This evening at Wantage there is Vale of White Horse District Council (VWHDC) Meeting where the updated draft local plan (2013 – 2031) will be discussed.
This evening’s Council Meeting will be the first chance for most Abingdon District Councillors to challenge the change from 610 to 1000 houses for North Abingdon.
In the original draft plan put out for public consultation in February 2013 there were no major housing developments planned for Abingdon.
After that the UK Government told Oxfordshire to take many more houses.
And so in February 2014 a new plan was published with 610 new houses in North Abingdon, removing that land from the Green Belt. They are the westerly 3 red areas on the google map above.
They included the circus field,
and fields either side of Tilsley Park – very close to the A34 in places.
Now in October 2014 the new draft plan has proposed removing more land from the green belt for housing and is offering a Lodge Hill A34 Diamond Interchange to help take the additional traffic. That does depend on the UK Government allowing such an interchange.
The Draft Plan says “One site, North Abingdon, has been extended east of the A4183 into land not initially recommended for Green Belt release in the Green Belt review. An expanded site at North Abingdon would better support provision of a new primary school and help fund the A34 south facing slips at Lodge Hill, as well as helping to meet needs arising in the largest settlement where there are limited alternative opportunities for sustainable growth.
The plan has already been recommended by the VWHDC Cabinet, who met on 3rd October, and if agreed by this evening’s meeting will go out for 6 weeks public consultation and then to the Secretary of State for independent examination.
I would urge people to look at this Oxford Mail article and ensuing comments to get a handle on one or two things:
http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/top_news/11532746.The_perfect_storm_of_roadworks_cause_more_pain_for_Oxford_city_motorists/?ref=mac
At every turn anyone involved with Oxfordshire’s infrastructure is wholly incompetent, and likewise The Vale is equally culpable. But we know this.
We WILL get these houses. But we won’t be any better off for it.
The houses will come, the carrot in terms of the junction improvement will not. This cannot happen on a regional decision basis until there is an overall improvement in the traffic on the whole section from Didcot to the M40, which will only come with widening. Which in turn is unlikely due to the sheer cost and destruction that would bring, in particular to Botley. On a national basis, Abingdon will not be permitted to use the A34 as our own local road. The reality of the situation seems to be completely ignored by the decision makers in the town with the panacea of the diamond interchange always brought up at every turn. So Abingdon will take the pain of the housing on a promise that will not be fulfilled.
I would have thought that there is plenty of space to allocate these houses around the Hanneys, Faringdon, Harwell, Shrivenham and the Hendreds, but I suppose the Vale Cabinet discounted that possibility after careful consideration …
I don’t think the provision of a diamond interchange should be in the slightest doubt given that this is another joyless imposition on Abingdon after The Old Goal, The Guildhall Cinema. the Draydon Road Development Debacle the relaxation of Fairacres covenants, etc brought to us by the joke councillors and administration running the pretend democracies which are the Vale and TC.
O to be rid of this cozy clique of incompetents, incontinent with half-baked, ill-thought-out schemes. Come next elections they all must go. Abingdon cannot afford to be looted, paupered, despoiled and ruined by this current infestation of politicians.
You can rest assured, that
A) the diamond interchange at Lodgehill WON’T get the go-ahead,
B) Once these homes are built, the A34 will be reduced to another great long stretch of 50mph (due to noise complaints)
C) You can forget the A34 ever being upgraded to 3 lanes
D) The traffic in and around Abingdon will be even more congested than it is now, leading to total gridlock at peak times!
When all these extra houses get built…will the flowers look nice there too, like they have in the rest of town recently?
Perhaps we should start one of those No 10 petitions asking for improvements to the A34 including the lodge Hill diamond and get Nicola Blackwood to be the first signatory.
Yesterday’s (Wednesday’s) regional evening news on BBC TV had a feature with Nicola Blackwood in which she talked about having directly to Chancellor George Osborne about the A34/ housing issue. It may come to nothing, but at least she tried.
