Any questions from members of the public under Standing Order 32 will be asked at the meeting.
(1) Question from Mr Les Clyne of Abingdon:
"Please could the following question be put on the 1st February 2008 Executive Meeting Agenda for written reply by Mary de Vere, as Executive Member responsible for housing, within 10 working days of the meeting.
1. The Executive Initial Draft budget for 2008/2009 has as one of its main objectives affordable housing and states an aim to produce 400 units over 4 years (April 2008 - April 2012). The Vale Local Development Plan published in 2006, which is still in force, has an aim to permit and complete 2126 units of housing between 1 April 2005 and 1 April 2011, of which around 2000 would fall in the category where the Vale's target for affordable housing of 40% would apply. Thus the Vale's overall target is to produce 40% of 2000, i.e. 800 units of affordable housing, by April 2011. To date (January 2008) only 120 of the 800 have been permitted (e-mail correspondence and table from Jerry Patterson to me dated 14th January 2008) . Why is the Vale proposing to extend its timescale by a year (to 2012 instead of 2011) and to cut its planned target by around 50% from 800 to 400, has it informed central Government of this massive change to its development plan, and has it been given approval for this change?"
Minutes:
The Executive received three questions from a member of the public under Standing Order 32.
(1) Question from Mr Les Clyne of Abingdon:
"Please could the following question be put on the 1st February 2008 Executive meeting agenda for written reply by Councillor Mary de Vere, as Executive Member responsible for Housing, within 10 working days of the meeting.
1. The Executive Initial Draft budget for 2008/2009 has as one of its main objectives affordable housing and states an aim to produce 400 units over 4 years (April 2008 - April 2012). The Vale Local Development Plan published in 2006, which is still in force, has an aim to permit and complete 2126 units of housing between 1 April 2005 and 1 April 2011, of which around 2000 would fall in the category where the Vale's target for affordable housing of 40% would apply. Thus the Vale's overall target is to produce 40% of 2000, i.e. 800 units of affordable housing, by April 2011. To date (January 2008) only 120 of the 800 have been permitted (e-mail correspondence and table from Jerry Patterson to me dated 14th January 2008). Why is the Vale proposing to extend its timescale by a year (to 2012 instead of 2011) and to cut its planned target by around 50% from 800 to 400, has it informed central Government of this massive change to its development plan, and has it been given approval for this change?"
Councillor Mary de Vere thanked Mr Clyne for his question and replied as follows. As Councillor Richard Farrell had explained in his answer at Development Control Committee, the Local Plan allocated land for housing but the Council did not have the power to force land owners to bring their land forward for development. So the Council can only estimate what developments would take place and then use this estimation to calculate what it believed would be a challenging target for the provision of affordable housing.
The Oxfordshire Housing Market Assessment, carried out in 2007, identified that the Vale of White Horse needed to provide about 850 homes every year to meet the housing needs of local people. At current prices this equated to an annual cost of affordable housing of £80 million. This was a sum far beyond the resources of the Council.
Central government had made it clear that the cost of affordable housing should be met by the value of developments themselves by using ‘planning gain’. Section 106 agreements were made as part of the planning permission and these provided community benefits and affordable housing in turn for permitting developers and landowners to develop and sell open market housing. The Vale of White Horse had been quite successful in providing affordable housing in this way. Central government had stressed that the cost of housing should not be met by the public purse.
The Council’s Housing Strategy embraced this approach to providing affordable housing but also recognised that there were exceptional circumstances where a site could be brought forward for development more easily if some public finance was applied. The Council encouraged Registered Social Landlords to apply to the Housing Corporation for grant funding whenever it could. As a last resort the Council would consider funding a scheme itself but only when it was satisfied that all other revenue streams available to support the delivery of affordable housing had been exhausted.
The officers had estimated that between the years 2007/08 and 2010/11 the Council would provide 657 units of affordable housing. In doing this the Council would exceed its own target of an average of 100 affordable units each year but it would need to provide £600,000 to do this.
The Council believed that the provision of affordable housing with its enormous costs and long lead in times was not the only answer to assisting persons in housing need. The Council actively prevented people becoming homeless by helping them to find private rented accommodation both in the District and nearby if that suited their personal circumstances. To date in this year the Council had found accommodation and prevented 210 people from becoming homeless.
The Council had not cut any targets or reduced its plans to provide
affordable housing.
Councillor Mary de Vere handed a copy of her reply in writing to Mr Clyne.
(2) Question from Glynne Butt of Community in the Old Gaol to the Leader of the Council:
"Councillor Patterson has publicly acknowledged that there is a "cultural deficit" in Abingdon which needs to be addressed. Please can he therefore tell us:
(a) whether the Vale Councillors have decided to ring fence part of the receipt from the sale of the Old Gaol for the provision of arts, cultural or leisure facilities elsewhere in Abingdon town centre, and if so the size of the allocated sum?
(b) Since these needs were already recognised by the ABL report in 2005 and the Local Area Plan 2011 why (according to the Vale’s representative quoted in this week’s Herald) the Council plans to wait another three years before even looking at what facilities are needed? Do they realize that they could be out of power by that time and commitments made in 2008 would not be binding on a subsequent council?
Surely now would be an ideal time to harness the interest generated by the sale of the Old Gaol, by involving local people in the early stages of future planning."
CouncillorJerry Patterson informed Mrs Butt that he would send her a detailed written reply.
(2) Question from Hester Hand of Community in the Old Gaol to the Leader of the Council:
"Given the severe constraints on the Vale's budget, please can Councillor Patterson explain why the Draft Budget before you today proposes a spend of £47k per annum (albeit some of it from S.106 funds) on the creation of the new post of "Leisure Planning and Projects Officer"?
Would it not be better to use the Vale’s scarce resources to fund actual projects and facilities – or alternatively, to fund consultation and planning on the use of the Old Gaol receipts in order to move ahead promptly on the much needed provision of arts and cultural facilities in Abingdon?"
Councillor Patterson replied by reporting that the Leisure Planning and Projects Officer post was a fixed term two year contract aimed at generating more section 106 funding that would bring further facilities, perhaps even arts and cultural facilities. The post holder would be involved in evidence gathering to support the need for facilities through these planning agreements.