ITEM CC1OXFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCILMINUTES of the meeting of the County Council held at County Hall on Tuesday 13 September 2005 commencing at 10.00 am and finishing at 3.05 pm Present: Councillor MRS CATHERINE FULLJAMES – in the chair Councillors:
The Council considered the matters, reports and recommendations contained or referred to in the agenda for the meeting, together with a supplementary report to the report of the Cabinet (CC8) and an additional item (motion from Councillor Dr Skolar on the proposed closure of the Foley-Gibson Ward at the Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre) which the Chairman agreed to certify as urgent business (the reason for urgency was that the matter was of very great importance to Oxfordshire, it had only just (since publication of the agenda for the meeting) been announced, and waiting for the next Council meeting in November would allow the closure processes to go ahead without the chance of the County Council (or the Oxfordshire Joint Health Overview & Scrutiny Committee) bringing any influence to bear) and decided as set out below. Except insofar as otherwise specified, the reasons for the decisions are contained in the agenda and reports, copies of which are attached to the signed Minutes.
62/05. MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING
(Agenda Item 1) RESOLVED: that the Minutes of the meeting of Council held on 21 June 2005 be approved and signed as a correct record.
63/05. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
(Agenda Item 2) Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Carter, Mrs Higham and Purse.
64/05. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
(Agenda Item 3) The following interests were declared:
65/05. OFFICIAL COMMUNICATIONS
(Agenda Item 4) The Chairman reported that the County Council, South Oxfordshire District Council and Didcot Town Council had won a Sustrans award for excellence for cycle routes linking Didcot to nearly all its surrounding settlements, often by excellent traffic-free paths. She said that she would be writing, on behalf of the County Council, congratulating all concerned. The Chairman also thanked all concerned in the concert by the Oxfordshire Youth Orchestra held on 10 September 2005 at the Town Hall, Oxford. The Chairman also reported that, on 8 September 2005, she had launched Art in Oxfordshire Schools at Modern Art, Oxford. The Chairman reported that she would write to the Captain of the England Cricket Team congratulating the Team on winning the Ashes.
66/05. APPOINTMENTS
(Agenda Item 5) RESOLVED: to appoint:
67/05. PETITIONS AND PUBLIC ADDRESS
(Agenda Item 6) Mr Jackson, Savills, addressed the Council on agenda item 8, item 16 (Draft South East Plan – Housing Distribution). He said that he had written to members on 7 September requesting that they consider including land south of Grenoble Road as an option in the public consultation document on district housing numbers. He said that he now understood that the Cabinet had decided, in the previous week, the form of the consultation document. He wanted to make the case for including the option of development south of Grenoble Road in the public consultation document because it was one of only two genuine options that the public would have to consider. The proposed consultation document would ask residents in Didcot, Bicester and Grove whether they wanted more housing or a lot more housing in their town. He pointed out that the deposit Structure Plan had included a proposal for 1000 houses on land south of Grenoble Road but Council had agreed to delete this proposal in April 2004. He said that he recalled some members at Council had considered there had not been adequate time to consider the option in sufficient detail. He asked why, two years after the consultation document had been issued, there had not been sufficient time to consider the option of land south of Grenoble Road. He added that the EIP Panel had stated in its report that inevitably future plans would need to address options within Central Oxfordshire including making changes to the Green Belt. He said that he understood that on the public consultation document members of the public could suggest alternative options to the two proposed but asked why the public was being presented with options at all. He suggested that there were only two options for development in Oxfordshire: growth focussed at Didcot, Bicester and Grove or at Oxford including a review of the Green Belt. He asked that the Council present the public with these options so that a genuine public debate could take place.
