20 Eynsham Rd application – I object

I’ve formally objected to (and called in to committee) the planning application P18/V2510/FUL for 6 flats at 20 Eynsham Rd.

Here’s what i said in my objection:

The plans don’t differ significantly from the previous ones.
The main problems are overdevelopment of the site, intensification of use, overlooking neighbours, so loss of privacy, especially with respect to 2 Tilbury Lane.

Applicant sought pre-application advice and was given it. Applicant seems to have ignored the advice given, essentially that intensification of this ‘relatively small site’ would not be acceptable. (In their application docs, applicants refer to it as a ‘relatively large site’. Didn’t listen to pre-app advice.) To meet the ‘no intensification of use’ criteria, we would expect an application for no more than 2 dwellings on this site to be acceptable in principle.

So applicant proposed to demolish two flats and build 6 flats, with 9 bedrooms and 6 parking spaces.

Vale’s design guide does not support car parks in front of flats.
Design Guide also has something to say about entrances to flats and flatted developments.
Unsafe access to and egress from parking.
Bins on Tilbury Lane. Would this be allowed?
Plans don’t reveal how many flat and parking spaces are disability accessible.
Over dominant relative to neighbouring sites.
Not in alignment with homes on Tilbury Lane
Six parking spaces for 9 bedrooms; not enough parking. No visitor or delivery parking. There is no parking allowed on Eynsham Rd or on the private Tilbury Lane.

This application is for a development that’s inappropriate on this site.
I have also called this application in to Planning Committee.

The Beacon’s finances – any risk here?

I heard that Tories in the Wantage area have been claiming that The Beacon has a smaller deficit now than when the Liberal Democrats were in power (up until May 2011). (By ‘deficit’, we’ve always meant the difference between their income and expenses, which is roughly the amount Vale contributes to their running costs every year.)

I was pretty sure this wasn’t true. (I reserve judgement about whether it was another deliberate campaign lie, or simple ignorance about finances. Or something else?)

So I asked officers for a view of the finances over the years. Here’s what I got back.

The table below sets out the budgeted income and expenditure for The Beacon, and the actual income and expenditure for the Beacon. It also sets out the Planned Budget (the budgeted income and expenditure) and the Council Contribution (the actual income and expenditure), plus the variance. 

 

The difference between actual income and actual expenditure is what we’ve all called the ‘deficit’. It is the same thing as the column called ‘council contribution’.

(The rightmost column isn’t too interesting except to demonstrate the Tories’ pattern of poor financial management; last year, for example, they ended the year £31k over budget, or 12.9% over budget.)

It speaks for itself really.

Here’s another bit of info in response to a FOI request from a local resident who wanted to know how high the deficit was in each year, in terms of percentage of council tax : The column called Wantage taxbase is he number of household in Wantage that pay tax.

If you consider the district council tax that a household in Wantage pays (column 2), then 47% of that is going to subsidise The Beacon.

In other words, in the year that ended in May 2018, each Wantage household paid £121.69 in council tax. Of that, you could look at it as about £57 went to subside the deficit at The Beacon. (I don’t have comparable figures for earlier years, only the operational deficits above.)

My point in all this? Leisure facilities are within council’s non-statutory services. Those are services that aren’t required by law. So as the central government continues to strangle the  budgets of local authorities, it would be reasonable to expect that funding of The Beacon could come under threat. (Just like the funding for all leisure facilities in Vale could be under threat.)

I’ve seen no evidence that The Beacon is actively trying to reduce their dependency on council funding, and I think any good management would include such actions in their risk mitigation.

Is there any risk assessment and mitigation going on at all? To hear about that, we need to ask Cllr Alice Badcock, who is the Cabinet member responsible for leisure services.

Local Plan Part 2 not good enough – Inspector

The inspector of Vale’s local plan has provided his first findings from the Examination in Public. I’ve put a copy of his letter in my Dropbox, here:  https://bit.ly/2CU0JxP

The planning inspectorate requires Vale to adopt the Local Plan Part 2 within two years of adoption of Local Plan Part 1, which was December 2016.

The Planning Inspector, after considering the Vale of White Horse District Council’s Local Plan Part 2 has said, ‘The plan does not meet the tests of soundness without some modification’.

