Agenda item

Any statements, petitions and questions from the public under standing order 32 will be made or presented at the meeting.

 

The chairman reported details of those members of the public who had submitted questions, registered to make statements or given notice to present a petition to the meeting.

 

In accordance with Standing Order 32(7) the chairman agreed to allow up to 30 minutes for questions and to prioritise those questions from members of the public attending the meeting. He also agreed that those questions submitted by members of the public who were unable to attend the meeting would be included in the minutes with a written response to follow. This process would allow all members present at the meeting to ask and receive a response to their question within the 30 minute period. The written responses to questions not read out at the meeting, whilst not appearing in the minutes, would appear on the council's website with the minutes.

 

A.                 Questions asked at the meeting:

 

i.        Dr Peter Collins, representative from the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England, asked the following question

 

“In view of

• the damage to the highly prized Vale countryside which will result from adoption of the District Council’s draft Local Plan to 2031 Part 1, in particular in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the Green Belt;

• the adoption by the Vale of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment

( SHMA) figures without proper scrutiny then or since, or paying due heed to the most expert advice cogently making the case that the aspirational figures, full of identifiable flaws, produced to justify the SHMA figures, could not give rise to sustainable development and hence comply with the National Planning Policy Framework(NPPF);

 

•no change having been made in deriving house-building targets in respect of social, economic and environmental constraints, as is the Vale Council’s responsibility and indicated as required in the SHMA report, where clearly such constraints exist;

•the lack of a ‘Plan B’ which could take into account a failure to meet targets during the planning period or any indication of how the year-by-year progress towards targets will be managed;

•the likelihood that using the SHMA figures will result in the Vale never approaching its 5-year housing land supply target;

•the whole process of arriving at the SHMA figures not having involved proper consultation of local people and leaving a ‘democratic deficit’ calling out for repair;

•the lack of any possibility of producing the necessary infrastructure to accompany the proposed development, in respect of schools and especially roads and transport;

would the Council agree that the SHMA figures, and indeed the whole growth strategy, require a fuller justification before the draft Local Plan goes for public consultation, and say when it will be testing the SHMA figures in an open public forum, using independent experts to question all aspects of the methodology and its consequences?”

Councillor Mike Murray, Cabinet member for planning policy, responded as follows:

“The suspended Cherwell Local Plan Inspector’s letter represents the best available guidance for the most appropriate target for our housing numbers, and leads us to believe that we should use the Objectively Assessed Need figures for the Vale identified in the Oxfordshire SHMA in order for our plan to progress to Examination. In accordance with government guidance the most appropriate open public forum for the SHMA figures to be tested is at Examination of the Local Plan, and this is precisely the route that we are proposing”.

ii.      Mr Henderson, representative of Radley Parish Council, asked the following question

 

“The Cambridge Econometrics SQW document that provides the employment
forecasts for the SHMA splits many of its predictions into 10 year
chunks. If in 2021 it becomes clear that their predictions were wildly
optimistic will there be flexibility in the plan to reduce overall
housing numbers at that point?”

 

Councillor Mike Murray, Cabinet member for planning policy, responded as follows:

“The government encourages local plans to respond to changing evidence, via periodic review. It is likely that we will be required to review our local plan in the short to medium term in light of our duty to cooperate with neighbouring authorities in meeting any unmet need in our housing areas.”

 

iii.    Mr David Marsh, Chairman of Harwell Parish Council, asked the following question.  

 

“Does the Council think that it is important to preserve the rural nature of the Vale and its historic villages, and is it aware there is nothing in the plan to provide any protection to the village of Harwell which will prevent its eventual coalescence with Didcot. Is that the wish of the Council?”

 

Councillor Mike Murray, Cabinet member for planning policy, responded as follows:

“The draft local plan, through its Core Policy 3 identifies Harwell as a larger village where “unallocated development will be limited to providing for local needs and to support employment, services and facilities within local communities”. It is by getting the local plan in place that we can stop “planning by appeal” and regain control of planning in the Vale, and resist unallocated development.

 

Our published Local Development Scheme further proposes a timetable for the production of an Area Action Plan for Science Vale, including Harwell that will provide an opportunity for masterplanning of strategic development. This together with our shortly to be published Vale Design Guide will greatly enhance the opportunity for the development management process to protect the amenity of residents of the Vale, including Harwell.”

