Return to Agenda

ITEM CC10

COUNTY COUNCIL – 10 JANUARY 2006

REPORT OF THE CABINET

Cabinet Members: Leader of the Council, Change Management

  1. Taking Forward the Change Agenda

(Cabinet, 15 November 2005)

The Cabinet has agreed a remodelled vision, strategic aims and values for the organisation and some practical steps to enable development of the necessary policies to support them, to embed them into the Council’s service planning framework and to foster the appropriate culture to deliver them.

The new vision statement reads "We want Oxfordshire to be a thriving County which adapts to a changing world but remains a special place to work, live and visit". The intention is to interpret this in a longer term vision for the future of Oxfordshire which will be developed under the banner Oxfordshire 20:20. The Cabinet has adopted "low taxes, real choice and value for money" as its key objectives, to be incorporated in service plans for 2006/07 covering the five broad areas of Children, Young People and Families, Community Safety, Environment & Economy, Social and Community Services & Organisational Improvement. It has also agreed that the list of existing values of the authority should be updated and expanded, as:

    • Customer focus (incorporating serving the people and communities of Oxfordshire)

    • Honesty (incorporating honesty and integrity)

    • One team (incorporating team work and co-operation, valuing our staff)

    • Involvement (covering joined up working internally and externally)

    • Can-do (self explanatory but also focusing on accountability)

    • Efficient and effective (self explanatory)

giving the acronym CHOICE, which reinforces that component of the new strategic objectives.

The Cabinet is keen to pursue these principles through an active change programme, which will incorporate positive organisational development and restructured performance management. It has also decided that the Council’s over-arching strategic planning documentation should be realigned: a medium term Corporate Plan will be available at the start of the year outlining priorities; and an Annual Report will be produced in the summer, setting out the Council’s achievements over the last year. This will be published together with the Council’s annual accounts, in line with normal commercial practice. Both the Corporate Plan and the Annual Report will be brought to the Council for approval each year.

The first step in this process will be a list of priorities for incorporation in the Corporate Plan 2006-2010, which will be reported to the Council in February alongside the Cabinet’s budget proposals. From 2007/08 the intention is to make the Corporate Plan a fully integrated service and financial plan incorporating the budget. Work has already started to develop this approach and this will be reflected in the 2006/07 service plans.

  1. Performance Management: Progress Against Priorities and Targets

    2. (Cabinet, 6 December 2005)

    The Cabinet has considered a quarterly report on performance to date for 2005/2006, against Oxfordshire Plan 2005/6 priorities, Public Service Agreement 2003/04 – 2005/06 targets, Best Value Performance Indicators and, for 2005-06, Raising our Performance 2. Detailed information is in the report to the Cabinet, but key points to note are that 52% of BVPIs are on track to achieve year end target and 8 PSA targets are on track to receive some or all of the potential performance reward grant. Viewed in a national context the Audit Commission has confirmed that the BVPI figures represent a good level of performance.

    For future performance reporting it is proposed to adopt a balanced scorecard methodology which will provide a simple method (widely used elsewhere) to monitor progress against key targets in the four areas of Customers, People (i.e. staff), Finance and Process. This will enable the monitoring of progress against key priorities through one framework.

    Cabinet Member: Finance

  2. Financial Monitoring

    3. (Cabinet, 15 November and 20 December 2005)

    The Cabinet has considered reports covering the period up to the end of October 2005 for both revenue and capital.

    As reported previously, action plans are in place for Directorate overspends which have arisen in year and there is evidence of improvement in the current level of forecast overspend. It is anticipated that this will reduce further before the year-end as a result of management actions identified by these plans.

    The projected year end position on revenue balances (net of the City Schools’ Reorganisation) is £12.694m. This represents 2.17% of net budget.

  3. Revenue Budget & Capital Programme 2006/07 – 2010/11

    4. (Cabinet, 15 November and 20 December 2005)

    The Cabinet has considered reports on the service and financial planning process and issues for 2006/07 and the medium term. Individual Scrutiny Committees during December have been considering the budget pressures identified through this process and the choices as to how these could be funded for their programme areas, together with the relative priorities of capital bids. Advice from each Scrutiny Committee will be collated and fed back via the Corporate Governance Scrutiny Committee for the Cabinet to consider in January, when formulating recommendations on the budget for submission to the Council in February.

