Olney Town Council Reports

After the excitement of last month’s meeting, Mercury was looking forward to a lively evening, but sadly it was not to be, and for the December meeting things were very much business as usual.

Only one member of the public wished to speak at this month’s meeting. Kevin Viney spoke regarding the still unfinished Yardley Manor Play Park. Despite promises given to Olney Town Council, the last in writing, that the play park remedial work would be finished by the end of November (last month), this sorry saga continues, he said. Following a request by jaded residents for our Member of Parliament to become involved, MKCC (Milton Keynes City Council) have now stated in writing that the developers have not yet transferred the relevant S106 funds, and this is the cause of the holdup. Moreover the MP has suggested that if residents are dissatisfied with this response, they should note that MKCC have invited them to raise a formal complaint with Milton Keynes Council. If they did so, and remained unhappy with their response, they could then raise the matter with the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. Kevin said this is clearly unsatisfactory and said he would like to request that Olney Town Council intervene directly now to resolve this matter, explaining in the meantime to Yardley Manor residents why their children still can’t use this play area.

Deirdre Bethune, Dan Rowland and David Tyler had sent apologies. Mary Prosser declared an interest in the agenda item concerning Yardley Manor Play Park.

Mayor Debbie Whitworth asked if there were any comments on the draft minutes before moving to ask for a proposer and seconder confirming that they were accurate. At the last moment Colin Rodden raised a query. The results from the Speed Indicating Devices (SIDs) had been discussed at the meeting and he believed that there was an action for them to be sent to Thames Valley Police (TVP), whereas the minutes just state ‘noted’. It would be nice to show that OTC was actually doing something, rather than just having it noted, he thought. Town Clerk Jane Brushwood said that not every action that the office performs gets minuted, and Deputy Clerk Rob Mungham said the SID results get sent to TVP every month anyway, as a matter of course. It would not be a special resolution specific to that month he said. The minutes were thus approved without amendment.

Peter Geary was present to give this month’s report. A week previous MKCC had made the delegated decision (presumably by officers rather than council members) to re-procure MKConnect, the on-demand public transport system, albeit with a reduced budget. A rather ‘unique’ tender process is being used, he said, in that no procurement specification has been issued, and it would be up to each tendering organisation to state how they intend to run the service.
The contract will be awarded for an initial period of two years with an option to extend for a further year and the flexibility to vary the contract if the bus contract changes, which Peter thought likely. Parking charges will increase next year in Central MK, and although MKCC are claiming it is the first increase for ten years, Peter said there was actually an increase last year. The increase is expected to generate an additional £3M in revenue, he said. The MKCC draft budget has been issued and it is even tougher than during the years of austerity, he said, particularly as there is an overspend of £10M in the current F/Y. A number of measures are being proposed, one of which is the closure of the Newport Pagnell Recycling Centre with a new centre somewhere in MK.
Anyone with more than one green bin might need to pay £55 per year for the privilege. Charges will rise for most council services, but some are set by statute and cannot rise by more than a set amount. OTC as consultees have the right to respond and ask questions if there is anything they don’t understand, he said. There was much that wasn’t clear to him, he said, particularly one stated saving of £1M with a single sentence of explanation. David Chennells wondered what percentage of the budget could actually be cut, since much of the expenditure appears to relate to statutory services. Peter said even in the case of adult and child social care, which made up the vast majority of the statutory spend there are ways of doing things differently. Services such as Landscaping, roads and highways make up about 30-40% of the budget and are non-statutory, he said.

There was no PCSO present but Jane Brushwood read out the submitted report for 07/10/2024 – 29/11/2024 as follows: Arson x1; Assault with Injury x2; Assault without Injury x3; Burglary Business x1 (bike stolen); Burglary Residential x1; Criminal Damage x2; Malicious Communications x1; Nuisance Messages x 2; Public Order x4; Shoplifting x5; Theft from Vehicle x2. Other incidents, not crime-related in Olney: ASB Community x4; Suspicious Person/Vehicle/Other x 8. Incidents in surrounding villages: Counterfeit money being used in pubs, stores and restaurants. Without being specific, David Chennells said he believed that the list was incomplete.

The expenses report was agreed without comment. The budget report was about to be similarly agreed upon when Chris Tennant raised what he said was a ‘Tiny, tiny point’. He noted that the Allotment Rent Income was £3,580 and the budget was £3,580, yet the report showed an excess of £0.13! The Deputy Clerk said this was probably a quirk of the accounting system in not picking up a rounded-up or rounded down percentage.

