Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Louise Chapman and Councillor Charles Shouler.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 17 July 2012 (CA3) and to receive information arising from them.

The minutes of the meeting held on 18 September 2012 were approved and signed subject to the following correction:

Councillor Janet Godden and Councillor Roz Smith added to the list of other Members present.

Any county councillor may, by giving notice to the Proper Officer by 9 am two working days before the meeting, ask a question on any matter in respect of the Cabinet’s delegated powers.

The number of questions which may be asked by any councillor at any one meeting is limited to two (or one question with notice and a supplementary question at the meeting) and the time for questions will be limited to 30 minutes in total. As with questions at Council, any questions which remain unanswered at the end of this item will receive a written response.

Questions submitted prior to the agenda being despatched are shown below and will be the subject of a response from the appropriate Cabinet Member or such other councillor or officer as is determined by the Cabinet Member, and shall not be the subject of further debate at this meeting. Questions received after the despatch of the agenda, but before the deadline, will be shown on the Schedule of Addenda circulated at the meeting, together with any written response which is available at that time.

Councillor Alan Armitage had given notice of the following question to Councillor Rodney Rose:

“Why were the local councillors not informed at the right time of the demise RH Transport and the effects on the local bus services for their divisions?”

Councillor Rose replied:

“County council staff briefed councillors and made sure all updates on the hard work undertaken to find new bus operators for RH Routes were emailed to county councillors throughout Thursday, 4 October and Friday, 5 October. The website was updated promptly at each important juncture and the media linked in with the council as part of a managed public information exercise – both inside and outside of normal working hours. The initial suggestion that RH Transport were facing problems only came to the attention of officers during the course of Wednesday, 3 October.”

Supplementary: Councillor Armitage asked whether Councillor Rose accepted that the answer was not correct as key members including the Opposition Leader had not been informed for some time and that a review would allow lessons to be learnt. Councillor Rose replied that that was not his understanding. Huw Jones had phoned members personally all evening although Councillor Rose accepted that the order may not have been as some would have wished. Cabinet Members commended the work undertaken by Huw Jones and his Team in difficult circumstances.

Councillor Roz Smith had given notice of the following question to Councillor Charles Shouler

“Will the failure of RH Transport end up costing the council more for the services provided?”

In Councillor Shouler’s absence the Leader replied:

“The cost to the Council is likely to be more than £400,000 although absolute final costs are still to be settled.”

Supplementary: Councillor Hannaby asked whether monitoring arrangements would be changed in the light of the failure of RH Transport. The Leader replied that all contracts went through checks and due diligence. The Council supported the contract as much as possible. On Friday officers ensured that children got to school and he passed his personal compliments to everyone involved.

Councillor Jenny Hannaby had given notice of the following question to Councillor Arash Fatemian

“Would he agree that putting up the charges for Day Centres, some as high as 700%, might lead to the demise of our centres so vital for the health and wellbeing of elderly residents?”

Councillor Fatemian replied:

“Increasing charges is a difficult issue but we are committed to finding a way to continue providing these services and it is important to note that these charges will only apply to people who do not meet the criteria to receive services under FACS (Fair Access to Care). Those in greatest need and those who cannot afford to pay will continue to have their care funded by the council.

As you say the proposed changes do appear to be a high increase and that is mainly due to the fact that charges have not been reviewed or increased to date. The current charge of £4.81 in the seven social and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 108/12

The following requests to address the meeting had been agreed:

Item 6 – Councillor Jenny Hannaby, Shadow Cabinet Member for Adult Services

Councillor Jim Couchman, Chairman of Adult Services scrutiny Committee (at the invitation of the Chairman)

Also attending: Sir Jonathan Michael and Andrew Steven from OUHT and Ian Busby and Mary Keenan from OCCG.