BTW, I am not a supporter of the present government, so do not interpret this posting as anything other than a piece of reporting!
ppjs … actions speak louder than words and I suspect that, at the moment, The Tories will say anything to cling onto power at the coming elections … note Call Me Dave has just started to talk tough on immigration. I’ve no time for any political party as I don’t trust any of them, but I think we can consider whether those individuals guilty of the current series of Abingdon-unfriendly projects, regardless of political party, deserve anyone’s vote come the next series of elections. Surely, no-one can be worse than the current lot …
Lest we forget newcomer…it was the “last lot” who got the situation to where it IS….and the current lot who have done nothing to improve things.
Who that means we vote for, I just don’t know.
Here’s my experience to illustrate the hopeless situation we find ourselves in, and to put these HUGE, fundamental decisions into context; Between ALL the councils, they can’t even fathom who is responsible for trimming the trees on Caldecott Rd. (I had recent conversation with someone from OCC regarding The Highways Act). What hope do we all have for anything to do with facilities and infrastructure!
There isn’t even a tourist ‘historic market town’ sign on the A34 telling people the town is here…but they all know that tesco and Millets farm is!
If these new houses are built I will be voting … with my feet and leaving the town. Shame, people have put a lot of effort into making it a great place to live but the sheer frustration of trying to get anywhere will be overwhelming. I feel sad.
Re Ms Blackwood “trying” it would be more helpful if she accepted the full picture about why the junction wont ever be built rather than wasting energy on futile matters. Ditto our town council. It is the classic case of “seen to be doing something”. Given our elected MP is not exactly the sharpest tool in the box (if you meet her in her fleeting visits to he town – usually with a photographer in attendance – ask her a pointed question, its very painful to see her floundring) it is hard to work out if this is because she genuinely does not understand national traffic on a trunk road will always trump local concerns or there is an election coming.
Forget politics. Population growth requires more houses. Nobody wants them in their back yard. Abingdon has got the basic facilities to support this growth much better than the various villages. The plan houses + Lodge Hill diamond should only be agreed contingent on the diamond being built before the houses are. If the A34 ends up as a 50mph road from Ddcot to the M40, it won’t cost much in travelling time and will reduce accidents.
I think Ms Blackwood is less concerned on ‘local’ matters, and more of gaining entry to the front benches. I agree with James, with a photographer in tow, she is seen to be fulfilling her local obligations. But reading from ‘her script’, seems to be unable to answer questions (not scripted).
She arrived in Botley when the locals showed the boundaries of the proposed development. {ring of balloons}. Her speech, very I am one of the people, as an individual, she opposes the vastness of the development.. (but didn’t comment as a “politician”).
Sadly I agree with Elsie. Lived here all my life, but feel the town has been ruined. I wonder how many more Abingdonians will be leaving once these developments are built and the town is at a standstill.
It’s a shame really, with good leadership Abingdon could be so much more.
🙁
Does this mean I need to start stockpiling food now, as I’ll no doubt be marooned forever on our estate, never being able to leave because of gridlock.
Might join Elsie and Steveo and desert the sinking ship…..
Jaw-dropping lunacy … you won’t believe this …
http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/11537754.Council_unveils_plan_for_tunnel_under_Oxford_city_centre_to_ease_congestion/
Have the tectonic plates of reality just shifted?
These are the people who think moving pedestrian crossings are a solution to all traffic problem. Surely a few new crossings on the HIgh and down St Aldates could solve the problem …
Totally bonkers!
Look further down in the article and an Oxford Park and Ride is a proposed option for Lodge Hill. It’d then make real sense to build a retail and commercial park there …
‘This is Earth to Ian Hudspeth, please abort your mission and return to Reality’.
You’d think that someone who won their seat by 176 votes, would be paying more attention to her constituency and their issues.
I dont have any political allegiance as such, but
I hope we all remember her outstanding efforts in helping Abingdon fight these and the Drayton Road development plans, when its time to choose again next year..
Comparing Seattle to Oxford is inane. I have visited Seattle and if a 1960’s building develops a crack they would just pull it down. You can’t do that in Oxford!!
Wow – while they are at it, maybe we could have a tunnel under the Thames instead of a new bridge – or a tunnel under the whole of Abingdon to take the pressure off the A34. The possibilities are limitless!
(It’s not April 1 is it?)
