Meeting documents
Cabinet
Tuesday, 6 December 2005
|
______________________________________
To Members of the Cabinet Notice of a Meeting of the CabinetTuesday 6 December 2005 at 2.00 pm County Hall, Oxford
Contact officer: Matt Bayliss (Tel: 01865 815384; E-mail)
Membership
Decisions taken at the meeting will become effective at the end of the working day on 14 December 2005 unless called in by that date for review by the appropriate Scrutiny Committee. Copies of this Notice, Agenda and supporting papers are circulated to all Members of the County Council.
AGENDAAddenda
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 15 November 2005 (CA3) and to receive for information any matters arising therefrom. Cabinet Member:
Sustainable Development Report by Head
of Sustainable Development (CA5). The South East Regional Assembly (SEERA) has asked the Council for advice on the future development strategy for Central Oxfordshire and the distribution of houses for the sub-region and the rest of the county up to 2026. The advice will be incorporated into the South East plan that SEERA will agree in February and submit to the Government in March 2006. The purpose of this report is to a) consider the outcome of consultation carried out in September and October 2005 on options for the housing distribution, b) recommend a final distribution for submission to SEERA, and c) set out what infrastructure would need to be provided to accommodate the development. Over 3,800 responses were received to the consultation, including 1,714 responses using the Council’s own form and 2,108 arising from various campaigns. In addition over 220 letters were received from the district councils, town and parish councils, consultees, developers and members of the public. On 1 November 2005 the County Council debated the interim results and agreed to advise the Cabinet that proposals to be submitted to SEERA should not involve encroachment upon the Oxford Green Belt, and that those options identified in the consultation responses which would involve such encroachment (such as those based on major development on the southern edge of Oxford or at Shipton Quarry) should not be adopted. On the basis of the information that was then available the Council also agreed to advise the Cabinet of its relative preference for the respective housing distribution options as follows: option 1 – 23 votes and option 2 – 21 votes, with 20 abstentions, and 4 voting against both options. The Environment & Economy Scrutiny Committee have nominated a small group to consider this report. Any advice from the group will be reported to the Cabinet at this meeting. The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED, subject to consideration of any comments on the part of the Environment & Economy Scrutiny Committee, to:
Cabinet Member:
Leader of the Council, Change Management Report by County Council Management Team (CA6). This quarterly performance report is for our performance to date for 2005/2006. It provides a report against Oxfordshire Plan 2005/6 priorities; Public Service Agreement 2003/04 – 2005/06 targets; Raising our Performance 2; and Best Value Performance Indicators. The following priorities were reported as being on target at the end of the second quarter: Better Use of Property, West End of Oxford and Drugs and Alcohol. There are 2 priorities where it is unsure whether or not they are on target, due to information not yet being available: Foundation Stage Learning and Improve Maintenance of Local Roads and Pavements. For a further 3 priorities there is a mixed picture: Delayed Discharges from Hospital, Youth Crime Reduction and Child Protection. There are 5 priorities which are unlikely to achieve target: Public Transport, Affordable Housing, Support for Older People, Waste Minimisation and Re-cycling and Educational Attainment. The Public Service Agreement between Oxfordshire County Council and the Government identifies stretching targets in 12 areas, for achievement by March 2006. Of the 12; 3 are on track to achieve target and receive reward grant, 5 are on track to receive some of the reward grant, for 1 it is unsure at this stage whether they will achieve target, and 3 are predicted not to achieve target. The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to note the report. Cabinet Member:
Transport Report by Head of Transport (CA7) (download as .doc file). The Executive twice considered the introduction of charging for residents’ and visitors’ parking permits in Oxford, first on 21 September 2004 and again on 17 February 2005. The Executive was minded to introduce charges for permits but on each occasion wished to clarify whether Oxford City Council would be prepared to meet, or contribute to, the cost of operating the residents’ parking schemes. It is clear that Oxford City Council are not willing to make any contribution and this report seeks confirmation from the Cabinet to proceeding with public consultation on the introduction of charges for parking permits as originally envisaged, i.e. with a charge of £40 for each of the first two residents’ parking permits per household, higher charges for further permits (where permitted), £10 for a permit in the match day only residents’ parking zones around the Kassam Stadium and 60p a day for visitors’ parking permits. If the Cabinet decides to proceed on this basis it is suggested that consultation on the necessary amendments to the various parking orders should also cover the application of charges for parking for operational reasons in the residents’ parking zones, in line with the proposals for parking dispensations put forward in the following agenda item, if those proposals are supported by the Cabinet. The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to:
Cabinet Member:
Transport Report by Head of Transport (CA8) (download as .doc file). The County Council has responsibility for enforcing parking regulations on streets in Oxford. Some organisations such as the emergency services are allowed to park in areas where parking restrictions apply. Provided they satisfy certain criteria, permissions may also be granted to other parties, through the issue of temporary dispensations. A vehicle displaying a parking dispensation will not be issued with a parking ticket if the terms and conditions of the dispensation are adhered to. This report sets out the protocol for assessing dispensation applications, as well as the option of applying a charge for the consideration of requests. The intention is that dispensations should be considered for parties who have no automatic right to parking exemptions but who can demonstrate a clear operational need to park on occasion, where parking restrictions exist. An operational requirement would be taken to arise where a vehicle is needed for access to essential equipment for the period of time the vehicle is parked, and in circumstances where it is not reasonable for the vehicle to be parked away from the work location. The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to:
