______________________________________

________________________________
To Members of the Executive
Notice of a Meeting of the
Executive
Tuesday 6 November 2001 at 2.00
pm
County Hall, Oxford

Chris Impey
Assistant Chief Executive & Solicitor
to the Council
Contact officer: Graham
Warrington (Tel: 01865 815321; E-mail)
Membership
|
Councillors
|
|
|
|
Keith R Mitchell
|
-
|
Leader of the Council
|
|
Margaret Godden
|
-
|
Deputy Leader of the Council
|
|
Tony Crabbe
|
-
|
Executive Member for Schools
|
|
Neil Fawcett
|
-
|
Executive Member for Learning &
Culture
|
|
Roy Tudor Hughes
|
-
|
Executive Member for Transport
|
|
Anne Purse
|
-
|
Executive Member for Strategic Planning
& Waste Management
|
|
Janet Godden
|
-
|
Executive Member for Children &
Young People
|
|
Don Seale
|
-
|
Executive Member for Community Care
& Health
|
|
John Farrow
|
-
|
Executive Member for Community Safety
|
The agenda follows overleaf.
Decisions taken at the meeting will become effective on 15 November 2001
unless called in by that date for review by the appropriate Scrutiny Committee.
Copies of this Notice, Agenda
and supporting papers are circulated to all Members of the County Council.
AGENDA
- Apologies for Absence
- Declarations of Interest
- Petitions and Public Address
- Henley Integrated Transport
Forward Plan Ref 23/2001
The Leader of the Council reports as follows:
Over the last 12 months discussions
with Henley Town Council and South Oxfordshire District Council have
taken place on the design and funding of an environmental enhancement
scheme for Henley Market Place, and local consultations has been carried
out on possible design options. The principles of a scheme have been
agreed, but in September a motion was passed by the Town Council asking
the County Council to reverse the decision to proceed with the scheme.
In the light of this development,
I visited Henley on 12 October, together with Councillors Margaret Godden
(as the Deputy Leader of the Council designate) and Roy Tudor Hughes
and Anne Purse (as the relevant prospective Executive Members) to look
at the Market Place and hear the views of the Town Council members and
representatives of other interested organisations in the town. Following
our visit, I wrote the attached letter to the Town Clerk (EX4)
to set out our conclusions, which (to summarise) were that, provided
the Town Council continue to support the scheme both with a financial
contribution and the incorporation of the area of Market Place which
they own:
- the proposed scheme for Market Place should
be implemented forthwith, with the object of completion by the end of
May 2002, before the tourist season gets under way;
- an Integrated Transport Study Working Group
should be set up to deal with wider concerns and particularly the problem
of the continuing growth of traffic volume; and
- the County Council should make a commitment
to spend up to £100,000 next year on the implementation of an Integrated
Transport Strategy.
We recommend the Executive
to endorse these conclusions, subject to considering the Town Council’s
response, which we hope to be able to report at the meeting.
- Peer Review
Report by the Assistant Chief Executive (EX5).
The IDeA Peer Review concluded
their work on 12 October following an intensive week of interviews and
discussions. This ‘corporate health check’ was based on interviews with
members, employees, partners and our customers as well as on some comparisons
of our performance with other county councils.
The formal written report
of the Review Team will be received in December and will be considered
in detail at that time. However to enable the Executive to initiate
early action the principle issues raised by the Review Team are identified
in the report of the Chief Executive.
This item has not been
included in the Forward Plan; however, it is not considered that the
decision being sought amounts to a key decision, and it is therefore
open to the Executive to consider the report and determine the recommendations.
The Executive is RECOMMENDED:
- to commission officers to bring
forward proposals for improving performance management for consideration
by the Executive later in the Autumn;
- to agree the following statement
for dissemination to managers:
- "Oxfordshire has a long and
proud history of innovative services and cost effective performance.
However we want Oxfordshire to be a leading edge Council in every
area of activity and we therefore accept the Peer Review Team’s
recommendations for improvements. Many of the changes recommended
have already been identified in ‘Raising Our Performance’, which
the Council has approved as an action plan to be implemented during
the life of the Council. We will now be adding further action points
to the ‘Raising our Performance’ programme, to incorporate the new
issues identified by Peer Review.
The Review Team was particularly
critical of our performance management arrangements. In consequence
we have commissioned officers to bring forward proposals for improvement
for consideration by the Executive later in the Autumn.
It is important that we all contribute
to the improvement in the Council’s performance. If we work together
constructively, we will make rapid progress. The Executive will closely
monitor progress in the coming months and we look forward to celebrating
more successes."
- Review of Education, Cultural and Social Services
Report by the Chief Executive
(EX6).
The report proposes that
a review be carried out of the relationships between the three departments
of Education, Cultural Services and Social Services and of their structures,
and sets out the terms of reference for such a review.
This item has not been
included in the Forward Plan; however, it is not considered that the
decision being sought amounts to a key decision, and it is therefore
open to the Executive to consider the report and determine the recommendations.
The Executive is RECOMMENDED
to agree that:
- a review be carried out of the relationships
between the departments of Education, Cultural Services and Social
Services and of their structures;
- the review should implement the
terms of reference at paragraph 7 of the report;
- the Chief Executive should circulate
the terms of reference to staff and partners.
- Establishment of Local Strategic Partnership
and Outline Process for Development of Community Strategy
Forward Plan Ref 9/2001
Report by the Chief Executive (EX7).
The Local Government Act
2000 requires all local authorities to develop community strategies,
which identify community aspirations and priorities, and which address
these by fostering partnership working. In two tier areas, county and
district councils are required to co-operate and have the option of
developing joint plans.
More recently the Government
has asked local authorities to establish Local Strategic Partnerships
(LSPs), which are intended to improve partnership working between the
various public agencies and with the business and voluntary sectors.
These arrangements need to
be established on a countywide basis and more locally within each district,
and county and district councils will need to support both the countywide
and local arrangements.
This paper outlines proposals
for action. A further paper on the staffing issues will follow.
The Executive is RECOMMENDED:
- to approve the proposals for a countywide
Local Strategic Partnership and Community Strategy;
- to support the replacement of the
Oxfordshire Committee and Forum with quarterly meetings of Oxfordshire’s
six local authority leaders; and
- to approve the appointment of an
LSP Secretariat on the basis that the cost will be incorporated in
2002/03 budget.
- County Council Grant Aid for Village Hall Projects
Forward Plan
Ref 45/2001
The Director of Cultural
Services reports as follows:
Attached (EX8)
is a letter from the Deputy Chief Executive of the Oxfordshire Rural
Community Council (ORCC) with her report and recommendations on the
applications received for support in 2001/02 under the County Council’s
grant aid scheme to assist with meeting the costs of essential repairs
and improvements to village halls. This scheme has been re-instated
in the current financial year with an annual budget of £50,000, on the
basis that advice to the County Council on priorities and assistance
with the administration of the scheme will be provided by ORCC under
a service level agreement with the County Council.
