Air Quality Action Plan consultation

(Update 24 Jul 14 – this is coming to Scrutiny tonight. We’ve heard today that they were in error in leaving out Marcham from this plan. Will be ‘falling on their swords’, aplogising and submitting an amendment.)

The Vale has launched its public consultation for their Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP).

Comments are welcome through Friday the 15th of August.

From their announcement:

Generally, air quality in the district is very good, but we have areas where, due to traffic issues, air pollution is close to or exceeds the levels set in European and UK regulations. 
When that happens, and we’ve established there’s a risk of the public being significantly exposed to the pollution, we have to create what’s known as an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA).  We then have to come up with an action plan that sets out how we will work with others who have the power to make the necessary changes to tackle the air quality problems in these areas. 

 

See the draft AQAP and comment here: bit.ly/1iYyP5J (If you haven’t previously registered on the Consultation portal, you’ll need to do so.)

Answers to our Questions

Here are the answers to the questions we submitted to the Vale CEO, David Buckle. I was about to say these are from him, then I noticed his file name is MB WWCC Questions. So I think these are from Cllr Matthew Barber, to me, via David Buckle. And now to you.

This is a link to my Dropbox folder where you can read or download the document:

http://bit.ly/1uOWG7w

 

Ploughing through the backlog

Hi everyone.

I’ve been SO busy in the past two weeks, that I’ve fallen behind with blog posts and newsletters. I’m determined to get a newsletter out asap. So to support it I need to get all these articles of importance on the blog.

(Update on 9 Jun 14 – I beavered away and have a lot of new bits of info posted. Click on links below.)

  1. Doric’s Environmental Statement for West Way
  2. West Way Design Review Panel meeting
  3. My update with Stuart Walker
  4. Individual Voter Regisration
  5. Questions to the Vale
  6. Air Quality Action Plan for Botley
  7. Election results in Oxford West and Abingdon (there is some good news there)

 

I’ll get started now, and pause for lunch and the mens final at Roland Garros. 🙂

Air Quality Action Plan for Botley

At the full council meeting on Feb 2014, I tabled this motion, (seconded by Cllr Catherine Webber of Marcham):

Council resolves to fulfil its legal responsibility to create Air Quality Action Plans for Botley and for Marcham.

We ran out of time at that meeting, so the motion was carried forward to the next one, on 14 May 14, where I had this to say:

Botley AQMA was created in 2008.

In 2009, the official report said nitrogen oxide levels needed to be reduced by 40%. The plan was to hope that improved emissions control in new vehicles would bring air pollution to acceptable levels by 2014.

In April 2012, the Air Quality Updating & Assessment report concluded an AQMA plan was required. (It was clear at that point that hope as a strategy wasn’t enough.)

In May 2012, I asked, ‘With planned growth comes increased cars, street deterioration and air pollution. Botley is an AQMA. How will the Vale manage the impact of more development on air quality?’ I had no reply.

In July 2013, I asked the Cabinet member for Environmental Health to report on the efficacy of the Action Plan and where the public could see it. There was no plan, but the Cabinet member said he had asked officers to create one for the Oct 2013 Cabinet briefing.

In Sep 2013, I was sent a DEFRA report that said the AQAP for Botley was in draft form and would shortly go for consultation.

In late October 2013, I again asked in full council meeting how the Vale would mitigate against the anticipated air pollution brought about by the major new shopping centre where Elms Parade and West Way now stand. The Cabinet member said he would reply in writing, but I never got anything.

Here it is February May 2014, and I don’t see an Action Plan – nothing on the Vale website, nothing in my inbox.

We’re legally required to create this Air Quality Action Plan. We also have a moral responsibility to the people who live and work in Botley. Please support the motion.

This motion passed, and the Cabinet member for Environmental Health has said he’s trying his best to get it done.

Since then, officers have published an AQAP for South Oxfordshire, and I hear one for the Vale is due soon. It covers all the bad air areas in the Vale, and will be open for consultation as soon as it’s published. Any day now, I’m sure. Really.

