Agenda, decisions and minutes

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 1 November 2016 (CC1) and to receive information arising from them.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 1 November 2016 were approved and signed subject to the following amendments:

Remove Councillor Rooke from the list of those present;

Minute 71/16 – correct ‘Maggie’ to read ‘Maggie’s’;

Minute 75/16 – add in “members requested a report on the activities of the Oxfordshire Skills Board”.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Gearing, Langridge and Smith.

The Chairman reported as follows:

The Chairman reported that the Chairman’s Dinner had raised just over £2,000 for charity.  He thanked members for their generosity and support.

The Chairman reported that he had received a complimentary letter from the High Sheriff congratulating the Council and its staff on its delivery of diverse services particularly in relation to children.

Council observed a minute’s silence to honour the Memory of former County Councillor Queenie Hamilton and former County Councillor Dr Alan Bryden.

Members are asked to note that Councillor Hudspeth had given notice of the following changes to portfolio responsibilities Council Procedure Rules Part 4.2 Para 1.2.4, to take effect from Tuesday 8 November:

Cabinet Member for Children, Education and Families to be renamed as Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services with the main areas of responsibility being Statutory Lead Member for Children’s Services.

New Cabinet Post: Cabinet Member for Education with responsibility for Education - Councillor Harrod

To make any changes to the membership of the Cabinet, scrutiny and other committees on the nomination of political groups.

Members are asked to agree the following appointment:

Councillor Sandy Lovatt in place of Councillor Steve Harrod on the Performance Scrutiny Committee.

Members noted that Councillor Hudspeth had given notice of the following changes to portfolio responsibilities Council Procedure Rules Part 4.2 Para 1.2.4, to take effect from Tuesday 8 November:

Cabinet Member for Children, Education and Families to be renamed as Cabinet Member for Children and Family Services with the main areas of responsibility being Statutory Lead Member for Children’s Services.

New Cabinet Post: Cabinet Member for Education with responsibility for Education - Councillor Harrod

RESOLVED:  (nem con) to agree the following appointment:

Councillor Sandy Lovatt in place of Councillor Steve Harrod on the Performance Scrutiny Committee.

Council received the following Petition and Public Address:

Petition

A Petition of 400 signatures from Sutton Courtenay residents requesting that the County Council carry out Environmental and Cumulative impact assessments on all current and future planning applications to ensure that cumulative impact considerations are fully addressed by officers and the planning committee.

Public Address

Mr Larry Sanders spoke in support of Agenda Item 15 (Motion From Councillor Glynuis Phillips). He urged the Council to do everything in its power to protect the National Health Service.

Dr Ken Williamson spoke in support of Agenda Item 15 (Motion from Councillor Glynis Phillips).  He urged the Council to reject Oxfordshire’s Transformation Plan and to call on the Secretary of State for the funding to be resolved.  He stressed the need for a full public consultation on this matter.

17 Questions with notice were asked.  Details of where questions and answers and supplementary questions and answers (where asked) are set out in Annex 1 to the Minutes.

In relation to question 10 (Question from Councillor Gill Sanders to Councillor Lindsay-Gale), Councillor Lindsay-Gale gave an undertaking to keep Councillor Gill Sanders informed in relation to the outcome of any negotiations on this issue.

In relation to question 12 (Question from Councillor Tanner to Councillor Nimmo Smith), Councillor Nimmo Smith gave an undertaking that if required, he would, together with officers meet with the residents of Iffley Field and Isis in the new year.

Report by Chief Finance Officer and Chief Legal Officer (CC9)

The report recommends the Council to approve the full business case for the establishment of the Brunel Pension Partnership.

The Council is RECOMMENDED to approve the following resolution:

In its capacity as the Administering Authority for the Oxfordshire County Council Pension Fund, and having received and reviewed this report and the Business Case attached to it, the Council HEREBY RESOLVES to enter into investment pooling with respect to the Oxfordshire County Council Pension Fund. 

Such Resolution is made on and subject to the following terms and conditions:

·                THAT the Brunel Pension Partnership investment pool be developed, funded and implemented substantially in accordance with the terms and provisions described in the said Business Case, and more particularly that:  

·                a FCA regulated company to be named Brunel Pension Partnership Limited be established, and that the company be operated with all necessary and appropriate arrangements as to its ownership, structure, governance and services capability.

