Climate Change Emergency – Vale motion

Your Vale of White Horse Liberal Democrat councillors tabled a motion at the 13th Feb 2019 full council meeting to have Vale join other councils in declaring a climate emergency, and to work collaboratively with neighbours across the county and wider region to reduce our impact on climate change.

The Tories amended it, and made it a bit less urgent, but at least we had cross-party support to DO something. Planning policies are key to building low or zero carbon houses, and moving us all more quickly to a zero carbon world. If the Lib Dems take control after the May elections, we can do even more. 

Here’s the final, approved motion (all Tories supported this except for one, who abstained):

Council notes that:
a) the recent 2018 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report states that we have just 12 years to act on climate change if global temperature rises are to be kept within the recommended 1.5 degrees Celsius;
b) all governments (national, regional and local) have a duty to limit the negative impacts on climate breakdown, and local governments that recognise this should not wait for their national governments to change their policies. UK county, district and city councils need to commit to aggressive reduction targets and carbon neutrality as quickly as possible;
c) districts are well placed to lead the world in reducing carbon emissions, as their responsibility for planning policies opens up a range of sustainable transport, buildings and energy opportunities;
d) Council has already shown foresight when it comes to addressing the issue of Climate Change, having signed the Nottingham Declaration on Climate Change in 2007. In 2008, Council agreed a Climate Change Strategy, which provided the framework for the council to set about reducing the carbon footprint of its own activities and of the local community. Between 2008 and 2013, this council collaborated with the Energy Saving Trust on the development of a strategy to reduce area-wide carbon emissions, as well as with the Carbon Trust, to produce a Carbon Management Plan which sets out how the council planned to reduce energy and fuel use in its own buildings and vehicles. All of this has led to a 30% drop in energy use in our buildings through 2018.
e) Notes that work has commenced on a review of the council’s Climate Change Strategy and Carbon Management Plan in collaboration with the Oxfordshire Energy Strategy, with the aim of bringing a report to Cabinet as soon as possible, and no later than Autumn 2019, the review to come forward to include the feasibility of adopting an early carbon neutral target for the Vale, and proposals for regular reporting to Cabinet, Scrutiny Committee and where necessary full council the progress with the strategy and plan.

In light of the above, the Council therefore agrees to:

  1. Join other councils in declaring a Climate Emergency;
  2. Ask the leader to write to the Secretary of State to seek confirmation of the Government’s intention to work with local government on climate change strategies.
  3. Ask that as officers, as per the council’s policies, are currently reviewing policy and strategies, that specific consideration be given to how policies, and our related decisions and actions, affect our contribution to climate change, and where necessary, update these policies to reduce our impact wherever possible. As far as
    possible, the reporting templates for Council, Cabinet and committees to be amended to include an ‘Environmental Impact’ section.
  4. Ask officers to provide the cost and availability of the most appropriate training options for members and officers about how to promote carbon neutral policies for future consideration by Cabinet;
  5. Request the Cabinet member for environment to bring to council a report on the activities of the Oxfordshire Environmental Partnership, of which the Vale is a member on the Vale’s environmental policies and strategies.
  6. Continues the positive collaborative work with partners across the district, county and wider region to deliver widespread carbon reductions.

Foxcombe Hall planning application – update

The Foxcombe Hall planning application for major residential and educational development is still under consideration. Although some amendments have been received, the Vale planning officers feel they do not fully address the concerns about Green Belt openness, transport and parking.

Your Lib Dem councillors have worked hard to keep the officers aware of the issues that concern residents, and we are still hopeful that this application will be refused, but that’s not expected until after the May elections.

The new owners at Foxcombe Hall must think again!

Vale budgets and income sources

I wanted to share what I’ve learned recently about how our Vale council is funded, the insecurities in funding, and how that affects our ability to plan and provide services.

I’ll use approximate but correct figures here. That way it’s easier to follow.

