Agenda item

To consider motions from councillors in accordance with Council procedure rule 38. 

 

(1)      Motion to be proposed by Councillor Nathan Boyd, seconded by Councillor Simon Howell:

 

Council notes that other neighbouring councils are dealing with their own local plans that are at various stages of development, discussion and inspection.  Of particular note to residents in the Didcot area is the debate and discussion surrounding the South Oxfordshire District Council Local Plan.

 

This council is very concerned about the impact of decisions taken by South Oxfordshire District Council on residents in the Vale of White Horse. 

 

Council requests that the leader of the council urgently writes to the leader of South Oxfordshire District Council and all South Oxfordshire councillors before any vote is taken on their Local Plan proposals to state the views of this council and the impact on residents in the area, specifically:

·         This council opposes any withdrawal or major amendments to the South Oxfordshire District Council Local Plan that has the consequences of putting at risk the Vale of White Horse District Council delivery of the five year land supply, the loss of Housing Infrastructure funding for the area, and the loss of Growth Deal funding for the area.

·         This council urges South Oxfordshire District Council to work collaboratively with Vale of White Horse District Council and other stakeholders to ensure the infrastructure funding is not delayed.  Residents and visitors to the area desperately need this investment in infrastructure to be delivered.

 

(2)      Motion to be proposed by Councillor Alison Jenner, seconded by Councillor Andy Foulsham:

Council notes that, given all possible routes through the government’s chosen corridor, the Oxford to Cambridge Expressway will have a direct impact on communities, businesses, and the environment across the Vale of White Horse District. This council should therefore agree a position on this matter.

Council notes with concern the lack of public consultation and lack of clarity from Government on proposals about whether an Expressway is the most effective way to enhance connectivity within the Oxford to Cambridge Arc and before Corridor B was chosen.

Council notes that published evidence on similar road building schemes, such as widening the M25, led to increased car use without any benefit in terms of congestion or journey time after a few years.

Council notes that the increased carbon emissions, damage to our countryside and biodiversity associated with road building would be significant.

Council notes our recent declaration of a Climate Emergency and our commitment to reducing our carbon footprint through our polices, decisions and actions. The Expressway will have a serious negative impact on the achievement of climate change targets at a time when all public bodies are being actively encouraged to improve air quality and contribute to significant carbon reductions.

Therefore, Council resolves to oppose the Oxford to Cambridge Expressway as proposed.

Council requests that the leader of the council, and members of the Cabinet, make our opposition to the road building scheme clear at relevant partnership meetings.

Council requests that the leader of the council write to the district’s two Members of Parliament and to the Minister for Transport to make clear this council’s position, as set out above, and to request that the following actions be taken:

- That the Expressway proposal be abandoned;

- That the estimated £3-7billion cost of the scheme to be invested instead into completing and enhancing phase three of the East-West Rail link and to local government to enhance cycle infrastructure and public transport;

- That all new transport schemes proposed by Department for Transport be subject to full public consultation and environmental assessments be published from the beginning;

- That the government prioritise rail and sustainable active travel when developing policy and awarding grant funding for infrastructure.

(3)  Motion to be proposed by Councillor Debby Hallett, seconded by Councillor Catherine Webber:

 

1.    Council notes the inspector’s Report of the Examination of Vale’s Local Plan Part 2, dated 25 June 2019. In his report, the inspector lists the four objectives of LPP2, one of which is to set out policies and locations for new housing to meet the unmet need of Oxford City.

 

2.    Council notes that the inspector (in paragraph 26) reminds us that the Oxfordshire Growth Board agreed a ‘working assumption’ that Oxford City’s unmet need was 15,000 homes, of which Vale should supply 2200 homes over the plan period. He says (in paragraph 28) that this ‘working assumption’ is to be ‘confirmed or adjusted’ through the examination of Oxford’s Local Plan and the preparation of Oxfordshire’s Joint Statutory Spatial Plan, which is currently in its early stages. He reminds us again (in paragraph 92) that the additional housing requirement is a ‘working assumption rather than definitive and warrants some caution in allocating sites in the LPP2’. There is no guidance or explanation of what this would mean in practice.