·                a new supervisory body comprising representatives of the Council and all other participants in the Brunel Pension Partnership be established to ensure oversight of the Council's investment and participation in the Brunel Pension Partnership.

·                THAT the Pensions Committee be authorised and granted delegated powers to undertake such tasks as it thinks appropriate to progress implementation of investment pooling, and to take such decisions and do all other things deemed necessary in order to promote the interests of the Council with respect to pooling, which without limitation shall include agreeing and authorising any documentation, contracts, terms of reference, financial expenditure or investment that may be required consequential upon the Council's participation in the Brunel Pension Partnership.

·                THAT the Chief Finance Officer and Chief Legal Officer be similarly authorised and granted delegated powers to undertake such tasks as they think appropriate to progress implementation of investment pooling, and to take such decisions and do all things deemed necessary in order to support the Pensions Committee and to promote the interests of the Council with respect to pooling, which without limitation shall include informing and advising the Pensions Committee on the continued viability and suitability of investment pooling in light of any developments, financial or otherwise, in the period up to the establishment of the Brunel Pension Partnership. 

·                THAT subject to the above,all such matters be carried out with the aim of achieving a target date for investment pooling of 1 April 2018, and otherwise subject to such intermediate steps and timescales as may be considered appropriate and necessary by the Pensions Committee.

The Council had before them a report (CC9) which, following the Government’s announcement in July 2015 budget statement that they intended to work with Local Government Pension Scheme administering authorities to ensure that they pool investments to significantly reduce costs, now presented a full business case for the establishment of the Brunel Pension Partnership.

The Chairman paid tribute to the Pension Fund Committee and Pension Team for their excellent work.

Councillor Lilly moved and Councillor Greene seconded that the recommendations as set out in the report and on the face of agenda be adopted.

Following debate, the motion was put to the vote and was carried by 56 votes to 0, with 2 abstentions.

RESOLVED: (by 56 votes to 0, with 2 abstentions) to approve the following resolution:

In its capacity as the Administering Authority for the Oxfordshire County Council Pension Fund, and having received and reviewed this report and the Business Case attached to it, the Council HEREBY RESOLVES to enter into investment pooling with respect to the Oxfordshire County Council Pension Fund. 

Such Resolution is made on and subject to the following terms and conditions:

·               THAT the Brunel Pension Partnership investment pool be developed, funded and implemented substantially in accordance with the terms and provisions described in the said Business Case, and more particularly that:  

·               a FCA regulated company to be named Brunel Pension Partnership Limited be established, and that the company be operated with all necessary and appropriate arrangements as to its ownership, structure, governance and services capability.

·               a new supervisory body comprising representatives of the Council and all other participants in the Brunel Pension Partnership be established to ensure oversight of the Council's investment and participation in the Brunel Pension Partnership.

·               THAT the Pensions Committee be authorised and granted delegated powers to undertake such tasks as it thinks appropriate to progress implementation of investment pooling, and to take such decisions and do all other things deemed necessary in order to promote the interests of the Council with respect to pooling, which without limitation shall include agreeing and authorising any documentation, contracts, terms of reference, financial expenditure or investment that may be required consequential upon the Council's participation in the Brunel Pension Partnership.

·               THAT the Chief Finance Officer and Chief Legal Officer be similarly authorised and granted delegated powers to undertake such tasks as they think appropriate to progress implementation of investment pooling, and to take such decisions and do all things deemed necessary in order to support the Pensions Committee and to promote the interests of the Council with respect to pooling, which without limitation shall include informing and advising the Pensions Committee on the continued viability and suitability of investment pooling in light of any developments, financial or otherwise, in the period up to the establishment of the Brunel Pension Partnership. 

·               THAT subject to the above,all such matters be carried out with the aim of achieving a target date for investment pooling of 1 April 2018, and otherwise subject to such intermediate steps and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 89/16

Report by the Chief Finance Officer (CC10).

The report sets out the proposals for appointing an external auditor to the Council for the 2018/19 accounts and beyond, as the current arrangements only cover up to and including 2017/18 audits.

The Audit and Governance Committee considered the proposals at its meeting on 9 November 2016 and supported the recommendation in the report, to accept the offer to "opt in" to the sector led option for the appointment of external auditors.

