Agenda item

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

 

1.    Councillor Margaret Crick to Councillor Roger Cox, Leader of the Council

With memories of the devastating floods in Abingdon in 2007, and climate change predicted to increase instances of flooding, residents in South Abingdon are very concerned about the Environment Agency’s decision to cancel plans for a flood storage facility at Abingdon Common.
Has the leader been given any further information about alternative proposals? And how can this council put pressure on the Environment Agency to ensure action is taken to reduce flooding risk in Abingdon. 

 

2.    Councillor Catherine Webber to Councillor Ed Blagrove, Cabinet Member for Corporate Services

 

Vale of White Horse District Council is preparing to return to a purpose-built headquarters in Crowmarsh Gifford. Can the Cabinet member confirm that he will work with South Oxfordshire District Council to ensure that the new building is designed to be carbon neutral and energy efficient, and that despite the lack of public transport to the site, all efforts are being made to minimise the number of car journeys that staff and members will be required to make?

 

Bearing in mind the lack of public transport to Crowmarsh Gifford, what plans does the Cabinet member have to ensure residents and members have meeting places available to use within the Vale, so that residents struggling to access council support online or over the phone can reach us?

 

3.    Councillor Bob Johnston to Councillor Elaine Ware, Cabinet Member for Housing and Environment

 

When established in the 1990's, Registered Social Landlords decorated their properties periodically, especially when tenants exchanged properties or moved out, in order to ensure that properties were in good repair and in good decorative order.  I understand that most internal repairs and decorating are no longer routinely provided.

 

Can the Cabinet Member explain why housing providers operating in the Vale no longer carry out routine interior decoration?  And is there anything this council can do to help ensure that tenants who are elderly, have disabilities, or are on low incomes are provided with well decorated homes in good working order?

 

 

 

4.    Councillor Catherine Webber to Councillor Ed Blagrove Cabinet member for Corporate Services

 

In July 2016 Council passed the following motion “This council resolves to manage our public consultations with openness and transparency, using industry best practice. Our public consultations will use open-ended questions that encourage a range of responses, and officers will produce consultation reports that highlight all major concerns raised and the actions to be taken in response. Where we have control of the consultation, we will ensure openness and transparency. Where we are part of a governing body managing the consultation, we will openly encourage openness and transparency.”

What progress has been made since this motion was passed to improve our consultations and ensure responses from the public and parish councils influence our decision making in meaningful ways?

 

Why are we still seeing situations such as Shippon Parish not being consulted in relation to a bid for Garden Village status, a respondent to the Local Plan consultation having his Reg 19 response missed out, and the ideas from key stakeholders at the launch event for Oxfordshire Plan 2050 not included in the vision and aspirations document?

5.    Councillor Emily Smith to Councillor Roger Cox, Leader of the Council

 

In December 2014 Council passed a motion to: include “written information about Vale activities, service and programmes with future council tax demands”. When looking into progress on this motion I learned that neither Finance or Communications officers were aware of this decision by Council and confirmed that the requested information for residents was never produced.  

Was the Leader aware that this decision by Council was not actioned? Can he seek assurances from officers that other motions passed by members since 2014 have been actioned and that mechanisms are in place to track future motions? 

6.    Councillor Emily Smith to Councillor Roger Cox, Cabinet Member for Planning

 

Last summer Transport for New Homes and the Foundation for Integrated Transport report received national press coverage. Their report highlighted the problems with new housing estates being designed around car use, adding to traffic congestion and preventing healthy communities developing. They highlighted Great Western Park as an example of poor practice and the report appeared on the BBC News website under the headline ‘Young couples trapped in car dependency’. In November, Oxfordshire County Council unanimously passed a motion to invest in ‘Active Travel’ and allocate more space for cyclists and pedestrians. But the County Council cannot ensure pedestrians and cyclists are prioritised in new housing developments without collaboration with local planning authorities.

How is the Cabinet member working with county colleagues and others to ensure that the Vale’s planning policies prioritise cyclists and pedestrians and reduce car dependency when we permit new housing developments? Have any specific changes been discussed as a result of the ‘Active Travel’ motion at the County Council?

7.    Councillor Judy Roberts to Councillor Eric Batts, Cabinet Member for Legal and Democratic

 

I welcome the announcement that Homes England have approved a grant for the only ‘Vale affordable housing in perpetuity project’ off the Eynsham Road. The Oxfordshire Community Land Trust have already prepared their planning application for this development but require the easement from the Vale for which this grant was awarded to progress the scheme. The Vale applied for this grant in Summer 2018 and the scheme has been in development for a lot longer. So, please can the Cabinet member explain why the easement has still not been signed?