I absolutely love living in Abingdon and I really hope a new housing development goes ahead. At the moment houses here are unaffordable and it is extremely hard for new buyers like myself and my husband, two working professionals to get on the property ladder.
Annette,
I have only lived in Abingdon for a couple of years, on an estate with about seventy five dwellings. I notice that very many of them have been bought by ‘buy to let’ investors; I suspect that the majority of the proposed new houses will go the same way.
I blame the banks for lending these greedy people the money in the first place!!! The banks should be charged an extra tax on income derived from lending to ‘buy to let’ investors!!!!!!!!!!
Clicking the Oxford Mail link given in 16 above you will see that the Drayton Road adjudicator, Nimmo Smith, is one of the masterminds behind the Oxford Tunnel. Well … we’re lucky to have such a ‘blue-sky-mind’ in our midst, but he should season this with a pinch of practical (un)common sense when it comes to the more mundane and reverse his decision on the Ock Street crossings.
BTW, a quick look at the Oxford Mail site shows that the Tunnel story has been pulled from the ‘front page’ … I suppose that there are people who might exert pressure when they become the laughing-stocks of Oxfordshire.
Neil,
As demand for residential property increases towns like Abingdon will reach ‘saturation point’ and, with its current infrastructure, there’s an argument that we are very close to this already.
Development of the villages is a viable alternative especially as there’s plenty of space for planned infrastructure (planned for up-sizing). The Hannays would be ideal as there are already road links to Oxford, Abingdon, Didcot and Wantage which could be developed for a fraction of the price of a tunnel in Oxford. The land between East and West Hanney could be developed to provide a community of sufficient size to support infrastructure services which they can’t at the moment.
Any traffic problems, as we now know, could be solved by bunging a few pedestrian crossings anywhere that takes the councils’ fancy (no traffic surveys required).
I thought the article about the tunnel was an April Fool story I’d previously missed until I read it and realised they were serious. This really does highlight one of the problems – they are spending time coming up with mad ideas like this one rather than keeping their focus on practical solutions.
Re. Comment 22. I, too, live on a small new estate in Abingdon, comprising an apartment block and a small number of houses (of mixed sizes). As far as I can see, most of the apartments and the majortity of the smaller houses were purchased by buy-to-let investors. This does not auger well for further new housing developments.
Incidentally, I moved here fairly recently (a move necessitated by family circumstances). I could only afford a minute house even with the proceeds from a comparatively large dwelling….(plus some necessary additional funding!!!!). Not sure whether I can continue to afford to live here much longer either!!!!!
I attended the Vale meeting and presented a petition opposing building on the Green Belt including the Abingdon sites.
An amendement was moved to take the Green Belt sites out of the Local Plan and the Abingdon councillors voted as follows:
In favour of the amendment:
Margaret Crick
Tony de Vere
Jeanette Halliday
Jim Halliday
Pat Lonergan
Julie Mayhew-Archer
Helen Pighills
Andrew Skinner
Against the amendment:
Marilyn Badcock
Mike Badcock
Jason Fiddaman
Sandy Lovatt
Aidan Melville (I think – didn’t quite hear)
Abstained:
Angela Lawrence
The amendment was defeated 28:21 overall with 1 abstention.
On the main motion on the overall plan:
In favour:
Marilyn Badcock
Mike Badcock
Jason Fiddaman
Angela Lawrence
Sandy Lovatt
Aidan Melville
Against:
Margaret Crick
Tony de Vere
Jeanette Halliday
Jim Halliday
Pat Lonergan
Julie Mayhew-Archer
Helen Pighills
Andrew Skinner
It was passed by 29 votes to 21 overall.
There will now be a further public consultation on this final version and it will then go to an Examination In Public (EIP) where members of the public can again make recommendations.
I have a very serious concern that the overall housing figures they have included in the plan, roughly a 41% increase in the number of houses in the Vale in 15 years, are simply impossible to deliver, regardless of arguments about where exactly they should go. There is every chance they have sacrificed the principle of the Green Belt based on housing numbers that are never going to happen.
Neil (Fawcett),
‘… they are spending time coming up with mad ideas …’
Any chance that the Ock Street crossings decision can be reversed on the grounds that Nimmo Smith is certifiable?
