ITEM CC3OXFORDSHIRE
COUNTY COUNCIL
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Catherine Bearder |
Terry Joslin |
|
Roger Belson |
David Laver |
|
Bill Bradshaw |
Margaret MacKenzie |
|
Liz Brighouse |
Kieron Mallon |
|
Alan Bryden |
Mick McAndrews |
|
Mrs Dee Bulley |
Olive McIntosh-Stedman |
|
Julian Cooper |
Keith R. Mitchell |
|
Tony Crabbe |
Roy Mold |
|
Robert Evans |
Sandra Mold |
|
Richard Farrell |
Jim Moley |
|
Mrs Anda Fitzgerald-O’Connor |
Zoë Patrick |
|
Jean Fooks |
Power |
|
Mrs C. Fulljames |
Anne Purse |
|
Barbara Gatehouse |
G.A. Reynolds |
|
Janet Godden |
Dermot Roaf |
|
Margaret Godden |
David Robertson |
|
Patrick Greene |
Chris Robins |
|
Ken Harper |
Rodney Rose |
|
Neville F. Harris |
Don Seale |
|
Mrs M. Hastings |
Sam S. Segaran |
|
Steve Hayward |
C.H. Shouler |
|
Mrs J. Heathcoat |
Leslie Sibley |
|
Brian Hodgson |
Craig Simmons |
|
Brian L. Hook |
Betty Standingford |
|
John Howell |
David Turner |
|
Biddy Hudson |
Carol Viney |
|
Colin James |
David Wilmshurst |
|
Ray Jelf |
Christine Witcher |
|
Bob Johnston |
Harry Wyatt |
The Council 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.
19/05. MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING
(Agenda Item 1)
RESOLVED: that the Minutes of the meeting of Council held on 15 February 2005 be approved and signed as a correct record.
On Minute 4/05 (Minutes of the Last Meeting), Councillor Hodgson asked about Councillor Fawcett’s second visit to the Norfolk Library Service. As Councillor Fawcett was not present, Council asked that Councillor Fawcett send a written reply on his meeting with the Head of the Norfolk Library Service to Councillor Hodgson.
20/05. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
(Agenda Item 2)
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Andrew Brown, Ted Cooper, John Farrow, Neil Fawcett, Margaret Ferriman, Lesley Legge, Dr Peter Skolar and Sylvia Tompkins.
21/05. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
(Agenda Item 3)
The following interests were declared:
|
Councillor |
Agenda Item |
Nature of Interest |
|
|
Brighouse |
8, Part Two, paragraph 13 (Regional Planning: South East Plan) |
Personal (Board Member of SEEDA) |
|
|
Mitchell |
8, Part Two, paragraph 13 (Regional Planning: South East Plan) |
Personal (Member of SEERA) |
|
|
Simmons |
8, Part Two,
paragraph 6 (Land Value Tax) and 13 (Land Value Tax) |
Personal
(Member of the Working Party) |
|
|
Howell |
8, Part Two,
paragraph 13 (Regional Planning: South East Plan) |
) |
Personal
(Conservative Group Representative on the Oxford Preservation
Trust) |
|
Crabbe |
8, Part Two, paragraph 12 (Oxfordshire Structure Plan) |
Prejudicial (Family own gravel-bearing land in Oxfordshire) |
|
|
Hook |
8, Part Two,
paragraph 36 (Expansion of the Museum Store, Standlake – "Treasures
in Store" – Scrutiny Review) |
Personal
(Member of Soldiers of Oxfordshire) |
|
|
J Cooper |
12 (Cotswold Rail Line – Double Tracking) |
Personal (Member of the Cotswold Line Promotion Group) |
|
|
Hodgson |
11 (Definitive
Map and Statement)
|
Personal
(Member of the Ramblers’ Association) |
|
22/05. OFFICIAL COMMUNICATIONS
(Agenda Item 4)
The Chair announced that she did not think it would be appropriate to let the occasion pass without expressing sympathy for all those people in Oxfordshire who had suffered such a loss on the death of Pope John Paul II.
The Chair welcomed Joanna Simons, Chief Executive, to her first meeting of Council.
The Chair thanked the following councillors, who would not be seeking re-election in May 2005, for their service for the Council (Councillors Catherine Bearder, Andrew Brown, Ted Cooper, Margaret Ferriman, Margaret Godden, Shereen Karmali, David Kyffin, Margaret MacKenzie, John Power, Sam Segaran, Betty Standingford and Sylvia Tompkins).
The Chair reported that Chris Impey, Assistant Chief Executive, would be retiring after the elections in May 2005 and was attending his last meeting of Council. She thanked him for his service with the Council and wished him well in his retirement. She presented him with a decanter. Mr Impey thanked Council for their good wishes.