    In the meantime the Cabinet has considered the potential impact on Oxfordshire of the Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement. There have been fundamental changes to the grant system this year, which are explained fully in the report by the Head of Finance & Procurement sent to all members on 16 December. There will be further guidance at the budget seminar for members on 13 January. Overall the Provisional Settlement is largely in line with the assumptions built into the Medium Term Financial Plan for 2006/07, although there are significant factors which need to be built in for future years. The Cabinet will take account of all the issues raised by the Settlement in making its proposals, once it has considered the views of the Scrutiny Committees in January.

  4. Corporate Asset Management Plan & Capital Strategy

    5. (Cabinet, 15 November 2005)

    The Cabinet has considered a draft Corporate Asset Management Plan & Capital Strategy for the period 2005/06 to 2008/09. This has for the first time been prepared as a combined document, to help ensure an integrated approach to the Council’s current and future property asset needs that arise from the Council’s corporate and service priorities. It will provide a basis on which to make property and investment decisions, thereby enabling effective service delivery and ensuring that the authority is able to meet its objective of making better use of property. The draft Plan & Strategy (Annex 1) (download as .doc file) is circulated with the Council Agenda.

    The Capital Strategy is one of those strategic documents that are required by Regulations to be approved by the full Council. The Corporate Governance Scrutiny Committee has considered the document and did not wish to make any comment.

    The Council is now RECOMMENDED to approve the Corporate Asset Management Plan & Capital Strategy 2005/06 to 2008/09.

    Cabinet Member: Transport

  5. Oxford: St Clements, Headington Road and London Road Study

    6. (Cabinet, 15 November 2005)

    The Cabinet has considered progress on the St Clements, Headington Road and London Road Corridor Study, developed in association with the Council’s Transport Planning Term Consultants, Halcrow. Public consultation was carried out in June and July 2005 on two approaches. Approach 1 was an engineering-based approach assuming the same level of traffic was maintained on the corridor as at present. Measures proposed included bus lanes and lay-bys, pedestrian crossings and lowering the speed limits in certain sections. Approach 2 was a traffic management based approach, which reviewed what could be achieved on the corridor, should the level of traffic be reduced. It proposed restricting access to through traffic in the Headington central area and permitting access to buses, taxis and emergency vehicles only on a similar principle to Oxford High Street. This would facilitate priority for these vehicles without needing such extensive engineering measures as required in Approach 1.

    Results from the consultation indicated general overall support for the measures outlined in Approach 1, subject to concerns regarding particular issues. However, there was only limited support for carrying out further work on developing Approach 2 and the Cabinet received a number of representations at its meeting about the potential effects on areas into which traffic would divert. The Cabinet agreed that Approach 1 should form the basis for further development of measures along the study corridor, with no further work undertaken on Approach 2. The Cabinet has emphasized that full consultation will take place on individual elements of Approach 1 before implementation.

  6. Charges for Residents’ Parking Permits

    7. (Cabinet, 6 December 2005)

    The Cabinet has considered the introduction of charging for residents’ and visitors’ parking permits in Oxford. The former Executive was minded to introduce charges for permits but had wished to clarify whether Oxford City Council would be prepared to meet, or contribute to, the cost of operating the residents’ parking schemes. It is now clear that the City Council is not willing to make any contribution.

    The Cabinet has received some representations against the principle of charging for permits, particularly (but not exclusively) in relation to the match day residents’ parking in the vicinity of the Kassam Stadium. The Cabinet concluded however that the case accepted by the former Executive still holds good and has agreed to proceed with public consultation on the introduction of charges for parking permits as originally envisaged, i.e. with a charge of £40 for each of the first two residents’ parking permits per household, higher charges for further permits (where permitted), £10 for a permit in the match day only residents’ parking zones around the Kassam Stadium and 60p a day for visitors’ parking permits.

  7. Henley Town Centre Traffic Management and Environmental Improvement Schemes

    8. (Cabinet, 20 December 2005)

    The Cabinet has considered the outcome of consultation on proposed Traffic Management and Environmental Improvement Schemes for Henley Town Centre, designed to combat the current traffic problems in the town centre and provide a better pedestrian environment in Duke Street and Bell Street. The results of the consultation, including a referendum conducted by Henley Town Council, showed overall support for the schemes, and the Town Council has given its full backing.

    The Cabinet has therefore authorised officers to proceed with design and implementation, subject to consultation on and confirmation of any necessary traffic orders.