One application – for Russells
Water Village Hall – has already been approved under a priority procedure
agreed by the former Cultural Services Committee. The remaining eight
applications have been assessed according to criteria agreed by the
Cultural Services Committee and are all now recommended for approval:
- Acorn Centre, Cowley Community Centre,
Oxford
- Cutteslowe Community Centre, Oxford
- Elsfield Community Room
- Farmoor Village Hall
- King Alfred Drive Community Centre, Didcot
- Parkhill Community Building, Kidlington
- Standlake Village Hall
- Wood Farm Community Centre, Oxford
The total of the recommended
grants matches the budget sum available: £50,000
The Executive is RECOMMENDED
to approve the payment of grant for the various village hall projects
described in the Oxfordshire Rural Community Council report in the amounts
and (where specified) subject to the conditions recommended therein.
- Outside Bodies
The Assistant Chief Executive
& Solicitor to the Council reports as follows:
The new political management
arrangements allocates to the Democracy & Organisation Committee
as a local choice function responsibility for appointments to Outside
Bodies except for those appointments identified by the Executive as
strategic and "noted as such on a list of all relevant offices
and bodies from time to time presented to and endorsed by the Council".
For ease of reference the
list of current Outside Bodies to which the Council appoints is attached
(EX9A).
Also attached (EX9B)
is a list of those bodies which it is suggested are of strategic importance
to the County Council.
In view of the abolition
of the attendance allowance the categories of Outside Bodies on which
the list at EX9A is currently based is out of date. Responsibility for
determining appointments to Outside Bodies which are not strategic,
lies with the Democracy & Organisation Committee. It is therefore
suggested that the Committee be asked to review the categories of Outside
Bodies, other than those agreed by the Council as strategic, and agree
a process of appointment.
This item has not been
included in the Forward Plan; however, it is not considered that the
decision being sought amounts to a key decision, and it is therefore
open to the Executive to consider the report and determine the recommendations.
The Executive is RECOMMENDED:-
- to agree the list of Strategic Outside
Bodies set out at EX9B for submission to the Council;
- to ask the Democracy & Organisation
Committee to carry out a review of the categorisation and appointment
process to other Outside Bodies.
- Member/Officer Working Groups – Interim Arrangements
Forward Plan Ref 2/2001
Report by Assistant Chief
Executive & Solicitor to the Council (EX10).
At their last meeting on
17 October the Shadow Executive agreed to ask officers to undertake
a review of existing member/officer Working Groups in accordance with
the decision of Council of 4 September.
As that review is unlikely
to be completed by 5 November the report suggests interim arrangements
whereby the existing member/officer Working Groups would continue subject
to some minor changes in their composition to reflect the new political
management arrangements.
This interim arrangement
would last until the review is completed and the Executive has taken
a decision about the future and final form of the Groups.
The Executive is RECOMMENDED
to agree the proposed interim arrangements.
- Agency and Joint Arrangements
Forward Plan Ref 14/2001
The Assistant Chief Executive & Solicitor
to the Council reports as follows:
As a result of regulations
made under the Local Government Act 2000, the implementation of the
new political management system automatically brought to an end those
existing agency and joint arrangements which involve "executive
functions". Where it is thought desirable to perpetuate any such
arrangements, this must be specifically decided by the Executive. The
Schedules appended (EX11) list those existing
agency and joint arrangements which it is considered should be "refreshed"
in this way. The schedules take into account recent decisions by the
former Environmental Committee in respect of agency arrangements for
Oxford City.
The Executive is therefore
asked to endorse the making of replacement arrangements so that they
can have immediate legal and practical effect. The respective partner
authorities are understood to be in agreement with this course of action.
Any subsequent variation for which a need may be identified as a result
of, for example, implementation of the recent Best Value review on Highway
Management, will be reported to the Executive for approval as they arise.
In the case of the joint
committees there is also a need formally to determine membership. In
general, only members of the Executive may be appointed to a joint committee
which is responsible for discharging executive functions, and this affects
items (a) and (b) in Schedule 2, although not items (c)–(e): in the
case of a joint committee between a County Council and a single district
council, appointments may include any councillor who represents an electoral
division wholly or partly contained within that district. For the three
committees at (c)-(e), for which appointments have historically been
made on the basis of political proportionality, it is considered that
the present incumbents may be re-appointed (together with any nominees
received for the present vacancies.)
The Executive is therefore
RECOMMENDED to:
- approve the making with immediate
effect of agency and joint arrangements relating to executive functions
as listed in the Schedules now presented, subject to:
- the terms under which such arrangements
have had effect hitherto, but incorporating variations provisionally
agreed by the former Environmental Committee in respect of agency
arrangements with Oxford City Council;
- any revised and updated terms
that may be negotiated with the respective partner authorities as
appear to the relevant Chief Officer and Solicitor to the Council
to be appropriate;
- formally appoint County Council
representatives on:
- the Fire Service Control Room
Collaboration Joint Committee (3 members of the Executive);
- the National Parking Adjudication
Service Joint Committee (1 member of the Executive);
- Banbury Sports Ground Management
Committee (6 representatives on the basis of political proportionality);
- Bicester & Ploughley Sports
Centre Management Committee (6 representatives on the basis of political
proportionality);
- Kidlington & Gosford Sports
Centre Management Committee (6 representatives on the basis of political
proportionality).
- Forward Plan and Future Business
The Executive Procedure Rules
provide that the business of each meeting of the Executive is to include
"updating of the Forward Plan and proposals for business to be
conducted at the following meeting".
The Forward Plan must formally
be updated on a monthly basis, in accordance with a schedule of published
dates; the next publication date, for the period December - March, is
19 November. It will therefore be necessary to determine the content
for the roll-forward month, and any amendments for the preceding 3 months,
at the meeting on 13 November. However, members may wish at the present
meeting to identify any changes they would wish to have incorporated
in the next update.
As to business for the next
meeting, the Forward Plan gives either a specific or general indication
of possible items for the agenda; members are asked to indicate their
own priorities for particular items to be brought forward to that or
any subsequent meeting, subject of course to the ability of officers
to provide the necessary reports and other information, to externally
imposed deadlines and to any other relevant constraints.
The Executive is RECOMMENDED
to:
(a) determine what (if any) changes
and/or additional items it would wish see incorporated in the next Forward
Plan, for the period December 2001 – March 2002;
(b) identify any specific items
it would wish to see included in the Agenda for the next meeting and
(if considered appropriate) any subsequent meeting.
- Publicity
Members may wish to identify
any matters considered at this meeting which should be the subject of
particular publicity; and if so:
- what form such publicity should take and
- who should be primarily responsible for
initiating it.
The Executive is RECOMMENDED
to instruct relevant members and/or officers accordingly.
November 2001
EX4
Return to Agenda Item
4
Mrs Jean Pickett
Clerk to the Council
Henley-on-Thames Town Council
Council Offices
Town Hall
Henley-on-Thames
RG9 2AQ |
From the Leader’s Desk
County Hall
Oxford, OX1 1ND
Tel: 01865 816037
Fax: 01865 815390
Cllr Keith R Mitchell FCA FCCA
Leader of the Council [Designate]
|
17 October 2001 |
|
|
Direct line: 01865 815283
Mobile: 07720 888712
E-mail: leader@oxfordshire.gov.uk
|
[Dear Mrs Pickett]
Henley Market Place
Following our recent visit to Henley, I should like to
communicate to members of your Council the considered view of my three
colleagues and me. I would emphasise that we are unanimous in our view.