The Council is RECOMMENDED toaccept Public Sector Audit Appointments’ (PSAA) invitation to ‘opt in’ to the sector led option for the appointment of external auditors for five financial years commencing 1 April 2018.

The Council had before them a report (CC10) which set out the proposals for appointing an external auditor to the Council for the 2018/19 accounts and beyond, as the current arrangements had only covered up to and including 2017/18 audits.

The Audit & Governance Committee had considered the proposals at its meeting on 9 November 2016 and supported the recommendation in the report, to accept the offer to "opt in" to the sector led option for the appointment of external auditors.

RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Lovatt, seconded by Councillor Wilmshurst and carried nem con) to accept Public Sector Audit Appointments’ (PSAA) invitation to ‘opt in’ to the sector led option for the appointment of external auditors for five financial years commencing 1 April 2018.

Report by the County Director (CC11)

This report asks County Council to note progress made with the Senior Management Review and to approve the proposed recommendations including a new structure. County Council are asked to approve the re-designation of the post of County Director to Chief Executive. Views from County Council will be considered by Cabinet on the 20 December in advance of final decisions at that meeting. The report references associated work carried out on the unitary debate as well as transformation of services  and identifies potential savings to be gained from reductions in senior management posts.

The County Council is RECOMMENDED to:

(a)       note the progress made to date on the Senior Management Review;

(b)      endorse the Senior Management Review recommendations and proposed structure;

(c)       agree in principle that the post of County Director should be made permanent and re-designated Chief Executive;

(d)      notify the Proper Officer of the Council’s intention to appoint Peter Clark as the Council’s Chief Executive on a permanent basis with a view at its next meeting to:

·                receiving the outcome of the Proper Officer’s consultation with members of the Cabinet on this proposal in accordance with Part 8.4(4) of the Council’s Constitution;

·                determining whether to proceed with the appointment;

(e)          agree that pending those further decisions Peter Clark is appointed Interim Chief Executive.

The Council had before it a report (CC11) which outlined progress made with the Senior Management Review and sought approval for the proposed recommendations including the re-designation of the post of County Director to Chief Executive. Views from County Council will be considered by Cabinet on the 20 December in advance of final decisions at that meeting. The report references associated work carried out on the unitary debate as well as transformation of services and identified potential savings to be gained from reductions in senior management posts.

Councillor Hudspeth moved and Councillor Brighouse seconded that the recommendations as set out in the report and on the face of the Agenda be adopted.

Following debate, the motion was put to the vote and was carried by 55 votes to 0, with 3 abstentions.

RESOLVED: (55 votes to 0, with 3 abstentions) to:

(a)       note the progress made to date on the Senior Management Review;

(b)       endorse the Senior Management Review recommendations and proposed structure;

(c)       agree in principle that the post of County Director should be made permanent and re-designated Chief Executive;

(d)       notify the Proper Officer of the Council’s intention to appoint Peter Clark as the Council’s Chief Executive on a permanent basis with a view at its next meeting to:

·                receiving the outcome of the Proper Officer’s consultation with members of the Cabinet on this proposal in accordance with Part 8.4(4) of the Council’s Constitution;

·                determining whether to proceed with the appointment;

(e)          agree that pending those further decisions Peter Clark is appointed Interim Chief Executive.

Report by Chief Finance Officer (CC12).

The report sets out the Treasury Management activity undertaken in the first half of the financial year 2016/17 in compliance with the CIPFA Treasury Management Code of Practice.  The report includes Debt and Investment activity, Prudential Indicator monitoring and forecasts for interest receivable and payable for the financial year.

The Cabinet considered and endorsed the report at their Meeting on 22 November 2014.

Council is RECOMMENED to note the Council’s Mid-Term Treasury Management Review 2016/17.

Council had before it a report which set out the Treasury Management activity undertaken in the first half of the financial year 2016/17 in compliance with the CIPFA Treasury Management Code of Practice.  The report included Debt and Investment activity, Prudential Indicator monitoring and forecasts for interest receivable and payable for the financial year.

The Cabinet had considered and endorsed the report at their Meeting on 22 November 2014.

RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Stratford, seconded by Councillor Hudspeth and carried nem con) to note the Council’s Mid-Term Treasury Management Review 2016/17.

