"The Oxfordshire fields at the centre of Labour’s land grab"

Wed 1 Apr, 13:06

In Sussex I understand that the choice made was one that gave the unitary authority to the urban areas with a view to easing housebuilding. 

Wed 1 Apr, 12:40

The town council met to discuss how any proposed unitary might impact on towns and parishes. This appears to have been given so little thought by those drafting the consultation document that councillors could not reach a view. 

Wed 1 Apr, 10:16

https://oxfordclarion.uk/make-oxford-greater-again/

Fri 27 Mar, 09:44

Fixing potholes isn't WODC's responsibility.  It's OCC's.

Fri 27 Mar, 08:39

I think the point the article is trying to make is that labour's desire to get rid of district councils is less a cost saving exercise as it is often portrayed and more a way to stop district councils refusing housing developments. The thinking is that district councils are not powerful enough to take a fight with red trousered NIMBYs like me. Their desire for lots of housebuilding is that it would be seen as a vote winner and also good for the economy. Oxfordshire is used as a case study to prove the point. Finally OCC is responsible for roads and pothole repair, not WODC.

Thu 26 Mar, 22:25

Is the WODC holding off on the potholes so the intended North Oxfordshire will be responsible?!

Thu 26 Mar, 18:56

Getting rid of district councils is a national government policy, so it isn’t quite true to say that OCC “want to get rid” of them. The local councils are trying to figure out the best way of merging county and districts, ie should it be one big council across oxfordshire, or a number of smaller councils. If it’s smaller councils then the services that are currently county-wide - like education, transport and social services - will have to be broken up into smaller pieces. In theory they could still work together across the county, but that’s going to be tricky if one authority is lib dem and another is reform.  

Thu 26 Mar, 16:46 (last edited on Thu 26 Mar, 16:48)

The gift link didn't work, Katie, but googling the headline brings up the article.

As far as I am concerned, it's a very odd piece. To make these fields where housing is proposed the heart of Oxford City Council's "land grab" seems very simplistic. 

The northern part of Kidlington ("old Kidlington") where the main campaigner against the housing development lives is very atypical of Kidlington as a whole. Most of Kidlington is not rural, although that small patch of Kidlington is. The main campaigner against the development is a friend, so I do understand how fraught the issue is for her and her neighbours. It's a lovely part of Kidlington, but I suspect most people don't know that "old Kidlington" even exists.

Also, although Kidlington itself is represented by Lib Dems and Green Councillors, that's certainly not true of Cherwell District Council as a whole which is under no overall control. The article also doesn't make that clear. In terms of numbers, the Lib Dems make up the largest group on Cherwell District Council, followed by the Conservatives, then Labour, then Greens, then Independents who are mostly linked to either the Conservatives or the Greens. It's possible that some of the Conservative areas will vote Reform next time round, and I'm not sure how the protesters might feel about such an outcome ...

 In any case, whatever happens in the reorganisation, the boundaries for the various councils will inevitably be quite radically re-drawn. There are 3 possible models for local government on the table, not 2, and the article also doesn't make that clear. 

Thu 26 Mar, 16:10

Thanks Liz. Just out of interest, could someone from the Town Council say what the outcome of the extraordinary meeting was please?

Thu 26 Mar, 14:19

See the article in the News section posted on March 13th

Thu 26 Mar, 11:13

https://giftarticle.ft.com/giftarticle/actions/redeem/0a80e028-d637-4d33-97ad-0090c669bb65

I read this in the FT today and I have so many questions. Is it really true that OCC want to get rid of district councils in Oxfordshire and have one council? The article overall seems a bit biased to me, this paragraph in particular seems odd: 
"County council leaders suspect Labour’s city expansion is a partisan move to ensure control of the new, larger councils where it might otherwise be drowned out by rural voters. They also say that the proposals will lead to smaller councils that will be less able to manage services for vulnerable children and adults requiring social care." 

Hoping others know more than me on this topic?