On the basis of the representations so far, we are minded
to recommend to the County Council Executive at its first meeting on 6
November, that the proposed scheme for Market Place be implemented forthwith.
If, as is likely, the Executive accepts our recommendation it would be
possible to invite tenders on 7 November, and implement the scheme to
achieve completion by the end of May 2002, before the tourist season gets
under way. We recognised the wider concerns of your members about traffic
conditions in Henley, and are prepared to set up an Integrated Transport
Study Working Group to deal with what we consider to be your town’s greatest
problem, which is the continuing growth of traffic volume. In addition,
we are prepared to make a commitment to spend up to £100,000 next
year on the implementation of an Integrated Transport Strategy. Our recommendation
and implementation of the scheme does of course depend upon your Council
continuing its support both with its financial contribution of £150,000,
and the inclusion of Falaise Square in the scheme.
The reasons for our decision are:
1. The length of street comprising Hart Street and Market
Place from the Church to the Town Hall is as fine as any in the south
of England. Its breadth as well as the quality and variety of its architecture
covering medieval through Georgian to the Victorian and Edwardian periods
merit the best landscaping of street surfaces with the finest materials.
The Market Place scheme is of a quality to achieve this aim. The only
aesthetic criticism we heard is that there is a certain incongruity between
the symmetry of the neo-classical Town Hall and the asymmetrical landscaping
scheme. Whilst we are not experts in aesthetics, we did note that the
Market Place is itself asymmetrical and is surrounded by a variety of
architectural styles, and not just Georgian. We do not consider £700,000
to be an excessive amount to spend on a street of this stature, especially
as it will have a life of half a century or more. We would see Market
Place enhancement scheme as phase 1, and hopefully funds would become
available to carry out phase 2, down Hart Street, which with Market Place
is very much a visual whole. This would not of course be pedestrianisation
but, perhaps, widening and improving the pavements with natural materials.
2. We have considered the impact on trading conditions
in general in the town centre, and in particular in Market Place. Whilst
we cannot quantify the effect, it does seem to us that the scheme is more
likely rather than less likely to achieve an improvement. A visual enhancement
with more pedestrian space is likely to be attractive to tourists and
shoppers. Some pedestrianisation schemes reduced car parking spaces, which
can have an adverse effect on retail trade; but in this case car parking
is not affected and the two existing town centre car parks are very conveniently
situated for shopping in Market Place. It also seems likely that if the
Town and District Councils wish to encourage pavement cafés, there
will be a beneficial impact on catering sales. The viability of open air
markets should also be improved as Market Place will offer a larger and
more prominent site than the alternative location behind the Town Hall.
3. With regard to the main arterial traffic flows through
the town: if the north side of Market Place is re-opened and a third phase
installed to the lights for right-turning traffic, it is clear that the
flow of traffic along the Reading Road and Duke Street will become less
efficient. We acknowledge that traffic coming down West Street would have
quicker access; however, the volume along Reading Road and Duke Street
are much greater and their efficient flow is more critical.
4. Traffic flows through Grey’s Road car park and to
a lesser extent King’s Road car park should be capable of solution by
traffic management measures. This would require the co-operation of SODC
and, presumably, Waitrose with regard to King’s Road car park, and may
need some additional capital.
5. The scheme as planned will improve the operation of
the emergency services through the south side of the Market Place, and
take account of the discussions that we have had with the Fire Services.
6. With regard to the traffic lights at the junction
with Grey’s Road and Duke Street, whilst we accept the closure of the
north side of Market Place has increased traffic flows into Grey’s Road,
this too seems to us to be a traffic management problem. A decision needs
to be taken whether the alternative of a ‘Give Way’ or ‘Stop – Major Road
Ahead’ sign with double painted lines would be more efficient and safer,
or not.
7. Certain other complications consequent upon the closure
of the north side of the Market Place were brought to our attention, including
displacement of traffic into other roads, some of which are residential.
Insofar as this is so, it seems likely that re-opening the north side
will at best only give a temporary reprieve. This is because vehicle movements
are increasingly cumulatively by about 2% per annum. The Buchanan report
recorded a volume of 5,000 vehicle movements per hour in the centre of
Henley, and it is only a matter of time before congestion in the centre
becomes impossible and displacement occurs to these other roads. We believe
the best way to address this growing problem is within the context of
an Integrated Transport Study for the whole town.
We are acutely aware that there have been two opposed
schools of thought within the town about this scheme. We regret that the
town has had to wait such a long time for a decision, and accept the County
Council’s share of the blame. Perhaps had the issue been handled better
from the beginning there would be greater consensus and less dissension
within the town. We do, however, firmly believe that the balance of advantage
to Henley lies with implementing rather than abandoning the project. We
very much hope that the Town Council will join with us so that we can
end the uncertainty which has gone on for too long and enable us to work
together to deal with the much greater problem of the continuing growth
of traffic into and through Henley.
We should like to set up an Integrated Transport Study
Working Group to include members of the Town Council, District Council
and County Council, and including consultation with town centre retailers
and also the larger corporations. We note that more than half the traffic
in the centre of Henley is passing through. Because of the difficulty
of providing a by-pass, it will be difficult to make a dent in the cumulative
2% per annum forecast growth in volume. Nevertheless the effort must be
made if Henley is to retain its status as an attractive town, friendly
to visitors, shoppers and residents. The first and key stage is to set
up an ITS.
Finally, we were asked what would happen if the Town
Council decided to withdraw its land and financial contribution. There
are three alternatives that the Executive would need to consider: The
closed-off area can be made permanent in a fairly basic way within the
County Council budget; the closed-off area can be made permanent in a
more attractive way with finer materials providing the District Council
is prepared to continue with a scaled-down contribution; or the north
side could be re-opened to traffic. Informal consultations would have
to take place with the three options, and if re-opening were decided upon,
the Traffic Orders would have to be revoked, and this would require a
full formal consultation process, with any objections being properly considered.
I understand that you have a meeting of the Town Council
on 23 October. It would be helpful if your Council could consider our
conclusions, together with the commitments to take forward the Integrated
Transport Study that we are offering, and confirm, in the event that the
Executive decides that the scheme should go ahead when it considers the
matter on 6 November, whether it is still prepared to support the environmental
enhancement scheme in the Market Place.
I propose to send copies of this letter to all who attended
the meeting on 12 October, with the exception of Town Councillors. May
I leave it to you to circulate copies to your members, please?
Yours sincerely
[Keith R Mitchell]
Leader of the Council (designate)
ITEM EX5
EXECUTIVE – 6 NOVEMBER 2001
PEER REVIEW
Report by Assistant Chief
Executive
Background
- The IDeA Peer Review concluded their work
on 12 October following an intensive week of interviews and discussions.
This ‘corporate health check’ was based on interviews with members,
employees, partners and our customers as well as on some comparisons
of our performance with other county councils.