Report of the Cabinet Meeting held on 22 November 2016 (CC13).

The Council received the report of the Cabinet.

In relation to paragraph 5 (Oxford Workplace Parking Levy) (Question from Councillor Godden) Councillor Nimmo Smith gave an assurance that the impact of the Workplace Parking Levy on the suburbs, including Botley would be an integral part of the scheme.

In relation to paragraph 6 (Transition Fund for Community Initiatives for Open Access Children’s Services) (Question from Councillor Fooks) Councillor Stratford gave an undertaking to hold a further meeting should there be any money left over.

“Council notes the recent media coverage and casework of Councillor’s concerning the pressures on parking at the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford.

Council finds the present situation unsatisfactory and is dismayed at the knock-on effect this is having on those who need to visit the John Radcliffe. Council further notes that these pressures have already been, and will be further exacerbated by the centralisation of services from local hospitals, such as maternity services from the Horton Hospital in Banbury to the John Radcliffe. As the transport authority, it is the wish of Oxfordshire County Council that no further services are centralised from any local hospitals across the county until such time as suitable measures have been put in place to mitigate the distressing parking circumstances.

Council further calls on the Health Overview Scrutiny Committee and the Clinical Commissioning Group to take this into account in their deliberations and outcomes.”

With the consent of Council, Councillor Fatemian moved and Councillor Mallon seconded the following motion as amended by Councillor Fatemian and Councillor Smith below in bold italics/strikethrough:

“Council notes the recent media coverage and casework of Councillor’s concerning the pressures on parking at the John Radcliffe Principal Hospitals in Oxford.

Council finds the present situation unsatisfactory and is dismayed at the knock-on effect this is having on those who need to visit the John Radcliffe principal hospitals. Council further notes that these pressures have already been, and will be further exacerbated by the centralisation of services from local hospitals, such as maternity services from the Horton Hospital in Banbury to the John Radcliffe.  As the transport authority, it is the wish of Oxfordshire County Council that no further services are centralised from any local hospitals across the county until such time as suitable measures have been put in place to mitigate the distressing parking circumstances.

Council further calls on the Health Overview Scrutiny Committee and the Clinical Commissioning Group to take this into account in their deliberations and outcomes.”

Following debate, the motion as amended was put to the vote and was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED: (Unanimously)

“Council notes the recent media coverage and casework of Councillor’s concerning the pressures on parking at the Principal Hospitals in Oxford.

Council finds the present situation unsatisfactory and is dismayed at the knock-on effect this is having on those who need to visit the principal hospitals. Council further notes that these pressures have already been, and will be further exacerbated by the centralisation of services from local hospitals, such as maternity services from the Horton Hospital in Banbury to the John Radcliffe.  As the transport authority, it is the wish of Oxfordshire County Council that no further services are centralised from any local hospitals across the county.

Council further calls on the Health Overview Scrutiny Committee and the Clinical Commissioning Group to take this into account in their deliberations and outcomes.”

“Oxfordshire County Council is deeply concerned about the Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West (BOB) Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP). In particular we are concerned about the implications for Adult Social Care in the County, and for our infrastructure as Hospitals close and services are centralised. The Consultation with Oxfordshire has been derisory with the full plan not having been made public during the numerous meetings which have been held. This Council therefore asks the Leader to write to the Secretary of State for Health asking him:

(a)       How the area was decided?  BOB covers 14 Local Authorities with 5 having responsibility for Adult Social Care;

(b)        What consideration has been given to the implications of putting increased pressure on the fragile coalitions across this area as plans are delivered?

(c)       What evidence is there that this approach to delivering savings of the magnitude required will work? Particularly in relation to reduced activity and the need during transformation to run 2 systems. What will happen if it doesn't?

(d)        Why the NHS workforce, the public and politicians have not been involved in shaping the plan?

(e)       Given that local government, in relation to Adult Social Care has unrivalled insight into how services can be transformed. Why is the process so NHS centric?

Councillor Phillips moved and Councillor Heathcoat seconded the following motion:

“Oxfordshire County Council is deeply concerned about the Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West (BOB) Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP). In particular we are concerned about the implications for Adult Social Care in the County, and for our infrastructure as Hospitals close and services are centralised. The Consultation with Oxfordshire has been derisory with the full plan not having been made public during the numerous meetings which have been held. This Council therefore asks the Leader to write to the Secretary of State for Health asking him:

(a)       How the area was decided?  BOB covers 14 Local Authorities with 5 having responsibility for Adult Social Care;

(b)        What consideration has been given to the implications of putting increased pressure on the fragile coalitions across this area as plans are delivered?