Item 7 – Councillor Roz Smith, Shadow Cabinet Member for Finance

Item 8 – Councillor Alan Armitage, Opposition Deputy Leader

Cllr Anne Purse, Local Councillor for Wheatley

Cllr Roz Smith, Local Councillor for Barton & Churchill

Cllr Liz Brighouse, Local Councillor for Barton & Churchill

Item 9 – Councillor Anne Purse, Shadow Cabinet Member for Growth & Infrastructure

Item 10 – Councillor Alan Armitage, Opposition Deputy Leader

Councillor Purse speaking as Shadow Cabinet Member for Growth & Infrastructure on Item 9, OCC Response to the Consultation on the Cherwell Local Plan was pleased to see development in places like Bicester. Her only concern was the increased incidents of flooding in places such as Otmoor. A village suffered from sewage flooding when there was a lot of rain. She asked that the Cabinet Member take note of the problem and ask that effective measures be taken to avoid it.

Cabinet Member: Adult Services

Forward Plan Ref: 2012/102

Contact: John Jackson, Director for Social & Community Services Tel: (01865)323574

Report by Director for Social & Community Services and Director of Public Health(CA6).

Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust (OUHT) was formed in November 2011 from the Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre and the Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust. 

OUHT is currently applying to become a Foundation Trust.  Foundation Trusts differ from other NHS Trusts in that they have a membership drawn from communities served by the Trust and the staff that work for it.  The membership elects a Council of Governors which is involved by the Trust’s Board of Directors in setting the future direction for the Trust.  Foundation Trusts have the freedom to respond to local needs, and through their public and staff membership they are able to reflect the concerns and wishes of their local population.  The government has said that all NHS Trusts must become Foundation Trusts by 2014.

The purpose of this report is to set out the possible issues relevant to the application so that the Cabinet can express a view to both the Board of OUHT and also the Strategic Health Authority.  This paper reflects discussions with both the Oxfordshire Clinical Commissioning Group and the OUHT.

The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to support the application of Oxford University Hospitals Trust to become a Foundation Trust on the basis that it is committed to the following principles:

(a)               Commitment to the highest standards of medical and nursing services for both secondary and tertiary care.  This includes ensuring that frail older people are treated with dignity and respect in accordance with the standards set by the Commission on Dignity in Care for Older People.

(b)              Continued and strengthened commitment to working in partnership with the rest of the NHS, local government and other partners to deliver the most effective and efficient ways of meeting the care needs of the people of Oxfordshire.

(c)               Actively supporting the move to providing more care within the community rather than in a hospital setting as part of a broader commitment to the local delivery of services.

(d)              Actively supporting developments which prevent people from needing care or limiting the extent to which they might need care.

(e)              Commitment to the continued existence of the Horton hospital providing district general hospital services to the people of north Oxfordshire.

Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust (OUHT) was formed in November 2011 from the Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre and the Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust. 

OUHT is currently applying to become a Foundation Trust.  Foundation Trusts differ from other NHS Trusts in that they have a membership drawn from communities served by the Trust and the staff that work for it.  The membership elects a Council of Governors which is involved by the Trust’s Board of Directors in setting the future direction for the Trust.  Foundation Trusts have the freedom to respond to local needs, and through their public and staff membership they are able to reflect the concerns and wishes of their local population.  The government has said that all NHS Trusts must become Foundation Trusts by 2014.

Cabinet considered a report that set out the possible issues relevant to the application by Oxford University Hospital Trust (OUHT) to become a Foundation Trust so that the Cabinet could express a view to both the Board of OUHT and also the Strategic Health Authority.  The paper reflected discussions with both the Oxfordshire Clinical Commissioning Group (OCCG) and the OUHT.

Councillor Jenny Hannaby, Shadow Cabinet Member for Adult Services commended the full discussion held at the Joint Health Overview & Scrutiny Committee meeting a note of which was before Cabinet. Her main concern was that the focus on specialist services should not be to the detriment of more mundane general care including for the elderly and she gave an example of cataract operations. Communication was also a worry and she gave an example relating to midwifery services generally and the service in Wantage specifically where she had received conflicting information.