- The Review Team found much to commend about
the County Council’s performance although we don’t always celebrate
our successes. Examples of ‘successes’ identified by the Review Team
were referred to in their presentation to members and staff on 12 October
((see annex for details). However the Team also noted weaknesses in
some areas of performance. We will consider these issues in more detail
when we have the formal report in December. However in the interim the
Executive needs to initiate action in response to the major issues raised
so that these points can be added to the ‘Raising Our Performance’ action
plan which is now being implemented.
- For the purposes of this paper I shall concentrate
on the areas for improvement rather than the many areas of good practice
identified by the review. Improvements are suggested in relation to
leadership, democratic and community engagement and performance management
but many of the points raised have already been recognised by the Council
and implementation of the ‘Raising Our Performance’ action plan will
address many of the issues raised in the Peer Review. However perhaps
further attention is required in relation to performance management.
- The principle issues raised by the Review
Team were:
Key Issues
Leadership
- Weak political and managerial leadership
This is already being addressed:
the Shadow Executive is positioning itself to provide a clear political
steer on priorities, and to demonstrate its ownership of organisational
and community issues. Action to create a smaller more strategically
focused CCMT will help to foster a commitment to change and corporate
working.
- Need for clear corporate vision &
priorities/ need to be bolder & more forward looking
Work has now started to shape
a vision and values for the organisation and also to set clear goals
and targets for the life of the Council. The intention is to ensure
that these will be focused on customer expectations
- Need to unleash creativity and enthusiasm
of staff/ staff feel undervalued and unchallenged/ generally a risk
averse culture
‘Raising our Performance’ identifies a range
of action to support staff, celebrate success and encourage empowerment.
It will take time to change the culture of the organisation and the
Executive and CCMT will need to reinforce messages at regular intervals.
- Cross departmental working is not fostered/
need to breakdown departmentalism
Putting Oxfordshire first and
working across service and organisational boundaries without rivalry
or a sense of competition are identified in ‘ Raising our Performance’.
We already have examples of good practice in several areas including
‘early years’ but clearly we need to extend this approach into other
areas. The changing role of Directors and CCMT will help.
Democratic & Community Engagement
- Too introspective and Oxford centric
The need to connect and communicate more
effectively with the community is included in the Raising Our Performance’
action plan. In particular action in relation to the Community Strategy
and Local Strategic Partnership will help the organisation to embrace
its community governance role. The commitment to review area structure
is also relevant.
- Improve Parish, District and County
Council co-ordination of services
The Oxfordshire LSP will be encouraged to
address issues where partnership working can enhance the service provided
to the community.
- Members have a low profile/ administrative
support for members is weak
‘Raising our Performance’ addresses these
issues and the Shadow Executive has indicated an intention to undertake
a review this autumn to determine how to improve support for members.
- Extent of work involved in Scrutiny
not yet fully understood
The Council is well aware that it started
late on political modernisation. However rapid progress is now being
made and understanding and experience of the scrutiny role will develop
considerably in the next few months. There will require a steep learning
curve for us all.
Performance Management
- Too focused on resource constraints
The need to do more to maximise the
use of existing resources available to the County Council, whilst
campaigning for more resources, is an issue for the Executive and
CCMT to address. Some departments e.g. Trading Standards and Fire
are already recognised for their ability to improve services without
additional resources and we need to ensure that all services are equally
skilled in maximising the use of Council’s funds.
- Best Value not driving change culture/
lack of fundamental challenge in Best Value
Best Value has produced a wide range of
recommendations for change and savings but it is not perceived to
be delivering a step change in performance. Furthermore the process
is regarded as too bureaucratic. This suggests a need to review our
approach.
- Need for corporate project management
approach
The particular focus of the Peer Review
team is unclear and it will be useful to consider the report in due
course, particularly as we have excellent project management in some
areas. However CCMT has acknowledged that project management skills
are scarce in the organisation and managers are often trying to manage
major projects alongside day to day management responsibilities.
- No corrective action taken against
managers’ poor performance
This is an issue that needs review in relation
to mechanisms for improving performance management. In so doing we
need to consider how we ensure that appraisal is applied in a more
consistent manner.
- Need to improve financial management
The Executive will wish to consider further
action to strengthen financial management and in particular to strengthen
central control and direction. Hitherto we have spread our resources
thinly in this and other areas of corporate activity.
- Chronic lack of investment in ICT/
embrace new technology
It is well known that our under –investment
through the 1990s has left the organisation with poor ICT systems.
However plans to remedy these deficiencies are in hand and will need
further consideration in the budget debate.
- Lack of accessible information and
analysis of complaints
We need to build complaints monitoring into
our performance management system.
Conclusions
- Many of the issues raised by the Peer Review
team have already been identified in ‘Raising our Performance’, however
the criticisms of our performance management arrangements suggest a
need to review our approach. I suggest you ask officers to bring forward
proposals for improving performance management and in particular financial
management, performance monitoring and Best Value.
- It is important for the Executive to send
a clear message to members, employees and our partners. With this in
mind the Executive should agree a statement for dissemination to managers.
RECOMMENDATIONS
- The Executive is RECOMMENDED:
- to commission officers to bring forward
proposals for improving performance management for consideration by
the Executive later in the Autumn;
- to agree the following statement for
dissemination to managers:
"Oxfordshire has
a long and proud history of innovative services and cost effective
performance. However we want Oxfordshire to be a leading edge Council
in every area of activity and we therefore accept the Peer Review
Team’s recommendations for improvements. Many of the changes recommended
have already been identified in ‘Raising Our Performance’, which the
Council has approved as an action plan to be implemented during the
life of the Council. We will now be adding further action points to
the ‘Raising our Performance’ programme, to incorporate the new issues
identified by Peer Review.
The Review Team was
particularly critical of our performance management arrangements.
In consequence we have commissioned officers to bring forward proposals
for improvement for consideration by the Executive later in the Autumn.
It is important that
we all contribute to the improvement in the Council’s performance.
If we work together constructively, we will make rapid progress. The
Executive will closely monitor progress in the coming months and we
look forward to celebrating more successes"
RICHARD SHAW
Chief Executive
Background papers: Nil
Contact Officer: Stephen Capaldi,
Tel: Oxford 815466
29 October 2001
ITEM EX6
EXECUTIVE - 6 NOVEMBER 2001
REVIEW OF EDUCATION, CULTURAL AND
SOCIAL SERVICES
Report by Chief Executive
Introduction
- This report proposes that a review be carried
out of the relationships between the three departments of Education,
Cultural Services and Social Services and of their structures.
- This is an opportune time for a review.
The introduction of new political management arrangements, and the adoption
of a thematic approach to the formation of Executive portfolios and
Scrutiny Committees, raises questions about the suitability of our current
managerial structures.
- Our improvement programme, which is embodied
in "Raising our Performance" and which will be strengthened
further in the light of the findings of the recent Peer Review, envisages
a more corporate focus to our working, better cross departmental coordination
and a style of working which ensures that departmental boundaries do
not get in the way of solutions to customer needs. In addition, "Raising
our Performance" points to the need for a reduction in the size
of the County Council Management Team.
- These three departments share important
communities of interest. For example, Social Services and Education
both serve children with disadvantages or special needs. Education and
Cultural Services both meet the needs of our public for learning.