(c)       What evidence is there that this approach to delivering savings of the magnitude required will work? Particularly in relation to reduced activity and the need during transformation to run 2 systems. What will happen if it doesn't?

(d)        Why the NHS workforce, the public and politicians have not been involved in shaping the plan?

(e)       Given that local government, in relation to Adult Social Care has unrivalled insight into how services can be transformed. Why is the process so NHS centric?”

Councillor Williams moved and Councillor Coates seconded the following amendment as shown below in bold italics and strikethrough:

“Oxfordshire County Council is deeply concerned about the Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West (BOB) Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP) a draft of which is now in circulation. In particular we are concerned about the implications for Adult Social Care in the County, and for our infrastructure as Hospitals close, and services are centralised and more cuts imposed. The Consultation with Oxfordshire has been derisory with the full plan not having been made public during the numerous meetings which have been held. This Council therefore asks the Leader to write to the Secretary of State for Health asking him:

A.How the BOB area was decided? BOB covers 14 Local Authorities with 5 having responsibility for Adult Social Care?

B. What consideration has been given to the implications of putting increased pressure on the fragile coalitions across this area?

C. What evidence is there that this approach to delivering savings of the magnitude required will work? Particularly in relation to reduced activity and the need during transformation to run 2 systems. What will happen if it doesn't?

D. Why the NHS workforce, the public and politicians have not been involved in shaping the plan?

E. Given that local government, in relation to Adult Social Care has unrivalled insight into how services can be transformed. Why is the process so NHS centric? when it directly effects local government Adult Social Care.

F. Why does the Plan (as envisaged in the published draft) include massive reductions in funding further privatisation and closures when these have proved so disastrous in past years.

Council  ...  view the full minutes text for item 95/16

"This Council believes that the decision of the Railway Minister to "shelve" the electrification of the Didcot Parkway to Oxford railway line, possibly until 2024, is short sighted.  It will amongst other things condemn Oxfordshire residents to use elderly and polluting diesels for most of the journeys between Oxford, Didcot, Reading and London or having to change at Didcot.  The Decision will make many of the rail objectives as set out in LTP4 difficult if not impossible to achieve.  New bespoke electric rolling stock currently being built could be left in store.  Council therefore resolves to ask the Leader of the Council to:-

(a)       Lobby by all possible means the Department for Transport in general and the Rail Minister in particular to get this decision reviewed;

(b)       approach the Growth board to see if there is funding which might be unlocked to advance the project to an earlier and more acceptable timetable."

Councillor Johnston moved and Councillor and Councillor Howson seconded the following motion:

"This Council believes that the decision of the Railway Minister to "shelve" the electrification of the Didcot Parkway to Oxford railway line, possibly until 2024, is short sighted.  It will amongst other things condemn Oxfordshire residents to use elderly and polluting diesels for most of the journeys between Oxford, Didcot, Reading and London or having to change at Didcot.  The Decision will make many of the rail objectives as set out in LTP4 difficult if not impossible to achieve.  New bespoke electric rolling stock currently being built could be left in store.  Council therefore resolves to ask the Leader of the Council to:-

(a)       Lobby by all possible means the Department for Transport in general and the Rail Minister in particular to get this decision reviewed;

(b)       approach the Growth board to see if there is funding which might be unlocked to advance the project to an earlier and more acceptable timetable."

Following debate, the motion was put to the vote and was carried nem con.

"This Council calls on the Leader of Oxfordshire County Council to give urgent consideration of the Bankside link roadand for this to be prioritised in the Banbury area strategy in LTP4.

. 

This road is needed urgently if the town is to avoid total gridlock on its roads. Oxfordshire is a net contributor to the National Economy and the North of the County continues to grow with the construction of 8000 houses and the construction of HS2. Therefore more businesses and more vehicles are inevitable. This issue has been talked about for over 30 years and it is now time for action." 

It being after 3.00 pm Motions 17, 18, 19 and 20 were considered dropped in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 15.1