The problem with LPP2

Here’s Vale’s press release about my motion at full council last night.

The Leader of Vale of White Horse District Council will be writing to the ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government to raise concerns about the process required to adopt Part 2 of the districts Local Plan.

The district council will point out that the numbers of houses the rural Oxfordshire districts are required to provide depends heavily on how many houses the city of Oxford can and can’t accommodate. In its Local Plan Part 2, the Vale is allocating land for housing that Oxford indicates it cannot find the space for, and so councillors at the Vale believe city’s Local Plan should be examined first to properly establish how many houses the Vale really has to allocate.

This is particularly important as the inspectors examining Oxford City’s plan have directed questions to the city about the level of housing being used in the county – the inspectors examining the city’s plan identified that the assessment of housing need in Oxfordshire that the city council is using is based on figures which are now a few years old.

Cllr Emily Smith, Leader of the Vale of White Horse District Council, said: “The Local Plan Part 2 would remove land from the Green Belt, and allocate thousands of houses in the Vale that Oxford cannot find space for. It would be wrong to do this if it turns out Oxford ultimately doesn’t need to find space for as many houses.

“We believe Oxford’s need for housing should be properly established before we’re asked to adopt a plan that goes to these lengths. We’re also keen to make sure Oxford has done all it can to accommodate its own need — the duty to cooperate works in both directions.”

The Council agreed to send the letter at a meeting on 17 July 2019 – the full motion that was passed at council was as follows:

  1. Council notes the Inspector’s Report of the Examination of Vale’s Local Plan Part 2, dated 25 June 2019. In his report, the inspector lists the four objectives of LPP2, one of which is to set out policies and locations for new housing to meet the unmet need of Oxford City.
  2. Council notes that the inspector (in paragraph 26) reminds us that the Oxfordshire Growth Board agreed a ‘working assumption’ that Oxford City’s unmet need was 15,000 homes, of which Vale should supply 2200 homes over the plan period. He says (in paragraph 28) that this ‘working assumption’ is to be ‘confirmed or adjusted’ through the examination of Oxford’s Local Plan and the preparation of Oxfordshire’s Joint Statutory Spatial Plan, which is currently in its early stages. He reminds us again (in paragraph 92) that the additional housing requirement is a ‘working assumption rather than definitive and warrants some caution in allocating sites in the LPP2’. There is no guidance or explanation of what this would mean in practice.
  3. Council notes that Oxford City has submitted its local Plan for examination, but the inspector has found some issues that require more work before it is ready to be examined in public hearings; he discusses the issues in his letter to that council (undated, but found on the Oxford City’s Local Plan examination website page). Inspector is concerned that the housing figures are based on the figures in the 2014 SHMA, which are based on 2011 ONS population and household projections that ‘are now a few years old’ (page 2). He also points out that there may have been double counting. Therefore the housing needs figure is questionable. This housing need figure ‘could have a bearing on the level of unmet need which would have to be accommodated by neighbouring local authorities’.
  4. Council notes that LPP2 allocates 1200 homes at Dalton Barracks, for Oxford’s unmet need. Dalton Barracks and the neighbouring village of Shippon are to be removed from the Green Belt for future housing development.
  5. Council notes that paragraph 137 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires Green Belt boundaries to only be modified under exceptional circumstances. The inspector for Vale’s LPP2 says (in paragraph 29) that the housing required for Oxford’s unmet need must be close to Oxford, and much of it is to be social rented housing. The inspector says (in paragraph 55) that the number of houses to meet Oxford’s unmet need, and the fact that they must be near Oxford, demonstrates there are exceptional circumstances to justify the removal of Dalton Barracks and Shippon from the Green Belt.
  6. Council notes that the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) wrote to the planning Inspectorate in May 2019 to object to the order in which Oxfordshire’s Local Plans are being examined, citing rules in NPPF: (Jpg of letter not reproduced here). The reply from PINS failed to answer the question: (jpg of reply not reproduced here).
  7. It is this council’s opinion that in order for Vale’s Local Plan to be sound, the exact, evidenced number of houses that Oxford requires in order to meet its real need should be determined before Vale includes them in Vale’s Local Plan Part 2. Oxford’s assessment of its housing need must include evidence that Oxford City has done all it can to accommodate its own need, including evidence that the use of land for employment sites over housing sites is justified and lawful. There must be a public examination of the Oxford City Local Plan to definitely identify the unmet need (if any) to precede any adoption of neighbouring authorities’ Local Plans to accommodate it. Until this is dones, there are no exceptional circumstances to allow removal of Dalton Barracks and Shippon from the Green Belt.
  8. Council therefore requests the Leader of the council to write to the Minister for Housing, Communities and Local Government to:
    1. Let the minister know that Vale is assessing its options with regard to the local Plan Part 2 and of council’s opinion as stated.
    2. Point out that in Oxfordshire the various Local Plans are not independent of each other That fact should have been considered in the examination process by ensuring Local Plans that are part of another authority’s evidence, as is Oxford City’s Local Plan, are examined first. Current examination procedures are deficient.
    3. Point out that the Duty to Cooperate should include Oxford City’s duty to have a clear evidenced housing target before asking its neighbours to help meet its need. The Duty to Cooperate should run both ways.
    4. Ask for the Minister’s advice about how we should ‘confirm or adjust’ our Local Plan Part 2 once Oxford’s unmet need is established, if our Local Plan is already adopted.
    5. Ask the Minister to explain to use how this Local Plan Part 2 can be considered sound and legal when the housing figures used are based solely on a ‘working assumption’ of Oxford’s unmet need, the Plan allocates housing development in the Green Belt in clear contravention of paragraph 137 of the NPPF, and the Plan removes Dalton Barracks and Shippon from the Green Belt without the exceptional circumstances the regulations require.