Our annual budget is currently a bit over £15m per year. We earn about £800,000 on our investments each year. So that leaves a little over £14m to be provided by the other sources of income:

  • New Homes Bonus: 33% of our income
  • Business Rates Retention Scheme: 16% of our income
  • Council tax paid by residents: 47% of our income
  • (these don’t add to 100% because of rounding)

Our population is about 130,000, so it costs council about £110 per person to provide the services we do today. (130,000 times £110 is £14.3m.)

New Homes Bonus (NHB) has been a Government scheme to reward councils for successful housing growth. Vale has excelled at this and as a result 33% of our income has been from the NHB scheme. But Government is ending this scheme and this is the last year for it. They’ve not yet announced what scheme will replace it. As a result, we are unable to effectively plan for our medium to long term future, which has brought about the current pause in discretionary capital spending.

Business Rates Retention Scheme (BRRS) is a Government scheme to promote business growth in the district. Council retains a portion of the business rates we collect. But there’s a hitch. The percentage we retain depends on income being over a certain threshold, which was set when the scheme started in 2013-14. In our council, immediately after this baseline was set, Didcot power station closed and the Culham Science Centre gained charitable status, so neither of them had to pay business rates any longer. As a result we haven’t exceeded our threshold from the very beginning. So our retention rate is low, and even though the Government has been the same party as the Vale administration, there’s been no success in trying to get a correction for this on our behalf. So we’ve been losing out every year due to an accident of timing that hasn’t been remedied. BRRS is low, then, at 16% of Vale income.

The only income stream under any sort of council control is the council tax that we pay as residents. For the current year, 2018-19, it is £126.69 per year. Councils are allowed to raise it by the greater of £5 or 3% each year. For many years the Tory administration decided not to raise it at all, which has meant that the portion of council income that was under our control wasn’t maximised. That’s set back our financial position by several £m, as a result. (That’s another post for another day.)

Councils across the UK vary in their dependence on Government schemes for their budgets. Where councils have managed their council tax rate so that council tax is set at a level that covers most or all of services, those councils aren’t overly concerned with the whims of central Government and their frequent changes to local authority funding schemes. They are more stable. But Councils where their council tax is set very low, and who rely heavily on Government funding, are having the worst times right now. We reap what we sow, in my opinion. By freezing council tax for many years, Vale is relatively more reliant on Government funding, and that dependence has brought us to where we are today. Financial uncertainty for the medium to long term, and the pausing of discretionary capital spending.

What do you think should happen now?

Oxford City Local Plan consultation response

I sent an individual response to Oxford City’s Local Plan 2036 (the Vale Liberal Democrat group submitted one as well). By doing this we have declared our interest in being invited to participate in the Examination in Public to come later in the year.

Here is what I said:

Pre-submission response 28 Dec 2018 , Debby Hallett resident of Botley, Vale of White Horse, Debby.Hallett@gmail.com

  1. Duty to cooperate

With Oxford City at or near full employment, housing at a price that’s unaffordable to almost anyone who wants to live there, and roads congested beyond capacity, it’s not demonstrating cooperation with neighbouring authorities when there are so many employments sites in the plan while at the same time not enough houses to meet City’s Objectively Assessed Need. I live in one of the neighbouring districts, Vale of White Horse, which is expected to provide some of the thousands of homes to meet Oxford’s unmet need. By not doing more to meet its own needs, Oxford increases the burden on neighbouring districts and also increases the traffic congestion on the arterial routes around Oxford. I am somewhat mollified to read that this opinion is also help by some respondents who are from Oxford City itself, so it’s not solely a view taken by neighbours.

Government has set up a scheme that rewards an authority for building more employment sites (business rates retention). Government previously rewarded authorities for building more homes (new homes bonus) but this funding stream for local government ends next year. Assessment is needed to ensure no authority is taking unfair advantage of its neighbours under Duty to Cooperate by building more employment sites at a level that prevents them from providing enough housing. I think this is what Oxford City is trying to do.