Councillor Jim Couchman, Chairman of Adult Services Scrutiny Committee, advised that he had attended one of the consultation meetings and had also been at the Joint Health Overview & Scrutiny Committee meeting. He sought clarity and assurances that the basic services would remain a principal role of the Foundation Trust. He also sought assurances that the OUHT would meet the financial tests for Foundation Trust status and would not be undermined by the existing PFI deals. He further hoped that there was a robust future for The Horton Hospital and that it would continue to improve.

Sir Jonathan Michael and Andrew Steven from OUHT and Ian Busby and Mary Keenan from OCCG were invited to the table.

John Jackson, Director for Social & Community Services in introducing the report explained the national context for the application, and highlighted the factors that needed to be taken into account to build a successful Foundation Trust in the eyes of the people of Oxfordshire. He noted that Sir Jonathan Mitchell had committed the Trust to the successful delivery of these issues and further noted the useful discussion that had been held with OCCG.

Issues highlighted included the concern mentioned above that specialist work receives greater attention than more routine District General Hospital work which more closely affects the people of Oxfordshire; the importance of maintaining the highest  ...  view the full minutes text for item 110/12

Cabinet Member: Finance

Forward Plan Ref: 2012/077

Contact: Kathy Wilcox, Principal Financial Manager Tel: (01865) 323981

Report by Assistant Chief Executive & Chief Finance Officer (CA7).

This report focuses on the delivery of the Directorate Business Strategies which were agreed as part of the Service and Resource Planning Process for 2012/13 – 2016/17.  Parts 1 and 2 include projections for revenue, reserves and balances as at the end of August 2012.   The Capital monitoring is included at Part 3.

The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to:

a)                 note the report;

b)                approve the virement requests set out in Annex 2a;

c)                 note the updated Treasury Management lending list at Annex 7; and

d)                 approve the updated Capital Programme at Annex 9 and the associated changes to the programme in Annex 8c.

Cabinet considered a report that focussed on the delivery of the Directorate Business Strategies which were agreed as part of the Service and Resource Planning Process for 2012/13 – 2016/17.  Parts 1 and 2 included projections for revenue, reserves and balances as at the end of August 2012. The Capital monitoring was included at Part 3.

Councillor Roz Smith, Shadow Cabinet Member for Finance expressed concerns over the PCT pooled budget overspend. She also highlighted underspends in education and early intervention and highways and emphasised concerns previously expressed about the growing reserves. Referring to the savings for Thornhill Park & Ride she asked that some of the savings be used to alleviate parking problems in the area, particularly to reduce inconsiderate parking.

The Leader in moving the recommendations commented that the physical disability budget would be overspent. He defended the reserves and balances and indicated that that the £20m efficiency reserve would reduce.

Councillor Heathcoat referred to paragraph 10 of the report which referred to the increase in firefighters pay. She noted that the Council had no control over that figure which was decided by the NJC and that in line with a number of other Councils she had written to the Local Government Association querying it.

RESOLVED:                        to:

(a)                     note the report;

(b)                     approve the virement requests set out in Annex 2a;

(c)                     note the updated Treasury Management lending list at Annex 7; and

(d)                   approve the updated Capital Programme at Annex 9 and the associated changes to the programme in Annex 8c.

Cabinet Member: Transport

Forward Plan Ref: 2011/201

Contact: Steve Smith, Highways & Transport Service Manager Tel: (01865) 810435

Report by Director for Environment, Economy & Customer Services (CA8).

A requirement to fund an identified revenue gap of £150,000 a year has been established as set out in the Environment & Economy Business Strategy 2011-15. A system of charging for long stay parking at Thornhill and Water Eaton sites has been proposed to achieve at least this.

This report summarises the public consultation on the advertised Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) for charging; the outcome of a customer survey via citizen panel; and recommends to Cabinet members a proposed level of charging.

Cabinet is recommended to:

(a)               approve the making of the Oxfordshire County Council (Park and Ride Parking Places - Thornhill and Water Eaton) Order 201* as advertised

(b)               confirm the timing of the introduction of charges as identified in paragraph 9; and

(c)               instruct officers to undertake a review between 6 – 12 months of commencement of charging.