23/05. PETITIONS AND PUBLIC ADDRESS
(Agenda Item 6)
Petition by Mr Andrew Wood, Volunteer with Oxford Friends of the Earth
Andrew Wood presented Council with a petition opposing the burning of Oxfordshire’s rubbish in an incinerator. He said that the petition was in the form of postcards signed by over 600 people from Oxfordshire and beyond which had been sent to Councillor Purse. The Council’s Waste Strategy should aspire to a zero waste strategy minimising waste and using discarded resources efficiently and sustainably. Incineration was unnecessary if high recycling and composting rates were achieved. Non-recycled mixed waste could be sorted mechanically and materials recovered for recycling. The residual could then be industrially composted or digested anaerobically. Overall it was more energy efficient to recycle materials than to produce them anew each time.
Address – Mr Rob Gillespie – Item 8, Part Two, 12
Mr Gillespie spoke on behalf of Brideparks Oxford Limited, the current owners of Shipton-on-Cherwell Quarry, and Saxon Developments Limited, which was in the course of acquiring the site. The site could be developed for a new community comprising about 2,250 new homes together with employment development, neighbourhood centre and social facilities, landscaping, open space and a railway station. It would include a country park and waterside development linked to the canal within the quarry. Some of the land could act as compensatory new green belt for the development within the quarry. Following the Examination in Public, the Panel had confirmed that the quarry could be regarded as a brown field site. Development of such sites would have to be considered before any green field sites. The visual impact of development within the site would be less upon the surrounding countryside than a conventional housing development on the edge of an existing town.
24/05. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE
(Agenda Item 8)
The Council had before it the report of the Executive (CC8) and Addenda relating to Part Two, Item 12.
This contained two recommendations and two items referred to Council for consideration. Executive members responded to questions in relation to the following items included in the report. Councillor Mitchell agreed, on Part One, paragraph 4(d), to add "Oxford Preservation Trust" to the list and, on Part Three, to add "Waste Management" to the list. Councillor Purse agreed, on Part Two, item 14, that she and the Chair of the Council would ask the SEEDA whether the consultation document had been sent to all households in Oxfordshire.
|
Part |
Paragraph |
Member |
|
One |
(2) (Corporate Issues) |
Bryden |
|
One |
(3) (Driving up Performance) |
Brighouse |
|
One |
(4) (Partnership Working) |
R
Mold |
|
One |
(6) (Learning & Culture) |
Bryden |
|
One |
(7) (Social & Health Care) |
Gatehouse |
|
One |
(8) (Environment & Economy) |
Greene |
|
One |
(9) (Community Safety) |
Hayward |
|
Two |
(2) (Performance Management: Progress against Priorities and Targets) |
Power |
|
Two |
(4) (Three Year Revenue and Capital Settlements – Consultation on Local Government Funding Arrangements) |
Brighouse |
|
Two |
(11) ("Facing the Future" – Consultation on Local Government Pension Scheme) |
Brighouse |
|
Two |
(13) (Regional Planning: South East Plan) |
Johnston |
|
Two |
(15) (Inland Waterways – Scrutiny Review) |
McIntosh-Stedman |
|
Two |
(16) (Local Transport Plan) |
MacKenzie |
|
Two |
(19) (Cornmarket Street, Oxford, Reconstruction Scheme – Scrutiny Review) |
Simmons |
|
Two |
(20) (Road Casualty Reduction – Best Value Review) |
Hodgson |
|
Two |
(21) (Charges for Residents’ Parking Permits) |
Harper |
|
Two |
(22) (Rail Projects) |
Power |
|
Two |
(23) (CSCI Inspection of Services for Older People) |
Standingford |
|
Two |
(24) (Redevelopment Proposals for Homes for Older People) |
Evans |
|
Two |
(28) (Regional Fire Controls) |
Harris |
|
Two |
(29) (Ofsted Inspection of the Youth Service) |
Witcher |
|
Two |
(30) Licensing Act 2003 – Implications for Social & Health Care) |
Harris |
|
Two |
(31) (Ofsted Inspection of LEA Services) |
Brighouse |
|
Two |
(34) (Strategies to Support Oxfordshire Schools in Raising Attainment, particularly at Key Stage 4) |
Hudson |
|
Two |
(35) ("Faith in our Schools" Scrutiny Review) |
Robins |
|
Three |
(1) (Live Issues for the New Executive) |
Simmons |
On Part Two, item 12 (Oxfordshire Structure Plan), Councillor Purse moved and Councillor Robertson seconded the motion standing in her name in the following amended form:
Councillor Joslin moved and Councillor Gatehouse seconded an amendment to recommendation (b) as follows:
add after "Annex C", "amended as follows:
at G4, add after (e) ‘but the current geographical shape and boundaries of the Green Belt will be reviewed so that the latent potential of Oxford to further develop its economic activities can be more effectively achieved’."
The whole of G4 would then read, as amended:
"A Green Belt will be maintained around Oxford, to:
(a) preserve the special character and landscape setting of Oxford;
(b) check the growth of Oxford and prevent ribbon development and urban sprawl;
(c) prevent the coalescence of settlements;
(d) assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
(e) assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land,
but the current geographical shape and boundaries of the Green Belt will be reviewed so that the latent potential of Oxford to further develop its economic activities can be more effectively achieved.
Development in the Green Belt will only be permitted if it maintains its openness and does not conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt or harm its visual amenities."
