Return to Agenda

ITEM CA3

CABINET – 6 DECEMBER 2005

Minutes of the Meeting commencing at 2.00 pm and finishing at 4:30 pm

Present:

The Cabinet considered the matters, reports and recommendations contained or referred to in the agenda for the meeting, together with a schedule of addenda tabled at the meeting, and decided as set out below. Except insofar as otherwise specified, the reasons for the decisions are contained in the agenda, reports and schedule, copies of which are attached to the signed Minutes.

240/05. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Item 5: Draft South East Plan - Housing Distribution

Councillor K.R. Mitchell declared a personal interest, on the grounds that he was the Chairman of the South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA).

Item 7: Charges for Residents’ Parking Permits

Councillor Bob Johnston declared a personal interest on the grounds that he frequently undertook survey work for the Office for National Statistics in areas of the City affected.

241/05. MINUTES

• In the fourth line of the final paragraph on page 4 the word "not" to be omitted;
• in the third line of recommendation (a), "Approach 1" to appear in place of "option 1".

242/05. PETITIONS AND PUBLIC ADDRESS

The following requests to address the meeting had been agreed:-



Request from	Agenda Item
7. Charges for Residents’ Parking Permits	Mr Brian Lester (Chairman of Blackbird Leys Parish Council) Councillor Gill Sanders (Ward City Councillor for Littlemore) Councillor David Rundle (Ward City Councillor for Headington)
11. Matthew Arnold School	Dr Tony De Vere (Chair of Governors of John Mason School, Abingdon)

243/05. DRAFT SOUTH EAST PLAN - HOUSING DISTRIBUTION

(a) (Councillors Belson, Chapman, Couchman, Howell, Jelf, Mitchell Robertson and Seale voting in favour and Councillors Shouler & Waine abstaining) in accordance with the Council’s advice, noting that SEERA had ruled out strategic green belt reviews:



1. that the proposals to be submitted to SEERA on the future distribution of housing should not involve encroachment upon the Oxford Green Belt;
2. that those options identified in 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;
   
   

(b) that the district housing distribution and strategy for the Central Oxfordshire sub-region for submission to SEERA comprise the following:



1. the remaining 7,300 houses in Central Oxfordshire to be distributed as follows:

• 2,000 houses at Bicester;
• 3,000 houses at Didcot;
• 1,400 houses at Wantage/Grove;
• 300 houses within Oxford in addition to the 6,700 houses already identified, on the basis of the possible release of some safeguarded land;
• 600 houses to be divided equally between South Oxfordshire, the Vale of White Horse and West Oxfordshire to allow some flexibility to plan for more local housing needs within the sub-region;

2. in the rest of the county area, the proposed distribution to allow for limited development to meet local needs, and organic growth at Banbury;

(c) that the statement of consultation in Annex 1 to the report and the information in Annexes 3-9 should be submitted to SEERA as technical supporting information as required by SEERA, subject to authorising the Head of Sustainable Development to make the amendments necessary as a consequence of the Cabinet’s decision on the housing distribution in (b) above, and to carry out minor editing before submission;

(d) to request SEERA to amend the sub-regional boundary to include RAF Benson within Central Oxfordshire;

(e) to request SEERA to amend the boundary of the Western Corridor and Blackwater Valley sub-region to exclude the small part of South Oxfordshire from that sub-region;

(f) to record that in the opinion of the Cabinet these decisions were urgent in that advice was required to be submitted to SEERA by 9 December and the delay which would to be caused by the call in process would therefore seriously prejudice the Council’s or the public’s interests; and that in accordance with Scrutiny Procedure Rule (17)(a), subject to the concurrence of the Chairman of the Council, the call-in procedure should not apply.

244/05. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT: PROGRESS AGAINST PRIORITIES AND TARGETS

(Agenda Item 6)

The Cabinet considered a report (CA6) which set out the Council’s performance to date for 2005/2006.

Councillor Fooks, speaking in place of Councillor Alan Bryden as Shadow Cabinet Member for Change Management, commended the success in achieving the PSA7 target. She expressed concern that PSA9 & PSA11 had been on target for the previous quarter were no longer.

Councillor Belson advised that the PSA9 target was expected to be fully achieved but that PSA11 was subject to take up by individual key workers.

RESOLVED: to note the report.

245/05. CHARGES FOR RESIDENTS’ PARKING PERMITS

(Agenda Item 7)

The Cabinet considered a report (CA7) which outlined issues relating to the introduction of charging for residents’ and visitors’ parking permits in Oxford.

Mr Lester was concerned that the residents’ parking scheme in the area surrounding Kassam Stadium should remain free as it had been introduced for the protection of residents when the stadium had been imposed upon them.

Councillor Gatehouse, speaking as a local member, endorsed Mr Lester’s comments. She suggested that undertaking consultation on a proposal to charge would not be productive as the outcome could be predicted.