Neil says: “Forget politics. Population growth requires more houses. ”
It is a little more than simple population growth. Rounded, our population has grown by 10 million in my lifetime (50 years). The number of households has grown by the same figure in that time. Average household size has decreased from 3.1 to 2.1.
Major factors in this include better healthcare, meaning that people live longer – often as single occupiers, and changing social patterns, meaning that fewer people live in nuclear families, with the elderly moving in with them when they are unable to live independently.
It’s more than just “more people.” If we want our children and parents to live independently, and if society wants social freedom in other ways, we need more houses.
We absolutely need more houses, and lots of them.
The real questions are what sort of accommodation, in what quantity, where it goes and what infrastructure is needed to support it.
Yah-de-yah, Neil F. The real question is how we can get rid of the current Political Sound-Bite Shop and replace it with some real people instead of Party Placemen. People who can move toward a practical, working consensus and not just shout at each other, or continually try to score party political points
No-one believes that Nicola, or any MP, is going to make one jot of difference to the Town … it’s all window-dressing. Politicians think that the electorate have no memory … but we do.
It’s not being clever that counts … it’s being honest.
I believe Angela resigned from her party on amatter of principleshe deserves our respect, supporting a party she may not agree with says to me more about her than the vote community first politics second if course I may be wrong and the same applies to aidan,
Neil if we need more houses where do yo want to put them, you can’t be pseudo green opposing them then saying it’s necessary. At last the town knows where you stand offering no alternative
I wonder if any of those who regularly lambast all local politicians will be putting themselves forward as alternatives next year?
Chris – the Vale is proposing 20,560 new houses in the next 15 years. That’s a 40%+ increase in the number of houses in the district.
I am opposing the 1,500 or so they are proposing on Green Belt sites, leaving about 19,000, a 38% increase.
I don’t actually think it is possible to build that many houses in that period of time, particularly not if the infrastructure has to go in too. I also don’t believe that local employment is going to grow as rapidly as the Vale’s consultants claim it is, that that amount of housing is predicated on.
Do you think that level of house building is feasible on that timescale?
newcomer – any resident is entitled to stand for the council.
Nomination forms will be available in March from the Vale and you just need ten electors to nominate you for the Vale or two for the Town.
Why not stand?
And another thing, I don’t understand what you mean by Angela ‘supporting a party she may not agree with’. I don’t think Angela is supporting any party now.
Hester & Neil F,
I know, I know, you’re a politician, Neil, and pragmatism isn’t your long suit, and Hester … you just need a Lambasting Hate Figure like me to keep your life interesting … if only we were both still young ;0)
Why wouldn’t I want to be a politician? You think I’m the kinda guy who wants to sit around in a room with shouty people? Do you think I could contain myself while other politicians discussed the next plan for a Guildhall Cinema after a 5/6 figure sum to the left of the decimal point has been wasted on consultants? Do you think I’d get near to the levers of power if I didn’t kow-tow to the established political parties? Do you think they’d want me? And, do you really, really think I’d want to be a member of their tired, cross, precious little group of people puffed-up with their ideationally bankrupt ‘concepts’.?
Do you really, really think that?
Besides … I need time to hone my evil plan …
‘And another thing, I don’t understand what you mean by Angela ’supporting a party she may not agree with’. I don’t think Angela is supporting any party now.’
Is that addressed to me? When did I type/say that?
Actually, I think Angela is the only man on the Town Council..
She should be cloned.
Sorry newcomer, no, I got my messages in the wrong order, it was chris who said that Angela was now supporting a party she may not agree with.
I was just making the point that elections are open to anyone who wants to stand. There are often comments about how local government would be better if people didn’t stand on party tickets, and I was just pointing out that anyone is allowed to do exactly that.
I have no idea what you mean about Angela being ‘the only man on the town council’ though.
As far as weaseling out of that, Neil, it was an acceptable squirm on your part.
‘I have no idea what you mean about Angela being ‘the only man on the town council’ though’
Let me explain this slowly. Angela was the only person with the balls to follow her conscience and not party dogma.