Cabinet considered a report that detailed a requirement to fund an identified revenue gap of £150,000 a year as set out in the Environment & Economy Business Strategy 2011-15 and proposing a system of charging for long stay parking at Thornhill and Water Eaton sites to achieve at least this.

The report summarised the public consultation on the advertised Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) for charging; the outcome of a customer survey via citizen panel; and recommends to Cabinet members a proposed level of charging.

Councillor Alan Armitage, Opposition Deputy Leader expressed the Liberal Democrat Group’s support for charging every user of the Thornhill Park & Ride. In the past they had supported free use of all 5 Park & Ride sites but in the current financial squeeze this was no longer appropriate or affordable. He questioned why the decision was not being taken to go ahead with charging all users and referred to the result of the consultation where the majority agreed it was reasonable to charge for parking and that a charge in excess of £5 was reasonable. He asked that in view of the current and new pressures on budgets the opportunity be taken to consider charging all vehicles to use the county-owned park & rides in Oxford.

Councillor Anne Purse, speaking as a local Councillor, supported the introduction of a charge but expressed concerns over the proposed hours of charging and the system of charging. She believed that a lot of people using it for the daily commute to London would come home earlier to avoid the charge and work from home. She supported a review after 6 months but asked that the situation be closely monitored in any case.  She also queried whether the fine was sufficient to be a deterrent. She referred to the none Park & Ride use being made of the site by employees of local firms and queried whether companies that used buses to collect employees from the Park & ride site should also be charged.

Councillor Roz Smith, speaking as a local Councillor welcomed the increase in spaces and the changes to the pick up and drop off points. She referred to the first paragraph of the report and the prime purpose to reduce congestion and yet there was no mitigation to the effects of inconsiderate drivers. She commented that the report did not refer to disabled blue badge holders and key workers (for example at the hospital) and that she would have liked to have seen a recommendation addressing their needs. The Chairman replied that there were procedures in place at the hospital for key workers to be given permits to park at the hospital when required.

Councillor Liz Brighouse welcomed the expansion and charging being put in place. She would like to see the proposals go much further and in particular had issues with the likely displacement parking. The relationship of the site with Heathrow needed to be more clearly looked at and there were issues about the carbon footprint. She hoped that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 112/12

Cabinet Member: Growth & Infrastructure

Forward Plan Ref: 2012/112

Contact: Daniel Round, Strategic Policy Manager Tel: (01865) 815623

Report by Director for Environment, Economy & Customer Services (CA9).

Cherwell District Council has published the Cherwell Local Plan Proposed Submission Draft for consultation ahead of its submission to Government towards the end of the year.  A public examination is expected to follow in 2013, with the Plan adopted by March 2014. 

The Draft Local Plan will shape development in Cherwell for the period to 2031.  Growth is focused primarily at Bicester and to a lesser extent at Banbury, with more limited growth at Kidlington and in the larger villages.

This report and its annexes sets out the County Council’s response to the consultation and highlights the key issues for this authority over the next 20 years in Cherwell.

The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to inform Cherwell District Council that:

(a)              Oxfordshire County Council believes the Draft Local Plan is broadly sound, subject to our representations in Annex 3 being addressed;

(b)              In principle, Oxfordshire County Council supports the strategic allocated development sites that have been identified in the Draft Local Plan;

(c)               Oxfordshire County Council supports the proposed Green Belt review at Langford Lane/Oxford Airport but requests that this is expanded to incorporate the land in the vicinity of Begbroke Science Park to be considered for key sector employment growth; and

(d)              Oxfordshire County Council requests that the detailed officer comments as outlined in Annex 4 are taken into account before the Plan is submitted to Government.

The Director for Environment, Economy & Customer Services undertook to include the comment on primary school places to be found under the heading Banbury on page 4 Appendix 4 in the section on Villages on that same page.

Cabinet considered a report advising that Cherwell District Council had published the Cherwell Local Plan Proposed Submission Draft for consultation ahead of its submission to Government towards the end of the year.  A public examination was expected to follow in 2013, with the Plan adopted by March 2014. 

The report and its annexes set out the County Council’s response to the consultation and highlighted the key issues for this authority over the next 20 years in Cherwell.