- The significant structural changes in the
Health Sector, with the development of a Strategic Health Authority
and local Primary Care Trusts, are also relevant. These place a new
onus on us to ensure that we retain the capacity and focus to work in
close cooperation with Health partners, particularly in adult care,
maximising the efficiencies of joint planning.
- In addition, the departure of the Chief
Education Officer at the end of the year prompts us to consider what
role his replacement should fulfil before initiating a recruitment exercise.
The fact that in Roy Smith we will have an extremely competent Acting
Chief Education Officer means that we do not need to rush to recruit
a replacement.
Terms of Reference
- The following terms of reference for a review
are proposed:
- To review the structures of the Education
Service, Social Services and Cultural Services, and to prepare options
and recommendations for consideration by the Executive.
- To examine the potential for exploiting
synergies between functions currently managed separately in the three
departments; and thereby to improve efficiency and to help our services
meet the needs of their customers more effectively.
- To take account of "Raising our Performance"
and the findings of the IDeA Peer Review, in particular the need for:
- our services to be more focused on the
customer;
- a more "one-Council" approach;
- the development of a more strategic
and corporate role for directors;
- a reduction in the number of CCMT directors;
- officers to work effectively with the
thematic structures and ways of working adopted by the new Executive
and Scrutiny Committees;
- effective working with partner organisations.
- To take account of structures developed
in other authorities, and of any evidence about how successful these
have been and levels of public satisfaction.
- To take account of the views of County
Councillors.
- To take account of the views of representative
groups of managers in the three departments and other key interest
groups and users.
- To prepare a report for submission to
the Executive in Spring 2002.
The Review Team
- It is desirable for the review team to involve
in-house expertise, so that it is owned by the relevant services and
takes account of local knowledge. Equally, it should involve external
challenge to ensure that the review benefits from a wider range of perspectives
and experience.
- It is therefore proposed that the review
should be led by Stephen Capaldi (Director for Strategy) with support
from a small group of officers, namely Roy Smith (Education), Mary Robertson
(Social Services), Richard Munro (Cultural Services) and Hilary Simpson
(Organisational Development). It is also proposed to involve one or
two "critical friends" from outside the Council, for example
a member of the recent Peer Review team or from a consultancy which
is familiar with our authority and other authorities.
- It is envisaged that the review team will
make arrangements for a wide range of individuals to inform its work.
Communications
- There will be interest among our own staff
and partners in this review. It is proposed that the Chief Executive
circulate a letter to inform them of the terms of reference of the review.
RECOMMENDATIONS
- The Executive is RECOMMENDED to agree
that:
- a review be carried out of the relationships
between the departments of Education, Cultural Services and Social
Services and of their structures;
- the review should implement the terms
of reference at paragraph 7;
- the Chief Executive should circulate
the terms of reference to staff and partners.
RICHARD SHAW
Chief Exective
Background Papers: Nil
Contact Officer: Richard Shaw, Tel:
Oxford 815330
October 2001
ITEM EX7
EXECUTIVE – 6 NOVEMBER 2001
ESTABLISHMENT OF LOCAL STRATEGIC
PARTNERSHIP AND OUTLINE PROCESS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITY STRATEGY
Report by the Chief Executive
Background
- The Local Government Act 2000 requires all
local authorities to develop community strategies, which identify community
aspirations and priorities, and which address these by fostering partnership
working. In two tier areas, county and district councils are required
to co-operate and have the option of developing joint plans.
- More recently the Government has asked local
authorities to establish Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs),
which are intended to improve partnership working between the various
public agencies and with the business and voluntary sectors.
- These arrangements need to be established
on a countywide basis and more locally within each district, and county
and district councils will need to support both the countywide and local
arrangements.
- Cherwell District Council is well advanced
in the production of its Community Strategy, but elsewhere in the county
arrangements remain to be finalised. In consequence the Chief Executives
of the local authorities in the county have been discussing arrangements
for collaboration on community strategy preparation. The aim is to avoid
arrangements, which duplicate effort or are in competition with each
other, and to establish arrangements that maximise the benefits of partnership.
- This paper outlines proposals for action.
The Value of a Community Strategy
- Although the Government has not set a deadline
for establishment of an LSP or the development of Community Strategies,
there are clear advantages in taking early action.
- Government grant for both county and district
councils, is often made conditional on the existence of partnership
working. Evidence of a successful Community Strategy is becoming an
increasingly important criterion.
- The Government is encouraging all county
councils to negotiate a Public Service Agreement (PSA), designed to
improve public services. It is seen as the basis of a new relationship
of trust between local authorities and central Government. County Councils
are being encouraged to involve district councils in the planning for
PSAs. A countywide Community Strategy is seen as a prerequisite for
a successful PSA.
- The partnership arrangements needed to develop
a Community Strategy would also enable us to monitor a range of agreed
quality of life indicators to gauge trends and inform the setting of
priorities. Progress against the indicators would be measured to determine
the impact of partnership action programmes, in enhancing the social,
economic and environmental well-being of the county.
- By bringing together key partners and by
identifying shared priorities, a Community Strategy could help develop
a more unified and effective voice on a national, regional or local
stage. It could also lead to more effective pooling of resources and
provide a strategic context for district based Community Plans.
Local Strategic Partnership
- We propose that the next step should be
to establish a countywide LSP. This would provide a focus for partnership
working across the county and would oversee the development of a countywide
Community Strategy. This would involve key strategic organisations in
the county, including all of the district councils. Subsequently it
is likely that more local arrangements at district or sub-district levels,
nesting within the framework of the countywide Strategy, will be developed
by each district council working with its key partners.
- Establishing a countywide LSP next will
help us to avoid duplicative arrangements. By developing an overview
of partnership working, we could ensure that arrangements are streamlined,
action-oriented and focused on areas where joint working will bring
clear added value. It will also help us to determine the most appropriate
level at which partnership action should take place. This should be
governed by the principles of subsidiarity and added value.
- We propose that the Oxfordshire LSP should
involve about 15 senior representatives including the Leaders from the
county and district councils. Membership might be drawn from the following
organisations:
- Oxfordshire County Council
- Cherwell District Council
- Oxford City Council
- South Oxfordshire District Council
- Vale of White Horse District Council
- West Oxfordshire District Council
- Thames Valley Police
- Oxfordshire Health Authority
- Oxford University
- Oxford Brookes University
- Oxfordshire Economic Partnership
- Oxfordshire Association of Local Councils
- A representative of the voluntary sector
- A representative of minority interests
- A representative of environmental interests
- The countywide LSP should meet two or three
times a year to oversee the development of the Community Strategy, the
rationalisation of partnership arrangements and the implementation of
priority actions and multi-agency projects.
- The Chair of the LSP would be elected by
the LSP representatives on an annual basis.
- Where LSPs are set up at district level,
the County Council should be an integral member, to ensure consistency
and to help develop joint approaches to key local issues, just as district
councils should be integral members of the countywide LSP.
Secretariat
- To be effective the LSP will need a small
secretariat of about two people to support its work.. Oxfordshire
County Council should establish the secretariat and each district council
should take responsibility for servicing LSPs and community strategies
developed at a more local level.