City Councillor Sanders questioned the need for the charges for residents as other parking income could be used to offset the costs of residents’ parking. She referred to a petition of 900 signatures that had been presented to the Cabinet Member for Transport opposing the proposed charges and to the opposition of the Oxford City South East Area Committee.

Councillor Brighouse, speaking as a local member, commented that the Health Service organisations and Brookes had provided substantial contributions to defray the costs of accommodating their developments in Headington but that the residents were now being expected to pay also. She urged the Cabinet not to adopt the scheme and not to put it out for consultation.

City Councillor Rundle was pleased to see that the Council was not choosing to charge without due process and hoped that the consultation would be properly conducted and robust. He referred to congestion as being a problem affecting the whole of Oxfordshire and suggested that the there was inconsistency with the removal of evening and Sunday parking charges in the city centre.

Councillor Johnston, speaking as Shadow Cabinet Member for Transport, welcomed the proposed consultation process subject to use of proper methodology to ensure a representative outcome. Some of the issues he would like addressed through consultation were differential charges (for areas with differing demands), enforcement levels, information on various payment methods, the proper provision of financial information to the public and any improvements the public would like to see.

Councillor Robertson responded that the range and scope of the consultation would be decided taking into account the comments made today.

Mr Dix confirmed that development contributions had been secured which were helping with the setting up of residents’ parking schemes, but that this would not extend to funding their ongoing running costs and no indication had been given that the schemes would remain free. He undertook to investigate reports from some of the speakers of poor enforcement of existing residents' parking around Kassam Stadium.

RESOLVED to:

1. confirm the intention, subject to consideration of the outcome of consultation in accordance with (b) below, to introduce charges for residents’ and visitors’ parking permits in Oxford;
2. noting that Oxford City Council were unwilling to make a contribution to the costs of the parking permits scheme, authorise consultation on the proposals for the introduction of charges on the basis set out in the report;
3. authorise consultation at the same time on the introduction of charges to allow parking for operational reasons in residents’ parking zones in accordance with such principles as were agreed for parking dispensations generally.
   
   

246/05. PARKING DISPENSATIONS

(Agenda Item 8)

The Cabinet considered a report (CA8) that set out protocols for assessing and granting dispensation applications for restricted parking areas, as well as the option of applying a charge for the consideration of requests.

Councillor Johnston, speaking as Shadow Cabinet Member for Transport, was broadly in favour of the proposal and urged the Cabinet to include provision for taking account of the comments from local members in assessing individual applications.

RESOLVED to:

1. approve the Parking Dispensation Protocol as set out in Annex A to the Report.
2. approve a charge of £15 per dispensation request per parking zone, with additional charges in pay and display areas, as described in the report.
   
   

247/05. HIGHWAY MANAGEMENT POLICY MANUAL

(Agenda Item 9)

The Cabinet considered a report (CA9) that identified several policy developments for inclusion in the Highway Management Policy Manual in the context of the updated national Code of Practice.

In relation to the proposals in respect of highway trees, Councillor Johnston, speaking as Shadow Cabinet Member for Transport, expressed the hope that the use of indigenous foliage species alongside highways would be encouraged, where influence could be exerted. At the same time the Council should be seen to actively discourage the planting of exotic and potentially invasive plants.

Mr Haines reported that his team were developing a co-ordinated tree policy jointly with the district councils. Assessments were always carried out to determine the most appropriate species to plant in particular cases.

RESOLVED to:

1. approve the implementation of the new and amended policies and supplementary documents as set out in Annex A to the report;
2. approve the maintenance levels and regimes presented in the full version of the Exceptions Report (December 2005) and Highway Management Policy Manual, as the standards that the Council would normally aim to provide.
   
   

248/05. SECONDARY EDUCATION PROVISION IN THE BANBURY AREA

RESOLVED to:

1. proceed with the proposal to replace Drayton School with an 11–19 Academy;
2. authorise the Director for Children, Young People & Families, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Schools Improvement, to take such further actions as are necessary to give effect to (a) above;
3. request officers to seek to ensure that local members, staff in Drayton School, the local community and neighbouring schools were kept fully informed of the nature and progress of the proposals to replace Drayton School with an Academy;
4. request officers to continue to explore all options for securing funding for necessary capital improvements at Banbury School.

249/05. MATTHEW ARNOLD SCHOOL

(Agenda Item 11)

The Cabinet considered a report (CA11) on the governors’ proposal for expansion of this school in terms of the degree to which it could be judged successful and popular on the basis of relative levels of over-subscription and academic results.