Cycle routes providing safe access to Oxford employment sites should be planned for under Duty to Cooperate. Current cycle and car traffic along roads and cycle paths in neighbouring districts leading to work sites in Oxford are above capacity and unsafe. Bus services between neighbouring housing and employment sites, and city sites dwindle each year. There used to be more cross-boundary strategic planning but the regional planning roles have been eliminated. Is this requirement intended to replace what used to be regional collaboration on strategic issues affecting neighbouring authorities? This approach is unsustainable.

  • Positively prepared, justified, effective, consistent with national policy

Housing need is based on an out of date evidence base; Government is adopting a new calculation for objectively assessed need that’s based on more up to date evidence. Oxford’s plan must not be based on old, invalid evidence. That isn’t a positively prepared plan.

Oxford should build fewer employment sites and use the sites for housing instead, at an appropriate density for city living. Oxford should change its focus away from creating more housing need (which happens when more employment sites are created), to meeting a housing need growing with each passing year.

Oxford also should have a plan for increasing the rate at which it builds new housing. Recent years numbers have seen the City fall behind in its building  pace, with no apparent consequences or efforts to increase the pace.

In spite of asserting that housing is its top priority, Oxford’s plan is written with employment growth as its top priority, leaving an unacceptable burden on its neighbours and ignoring the need for sustainable transport corridors for people to get to and from work.

I would submit that the case for exceptional circumstances to support removing any land from the Green Belt is not made. The guidance on Green Belt law is clear that housing need is not enough of a reason to allow development in the Green Belt.

My council tax

I know many of us think council taxes are too high. I have a mixed view.

I pay £178 each month for ten months of the year. That is a lot.

£142.00 goes to Oxfordshire County Council.

£18 goes to Thames Valley Police.

£12 goes to Vale of White Horse District Council.

£4 goes to North Hinksey Parish Council.

(Doesn’t exactly add up as I’ve rounded the monthly numbers.)

So the £12 I send to Vale each month contributes to our waste and recycling collections, leisure centres, parks maintenance, housing and homelessness services, planning policy and development services. And more.

District councils are allowed to raise council tax by the greater of 3% or £5 per year. If they want to raise it more than that, a referendum must be held (and those are expensive).

A council tax rise of £5 per year would be 50 pence per monthly payment. Most of us wouldn’t notice that amount, even if it happened every year. Plus, people who would find this a hardship can take advantage of a fund kept on hand to help people who can’t afford to pay their council tax. That pot has never been depleted, so everyone is clearly coping.

As far as I know, there is no legal limit to the amount a parish precept may rise each year. Mostly parishes assess what’s really needed and set the precept to cover it.

I personally would like both the district council and the parish council to charge me enough council tax to fund the local services we need. I think I could squeeze out a bit more in tax and precept to bring safer pedestrian crossings for our children as they walk to school, some parking enforcement to make cycling, driving, and walking safer and more hassle-free, our children’s centre to be able to serve local families, funding help for local leisure facilities, covered bus stops with a place to sit, maintained grass verges. Et cetera.

Those are the things we need, and I would be content to pay a little bit more to have them.

Budget decisions at Vale

Yesterday, the Tory Vale of White Horse Cabinet decided that next year’s budget will contain NO discretionary growth bids at all. They also decided to stop all optional capital projects, such as the new leisure centre in Wantage and any other bricks and mortar projects.

All potential capital projects will go into a waiting bin until there is money to spend. Then each project will be considered based on affordability.

Finances are very uncertain for local authorities right now. It’s still not known how much we’ll have to spend and what the sources of funding will be for the medium term.

Generally, I like to blame the Tories. This time though, considering the situation they’re in, the local administration is doing the right thing by halting spending. It’s the Tory national Government stitching us up so there’s not enough money to provide the services the residents expect. Well, that, and the fact that local Tories haven’t raised council tax over the years in order to keep the funding coming in. So after all, I do blame the local Tories. They’ve brought us to a place where we can’t afford to do the things we’ve planned to do.

