West Way – Questions for the Vale

At the last full Vale council meeting in May, I went on the record and asked the leader of the council, Cllr Matthew Barber, when he would be providing the written answers to questions from the public to the Scrutiny Committee that he promised to us in Nov 2013. He said, ‘Forthwith’.

I had a call from a senior Vale officer almost immediately. Since so much time had passed, and since they didn’t have copies of the individual questions asked that night, the Vale made an offer: We (the community concerned with West Way redevelopment) could submit new questions and they would get written answers, ‘forthwith’.

I polled the West Way Community Concern core team, who not only provided the original questions, but sent some new ones in as well. And I added one or two myself.

I sent in these questions last week, to which the CEO has said they will provide answers.

  1. In the autumn of 2013, Council urged Cabinet to act on behalf of the residents to do all it could to get Doric to come back to the table and work with residents to create a plan that everyone could support. What action has Cabinet taken in this direction, and what results have been achieved?
  1. I (Cllr Debby Hallett) asked Matt Prosser at our very first members briefing, just before Cabinet signed the first deal with Doric, the following: I understand your responsibility is to the financial health of the council. Who is the one responsible for looking out for the well-being of the residents already living here? This was apparently a surprising question. After a bit of thought, Mr Prosser told me that he would take that responsibility. Now that a couple of years have passed, and Matt Prosser is no longer here, I still have all the same concerns and they are stronger than ever. Also, now I understand that this is a Cabinet-driven decision, so it’s not really the officers who are tasked with looking after the interest of residents. So my question is, who on Cabinet is responsible for looking out for the interests and needs of the people who live and work in Botley?
  1. How does the change in ownership and directorship at Doric affect the contract relationship? What are Mace’s responsibilities and what are Doric’s? Does the contract have anything to say about a change in parties?
  1. The redevelopment of Botley was first defined in the redevelopment of Site 1, and later, in the planned redevelopment of Site 2. When did the definition of ‘Botley Central Area’ extend to include the land occupied by Elm’s Parade, Field House and the vicarage, and on what basis?
  1. Can Mr Buckle explain why the statement regarding intention to use compulsory purchase was allowed to be minuted and was not corrected? Was he, Matthew Barber, or Matt Prosser not aware of the existence of the draft compulsory purchase indemnity agreement?
  1. Mr Buckle stated that the council has dual responsibilities to both maximise its assets as a public body and also to cater for the needs of its local population. At the [Scrutiny] meeting, the question was asked as to whether any sort of options study was carried out to consider the various options, i.e. an evidence-based analysis of the social economic and environmental impacts. There was no answer given to that question. How, therefore, has it been demonstrated that the proposal meets either or both objectives, in both the immediate and longer term?
  1. We were told, repeatedly, that this was simply a property sale, and hence no competitive process was required – simply a market test. It is now evident that this is in practice a ‘development partnership’. What evidence is there to demonstrate that this partnership with Doric and now the Joint Venture with Mace provides a suitable vehicle, and best overall value, for any proposed development in the Vale?
  1. Cllr Barber also said, ‘We will engage on a measured course to try to accommodate the concerns of the community and push for changes to the scheme where possible.’  We have seen little evidence that our concerns have been even registered, never mind accommodated. When is Cllr Barber going to listen to local people?
  1. Letter to the CEO and to Leader Cllr Matthew Barber from Dr Mary Gill in response to recent public statements by CEO and previous public statements by Leader have not yet been answered. When will she have a response?
  1. Questions from Dr Caroline Potter to the Leader have been acknowledged but not answered. She asks, “In a December 2013 meeting between officers and members of the Vale Council, North Hinksey and Cumnor Parish Councils, and WWCC, it was agreed that the destruction of Field House would only be acceptable if like-for-like new accommodation was provided, and if residents would be able to move directly from Field House into the new accommodation rather than having to be temporarily re-housed. The planning application proposes a reduction in age-restricted units from 67 existing (62 flats and 5 bungalows) to 33 flats, with the new flats built on the existing Field House site and thus requiring temporary re-housing during development. How can the Council possibly support this, given the earlier assurances that this kind of uncertainty and potentially permanent loss of elderly residents’ homes would not be acceptable?”

I’ll post here all answers I receive.