68/05. REPORT OF THE CABINET
(Agenda Item 8) The Council had before it the report of the Cabinet (CC8) and a supplementary report setting out the decisions of the Cabinet, at its meeting on 6 September, on items 5, 15 and 16 of the report. The report contained three recommendations to Council. In relation to item 15 of the report, Councillor Shouler said that, during the discussion of this item at the Cabinet meeting, he had withdrawn as he had previously expressed a view about the Upper Heyford base. However, he was mindful of the advice previously given to members by the former Monitoring Officer that declaring interests on planning policy was different from declaring interests on planning applications. He said that the Oxfordshire Structure Plan had taken a long time to produce and members had made decisions at each stage of the process: at deposit draft, at pre-EIP changes and on modifications to be considered. On the narrow matter of RAF Upper Heyford, the issue was how the justification for the settlement of 1000 houses should be expressed in the Plan, given that both environmental improvements and conservation of the base would be specified. He did not subscribe to the view that too much importance, or greater importance, should relate to the Cold War aspect. Having carefully considered all the issues involved, he had decided that he would take part in the discussion and voting. Councillor Seale said that, for the same reasons that Councillor Shouler had expressed, he would take part in the discussion and voting. RESOLVED:
as shown in Annex 1 to the report (CC8);
(Councillors Howell and Reynolds left the Chamber for the discussion and voting on the Oxfordshire Structure Plan.)
69/05. SCRUTINY CO-ORDINATING GROUP - MEMBERSHIP
(Agenda Item 9) Council considered a report of the Head of Democratic Services on a request from the political groups to change the membership of the Scrutiny Co-ordinating Group. The Scrutiny Co-ordinating Group currently comprised the Chairmen and Deputy Chairmen of the five Council Scrutiny Committees and the Chairman of the Oxfordshire Joint Health Overview & Scrutiny Committee. As a consequence of the changes which the Council made to the Constitution in May 2005 and subsequent decisions, that Group now contained members from only one political group. As membership on the scrutiny committees was required to be politically proportional, Political Group Leaders considered that there should be representation on the Co-ordinating Group from the other political groups. It was therefore proposed that the membership of that Group be increased by 5 and the places allocated on a politically proportional basis to those political groups not forming the administration. This would give 3 Liberal Democrat Group, 1 Labour Group and 1 Green Group places. The members appointed by those groups should be members of one of the 5 Council Scrutiny Committees. RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Mrs Fulljames and duly seconded) to amend paragraph 5 of Section F of the Constitution (Scrutiny Committees) by inserting the words "and 5 other places allocated on a politically proportionate basis to those political groups not forming the administration, the members from those groups to be drawn from any of the Scrutiny Committees in paragraph 1….".
70/05. QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE FROM MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL
(Agenda Item 10)
Does the highways budget contain money for the repair of sign posts? ANSWER The highways budget does contain allocations for the repair, cleaning or replacement of signs and posts. The following provision has been made in the 2005/06 highway maintenance budget: (a) £0.25m from the Electrical budget, specifically for the maintenance of illuminated traffic signs; (b) £0.93m to Traffic Aids (signs, lines, road studs and condition surveys); (c) Sign maintenance may also be funded from the Village, Town and City Centre Management budget ( £1.23m). The actual amount spent on reactive sign maintenance from b) and c) is determined largely by the Area Offices and will depend on other local priorities. SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION Parish councils are asked to pay £400/£500 to have signposts repaired. Can I ask the Member if he will try and lend his weight to extracting some money from the area offices to repair or replace signs? SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER There is approximately £150m backlog on highway maintenance because of under-investment over the years. The area offices’ budgets are under pressure. I will see what can be done but I do not hold out a great deal of hope.
Despite your assurance at the last Council that it was a longstanding tradition that councillors displaced staff at Macclesfield House on Full Council days, I have been unable to find anyone who recalls this tradition. Can you assure Council that in fact there is no such tradition, and that in keeping with the administration's aim to increase efficiency, in future staff who have genuine operational need to use their cars in Oxford during the day will be allowed to park in the Macclesfield House car park even on Full Council days? Would you agree that the County Council cannot expect the public to choose to travel by bus if councillors are seen to prefer their cars, even before the needs of their staff? ANSWER The long-standing arrangement to which I referred at the last Council meeting is the facility for councillors to use space in the Macclesfield House car park on Council days – not the reservation of the space for councillors in preference to staff. I am assured that the facility was indeed available, although not intensively used as there was other space in which councillors could park around County Hall itself. That space is now much reduced, which is why the Corporate Facilities Manager has more recently advised directorates that the Macclesfield House car park would be needed for councillors on full Council days, this being coupled with permission for "essential user" officers to use the Grandpont car park, a few minutes walk away. However I have discussed this issue with the Corporate Facilities Manager and have agreed an arrangement whereby any restriction on staff car parking at Macclesfield House on Council days will apply only up to 10.30 am. This means that staff with an operational need to park in Oxford may use any available space in the Macclesfield House car park after that time. (The ability to use Grandpont as an alternative would still apply.) SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION How many minutes is a ‘few minutes’ to reach Grandpont Car Park, why is staff time not valued and why cannot councillors walk that distance to the Grandpont Car Park or use Park & Ride, particularly as there will be free parking at two Park & Ride sites? SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER That sounds more like a statement rather than a question to me.