Councillor Hilary Hibbert-Biles introduced the contents of the report emphasising her support for the review of Green Belt at Begbrooke. She thanked Daniel Round for all his efforts and her views were echoed by Cabinet Members. Councillor Heathcoat added her thanks to the Cabinet Member.

Councillor Mallon expressed the view that on page 113 and elsewhere when talking about public transport we should add the words where appropriate

Responding to a further comment from Councillor Mallon The Director for Environment & Economy undertook to include the comment on primary school places to be found under the heading Banbury on page 4 Appendix 4 in the section on Villages on that same page.

Responding to a query from Councillor Carter Daniel Round outlined the involvement of the Town Councils, advising that Bicester were slightly more advanced in the process than Banbury but that they had both bought in to the master planning process and were broadly content at this stage.

RESOLVED:                        to inform Cherwell District Council that:

(a)               Oxfordshire County Council believes the Draft Local Plan is broadly sound, subject to our representations in Annex 3 being addressed;

(b)               In principle, Oxfordshire County Council supports the strategic allocated development sites that have been identified in the Draft Local Plan;

(c)               Oxfordshire County Council supports the proposed Green Belt review at Langford Lane/Oxford Airport but requests that this is expanded to incorporate the land in the vicinity of Begbroke Science Park to be considered for key sector employment growth; and

(d)               Oxfordshire County Council requests that the detailed officer comments as outlined in Annex 4 are taken into account before the Plan is submitted to Government

Cabinet Member: Deputy Leader

Forward Plan Ref: 2012/067

Contact: Alexandra Bailey, Senior Performance & Improvement Manager Tel: (01865) 816384

Report by County Council Management Team (CA10).

Quarterly performance monitoring report against the Corporate Plan priorities - Quarter 1

The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to note the report.

Cabinet considered the quarterly performance monitoring report against the Corporate Plan priorities for Quarter 1, 2012/13.

Councillor Alan Armitage, Deputy Opposition Leader, expressed his dissatisfaction with the report, highlighting the lack of a proper risk management report and suggesting that if it were too sensitive to be considered in public then it should not be referred to in the Forward Plan. He suggested that the wording of the report was not clear and designed to confuse and that in some respects the report was selective. He highlighted in relation to accidents that there was no mention of an increase in fatal and serious accidents to cyclists and an increase in accidents to children which he felt was worthy of mention if the report was intended to identify areas needing attention. He queried the comments in the report on the Customer Services Centre referring to problems he was aware of and to the personal experiences of Councillors.

Councillor Tilley suggested that the figures in relation to accidents and cyclists may not be as simple as it appeared and that the increase may be due to the increasing number of cyclists. 

Councillor Rose in moving to note the report commented that the report was a statistical information report which officers did their best to make interesting. Rick management was primarily managed through the audit process. The report captured risks but did not seek to deal with them. On road safety officers did look at cyclists and children but there was a need to be careful when dealing with small numbers. It was not always possible to infer a trend from changes up and down.

In relation to Customer Services councillor Rose stated that September had been one of the busiest months ever and he was aware of a number of issues around recruitment and training that were being addressed. Joanna Simons, Chief Executive added that there were a number of changes taking place around Customer Services and suggested that the Strategy & Partnership Scrutiny Committee consider the changes taking place, which would allow the space to consider detail.

RESOLVED:                        to note the report and to agree that the Senior Performance & Improvement Manager arrange for the Strategy & Partnership Scrutiny Committee to consider the changes taking place in Customer Services.

Cabinet Member: Leader

Forward Plan Ref: 2012/078

Contact: Sue Whitehead, Committee Services Manager Tel: (01865) 810262

Report by Head of Law & Culture (CA11).

To report on a quarterly basis any executive decision taken by the Chief Executive under the specific powers and functions delegated to her under the terms of Part 7.4 of the Council’s Constitution – Paragraph 1(A)(c)(i).  It is not for scrutiny call in.