I’m bored with this line of exchange … it’s like a reality-flash of what a council meeting must be like.
Neil, ‘re 36, I was referring to the fact that Angela left the lib dems and as I saw it voted as she saw fit for the best interest of her electorate as I hope aidan did as well.
Chris, I agree that it’s laudable for a politicians to change their minds if circumstances change … it’s just foolish dogma to stick to an approach if it’s not working, is counter-productive, immoral, or illegal.
I general, I dislike politicians preening that they ‘have a mandate’ when they decide to do something bonkers, beyond their pay-grade and competence. I truly believe that a lot of the ‘commercial confidentiality’ excuses are really about politicians wanting to hide their monstrously poor judgement from the electorate.
That said, I don’t think ‘running society’ is a doodle, it’s just that we need better people to do it.
Politicians should realise that hubris will get them in the end.
I feel the need to reply to Newcomers rant.
I can’t speak for the Vale or the County Councils, but the Town Council simply does not work in the way he describes. I have been to around 20 full councils and over 100 committee meetings (where most of the detailled discussion happens) and I’ve never yet seen him in attendance so his views are not informed by experience.
In reality, there is very little voting in party blocs. I can only really think of two issues (choice of mayor when casting vote was relevant and setting of budget where opposition tend to abstain) where there is bloc voting.
Obviously there are some issues where party members tend to agree with each other but most of the decisions we make on the town council are not really ones of ‘ideology’ but are much more day to day.
I would say most of the councillors have found themselves on their own or in a small minority on occassions – i can certainly recall being on the end of a 20-1 defeat in a vote, and i am certainly not unique in that.
I’d estimate that about 80% of what we discuss ends up with agreement of all the councillors involved. The bulk of the rest tends to be where different councillors take different views, but this is very seldom along party lines.
I appreciate Newcomer is taking a particular line based on his strong anti-establishment views, and he is perfectly entitled to this view. But please dont assume that what he is describing is actually what is happening – at least on the town council.
Neil – ref #34
If you simply dont identify alternate sites for the 1500 potential homes currently proposed for greenbelt areas, does that not mean we will be 1500 short on the government allocation.
If i understand correctly that would mean that we would continue to be in the current situation we have with the drayton road development that every speculative developer could get planning permission by legal review.
I dont believe any councillor would ideally want to build on the greenbelt, but are proposing this due to the lack of alternatives.
In oposing the sites for these 1500 houses would it not be the responsible thing to propose alternative sites?
Don’t be so pompous, Iain. If council meetings weren’t held in camera then we’d all know what goes on.
Theyre not
Whoops!
‘ …Witney, Wallingford and Abingdon town councils have voted to exclude the public and press for what they ruled were confidential matters on dozens more occasions than their counterparts in Didcot, Wantage, Banbury, Thame, Chipping Norton and Bicester … ‘
‘ … Abingdon Town Council excluded the public from parts of 34 of 52 meetings … ‘
http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/11121952.Some_town_councils_hold_third_of_meetings_in_secret/?ref=rss
Weren’t you at these meeting, Iain, or merely asleep?
The meetings are all open. Specific items are sometimes covered in confidential as I have commented on this blog to you previously.
These items either relate to staffing matters or commercial discussions prior to contract. If you read the article you linked to you’ll note the town clerk’s comment that this is typically a few minutes at the end of the meeting. The overwhelming majority of discussion takes place in open forum.
Your comment said the meetings were in camera which is totally untrue – even by the terms of the article. Check your facts more carefully 🙂
There’s nothing wrong with what I originally said, Iain. None of my facts were wrong. Your statement … ‘Theyre not’ … was misleading.
40 – newcomer – I had assumed it was casual sexism.
44 – Iain – that is certainly the argument the ruling group put.
One point of clarification:
The housing target the Vale is now working to – 20,560 houses in 15 years – is not a ‘government allocation’ as such. This government scrapped the regional housing targets that had been in place pre-2010. This figure is based on something called the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) which was commissioned by the Oxfordshire Growth Board which is made up of the Leaders of the six principal authorities and representatives of the business sector. The housing need in the SHMA is in turn based in large part of the employment growth projections in the Strategic Economic Plan, also under the auspices of the Growth Board.