In the light of press reports that the County Council now favours an eastern relief route to deal with congestion on the A34, could the Cabinet Member for Transport please tell me if this represents a change in the Council's agreed policy? If so, could he please tell me where and when this change occurred and who took the decision? ANSWER The County Council has not decided in favour of any solution to the A34 problem, nor changed any policy in this regard. The media report of a possible eastern relief route (between Didcot and the A4074) was in response to this idea appearing, along with numerous other potential solutions to the A34, in a table of potential schemes/measures that might be required to provide the necessary infrastructure to support development being proposed through the Structure Plan/South East Plan. This table was annexed, as information, to a Cabinet Report on the South East Plan, which was seeking agreement on housing distribution. As the Leader of the Council made clear at Cabinet, no decisions were being sought or taken on any transport infrastructure requirements at this stage. SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION Why was press speculation allowed to continue unchecked for as long as it did, creating anxiety and uncertainty which stirred up local residents in my division? SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER I did persuade BBC South not to pursue this issue but not the Oxford Mail or the Abingdon Herald.
What is the Council's policy with regard to permitting pubs and other licensed premises to place tables and chairs on a public thoroughfare and to allow alcohol to be consumed there? When such a licensed premise is found to have placed tables and chairs on the public thoroughfare without permission, what steps does the Council normally take to have them removed, and in what timescale? ANSWER
There is a report to Cabinet on 20 September about agency arrangements for minor highway functions and it also mentions arrangements for the removal of unauthorised signs etc from the highway. Annexed to the report are suggested proforma agreements. SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION Could the report be expanded to make the enforcement powers, and which authority should operate them, more explicit? SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER Yes.
Understanding that there is a plan to make evening and weekend car parking free in Oxford City from October, and given that: - no surveys have been conducted to support such a proposal; - no legal or environmental guidance consulted; - no statistics produced showing benefits elsewhere; - no city members, interest groups, or members of the public consulted; - none of the too-high traffic pollution figures taken into account; and that the proposal is against general international, national and local guidance to reduce car use and promote other forms of transport, this move being based only on an election pledge in Conservative election leaflets, does it leave the County Council open to legal challenge? ANSWER No. SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION Will this proposal leave the County Council open to legal challenge given the proposal is based on the honour of a promise in a leaflet and not on anything more practical or material? SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER We did consult people, it was called an election and it was in our Group’s manifesto and we have delivered it.
On visiting several places recently I became aware of their use of 20 mph zones in residential areas in towns. In Exeter in the east of the city all the radial routes have 30 mph limits and nearly all the residential areas in between are 20 mph zones (both with and without traffic calming). In Ayr in Scotland I observed that on the main dual carriageway out to Glasgow all the side roads have 20 mph limits, including the bus routes. In Edinburgh there are signs outside some schools that the limit is 20 mph when the lights flash, and we met one system working on the main road out to the south. All of these places seem to me to be ahead of Oxfordshire in their use of 20 mph limits. What are your intentions and plans for introduction of 20 mph limits in Oxfordshire, particularly in residential areas in towns and outside schools? ANSWER
(1) Where
it can reduce accidents efficiently with whatever additional
calming is needed
In conclusion, we will use where efficient at casualty reduction benefits (based on our usual latest 5-year reported injury-accident history) but when funds are tight would not wish to spend for its own sake on schemes which in reality provide no benefit. SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION Will staff visit some of the places I have mentioned which have a lot of experience in introducing 20mph limits? In addition, in Edinburgh, there is a rickshaw service, guided bus routes and bus information systems. SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER Officers in the Environment & Economy Directorate do share experience and go to places to have a look at schemes if there is anywhere that they feel would be of benefit to the County Council. Oxfordshire is ahead of Edinburgh because it has a park & ride system. In Edinburgh, they are going to invest in a guided bus route as they have not been able to introduce a park & ride system.