 

3.    Council notes that Oxford City has submitted its Local Plan for examination, but the inspector has found some issues that require more work before it is ready to be examined in public hearings; he discusses the issues in his letter to that council (undated, but to be found on Oxford City’s Local Plan examination website page). Inspector is concerned that the housing figures are based on figures in the 2014 SHMA, which are based on 2011 ONS population and household projections that ‘are now a few years old’ (page 2). He also points out there may have been double counting. Therefore, the housing need figure is questionable. This housing need figure ‘could have a bearing on the level of unmet need which would have to be accommodated by neighbouring local authorities’.

 

4.    Council notes that LPP2 allocates 1200 homes at Dalton Barracks, for Oxford’s unmet need. Dalton Barracks and the neighbouring village of Shippon are to be removed from the Green Belt for future housing development.

 

5.    Council notes that paragraph 137 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires Green Belt boundaries to only be modified under exceptional circumstances. The inspector for Vale LPP2 says (in paragraph 29) that the housing required for Oxford’s unmet need must be close to Oxford, and much of it is to be social rented housing. The inspector says (in paragraph 55) that the number of houses to meet Oxford’s unmet need, and the fact that they must be near Oxford, demonstrates there are exceptional circumstances to justify the removal of Dalton Barracks and Shippon from the Green Belt. 

 

6.    Council notes that the Campaign to Protect Rural England wrote to the planning Inspectorate in May 2019 to object to the order in which Oxfordshire’s Local Plans are being examined, citing rules in NPPF:

...

The reply from PINS failed to answer the question:

7.    It is this council’s opinion that in order for Vale’s Local Plan to be sound, the exact, evidenced number of houses that Oxford requires in order to meet its real need should be determined before Vale includes them in Vale’s Local Plan Part 2. Oxford’s assessment of its housing need must include evidence that Oxford City has done all it can to accommodate its own need, including evidence that the use of land for employment sites over housing sites is justified and lawful. There must be a public examination of the Oxford City Local Plan to definitely identify the unmet need (if any) to precede any adoption of neighbouring authorities’ Local Plans to accommodate it. Until this is done, there are no exceptional circumstances to allow removal of Dalton Barracks and Shippon from the Green Belt.

 

8.    Council therefore requests the Leader of the council to write to the Minister for Housing, Communities and Local Government to:

 

a.    Let the Minister know that Vale is assessing its options with regard to the Local Plan Part 2 and of council’s opinion as stated.

b.    Point out that in Oxfordshire the various Local Plans are not independent of each other. That fact should have been considered in the examination process by ensuring Local Plans that are part of another authority’s evidence, as is Oxford City’s Local Plan, are examined first. Current examination procedures are deficient.

c.    Point out that the Duty to Cooperate should include Oxford City’s duty to have a clear evidenced housing target before asking its neighbours to help meet its need. This Duty to Cooperate should run both ways.

d.    Ask for the Minister’s advice about how we should ‘confirm or adjust’ our Local Plan Part 2 once Oxford’s unmet need is established, if our local plan is already adopted.

e.    Ask the Minister to explain to us how this Local Plan Part 2 can be considered sound and legal when the housing figures used are based solely on a ‘working assumption’ of Oxford’s unmet need, the Plan allocates housing development in the Green Belt in clear contravention of paragraph 137 of the NPPF, and the Plan removes Dalton Barracks and Shippon from the Green Belt without the exceptional circumstances that the regulations require.

 

And to write to our two local Members of Parliament, explaining the situation and asking them for their support.

 

(4)  Motion to be proposed by Councillor Emily Smith, seconded by Councillor Debby Hallett:

 

Council resolves to remove the current ‘vision’ of the council “taking care of your interests throughout the Vale with Enterprise, Energy and Efficiency” with immediate effect, and then develop a new vision statement that better reflects this council’s priorities as part of the work on our new corporate plan.

 

 

1.    Motion proposed by Councillor Nathan Boyd and seconded by Councillor Simon Howell:

“Council notes that other neighbouring councils are dealing with their own local plans that are at various stages of development, discussion and inspection. Of particular note to residents in the Didcot area is the debate and discussion surrounding the South Oxfordshire District Council Local Plan.

 

This council is very concerned about the impact of decisions taken by South Oxfordshire District Council on residents in the Vale of White Horse.