And to write to our two local Members of Parliament, explaining the situation and asking them for their support.

What 8 years of Tories cost the Vale of White Horse

A couple of years back, Vale’s external auditors said council’s Tory administration had let too many senior staff go, in fact to the point that council was no longer able to run the business effectively. So the last three years have seen an expensive structural reorganisation taking place.

About three years ago, I read a newspaper article about how angry and shocked local people were in another authority when they learned their Local Plan has cost them over £3mil. I thought ours had probably exceeded that, so I asked our Head of Service. At that point they didn’t track the cost of Local Plan work separately (!?). But they said all their policy budget was essentially for Local Plan work. So there have been eight years of Local Plan work, at £1mil per year, and we still have no complete local plan. That should be in the news. That’s how the Tories have managed the planning policy budget.

In 2018, we learned that the estimated £9mil savings to be realised from the 5 Councils Partnership (5CP) outsourcing scheme was lost. The financial outcome at that time was described by the council’s Chief Exec as ‘break even, at best‘ (my emphasis). This decision to outsource was a huge, risky decision, made in secret, without ever coming past Vale Scrutiny Committee or Vale Full Council. I heard the former Deputy Leader of Vale say on radio during the 2019 elections debate, that it HAD come to council. That isn’t true. Obviously the contracts weren’t thought through or evaluated enough. There were errors in the calculations of current costs of service. Some critical services weren’t even IN the contracts (such as wifi in the council offices, a basic provision). There was not enough time allowed nor people involved to ensure it was a good deal for the taxpayers. £9mil in forecast savings, gone. Unsurprisingly, Council’s external auditors found problems with council’s value for money assessment. Council is still spending money to improve the contacts and services that are part of this 5CP. Many services have already been brought back in house. There are seven more years to run in this contract.

Council has three main income streams: business rates, new homes bonus, and council tax. Government frequently modifies the business rates scheme and new homes bonus schemes, and ministers have said they expect local councils to maximise their income from council tax. For years, Tories decided, against officer advice, to freeze council taxes. They are proud of this past; they still brag about it. But now we are in a bad state; the medium term financial plan shows council will run out of money in about 4 years time, unless something happens to fix the problem. The cost of these Tory decisions to freeze council taxes is estimated by our accountants to be > £10mil over the medium term. This failure to responsibly incrementally raise council taxes has led to an over reliance on new home bonus, which was always a fragile scheme. This year the new homes bonus has been wound up, leaving us in a perilous financial situation.