How did Oxfordshire collect the examination results from schools this year and how have they been analysed by the Directorate for Learning & Culture? ANSWER Collection and analysis of Oxfordshire’s examination results this year have been as follows: A-Levels On the day the results were released (18 August) a sample of schools (approximately 1/4 of the total) were contacted (by an officer in the Learning & Culture Directorate who had previously confirmed with the headteachers that they were happy for this to happen) in order to get an early indication of whether or not any national trends in pass rates (i.e. % A-E grades) and that for the highest grades (% A/B grades) were being mirrored in Oxfordshire. All schools were sent, before the end of term, a covering letter and pro forma asking for a fuller set of data to be returned (to the relevant adviser) by 26 August. Analysis, based upon returns from schools (NB two returns still outstanding) for each school and the county: * %A-E grades (the pass rate) * %A/B grades * % 1 or more A-levels * % 2 or more A-levels GCSE On the day the results were released (25 August) all schools were contacted, by telephone, by officers, headteachers having been advised that this would happen in the letter/pro forma referred to above. Headteachers were asked for their cohort size and the number or percentage of students gaining 5+A*-C grades. From this we were able to generate a highly provisional headline figure for the county to inform the press release. All schools were sent, before the end of term, a covering letter and pro forma asking for a fuller set of data to be returned (to the relevant adviser) by 26 August. Analysis, based upon returns from schools (NB two returns still outstanding) for each school and the county: * % 5+A*-C grades * % 5+A*-G grades * % 1+ A*-G grades * % 5+A*-C grades for Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Black Caribbean pupils (PSA targets) Key Stage 3 We do not need to collect these results from schools - they are downloaded from a DfES website. Analysis of DfES provided data for each school and the county: * % Level 5+ in English, mathematics and science * % Level 6+ in English, mathematics and science * Comparison of each of these measures with our statistical neighbours (statistical release from the DfES on 8 September) Key Stage 2 Teacher assessments are collected from schools through a secure electronic method and these are passed onto the DfES. We do not need to collect SAT results from schools - they are downloaded from a DfES website. Analysis of DfES provided data for each school and the county: * % Level 4+ in English, reading, writing, mathematics and science * % Level 5+ in English, reading, writing, mathematics and science Key Stage 1 Teacher assessments are collected from schools through a secure electronic method and these are passed onto the DfES. Analysis of DfES provided data for each school and the county: * % Level 2+ in reading, writing, speaking & listening, mathematics and science * % Level 2b+ in reading, writing, speaking & listening, mathematics and science * % Level 3+ in reading, writing, speaking & listening, mathematics and science Officers have been asked to secure and supply a more rapid flow of information on examination results from schools next year, for both A-Level and GCSE. This to be readily available to relevant Cabinet Members and the Communications and Marketing Team via Learning & Culture. SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION If we are to raise standards of achievement in this County we must have in depth analysis of all the results, and in particular the contextual value added results which have been compiled by the DfES. Can I ask that this information be passed on to all Councillors so that they know exactly how their schools are doing in terms of the context in which our young people are taking exams? SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER The database on value added contextual data is available through headteachers to governing bodies. I personally see no reason why councillors should not have the information. I suggest they contact Learning & Culture to request the relevant figures for the schools in their Division or on a wider basis. I would add that achievement levels across the County have generally risen this summer which I think is a major accolade for our schools. I would particularly like to say in terms of value added that over 50% of our primary schools at Key Stage II have achieved value added in either Maths or in English or in both. I think one very important thing that we do as County Councillors is to acknowledge that achievement at whatever level it is. The Head of School Development and I will be writing a joint letter to be despatched in the next couple of days to acknowledge that achievement. I think it needs to be registered that the value added contextual data does underline schools, perhaps in socially and economically difficult areas, which are raising achievement against the odds and it also underlines schools, in other areas, where perhaps their achievement levels had reached a plateau and the schools were ‘coasting’.