 

 

iv.     Dr Pamela Dothie, representative of Save Chilton AONB, asked the following question:  

 

“Given that the Council have stated, in their Draft Local Plan to 2031 document (page 17 paragraph 69), that “It is a fact that we have sufficient land available to physically meet our housing needs”, do you agree that the council has failed in its obligation to find suitable alternative sites for the 1,400 houses currently allocated to the North Wessex Downs AONB?"

 

Councillor Mike Murray, Cabinet member for planning policy, responded as follows:

“No. We do physically have enough land to meet our needs, the difficult decisions revolve around the package of sites that will deliver the houses that we need in the plan period in a sustainable viable and deliverable manner, and in particular meeting our requirement to provide a five year housing land supply.” 

 

 

v.       Mr Dumbleton, representative of Chilton Parish Council, asked the following question

 

“Have members read the letter from the North Wessex Downs AONB's Planning Advisor regarding the proposed housing allocation of 1,400 dwellings to the East and North of Harwell Campus, and can they comment on the request that the proposed greenfield housing allocations within the nationally protected landscape are deleted from the Local Plan?”

 

Councillor Mike Murray, Cabinet member for planning policy, responded as follows:

“Views of all stakeholders, including those representing those from the AONB management board have been fully considered in the preparation of the local plan. There are many differing views regarding where housing should (or rather all to often less helpfully where it should not) be built. We have in particular responded to the representations from statutory consultees through the revisions to the Harwell Campus site following extensive additional work on landscape impact from specialist consultants”.

 

vi.     Mr Kirk asked the following question.  

 

“With reference to the strategic site proposed for development in East Hanney- a site which is immediate to Letcombe Brook. Is the council aware of the flooding risk in East Hanney, and has consideration been given to the risk of flooding on the existing community from developing on this site? The site is upstream of the main community and therefore any run off arising as a result of the development into the Brook will add to the existing exposure for flood.  

Has there been a full hydrological assessment?, consultation with the Environment agency and with the Rivers authority? Has the potential cost of flooding defences for the protection of East Hanney been taken into consideration?

It is noted from the supporting papers that the site is unlikely to be able to support anticipated water and waste water demand”.

Councillor Mike Murray, Cabinet member for planning policy, responded as follows:

“The proposed allocation of land south of East Hanney is identified on p39 of Appendix A of the Local Plan, together with constraints identified as a result of consultation with statutory undertakers, and stakeholders. More detailed analysis of the constraints relating to the site will be addressed at the development management at the time that a planning application is submitted.”

 

vii.   Alderman Mrs Joyce Hutchison, on behalf of the Wantage and Grove Campaign Group, asked the following question  

 

“OLEP will be receiving a large sum of money over a period of three years

 

1)     We request a complete list of all expenditure this partnership has transacted.

2)     Is there a business person from the West of the Vale on OLEP Board? If not how do we get one? What is the appointment procedure?

3)     Money has gone to Oxford Universities – I will remind you we have two Universities in the West of the Vale located at the Defence Academy, Cranfield and Kings College, London”.

 

Councillor Matthew Barber, Leader of the council,  responded that the Vale was not directly accountable for OxLEP spending, and enquiries should be made direct to them.

 

viii.Mr Carolan, a Chilton resident, asked the following question

“Following recent advice from Eric Pickles MP and Brandon Lewis MP, would the council not agree that passing this development of 1400 new dwellings on and around the so called East Harwell Campus would be ignoring the most recent government recommendations to safeguard such environments and that it must be wrong to prioritise greenfield sites such as this especially in the North Wessex Downs AONB. Over the years Harwell or Atomic Energy Research Establishment (AERE) as we still call it has supported many more employees than it does today but even at those levels a very small percentage of employees ever lived in Chilton and I am sure very few people would want to live squeezed between their workplace and the A34. Your comments would be appreciated?”

 

Mr Mike Murray, Cabinet member for planning policy, responded as follows:

“Thank you for your observation. You will have noted that there has been no recent changes to the NPPF, but that the revised NPPG Para 44 released last week says that the NPPF should be read as a whole and reiterates that Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) should restrict development in a wide range of designated locations, including AONB. It does not say that development should be prevented in these locations.

 

The great majority of the Vale is Greenfield – we have very little brownfield land, especially of a size and location that is suitable for sustainable development.