  8. Banbury Flood Alleviation Scheme

    9. (Cabinet, 20 December 2005)

    The Cabinet has considered the benefits and disadvantages of a flood alleviation scheme proposed by the Environment Agency, in the context of the County Council’s legal responsibilities with regard to the public highway. The chosen scheme was the result of a series of studies carried out by consultants for the Agency between 2001 and 2004. Various options were considered before concluding that a combination of flood storage upstream of Banbury and localised flood defences within the town would provide the "most sustainable, environmentally acceptable, cost effective, socially acceptable and technically feasible of all the flood defence options". The scheme entails the construction of an embankment to contain flood water in the area between M40 and A361, permitting flooding of the A361 roadway and agricultural land to the east.

    The Cabinet has accepted the Environment Agency proposals subject to safeguards, including the documentation of any rights to be granted to the Agency, a management protocol for early warning of flood events and for establishing and removing of diversions, reimbursement of the Council’s reasonable costs as a direct consequence of the proposed scheme and indemnification of the Council by the Agency.

    Cabinet Member: Sustainable Development

  9. Draft South East Plan

(Cabinet, 6 December 2005)

Further to the debate on this issue at the 1 November 2005 Council meeting, the Cabinet has considered a full report on the response to consultation on the future development strategy for Central Oxfordshire and the distribution of houses for the sub-region and the rest of the county up to 2026. The Cabinet had the benefit both of the advice from the Council (as recorded in Council Minute 83/05) and on behalf of the Environment & Economy Scrutiny Committee, which had criticised the reporting of the consultation results, raised doubts about the realism of relying on timely infrastructure provision, questioned the SEERA decision against strategic reviews of green belts and recommended that SEERA should be advised of the expressions of support for development on the edge of Oxford in preference to building on green fields in other areas.

In considering what advice to give to SEERA the Cabinet took account of these views but concluded that, as resolved by the Council, the principle of avoiding encroachment on the green belt should be maintained. The Cabinet also considered in particular the economic and out-commuting problems of Bicester; the relative economic strength and potential of settlements in the southern part of the County; the infrastructure problems of all the potential areas for development and the need to secure provision as development takes place; and the scope for sharing the development allocations between settlements in order to lessen their impact on any one area.

The Cabinet finally agreed that the housing distribution and strategy for the Central Oxfordshire sub-region for submission to SEERA should, subject to the timely provision of the necessary infrastructure, comprise the following:

    • 2,000 houses at Bicester;

    • 3,000 houses at Didcot;

    • 1,400 houses at Wantage/Grove;

    • 300 houses within Oxford in addition to the 6,700 houses already identified, on the basis of the possible release of some safeguarded land;

    • 600 houses to be divided equally between South Oxfordshire, the Vale of White Horse and West Oxfordshire to allow some flexibility to plan for more local housing needs within the sub-region;

with a distribution in the rest of the county area sufficient to allow for limited development to meet local needs, and organic growth at Banbury.

The Cabinet also requested SEERA to amend the sub-regional boundary to include RAF Benson within Central Oxfordshire and to amend the boundary of the Western Corridor and Blackwater Valley sub-region to exclude the small part of South Oxfordshire from that sub-region.

Council will recall that the advice was to be tendered to SEERA by 9 December with a view to its incorporation into the South East Plan that SEERA are expected to agree in February 2006 and submit to the Government in March. Because of this tight timescale the Cabinet was of the opinion that the delay which would to be caused by the call in process would seriously prejudice the Council’s or the public’s interests; and in accordance with Scrutiny Procedure Rule (17)(a), subject to the concurrence of the Chairman of the Council (which was sought and given), the call-in procedure should not apply.

  1. Oxfordshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework: Statement of Community Involvement

(Cabinet, 20 December 2005)

The Cabinet has considered the responses to consultation on a draft Statement of Community Involvement, which is one of those strategic documents that are required by Regulations to be approved by the full Council prior to submission to the Secretary of State. The consultation showed a wide measure of general support for the document both from local council and community representatives and those representing the industry. There were a number of detailed comments and suggestions. Groups and organisations want, in particular, to make sure that they will be consulted and will have the opportunity for early involvement in the process. A number of respondents also emphasise the need to ensure feedback to show how consultations have influenced the preparation of the local development documents.

The Statement of Community Involvement (Annex 2) (download as .doc file), updated in the light of the consultation responses is circulated with the Council Agenda, together with a schedule summarising the representations received and recommended County Council responses (Annex 3) (download as .doc file), which will form the basis of part of the submission to the Secretary of State.

The Cabinet had before it comments made on behalf of the Environment & Economy Scrutiny Committee, which endorsed the recommendations now set out below subject to asking officers to issue a note alongside the publication of the next development document, drawing local members’ attention to the detailed consultation list of individuals, groups, organisations and bodies who wish to be involved and consulted at particular stages in the preparation of local development documents. It is confirmed that this will be done.