We have challenged these figures as over-optimistic. For example, one projection that was highlighted by Jim Halliday in the Vale meeting was an expectation that there will be an increase in the number of jobs in the agricultural sector of 1,800 during the plan period. Yet we know that jobs in that sector have been falling for decades.
To put that 20,560 figure in context, it represents a 42% increase in the total number of houses in the Vale, and a rate of building 3.44 times that we have seen in recent years.
So, in our view, the SHMA figures are open to challenge and we think the Vale should look at them more critically.
Why does this matter?
Two main reasons:
1 If the Vale agrees a plan with housing targets that are unrealistically high it will quickly fail to deliver them. If the Vale either fails to identify enough sites with permissions to meet the five year housing supply target, or the number of completions falls below the rate in the plan, then developers can use that to get their developments through, regardless of whether or not a Local Plan is in place.
In other words, agreeing an undeliverable plan leaves us every bit as unprotected as failing to agree one.
2 If the housing plans are undeliverable, then a huge proportion of the work going into planning the infrastructure to go with it will also turn out to be wrong, and we have no guarantee that we will have the right infrastructure in the right places for any development that does happen.
One final point: Our position is not that the Green Belt should not be open to review. There is a very strong case for doing a proper review of the Oxford Green Belt which was last done, I am told, in the 1980s, identifying less valuable sites that might be suitable for housing and replacing them with other sites of landscape value. Our objection is the nibbling away at the Green Belt in the Vale and the surrendering of the principle.
47 newcomer – I also have a concern that too many items are taken in confidential session at Abingdon Town Council, although there often are legitimate reasons why some things are.
In my experience I think the definition of what is commercially confidential is sometimes drawn too broadly.
Now we have two independent Abingdon internet sites: this well-loved, eight-year-established Blog conjured by the excellent Backstreeter and the ‘Dark Side’ site put together by those scamps at Abingdon First, I’m hoping that we’ll get a few more comments demystifying what the councils so desperately want to keep secret.
I know Iain wanted to brow-beat me in comments 46 to 49 above and I should have just typed ‘Well let the readers look at the Oxford Mail article, Iain, and make their own minds up’ and left it, but he couldn’t resist digging a deeper hole for himself.
Thanks for that grudging acknowledgement, Neil F, but I think this Blog would appreciate your insight in a less information-dense and a more user-friendly and accessible form. As you know, the first refuge of the fraud is to become incomprehensible and I don’t think you’re a fraud … try harder. No man from Redcar could have his heart in the wrong place … the wind coming straight off the Steppes in winter helps develop character in that joyless part of the World.
In general, I think the zeitgeist is that The Public have run out of patience with the political cabal believing they own the game … and that’s it … they think it’s a ‘game’, when everyone else knows it’s ‘for real’. Our money … your game … but no longer.
I am finding this exchange insightful.
On the assumption that the last person to speak was correct, the info about “deliverable planning policy” is very interesting. Worrying, but also interesting – and I only wish this “kind of stuff” was more readily disseminated to us normal people; whom it effects.
Any moment this discussion will drop off the first page of the blog; but I hope it continues.
53 newcomer – thanks for the feedback – I was doing my best to summarise what is quite a complex process in as jargon free a way as possible. It has taken me a fair bit of time and a lot of reading to work out what is behind it all.
If there is anything specific that isn’t clear let me know and I will do my best to summarise it more briefly.
Neil – ref 51
I guess the challenge comes that given the number of 20560 has now been published, it is likely that should a local housing plan not meet this number, then a speculative developer would still view this as grounds for appeal regardless of the rights or wrongs of the number. Then we end up with more situations like Drayton Road.
Neil – ref 52
I dont know what sorts of items you feel are inappropriately dealt with ‘in confidential’ at the town council? My understanding is that there is now considerably less confidential discussion than in previous councils. It represents a very small proportion of overall business.
I assume you agree we shouldn’t discuss staffing matters in open session and where we are looking to tender a service we shouldn’t reveal our hand to potential bidders.
