To receive any questions or statements from members of the public that have registered to speak.
Minutes:
A. Question from Gordon Lundie to Councillor Bethia Thomas, Cabinet member for community engagement
Bearing in mind that it has been reported by two locally elected members on social media that the Valley Park application will be delayed, and I quote “ due to Purdah,…the application for Valley Park will not come back to planning committee until May at the earliest,” and that badgers have been reported on the site surely requiring a wildlife assessment, can the Cabinet member confirm whether this delay is true and if so what impact this will have on the councils five year land supply and the HIF bid, and how is this delay consistent with the Local Government Guidance that planning application decisions should not be delayed due to purdah, even where controversial?”
Answer
Following the deferral of the Valley Park outline planning application at the Planning Committee 16 February, officers are in negotiations with the developer regarding highway improvements and health care provision. If we receive amended plans following our discussions with the developer, it is likely we will undertake further public engagement, which is our normal practice. Oxfordshire County Council, as the highway authority, will provide their views where appropriate on any amended plans or proposals. The need for this further work is the main reason why this application is not in a position to return yet to the planning committee.
Any slippage in determining this application is likely to impact on the developer’s ability to deliver housing in line with the council’s housing delivery trajectory published in our annual housing statement and the ability to demonstrate our five year housing land supply. I understand that the preparatory works to deliver Didcot’s road infrastructure funded by the HIF is on track.
Regarding badgers, the location of the outlier setts will be buffered within proposed open space. Suggested planning conditions would include resurveying the area as part of an Ecological Construction Management Plan, prior to site clearance/commencement of development.
B. Dr Nathan Ley addressed Council in support of Motion A at agenda item 12 to improve access to healthcare facilities for residents of new housing developments.
C. Bob Colenutt, Chair of the Oxfordshire Community Land Trust (OCLT), addressed Council in support of grant funding for the Dean Court affordable housing project. He stated that OCLT is a Community Benefit Society regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority with charitable status and had been working on the Dean Court project with the district council since 2014. Dean Court will provide eight co-operatively run, rented, permanently affordable housing units for those in housing need in the district. The scheme is at an advanced stage with land acquired, a fully designed scheme, a development loan in place with a selected contractor in place. OCLT have applied for Registered Provider status from the regulator for Social Housing and anticipate that their application will be significantly strengthened with the Council’s approval for grant funding. The project supports the council’s aim of supporting community led housing and meets the needs identified in the Cumnor Neighbourhood Plan for smaller units for local people. If granted, OCLT will be able to deliver much needed permanently affordable housing for the district by 2022.
C. Robin Tucker, Chair of the Oxfordshire Cycling Network, addressed Council in support of Motion B at agenda item 12 to improve the safety of roundabouts for cyclists.
E. Question from Dr Christopher Palmer to Councillor Andrew Crawford, Cabinet member for finance and corporate assets
Like many Abingdon residents and users of the town centre I am delighted that the sale of Old Abbey House has finally gone through and look forward to seeing it develop into a boutique hotel to attract more visitors to the town. I am concerned however about comments made by the cabinet member for finance that the councils MTFP is unsustainable for its duration including the current financial year. What assurances can the leader of the council and cabinet member for finance give to concerned residents that the proceeds from this sale will be used to fund capital projects which in turn generate revenue and not just to fill the ever increasing black hole in the Vale finances. Will the proceeds be spent for the benefit of abingdonians and what is the transparent process for the use of these capital receipts that is expressed in the latest corporate plan?
I look forward to your reply during the meeting or within 5 days”
Answer
I too am delighted that after years of decline and decay under the previous administration, we have finally secured a bright future for one of Abingdon’s historic buildings.
The question asks whether the sale proceeds of Old Abbey House will be used to fund the future, projected deficit of the Vale’s revenue position. My clear answer to this is simply no. Not just because we don’t wish to but importantly because regulations simply do not allow for capital balances to be spent to support revenue expenditure.
