The Cabinet of the Vale of White Horse District Council have decided in principle to “the letting of part of the ground floor and the whole of the first and second floors of The Abbey House in Abingdon to Oxfordshire County Council … “
Although at an early stage of negotiations they have also agreed, to the “letting of part of the ground floor to the Citizens Advice Bureau ” who are currently next door in Old Abbey House.
Once both Abingdon-on-Thames Town Council and Citizens Advice have moved out of Old Abbey House the report by district council officers says “it could then be considered for disposal.”
The plan will involve moving the majority of the District Council Staff from Abingdon to Crowmarsh Gifford to share the South Oxfordshire District Councils offices – a 24 minute drive away, or a 47 minute bus ride.
The front desk people who answer questions at the District Council would remain in Abingdon, so the town would not be completely abandoned. They could potentially be joined by similar people from the County Council to create an enhanced front desk.
The leader of the district council Cllr Matthew Barber says “This is an ideal solution to the problem of vacant office space. We are able to join forces with the County Council who are looking for office space in Abingdon.”
Currently the County Council are at Abingdon Business Park and the lease is up in 2014.
The cabinet report on vale accommodation says (paragraph 4) about the vacant office space “ finding occupiers of that space would not be easy and potential savings would not be easy to come by.”
The report concludes “This is a Fantastic Opportunity for the Council.”
We live in the Vale of the White Horse. I do not want to see
South Oxfordshire DC plastered over everything in this town. – Today a South Oxfordshire DC van was parked up IN the Abbey meadows !. It looks like we are quickly being absorbed into South Oxfordshire by the back door.
Better still let Abingdon town council run Abingdon , maybe they can take on Oxfordshire as well. After all Abingdon was once the County Town of Berkshire .
If they move from Abingdon it will mean less people working in the town until such time as the building can be re let. This means less people spending money in the Town centre shops & then potential closures of some shops. The DC are one of the biggest employers in the Town, even with the cuts that have been made, and if we loose them we could loose other businesses in the town.
My step brother in Wiltshire is under VOWHDC, My friend is in a Bungalow in Botley: VOWHDC are her landlord.
Even more confusing: My home is ex Oxford City Council/GLC council house. Oxford City Council manage the flats/houses as landlord…
VOWHDC stretches North as far as Wytham and covers Botley, North HInksey, Cumnor etc.
it will take an amazing level of spin, spin, spin to sell this in Abingdon as a “fantastic opportunity”
Incredible! How do these decision makers get appointed or re-elected?
Brings to mind the move of the Thames Valley Tourist Board office from Abingdon (-on-Thames) to Witney. A lovely town, but nowhere near the river. Apparently the scoundrel in charge had something other than the best interests of the rate-payers in mind!
As chief executive of both councils it is not my role to get involved in any political arguments that might take place through this website. However, I do have a role in ensuring that facts are correct.
At most about 150 district council staff will move out of Abbey House At the same time roughly 400 county council staff will move in – net effect 250 more people working in Abingdon town centre than currently – good news I would suggest.
Public access to services will be unaffected. You will still be able to pay your bills (although we’d rather that was done by direct debit), enquire about housing benefit, a planning application or a host of other things. Council meetings will continue to take place in Abingdon or elsewhere in the Vale, they will not be moving to Crowmarsh.
We have yet to finalise the financial details but i’ll be disappointed if the changes do not generate a divdend to the Vale of at least £200,000 a year. In these challenging financial times that’s good money.
David,
You should know that, post internet, no one believes anything that you, or the politicians you micro-manage, say, or write. Your PR might have a ‘way with words’, but we know you’re just a gullible salary-man who believes the public is stupid enough to believe anything you tell them … and that’s no longer the case.
If you say it enough times the public will still not believe you. The only person who believes what you say is you … and then, perhaps, not.
Another ‘public servant’ spending other peoples’ money like a sailor on leave …
You can pay your rent and council tax through out Paypoint terminal, along with many other household bills.
