Any
county councillor may, by giving notice to the Proper Officer by 9 am on the
working day before the meeting, ask a question on any matter in respect of the
Cabinet Member’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.
Minutes:
Councillor
Roy Darke
“Can the
Cabinet Member for Transport confirm that S106 funding (from Rectory Homes
development) is still available for needed road safety measures in Jack Straw's
Lane?"
Councillor Rodney Rose replied
“We currently
hold £74,986 of S106 funds, from two separate developments in Jack Straw’s
Lane. However neither of the developers concerned is Rectory Homes. The S106
agreements state that the monies must be used on traffic calming measures in
Jack Straw’s Lane or any alternatives which achieve similar benefits. Officers
have investigated the feasibility of traffic calming measures and are now
looking at other improvements in Jack Straw’s Lane which achieve similar
benefits. Residents will be consulted in due course.”
Supplementary question from Councillor Roy Darke
“As local
residents had identified simple measures to relieve problems would the Cabinet
Member for Transport consider those as part of the investigation into
improvements in Jack Straw’s Lane?”
Councillor Rose replied
“I haven’t yet
seen all options but if residents were proposing something then those would be
looked at.”
Councillor John Sanders
"In the
light of the draconian cuts that the County Council’s Cabinet says it is
compelled to impose on libraries, youth centres and older people, why does the
Cabinet Member for Transport not offer to postpone major road works like the Cogges Link and the resurfacing of Iffley
Road for three or four years until, according to the Government, the financial
crisis will have been resolved and, presumably, Oxfordshire will then be able
to afford such projects and in the meanwhile be able to maintain essential
services? "
Councillor Rodney Rose replied
“The County Council’s
Cabinet is enforcing cuts necessitated by the Labour Government’s ineptitude at
controlling the country’s finances in recent years, as highlighted in Treasury
Reports since 2001.
The Cabinet takes the view
that a suitable road infrastructure is also an essential service in
Oxfordshire, but actual spending will be decided at the Council next week.”
Supplementary question from Councillor Sanders
“Is the Cabinet
Member for Transport suggesting that roads take priority over libraries, youth
centres and care for the elderly?”
Councillor Rose replied
“I am surprised
to hear a member for a City Division suggesting that resurfacing work of a
major route into the City be postponed particularly as the Iffley
Road was in need of repair. Decisions
regarding spending issues would be taken at the County Council’s budget meeting
on 15 February 2011 and not at this meeting.”
Councillor Mohammed Altaf-Khan
“As you know
Cllr Rodney Rose, the Highfield Residents Association
(Headington Oxford) has worked closely with County
officers and members for the past four years to deliver a traffic management
scheme for Highfield. In doing so the residents have
acted entirely in accordance with the aims of the Big Society as embraced by
the Council. Despite the Council’s stated commitment to the scheme the scheme
budget was halved in December 2010 without prior discussion or consultation
with residents. Will the Cabinet Member for Transport and officers meet representatives
of Highfield residents and their local councillors
and MP to explain and discuss the funding arrangements for this essential
community scheme?”
Councillor Rodney Rose replied
“The Section 106 funding for Highfield
is not restricted and can be spent on other strategic transport aims in the
city that are deemed appropriate. Given that the capital budget for transport
schemes has been very significantly reduced, we have had to carefully consider
how we prioritise ‘flexible’ developer funds. For this reason the scheme budget
has been halved. As a result, and from the results of informal consultation
conducted in May 2010, the most popular parts of the scheme were retained. The
elements that have been retained also reflect the areas where most accidents
have been reported, i.e. the side road junctions.
Interestingly, we had more than 250 responses to
the first consultation exercise and only 30 responses from residents in the
most recent consultation in December 2010/January 2011. Every household (more
than 700) affected by the scheme received a consultation letter so the
assumption is that many people were happy with the proposals so did not feel
the need to respond. “
“Bearing
this in mind, I do not feel it is necessary to meet representatives of Highfield residents. However, if they so wish they can make
representations to me at my Cabinet Member for Transport Delegated Decisions
meeting on 24 March when these issues are scheduled to be considered.”
Supplementary question from Councillor Altaf
Khan
The residents will
inevitably be disappointed that funding has been halved. Will the Cabinet
Member for Transport reconsider the request from the Highfield
Residents association and meet with them to take this forward?
Councillor Rose replied
“Given the reductions we
face as a County Council S106 funding needs to be carefully prioritised. Proposals for the Highfiield
area are scheduled to come to me for decision on 24 March and I will not meet
with residents before then to avoid any risk of fettering my discretion to take
a decision at that time.”