 

Council requests that the leader of the council urgently writes to the leader of South Oxfordshire District Council and all South Oxfordshire councillors before any vote is taken on their Local Plan proposals to state the views of this council and the impact on residents in the area, specifically:

 

·         This council opposes any withdrawal or major amendments to the South Oxfordshire District Council Local Plan that has the consequences of putting at risk the Vale of White Horse District Council delivery of the five year land supply, the loss of Housing Infrastructure funding for the area, and the loss of Growth Deal funding for the area.

·         This council urges South Oxfordshire District Council to work collaboratively with Vale of White Horse District Council and other stakeholders to ensure the infrastructure funding is not delayed. Residents and visitors to the area desperately need this investment in infrastructure to be delivered”.

Whilst a number of councillors supported the motion, the majority of councillors, whilst understanding the sentiment of the motion in respect of the potential loss of infrastructure funding, supported the views expressed that South Oxfordshire District Council had every right to review its Local Plan in light of the manifesto commitments made at the elections in May and the need to revisit the Oxford City unmet housing needs figures. Cabinet members would continue to work with their counterparts at South Oxfordshire District Council regarding this issue. 

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 67, which provides for a recorded vote if three members request one, the Chairman called for a recorded vote on the motion which was declared lost with the voting as follows:

For	Against	Abstentions
Councillors	Councillors	Councillors
Eric Batts	Jerry Avery	Margaret Crick
Nathan Boyd	Paul Barrow
Simon Howell	Ron Batstone
Elaine Ware	Samantha Bowring
	Andy Cooke
	Andrew Crawford
	Amos Duveen
	Neil Fawcett
	Andy Foulsham
	Hayleigh Gascoigne
	David Grant
	Debby Hallett
	Jenny Hannaby
	Bob Johnston
	Alison Jenner
	Diana Lugova
	Robert Maddison
	Sarah Medley
	Ruth Molyneaux
	Patrick O’Leary
	Helen Pighils
	Mike Pighills
	Judy Roberts
	Emily Smith
	Bethia Thomas
	Max Thompson
	Catherine Webber
	Richard Webber
Total: 4	Total: 28	Total: 1

 

 

2.    Motion proposed by Councillor Alison Jenner seconded by Councillor Andy Foulsham

“Council notes that, given all possible routes through the government’s chosen corridor, the Oxford to Cambridge Expressway will have a direct impact on communities, businesses, and the environment across the Vale of White Horse District. This council should therefore agree a position on this matter. Council notes with concern the lack of public consultation and lack of clarity from Government on proposals about whether an Expressway is the most effective way to enhance connectivity within the Oxford to Cambridge Arc and before Corridor B was chosen.

 

Council notes that published evidence on similar road building schemes, such as widening the M25, led to increased car use without any benefit in terms of congestion or journey time after a few years.

 

Council notes that the increased carbon emissions, damage to our countryside and biodiversity associated with road building would be significant.

 

Council notes our recent declaration of a Climate Emergency and our commitment to reducing our carbon footprint through our polices, decisions and actions. The Expressway will have a serious negative impact on the achievement of climate change targets at a time when all public bodies are being actively encouraged to improve air quality and contribute to significant carbon reductions.

 

Therefore, Council resolves to oppose the Oxford to Cambridge Expressway as proposed. Council requests that the leader of the council, and members of the Cabinet, make our opposition to the road building scheme clear at relevant partnership meetings.

 

Council requests that the leader of the council write to the district’s two Members of Parliament and to the Minister for Transport to make clear this council’s position, as set out above, and to request that the following actions be taken:

 

- That the Expressway proposal be abandoned;

 

- That the estimated £3-7billion cost of the scheme to be invested instead into completing and enhancing phase three of the East-West Rail link and to local government to enhance cycle infrastructure and public transport;

 

- That all new transport schemes proposed by Department for Transport be subject to full public consultation and environmental assessments be published from the beginning;

 

- That the government prioritise rail and sustainable active travel when developing policy and awarding grant funding for infrastructure”.

 

A number of councillors supported the view that the project should be abandoned in favour of more sustainable transport projects including the East-West rail link and local infrastructure projects to enhance cycling infrastructure and public transport. The proposed Expressway offered poor value for money, would have a detrimental impact on the environment, increase carbon emissions, worsen air quality, increase congestion on the roads in the district and encourage further speculative building.