Councillor Godden, speaking as local member, was concerned that the current government scheme was defective in that success for one school would to the detriment of other schools. She suggested that the reported and predicted problems of other schools which were some distance away should be addressed locally, and not at the expense of the Matthew Arnold proposals. She also pointed out Matthew Arnold School’s intake of high ability students and that the school’s location and environment contributed to the schools’ success. Councillor Godden suggested that the issue be deferred until 2008.

Dr De Vere outlined the joint response by John Mason and Larkmead schools, which had challenged the Matthew Arnold proposals in a number of areas and in particular that the effects on other schools in terms of capital funding would be greater than Matthew Arnold’s report represented. He urged that the proposals be rejected on the grounds that capital funding that would be awarded to Matthew Arnold School would be at a cost to other schools.

Councillor Waine pointed out that Matthew Arnold had one of the highest ability intakes in Oxfordshire and the results stated in the report were in line with what they should be in terms of ‘value added’. He confirmed that if the school expanded the effect would be to ‘top slice’ the capital programme at the expense of projects for other schools which the Council had assessed as of higher priority. He supported the principle of rewarding success but did not feel that the case here had necessarily been made.

RESOLVED to take a neutral stance and respect the decision of the School Organisation Committee essentially giving the members’ group on the School Organisation Committee a ‘free hand’.

250/05. EDUCATION PROJECT APPRAISALS:


NEW PRIMARY SCHOOL, CATTLE MARKET, BANBURY – LAND ACQUISITION;
BARTHOLOMEW SCHOOL, EYNSHAM – NEW SPORTS HALL

(Agenda Item 12)

The Cabinet considered a report (CA12) which presented two project Appraisals for £1m+ schemes within the Learning & Culture Capital Programme.

Councillor Waine asked officers to investigate the possibility of realigning the proposed Bartholomew Sports Hall to utilise the site presently occupied by the apparently redundant swimming pool.

RESOLVED to:

1. approve project appraisals ED597/1 and ED629;
2. authorise the purchase of the land referred to in appraisal ED597/1.
   
   

251/05. LEARNING DISABILITY SERVICE PARTNERSHIP

(Agenda Item 13)

 

The Cabinet considered a report (CA13) which summarised the work that had been undertaken so far towards a S.31 Health Act Flexibility for Lead Commissioning, Lead Funds, and a Pooled Budget and recommended a framework for work to continue on the preparation of the S31 Partnership Agreement.

Ms Peretz advised that she was confident that the proposed agreement would give a much higher level of assurance on cost-sharing and budgetary control than was possible under the current range of individual small scale arrangements. Councillor Seale paid tribute to the progress made by Ms Peretz towards achieving the partnership arrangements.

RESOLVED to:

1. approve the framework for the drawing up of a S.31 Health Act 1999 Partnership Agreement for Lead Commissioning, Lead Funds and a Pooled Budget in respect of Adult Learning Disability Services as set out in the report and as agreed by the Oxfordshire PCT Commissioning Board on 13 October 2005;
2. ask officers to report on the outcome of work on the Partnership Agreement to the meeting on 7 March 2006 with a view to its coming into effect in April 2006.
   
   

252/05. MUSEUMS SERVICE ACQUISITION AND DISPOSAL POLICY

(Agenda Item 14)

The Cabinet reviewed proposals (CA14) to revise the Museums Service Acquisition and Disposal Policy for the period 2006-2011.

RESOLVED to endorse the revised Acquisition and Disposal Policy 2006-2011 accompanying the report.

253/05. USE OF STREET FURNITURE FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT

(Agenda Item 15)

RESOLVED: to defer consideration of this item to a future meeting.

254/05. TERMS OF DELEGATION

(Agenda Item 16)

The Cabinet was asked to consider "for the avoidance of doubt" amendments to officers’ delegated powers in respect of traffic, parking, highway and road safety proposals.

RESOLVED to agree the amendment of the Director for Environment & Economy’s powers referred to by:

1. the substitution, for "traffic management and road safety proposals", of "traffic regulation, highway amendment, parking and road safety proposals"; and
2. the addition, after "the proposals" in Condition (ii), of "… (other than any that have subsequently been withdrawn, whether or not in consequence of amendment of the proposals) …".
   
   

255/05. FORWARD PLAN AND FUTURE BUSINESS

(Agenda Item 17)

The Cabinet considered a list of items from the Forward Plan for the immediately forthcoming meetings (CA17) amended by information circulated on the Addenda.

The Cabinet noted that arrangements were in hand to settle the draft Treasury Management Strategy in consultation with the Cabinet Members for Finance for submission to the Corporate Governance Scrutiny Committee in January 2006, and that this meant that no items of business remained to be dealt with at the 3 January Cabinet meeting.

RESOLVED to:

1. note the items currently identified for forthcoming meetings;
2. cancel the scheduled 3 January 2006 meeting of the Cabinet.

in the Chair

Date of signing 2005

Return to TOP