 

With regard to your final point, we need to plan for the whole of the plan period to 2031, in a context of increasing population volumes, and car use. As such one of the key strategic objectives that have run throughout our consultation, to wide general support is to direct growth to the most sustainable locations in the district. In particular it makes sense to build homes in locations related to likely locations of future employment where infrastructure can successfully be provided, and in particular travel to work by means other than the private car can be encouraged. It surely would not make sense to provide homes that will be needed by virtue of employment growth in Harwell Campus in for example Shrivenham or Cumnor?”

 

 

ix.     Patrick Moseley, a Chilton resident, asked the following question

 

“Given that an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) is an area of high scenic quality which has statutory protection in order to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of its landscape, and that the plan for 1,400 houses at East Harwell Campus not only desecrates an AONB but also, since the site is elevated with respect to the Vale of the White Horse, ensures that it would create maximum visual impact, does the Council agree that the plan conflicts with the very concept of an AONB?”

 

Mr Mike Murray, Cabinet member for planning policy, responded as follows:

“No as already outlined in response to previous questions, the proposed allocations have been revised in this submission version of the local plan to respond to the landscape setting of the site in the AONB.”

 

 

x.       Dr Alastair Clark, a Chilton resident, asked the following question

 

“Does the council agree that the statement "the scale of development proposed in the AONB has been significantly reduced" as published in your Consultation Document, Oct 2014, Page 11, is both misleading and factual incorrect as the total number of houses allocated to the AONB still remains at 1400?”.

 

Mr Mike Murray, Cabinet member for planning policy responded as follows:

“No, as can be seen from the revised site allocations the scale of development has been significantly reduced.”

 

 

xi.     Mrs Moseley, a Chilton resident, asked the following question

 

“Why is the council prepared to build houses on an AONB hence losing a beautiful area for ever when there are other options available? It seems to me that the flat land between Steventon, Drayton and East Hanney which has previously been recommended for development, and is not designated in any way, would be much more suitable and less damaging to the environment?”

 

Mr Mike Murray, Cabinet member for planning policy, responded as follows:

“Thank you for your question. The land in question has indeed been promoted for housing, however it is heavily constrained by virtue of much of its area being designated in flood zone 2 or 3. The remaining land is heavily constrained by virtue of lack of access, and any proposals to introduce new accesses to the A34 or the railway are at a very early stage. This does not make the site suitable for sustainable development, the “Golden thread” running through the Governments NPPF

 

Further we are required to plan sites for housing that are likely to come forward in the plan period to 2031. The highly experienced national housebuilder who has liaised with the Council over this site has confirmed in writing that it is highly unlikely that the site would be able to contribute meaningfully to our need for houses within the plan period.

 

In contrast, the Harwell Campus site adjoins an interchange to the strategic network that has a funded proposal to be improved into an all ways junction. It adjoins Hawell Campus with its identified job growth over the plan period, and its existing and future facilities and services.”

 

xii.   Mr Broad, Chairman of Chilton Parish Council, asked the following question

 

“A vast number of new houses are planned within a 20 mile radius of the Harwell Oxford Campus (Didcot, Abingdon, Reading and Newbury). Given that such development has been justified, at least in part, by the ability to sustain job creation at Harwell Oxford Campus, with good public transport links promised, can the council please clarify what it considers as the “exceptional circumstances” that can justify the further allocation of 1,400 houses to the North Wessex Downs AONB? “

 

Mr Mike Murray, Cabinet member for planning policy, responded as follows:

“The proposed site allocation sits within the Housing Supply Ring Fence identified within the Local Plan’s Core Policy 5. This area is to be treated as a separate sub area with a housing requirement of 11,850 homes in support of 15,850 jobs.”

 

 

xiii.Caroline Potter, asked the following question

“In answer to my question at the Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 25 September, I was directed to the objectively assessed retail needs of the 2013 Retail and Town Center Study by Nathanial Litchfield and Partners, which is the main evidence base for retail development strategy in the emerging Local Plan.

 

I had already consulted this study in detail, but as I was not given an opportunity to respond at the time I will now clarify what this study says in terms of Botley Central area.

 

Given that the existing land of the West Way Shopping Centre could easily accommodate the objectively assessed future needs for Botley, I ask again:

 

Is there any reason why this western residential land has been included in the development area for Core Policy 11, other than to support a specific planning application put forward by commercial developers?”