 

An alternative view was expressed that the council should await the details of the proposal and options before expressing a view. The proposed road could offer some environmental benefits, improve traffic flow and connectivity and improve air quality.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 67, which provides for a recorded vote if three members request one, the Chairman called for a recorded vote on the motion which was declared carried with the voting as follows:

For	Against	Abstentions
Councillors	Councillors	Councillors
Jerry Avery	Eric Batts	Margaret Crick
Paul Barrow	Nathan Boyd
Ron Batstone	Simon Howell
Samantha Bowring	Elaine Ware
Andy Cooke
Andrew Crawford
Amos Duveen
Neil Fawcett
Andy Foulsham
Hayleigh Gascoigne
David Grant
Debby Hallett
Jenny Hannaby
Bob Johnston
Alison Jenner
Diana Lugova
Robert Maddison
Sarah Medley
Ruth Molyneaux
Patrick O’Leary
Helen Pighils
Mike Pighills
Judy Roberts
Emily Smith
Bethia Thomas
Max Thompson
Catherine Webber
Richard Webber
Total: 28	Total: 4	Total: 1

 

 

RESOLVED: to

1.    note that, given all possible routes through the government’s chosen corridor, the Oxford to Cambridge Expressway will have a direct impact on communities, businesses, and the environment across the Vale of White Horse District. This council should therefore agree a position on this matter. Council notes with concern the lack of public consultation and lack of clarity from Government on proposals about whether an Expressway is the most effective way to enhance connectivity within the Oxford to Cambridge Arc and before Corridor B was chosen.

 

2.    note that published evidence on similar road building schemes, such as widening the M25, led to increased car use without any benefit in terms of congestion or journey time after a few years.

 

3.    note that the increased carbon emissions, damage to our countryside and biodiversity associated with road building would be significant.

 

4.    note our recent declaration of a Climate Emergency and our commitment to reducing our carbon footprint through our polices, decisions and actions. The Expressway will have a serious negative impact on the achievement of climate change targets at a time when all public bodies are being actively encouraged to improve air quality and contribute to significant carbon reductions.

 

5.    therefore, oppose the Oxford to Cambridge Expressway as proposed and request the leader of the council, and members of the Cabinet, to make our opposition to the road building scheme clear at relevant partnership meetings.

 

6.    request that the leader of the council write to the district’s two Members of Parliament and to the Minister for Transport to make clear this council’s position, as set out above, and to request that the following actions be taken:

- That the Expressway proposal be abandoned;

 

- That the estimated £3-7billion cost of the scheme to be invested instead   into completing and enhancing phase three of the East-West Rail link and to local government to enhance cycle infrastructure and public transport;

 

- That all new transport schemes proposed by Department for Transport be subject to full public consultation and environmental assessments be published from the beginning;

 

- That the government prioritise rail and sustainable active travel when developing policy and awarding grant funding for infrastructure

 

 

3.    Motion proposed by Councillor Debby Hallett and seconded by Councillor Catherine Webber

“1. Council notes the inspector’s Report of the Examination of Vale’s Local Plan Part 2, dated 25 June 2019. In his report, the inspector lists the four objectives of LPP2, one of which is to set out policies and locations for new housing to meet the unmet need of Oxford City.

 

2. Council notes that the inspector (in paragraph 26) reminds us that the Oxfordshire Growth Board agreed a ‘working assumption’ that Oxford City’s unmet need was 15,000 homes, of which Vale should supply 2200 homes over the plan period. He says (in paragraph 28) that this ‘working assumption’ is to be ‘confirmed or adjusted’ through the examination of Oxford’s Local Plan and the preparation of Oxfordshire’s Joint Statutory Spatial Plan, which is currently in its early stages. He reminds us again (in paragraph 92) that the additional housing requirement is a ‘working assumption rather than definitive and warrants some caution in allocating sites in the LPP2’. There is no guidance or explanation of what this would mean in practice.

 

3. Council notes that Oxford City has submitted its Local Plan for examination, but the inspector has found some issues that require more work before it is ready to be examined in public hearings; he discusses the issues in his letter to that council (undated, but to be found on Oxford City’s Local Plan examination website page). Inspector is concerned that the housing figures are based on figures in the 2014 SHMA, which are based on 2011 ONS population and household projections that ‘are now a few years old’ (page 2). He also points out there may have been double counting. Therefore, the housing need figure is questionable. This housing need figure ‘could have a bearing on the level of unmet need which would have to be accommodated by neighbouring local authorities’.