After debate, this amendment was put to the vote. Seven members by standing in their places required a named vote in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 15(a). Voting was as follows:
Councillors voting for the amendment (20)
Councillors Brighouse, Evans, Mrs Fulljames, Gatehouse, Harper, Harris, Hodgson, Hudson, Joslin, Karmali, MacKenzie, McAndrews, McIntosh-Stedman, R Mold, S Mold, Power, Segaran, Sibley, Standingford and Witcher.
Councillors voting against the amendment (30)
Councillors Belson, Bradshaw, Bryden, Mrs Bulley, J Cooper, Farrell, Mrs Fitzgerald-O’Connor, Fooks, J Godden, M Godden, Greene, Mrs Hastings, Hayward, Mrs Heathcoat, Hook, James, Jelf, Johnston, Laver, Mitchell, Patrick, Purse, Roaf, Robertson, Rose, Seale, Simmons, Viney, Wilmshurst and Wyatt.
Councillors abstaining (3)
Councillors Reynolds, Robins and Shouler.
The amendment was declared lost.
After further debate, the motion was put to the vote and carried by 31 votes to 1 with 19 abstentions.
RESOLVED:
(a) to consider Part Two, item 6 (Land Value Tax) with the Notice of Motion by Councillor Margaret Godden (Agenda Item 13);
(b) on Part Two, item 12 (Oxfordshire Structure Plan) (on a motion by Councillor Purse and seconded by Councillor Robertson and carried by 31 votes to 1 with 19 abstentions) to:
(c) on Part Two, item 13 (Regional Planning: South East Plan) (on a motion by Councillor Purse and seconded by Councillor Robertson and carried by 29 votes to 17 with 2 abstentions) to endorse the comments of the Executive on the SEERA consultation on the South East Plan;
(d) on Part Two, item 26 (Community Safety Strategies), (on a motion by Councillor Janet Godden and seconded by Councillor Crabbe and carried nem con) to approve the Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership strategies.
25/05. INTERIM ARRANGEMENTS FOR TAKING EMERGENCY DECISIONS IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE COUNTY COUNCIL ELECTIONS
(Agenda Item 9)
RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Mitchell and seconded by Councillor Roaf and carried nem con) to agree a temporary variation to the Schedule to Section L of the Constitution Specific Powers and Functions of Particular Officers with effect that from 9 May to 17 May 2005 paragraph (1)A(d) is to be read as follows:-
"(d) Any function of the Executive or a committee of the Council, after consultation with the appropriate Director and thereafter with the Chair and Vice-Chairman of the Council.".
26/05. SCRUTINY REPORT 2004/2005
(Agenda Item 10)
RESOLVED: to receive the Scrutiny Report 2004/2005.
27/05. QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE FROM MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL
(Agenda Item 11)
1. QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR JOHN POWER TO COUNCILLOR DAVID ROBERTSON, EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR TRANSPORT
In my view the Cornmarket Inquiry produced some criticism of the Environmental Services department (now the Directorate of Environment & Economy). Among those criticisms was the failure to carry out a full risk assessment before the project started. Given that some sums of public money were wasted, what action is being taken to address those criticisms of the Department?
ANSWER
The Executive accepted all the recommendations of the Scrutiny Panel, including that we should review the risk assessment processes and setting appropriate contingency provisions for schemes. More stringent risk assessment for large capital projects is already in place but it is right to look at these and make sure that they are an adequate response to the Scrutiny Panel's report.
I should however clarify that a full risk assessment for the Cornmarket scheme was carried out and is documented in the Financial Contribution Agreement between the County and City Councils. With hindsight we might have different views about the extent of the risks, but it would be wrong to suggest that they were not considered at the time.
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION
There was criticism in the report that a full risk assessment was not carried out and project management was not in place. What are you going to do about this?
SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER
What I have done is to accept the report from the Review Team. We have an action plan coming out in July.
2. QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR JOHN POWER TO COUNCILLOR DAVID ROBERTSON, EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR TRANSPORT
To cut costs, please residents, aid tourists and visitors, and assist the businesses in Oxford, would it not make good sense to reduce the Control Plus contract from 16 hours a day 364 days per year to 12 hours a day 306 days per year?
ANSWER
Patrolling 16 hours per day is concentrated in the City Centre and Jericho area, where there is substantial leisure activity into the late evening and early hours, with associated public order problems. There is a need to prevent illegal and obstructive parking, in particular to allow bus services to operate with the minimum of obstruction, enabling people to travel safely away from the City Centre. For these reasons it may not be safe or sensible to reduce the cover currently carried out.
Elsewhere in the City, Control Plus are available to respond to parking problems that they are called to by the Police or the public. There is no time limit as to when such things may occur.
Patrolling extends to all days of the week, including weekends, because the commercial life of the city now operates on a 24/7 basis and any proposed change to this regime would have to be very carefully considered.
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION
Do you agree that the hours should be reduced in line with what the residents, tourism industry and local businesses think?
SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER
In my answer I say it may not be safe or sensible to reduce the cover and a reduction would have to be very carefully considered.
3. QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR MARGARET MACKENZIE TO COUNCILLOR KEITH MITCHELL, THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL
What is the Executive doing or going to do about improving access to the public viewing facilities in the Council Chamber, so that I and others will be able to make use of them in future, without having to use that ridiculous and dangerous spiral staircase?
ANSWER
The Executive is exploring two options for continuing the refurbishment and improvement of Old County Hall that has already proved so successful in its application to the Common Hall and the public areas of County Hall.
Option One involves a joint use agreement with the developer of the Castle site by which the developer would carry out and pay for a significant refurbishment scheme that would provide him with a suite of conference rooms but would allow the County Council to continue having use of the Common Hall as well as use of a refurbished Council Chamber and other areas on an agreed basis.
Option Two is to consider the Council undertaking a refurbishment itself to create our own learning and development facility, funded from prudential borrowing and with the repayments met from the savings in not having to hire expensive external conference facilities.
A report will be taken to the Capital Steering Group and then on to the Executive early in the new Council as part of the report on the reorganisation of Central Offices.
In the medium term, therefore, there is the possibility of reaching agreement with the Castle site developers subject to the Council being satisfied it would retain adequate use of the facilities in Old County Hall or the Council undertaking a refurbishment itself if that can be shown to be financially viable. Either of these options would include improvement in access for the public to Council meetings and should provide for a much more satisfactory range of venues for our meetings that is fit for the 21st century.
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION
When is Option 1 or Option 2 going to be put in place?
SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER
Our ability to move forward will depend on our ability to reach agreement with the developer if we go for Option 1 or our ability to prove Option 2 stacks up in business terms. There will be a report to the Executive in June on the options.
4. QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR BRIAN HODGSON TO COUNCILLOR TONY CRABBE, EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR SCHOOLS
How soon does the Executive Member for Schools expect the Oxfordshire Local Education Authority to finish addressing the "areas for development" listed by the Ofsted inspectors, particularly "the planning and provision of financial services to schools"?
ANSWER
I can do no better than refer Councillor Hodgson to the "Post Ofsted Action Plan - Timetable for completion of actions" which has recently been sent to the DfES. I will be happy to arrange for a copy to be sent to Councillor Hodgson or any other member who may wish to see a copy.
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION
Do you agree that the new improvement plan still lacks efficient measures by which progress can be evaluated and that there is a great deal that still needs to be done?
SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER
I agree that there is a great deal to be done. We knew what the problems were some time ago. We did not have to wait for Ofsted. We have been working on these for a long time. We have restructured the financial department in the Education Department over a year ago and put in extra staff to assist the schools and support the schools. It will be an on-going process and we shall continue to work at it until we provide the service which we want. In the meantime I think the Ofsted plan does give a very good indication of the dates when we can expect to achieve most of the things although some of them will be on-going without any doubt.
5. QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR BRIAN HODGSON TO COUNCILLOR TONY CRABBE, EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR SCHOOLS
Will the Executive Member for Schools encourage Oxfordshire schools to become "Fair Trade schools"?
ANSWER
I am not entirely sure what Councillor Hodgson means by a ‘Fair Trade School’; as far as I am aware there is no specific accreditation scheme. The only scheme that I am aware of is operated by The Fair Trade Foundation and The People and Planet group but this is only for schools with a Sixth Form. I would, however, wish to support all schools that have a Fair Trade policy. Our School Development Service already provide information, help and advice on this matter and I see this as sufficient encouragement. I believe that it is down to each individual school to decide their priorities for themselves, and whether or not they wish to adopt Fair Trade policies.
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION
The best place to start with the fundamental changes needed is in the schools. Would you agree that it is essential to encourage schools to take up this excellent programme?
SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER
I feel that you get a far more satisfactory result if the pupils actually initiate it rather than officers or members telling them what they have to do.
6. QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR OLIVE MCINTOSH-STEDMAN TO COUNCILLOR TONY CRABBE, EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR SCHOOLS
Are you in favour of the recommendation from Trevor Phillips, Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, to teach black boys separately in order to improve their exam results?
ANSWER
I am not in favour of this general approach. I believe that it is a matter for each individual school to decide how best to teach its pupils in order to enable them to achieve to the maximum of their potential. The government Five Year strategy for Education proposes the development of ‘personalized learning’ for all students, which should take account of their specific needs and abilities, rather than a general approach. In Oxfordshire the segregated approach would be impracticable; for example, in 2004 there were just fourteen black Caribbean boys, from all Oxfordshire schools, who took GCSE.
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION
Will you try to find out more facts to help raise the achievement of black boys?
SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER
We are looking at a more personalised education plan for every pupil in Oxfordshire. We have made the achievement of ethnic minority groups one of our PSA targets and we have put considerable support in to raise the achievement of Bangladeshi boys, black Caribbean boys and others. The Government has withdrawn the ethnic minority achievement grant to the Council but the Executive has put back £100,000 into the budget to continue the work. We are very actively trying to improve the attainment of not just black boys but all boys in Oxfordshire.
7. QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR BRIAN HODGSON TO COUNCILLOR ANNE PURSE, EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Can the Executive Member for Sustainable Development confirm that the County Council is failing in its statutory duty by not addressing, within the due time, the request by numerous long-standing users of Baggs Bottom footpath to put it on the definitive map?
ANSWER
Applications such as this to modify the Definitive Map and Statement are made to the County Council under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981. Under that Act the duty is to keep the map and statement under continuous review and 'as soon as reasonably practical' investigate an application and decide whether to make an order. If a decision has not been made within 12 months the applicant may, under Schedule 14 of the Act, make a representation to the Secretary of State (SoS) (via GOSE). The SoS may, after consulting the authority, direct that the application be determined within a specified period - but is not obliged to give such a direction.
We currently have a backlog of such applications and given the limited staff resources available for such work adopt a practice of dealing with them in chronological order of receipt - being the best practical way of managing the workload in an equitable way. We currently have over 60 applications in the backlog and staff have to spend time regularly apologising for the delays.
Until the application is researched fully we will not know if there is a good case and therefore whether an order should be made. A letter has been sent concerning this footpath which I understand Cllr Hodgson has received a copy of.
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION
Will the Executive member agree to reduce the delay in processing definitive map modification orders?
SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER
We have put in extra money to keep footpaths clear. I would agree that we need more money in this area and it is one of the things that, should I remain in a position of influence, I will press for in the next Council.
8. QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR BRIAN HODGSON TO COUNCILLOR TONY CRABBE, EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR SCHOOLS
Will the Executive Member for Schools agree to contact Durham County Council in relation to their school attainment policies? One example of an idea that could be worth following is the Aspiration Audit conducted in each school by their "Beyond Expectations" team.
ANSWER
Yes. A request for information has already been made to Durham. We are always looking for opportunities to examine, and adopt if appropriate, best practice from other authorities. We currently have a whole series of initiatives that we are implementing to raise attainment, the most recent of which is to engage the wider community. However, we must be careful not to involve our schools in ‘initiative overload’.
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION
If it helps Councillor Crabbe I would perhaps ask him to reply to this supplementary in writing because it would take too long for him to reply orally. There are two sorts of initiatives. One is high energy with low impact and the other is low energy with high impact. Do you agree that it is crucial to focus on initiatives that can have immediate impact?
SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER
I have looked at the results achieved in Durham in comparison with Oxfordshire. If you look at the Key Stage 2 results, we were very similar to them at that level, 1 percentage point above in English but 2 percentage points behind in Maths. When it comes to Key Stage 3 we were two percentage points above them in English and 5 percent above them in Maths but when it actually came to GCSE we were 4.6 percent above them. I will be pleased to answer the supplementary question in writing.
9. QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR CRAIG SIMMONS TO COUNCILLOR ANNE PURSE, EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
How many Friends of the Earth 'No Incineration' cards have been received?
ANSWER
Approximately 600 cards have been received.
10. QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR CRAIG SIMMONS TO COUNCILLOR ANNE PURSE, EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Why has the County ended the Real Nappy Voucher Scheme?
ANSWER
The Real Nappy Cash Contribution Scheme that was set up in 2002 was a two-year pilot scheme which started on 23 April 2002 and finished on 23 April 2004. The £30 cash contribution scheme was initiated to encourage parents within Oxfordshire to start using washable nappies (£15 for the first set of nappies and £15 for the second set of nappies).
The Cash Contribution Scheme ran for the full two years with the cut off point for the first claim on 23 April 2004. It was considered that the scheme should not be continued for a number of reasons. Firstly, it was felt that the £30 become more of a reward for using washable nappies rather than an incentive. Secondly, it was felt that the initial organisation and set up of the scheme had several flaws in it which meant that those officers dealing with the claims had to commit a disproportionate amount of time to it. Whilst the administration of the scheme could have been improved this area would still demand a disproportionate resource. Finally, it was felt that the money being spent on the scheme could have been better used, for example, by educating parents of the benefits of real nappies.
The deadline for the second claims was 28 February 2005 so that we could process all the claims by the end of the financial year. Although the pilot scheme has come to a close we are still actively promoting washable nappies. In the last five months we have developed a Real Nappy Awareness Campaign to help educate Oxfordshire's parents of the benefits of washable nappies. We have also managed to implement a pilot scheme in the maternity ward of the Wallingford Community Hospital, where they are trialling the washable nappies with the intention of scaling this scheme up so that we can introduce washable nappies into the maternity wards of the John Radcliffe.
Educating parents of their options and introducing washable nappies into the County's hospitals will have a greater impact in reducing waste than continuing with the cash contribution scheme. The new schemes are much more sustainable in both time and resources.
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION
Does the Executive member regret the passing of this scheme which shifted the benefits of waste minimisation on to those who actually made the effort to minimise their waste and also overcame the barrier of cost for those unable to afford washable nappies?
SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER
On the contrary Councillor Simmons I am delighted with the scheme that is at the moment being trialled in Wallingford and may well then extend to the JR maternity section, the second largest maternity hospital in the country. I did approve of our first 2 years’ trial set up in 2002 but I think we have moved on from there. I think it will send a lot of signals to parents if reusable nappies are used for babies in the hospital when you think of the amount of disposable nappies that a place the size of the JR2 sends to landfill and you consider the direct impact that that has on our waste disposal.
11. QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR TERRY JOSLIN TO COUNCILLOR ANNE PURSE, EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Are you aware of the recent high levels of government grants awarded to the science-based research industries, a large proportion of which will be spent on the Harwell campus? Have we made any plans to accommodate the subsequent pressures on services within the County such as housing, transport infrastructure and school places?
ANSWER
We have been aware of the potential increase in jobs at Harwell and this, together with potential job growth at other locations in the south of the county, is part of the reason why strategic housing development is proposed in the draft Structure Plan at Grove, and also at Didcot. The implications of these developments for service provision and infrastructure are being assessed as the planning process proceeds through the preparation of local plans and assessment of planning applications, and includes making provision for additional schools and transport measures.
The Wantage and Grove Area Strategic Transport Study is now underway. The study area extends to the major employment sites at Milton Park and Harwell and the provisional strategy has taken into account planned jobs growth at those sites. A report on the Strategic Transport Study will be considered by the County Council’s Executive on 19 April.
Officers have a liaison meeting with UKAEA Harwell every six months at which planning and transport issues are discussed.
12. QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR TERRY JOSLIN TO COUNCILLOR DAVID ROBERTSON, EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR TRANSPORT
Can you explain, in detail, how and who decided that 27 villages and parts of Wantage, Grove and Abingdon came to be within the remit of the Didcot Integrated Transport Scheme, when no other County ITS has this burden?
ANSWER
The County Council's Executive made this decision at its meeting on 5 March 2002, which considered the Didcot Transport Issues Study final report undertaken by consultants Buchanan. The particular decision was "as the Didcot Integrated Transport Strategy covers a substantial surrounding area rather than the town alone, invite the Parish Councils in the study area together to appoint 2 representatives to participate in the Steering Group, in addition to the Town Councillor."
This decision, which recognised that Didcot transport influenced a much wider area than the town alone (as is the case with other ITS towns), was conveyed in a letter to South Oxfordshire District Council, the Vale of White Horse District Council and Didcot Town Council on 3 April 2002, and to all local County Members via letter on 17 April 2002.
I think it is also important to bear in mind that the defined Didcot Area does not include any part of Grove, Wantage or Abingdon (although its boundary extends close to the former).
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION
None of the other places, with the possible exception of Grove, has any development going on at present or in the near future and it would seem that Didcot would have a substantial income from developer contributions arising from the further 4 or 5,000 dwellings heading its way. Could this be used to make up the shortage of normal funding for ITS schemes?
SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER
From experience to date I would suggest to the next Council that they look again at the Didcot ITS and perhaps look to do the same as they have done on the other ITSs.
13. QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR TERRY JOSLIN TO COUNCILLOR DAVID ROBERTSON, EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR TRANSPORT
The Milton Park Business estate is constantly building new offices, laboratories, workshops and service premises to add to its already impressive portfolio. As such, it contributes large sums of money to the County as Section 106 contributions. In return it expected to find significant improvements to the local transport and highways infrastructure. Nothing has materialised in this respect and its request for financial assistance with its dedicated bus service from Didcot Railway station to the Park has been refused. Why are we refusing to help?
ANSWER
Officers have considered Milton Park's request to return S106 contributions, or to forego them in future, in order to pay for free travel for people working at the business park. Whilst anyone offered free bus travel might be expected to leave their car at home, and indeed a number of employees do, I believe that it is not in the long term interests of the County Council to set this sort of precedent. There is also a risk that free bus travel for some would abstract from existing commercial and subsidised services (there are currently 3 an hour between Didcot Station and Milton Park) leading to additional funding support being required by the County Council and severely undermining the prospects for commercial viability in the longer term.
The contributions secured and sought from development in the Didcot area are allocated to an emerging comprehensive package of infrastructure and bus subsidy measures to improve the long-term transport sustainability in the area. This package will undoubtedly cost more than the funds we currently have and it is therefore important that the contributions we hold are used in the most effective way possible.
Officers have offered to work with representatives of the major employment sites in the area in order to promote better understanding of the wider transport issues and maximise the resources available. This is designed to create a virtuous circle of investment in sustainable transport in the area.
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION
Why are we not co-operating with Milton Park by providing a subsidy towards the cost of £250,000 for a bus service direct from Didcot Railway Station to the Business Park?
SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER
I would disagree with that: we are co-operating with them. This is an age old problem in terms of capital from development funding and it is not always useful and sensible to put it towards revenue services. One of the problems we have had is that, in the past, after a year or a couple of years the capital funding dries up and effectively we have got either a commitment on the revenue services or the service just discontinues. I think we will look in sympathy with Milton Park but I do not see at this stage that we would want to put capital to revenue purposes.