Cabinet Member:
Transport Report by Head of Transport (CA9). The Highway Management Policy Manual defines the levels of service and protocols that apply to the maintenance of County roads in Oxfordshire. The document is also an important reference in the event of public liability claims. The Manual is reviewed annually to ensure that policies stay in keeping with current practice, and to highlight any departures from national guidance – and in particular the national Code of Practice for Highway Maintenance Management, which provides guidance on recommended good practice, service standards, asset management and performance management. The Code is endorsed by the Department for Transport, the Local Government Association, the County Surveyors Society and other national groups and organisations. The report identifies some policy developments for inclusion in the Manual in the context of the updated national Code of Practice. These comprise a new management strategy for highway trees; a policy on removal of unauthorised signs and goods from the highway that cause obstruction or have implications for safety; guidance on the erection of banners over the public highway; and amendments to the skidding resistance policy, with particular reference to "thin surfacing materials". The report also highlights some areas where local practice differs in some respects from that set down in the Code of Practice. The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to:
Cabinet Member:
Schools Improvement Report by Director For Learning & Culture (CA10). The Executive in April 2004 considered a report which contained a number of possible options for meeting secondary education needs in the Banbury area with a specific focus on that part of the town currently served by Drayton School. Of the six options presented, two were considered to warrant further investigation: a merger of Drayton School and Oxford and Cherwell [Valley] College; and the creation of an Academy on the Drayton School campus. Of the two options identified for further consideration, only one – the creation of an Academy on the Drayton School campus – is now considered to be a viable option. The creation of a school-college hybrid institution is subject to problems relating to governance, legal standing and financial viability. The creation of an Academy would provide access to significant capital investment for either major refurbishment of existing school buildings or new build. Combined with a contribution from a sponsor (or sponsors) this may amount to in excess of £20m. The contribution from the County Council consists of entering into a long-term lease of land to the Academy sponsor (typically 125 years) and officer time. The proposal is considered to offer scope for enhancing the range of provision accessible to secondary age students and raising the overall quality, range and profile of education in the town.
The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to:
Cabinet Member:
Schools Improvement Report by Director for Learning & Culture (CA11) (download as .doc file). The governors of Matthew Arnold School have asked whether the County Council would support their proposals for expansion of the School under the government initiative to allow schools to bring forward such proposals if they are 'successful and popular'. The proposals would increase the number of pupils admitted each year by 27. If approved the DfES would supply an additional £500,000 capital funding towards the project. The balance of approximately £1.4 million would need to be found from the existing capital programme. The Cabinet is asked to consider the request and decide whether to support the proposal and be its promoter, or not to support the proposal, or to remain neutral. The report considers the governors’ proposal in terms of the degree to which Matthew Arnold can be judged successful and popular on the basis of relative levels of over-subscription and academic results – particularly how far the School has achieved "added value" compared with other schools in the area. The report notes that consultation undertaken by the School resulted in little objection to expansion per se but did show concerns about the fact that the expansion would draw capital resources from other schools prioritised by the County Council. The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED either to:
Cabinet Member:
Schools Improvement Report by Director for Learning & Culture (CA12). This report presents two project appraisals, for £1m+ schemes within the Learning & Culture Capital Programme. The first Appraisal – No ED597/1 – is in respect of land acquisition to enable the construction of a 7-class primary school plus early years and extended school provision on the former Cattle Market site in Banbury. Statutory notice has been issued with respect to the expansion of Dashwood School by relocation to the Cattle Market site and expansion of Harriers Ground School. The 6 week period for comments and objections has expired and no comments have been received. Detailed design is in progress on the new school buildings, which are programmed for construction in 2006/07, but, authority is sought to purchase the land required for the school at this stage, which would allow purchase at an agreed sum from the present owners. There is currently flexibility within the Capital Programme to bring this payment forward. The second Appraisal – No ED629 – is in respect of a scheme to replace the existing sports hall at Bartholomew School, Eynsham. This scheme was one of those included in the successful bid to the New Opportunities Fund PE & Sport Initiative for £3.3m of capital funding and is included in the Capital Programme with a 2006/07 start date. The project will provide a new, purpose built sports hall which will be available for school and community use. The accommodation will comprise an entrance/reception area, a 4-court sports hall, changing accommodation, toilets and showers. Negotiations are continuing with West Oxfordshire District Council, exploring the possibility of also including a joint use fitness suite in the new building for use by the school and local community, subject to a financial contribution from the District Council. The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to:
Cabinet Member:
