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.”