14. QUESTION FROM COUNCILLOR TERRY JOSLIN TO COUNCILLOR ANNE PURSE, EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
A recent Health and Safety Executive report shows that, within the waste industry, 160,000 workers are employed, with another 45,000 expected over the next 5 years. It also showed that the accident rate for the industry is very high at 2,500 for each 100,000 workers. What is the accident rate in Oxfordshire and what are we doing in order to prevent this high accident rate occurring in Oxfordshire?
ANSWER
The Council is aware of the relatively high accident rate of the waste industry. Waste Management monitors health and safety through the regular contract management process. This process indicates that there is not a high accident rate in the services paid for and managed by the County Council.
Last year the Health and Safety Executive carried out inspections of all the Waste Recycling Centres. Potential issues were identified at three sites. All the short term issues have now been addressed and action plans developed to solve the longer term issues.
Enquiries have been made with the Health and Safety Executive into the exact accident rate for the waste industry in Oxfordshire and unfortunately they are unable to provide figures for individual counties.
28/05. MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR JULIAN COOPER
(Agenda item 12)
Councillor Cooper moved and Councillor James seconded the motion standing in his name at item 12 in the agenda in the following amended form:
"With the ever increasing volume of traffic, including heavy goods vehicles, congesting both the A40 and A44 roads to the North and West of Oxford, this Council believes that improved transport infrastructure is necessary to:
In the short term the Council supports the policy of the County Executive which has already agreed to secure an hourly off-peak service.
The Council believes these long term objectives can be most effectively achieved by the partial restoration of double tracking of the Cotswold Rail Line northwest from the Wolvercote Junction to Worcester and also asks that the feasibility of re-establishing links to the east/west rail link be examined. Council therefore calls on all levels of local and central government, together with the Strategic Rail Authority and/or its successor, to formulate proposals to enable the reinstatement to be achieved similar to the recent successful restoration of double tracking of the Chiltern Line."
After debate, the motion was put to the vote and was carried by 30 votes to 14.
RESOLVED: accordingly.
29/05. MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR MARGARET GODDEN
(Agenda Item 13 and Agenda Item 8 (Report of the Executive, Part Two, paragraph 6))
Councillor Margaret Godden moved and Councillor Hodgson seconded the motion standing in her name at item 13 in the agenda as follows:-
"The Council recognises that the Oxfordshire Land Value Taxation (LVT) Study has shown that:
The Council also notes that LVT has advantages for local councils in that:
The Council accordingly resolves to ask the appropriate government departments to proceed with trials of Land Value Taxation with the intention of either introducing it throughout England and Wales or of making it available to local councils who wish to adopt it. Oxfordshire County Council would be interested in taking part in such a trial.
After debate, the motion was put to the vote and was carried by 32 votes to 17.
RESOLVED: accordingly.
(Agenda Item 14)
Councillor Janet Godden moved and Councillor Fooks seconded the motion standing in her name at item 14 in the agenda as follows:-
"This Council is fully appreciative of the growing success of the many preventive initiatives towards reducing youth offending in Oxfordshire but notes with concern the difficulties of meeting some of its targets in this area, particularly with regard to cautions and convictions of children in the care system. Council also notes that custody accounts for over two thirds of the annual budget of the Youth Justice Board yet is probably the least effective means of preventing re-offending. Council therefore feels that the use of custodial sentencing for under 18s and the care and treatment of young offenders in custody needs urgent attention. It resolves to:
and to seek the support of the County’s MPs for these representations;
After debate, the motion was put to the vote and was carried by 16 votes to 1 with 27 abstentions.
RESOLVED: accordingly.
At this point,
the Chair left the meeting and the Vice Chairman (Councillor Mrs Fulljames)
took the chair.
31/05. MOTION FROM
COUNCILLOR ROBERT EVANS
(Agenda Item 15)
Councillor Evans moved and Councillor Hudson seconded the motion standing in his name at item 15 in the agenda as follows:-
"This Council agrees to support the principle of fair trade and also to encourage the production and use of local produce. To further these objectives, the Council asks the Executive to consider ways in which it can:
After debate, the motion was put to the vote and was carried nem con.
RESOLVED: accordingly.
32/05. MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR ROBERT EVANS
(Agenda Item 16)
Councillor Evans moved and Councillor Joslin seconded the motion standing in his name at item 16 in the agenda as follows:-
"This Council calls upon the Executive to assist local members and their constituents in monitoring the extent and deployment of developer contributions by:
After debate, the motion was put to the vote and was carried by 23 votes to 5 with 9 abstentions.
RESOLVED: accordingly.
33/05. MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR LIZ BRIGHOUSE
(Agenda Item 17)
Councillor Brighouse moved and Councillor Witcher seconded the motion standing in her name at item 17 in the agenda as follows:-
"This Council notes the fact that the Leader of the Council exercised all of this Council’s five votes at the South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA) in favour of that body’s abolition, without first consulting this Council or any of the other political parties represented on this Council. This Council requests that in future the Leader discusses decisions which affect this Council and its budget with other political parties before voting on behalf of this Council."