There is a significant risk that the Government will unfairly cut funding for the 'Supporting People' programme in Oxfordshire. Many of the people who lose services they receive under that programme will then have unmet needs which might be the responsibility of the County Council under Community Care legislation. Has the Council begun to assess what services might be required of the Council? If yes, what is the estimate of their cost in the next financial year? If no, are there plans for carrying out the assessments? ANSWER I am grateful to Councillor Sanders for his question because he highlights a serious problem for this and many other councils which is likely to get worse before it gets better. In the light of the Government’s decision to cut our grant for the Supporting People from £21.2 Million to £19.7 Million this year and then impose a further cut to £18.7 Million next year, the Council in conjunction with its partners in the Core Strategy Group is indeed working to assess what services might have to be reduced. But it is too early to give a definite figure regarding these as we are still in the process of gathering together all the facts. As Councillor Sanders knows the County Council, as the Administering Authority, is in reality an agent for receiving the money from the Government for the Supporting People programmes and then administering payments as agreed by the Commissioning Body. The next meeting of the Commissioning Body is scheduled for 6 October when some decisions regarding allocations will be put before it, and strategic reviews carried forward. Any assessment of unmet needs if any, together with possible costs to ameliorate some of the effects, will be made as the results of the strategic reviews and decisions by the Commissioning Body are made which will take place over a period of time. I would remind members that decisions by the Commissioning Body, which consists of the voting members of the District Councils, the NHS, the Probation Service and the County Council, must be unanimous. SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION In view of the loss of £1.5m in funding for services for people with disabilities, does the Council plan to assess all of them to find out if the services being lost are services that the County Council should still provide itself under other legislation? SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER It is too early at this stage to carry out the full assessments that are needed. If you look at my answer, you will see that reviews are taking place. There will be cuts. We will do our best, within whatever resources we have, to ameliorate the cuts, but I cannot give you any figures at this stage because we have not completed the reviews and have not yet received the report from the Core Strategy Group to the Commissioning Body to tell us where the actual impact of the cuts is going to be felt and what we can then do about it. The Supporting People Programme deals with long-term issues which might be two years down the line. In a letter, the Local Government Minister, Phil Woolas, wrote that the Government was proposing to move away from the existing distribution of funding to develop a more structured approach nationwide to ensure future funding better reflected need.
Donnington Bridge has been generally closed for some time. This is, of course, a great boon for local residents. It raises the question as to whether the closure is causing more problems elsewhere. If not, permanent closure could be considered. Is monitoring being carried out which would show the effects elsewhere? If not, would it be possible for monitoring to be done while the bridge remains closed? ANSWER Donnington Bridge is going to be closed until the end of October 2005. However, it is only closed: Monday - Friday 7am - 7pm Saturday 7.30am - 5.30pm So there is access at other times. Buses are allowed through anyway. A full closure would inconvenience residents for access, deliveries and would affect bus routes and passengers. As to the effects of the closure, no specific monitoring of the effects on other roads has been carried out. However, we do have monitoring sites around all the radial routes into Oxford City. The temporary closure of Donnington Bridge Road is linked to the Abingdon Road roadworks and therefore any survey now would not be valid as the survey should be undertaken when there are "normal" traffic conditions on the Abingdon Road. There have not been major problems up until now, but this could be because of the school holidays. Now that schools are back, this could change. It is generally very difficult to distinguish the effects of the closure of Donnington Bridge from the Abingdon Road closure. There are also roadworks (and a closure) on Cowley Road as well so this could have an effect on roads in the area too. As far as bus routes are concerned, some longer distance bus services were using Donnington Bridge and Iffley Road to avoid the Abingdon Road works on the northern section. As the works are now on the southern section it is impossible to tell what effect the closure of Donnington Bridge has had on bus services. One key city bus route, service 16, crosses Donnington Bridge to link the Abingdon Road with Cowley Centre and south Oxford and the residents of the Weirs Lane area recently raised a petition to ensure that this bus route continued. In the past, in association with the Oxford Transport Strategy measures we looked at restricting Donnington Bridge in terms of turning bans. We found that it was not workable and we also received a large number of objections. The other point is that we would not be able to make the High Street ban work. We need Donnington Bridge to be open to allow people to avoid travelling into Oxford City Centre to traverse the city. Overall, my view about a permanent closure is that it is too useful a road to close permanently. SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION If there have been no problems to date, can monitoring continue until the end of the current work. If there are then no problems, can some form of closure be reconsidered? SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER There are no plans, once the road works have finished, to close it in future.