 

Mr Mike Murray, Cabinet member for planning policy, responded as follows:

“Thank you for your question which as you say I answered at Scrutiny. The proposed revised allocation has come forward in response to consultation from stakeholders. The wording is clear and explicit in that it sets the location in its context. We can not pretend Botley is not next to Oxford, and so the responsible approach that we have taken to this wording is to address it”.

 

xiv.Mr Price, an East Hanney resident,  asked the following question

“I have heard that the plan for 200 new houses to be built on the east side of the A338 has been removed and replaced with a new proposal to build to the south of East Hanney. Regarding this latter site, please could I request that the following points be considered and at the Council meeting this evening in Wantage.

1. Risk of Flooding, ridge and furrow land, run off into pinch point of Letcombe Brook
2. Ancient orchard, adjacent listed properties
3. Ecology, protected species (e.g. great crested newt), cowslip meadows opposite
4. Road access on to A338.”

In response Councillor Murray,Cabinet member for planning policy, referred Mr Price to the response given to Mr Kirk’s question

 

B.    Questions to receive a written response

i           Question from Mary Gill

“My question relates to Core Policy 11 and the definition of ‘Botley central area’ Figure 5.3 on page 574, and the preferred Option discussed on page 93.

 

I do support improvement or redevelopment of the existing Botley centre (West Way Shopping Centre and redundant office blocks). However, the preferred approach (Option B) which ‘will facilitate the comprehensive redevelopment of a wider area’ (para 27.1.5), supports the inclusion of existing privately owned residential property within the definition. I, and a large majority of the residents of Botley, object to this expansion of the area included.

 

No supporting evidence has been provided for a development of this size.

 

There is no justification for the loss of private housing, and especially that for elderly residents.

 

We know that the idea for a development of this scale arose directly from discussions with a developer interested in this site, but also that the Vale has financial interests in the development.

 

Will the Council reject this extended definition, and submit a local plan which is consistent and unambiguous

 

·        to confirm the role and function of Botley as a local service centre,  to meet the day-to-day needs of the local area – not a wider area drawing from other suburbs of Oxford City or Abingdon;

·        to delete the meaningless statement ‘equivalent to a district centre in the Oxford City context’;

·        to replace figure 5.3 with the figure shown Appendix 5b in the earlier Core Strategy – preferred options document of 2009?”

ii         Question from Mr Groves

“Does the Council agree that it is failing in its duty to co-operate with statutory consultees by ignoring the advice of the North Wessex Downs AONB Management Board, English Heritage and Natural England and proceeding with the allocation of 1,400 houses in the North Wessex Downs AONB around the Harwell Oxford Campus?”

 

iii        Question from Mr Paul Turner-Smith, a Chilton resident

 

“Details of the 275 houses built this year at Chilton Field, south of the Harwell Oxford Campus, and of the 195 houses that already have outline planning permission at North Drive, north of the Harwell Oxford Campus (both brown-field sites) have been omitted from Local Plan literature and maps. Does the council agree that these omissions are likely to mislead the public as to the full extent of both the housing stock at the Harwell Oxford Campus and the urban sprawl and encroachment that the allocation of 1,400 further houses would make into the nationally-protected North Wessex Downs AONB?”

 

iv Question from Mr Goodall, a Chilton resident

 

“Given the preferences of many people to live in cities or towns rather than villages , and the Chilton demographic that indicates that only 12 % of Chilton residents currently work at Harwell Oxford Campus , what evidence does the Council have that future employees of the Harwell Oxford Campus will choose to live on or adjacent to the Campus ?”

 

v         Question from Ms Lindsay Lennen

 

“What infrastructure is proposed as part of the proposed development (schools etc) and how will the council deal with the transport impact?”

 

C.    Statements and petitions

 

i      Mr Marsh, Chairman of Harwell Parish Council, made the following statement:

 

“Noting firstly that Harwell village currently has developer led applications for 200 houses (which is already a 20 per cent expansion in the size of the village), and noting secondly that the plan proposes 3,350 houses in Valley Park, and noting thirdly that the developer’s public consultation proposed 4,300 houses for Valley Park, please will the Council put forward an amendment to the Local Plan to remove the Harwell Campus AONB site (800 houses) and the Harwell Village West site (200 houses), and increase the numbers proposed for Valley Park by an equivalent amount.”

 

 

ii          Julie Mabberley made the following statement:

 

“What infrastructure is proposed as part of the proposed development (schools etc) and how will the council deal with the transport impact?