He has demanded more work to be done on the plans for development at Dalton Barracks.

Once Vale has communicated to the inspector their preferred approach for doing that, he will set out the other places in the Local Plan Part 2 that need more work. Other changes required so far include removing plans for a bus road through Sunningwell, reducing the number of homes in South-East Vale, keeping Green Belt protection for the some of the areas around Dalton Barracks.

Liberal Democrat Councillors have been arguing that Conservative plans to build 2,200 homes in the Vale to meet Oxford’s housing needs were being rushed. They say the plans for transport are inadequate and the removal of Green Belt protection not properly justified.

Following the three-week long examination in public where Lib Dem Councillors, MP, parish and town councils and community groups presented evidence, it seems the Planning Inspector agrees.

The inspector makes clear the 2200 dwelling Oxford City require the Vale to build for them should be treated as a “working assumption”. This figure could fall if Oxford City can allocate more homes within the City closer to employment sites through their Local Plan, which is currently out for pre-submission consultation.

The inspector was clear that if the Vale want to use this area for housing they will need to provide information about transport infrastructure, cumulative air quality impact implications, a habitats regulations assessment to consider the impact on Cothill Fen and Oxford Meadows, and a sustainability appraisal for 4500 dwellings.

I am very concerned about the volume of  work needed to make this plan sound. I cannot see how the Vale can now meet its December deadline.

When Vale Council debated the Local Plan Part 2 in Sept 2017, we argued that highways needed more time to get the transport infrastructure around Dalton Barracks right. The Tories voted us down then, but it looks like we were right.

The Vale Local Plan Part 2 is largely about allocating houses for Oxford City’s unmet need, but the numbers won’t be known exactly until the Oxford Local Plan is adopted.

Liberal Democrats from across Oxfordshire will continue to argue that Oxford should be providing more homes within the city, close to employment sites. The City should  allocate more land for affordable housing and less for new retail and employment sites. This would reduce the need to build on the Green Belt in the Vale and reduce commuter traffic into the City.

The Liberal Democrats will continue to make the case for proper infrastructure planning BEFORE housing and for stronger planning policies to ensure the development we get is socially and environmentally sustainable.

 

 

 

Growth Board statement about affordable housing

In Feb 2018, I received a Scrutiny report that shed light on the problem of unaffordable housing in Vale of White Horse. This report and what we learned about our housing situation was the highlight of the 2017-18 Scrutiny programme, IMO.

In April, I used this information in a statement I made to the Oxfordshire Growth Board. Here’s what I told them:

“I’m Cllr Debby Hallett, Chairman of the Vale Scrutiny Committee, and co-chairman of the joint SODC and Vale Scrutiny Committee.

“Today, we’re creating an opportunity for the Oxfordshire Growth Board to collaborate across boundaries to help solve the most intractable problems we face: 1) our main highways are regularly operating over their capacity, and 2) houses here are too expensive for the people who work here to be able to afford them.

“I recently asked for a report to come to Vale Scrutiny on the state of housing affordability locally. It came in Feb 2018; it’s called ‘Houses that People Can Afford’.

“Vale’s report confirms what’s previously been anecdotal evidence. Here are some main points:

  1. The affordability level as defined by SHMA, is higher than as defined by Institute for Public Policy; SHMA uses gross income, IPP uses net income, so income is considered after tax. We need a consistent definition of ‘affordability’. Basically, a useful heuristic might be this: housing is unaffordable if a household spends more than 35% of its net income on housing.
  2. There was no data available for Vale or Oxfordshire housing specifically, so we used data from all of Western England, as the closest comparable area. Housing in Vale is more expensive though, so the affordability is likely even lower than what’s quoted in the report.
  3. We looked at house prices and rents in quartiles. In order to buy a lower quartile property costing £255,000 in Vale, an income of £57,000 is needed, which is an upper quartile income. So only the highest income levels can afford to buy the lowest priced properties.
  4. Only 18% of ownership options are comfortably affordable at all, and then only to the highest incomes. (Ownership options are shared ownerships, first time buyers, help to buy, starter homes etc.) So four out of five ownership options are basically unaffordable to everyone.
  5. Help to buy schemes make houses affordable only to top earners (over $56,000).
  6. Private rentals and any sort of ownership tenure are unaffordable to lower quartile income households. Only social rent is affordable to them, and we don’t have enough social housing. (Social rents are approximately 50% of market rents.)