Health & Community Services Report by Director for Social & Health Care (CA13). In June 2004 the Executive endorsed a recommendation that had arisen from the Best Value Review of Learning Disability Services, to authorise a S31 Partnership Agreement for Adult Learning Disability Services with the Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) in Oxfordshire, under the Health Act 1999, with Social & Health Care taking on the lead commissioning role. Following early work on the project, the PCTs and the Social & Health Care directorate agreed to propose proceeding in the first instance towards a S.31 Health Act Flexibility for lead commissioning, lead funds, and a pooled budget, to be in effect from 1 April 2006. The Commissioning Board of the Primary Care Trusts accepted this proposal on 13 October 2005. This report summarises for Cabinet the work that has been undertaken and recommends a framework for work to continue on the preparation of the S31 Partnership Agreement. The report emphasizes the benefits that can flow from sound and properly constructed partnership arrangements. There is considerable experience in Oxfordshire on the use of S.31 arrangements, which has meant that the Council have a clear view of the challenges as well as the opportunities. Experience shows that the County Council and the NHS acting together can exercise much better market management in the independent sector, and through the single purchasing arrangements can achieve greater efficiency for purchasers and providers. The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to:
Cabinet Member:
Health and Community Services Report by Director for Learning & Culture (CA14). As part of the recent application by the Museums Service for Museums, Libraries and Archives Council's Accreditation status, the Acquisition and Disposal Policy 2000-2005 had to be updated in several areas to meet the Accreditation criteria and to cover the period 2005-2010. These changes were specified by MLA and were approved as an operational matter by the Head of Cultural Services in August 2005. None of those changes materially affected the nature of the material collected by the Museums Service or the way in which it was collected. However, experience gained through the Museums Service's Collections Management Team has brought to light several areas in which the existing policy is deficient and where a more fundamental review of certain operational aspects appear necessary. This report deals with those areas and proposes a revised Policy for the period 2006-2011. The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to endorse the revised Acquisition and Disposal Policy 2006-2011 accompanying the report. Cabinet Member:
Transport Report by Head of ICT, Head of Transport (CA15). British Telecom (BT) have approached the Council about the possibility of mounting "Microconnect Distributed Antennae" on street furniture and County Council buildings in central Oxford. The main commercial driver for BT is their ability to sell wireless network capacity for advanced third generation mobile phone services to mobile operators. This requires a greater density of antennae in urban areas than is available at present. The report recommends that the Council should enter into an agreement with BT for the provision of the antennae, subject to satisfactory resolution of contract, planning and environmental issues. The advantages of the Council being actively involved include the ability to shape, and benefit from, what is done and have a say on the type of equipment involved. This would include an input into the environmental processes and the minimization of additional street clutter by using existing street furniture. Careful consideration is already being given to this issue with colleagues in the City. The infrastructure provided may in time have additional uses for service delivery by the County and City Councils. Every effort will be made to accommodate the differing requirements of the County and City Councils provided that any arrangements for the provision of additional services linked to the main contract for MDA services comply with statutory requirements and properly safeguard the Council’s own interests. The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to authorise the conclusion with BT of an agreement for the implementation of the Microconnect Distributed Antennae project as described in the report subject (in particular) to:
Cabinet Member:
Transport Report by Head of Transport (CA16). The Cabinet is asked to consider "for the avoidance of doubt" amendments to officers’ delegated powers in respect of traffic, parking, highway and road safety proposals. The established powers of the Director for Environment & Economy include: "The promotion and implementation of traffic management and road safety proposals, including approval to the making of any orders in relation thereto, subject in the case of proposals for permanent measures to:-
It has always been taken as implicit that "traffic management" extended to parking measures (eg, disabled parking spaces), which are not within the strict definition of traffic regulation, and also to minor highway schemes (eg, cycle track amendments) including those - typically, junction improvements - undertaken in conjunction with authorised developments. Following consultation with the Solicitor to the Council it is felt that it would be advisable to amend the terms of the delegation so as to make the ambit of the arrangements more explicit. Further, in relation to condition (ii) of the delegation, there have been some instances where objections initially made have subsequently been withdrawn, as a result either of explanation being given to the objector or of a minor modification being made which met the grounds of objection. It is felt that the ability to proceed in these circumstances without reference back to the Transport Implementation Committee should also be made explicit. The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to agree the amendment of the Director’s powers referred to by:
Cabinet Member:
All 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 CA17. 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. 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. It will be noted that only two items are currently listed for the 3 January meeting, and it may be that the Cabinet will wish to consider cancelling it. If so, this will need to be confirmed at the meeting on 20 December, when any necessary recommendations will be made for alternative means of dealing with items that would otherwise fall to be dealt with on 3 January. The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to note the items currently identified for forthcoming meetings. November 2005 |