It all started in 2011, when Tories announced their free 2 hr parking scheme, a clever bribe for votes, which actually worked to get them into power for the first time in years. Who wouldn’t vote for free parking in their market towns? Tories assured everyone it would increase footfall and the spend in town centres. The cost to our taxpayers is £200,000 per year, and it’s ongoing. So, £1,600,000 of taxpayer money, income that could have been used for frontline services,  has been lost due free 2 hour parking for car drivers over the 8 years. When asked for evidence to support their benefit claim of increased footfall, no evidence was provided, since none is available. Tories produced zero evidence of any benefit for that spend. In fact evidence around the nation shows that city centres actually suffer when free limited parking is provided. People come and instead of lingering for lunch (etc), pop in and get out before their free parking time expires.

Most recently, the Tories gave about £250,000 to the Abingdon Flood Scheme, which has since been cancelled as forecasted costs rose beyond what was viable. It was public money down the drain.

It’s obvious the Tories never had enough people in place to do the work required. That has cost the council both financially and in terms of reputation.

So the Tories lost control in the recent election. We, the Liberal Democrats, were elected instead. We have made it our highest priority to get the council’s finances under control.

Why are conservatives concreting everything?

I posted this Comment in a thread on Facebook where people want to save the open spaces yet build enough houses, but not the way the Tories are doing it.

Looking at it, I think it sums up tomorrow’s election.

“I declare an interest. I am a Lib Dem member for Vale of White Horse, and a candidate again tomorrow.

I’m not corrupt, not lining my pockets (I honestly don’t know where you get the idea that we’re getting rich at this!); my council allowance is about £400 per month.

I’m a Remainer and have spent the last 8 years actively working to keep development out of the Green Belt. I respond in all Local Plan consultations. I challenge every Green Belt development decision that crosses my desk. I chair the joint scrutiny committee for SODC and Vale and challenge everything the Tories do.

In my view the main difference been Tories and Lib Dems In Local Government is that Tories focus is on economic growth and Lib Dems focus on our quality of life. Of course it’s not black and white, but more often than not it’s this difference that shows up. Tories help the wealthy build wealth because they think that builds jobs for the rest of us to earn a salary and thus get by.

I think that we need to make the world a better place to live In. Decent housing, public transport, environmental protections. A helping hand for when help is needed.

So the Govt Growth Deal came along and required 100,000 houses. I voted against it. Many of my Lib Dem colleagues abstained. The 100,000 is basically what was already promised in the various Local Plans, so it wasn’t any sort of escalation. But it was already too many, in my opinion. We don’t have the roads, public transport infrastructure, schools, doctors surgeries and hospital beds for the forecast growth.

I think that’s a Tory failure. Get the Lib Dem’s into power and see what we can do. Just a thought. Same old same old, or try something new?

Campaign flyers – rules for everyone

It’s 6 days till the elections, and we’ve had all sorts of leaflets through our door. People campaign for residents to vote one way or another, depending on their pet issue.

Any written material trying to influence a vote must show who created it and is responsible for the content.

“Election material is published material that can reasonably be regarded as intended to influence voters to vote for or against a political party or a category of candidates.

“Whenever election material is produced, it must contain certain details (which we refer to as an ‘imprint’) to show who is responsible for the production of the material. This helps to ensure there is transparency about who is campaigning.

“The rules on imprints apply to all non-party campaigners, whether or not you are registered with the Electoral Commission. This factsheet explains the rules you must follow.”

This is the law.

• Friends of Louie Memorial Fields in Botley
• The Green Belt Rally in Abingdon
• makeourvotescount.org (who specifically call themselves “law abiding”)

You may mean well, and think you are within your rights to distribute flyers intended to influence how people vote. You certainly can do that. But you must tell the world who you are; it is illegal during a campaign for your campaign materials to hide behind an anonymous email address.

**source in link belowELECTORALCOMMISSION.ORG.UKwww.electoralcommission.org.uk

Support for the LM Pavilion Plans

Here is the response I submitted to the Vale consultation on the planning application V0696 for the Louis Memorial Pavilion.

I write as one of the Vale members for this area.

I fully support the plans presented here, with the inclusion of requests for changes from Sport England and any other statutory consultee. I fully support the parish council and the process they’ve followed to get to the point where they are applying for permission to do this development.