150 staff out, 400 in. Either gross inefficiency today or sweat shop conditions tomorrow. Is there infrastructure for an extra 250 commuters?
Or why not move the OCC staff to Crowmarsh instead? Less moves and even greater savings?
Newcomer – i wish you would refrain from being quite so rude.
Having read Mr Buckle’s posting above and having followed the link to the Vale paper – I note that the Cabinet briefing paper says “Of the 364 staff who are based at the two main office locations (July 2013) there were 164 staff based full-time at Abbey House and 149 full-time at Crowmarsh.” – surely if 150 staff move this will leave just 14 Vale staff at Abbey House – hardly a “significant” presence !! It may also interest Vale readers that one of the cited benefits (on page 4 of the report) for Vale residents was “the financial benefits will enable improvements to be undertaken particularly
at Crowmarsh” – how/why does it benefit Vale taxpayers to improve a property that they will be renting ??
Mergers and redeployment of resources, University of Oxford is undergoing a similar process. They merged several IT and Computing services together into a single IT Services University of Oxford. Currently in different University buildings in Oxford. Ultimate hope/dream a new building to house everyone….streamline everything.
Lettings and Leasing of buildings, {money out or money in} ‘councils’ are in buildings all over, and its about time they did “merge” the services. Its all about Budgets and office space.
Many leases are up in 2014, so rather than waste money having all these staff and resources spread all over, move them into 1 larger office/building.
Ultimate hope/dream – a single ‘council body’
for the good of Abingdon-on -Thames Oxfordshire maybe?.
At present the council staff clog the roads with their cars each day trying to avoid having to pay car park fees. ~surely MORE staff in that building will result in MORe clogged roads around the area.
The cabinet report says:
“as regards parking it is proposed each OCC staff member will be given a free staff parking permit allowing them to park in several Abingdon public car parks ”
Are the residents of Abingdon to subsidise the OCC staff parking ?
That last sentence should have read “Are the residents of the Vale of White Horse to subsidise ……
If the council stops being incompetent I’ll stop being rude.
With regards to the parking issue, would it not be cheaper for OCC to approach the football club on Culham road and pay to use their car parking facilities? The football club is un used during the day time and it would therefore make use of the space, as well as freeing up the much needed spaces in the town centre. It would also mean potentially less cars driving through Abingdon if they were approaching from that direction.
I was under the impression that planning authorities these days limited the number of parking spaces created at any new workplace building so as to discourage extravagant car use. How does that fit with paying for staff to park their cars (other than as a short-term measure to ease the move from wherever they are coming from).
I assume that the Vale will charge OCC for the permits so although still coming out of our pockets in the end, the cost will be spread a bit wider – and the employees should have to pay tax on the benefit.
What about all the Vale staff going to Crowmarsh – are we paying for their petrol? (I imagine there is already free parking there)
Newcomer – I always feel that it rather undermines the force of your argument if you’re rude if you want your view to be taken seriously you might moderate your tone – if you just want to appear a clown then keep on going.
Where are we going to put all these new Council Officers cars ? How about move all the shoppers onto the top floors of the multi storey car park leaving the lower floors clear for permit holding incoming Council Officers ? The previous CEO and the Iliberal Autocrats did this very successfully a few years ago !
Newcomer it seems to me you have no idea what an incompetent administration and CEO can be like !
Going back to the substance of what Mr Buckle said – there are a lot bigger issues than parking. It is all very well to say that front-line services won’t be affected but in my experience there is a world of difference between a “front-desk” where the decision-maskers are in the next office or upstairs, and are known faces who walk past those desks every day, compared to faceless people who are only 20 miles away but might as well be 200.
Also, while the current post-holders have at least worked in the Vale and quite likely live here, that may not be the case in future. People coming to work in Crowmarsh may have no knowledge of the Vale at all and I find it hard to believe that you can do a good job on maters like housing, leisure facilities etc without a reasonable knowledge of the area.