In Cabinet meetings I had put down the fact that I did not always hear what was being said by Cabinet members or officers to my own poor hearing. However, it appears that many other people attending Cabinet meetings find it difficult to hear what is being said. Those sitting around the table may easily hear each other, but are probably less aware that many of those present as observers are not able to appreciate fully the debates within Cabinet. Since it is when a number of observers are present that acoustic problems are greatest, this unfortunately means that the more people there are attending Cabinet, the less likely they are to be able to hear what is said. Since the microphone system used for Cabinet meetings (which is at least 12 years old) is quite possibly not fit for the purpose of enabling those sitting in the body of the room rather than at the table to hear the deliberations of Cabinet members, can the Cabinet member tell me what assessments are made of the system's efficiency, and what plans there are to replace it? ANSWER The microphone system in the public committee rooms is antiquated and we are aware of the difficulties faced by those attending meetings at which it is used. Our property team has been asked to assess the microphone system with a view to recommending its upgrade or replacement. SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION Councillor R Smith asked the question on behalf of Councillor Purse. What is the time scale for the property team to look at this review so that we have some idea when we will see improvements? SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER It does not follow that the outcome of the review will actually lead to improvements. The current microphone systems in the committee rooms are not fit for the purpose. The Corporate Facilities Manager has been made aware of this issue and will report to me, I hope, within the next two months.
Does the Cabinet Member agree that rising numbers of teenage pregnancies can be linked to educational underachievement in some of our schools? ANSWER I would like to highlight that the average rate of teenage pregnancies for Oxfordshire is below both the national and regional averages (according to data 1998-2000 from Understanding Oxfordshire 2005). There is a correlation between underachievement and children and young people who may, for a variety of reasons, be considered to be vulnerable. However, we must remember that not all teenage parents are underachievers and therefore we should be careful not to label teenage parents. The Council has recently conducted a Best Value Review of Services for Vulnerable Children and Young People. The recommendations of this review are being taken forward via an action plan which, among other things, increases the degree to which resources are targeted towards vulnerable children and young people and seeks to raise their educational achievement. SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION Do you agree that I would naturally be interested in this topic as a caring elected member for Cowley & Littlemore and a Governor of Peers Technology College?
SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER Yes.
Given the importance of achieving the targets in our public service agreement, and the lack of information forthcoming at the recent Cabinet meeting regarding the failure to meet the target of 60% recycled or composted at the County's own waste recycling centres, can I have the Cabinet Member's assurance that he is committed to raising our performance at our own recycling centres and ask what plans he has to ensure that a 60% target will be achieved as soon as possible? ANSWER Oxfordshire County Council is working in partnership with all the District Councils in the County to increase recycling and composting. The County Council has a statutory recycling target of 30% for 2005/6. This target is placed on the County Council and includes the performance of the District Councils and the County Council at our recycling centres. This target was met a year early when a recycling rate of 30.15% was achieved countywide. As part of the County Council's Public Service Agreement (PSA) a stretch target of 33% recycling and composting was agreed for 2005/6. Monitoring shows that we are on target to achieve this. However, we must not be complacent and this target will be closely monitored to ensure the maximum performance reward grant is achieved. It should be noted that Cherwell District Council have introduced an intensive kerbside collection system that achieves a recycling rate of 43.7% in their district. This is recognised nationally as best practice and their contribution to recycling in the County is appreciated. The County Council did set itself an ambitious local target of 60% recycling at our recycling centres in 2005/6. Last year we achieved 48.65%. To improve recycling we have redeveloped the Dix recycling centre and will redevelop the Drayton site later this year. We are also improving signage at a number of sites and working with our contractors to maximise recycling. In addition we have a comprehensive programme to help people reduce, re-use and recycle including a recycling centre information leaflet sent to every home, promotional events and roadshows across the county and an outdoor advertising campaign concentrating on waste reduction. Unfortunately the temporary closure of a site for redevelopment does mean that we do loose some recycling performance and it is anticipated that the local target of 60% will not be achieved this year. However, the improvements being put in place this year mean it should be exceeded next year. SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION Councillor Johnston asked the following question on behalf of Councillor Purse. Can we be assured that no effort will be spared to get this local performance indicator back on track? SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER You can be reassured that we will do our best to achieve that target but we still may not meet it.