Your explanation was fine as far as it went, Neil F, but take this:
‘ … we have no guarantee that we will have the right infrastructure in the right places for any development that does happen …’
which seems to go to the crux of the matter as a well thought out infrastructure is the armature/framework on which all housing must hang. For example, road connections are essential to the way people have to traffic their lives nowadays … schools/shops/hospitals etc are mainly centralized so you need a good road network to provide flexibility for existing communities and future developments can be accommodated. All bridges over the A34 should be built to allow for a six-lane highway and the Lodge Hill Interchange should be built before the proposed housing to alleviate fears that it wold be a political promise which would be reneged on.
Houses should be built to make communities that work and not as profit centres for developers and councils. As much as possible they should be pleasant to live in and not some gridlocked hell-hole.
BTW, you’re right, the house building projection is bonkers.
57 – Iain – with both those subjects it depends on what exactly is being discussed.
So items about individual members of staff, such as discussion about individual salaries, disciplinary issues etc. should clearly be confidential. However discussion about staffing structures etc. should not be.
As far as commercial confidentiality is concerned restrictions should be tightly drawn. So it is reasonable for the financial details of possible contracts etc. to be confidential but that shouldn’t stop more general financial information being open.
It has seemed to me that the Town Council has not always got the distinction right. (And this is not a new thing, it’s been the case for a long time.)
Two comments semi-agreeing with you today, Neil … this is worrying me.
Para 2: you can’t discuss peoples’ salaries in public, but staffing numbers and job allocation are germane to council cost, performance and taxes. These should be open for discussion.
Para 3: A small amount of financial information needs to be confidential, but not wholesale quantities of it. I specified major contracts for my industry (the record charts, twice) and all the ‘stakeholders’ knew what was happening. The councils just want a black-out on as much as possible.
It’s not a current issue, but we all suspect why The Vale is hiding The Old Goal financial deal and where the money is now … come clean, guys, the truth can’t be worse than some to the rumours I’ve heard.
Ir’s the internet, Neil, it’ll never be the same again … the bad old days are gone.
At the same time as the old gaol tendering was going through, so was the tendering for the olympic stadium. I remember remarking at the time how open the Olympic tendering was, and how covert that for the old gaol development. I can, perhaps, see why that was done at the time to prevent competitors finding out about other’s bids – but I cannot see the need for such confidentiality now.
elected councillors often get the flak, but in legal and financial matters they rely heavily on council officers who, perhaps, are temperamentally inclined to be cautious and maybe lack a commitment to open and accountable democracy.
On the wider housing issue, people seem to share a desire that there will be affordable and plentiful housing stock available for their children, but always seem to have good reason why THEIR particular neighbourhood should not receive further development. You cannot have it both ways.
David, I don’t think people are disputing the need for more housing? What IS up for debate is the location of these developments, in already congested areas, choked with traffic on a daily basis, where schools are already at maximum capacity. If you fly out of Britain, there are great swathes of untouched land which whole new towns or even cities could be built on…the developers won’t build there though, they would have to dig too deeply into their vast profits to put new infrastructure in place! Far better to tag onto the end of existing infrastructure, even though it’s not been designed to cope with the extra stresses and strains about to be heaped on it! As long as the developers don’t have to “waste” their had earned profits….after all, they don’t live round here…it won’t affect them.
Neil – re 59
When you have a staff of around ten then any discussion of structures immediately translates to impacts on individuals’ jobs. I do this for a living away from the council and in small organisations it would be very unprofessional to discuss structure in open forum before the individuals involved have been talked to.
On commercial side, this is what we do. For example, the high level costings of the guildhall are public but the detail which would be very useful yo a contractor bidding for the work is not.
Whilst i understand comments on this from people with minimal knowledge of actual practice, i think an informed person like yourself should be a bit more circumspect.
So, contractors have to quote on jobs without knowing the details of those jobs? If not, what do you mean, Iain?
Without knowing the details of how we’ve costed them yes, without knowing the details of the spec – of course not.
