Expressway, and none is expected for another year, Councillor Cox’s position on the Highways England Stakeholder group will be a vitally important opportunity to ensure Highways England understand the views of Vale residents and potential impacts of routes through communities in corridor B.

However, full Council has not yet debated a position on the Expressway or canvassed the opinions of members, parish councils and residents about the significant environmental and social impacts on Vale communities.

How is the leader planning to collect and understand the views and concerns of local members and parish councils to ensure he and the Cabinet are fully appraised of the impact of each route before representing us at the first Highways England stakeholder meeting in November?

Answer

Councillor Cox responded as follows:

 

The expressway project is owned by Highways England and they have the responsibility for gathering evidence to inform the choice of route.  Highways England will carry out a full and formal public consultation later in the project when the route options become clear.

Although this council has no decision-making authority regarding the proposed expressway, officers and I will continue to take part in the informal stakeholder processes. 

 

The Scrutiny Committee had the opportunity to debate the expressway corridor options in October 2017.  It would make sense for the committee to consider the route options at an appropriate stage in the Highways England process.

Supplementary question

In response to a supplementary question regarding the consultation process, Councillor Cox responded that no information is currently available but the likely outcome would be a public inquiry.

E.   Councillor Bob Johnston to Councillor Roger Cox, Cabinet member for Planning

In December 2014 Council passed a motion as follows "Council believes the present system of s106 negotiations leaves much to be desired, and that the council should continue to revise the process to produce a system which is more open, more transparent and includes input from parish and town councils". What decisions and actions have been taken since then to create a more open and transparent system and to include town and parish councils in the s106 process?

 

Answer

Councillor Cox responded as follows:

We adopted a Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document in June 2017, which sets out our approach, including consultation with towns and parishes, to negotiating planning obligations captured in S106 agreements. We encourage and support towns and parishes to undertake a community or a neighbourhood plan that can identify local infrastructure needs, which are justified and costed. We have in place a system that allows an online view of each planning obligation, including financial sums expected, collected and spent. We publish and provide towns and parishes with six-monthly reports on S106 funds we are holding on their behalf and transfer those funds appropriately and as quickly as possible.

 

Supplementary question:

  

In response to a supplementary question regarding the lack of such information in hard copy format, Councillor Cox responded that local ward councillors could provide the information in hard copy for relevant parish councils.

 

F.    Councillor Emily Smith to Councillor Alice Badcock, Cabinet Member for Community Services 

The Vale’s Local Leisure Facilities Strategy published in 2016 was submitted as one of our detailed policies for Local Plan Part 2. Page 29 and 38 highlight the replacement of the Louie Memorial Pavilion and the 4^th Oxford Scout Hut in North Hinksey as High priority for funding during this financial year (2018/19). But, as we learned at the last full council meeting the Botley service centre area has not received any funding from the Vale for leisure for the last 4 years, nor is any planned.

 

What is the Cabinet member doing to ensure that this High priority project happens?

Answer:

Councillor Badcock responded as follows:

1.    The pavilion, scout hut and park are all owned by the North Hinksey Parish Council. To support the parish council, Vale of White Horse district Council recently funded a feasibility study looking at the options available in the area to design a master plan covering the whole site, at a cost of £15,900.  This process was undertaken to put the Parish Council in a position to attract additional funding into the site.

2.    The Leisure Strategy provided the evidence base for the council to negotiate a S106 contribution of £30,356.05 towards play equipment in the area. This money will assist the parish council in the delivery of its master plan for the entire site.

Supplementary question:

In response Councillor Smith stated that the s106 funding for play equipment was agreed 10 years ago and asked what the Cabinet member is doing to ensure that the projects listed as high priorities in the Leisure Strategy documents and action plans actually happen

Councillor Badcock undertook to provide a written response.

G.   Councillor Debby Hallett to Councillor Roger Cox, Leader of the council

The Vale of White Horse Residents’ Survey 2018 highlighted “large increases in negative attitudes in terms of the council needing to be more open and honest”. What does he think are the top reasons for these results, and what is Cabinet planning to do to rectify this perception?

 

Answer:

Councillor Cox responded as follows:

 

It is true that the last resident survey shows a significant increase in the people who think the council needs to be more open and honest.  However, other reputation measures in the survey show that overall satisfaction with the way the council runs things has improved and there is stability in the perception that the council acts on the concerns of residents.  Trust in the council remains high at 83%. 

However, there is always room for improvement, and this commitment is reflected in the management restructure with the establishment of the new community enablement and customer engagement teams.  The new structure provides us with a framework to improve and increase our engagement with residents.

 

Specific areas of work which have already commenced include reshaping the town and parish council forums, a full review and redesign of our website, the development of a corporate customer services team, a technology strategy to enable connectivity in our district, with residents and within the council and reviewing our communication processes and protocols.  These initiatives support the move towards increasing resident choice as to how they engage and obtain information from us.

 

A very important aspect of being open and honest is also our democratic processes which enables public access and involvement.  Indeed, external audit in their various reports to joint audit and governance committee have commented positively on the council’s openness and transparency. 

 

Members are also encouraged to positively promote the work of the council in their ward areas and encourage active involvement.  In doing so it is important to be accurate, open and honest and reflect the decision-making structures of the council. 

 

Supplementary question:

 

In response to a supplementary question regarding how the council will address the survey result that showed the public felt the council needed to be more open and transparent, Councillor Cox referred to his answer setting out what the council is and plans to do and the need to address public perception.