Agenda item

Report by the Chief Policy Officer (CC10).

The report provides an update on the Oxfordshire-wide partnerships which are critical in progressing key countywide priorities, enabling partners to work across the themes of a thriving Oxfordshire, including economic growth, health and wellbeing, thriving communities, and support to the most vulnerable.

Each partnership report addresses the following points:

·          The current focus for the Partnership;

·          The personnel (Chairman and supporting staff) of the Partnership

·          The Partnership's governance arrangements;

·          The Partnership's key achievements in the last year;

·          The aims for the Partnership in the year ahead;

·          The key challenges for the Partnership and how these will be addressed going forward.

The most significant structural change to report since the 2015 update is that the Strategic Schools Partnership has established its terms of reference, working patterns, membership, and functions. The work of this partnership is included in this yearly update alongside an update from Oxfordshire Early Years Board.

Council is RECOMMENDED to note the report.

The Council had before it the Annual Partnerships Update report which set out some of the key activities over the past year on the Oxfordshire-wide partnerships in progressing key countywide priorities, enabling partners to work across the themes of a thriving Oxfordshire, including economic growth, health and wellbeing, thriving communities, and support to the most vulnerable.

Each partnership report addressed the following points: the current focus for the Partnership; the personnel (Chairman and supporting staff) of the Partnership; the Partnership's governance arrangements; the Partnership's key achievements in the last year; the aims for the Partnership in the year ahead; the key challenges for the Partnership and how those would be addressed going forward.

Councillor Liz Brighouse made a statement as Chairman of the Performance Committee who had considered the report at their meeting on 22 September 2016.

Councillor Waine moved and Councillor Patrick seconded that the recommendation set out on the face of the Agenda be adopted.  In moving the motion, the Chairman gave an undertaking that a detailed note would be taken of any questions raised about the partnership in order that they may be addressed.  The following points were raised in debate:

·           How does Stronger Communities feel about communities being weakened through the loss of their children's centres?

·           Concern was raised regarding the amount of duplication among partnerships especially when you add in all the others at district level not reporting here.

·           Members felt that partnership were not working well, swathes of decision making was removed from Councillors and officer support to these partnerships came at the expense of proper support to scrutiny and CAGs

·           The report contained a lot Good work, though there were silos, e.g. why hadn’t the Environment Partnership spoken to street lighting about solar; why wasn’t Health & Wellbeing Board engaged with highways on walking and cycling; ironic Early Years Board coincides with pulling back from universal services?

·           Councillors taken for granted, reports not clear about reporting period and proofreading issues in particular for Growth Board. Should Growth Board be discussing rail transport? Is OEP working with solar schools and addressing risk of Government imposing business rates on their solar panels? Safer Ox doesn't seem to reflect rate of burglaries in his division

·           As the accountable body for the LEP, OCC should be more informed, can Councillors get the agenda and minutes at least? (nb these are meant to be on the website but the updating is often poor).

·           LEP and Growth Board are too Oxford-centric and failing to address the housing challenge. Should push more economic growth out of the city where housing is more affordable. Also should consider environmental challenge.

·           European funding via the LEP, could the Leader promise he'll raise what happens after Brexit;

·            OEP doesn't sufficiently consider biodiversity issues;

·           OEP is really valuable (City Member) happy to work with DNS to discuss biodiversity;

·           Cooperation is valuable, HOSC and HWB do overlap but different membership / remit. Would welcome section in reports on how each partnership cooperates with other partnerships;

·           Lack of breakdown of how LEP money has been used. Note LEP appointing two new non-exec directors - what's the appointment process? Is the new Deputy PCC value for money? Should street pastors have a higher profile?

·           This report shows that we need a unitary to simplify the partnership landscape. Noting reports is a poor use of time;

·           We need to take a closer look at these as they are effectively quangos, and work out who holds them to account;

·           Growth board is a failure and anodyne report doesn't reflect that, performance and funding still issues;

·           Growth Board process has resulted in impossibly high SHMA targets. What is the timescale for SHMA refreshes? Can DNS commit that housing growth now agreed will deliver Lodge Hill funding?

·           Could use a more overarching consideration of the report to determine where there is duplication or conflict, especially given existence of other partnerships not reporting here. Pro-unitary as one part of the simplification process.

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

RESOLVED: (nem con) to note the report.