8.    Councillor Debby Hallett to Councillor Roger Cox, Cabinet Member for Planning

 

At the request of Council in October 2018, the leader of the council wrote to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to request that they review the definition of housing ‘affordability’. The minister for housing’s reply told us unequivocally that it has always been this council’s responsibility and within our power to set our affordable housing policies to reflect local circumstances. We don’t need Government to redo anything. Council can set our policies to reflect our own local circumstances. I’m surprised this was apparently news to the leader.

The national policy requires that affordable rent be at least 20% below market rents, and similarly, that affordable sales prices be at least 20% below market sales prices. The system is set up so that we rely on market developers to provide solutions to our local affordable housing needs. Clearly that’s not been a success. Recent reports tell us local house prices are between 7 and 17 times annual earnings, when we know a healthy ratio

is about 4 or 5 times annual savings.

 

Although it was the leader who wrote the letter to Ministry of Housing Communities & Local Government about affordability, it is the cabinet member for planning to whom I direct this question. What are some of the options to consider that could finally make a dent in the problem of a lack of

genuinely affordable housing in Vale?

 

9.    Councillor Debby Hallett to Councillor Roger Cox, Cabinet Member for Partnership and Insight

 

How much money did Vale decide to contribute to the Environment Agency’s recently-cancelled Abingdon flood scheme? What was the evidence supporting this decision, who decided, when, and by what means? 

10.Councillor Jenny Hannaby to Councillor Roger Cox, Cabinet Member for Planning

 

There is a recurring problem with new build housing developments not being completed to an acceptable standard in line with the approved plans.

 

There are examples from around the Vale where developers are not building roads, drainage, homes and play areas to the specifications agreed when planning permission was granted which then creates work for this council to rectify – at a cost for this council and disruption to residents.

Does the Cabinet member agree that councils should have more legal powers in relation to planning enforcement? And if so, what is the Cabinet member doing to lobby government to return responsibility for all building control matters to local councils?

 

Prior to consideration of the questions the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9.10pm for a short comfort break.

 

The meeting reconvened at 9.15pm.

 

Prior to the expiry of two and a half hours, Council considered and rejected an option, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 82, to suspend Council Procedure Rule 12, which restricts the duration of a meeting to three hours, to allow Council to complete the business.

 

Council agreed, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12, to extend the duration of the meeting by half an hour. 

 

 

1.    Councillor Margaret Crick to Councillor Roger Cox, Leader of the Council

With memories of the devastating floods in Abingdon in 2007, and climate change predicted to increase instances of flooding, residents in South Abingdon are very concerned about the Environment Agency’s decision to cancel plans for a flood storage facility at Abingdon Common.

Has the leader been given any further information about alternative proposals? And how can this council put pressure on the Environment Agency to ensure action is taken to reduce flooding risk in Abingdon? 

 

Councillor Cox undertook to provide a written response.

 

 

2.    Councillor Catherine Webber to Councillor Ed Blagrove, Cabinet Member for Corporate Services

 

Vale of White Horse District Council is preparing to return to a purpose-built headquarters in Crowmarsh Gifford. Can the Cabinet member confirm that he will work with South Oxfordshire District Council to ensure that the new building is designed to be carbon neutral and energy efficient, and that despite the lack of public transport to the site, all efforts are being made to minimise the number of car journeys that staff and members will be required to make?

 

Bearing in mind the lack of public transport to Crowmarsh Gifford, what plans does the Cabinet member have to ensure residents and members have meeting places available to use within the Vale, so that residents struggling to access council support online or over the phone can reach us?

 

Councillor Blagrove undertook to provide a written response

 

 

3.    Councillor Bob Johnston to Councillor Elaine Ware, Cabinet Member for Housing and Environment

 

When established in the 1990's, Registered Social Landlords decorated their properties periodically, especially when tenants exchanged properties or moved out, in order to ensure that properties were in good repair and in good decorative order.  I understand that most internal repairs and decorating are no longer routinely provided.

 

Can the Cabinet Member explain why housing providers operating in the Vale no longer carry out routine interior decoration?  And is there anything this council can do to help ensure that tenants who are elderly, have disabilities, or are on low incomes are provided with well decorated homes in good working order?