Planning Update meeting 6 Jun 14

On Friday 6 June I had my periodic update from the planning officer who manages the West Way application, Stuart Walker. Here are the main points:

  • Last week had the Design Review Panel, a West Way Community Concern update meeting with Planning officers, and the Environmental Statement consultation began.
  • Planning team apologises for the computer glitch that sent out some letters with a two week consultation deadline, instead of the agreed three weeks.
  • The online versions of the Environmental Statement is about to be resized to allow all appendices to be read. (It’s all just too big!)
  • Over the next month Stuart and his team will be reviewing all the letters of objection to begin the investigation into points raised.
  • If Doric submit any amendments, there will be another consultation period.
  • Planning Officers are actively seeking a venue to be used for the Planning Committee meeting that considers this application.
  • At that planning committee meeting, there will be 20 minute slots: 1 for objectors, 1 for supporters, 1 for the parish council.
  • I’ll ask the Chairman of the planning committee, Cllr Robert Sharp, about allowing local members to speak outside those slots, so that our time doesn’t use up others’ time. For example, if I object, I don’t want to eat away at the 20 minutes WWCC has!

That’s what I learned.

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.

Oxford West & Abingdon Election Results 2014

We had successful local elections for Oxford West and Abingdon. I know, I know. All you hear in the news is how washed up the Lib Dems are, and how UKIP are stealing the show.  It’s true we lost all our MEP’s except for Catherine Bearder, but she is from OxWAb. We got the vote out to save her job. UKIP didn’t win any council seats here. (They say they ‘don’t do well in university towns.’)

We are working hard locally to elect Layla Moran as our MP, and it will be a very close contest between us and the Tories. Part of that effort is in local elections this year, and in the campaign for the local elections next May. That’s when I stand for re-election too, so you may be hearing more from me.

We targeted six wards in 2014. We won in four of them. In Cherwell District Council, we held Kidlington North, and lost Kidlington South. In Oxford City, we held St. Margaret’s, Wolvercote, and two seats in Summertown. We failed to re-gain Oxford North (we lost it last year in a by-election). There were no elections in the Vale of White Horse.

In every ward we improved our position compared to the last time the ward was up and we were well ahead in the aggregate vote.

 2014 LD Con Lab Grn UKIP  
J&O 241 221 1313 399
North 657 318 723 379
St Margs 610 409 492 305
Summ 1100 441 413 344
Wolv 971 677 250 275
Kid N 584 495 206 136 281
Kid S 596 930 453 138 520
Total 4759 3491 3850 1976 801 14877
  31.99% 23.47% 25.88% 13.28% 5.38%
 
 2012/11 LD Con Lab Grn UKIP  
J&O 149 214 835 337
North 353 291 516 385
St Margs 474 353 198 350
Summ 753 379 246 418
Wolv 655 584 200 495
Kid N 771 757 295 221
Kid S (’11) 396 1122 494 114
Total 3551 3700 2784 2320 0 12355
  28.74% 29.95% 22.53% 18.78% 0.00%

 

In the European counts, Oxford delivered the third highest number of votes for the Lib Dems and the Vale the eighth highest, and the highest of any council without local elections. Catherine sent a special thank you as she saw our numbers come through.

We are proud of our success, especially in the face of national trends. If you can help us, please let me know. We can use you! I’d very much like to send Layla Moran to Westminster, and I’d like to keep my job as well.

🙂

 

Individual electoral registration

From June 10th, the way we register to vote is changing.

Instead of using a household form to register everyone at your address, everyone will take individual responsibility for their own registration. IER: Individual Electoral Registration.

All currently registered electors will have their name and address checked against government records so that they can be confirmed under IER. The vast majority will be confimred and automatically transferred. In the Vale’s test run this was almost 80%. Those people need do nothing.

Every registered elector will get a letter. It will either tell you that your details have been transferred successfully and you need do nothing, or that you need to provide some additional information to the Electoral Register Officer.

If you are successfully transferred, your postal or proxy vote status will be transferred with you.

Look out for your letter in July.