“The whole report is available here: http://democratic.whitehorsedc.gov.uk/documents/s43516/Housing%20that%20is%20truly%20affordable%20FINAL.pdf

“Last month (March 2018) Parliament published a useful report: https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7747

“I urge the leaders of Oxfordshire’s councils to do all you can under these new rules of working and within upcoming new planning policies to make some measurable headway into solving Oxfordshire’s housing problem. Explore the options, be courageous and creative, and find sustainable solutions that improve people’s lives here in the county.”

I think only the Leader of South Oxfordshire District council listened. Cllr Jane Murphy wrote a letter to the Secretary of State for Housing, James Brokenshire, asking him to hold a debate on how affordable housing is defined, especially in areas where property values are exceptionally high.

 

 

Oxford to Cambridge corridor announced

The Government have announced their preferred corridor for the Oxford to Cambridge expressway: option B. If you are anything like me, ‘Option B’ means nothing, and I had to look at a map.

There are two links to the government’s announcement about the chosen route for the Oxford to Cambridge Expressway.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/route-announced-to-unlock-full-potential-of-englands-economic-heartland

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/oxford-to-cambridge-expressway-road-scheme-update

There’s more information on the corridor and express way on Highways England’s website: https://highwaysengland.co.uk/projects/oxford-to-cambridge-expressway/

 

Do things come in threes?

Maybe it shows I’m actually somewhat superstitious. I notice when things happen in threes.

Today: we learn of three businesses who’ve decided they’re NOT for Botley. Or that Botley’s not for them.

1. Marks & Spencer’s Food Hall won’t be coming to Botley

2. Andy Brock is closing his Elm’s Parade butcher shop on Saturday

3. Homebase will be closing in the next year or so.

So there are some significant gaps in service provision in Botley, to be added to the already insufficient petrol station provision.

It takes a wide and long term perspective to believe that things are getting better in Botley.

Leisure spend for Vale areas, a comparison

(Updated 1 Sept to add the reply to my supplementary question about fairness.)

At the full council meeting on 18th July 2018, I asked the Cabinet member for Leisure, Cllr Alice Badcock, for a breakdown, by area, of the capital programmes for leisure in the past 5 years. By ‘area’, I meant the market towns and service centres of Wantage & Grove, Faringdon, Abingdon and Botley. Note the right hand column, for total spend over the 5 years for each area.

Then I asked for a breakdown, by area, of the plans for spending on leisure in the coming 5 years. (We have a medium term financial plan, MTFP, published each year.) Note the right hand column, with the planned capital spend for the next 5 years in each area.

Then I asked for the Cabinet member’s thoughts on the fairness of this. She said she was new to the post and would respond in writing. I haven’t had it yet (today is the 7th of August).

Update 1 Sept. Here is Cllr Badcock’s answer to my supplementary question, which was to ask for her thoughts on the fairness of this.

She wrote, “The Vale leisure facilities, where we are responsible for the buildings, are all located in the three locations of Wantage, Faringdon and Abingdon. The figures include the annual leisure centre essential works budget of £300,000 (i.e Major Repairs & maintenance); the council’s capital leisure projects namely the new district leisure centre proposed for Grove, Abbey Meadows Outdoor Pool and Abbey Meadows Park Improvement Projects. It also includes a number of capital leisure centre projects that the Council agreed as part of the Leisure Management Contract with GLL in 2014, in return for an increase management fee from GLL. The contract is worth in excess of £1.1 million per annum to the Vale”.

I wrote to her on the 16th of August asking for clarification on how her reply answers my question about fairness. I haven’t had a reply.

Oxfordshire Unitary – not any time soon

Leaders of SODC and Vale of White Horse councils received a letter from the Minister for Local Government, explaining why there will be no decision forthcoming in the near future about a unitary council. (Click on the image to make it bigger.)

 

Minister for Local Government cites two reasons.

First, Cherwell DC and Oxfordshire CC have just begun a merger, and this is expected to take some years to settle down.