 

4. Council notes that LPP2 allocates 1200 homes at Dalton Barracks, for Oxford’s unmet need. Dalton Barracks and the neighbouring village of Shippon are to be removed from the Green Belt for future housing development.

 

5. Council notes that paragraph 137 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires Green Belt boundaries to only be modified under exceptional circumstances. The inspector for Vale LPP2 says (in paragraph 29) that the housing required for Oxford’s unmet need must be close to Oxford, and much of it is to be social rented housing. The inspector says (in paragraph 55) that the number of houses to meet Oxford’s unmet need, and the fact that they must be near Oxford, demonstrates there are exceptional circumstances to justify the removal of Dalton Barracks and Shippon from the Green Belt.

 

6. Council notes that the Campaign to Protect Rural England wrote to the planning Inspectorate in May 2019 to object to the order in which Oxfordshire’s Local Plans are being examined, citing rules in NPPF.

 

7. It is this council’s opinion that in order for Vale’s Local Plan to be sound, the exact, evidenced number of houses that Oxford requires in order to meet its real need should be determined before Vale includes them in Vale’s Local Plan Part 2. Oxford’s assessment of its housing need must include evidence that Oxford City has done all it can to accommodate its own need, including evidence that the use of land for employment sites over housing sites is justified and lawful. There must be a public examination of the Oxford City Local Plan to definitely identify the unmet need (if any) to precede any adoption of neighbouring authorities’ Local Plans to accommodate it. Until this is done, there are no exceptional circumstances to allow removal of Dalton Barracks and Shippon from the Green Belt.

 

8. Council therefore requests the leader of the council to write to the Minister for Housing, Communities and Local Government to:

 

a. Let the Minister know that Vale is assessing its options with regard to the Local Plan Part 2 and of council’s opinion as stated.

 

b. Point out that in Oxfordshire the various Local Plans are not independent of each other. That fact should have been considered in the examination process by ensuring Local Plans that are part of another authority’s evidence, as is Oxford City’s Local Plan, are examined first. Current examination procedures are deficient.

 

c. Point out that the Duty to Cooperate should include Oxford City’s duty to have a clear evidenced housing target before asking its neighbours to help meet its need. This Duty to Cooperate should run both ways.

 

d. Ask for the Minister’s advice about how we should ‘confirm or adjust’ our Local Plan Part 2 once Oxford’s unmet need is established, if our local plan is already adopted.

 

e. Ask the Minister to explain to us how this Local Plan Part 2 can be considered sound and legal when the housing figures used are based solely on a ‘working assumption’ of Oxford’s unmet need, the Plan allocates housing development in the Green Belt in clear contravention of paragraph 137 of the NPPF, and the Plan removes Dalton Barracks and Shippon from the Green Belt without the exceptional circumstances that the regulations require.

 

And to write to our two local Members of Parliament, explaining the situation and asking them for their support”.

 

The majority of councilors supported the view that the council should consider the implications of adopting the plan before any final vote. Further information was required on Oxford City’s unmet housing need before a final decision is made. Making a decision in advance of clarification on this issue could lead to allocated sites coming forward. Currently the unmet housing figure assumption has been used to justify building in the Green Belt and justify a higher housing figure for the Vale.

 

The view was expressed that the council had, via a press release, stated that a vote on LLP2 would be taken in the autumn. Support for the motion could jeopardise this commitment.

 

RESOLVED:

 

1.    To note the inspector’s Report of the Examination of Vale’s Local Plan Part 2, dated 25 June 2019. In his report, the inspector lists the four objectives of LPP2, one of which is to set out policies and locations for new housing to meet the unmet need of Oxford City.

2.    To note that the inspector (in paragraph 26) reminds us that the Oxfordshire Growth Board agreed a ‘working assumption’ that Oxford City’s unmet need was 15,000 homes, of which Vale should supply 2200 homes over the plan period. He says (in paragraph 28) that this ‘working assumption’ is to be ‘confirmed or adjusted’ through the examination of Oxford’s Local Plan and the preparation of Oxfordshire’s Joint Statutory Spatial Plan, which is currently in its early stages. He reminds us again (in paragraph 92) that the additional housing requirement is a ‘working assumption rather than definitive and warrants some caution in allocating sites in the LPP2’. There is no guidance or explanation of what this would mean in practice.