 

We believe that the employment figures are unsound (probably worthy of Alice in Wonderland) and should be rejected.

For example:

·        The employment figures on which the Local Plan is based state that employment in agriculture will increase by 200 in Wantage and Grove and 1800 in the Vale. This despite the national trend for the numbers in agriculture to fall year on year and despite the number of solar farm applications approved by the Vale. We have asked but got no response as to how the Council could justify expectations totally against the national trend.

·        Local employers state that the figures quoted by the Vale bear no resemblance to any figures for employment growth they might recognise.

·        We believe that employment forecasts well beyond the reasoned projections of the owners/developers have been used in the major employment centres in the east of the Vale and have evidence to prove it.

 

Further we believe that the district council has made no attempt to reflect the need for timely infrastructure or time to allow local communities to assimilate the huge housing increase which they wish to impose on their residents. They have simply accepted the overly optimistic growth projections in the SHMA without question. As one councillor stated “this was a piece of work by an external contractor whose report had been accepted by the Council and whose final invoice paid”.

 

It appears that the councillors are not representing their constituents but attempting to impose top-down government policies on the Vale without any regard for localism.

 

We, together with a number of other local groups and parish councils in the Vale wish to express our concern with the way that many comments and objections submitted in the public consultations associated with the Local Plan have been brushed aside.

 

The Local Plan is worthy of a communist regime where the “Party” imposes its will on the people and not of a rural district in the South East of England where the Government espouses “Localism”.”

 

iii         Emily Smith made the following statement in support of a petition which she submitted at the meeting.

“I am here this evening on behalf of my neighbours in Botley to present the District Council, and specifically the Cabinet, with a petition asking you to pull out of the deal with Doric Properties. 

The petition was initiated by [the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Candidate] Layla Moran three weeks ago and has already been signed by 650 people.

As you will be aware from the one thousand plus objections to the planning application, Doric’s proposal for the demolition and replacement of the west way shopping area is incredibly unpopular. It is now clear that the overwhelming view of the local community is strong opposition to the size, scale and design of the current plan.

For the past two years residents of Botley and the surrounding villages have had this planning application hanging over their heads. The stress, uncertainty and anxiety this has caused has been immense.

From our elderly neighbours at Field House who live in fear of losing their homes, to the local businesses that risk losing their livelihoods and letting their staff go. From families worried about the health, safety and practicality of their children getting to school in the mornings, to professionals wondering whether they should move away from the area before congestion on the Botley Road and A34 becomes unbearable.

The primary responsibility of elected members should be to work for and with local residents to ensure that local communities develop with full public support and involvement. 

Yet in this case the Vale and Doric have failed to listen to or act upon any of the substantive concerns of local residents - leaving people feeling ignored.

But you, councillors, have the power to put an end to all this anxiety right now.

You can chose to listen to the people who have signed this petition and withdraw from the deal with Doric before their application even gets to planning committee.

And yes, I understand (even without having seen the contract you have signed) that there may be a heavy financial penalty if you decide to pull out. 

But you have to ask yourselves what would be the cost of letting the Doric proposal go ahead?

If the development were to bring in the additional consumers required and managed to be financially viable, it would clearly lead to massive congestion, addition pollution and the disintegration of a safe and well-functioning community.

That would be bad enough, but there is also a very real risk that Doric’s scheme could prove to be a huge white elephant - resulting in a loss of local services and great financial cost to the Vale, and therefore the tax payer.

It is not easy to admit that you have got something wrong but I urge you to think about the devastating impact this scheme will have on our community and ask you to withdraw from the deal with Doric before it is too late.

Members of the Council, it is time to pull out of the land deal with Doric and start working with local people to provide a new shopping area that is both economically viable  and meets the needs of our growing community.”

 

iv         Mr Neil Fawcett presented a petition entitled “Don’t Build on the Green Belt” and made a supporting statement opposing proposals in the Local Plan to build on the Green Belt and the data supporting the level of housing.

 

v          Alderman Mrs Joyce Hutchinson made the following statement:

 

Houses should be built in areas with good employment opportunities and services.  Wantage is deficient in most of these. It has a poor road network, no train service, a limited bus service, it lacks basic facilities such as ambulance station, magistrate’s court. It has limited police facilities, very few employment opportunities and the schools and health centre are near to capacity. Imposition of forced growth with the prior provision of facilities will cause a serious degradation of the quality of life for the present residents. Capital investment must precede growth.”