Councillor Mitchell moved and Councillor Roaf seconded the following amendment to the motion as shown in bold type and by strikethrough:
"This
Council notes the fact that the Leader of the Council exercised all
of this Council’s five votes at the South East England Regional Assembly
(SEERA) in favour of that body’s abolition, without first consulting
this Council or any of the other political parties represented on this
Council. This Council requests the new Executive (post-May 5)
to consider what mechanism might be needed to coordinate the Council’s
response to strategic issues in SEERA and other outside bodies
that in future the Leader discusses decisions which affect this
Council and its budget with other political parties before voting on
behalf of this Council."
With the agreement of her seconder, Councillor Brighouse accepted the amendment.
After debate, the amended motion was put to the vote and carried nem con.
RESOLVED:
This Council notes the fact that the Leader of the Council exercised all of this Council’s five votes at the South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA) in favour of that body’s abolition, without first consulting this Council or any of the other political parties represented on this Council. This Council requests the new Executive (post-May 5) to consider what mechanism might be needed to coordinate the Council’s response to strategic issues in SEERA and other outside bodies.
34/05. MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR BETTY STANDINGFORD
(Agenda Item 18)
Councillor Standingford moved and Councillor Brighouse seconded the motion standing in her name at item 18 in the agenda as follows:-
"This Council asks the Executive to consider bringing forward the Residents’ Parking Zone (RPZ) in the present Headington and Marston Area Transport Strategy (HAMATS) from 2007/9, in view of the increased problems caused by traffic from the greatly enlarged John Radcliffe Hospital and Oxford Brookes University sites, from new developments and from rat-running through to the Oxford Northern Bypass. Marston and Northway residents are alarmed by the volume of traffic and by indiscriminate parking in the area, which endangers elderly people and young children in particular. For this reason, this work should be expedited as soon as possible to enable local people to use the public highways and footpaths in safety."
After debate, the motion was put to the vote and was carried by 23 votes to 2 with 2 abstentions.
RESOLVED:
accordingly.
35/05. MOTION
FROM COUNCILLOR BRIAN HODGSON
(Agenda Item 19)
Councillor Hodgson moved and Councillor Roaf seconded the motion standing in his name at item 19 in the agenda as follows:-
"Under the Disability Discrimination Act, the County Council has a responsibility, which comes into force towards the end of 2006, actively to promote disability equality.
This Council therefore calls on the Executive to produce a draft action plan later this year so that there can be a full and comprehensive consultation throughout Oxfordshire on that draft plan.
Council also urges the Executive to study and publicise the code of practice produced by the Disability Rights Commission, which helps people to understand the major changes to duties relating to the public sector.
Note: The Disability Rights Commission is inviting public sector chief executives and leaders to comment on the code by 22 April 2005."
The motion was put to the vote and was carried nem con.
RESOLVED:
accordingly.
36/05. MOTION FROM
COUNCILLOR BRIAN HODGSON
(Agenda Item 20)
Councillor Hodgson moved and Councillor McIntosh-Stedman seconded the motion standing in his name at item 20 in the agenda as follows:-
"This Council
Councillor Fooks moved and Councillor Roaf seconded the following amendments shown in bold:
This Council
(a) welcomes
notes the government’s statutory target for improving the
energy efficiency of our homes by 20% by 2010;
(b) notes the government’s admission, in their Review of the UK Climate Change Programme, that meeting this target "will require even greater levels of energy efficiency improvement";
(c) congratulates Scrutiny and the Executive on their work to develop a positive approach to improving the sustainability of the Council and its own buildings by supporting measures to reduce energy use and investing in energy efficiency measures;
(d) deplores the lack of commitment from the government in its failure to reduce VAT on energy-saving materials or to provide any positive incentives for more energy efficient buildings;
(f) resolves to lobby any future government to match rhetoric with action by introducing more stringent Building Regulations and reducing the cost to owner-occupiers of making their homes more energy-efficient.
After debate, the amendment was put to the vote and was carried by 20 votes to 14.
The substantive motion, as amended, was put to the vote and was carried by 19 votes to 2 with 13 abstentions.
RESOLVED: as follows:
This
Council:
(a) notes the government’s statutory target for improving the energy
efficiency of our homes by 20% by 2010;
(b) notes the government’s admission, in their Review of the UK Climate
Change Programme, that meeting this target "will require even greater
levels of energy efficiency improvement";
(c) congratulates Scrutiny and the Executive on their work to develop
a positive approach to improving the sustainability of the Council
and its own buildings by supporting measures to reduce energy use
and investing in energy efficiency measures;
(d) deplores the lack of commitment from the government in its failure
to reduce VAT on energy-saving materials or to provide any positive
incentives for more energy efficient buildings;
(e) regrets that the Stamp Duty (lower rates for energy-saving measures)
Bill due to be debated on 8 April looks doomed;
(f) resolved to lobby any future government to match rhetoric with
action by introducing more stringent Building Regulations and reducing
the cost to owner-occupiers of making their homes more energy-efficient.
in the Chair
Date
of signing 2005
Return to TOP