3.    To note that Oxford City has submitted its Local Plan for examination, but the inspector has found some issues that require more work before it is ready to be examined in public hearings; he discusses the issues in his letter to that council (undated, but to be found on Oxford City’s Local Plan examination website page). Inspector is concerned that the housing figures are based on figures in the 2014 SHMA, which are based on 2011 ONS population and household projections that ‘are now a few years old’ (page 2). He also points out there may have been double counting. Therefore, the housing need figure is questionable. This housing need figure ‘could have a bearing on the level of unmet need which would have to be accommodated by neighbouring local authorities’.

4.    To note that LPP2 allocates 1200 homes at Dalton Barracks, for Oxford’s unmet need. Dalton Barracks and the neighbouring village of Shippon are to be removed from the Green Belt for future housing development.

5.    To note that paragraph 137 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires Green Belt boundaries to only be modified under exceptional circumstances. The inspector for Vale LPP2 says (in paragraph 29) that the housing required for Oxford’s unmet need must be close to Oxford, and much of it is to be social rented housing. The inspector says (in paragraph 55) that the number of houses to meet Oxford’s unmet need, and the fact that they must be near Oxford, demonstrates there are exceptional circumstances to justify the removal of Dalton Barracks and Shippon from the Green Belt.

6.    To note that the Campaign to Protect Rural England wrote to the planning Inspectorate in May 2019 to object to the order in which Oxfordshire’s Local Plans are being examined, citing rules in NPPF.

7.    That it is this council’s opinion that in order for Vale’s Local Plan to be sound, the exact, evidenced number of houses that Oxford requires in order to meet its real need should be determined before Vale includes them in Vale’s Local Plan Part 2. Oxford’s assessment of its housing need must include evidence that Oxford City has done all it can to accommodate its own need, including evidence that the use of land for employment sites over housing sites is justified and lawful. There must be a public examination of the Oxford City Local Plan to definitely identify the unmet need (if any) to precede any adoption of neighbouring authorities’ Local Plans to accommodate it. Until this is done, there are no exceptional circumstances to allow removal of Dalton Barracks and Shippon from the Green Belt.

8.    To, therefore, request the leader of the council to write to the Minister for Housing, Communities and Local Government to:

a. Let the Minister know that Vale is assessing its options with regard to the Local Plan Part 2 and of council’s opinion as stated.

 

b. Point out that in Oxfordshire the various Local Plans are not independent of each other. That fact should have been considered in the examination process by ensuring Local Plans that are part of another authority’s evidence, as is Oxford City’s Local Plan, are examined first. Current examination procedures are deficient.

 

c. Point out that the Duty to Cooperate should include Oxford City’s duty to have a clear evidenced housing target before asking its neighbours to help meet its need. This Duty to Cooperate should run both ways.

 

d. Ask for the Minister’s advice about how we should ‘confirm or adjust’ this council’s Local Plan Part 2 once Oxford’s unmet need is established, if our local plan is already adopted.

 

e. Ask the Minister to explain to us how this Local Plan Part 2 can be considered sound and legal when the housing figures used are based solely on a ‘working assumption’ of Oxford’s unmet need, the Plan allocates housing development in the Green Belt in clear contravention of paragraph 137 of the NPPF, and the Plan removes Dalton Barracks and Shippon from the Green Belt without the exceptional circumstances that the regulations require.

 

And to write to the council’s two local Members of Parliament, explaining the situation and asking them for their support.

 

 

4.         Motion proposed by Councillor Emily Smith and seconded by Councillor Debby Hallett:

 

Council resolves to remove the current ‘vision’ of the council “taking care of your interests throughout the Vale with Enterprise, Energy and Efficiency” with immediate effect, and then develop a new vision statement that better reflects this council’s priorities as part of the work on our new corporate plan.

 

The view was expressed that the council should not remove the existing vision without a replacement. However, the majority of councillors supported the motion and welcomed the development of a new vision to reflect the new administration and its priorities.

 

RESOLVED: to remove the current ‘vision’ of the council “taking care of your interests throughout the Vale with Enterprise, Energy and Efficiency” with immediate effect, and then develop a new vision statement that better reflects this council’s priorities as part of the work on our new corporate plan.