Government was supposed to announce the funding this past week. But they say it was delayed due to the Brexit debates and vote.

Houses for Oxford – my view

This post is long, sorry, not sorry. It’s a complicated topic, and I want to be thorough when I share my opinion. It has to do with how neighbours to Oxford are expected to provide new housing to meet Oxford’s needs.

Local authorities have a so-called ‘duty to cooperate’ with each other in establishing local plan policies in cross-boundary areas. This is the law, but it’ never been really well defined. Here in Oxfordshire, the main duty to cooperate lies between Oxford City council and its neighbouring districts: Cherwell, West Oxfordshire, South Oxfordshire (SODC) and Vale of White Horse.

Today, we read in the Oxford Times that SODC are proposing to include a controversial Green Belt site (referred to as Grenoble Road) in their most recent version of their local plan. This site is in the Oxford Green Belt, and seen by some as a rather unattractive housing site (as it has high power lines and stanchions throughout) but nonetheless is located close to Oxford on its southeastern boundary). But it is in the Green Belt, established deliberately to provide a green space for the city and also to prevent future urban sprawl.

Here’s a link to the newspaper article:  https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/17279902.big-build-1700-new-homes-planned-as-grenoble-road-picked-for-huge-development/

Local authorities are having financial difficulties now in many areas, with major cuts in Government funding in the past few years, and more cuts expected. (Bear with me; this is relevant.) There are three primary income sources for local councils:

  1. New Homes Bonus scheme (expected to end next year). Basically local authorities were awarded a bonus based on the number of homes delivered. Vale of White Horse District Council is a top performer in this area; when Govt said our income depended on the houses we built, we built lots of houses.
  2. Business rates (based on growth over a certain baseline). Vale of White Horse had some bad luck in this area; just after the baseline was taken, Didcot power station closed down, and Culham science company became a charitable enterprise, so no longer paid business rates. Both these actions hit our business rates income for years, because our rates are always low compared to our baseline. Government were asked if they could provide relief; they said no.
  3. Council taxes that we pay. This is a politically driven decision. Conservatives are proud that they froze council tax in the Vale for many years of the eight years they’ve been in charge. But in spite of the other sources of income being volatile and uncertain, and not under our own control, Conservatives took no action. Over the years, more and more houses were built and more people moved here. But the cost of providing services continued to go up, and the council tax stayed the same. As a result, Vale has lost millions in income every year, and over the years. These loses will continue to accumulate; there’s an annual limit to how much councils can raise council taxes without a referendum (and we know all about referendums now.) Currently we pay £126 per annum to Vale (Band D). In 2011 we paid £116. Councils are allowed to raise taxes by the higher of 3% or £5 per year. Vale has about 50,000 band D properties. You can do the maths.

There used to be a Government grant to local authorities, but that was systematically reduced over a few years and then it stopped altogether last year.

We are all worried about our ability to continue to provide services with these drastic cuts.

So, Oxford has nearly full employment; It doesn’t need more employment sites; but remember the income from business rates. Oxford DOES need more houses that people who work in Oxford can afford to rent or buy; but remember the demise of New Homes Bonus. So Oxford’s  Local Plan will have a shortfall of about 10,000 homes (when compared to their assessed need). These 10,000 homes must be provided by the neighbouring districts; remember ‘Duty to Cooperate’.

By earmarking more land for employments sites, Oxford cannot meet their own housing needs, and so neighbours must do that for them. This is one side of the duty to cooperate. Local Plans will not be found sound if they do not provide enough housing to meet Oxford’s unmet need. That’s one of the main reasons for SODC allocating the Grenoble Road site.

But in my opinion, the other side of Duty to Cooperate is that Oxford must do all it can to meet its  own housing needs. I think they aren’t doing that.

My response to the Oxford Local Plan (now out for it’s pre-submission consultation) is that they need to plan for fewer employment sites, and provide more houses that people can afford to buy or rent. I think the ‘duty to cooperate’ needs to run both ways; Oxford must to do its best to meet its own housing needs, and then the neighbouring authorities need to help Oxford meet the needs it cannot meet for itself. Simples.