Second, the councils’ acceptance of the Growth Deal has  shown that we can collaborate effectively, so a unitary isn’t needed for this purpose.

 

Cherwell DC opposed the Unitary bid County and South and Vale proposed. Crafty way to scupper that deal, IMO. I thought Oxfordshire County Council sincerely felt the savings and service improvement from creating a Unitary council were necessary for survival. But apparently not. Otherwise, why would they enter into this merger agreement with Charwell, with the real risk that as a consequence of the merger, our future as a Unitary Council would be in jeopardy? As for the merger itself, I don’t see what’s in it for County. Their report on the finances of it all at the time the decision was made (June 18) mention that one of the guiding principles is that this merger should be done with zero cost (or preferable a small savings). I haven’t been able to find an actual financial assessment report.

I feel a need to remind readers that I was the only councillor in all of Oxfordshire who thought the Growth Deal was a bad deal and so voted against it. At the time, I listed many risks that I thought stacked up to Too Many Risks. But admittedly I hadn’t thought of this one – that Government would see the Growth Deal as a valid reason NOT to grant Unitary status. I don’t recall seeing any advice from officers to consider this as a likely risk with a costly outcome, but then officer advice would go to Cabinet, and we who aren’t in Cabinet would never see that. But I didn’t hear the Leader of the council talk about this risk either. So did he know the risk and decide to go for it (Growth Deal) anyway? Is it a case of deciding on the way forward, and then only soliciting (or listening to) advice that supports the view already taken? I hope not. No way for me to know.

But this lack of hearing anything about one BIG risk comes right after hearing Vale’s Leader say that the likely loss-producing outsourcing contract with the five councils partnership was the best decision Cabinet could have made with the information they had at the time. These days, under this administration at Vale, there’s quite a lot of ‘not enough information’. Even the external auditors (Ernst & Young) last year found that the Tory administration had cut jobs and thinned the ranks of Councils’ senior management to the point council was unable to make informed decisions. I worry that this is another one of those decisions.

So a proposal that local councils spent quite a lot of money on (One Oxfordshire, Better Oxfordshire, whatever), wasn’t the Main Thing after all.

I’d like to see the following comparisons:

  1. Revenue savings projected to come from setting up a unitary council vs revenue income as a result of Growth Bid (not that much revenue in it, tbh) and revenue savings from merger. (I think this looks like a bad trade-off.)
  2. Total savings to all councils in Oxfordshire from Unitary proposal vs total savings to all councils with merger of Charwell and Oxfordshire County and Growth Deal. (Also seems in favour of Unitary, doesn’t it?)
  3. Money (income) from Growth Deal as percentage of required infrastructure costs, vs savings from unitary proposal as percentage of operating costs for 6 councils. I can’t predict what this would be. I hope some decision-maker has already asked this and got a good and useful response. I have no idea how big decisions such as these are actually considered in real life.

In fact, the more I list these things, the more the two recent decisions on the merger and the Growth Deal look like short term (hoped-for) resolutions of urgent, short term issues, which fail to take the long view of what we need to ensure the continued viability of Oxfordshire and its people. We do not want Oxfordshire to be the next Northamptonshire. Or Lancashire.

I’m prepared to be proven wrong. Ready? Go!

Compostable green bags not required

These specialist and costly green food caddy liners are not required, I discovered.

For all the years since Vale’s food recycling service was introduced, we’ve all been following instructions and using these light green compostable food caddy liners.

As it turns out, we needn’t have. It seems they take too long to break down for the system that’s in use. So workers have spent years ‘de-bagging’ our food recycling at their depot.

Now we’re told we can use any plastic bag, or paper bag, or we can even chuck all the food in the caddy with no liner at all. Yuck.

So now that we know so much more about the impact of single use plastics on our planet, I don’t know what’s the most environmentally friendly choice. Without any expertise whatsoever, I’m inclined to think it’s the original, compostable green bags. After all, we know they DO break down. (Maybe in 3-4 days? From the info printed on the bag. Just not between your kerbside and the recycling centre. None of this is clear.)

Actually reading the info on the bag, for the first time ever, I see there’s a Use By date. Mine have gone over that. I wonder if that mean they’ve started to biodegrade in my kitchen drawer.

Life sometimes seems too complicated.