Agenda item

Hospital Trust (OUHT), are proposing to upgrade their heating and hot water systems at the John Radcliffe and Churchill Hospitals. This innovative scheme seeks to transfer heating via new pipelines along the public highway connecting the two sites.

Upon these works being made public, significant concern has been raised by both the Local County and City Councillors, and residents, about a number of issues.  This report addresses the County Council role in allowing this work to commence.

This report sets out the powers available to and the responsibilities of the County Council, the chronology of events and suggests some changes to improve those processes.

The Scrutiny Committee is RECOMMENDED to:

(a)            Note the report and its conclusions;

(b)            Recommend to the Director of Environment and Economy in conjunction with the Cabinet Member with responsibility for highways to action the proposed recommendations for changes to process in this report.

Hospital Trust (OUHT), are proposing to upgrade their heating and hot water systems at the John Radcliffe and Churchill Hospitals. This innovative scheme seeks to transfer heating via new pipelines along the public highway connecting the two sites.

Upon these works being made public, significant concern has been raised by both the Local County and City Councillors, and residents, about a number of issues.  The Committee had before them a report that addressed the County Council role in allowing this work to commence. In particular rhe report set out the powers available to and the responsibilities of the County Council, the chronology of events and suggested some changes to improve those processes.

Patrick Coulter, Chair of Headington Action and Chair of Highfield Residents Association expressed his concerns with the process so far and the impact on the Council’s reputation. He highlighted weaknesses he saw in the role of the County Council as lead co-ordinator and called for improvements to joint working, guidance and training. Responding to a question from a member Mr Coulter stated that he had first met with City Council officers in October but on contacting the Trust he had been told only that a press release would be available in November.

Mr Dickinson, a resident of Stapleton Road, one of the roads directly affected as a result of the Council's decisions outlined his concerns. Referring to the report he acknowledged that there had been engagement up to 28 October 2015 but that there had been defects in the process thereafter. He argued that no licence should have been granted when essential information was not provided and no application was available.

District Councillor Ruth Wilkinson, speaking as a Headington councillor highlighted that in view of the congestion problem in the area at peak period effective traffic management was key. She asked that lessons be learnt to prevent a repeat of the situation and outlined suggestions for improvement, suggesting that the recommendations in the report were insufficient.

Councillor Roz Smith, speaking as a local councillor stressed that for her the issue was all about communication. The work was a big project for the Trust and she had learnt about it in a meeting on another matter. She referred to the disruption caused to residents and visitors to the hospital by S50 Notices and argued that given the numbers affected it had been a key decision. She welcomed that a liaison group had now been set up but felt that problems could have been avoided if better procedures had been in place. She suggested that Audit & Governance Committee be requested to look at S50 Notice procedures.

Councillor Phillips, speaking as a local councillor thanked officers for the report and the explanation it contained. She queried how it could have happened without communication and regretted the loss of trust that it had caused. She suggested that no S50 notice be issued until local representatives (including local councillors) had been consulted in a meaningful way at the appropriate time and suggested that the length of road referred to as requiring notification be changed to 100m from 300m and the wording be changed so that it is and/or a full road closure. In response to a question she commented that it would be impractical to put a time limit on road closures as it could not be known what would be found when the digging started.

Mark Neil, Interim Head of Estates and Mark Mansfield, Director for Finance, OUHT detailed the background and context to the application and decision. They outlined the reasons behind the project and the business process that it had followed. They advised that Vital Energy had been procured as a partner and referred to their respective roles within the project. They regretted that the process of consultation had not taken place as it should and stated that they had apologised on a number of occasions. They accepted that there were lessons to be learnt. Mike Cook, Vital Energi added that Aviva owned the pipeline but that they were carrying out the works. This was the reason Aviva were named on the documents. Responding to questions from members, Mike Cook explained the current position on planning applications for the project.

Sue Scane, Director for Environment & Economy, Steve Smith, Network & Asset Management Team and Nick Graham attended to present the report. Steve Smith acknowledged that the matter could have been handled better with regard to communication but that fundamentally they had fulfilled their role in the process. He explained that role in respect of S50 notices and stressed the exceptional nature of this project. Nick Graham confirmed the nature of the role of the County Council as a co-ordinator to ensure minimum disruption given a number of works to be undertaken. It was about scheduling. Referring to the suggestion made by Councillor Phillips on imposing a condition on the licence he believed that it would be open to challenge. However he recognised the importance of communications with local councillors and that officers should be engaging with them. He added that a protocol existed on member engagement. Responding to comments he confirmed that the decision had not been a key decision.

During further questioning and discussion the Performance Scrutiny Committee:

·         explored the reasons why the decision had been taken in the way it was and to the timescales set out in the report;

·         expressed concern over the definition of what constituted a key decision and whether it was right that decisions relating to a major project could be broken down into separate notices and thus not be considered as a key decision: the Committee recommended that Audit & Governance Committee request officers to review the definition and interpretation of key decisions;

·         stressed that in future officers must err on the side of informing councillors to avoid a similar situation; Sue Scane undertook to consider how local councillors could be informed of S50 notices in their area.

·         in noting that there was protocol on member engagement the Committee requested that the Audit & Governance Committee look at the effectiveness of the protocol generally.

The Performance & Scrutiny Committee AGREED to:

(a)          note the report and its conclusions;

(b)          recommend to the Director of Environment and Economy in conjunction with the Cabinet Member with responsibility for highways to action the proposed recommendations for changes to process in this report; and

(c)                request the Audit & Governance Committee to look at the effectiveness of the protocol on member engagement and to ask officers to include a review of key decisions in the next constitutional review.