The Cabinet RECOMMENDS Council to:

          1. endorse the responses to the representations on the consultation draft Oxfordshire Statement of Community Involvement;

          2. approve the Oxfordshire Statement of Community Involvement and authorise the Head of Sustainable Development, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Sustainable Development, to finalise the Statement for submission to the Secretary of State; and

          3. authorise the Head of Sustainable Development, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Sustainable Development, to prepare a pre-submission consultation statement and representations statement (to include the responses referred to in (a) above) for submission to the Secretary of State as required by the Regulations.

  1. Regional Planning Guidance

    2. (Cabinet, 2 November 2005)

    The Cabinet considered a consultation on proposed changes to the Waste and Minerals sections of Regional Planning Guidance for the South East (RPG9). Overall, the proposed changes provided an improved set of regional waste and minerals policies that should help the development of more detailed policies and proposals at county level.

    The Cabinet generally welcomed the proposed changes. However, it has raised a strong objection to the proposed sand and gravel apportionment for Oxfordshire on the grounds that the it is based on a flawed methodology and places an unfair and unacceptable burden on the County. There were also concerns about the potential undermining of the policy objective to encourage sustainable construction practices.

    These and other detailed comments have been submitted to the Government Office for the South East.

    Cabinet Member: Schools Improvement

  2. Secondary Education Provision in the Banbury Area

    3. (Cabinet, 6 December 2005)

    The Cabinet has considered proposals to create an 11–19 Academy on the campus of Drayton School, Banbury. The Executive in April 2004 had considered a report which contained a number of possible options for meeting secondary education needs in the Banbury area and in the light of subsequent work the creation of the Academy is now considered to be the only viable option. The Cabinet decided to proceed with the proposal and authorised officers, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Schools Improvement, to take such further actions as are necessary to give effect to the creation of the Academy.

    The Cabinet also requested officers ensure that local members, staff in Drayton School, the local community and neighbouring schools are kept fully informed of the nature and progress of the proposals and to continue to explore all options for securing funding for necessary capital improvements at Banbury School.

  3. Matthew Arnold School

    4. (Cabinet, 6 December 2005)

    The Cabinet has considered a proposal by the governors of Matthew Arnold School for expansion of the school under the government initiative to allow schools to bring forward such proposals if they are 'successful and popular'. The proposals would increase the number of pupils admitted each year by 27. If approved the DfES would supply an additional £500,000 capital funding towards the project. The balance of approximately £1.4 million would need to be found from the existing capital programme.

    The Cabinet considers the governors’ proposal in terms of the degree to which Matthew Arnold can be judged successful and popular on the basis of relative levels of over-subscription and academic results – particularly how far the School has achieved "added value" compared with other schools in the area. Consultation undertaken by the School resulted in little objection to expansion per se but did show concerns about the fact that the expansion would draw capital resources from other schools prioritised by the County Council.

    The Cabinet concluded that the case had not necessarily been made for expansion of the school and decided to maintain a neutral stance on the proposal. If the governors decide to proceed, the proposal will go forward to the School Organisation Committee and if necessary to the Schools Adjudicator appointed by the Secretary of State.

  4. Delegation of Statementing Budget

    5. (Cabinet, 20 December 2005)

    The Cabinet has considered the outcome of consultation on a proposal to delegate a significant amount of the Special Educational Needs statementing budget to schools. On the basis of the results of consultation process the Cabinet has agreed to introduce full delegation for secondary schools and, for primary schools, funding will be delegated equivalent to the first 15 hours of provision. This will be phased over two years, in line with the new two-year budget plans for schools. A full review of the scheme will then take place in time for any changes to be made for April 2008.

    Exceptional arrangements are to be made for the primary schools with the smallest whole school budgets. For these schools the authority will continue to fund individual pupils from centrally retained funds where they require more than 5 hours of support per week. The scope for extending delegation in those schools is however to be investigated further.

  5. Home to School and College Transport

    6. (Cabinet, 20 December 2005)

    The Cabinet has considered a report on home to school and college transport which set out the reasons for currently projected overspend and identified the management actions that had already been taken over the last year to address some of the budget pressures, including a rise in concessionary fares. The report also identified options where some of the non-statutory elements of the transport policy might result in savings.

    The most radical action for the medium and long term would be to end transport to faith schools and from Caversham to Chiltern Edge for non Oxfordshire residents. These measures would result in eventual savings of some £490,000 (about 3.4% of current expenditure). However, any such change would require consultation before any firm decision.