Annual Forum
- The Oxfordshire LSP would be accountable
to an annual Forum, which would include a wide range of social, economic
and environmental interests. The Forum would be invited to validate
the countywide Community Strategy and the priorities identified for
joint action.
Partnership Action Groups
- The LSP would need to look to partnership
action groups to co-ordinate joint working in support of the community
strategy and to help shape priority actions. It may well be possible
to use existing working groups in some instances.
- The LSP would be expected to review existing
arrangements for partnership working and recommend changes to streamline
and reinvigorate the arrangements.
- An important task of the LSP would be to
identify a small number of priority areas where joint action would bring
significant benefit. Once validated by the Forum, these priority actions
would be implemented through the above action groups or through special
time limited partnership action groups.
Oxfordshire Committee and Forum
- The creation of the Oxfordshire LSP and
annual Forum, coupled with changes in local authority political management,
makes it sensible to revisit the role of the Oxfordshire Committee and
Forum. It is suggested that both the Oxfordshire Committee and Forum
should be abandoned and replaced by a quarterly meeting of the local
authority Leaders – the Oxfordshire Leaders’ Group. In order to ensure
these meetings are effectively supported, it is suggested that the Secretariat
appointed to support the countywide LSP should provide support for the
Oxfordshire Leaders’ Group.
Next Steps
- The proposals are:
- establish a countywide LSP by December
2001, to include members of the organisations listed in paragraph
13.
- ask the County Council to establish a
Secretariat to serve the countywide LSP and community strategy.
- invite the countywide LSP to approve a
draft Community Strategy, with priority action areas, for consultation
in Spring 2002.
- convene the first annual Forum to approve
the countywide Community Strategy and action priorities in Summer
2002.
- ask the countywide LSP to establish partnership
action groups to implement the countywide Community Strategy and coordinate
joint action by Autumn 2002.
- invite the countywide LSP to review partnership
working in the county and to bring forward proposals for rationalisation
and reinvigoration
- where arrangements are not already underway,
take steps to agree appropriate district or sub-district level LSPs
by Autumn 2002.
- replace the Oxfordshire Committee and
Forum with quarterly meetings of Oxfordshire’s six local authority
Leaders.
RECOMMENDATIONS
- The Executive is RECOMMENDED:
- to approve the proposals for a countywide
Local Strategic Partnership and Community Strategy;
- to support the replacement of the Oxfordshire
Committee and Forum with quarterly meetings of Oxfordshire’s six local
authority leaders; and
- to approve the appointment of an LSP
Secretariat on the basis that the cost will be incorporated in 2002/03
budget.
RICHARD SHAW
Chief Executive, Oxfordshire County Council
Background Papers: Nil
Contact officer: Stephen Capaldi,
Tel: Oxford 815466
25 October 2001
ITEM EX8
OXFORDSHIRE RURAL
COMMUNITY COUNCIL
|
Tel: 01865 883488
Fax: 01865 883191
|
|
Jericho Farm, Worton, Witney, OX29 4SZ
|
e-mail: oxonrcc@ruralnet.org.uk
|
COUNTY COUNCIL GRANT AID FOR COMMUNITY
BUILDING PROJECTS 2001/2002
REPORT ON APPLICATIONS RECEIVED
AND GRANT RECOMMENDATIONS
Applications Received
1. 10 applications were
received. One of these (from Southwold Community Association, Bicester
for security fencing) was not considered, with the agreement of the
Community Association’s Chair, because the work was about to start and
adequate funding from the District Council was available to cover the
whole cost of the work.
ORCC Work to Process Applications
2. Each applicant organisation
was visited in order to discuss the proposed project and to gather additional
information, as required.
3. Applications were checked
against the eligibility criteria of the scheme, as agreed by Cultural
Services Committee in May 2001.
4. Notes on each application
are attached as Annex 1.
5. ORCC’s proposed grant
recommendations were discussed with the ORCC’s Village Halls Advisory
Group consisting of representatives of village hall committees countywide.
The 3 Oxford City schemes were discussed with the City Council officers
who provide support services to City Community Associations.
ORCC Grant Recommendations
6. ORCC’s grant recommendations
are attached as Annex 2.
7. One urgent application
from Russells Water Village Hall Committee has been dealt with already
through the Director of Cultural Services, as the work had to start
in September. A grant has been agreed and offered to the Committee and
the work has been carried out.
8. The total of the recommended
grants matches the budget sum available: £50,000.
Meryl
Smith
Deputy Chief Executive
29 October 2001
ANNEX 1
COUNTY COUNCIL GRANT AID FOR COMMUNITY
BUILDING PROJECTS 2001/2002
NOTES ON APPLICATIONS
ACORN CENTRE, COWLEY COMMUNITY CENTRE,
OXFORD
(serves Cowley but also surrounding
areas)
Project
To refurbish kitchen.
Estimated cost
£15,000
|
Other funding
Oxfordshire
MIND }
Community Centre } £9,750
User Groups together }
|
County Council grant sought
£5,250 (35%)
|
Planning permission/Building
Regulations
Obtained.
Need
The kitchen facilities are outdated
and becoming unhygienic.
Hall uses
This is a drop-in centre for people
recovering from mental illness. A range of activities are available including
benefits advice, personal support, help back into education and training.
Hot meals are provided by staff and clients – it is recognised as a therapeutic
kitchen.
General
The Acorn Centre is a very well-used
facility: a meeting space with kitchen and toilets. It is open access
and run by Oxfordshire MIND. It is not part of any statutory provision
but complementary to it. This is in effect a community centre for people
with mental health difficulties within a general community centre facility.
The Centre is not funded by Social Services.
MIND employ a Centre Co-ordinator
who has been responsible for organising the project in consultation with
users.
It is felt that Cultural Services
support for this facility is appropriate as it is not part of statutory
mental health services. Users are involved in deciding on how the Centre
is run and how funds should be spent to improve facilities. MIND subleases
accommodation from the Cowley Community Association who have a 10 year
lease from Oxford City Council.
Priority scheme: health and
safety
ORCC RECOMMENDATION
Grant of £5,250 (35%)
CUTTESLOWE COMMUNITY CENTRE, OXFORD
(pop. c.1,400 households)
Project
To build a small extension to provide
walk-in storage rooms.
Estimated cost
£20,000 + VAT = £23,500
|
Other funding
Community Association 10,000 (in
hand)
Trusts/other fund raising
3,000 (applied for)
£13,000
|
County Council grant sought
£8,225 (35%)
|
Planning permission/Building
Regulations
Land for extension is owned by County
Council (adjacent school). Talks in hand and no problems foreseen by Education
Department. Planning permission not yet obtained but City Council sympathetic.
Need
The Community Centre is increasingly
well-used and has very little storage space. This is presenting problems
for users especially running youth activities.
Hall uses
Health visitors, polling station,
credit union, residents’ association, elderly people’s club, youth club,
mothers & toddlers, bingo, women’s group, choir, dancing classes,
further education classes, meetings, Sunday school, private functions,
discos, concerts, exhibitions, homework club, youth work, family activities.
General
This is a long-standing project which
has gathered momentum under the guidance of two resident Community Workers.