I am also delighted to note that we are budgeting to use less reserves in 2021/22 than predicted in the last budget put forward by the Conservative administration in 2019 – this is in spite of the global pandemic playing havoc with our finances. Moreover that last Conservative budget saw this Council effectively running out of non-earmarked revenue reserves to fund its services from 2023/24 and I am pleased to report that through sound financial management this administration have successfully managed to push back this situation a further two years to 2025/26. To set the record straight, the council’s Section 151 officer, in the budget report, confirmed that the budget for 2021/22 was both prudent and robust, and the level of reserves is adequate for 2021/22. Building stable finances that are sustainable over the medium term is central to our corporate plan – it has had to be, given the position of the council’s finances that we inherited from the previous administration. Reference is also made to a “black hole” in this Council’s Finances and I should like to clarify that it is in fact a Blue Hole, dug by Conservative spades over the eight years to 2019. Poor and unsustainable financial decisions made by the previous administration of this Council aided and abetted by Conservative Governments reducing their financial support to this and other Councils not least of all through significant changes to the New Homes Bonus scheme.
Our budget shows how the council’s capital receipts will be used to fund capital schemes. In 2020/21 and 2021/22, we will be spending over £400,000 of our own capital receipts on our assets in Abingdon including projects at Rye Farm, the Charter Complex and White Horse Leisure and Tennis Centre. It is possible, if indeed not highly likely, that further capital schemes will come forward in Abingdon over the coming years. Capital receipts will continue to be used to maintain and improve our assets across the Vale, and to help rebuild our financial position.
Finally, the question also calls for transparency over the use of capital receipts and I am very happy to agree that transparency is core to this Liberal Democrat administration’s values. Our capital budget is published as part of the budget setting papers and is available for all residents to see and comment upon. Material changes to the capital budget, should they occur, are subject to approvals which are fully documented and likewise available to all.
F. Question from Cath Convery to Councillor Emily Smith, Leader of the council
I am a resident of Harwell village and a business owner on Harwell campus, on the border between the two districts – VOWH and SODC. I am speaking on behalf of some local residents who have just heard about the proposals being brought before you today for a Joint Local Plan.
We are appalled to have heard this by chance.
For a Council that is supposed to take seriously the need to be transparent and engage with local communities, the fact this is being voted on tonight with a complete lack of communication and consultation is shocking to say the least. Why on earth should our local residents be allowing councillors from another District Council make strategic planning decisions about areas that they have no knowledge or interest in. The Vale of White Horse has a local plan which has been in place for a number of years now, and I believe you have already publicised a call for sites and embarked on refreshing this plan. What is the status of that process?
Why should the Vale Council risk everything by slowing down for another Council who has only just approved its own plan, after much fighting and debate that is still going on with a Judicial Review backed by members of that very Council.
Every Vale resident should be concerned about what is happening here, putting at risk control over local planning, allowing speculative proposals to come forward all in the name of what appears to be a political vanity project and a small cost saving in 3 years that may never materialise.
In conclusion, could I ask the leader or the appropriate Cabinet member to please let me know the status of the call for sites and what the communication, consultation and engagement model will be for the residents of the Vale in the event that you proceed with this plan?
Answer
Thank you for your question.
The proposal this evening is to agree the preparation and production of a Joint Local Plan with South Oxfordshire District Council and does not deal with the detail or content of the plan at this stage.
The advantages and disadvantages of a joint local plan are set out in the officer report. Whether a joint plan progresses is also dependent on South Oxfordshire District Council considering this matter at their Council meeting tomorrow.
I am reluctant to go into too much detail about the pros and cons of producing a joint local plan as this will be debated later-on this evening.
In terms of communication, the council put an article on our website on 2 March. This was shared on our social media channels and emailed to residents who have signed up to receive email alerts from the council. The Herald Series newspaper covered the story on 4 March. This was ahead of both the Scrutiny Committee meeting on 9 March and the Cabinet meeting on 17 March where the matter was discussed in public. And of course, Council will be discussing the proposal this evening in public as well.
The Local Development Scheme set out in Appendix 1 of the joint local plan officer report shows the planned dates for formal public engagement and for the key democratic decisions during the joint plan making process. This shows that the number of opportunities for residents to have their say will be the same for a Vale only or Joint Local Plan and cabinet and scrutiny were reassured that the time frame to complete a joint plan would be no different from a Vale only plan.
I thank you for raising your concerns and speaking to us this evening. I am sure the points you raise will also be discussed later as part of the debate.