Deputy Clerk Rob Mungham reported that that month’s data from the SIDs made for positive reading. The unit on Yardley Road outside Olney Middle School travelling south counted over 21,000 vehicle movements, and the average speed was 16.83 mph, with 85% travelling at or less than 20.6 mph. On Aspreys, Foxhill end travelling south, over 40,000 vehicle movements were counted, and the average speed was 23.43 mph with 85% travelling at or less than 28 mph. On Aspreys, Hollow Wood end travelling north, over 47,000 vehicle movements were counted, and the average speed was 25.79 mph, with 85% travelling at or less than 29.8 mph. Rob said that for the Aspreys units, it was the first time that comparative data was available from a previous set of figures, and both sets recorded a reduction in average speed and 85th percentile.
Proof, for now, that the SIDs act as a deterrent, he said. The SIDs would be staying in the same location but would shortly be turned around, he said. Jane Brushwood noted that the results are collated at the end of each month, whereas the OTC agenda and supporting documents are sometimes sent to councillors before this, so do not form part of the pack prior to the meeting. It was agreed that in future the results will be discussed a month in arrears so the December data will be presented at the February meeting.

Debbie Whitworth said that she and Jane Brushwood had been working behind the scenes in an attempt to get things moving. They had attended a meeting with a representative of the developer consortium (Taylor Wimpey and Vistry, formerly Bovis) and Phil Snell, MKCC Strategic Landscape and Countryside Manager. The developer had given a written assurance that the work would be completed by the end of November, but clearly nothing had happened. Phil Snell has spoken to the MKCC planning obligations dept and they are looking at the best way to move forward, but it was apparent that the developer could have managed the project better. Enforcement is one option, but MKCC would prefer reasonable dialogue, especially if the developers wish to build elsewhere in MK. In an email to the clerk, James Williamson, MKCC Monitoring and Information Officer (Development Plans), stated that a company called Sutton Land Development have been contracted by the developers to complete the work but have no interest in the site in terms of ownership.
He suggested going back to the development consortium directly to push for a delivery timetable before pursuing a formal legal route and suspected that they are ’holding the purse strings’ in terms of the contractors completing the work. Colin Rodden expressed the concerns of everyone around the table that nothing had moved forward since the last meeting (since May interjected Jane), and it was time to press the legal button since MKCC was constantly saying, ‘we’ll see what we can do’. He noted that OTC had also requested a project plan for the community building which had not been forthcoming. Jane Brushwood said OTC is doing its best, but unfortunately it was not OTC’s button to push, since MKCC are responsible as the planning and S106 collection authority, a point later reiterated by Chris Tennant. She suggested that residents complain to the developers that they have been miss-sold their houses. As a resident Mary Prosser said she had contacted the developers and they just reply that they’ll ‘get on to it as soon as they can’ but nothing happens. Ward Councillor Peter Geary said legally MKCC were entitled to insist that the developers return the S106 funding but that would get ‘very murky’ as the developers would claim to have completed certain elements of the work and the amount returned would probably not be sufficient to finish it. This was not the only site in MK where developers had failed to complete to an adoptable standard and the common sense approach would be to refuse to grant those developers permission for further work in the borough, but unfortunately that would not be legally enforceable. David Chennells said he believed that the prevarication was totally deliberate and it was important for residents to know the facts. He suggested a letter in The Phonebox detailing the information that the clerk had been given which might deflect some of the criticism accusing OTC of doing nothing and pointing out that they can do nothing. In closing Debbie Whitworth once again encouraged the residents to complain to the developers.

Jane Brushwood reported that OTC was now in receipt of an all-electric nine-seat minibus, paid for through S106 funding. It is currently only being used to transport residents to and from the Thursday lunch club at The Olney Centre but suggestions for other uses would be welcomed. A number of volunteer drivers had come forward, she said, for which she was very grateful. However it is important that it is driven responsibly and also the drivers must understand their role in terms of responsibilities and limitations. They would not be expected to assist users from their house to the bus, for example, as that would entail a duty of care and safeguarding so to that end she had produced a draft policy document for comment.

As a trustee of the Ann Hopkins Smith Almshouses Charity Mary Prosser reported that there is now a full complement of 12 residents and they were all due to attend an ‘exciting lunch’ at The Swan.
Jane Brushwood suggested that The Olney Centre Management Committee should in future be responsible for additionally managing the new community centres at the ex-football club and the new building at Yardley Manor. It should therefore be known as The Olney Community Centres Management Committee. The council were not being too ambitious in suggesting the change, as the other buildings will happen she said, though with something of a chuckle.

The next meeting will be held on Monday 6th January at 7.00pm in the Olney Centre. If you would like to contribute to the Public Participation section at the start of the meeting, or any time the mayor deems appropriate, please contact the Town Clerk, townclerk@olneytowncouncil.gov.uk.