You brought up the issue of Council employes parking and petrol costs coming out of “our pockets “. I used it to illustrate to Newcomer , who obviously enjoys having eloquent but needlessly unpleasant attacks on people how bad things were . My guess is that David Buckle is probably proposing /doing the best he can for the public interest (‘our money ‘) .
Furthermore, you talk about ‘our ‘ money yet you were part of the Community Old Gaol pressure group that succeeded in making sure that nothing happened to the Old Gaol site for almost a decade . The reason it was never possible to keep it in community use was because there was not enough of ‘our money’ to go around to subsidise everything . Also remind us of how much of ‘ our ‘ money went into County Hall / Museum at a time when massive cuts in public spending were inevitable .
The ‘Vale’ is an invented geographical area for the purposes of Local Government .But has a massive under used building for its HQ. As for having different / new Council Officers that might come from outside the ‘Vale ‘ that might be a good thing . Many people just don’t like change but sometimes things have to . A small clique of people have spent far too much time and money on our past ( heritage ) rather than looking to the future .for the REAL community .
Thames Town – I wouldn’t normally respond to personal digs that aren’t relevant to the subject and from someone who won’t give their name, but this one was so ludicrous that I couldn’t resist!. Pity that no-one else is likely to be reading this thread by now!
Your reference to COG’s impact is flattering indeed: we only existed from November 2005 (when the Vale announced their decision to sell it) to Spring 2008 when the sale was complete. As far as I know we didn’t delay that process at all, certainly not by a decade – the Leisure Centre only closed in 2002 and the first residents moved in to the new development this year.
I’m still reading this thread, Hester.
I haven’t any particular political party axe to grind as politicians of all colours seem pretty useless when it comes to planning and management.
The heritage versus the future argument expressed by Thames Town is suspect as it assumes that the charmless development of the OG is better than what might have been. As it is we have undistinguished modern blocks which are too high and the original building just seems to be a ‘hidden core’. No public access to the river yet … some surprise.
I remember the secrecy surrounding the tendering for the OG contract being so OTT that it seemed the council was trying to hide something. And I’m sorry … it’s our money and the various plans could have been made public for comment before a final decision was made without impugning ‘commercial confidentiality’.
What the council understands about ‘matters commercial’ is beyond me in any case. Whatever deal was arranged between the Vale and the Town re. the Guuildhall it’s obvious that the Town took on the building without thinking -through what they were going to do with it. It’s about functionality, guys … didn’t you register the cock-up which was The Millennium Dome?
All politicians would like to keep us in the dark so they can fritter away our money on their vanity and make-work projects.
On the subject of the Old Goal development – dare one raise the question about the Riverside access and the ‘projected restaurants’ etc. ? I had visions of having nice evenings by the river this summer in new restaurants etc.
I may be mistaken but was there not some talk about a Comminity Sapce or Arts Centre at one point(????).
Excuse the typos please!! I meant to put ‘Community Space’.
Cassandra – at the risk of upsetting Thames Town again, I will try to answer your questions. During its brief lifespan COG was lobbying for Community use for part of the OG complex – the full-blown Arts Centre proposal had been an earlier attempt by other groups but had foundered on cost grounds. Our proposals were less ambitious and were flexible according to how much of the building(s) we could get. Our bottom line was public access to the ground floor, around the building and to the riverside and some form of commemoration of the history of the building in the public areas inside. A commitment to these – together with public access through the site to East St Helen Street was all that we achieved.
COG itself disbanded in 2008 but a few of us have continued to keep an eye on the situation, mainly via the Friends of Abingdon. Until the building work on the Gaol itself is complete it is probably not realistic to press for public access there, nor of course for the commemoration inside, but we have been monitoring the pedestrian route through from Bridge Street to East St Helen Street. It is supposed to be open at least 9-5 daily (except Suns/Public Holidays) – our observation is that this is patchy and it is certainly not well signed so we will continue to lobby for it to be better. So please can anyone who is reading this try out this route and if it is not open in those times, contact the developers (Cranbourne Homes) or the site manager and ask why.