71/05. MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR ALAN ARMITAGE
(Agenda Item 11) Councillor Armitage moved and Councillor Wise seconded the motion standing in his name at item 11 in the agenda as follows: "This Council believes that the introduction of Compulsory Identity Cards would violate traditional British liberties unacceptably, and compromise the rights of British citizens to live lawfully in this society free from arbitrary harassment by agents of the state and other bodies. The claimed advantages of Compulsory Identity Cards in fighting terrorism, identity theft and benefit fraud, are unlikely to be achieved, and the financial costs are likely to exceed any possible administrative gain. From experiences in other countries, it is clear that racial harmony and tolerance of minorities suffer following the introduction of Compulsory Identity Cards. It is also likely that a substantial number of people in Oxfordshire will refuse to obtain Identity Cards, even if the carrying of them is declared compulsory by Parliament. Council therefore resolves to urge the Cabinet to ensure that recipients of services supplied by the Council are not required to produce a National Identity Card as a condition of receiving any of these services, except where laws may be introduced to force the use of National Identity Cards in specific circumstances." Councillor Howell moved and Councillor Couchman seconded the following amendment to the motion shown in bold and strikethrough: "This
Council believes that the introduction of Compulsory Identity Cards
would violate traditional British liberties unacceptably, and compromise
the rights of British citizens to live lawfully in this society free
from arbitrary harassment by agents of the state and other bodies. The
claimed advantages of Compulsory Identity Cards in fighting terrorism,
identity theft and benefit fraud, are unlikely to be achieved, and the
financial costs are likely to exceed any possible administrative gain.
The Chairman ruled the amendment out of order on the grounds that it had the effect of introducing a substantially different proposal into the motion. After debate, the motion was put to the vote and was carried by 56 votes to 8. RESOLVED: accordingly.
72/05. MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR JEAN FOOKS
(Agenda Item 12) Councillor Fooks moved and Councillor D Turner seconded the motion in her name at item 12 in the agenda as follows: "Oxfordshire County Council has a statutory duty "to assert and protect the rights of the public to the use and enjoyment of any highways for which they are the highway authority" (ie virtually all roads and footways in Oxfordshire). Where hedges, shrubs and trees obstruct the highway the Council can require the owner and occupier of the adjoining land to have them trimmed back. It is particularly important for pedestrians with visual impairment that branches do not overhang the footway. Where there is no footway, pedestrians and cyclists must not be forced away from the edge by overgrown vegetation. Council notes that at present the County Council has insufficient staff to check for obstructions or to remind householders that if they do not trim their hedges, they may be asked to pay the Council to do the work in lieu. This is putting pedestrians at risk. Council therefore requests the Cabinet to ensure that the Director for Environment & Economy designates staff to this work, while encouraging co-operative work with District and Parish Councils and with local communities. Council believes that good customer service would require that action would be taken to initiate action on any obstructing vegetation within 7 days once it has been reported. It requests the Cabinet to set this as the standard." After debate, the motion was put to the vote and was lost by 43 votes to 15. (Councillors Crabbe and N Turner left the Chamber for this item.)