Cabinet noted the following executive decision taken by the Chief Executive under the specific powers and functions delegated to her under the terms of Part 7.4 of the Council’s Constitution – Paragraph 1(A)(c)(i).  It is not for scrutiny call in.

Cabinet Member: All

Contact Officer: Sue Whitehead, Committee Services Manager (01865 810262)

The Cabinet Procedure Rules provide that the business of each meeting at the Cabinet is to include “updating of the Forward Plan and proposals for business to be conducted at the following meeting”.   Items from the Forward Plan for the immediately forthcoming meetings of the Cabinet appear in the Schedule at CA12.  This includes any updated information relating to the business for those meetings that has already been identified for inclusion in the next Forward Plan update.

The Schedule is for noting, but Cabinet Members may also wish to take this opportunity to identify any further changes they would wish to be incorporated in the next Forward Plan update.

The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to note the items currently identified for forthcoming meetings.

The Cabinet considered a list of items for the immediately forthcoming meetings of the Cabinet together with changes and additions set out in the schedule of addenda.

RESOLVED:            to note the items currently identified for forthcoming meetings.

Cabinet Member: Deputy Leader

Forward Plan Ref: 2012/041

Contact: Martin Tugwell, Deputy Director for Environment & Economy – Strategy & Infrastructure Planning Tel: (01865) 815513

Report by Director for Environment, Economy & Customer Services (CA13).

(The information contained in Appendix C to the Business case is exempt in that it falls within the following prescribed category:

3    –    information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)

It is considered that in this case the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information, in that such disclosure would prejudice on-going negotiations and disadvantage the company concerned.)

Oxford Spires Academy opened in January 2011, replacing Oxford School. The project is to provide new and refurbished accommodation funded by a £7.808m capital grant the Education Funding Agency (EFA). 

The capital project follows the National Academy Framework process established by Partnership for Schools (PfS) now EFA and is similar to that followed by the Oxford Academy (formerly Peers School).  Under this process the Authority (OCC) are responsible for procurement of the works (excluding ICT which is procured by the Academy Trust) which it then leases to the Academy Trust by way of a Development Agreement, interim short term lease and ultimately a long term (125 year) lease.

Planning consent is due in early October, 2012 with EFA approval sought soon after this and formal Contract signing programmed for October, 26th, 2012; the Contract Sum is £6,433,777 which will be met from EFA funding, a separate contract for ICT will be let by CfBT Schools Trust. The date for the proposed opening of the new Academy buildings is proposed to be in phases from September 2013.

The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to:

(a)       approve the Final Business Case

(b)       authorise that the contract be let and the development agreement be entered into subject to EFA approval and agreement on funding drawdown; and

(c)       approve the ‘passport’ of ICT funding to the Academy Trust in accordance with EFA processes

(The information contained in Appendix C to the Business case is exempt in that it falls within the following prescribed category:

3    –    information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)

It is considered that in this case the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information, in that such disclosure would prejudice on-going negotiations and disadvantage the company concerned.)

Oxford Spires Academy opened in January 2011, replacing Oxford School. The project is to provide new and refurbished accommodation funded by a £7.808m capital grant the Education Funding Agency (EFA). 

The capital project follows the National Academy Framework process established by Partnership for Schools (PfS) now EFA and is similar to that followed by the Oxford Academy (formerly Peers School).  Under this process the Authority (OCC) are responsible for procurement of the works (excluding ICT which is procured by the Academy Trust) which it then leases to the Academy Trust by way of a Development Agreement, interim short term lease and ultimately a long term (125 year) lease.

Planning consent is due in early October, 2012 with EFA approval sought soon after this and formal Contract signing programmed for October, 26th, 2012; the Contract Sum is £6,433,777 which will be met from EFA funding, a separate contract for ICT will be let by CfBT Schools Trust. The date for the proposed opening of the new Academy buildings is proposed to be in phases from September 2013.

RESOLVED:                        to:

(a)       approve the Final Business Case

(b)       authorise that the contract be let and the development agreement be entered into subject to EFA approval and agreement on funding drawdown; and

(c)        approve the ‘passport’ of ICT funding to the Academy Trust in accordance with EFA processes