Most of the other funding is in place and if a County Council grant is
agreed the Community Association feel confident they can fill any remaining
shortfall. The City Council and neighbouring school are supportive.
ORCC RECOMMENDATION
Grant of £8,225 (35%)
ELSFIELD COMMUNITY ROOM (South Oxfordshire)
(pop 100)
Project
To divide the nave of the parish
church with a folding screen to create a community space at the back served
by an extension providing kitchen, accessible toilet and store.
Estimated cost
Building work
Fees
VAT
|
£
125,812
20,000
5,300
151,112
|
Other funding
District Council
Local charity
Fund raising
|
£
99,160 (agreed)
13,000 (agreed)
24,000 (mostly achieved)
136,160
|
County Council grant sought
£10,000 (7%)
|
Planning permission/Building
Regulations
Outline planning permission granted.
Detailed plans to be submitted shortly. Have consulted Diocese, English
Heritage and SODC Conservation Officer.
Need
This small community has no public
meeting place. There is no shop, post office or pub. There has been an
inward movement of young families recently and everyone in the village
needs a community focus.
Proposed hall uses
Meetings, older people’s club, mothers
and toddlers group, gardening club, young wives, choral group, whist drives,
family functions, concerts, fund raising events, exhibitions.
General
The community has shown strong support
for this project and has raised considerable funds from a small population.
The project aims to make more intensive cost-effective use of the village’s
only public asset: the church. Although detailed plans are not yet available
and costings are only estimated so far, given the level of other funding
already available and the local commitment to achieving this project,
it is felt that County Council help at this stage is justified and will
make a positive contribution to the project’s progress.
In view of the priority need
in the absence of any other meeting place, a grant above the normal maximum
cash limit is recommended. (The application for £10,000 was made in recognition
of the published maximum cash limit.)
ORCC RECOMMENDATION
Grant of £14,255 (9%) subject
to:
a) the Parochial Church
Council giving a written undertaking to make the building available as
a public meeting space for at least 21 years.
b) the approval of the relevant
aspects of the detailed plans by the County Council’s Access Officers.
FARMOOR VILLAGE HALL (Vale of White Horse)
(pop. 500)
Project
To extend kitchen and build new lounge
bar area to create social facility.
Estimated cost
£44,000
|
Other funding
District Council
Parish Council
Trusts
Village Hall Committee
|
£
16,000 (applied for)
8,000 (agreed)
5,000 (to be applied for)
5,000 (£3,000 in hand)
34,000
|
County Council grant sought
£10,000 (23%)
|
Planning permission/Building
Regulations
Planning permission obtained. Building
Regulations to be sought shortly.
Need
Farmoor has no social focus apart
from the village hall. There is no pub. The community has identified the
need for a Social Club to promote activities in the hall and to bring
people together. The proposed project will provide suitable accommodation
for this development of hall use.
The kitchen is small in relation
to the size of the hall.
Hall uses
Polling station, meetings, youth
club, WI, bingo, dancing classes, indoor bowls, children’s parties, discos,
fund raising events, exhibitions, art group, private functions.
General
In recent years the village hall
committee has worked hard and successfully to improve the hall and to
increase the range of uses. The proposed project is part of a larger plan
which includes improvements to the toilet facilities and access to assist
use by people with disabilities. This other work will be pursued as a
second phase. The Committee has decided to pursue the social area phase
first, as when this is in place it will increase their capacity to fund
raise for further improvements.
A Social Club has been set
up and legal advice obtained on how to accommodate this activity properly
in a charity hall. The club will only meet at week-ends and the relatively
low level of activity would not attract a brewery loan. Farmoor is isolated
from social facilities in Cumnor, Botley and Eynsham.
Under the circumstances it
is felt appropriate for the County Council to offer financial assistance
towards the provision of social club facilities.
As the Committee have approached
the County Council at a fairly early stage in their fund raising, the
ORCC’s grant recommendation is depended on evidence of other support being
forthcoming to enable work to start in 2002/2003. It is hoped that this
will help to attract District Council funding.
ORCC RECOMMENDATION
Grant of £10,000 (23%) subject to
confirmation of District Council financial support by January 2002.
KING ALFRED DRIVE COMMUNITY CENTRE, DIDCOT (South
Oxfordshire)
(pop of Didcot 25,000)
Project
Phase 2 of extension (roof and internal
work) to provide enlarged meeting space.
Estimated cost
Professional fees
Materials
Electrical and plaster work
VAT
|
£
798.25
3,380.21
3,167.26
1,285.50
8,631.22
|
Other funding
District Council
Fund raising
|
£
2,589.00 (applied for)
3,022.00 (in progress)
5,611.00
|
County Council grant sought
£3,020 (35%)
|
Planning permission/Building
Regulations
Obtained
Need
This small community centre’s restricted
meeting spaces are often overcrowded. The extension will provide a larger
space to increase the range of users and accommodate existing users especially
people with disabilities more comfortably.
Hall uses
Social club, further education classes,
whist drives, flower club, St John Ambulance, wood turning, meetings,
fund raising events, parties, activities for people with learning disabilities
(3 times per week).
General
The Community Centre serves as a
local centre for a needy area of Didcot and also as a venue for meetings
or organisations from the town as a whole. It is well-used and a base
for Social Services provision for people with learning disabilities. The
Community Association members have contributed a great deal of voluntary
labour towards getting the extension up to roof height.
South Oxfordshire District
Council lease the building to Didcot Town Council who sublet to the Community
Association (3 years of term still to run but the Town Council assures
ORCC that they would wish to continue the lease and fully support the
work of the Community Association.)
The Town Council assist the
Community Association with an annual revenue grant. The length of sublease
is under the circumstances considered sufficient to justify the financial
support requested.
ORCC RECOMMENDATION
Grant of £3,020 (35%)
PARKHILL YOUTH COMMUNITY BUILDING, KIDLINGTON
(Cherwell)
(pop. of Kidlington 14,000)
Project
To refurbish car park adjacent to
the existing community building on Parkhill Recreation Ground.
Estimated cost
£22,000 (excluding VAT which
will be reclaimable).
|
Other funding
District Council
Parish Council
|
£
7,500 (agreed)
7,500 (agreed)
15,000
|
County Council grant sought
£10,000 (45%)
|
Planning permission/Building
Regulations
Planning permission obtained. Building
Regulations approval to be sought when funding available.
Need
The car park surface is potholed
and dangerous. This project is part of a larger project to replace the
small community building with a new Youth & Community Centre and to
promote additional youth activity facilities on the Recreation Ground.
Hall uses
The existing small hall is used by
a playgroup 5 days a week. The proposed new replacement building will
accommodate the playgroup, an after-school club, guides and other youth
activities, as well as other community functions.
General
The site is the responsibility of
the Kidlington Recreational Trust who lease the Recreation Ground from
Kidlington Parish Council. An application for funding for the new community
building has been submitted to the Community Fund and a decision is expected
in November. The car park refurbishment will be funded separately and
will be carried out as soon as possible whether or not the new building
project proceeds. The car park is needed in connection with the existing
building, the recreation ground and to accommodate parents parking in
connection with the adjacent school. The application has been submitted
by Kidlington Parish Council who will order and pay for the work in order
to reclaim the VAT in line with Customs and Excise guidelines.