As for the restaurants, as far as I know, that is still the intention for the ground floor of the OG and the Bridge Street buildings but guess they need to complete the conversion of the upper floors first – and suspect that the recession won’t be helping that. I have a feeling that completion was never due before 2014 so maybe you were optimistic this summer. I’ll join you there next year!
Thank you for that Hester. I will reserve my comments though I am sure that many people will have their own thoughts. As far as the pedestrian access is concerned, it is a bit of a mystery to me how to get in at all.
At the risk of upsetting the various Official Bodies concerned in the permissions for this development – I have to question why it is down to the general public in Abingdon to have to lobby/petition for this presumably approved right-of-way to be allowed?
I am surprised, Cassandra, that with your legendary. nay, mythological, powers of prophecy you were not able to foresee difficulties with the rights-of-way ;0)
Perhaps the developer, like the council, do not like the hoi-pollio to look upon their works.
Hester just for the record you are way out on your time line of delayed decision making . Check through VOWH records if you want to prove me wrong . My understanding was the whole reason the Old Gaol leisure complex was closed and replaced was because of the huge subsidies the local taxpayer was putting into it . Publicly owned old decrepit listed buildings and swimming pools always make losses for Local Authorities , but lots of people especially children who need to learn to swim , need swimming pools . Under a Liberal Democrat administration , recommendation for closure and replacement from the ‘ Vale ‘ Council Officers would have been in 95 / 96 .A replacement site was identified at Audlett Drive by 97/ 98 and further funding was obtained from the Lottery fund ? The Lawn Tennis Association gave a big chunk of funding . Audlett Drive provided better facilities at a cheaper cost than the Old Gaol , saving ‘our’ money .
You say “the Leisure Centre ( Old Gaol ) only closed in 2002 ” My point is by 1999 a decision on the future of the Old Gaol site should have been made ! But another 5 years of Lib Dem dithering went by until COG come along in 2005 . How long should it have taken to face up to the inevitable ? By that time some Lib Dem Councillors were obviously forgetting the logical reasons why they had closed it in the first place ! So I exaggerate , it was not a decade only 8 – 9 years ! At what cost to the public purse “our money ” ?. The whole Old Gaol site could be have been finished 6-7 years ago . A less sentimental, more rational realistic approach to the Old Gaol site might have also meant a more viable Community project like the Guildhall could have been identified years earlier . Instead it was left as another costly deteriorating facility . Nothing happened with the Guildhall until the Liberal Democrtats lost control of both the ‘Vale’ and Abingdon Town Council at the last Local elections two years ago .
One other point – when I stop to think about what brutality went on in the Old Gaol , I have never understood how any liberally minded person could get sentimental over the Old Gaol – part of our horrible history and horrific heritage .
Final point , from what I have seen I think the Cranbourne Homes developers have done a fantastic job ! The site is now an asset to the town and a really good longer term investment opportunity for those with sufficient capital (unfortunately not me ) to purchase apartments there .
Any way perhaps in future you might be more considerate when you talk about ‘our ‘ money as not everyone shares your views and priorities.
@ Thames Town
Whilst this is a good distratcion talking about the Old Gaol, ineffectiveness of the old Lib Dem vanguard etc – nothing is really distracting from the points made by the opinions of the previous posts – namely that of the questionable decisions being made by the current Council, and the spin that surrounds them.
Thankfully, at least one elected Councillor seems to have asked some questions – so even if the decision isn’t reversed then hopefully some of the details and figures may be made more transparent.
Not that talking about the old Gaol now will do any good – but congratulations on being able to view what the developers have done – had the development oppotunity been given to another contractor many more people in the district could have enjoyed the site and brought oppotunities for the towns commerce (which was one of the original goals for the project).
Spot on John. It was an open goal to make the Old Gaol a town centrepiece and they brought on a second division player who’s ruined the heritage.