Councillor Ware undertook to provide a written response

 

 

4. Councillor Catherine Webber to Councillor Ed Blagrove Cabinet member for corporate services

 

In July 2016 Council passed the following motion “This council resolves to manage our public consultations with openness and transparency, using industry best practice. Our public consultations will use open-ended questions that encourage a range of responses, and officers will produce consultation reports that highlight all major concerns raised and the actions to be taken in response. Where we have control of the consultation, we will ensure openness and transparency. Where we are part of a governing body managing the consultation, we will openly encourage openness and transparency.”

What progress has been made since this motion was passed to improve our consultations and ensure responses from the public and parish councils influence our decision making in meaningful ways?

 

Why are we still seeing situations such as Shippon Parish not being consulted in relation to a bid for Garden Village status, a respondent to the Local Plan consultation having his Reg 19 response missed out, and the ideas from key stakeholders at the launch event for Oxfordshire Plan 2050 not included in the vision and aspirations document?

Answer

Councillor Blagrove responded as follows:

 

“As Councillor Webber alludes the referenced motion was passed, and the Council's consultation approach is guided by our published Customer Engagement Charter 2016 - 20 and Statement of Community Involvement, which, as was a stated aim of the motion, reflects good practice as set out in the Market Research Society and relevant planning guidance.  

 

In an aim to make our consultation process as user friendly as possible, we have received responses to customer feedback that the ‘Objective’ system was extremely difficult to use, and therefore, whilst the ‘Objective’ system could carry out consultations we strived to make things as user friendly as possible. 

 

We will now use our acquired Smart Survey consultation software, which is used in the business sector by the likes of Microsoft, BP, the AA & HSBC and in the public and charities sector by Met Police, Ofsted, The Environment Agency and central government to name but a few, and we shall use this for all consultations – I am pleased to say we will use this for the first time during the forthcoming Vale Local Plan modifications consultation due to launch next week on 18 February. 

 

As per the original motion we do use open-ended questions to gain customer feedback whenever this is appropriate; I say this as there is always the need to balance the desire for open ended questions with the additional cost of analysing the significant volume of data that is gathered from them, which much of the time is time & money well spent, but it is not a ‘one size fits all’, solution. 

 

Alongside open-ended questions (such as do you have any further comments / other etc) we also routinely use open questions in line with industry good practice (which are non-leading questions) in addition to closed questions where appropriate (leading questions).  

 

We also have cases, such as, Local Plan (Regulation 19) and Neighbourhood Plan (Regulation 16) consultation questions which are prescribed by legislation. Hence the need for “Where we have control of the consultation” being included in the 2016 motion.

 

Reports of consultations with responses as appropriate are routinely published on the ‘Have Your Say’ section of our website or the Local Plan pages. A reminder to all at Council this is beyond what we are legislatively required to do - for planning consultation we are only required to provide a report to the inspector and there is no requirement for most non-planning consultations - but we believe in our approach and that this supports our ongoing commitment to openness and transparency.

 

In reference to the specific instances the councillor asks:

 

• Regarding Shippon this was largely due to unfortunate human errors incurred when officers are dealing with high demand and tight timescales, it is not an excuse but an explanation.  I know that Cllr Webber will be aware of this as the relevant team have already apologised for the oversight to the parish and to Cllr Catherine Webber as the ward councillor.  It is worth acknowledging that there was no obligation to consult, but there was the intention, and so the formal apology was made.

 

• With regards to Reg 19, the team are not aware of any respondents not being captured but accept that there was one at Reg 18 which was addressed at Reg 19. Again, the team had about 7000 comments to manually handle through the old Objective consultation system, which, as we have already established, was not user friendly.  As already stated, action has been taken to replace the system for all forthcoming consultations.

 

• In terms of Oxfordshire Plan 2050 and the views raised at the stakeholder event, this was also discussed at the Cabinet meeting on 4^th February and while I am not aware of the views Cllr Webber is referring to both Cabinet Members and Officers present were keen to point out the Oxfordshire Plan document you reference in your question is a high level strategic document and some of the views expressed may not be appropriate content at this time but may hold value as we continue with the process. As members should be aware, we are about to start the public consultation process which provides ample opportunity for people to feed in their thoughts. We anticipate the engagement process will raise many issues all of which will be collected, fed back and considered before the next iteration of the plan”.