    The Cabinet has asked officers to consult on a revised transport policy, including the phased ending of transport to faith schools and/or continuing to provide transport to faith schools but charging for seats on the same terms as those set out in the concessionary scheme; the phased ending of free travel for non-Oxfordshire residents to Chiltern Edge School; the introduction of charging for post 16 SEN students; and using free school meals and maximum working tax credit as the reasons for exemptions to the concessionary charge for transport.

  6. Refurbishment of Jointly Used Sports Centres in Cherwell District

    7. (Cabinet, 20 December 2005)

    The Cabinet has agreed a capital contribution of up to £1,493,250 (plus interest for payments made in later year(s)) towards the cost of major refurbishment proposals by Cherwell District Council at the Bicester & Ploughley, Kidlington & Gosford and Spiceball Sports Centres. The contribution, which would be funded from within existing education capital resources, is in respect of the increased educational benefit from the rebuilt and improved Spiceball pools, traffic management works at Bicester and the replacement of the sports hall and major work to the swimming pool at Kidlington, part of which is owned by the County Council.

    Cabinet Member: Children, Young People & Families

  7. Youth Green Paper: "Youth Matters"

    8. (Cabinet, 2 November 2005)

    The Cabinet has agreed a detailed response to the Youth Green Paper "Youth Matters", which set out the government’s vision for the organisation and delivery of services for young people. The response welcomes the greater coherence proposed by Youth Matters and the enhanced leadership role and accountability it proposes for local authorities. Key tasks for the Council will be to establish effective commissioning arrangements for young people’s services and to achieve an integrated Youth Support Service capable of addressing both the universal needs of all young people in communities and educational institutions and the more complex needs of those young people who need targeted support.

    The County Council is quite well prepared for the challenges of implementing the proposals in the Green Paper. It has a very good Youth Service and effective arrangements are in place for supporting young people in relation to the five key outcomes in the "Every Child Matters" framework. Resource planning for the new responsibilities set out in the Green Paper will need close attention over the coming two or three years.

    Cabinet Member: Community Safety

  8. Civil Contingencies Act 2004 - Emergency Planning Duties

    9. (Cabinet, 20 December 2005)

    The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 gives the County Council and the District Councils statutory emergency planning duties, including planning, training and exercising; risk assessment and risk mitigation; emergency response and recovery; and business continuity management. Much of this is already in hand as best practice within this authority but there are areas requiring additional work such as business continuity management within the County Council and the community. Action plans are being developed and progressed to meet these needs.

    The Cabinet has approved the terms of an agreement with the District Councils and incorporated protocols to codify partnership working arrangements on these issues.

  9. Oxfordshire Fire Cover Review

    10. (Cabinet, 15 November 2005)

    The Cabinet has considered the outcome of a review of fire cover in the Carterton area. In the light of the review findings the Cabinet agreed that a fire station should not be provided in Carterton in the medium term subject to the continued viability of Burford and Bampton Fire Stations and the outcomes of future fire cover reviews. Meanwhile a pro-active community fire safety campaign has been directed at Carterton, targeted initially at high risk groups such as lone pensioners and single parent families.

    The Cabinet has also endorsed proposals for a countywide review which will inform the development of a fifteen year strategy to determine the level and spread of fire & rescue resources across the county.

    Cabinet Member: Social & Community Services

  10. Learning Disability Service Partnership

    11. (Cabinet, 6 December 2005)

    The Cabinet has approved the framework for the drawing up of a S.31 Health Act 1999 Partnership Agreement for Lead Commissioning, Lead Funds and a Pooled Budget in respect of Adult Learning Disability Services. Experience shows that the County Council and the NHS acting together can exercise much better market management in the independent sector, and through the single purchasing arrangements can achieve greater efficiency for purchasers and providers. The Cabinet has asked officers to report back to the Cabinet on the outcome of work on the Partnership Agreement with a view to its coming into effect in April 2006.

    Cabinet Member: Leader of the Council

  11. Partnership Working Guidelines

(Cabinet, 15 November 2005)

The Cabinet has approved Partnership Working Guidelines, which had been developed following wide consultation across the Council. The guidelines had been developed by drawing on best practice from the Audit Commission and other local authorities, in order to provide clear guidance and to help to ensure consistency in how partnership working is approached in the Council.

All strategic and service level partnerships will now need to be identified. In time, service level partnerships will also need to ensure that they are able to demonstrate conformity with the guidance.

KEITH R MITCHELL
Leader of the Council

Return to TOP