You seem to want people to think we’re all ingeneus who’ve never run a tender or placed a contract before Bill. Personally I worked for Vodafones global supply chain department for 4 years which dealt with £15bn each year, and one of my main current assignments has been to set up a purchasing shared service for universities covering approx £3bn pa. Our council has successfully tendered and delivered on budget the museum project which was several million so we have plenty of experience in these matters in house too, and of course we take appropriate professional advice. I’m not trying to blow my own trumpet, just pointing out you’re not the only one who knows about this stuff.
Give it a rest please. I know you’re bored but the pubs will be open soon 😉
I wonder if anyone was watching ‘The One Show’ (I think??). It feature a section about a building company who, having secured planning permission for a housing development on the basis of certain essential facilities being part of the contract, had thus far failed to provide them. In this case essential flood defended. It seemed to say that planning permission had been denied locally but the ‘Inspector’ had over-ruled the decision. Now the unequal battle was on to try to get the co grafted facilities provided. Sounds like a national problem eh?!!!
I think I have reported accurately but I stand to be corrected but I imagine other people saw it and can amend my interpretation if necessary.
Apologies for the ‘typos’ and the incorrect words and spellings in my post. With autocorrect it seems that one has no control over one’s input into a tablet!!!
Cassandra, its a common tactic, they just make sure they build 99% of the planned houses, then, because they havent ‘finished’ they use that as an excuse for not completing the promised infrastructure.
A similar thing happened on the Ladygrove in Didcot,.
Still, anyone thinking that these houses are going to be ‘affordable’ is kidding themselves.
If you cant afford one of the new houses/flats down in Didcot on the great western park development now, then you can forget about these ones too.
Tho quite why anyone would want to live feet from the A34 is beyond me anyway..
Iain – I agree that there is a delicate balance to be struck here and hope my post at 59 made that clear.
But I do think there should be a greater expectation of transparency in a public body than in the private sector.
When reviewing the staffing structure, for example, I would expect the discussions about the objectives and overall structure and grades to be done in public, and the process of individual appointments and salaries to then be done in private.
I would certainly expect that there would be discussion with staff about potential changes before it was discussed in a public forum, but I would then expect there to be a discussion about the objectives behind changing the structure in public.
I didn’t follow the recent changes in enough detail to know whether that’s how you did it or not.
On the costing of projects etc. I again appreciate that it is a question of balance, and not always an easy one.
Taking the Guildhall project as an example, it did seem to me that it took a long time before any meaningful figures behind the overall project were made public. i.e. sufficient information to enable a member of the public to judge whether the proposals being looked at by the town council made sense or not. (And I say that as someone who is generally inclined towards supporting the project.)
I fully accept that detailed figures about the council’s financial expectations relating to a function that might subsequently be contracted out might need to be kept private.
Picking up David’s point about the Old Gaol, I again fully accept that it was in the Council’s (and public’s) interest to keep some of the financial aspects of the deal private. The problem was that the vale appeared to keep much more than that private, and did a bad job of explaining it, and that lost of decisions appear to have been made subsequently in private. For example, one of the points made at the time of the deal in its favour was that there would be public access from East St Helen’s St to the Old Gaol (and through to Bridge St). We now find that that access is very restricted, and won’t happen in the evenings, the time when many people will want to visit the place. This has all been decided in secret, and after the contract was agreed.
‘Not completing’ the development to allow someone to renege on their moral or contractual obligations appears to be common practice. As I have said before….I reckon that there is a special place, on a special shelf, in a special office at Cranbourne Homes HQ for the final golden screw for the Old Gaol Development. As ‘completion’ will mean all sorts of obligations – affordable housing, access to the river, £2m to the Vale(!)…that is one mighty screw. I call it “the £2m screw”…. no doubt it will have next to it a similar spot, only this time…for that final nail…..
Someone needs to get a grip.
We are not well served if the public contract writers are so incompetent as to permit that Golden Rivet loophole to exist; it then becomes more imperative that development permissions should require any infrasructure improvements to be a PRE-condition of final development approval. Once those are in place and effective, the ‘for profit’ building may start. Until then, no sod may be turned.
See if the developers have the courage of their convictions then.
Vote to get the incompetent fools out here
http://mycouncil.oxf
ordshire.gov.uk/mgEP
etitionDisplay.aspx?
ID=55&RPID=5186448&H
PID=5186448
Spike S – spot on.