Oxfords Local Plan doesn’t do that well enough. So SODC and other districts are having to take up the slack. Hence the Big Build of Grenoble Road, and also Dalton Barracks near Abingdon, also in the Green Belt.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Council tax 2018-19

Each year, parish and town councils set their precepts to cover their planned expenses for the next administrative year. Here (above) are the Band D total council tax rates for 2018/19 for each of the four local areas in our ward. I Include Oxford City and Abingdon for comparison.

Of the total council tax (rightmost column) Oxfordshire County gets £1426.19 per year. Thames Valley Police gets £182.80 per year, and  Vale gets £126.69 per year.

LPP2 – guest post by Cllr Emily Smith

Last night the Vale discussed how to move forward with Local Plan Part 2 having received a letter from the Inspector saying the plan was unsound without modification. Specifically, he gave three options in relation to Dalton Barracks and Abingdon Airfield; 1) stick with 4500 homes but do a lot more work to put the transport infrastructure in place, 2) change the plan to only allocate 1200 homes on this site, or 3) remove Dalton Barracks from the Local Plan and find other sites around the Vale to put the 1200 homes required.

The Council, and the Opposition, voted to proceed under Option 2. But I had the following to say during the debate:

“In our Reg 19 [formal consultation on the Local Plan documents] submission and during the examination in public, the Liberal Democrat group questioned the soundness of Local Plan Part 2 and asked the inspector to consider six modifications.

“In his letter Mr Reed agreed with four of these six; including Abingdon Airfield in the site name, the inadequate transport infrastructure to support housing at Dalton Barracks and Abingdon Airfield, deleting the pointless bus road through Sunningwell and not removing Shippon village from the Green Belt.

“The Inspector also addressed our fifth point about the number of homes we should be building in the Vale – he reduced the number of homes required in Southeast Vale and clarified that the size of Oxford’s unmet need should be treated as a “working assumption”.

“We still don’t have a sound Part 2 plan and are yet to learn what further modifications the inspector requires.

“But, we are where we are.

“Officers’ recommendation is to inform Mr Reed we intend to proceed with his ‘Option 2’. Of the three options available, given the time pressure we are under, this seems like the most sensible way forward.

“However, this course of action does raise some questions and concerns.

“Firstly, timing. The Local Plan Part 1 inspector said we had to have part 2 in place by December 2018. Our group warned council back in Sept 2017 that rushing to submit an unsound Part 2 plan would put this deadline at risk. I note Cllr Cox’s comments that he thinks we can still meet the 31st December deadline, but what are the consequences of this for the Vale if we don’t meet this?

“The Oxfordshire Housing and Growth Deal requires all 5 Districts to have submitted local plans by April 2019. But with this delay, and the uncertainly over what Oxford’s unmet need will actually be, is the Vale also at risk of jeopardising the growth deal?

“Secondly, this change in direction, and the work required on further modifications, will require additional staff time and money. I am concerned about the additional workload for our officers and the extra money this council will have to spend as a result. I would like to know how much has been put into the budget to cover these unintended costs and what the consequences will be for other projects the Planning team are responsible for?

“And finally, we need to make sure that residents, Parish Councils, Neighbourhood Plan Groups, county highways officers and members of this council are fully engaged with the development of the new plans for Dalton Barracks and Abingdon Airfield. So what arrangements are in place for public consultation so that the plan developed under ‘Option 2’ has every chance of being found sound by the inspector?”

Cllr Cox, leader of the Vale responded to these questions by saying he is confident we can meet all the required deadlines, that planning officers had not raised any concerns about workload and there would be a 6-week consultation on the new plans for Dalton Barracks.

There is a lot of work to do, and without knowing what other modifications the Planning Inspector requires to make the plan sound, I remain concerned about resources and hitting our 31st December deadline. We will see…