It is appropriate use of Green Belt land; although I don’t think the site is actually IN the Green Belt. It is a modernisation of recreational facilities in a community which has an historical underprovision. It is supported by the neighbourhood plan, which is nearing completion. It is supported by Vale’s leisure strategy which identified the pavilion and scout hut as in need of replacement.

I support the statements of the chairman, Cllr David Kay in his submission here, including the policies to which he refers and the wide consultations and community approvals throughout the process.

I’m pleased at the environmental responsibility shown by the PC in this design.

It will be a wonderful asset to the community and something everyone can point to with pride.

It will be up to the parish council (or any management group they set up) to work with potential users of this community facility to see what can be done to meet their needs. It isn’t a material planning consideration though.

(submission number 149178)

Lib Dem response to OxPlan50 Introduction consultation

We had a chance to respond to the consultation ending 25 Mar 19 about the visions and aspirations of Oxfordshire Plan 2050 (I’ve adopted ‘OxPlan50’ to talk about it, which used to be called the JSSP).

The link to my responses, submitted on behalf of the Liberal Democrats of Vale of White Horse, is available to view on Dropbox (Dropbox may require that you download it). https://www.dropbox.com/s/8p64wysri7uvun6/OxPlan50%20Introduction.pdf%20-%20Adobe%20Acrobat%20Pro.pdf?dl=0

Essentially there are four main things:

  1. The Climate Emergency, recently adopted as a policy by Vale and Oxford City, needs to be behind every policy decision in this OxPlan50. Our policies need to work to reduce our carbon footprint.
  2. Transport Plans of recent years have done nothing to increase capacity or reduce congestion on the county’s major highways. I suggest we should assess the way we make these transport plans, and try to find a way that is more effective at solving our problems.
  3. The Oxford Green Belt must have a proper assessment and review. For the past several years, individual councils have nibbled away at the boundaries to meet their own housing needs. This is the opportunity we’ve waited for, to take a holistic approach to our Green Belt. By that I mean a formal review to find the places where land can be released, and also where we can put other land under Green Belt protection. It’s characteristic is its openness and permanence. But local districts’ approaches have been not supporting wither of those things.
  4. Water supplies seem problematic in this plan, along with renewable energy commitments.

I had other points, But these are the main themes.

The Brexit Bribe

The Brexit Bribe announced by our PM today is £1.6bn over 7 years to be given to areas that voted Leave. Is that about £222 million per year?

So which constituencies voted Leave? What? We don’t have data by constituency? Why ever not? Well, let’s guess about 50% or 325 constituencies.

So then divvie the bribe by 325 constituencies and you have £683k per constituency per year for 7 years. A constituency has about £75k people. So what does this mean?

£683k divvied by 75k people is about £9 per person per year. So if an area voted Leave because (well, inequality), then the Tory Govt will give about £9 per head per year to each of those areas.

My area (Oxford) gets nothing. Nor would London. Even the most deprived areas get nothing. I hear Brokenshaw talk about jobs creation. I thought employment was the highest ever? We need funding for NHS, schools, and housing. How does this bribe help that?

Police and Crime Commissioner – musings


If a Tory Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) appoints his Tory crony as Deputy PCC (a well-paid position), and then that Deputy stands for the main job, doesn’t that seem like nepotism, giving the Deputy a leg up over other candidates? Doesn’t this sort of system have the whiff of corruptibility in it?

The remit of the PCC is to hold the Chief Constable to account and improve police performance stats. In 2012, the first Thames Valley Police and Crime Commissioner was elected after the Government decided it should become a political position. Anthony Stansfeld, the Tory candidate, won. He was re-elected in 2016.

Matthew Barber, at the time the Tory Leader of the Vale of White Horse District Council, was appointed Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner in December 2016. Not elected, but appointed by Commissioner Stansfeld. He started out part time, but went full time in 2018 (I think it was 2018), standing down as Leader of Vale of White Horse District Council in order to do so.

Matthew Barber is now seeking the nomination as the Tory candidate for the top job of Thames Valley Police and Crime Commissioner. The election is in 2020. See why he thinks he is ‘best placed’ to have that job https://www.matthewbarber.co.uk/deliveringforthethamesvalley

Maybe the Deputy should be elected too. Although, I don’t see why this has to be a political job at all. Maybe there’s a committee or board who can interview and hire, and we can take both nepotism and politics out of policing.