73/05. MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR JEAN FOOKS
(Agenda Item 13) Councillor Fooks moved and Councillor Altaf-Khan seconded the motion standing in her name at item 13 in the agenda as follows: "Council notes that in trying to meet the PSA target on bus use, and on meeting our LTP objectives, it is of prime importance to increase bus patronage. It is also of great concern to everyone in the County, particularly staff and visitors, to be able to reach the hospitals in Headington conveniently, by bus if possible. Council further notes that the Cabinet has proposed to offer free parking in Oxford in the evenings and on Sundays. This will result in lost revenue to the County Council of some £580,000 per annum. At present there is a surplus in the on-street parking account which can be spent on other transport-related measures, including bus services, if no more off-street parking is needed. Council asks the Cabinet to use some of this surplus to provide the pump priming needed for a 20-minute bus service from Kidlington to Headington, via Water Eaton P&R and Summertown, which is likely to be in the region of £300,000 at most. This would be attractive to passengers and help to reduce congestion in Oxford, further improving bus reliability and hence popularity. As the removal of evening and Sunday parking charges in Oxford will substantially reduce the surplus in the account in future years, Council asks the Cabinet to abandon its proposal to provide free parking in Oxford." After
debate, the motion was put to the vote and was lost by 41 votes to 27. (Agenda Item 14) Councillor Crabbe moved and Councillor Wilmshurst seconded the motion standing in his name at item 14 in the agenda as follows: "Residents in Oxfordshire, and elsewhere nationally, are receiving large numbers of computer generated telephone calls which are silent when answered. These calls are an annoyance to the majority of recipients but can be very distressing to some elderly people. This is an unnecessary and deplorable practice. In order to prevent further distress to the elderly population of Oxfordshire, this Council calls on the Government to take appropriate action to eliminate this problem and requests the Leader to write to the relevant minister asking for this to be given early consideration." Councillor Bryden moved and Councillor Fooks seconded the following amendment to the motion shown in bold and by strikethrough: "Residents
in Oxfordshire, and elsewhere nationally, are receiving large numbers
of computer generated telephone calls which are silent when answered.
These calls are an annoyance to the majority of recipients but can be
very distressing to some elderly people. This is a unnecessary and deplorable
practice. In order to prevent further distress to the elderly population
of Oxfordshire, this Council After debate, the amendment was put to the vote and was lost by 47 votes to 16. The substantive motion was put to the vote and was carried nem con. RESOLVED: accordingly.
75/05. MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR KIERON MALLON
(Agenda Item 15) Councillor Mallon moved and Councillor Dr Skolar seconded the motion standing in his name at item 15 in the agenda as follows: "The Council applauds Brookes University's decision to award an Honorary Degree to the TV presenter Jeremy Clarkson "in recognition of his enthusiasm and contribution to engineering and motor sports" and instructs the Leader of the Council to write to Mr Clarkson offering him the congratulations of the County Council." Councillor Bryden moved and Councillor Patrick seconded the following amendment to the motion shown in bold and by strikethrough: "The
Council After debate, the amendment was put to the vote and was lost by 49 votes to 14. The substantive motion was put to the vote and was carried nem con. RESOLVED: accordingly. (Councillor
R Smith left the Chamber for this item.) (Urgent Item) Councillor Dr Skolar moved and Councillor Legge seconded the motion standing in his name as follows: "The Council notes with deep concern the news that Oxford’s Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre intends to close its 26-bed Foley-Gibson surgical ward because it has been told by the Thames Valley Strategic Health Authority it must balance its books by the end of this financial year as its contribution to fighting the £34m deficit in NHS services across Oxfordshire, Berkshire and Buckinghamshire/Milton Keynes. Moreover it appears that the closure of this ward at the Nuffield is only the tip of the iceberg and that further closures of NHS services will be announced. The Council therefore resolves to advise the Department of Health, the Thames Valley Strategic Health Authority and the Oxfordshire PCTs and NHS Trusts of its concern about the proposed and potential closures and their implications for patients and residents of Oxfordshire and to press upon them the need for action to avoid such closures. The Council furthermore urges the Oxfordshire Joint Health Overview & Scrutiny Committee to take whatever action is available to it to preserve NHS services in Oxfordshire." After debate, the motion was put to the vote and was carried, with one Member abstaining. RESOLVED: accordingly.
in the Chair Date
of signing 2005
|