Supplementary question

 

In response to a supplementary question Councillor Blagrove stated that whilst it was not possible to provide a guarantee similar issues would not affect future consultations every effort would be made to reduce the risks with the updated system referred to in his answer above.

 

5. Councillor Emily Smith to Councillor Roger Cox, Leader of the Council

 

In December 2014 Council passed a motion to: include “written information about Vale activities, service and programmes with future council tax demands”. When looking into progress on this motion I learned that neither Finance or Communications officers were aware of this decision by Council and confirmed that the requested information for residents was never produced.  

Was the Leader aware that this decision by Council was not actioned? Can he seek assurances from officers that other motions passed by members since 2014 have been actioned and that mechanisms are in place to track future motions? 

Councillor Cox undertook to provide a written response  

 

6. Councillor Emily Smith to Councillor Roger Cox, Cabinet Member for Planning

 

Last summer Transport for New Homes and the Foundation for Integrated Transport report received national press coverage. Their report highlighted the problems with new housing estates being designed around car use, adding to traffic congestion and preventing healthy communities developing. They highlighted Great Western Park as an example of poor practice and the report appeared on the BBC News website under the headline ‘Young couples trapped in car dependency’. In November, Oxfordshire County Council unanimously passed a motion to invest in ‘Active Travel’ and allocate more space for cyclists and pedestrians. But the County Council cannot ensure pedestrians and cyclists are prioritised in new housing developments without collaboration with local planning authorities.

How is the Cabinet member working with county colleagues and others to ensure that the Vale’s planning policies prioritise cyclists and pedestrians and reduce car dependency when we permit new housing developments? Have any specific changes been discussed as a result of the ‘Active Travel’ motion at the County Council?

Councillor Cox undertook to provide a written response

 

7. Councillor Judy Roberts to Councillor Eric Batts, Cabinet Member for Legal and Democratic

 

I welcome the announcement that Homes England have approved a grant for the only ‘Vale affordable housing in perpetuity project’ off the Eynsham Road. The Oxfordshire Community Land Trust have already prepared their planning application for this development but require the easement from the Vale for which this grant was awarded to progress the scheme. The Vale applied for this grant in Summer 2018 and the scheme has been in development for a lot longer. So, please can the Cabinet member explain why the easement has still not been signed?

Councillor Batts undertook to provide a written response

 

8. Councillor Debby Hallett to Councillor Roger Cox, Cabinet Member for Planning

 

At the request of Council in October 2018, the leader of the council wrote to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to request that they review the definition of housing ‘affordability’. The minister for housing’s reply told us unequivocally that it has always been this council’s responsibility and within our power to set our affordable housing policies to reflect local circumstances. We don’t need Government to redo anything. Council can set our policies to reflect our own local circumstances. I’m surprised this was apparently news to the leader.

The national policy requires that affordable rent be at least 20% below market rents, and similarly, that affordable sales prices be at least 20% below market sales prices. The system is set up so that we rely on market developers to provide solutions to our local affordable housing needs. Clearly that’s not been a success. Recent reports tell us local house prices are between 7 and 17 times annual earnings, when we know a healthy ratio is about 4 or 5 times annual earnings. 

Although it was the leader who wrote the letter to Ministry of Housing Communities & Local Government about affordability, it is the cabinet member for planning to whom I direct this question. What are some of the options to consider that could finally make a dent in the problem of a lack of genuinely affordable housing in Vale?

Councillor Cox undertook to provide a written response

 

9. Councillor Debby Hallett to Councillor Roger Cox, Cabinet Member for Partnership and Insight

 

How much money did Vale decide to contribute to the Environment Agency’s recently-cancelled Abingdon flood scheme? What was the evidence supporting this decision, who decided, when, and by what means? 

Councillor Cox undertook to provide a written response

 

10. Councillor Jenny Hannaby to Councillor Roger Cox, Cabinet Member for Planning

 

There is a recurring problem with new build housing developments not being completed to an acceptable standard in line with the approved plans.

 

There are examples from around the Vale where developers are not building roads, drainage, homes and play areas to the specifications agreed when planning permission was granted which then creates work for this council to rectify – at a cost for this council and disruption to residents.

Does the Cabinet member agree that councils should have more legal powers in relation to planning enforcement? And if so, what is the Cabinet member doing to lobby government to return responsibility for allbuilding control matters to local councils?

 

Councillor Cox undertook to provide a written response