Last night at Scrutiny we looked closely at three Leisure reports that serve as part of the evidence underpinning the emerging Local Plan 2031 Part 2. 

Playing pitches (both grass and arificial grass), community halls and parks and green open spaces, children’s playgrounds, allotments will all be safe. They can only be replaced, not lost. 

Many towns and villages have facilities in need of refurbishment and replacement, and these reports suggested priorities. Many settlements are underprovided with some facilities. Again, a recommended improvements re prioritised. 

Once accepted, these reports become background to policy decisions. 

This was a large body of work taking years to produce. It will underpin planning policies and support planning application decisions for years to come. 

We also reviewed the draft CIL (community infrastructure levy) charging schedule. A lot of attention has gone into balancing the need for a schedule that’s viable for developers, but that still provides enough money to build needed infrastructure to support the levels of growth to which Vale has committed. 

I was heartened at the good quality of these studies and reports.

A new planning policy comes into effect in January 2017. 

Vale of White Horse offers pre-application planning advice to individuals and companies on a commercial basis. This is one of the ways that enable us to keep council tax low in South Oxfordshire.

Prior to a full planning application being made, we respect the commercial confidentiality of the advice given. However, in the interest of being transparent we are putting a new process in place from January 2017 whereby our advice on new cases will be available publicly on our website once the full application is submitted.

Some of you have asked me whether pending appeals will be decided according to the old policies in place when the application was originally determined, or if the new Local Plan policy will take precedence once it’s adopted. (Adoption expected 14 Dec 16.)

I’ve had conflicting answers to that question, and have this mor img sorted it out by speaking to a senior planner. 

Once a new policy is adopted, the local authority must notify the inspectorate. The new policy is definitely a material consideration, but how much weight it is given in an appeal is down to the inspector. So that would be the case here from 14 Dec 16. 

So for any appeals that are pending, it could go either way. But we would generally expect the inspector to give lots of weight to the new policy. 

I posted a Facebook comment somewhere, which, in retrospect, succinctly sums up my position in the Brexit debate. So I’m going to stick it here so I can find it again when asked my opinion. 😉

AFAIC, the referendum was advisory and not binding; that was explicit. The government should use the popular opinion as expressed in that referendum in making their decisions. 

But parliament is still sovereign; we in the UK are not a direct democracy. The decision about whether to leave the EU is parliament’s, and also the terms under which we should or should not. 

That’s my opinion. I think that agrees with Lib Dem position.

Personally, I still want us to remain in the EU.

I’m really pleased to report that Vale planners are exploring some permanent solutions to this intractable problem of the Tilbury Lane gate. 

I can’t really share details until they have more of it all worked out. But my optimistic fingers are deffo crossed. 

Here’s how it came about. 

In an attempt to resume normal life after elections of the past few months, I asked some senior Vale planners about the problem of road access in Tilbury Fields: the gate keeps malfunctioning (knocked down, usually, but currently locked open) and I think we need a different solution. 

Here’s my thinking on it. 

There are basically three approaches to problem solving. In order of sophistication, they are: 

1. Do more of the same. Fix the gate, break the gate, fix the gate, break the gate, get a new gate, gate doesn’t work, fix the gate … as nauseam. 

2. Do something different. Abandon the idea of a gate and try something else. Rising bollards? Manned security hut? 

3. Explore and discuss the idea that blocking the private, single track Tilbury Lane was never a solution to the problem at all. Instead, consider a new road to Tilbury Farm, a new access road to Tilbury Fields, some other clever way of preventing vehicles from taking the lane, or something like that. 

I’ve been trying to encourage exploration of possibilities in No 3. 

This past summer, Vale and South Oxfordshire were the first to roll out a massive outsourcing project. In the coming months, three other councils will be rolling out the same contract. This new model for joint outsourcing breaks new ground for councils as well as for the service providers, Capita and Vinci. 

Last night, the Joint Vale and South Scrutiny Committee decided they would to ask senior officers and cabinet holders to come along to a joint scrutiny committee meeting in January to report on progress of the 5 councils partnership, lessons learnt so far in the transition and roll-out and any issues arising from the terms of the contract. The committee feels this is one of the most important things (if not THE most important thing) the council is doing right now and would like to take a close look. 

We’re aiming for late January; Democratic Services officers will be setting it up. 

It will be an opportunity for all members of both councils to submit questions, come along and hear what’s happening. Even members of the public can participate, if they are interested. 

Three Vale areas suffer regular levels of NO2 levels in excess of EU thresholds: Botley along the A34, Marcham in Packhorse Lane, and the centre of Abingdon. 

Someone asked me today what I thought it meant to Vale that a court found (again) that the UK government isn’t doing enough to improve air quality. 

IMO, part of the problem is in the structure of responsibilities. I think someone in the Prime Minister’s Cabinet needs to have an overall responsibility for this, and to make clear what local government bodies can and should do. I think MPs should be doing more. Obv the courts agree. 🙂

Districts are tasked with monitoring and forming action plans. That’s where we (Lib Dems) have tried to apply pressure to the current administration. Today we have regular air quality measurements in the main problem areas, and under pressure from us, Tory Cabinet recently created action plans for those three areas too. 

But the measurement methods are a bit old fashioned and maybe not as thorough as they could be. And the action plans inevitably involve bodies other than the districts (county, highways, transport legislation etc) and we have not much clout in getting them to fund anything or do anything. 

Within the past year, we tabled a motion for council to write to the Government urging them to tighten up the requirements and testing for diesel engine emissions standards. It was voted down, but many Tories either supported us or abstained. We’ll try something like this again after the 6 months is up.

Just this week we submitted a budget proposal to the Tory administration for modernising our air quality monitoring equipment. We think Vale should be measuring particulates and providing real time information so vulnerable people can decide if they want to risk venturing outdoors on a given day. 

If we can be sure we are usefully measuring the most harmful of our air pollution problems, then when other bodies finally decide to do something, we’ll have the data. 

I don’t think it’s OK that nothing is happening, not at all. But I think that the FACT that nothing is happening points to a systemic problem that the lowest level of government (districts) is not equipped, nor expected, to handle. 
In all of this, I discovered that the most recent public health report on mortality estimates that 52 people in Vale die prematurely every year, due to air pollution. 

So it’s worth doing all we can. 

Many people are expressing their concerns over the Post SHMA Programme Report in the agenda for Oxfordshire Growth Board for Monday’s meeting. 

If you had your ear to the ground during the Vale Local Plan examination, you’ll remember that it was a close call as to whether Vale had done all it could to satisfy its Duty to Cooperate over helping Oxford meet its housing need. This report details the work that has been done on that issue. 

Here’s a nutshell:

The total number of houses needed to fulfil Oxford’s unmet need has been set at about 15,000. This obligation has been apportioned to the surrounding districts at last. Vale is to provide 2200, a lower figure than the approximately 3000 we expected. (Amusingly, Oxford City has been apportioned with 500. That makes no sense to me. Why is this considered to be part of city’s unmet need, if city are meeting it?)

This report makes clear that the allocation of specific sites upon which these 2200 houses will be developed are the responsibility of the districts themselves and their Local Plan processes. (The maps you see with various allocations are intended to be helpful suggestions.) That process is yet to come. This is an apportionment of total numbers, not an allocation of any specific sites. 

The bottom line is that Vale have to take 2200 houses, and the site allocations will be part of the Local Plan process with complete public consultation.

I wanted to let you know. 

The Growth Board meeting is open to the public. Monday 26th Sept 2-4pm at County Hall in Oxford City centre.