It is felt that County Council
Cultural Services support for the car park project is appropriate as a
contribution to the proposed new youth and community centre but not otherwise.
ORCC’s recommendation is made on this basis.
ORCC RECOMMENDATION
Grant of £7,000 (32%) subject to
–
a) the achievement
of Community Fund grant aid in order that the new building project
can proceed, and
b) approval of the detailed
car park plans by the County Council Access Officers.
THE VILLAGE HALL AT RUSSELLS WATER (South Oxon)
(Catchment area population: 2,400
– the hall serves parts of 4 different parishes)
Project
To help to complete the new village
hall currently under construction by providing:
- disabled access and fencing
- kitchen fitments
Estimated cost
Disabled access and fencing
Kitchen fitments
Architects fees (proportion) 4%
of £3,478)
|
£
1,250
2,228
139
3,617
|
Other funding
Voluntary fund raising
Further fund raising target
|
£
1,000
1,367
|
County Council grant
sought
£1,250 (35%)
|
Planning permission/Building
Regulations
Obtained
Need
The original 1930 wooden and asbestos
hall reached a stage where it was impossible to improve economically.
An angled ramp and fencing is required to provide an accessible and safe
entrance up a steep slope from the road (no pavement). The kitchen needs
to be fitted out to a standard suitable for a proposed lunch club. This
work needed to be carried out in early September in order to achieve the
completion of the building project.
Hall uses
The Village Hall Committee have thoroughly
researched the local demand for a range of uses for the hall and there
are proposals for several new groups. Proposed uses are as follows:
Continuation of former uses:
polling station, meetings, police enquiries, senior citizens club, bingo,
film shows, fund raising events, art and local history exhibitions, children’s
parties.
New uses: blood transfusion,
lunch club, youth club, mothers and toddlers group, WI, keep fit, dance
classes, adult education, whist drives, indoor bowls, yoga, table tennis,
family celebrations, dances and discos, concerts, plays, nature and wildlife
group.
General
There is no question of the need
for a new village hall for the small scattered rural settlements of Swyncombe,
Pishill with Stonor, Russells Water, Maidensgrove, Cookley Green and parts
of Bix. The application includes damning reports on the old structure
from at least 3 professionals. The campaign by the Village Hall Committee
to raise funds and explore new uses for a new hall has brought the community
together. There are 100 children under 11 and 160 under 16 in the catchment
area.
The demolition and reconstruction
of the hall has been funded so far as follows:
National Lottery Charities Board
SODC Community Trust Fund
Parish Councils
Local fund raising/donations |
£
116,133
57,900
1,000
58,010
233,043
|
The work included in the project
submitted for County Council support was still outstanding and was required
in order to bring the hall into use. As usual, the actual building costs
exceeded all best estimates and further urgent fund raising was necessary.
Priority scheme: former hall
seriously inadequate.
ORCC RECOMMENDATION
Grant of £1,250 to be approved urgently
in order that the work can be carried out in early September. (This has
been approved).
STANDLAKE VILLAGE HALL (West Oxfordshire)
(pop.1,500)
Project
To construct a level paved area at
the rear of the hall to improve exit routes for people with disabilities
and to provide an additional usable space.
Estimated cost
£13,000
|
Other funding
District Council
Parish Council
Awards for All
Trusts
Village Hall Committee
|
£
1,500 (agreed)
1,000 (agreed)
5,000 (agreed)
1,500 (agreed)
3,000 (in hand)
12,000
|
County Council grant
sought
£1,500 (12%)
|
Planning Permission/Building
Regulations
Not required
Need
The current exits from the rear of
the hall are unpaved and slope down to join the adjacent playing field.
This is not satisfactory especially for people with disabilities. The
earth slope is also obstructing the damp proof course. The proposed paved
area could also act as the base for a marquee in order to provide an extension
to the hall space for large events.
Hall uses
Polling station, meetings, elderly
people’s club, mothers and toddlers, WI, garden club, scouts, cubs, brownies,
badminton, yoga, short tennis, private functions, dances, discos, concerts,
plays, fund raising events, exhibitions, sales.
General
The hall committee have general reserves
of £15,000 from which they feel they can only spare £3-4,000 for this
project. This leaves them with one year’s running costs (£7,000) and funds
in hand for possible sewage pump repair (£2,000) and external decoration
(£2,000).
A grant of less than the requested
£1,500 is recommended, as this will cover the shortfall.
Priority scheme: health and
safety
ORCC RECOMMENDATION
Grant of £1,000 (8%)
WOOD FARM COMMUNITY CENTRE, OXFORD
(pop. 7,800)
Project
To build a small extension to provide
additional storage.
Estimated cost
£26,150
|
Other funding
City Council
Lottery
Community Association
|
£
10,000 (sought)
10,000 (as alternative to City Council –
not yet applied)
8,000 (in hand)
18,000
|
County Council grant
sought
£8,200 (32%)
|
Need
Extra storage would release office
space (now used as store) to act as IT facility.
Hall uses
Polling station, meetings, elderly
people’s club, lunch club, day centre, youth club, nursery, WI, bingo,
Woodcraft Folk, further education classes, yoga, band practice, table
tennis, unihoc, Sunday School, private functions, dances, discos, fund
raising events.
General
Although this is a needy project
in a needy area, after consultation with Oxford City Council who lease
the Community Centre from the County Council and sublet to the Community
Association, it is felt that the project is not yet ready for offers of
financial support. City Council funding is unlikely to be available in
the near future; planning permission has not yet been obtained; the proposed
site for the extension may not be available for community use; and the
whole issue of community provision in Wood Farm is currently under review.
ORCC RECOMMENDATION
No grant award in 2001/02.---
18 October 2001
ANNEX 2
COUNTY COUNCIL COMMUNITY HALL GRANT
AID:
APPLICATIONS 2001/02
Hall/Centre
|
Project
|
Total cost
£
|
Grant sought
£
|
Grant recommended
£
|
Acorn Centre, Cowley, Oxford
|
Kitchen refurbishment (Priority: health
& safety)
|
15,000
|
5,500 (37%)
|
5,250 (35%)
|
Cutteslowe Community Centre, Oxford
|
Storage extension
|
23,500
|
8,225 (35%)
|
8,225 (35%)
|
Elsfield Community Room (SO)
|
Extension and screen in church to provide
meeting room, kitchen and toilets (Priority: no existing meeting
place)
|
151,000
|
10,000 (7%)
|
14,255 (9%)
Subject to conditions in 1. below
|
Farmoor Village Hall (Vale)
|
Extension of kitchen and lounge to provide
bar
|
44,000
|
10,000 (23%)
|
10,000 (23%)
Subject to conditions in 2. below
|
King Alfred Drive Community Centre, Didcot
(SO)
|
Phase 2 of extension (roof and internals)
|
8,631
|
3,020 (35%)
|
3,020 (35%)
|
Parkhill Hall and Field, Kidlington (Cherwell)
|
Car park refurbishment
|
22,000
|
10,000 (45%)
|
7,000 (32%)
Subject to conditions in 3.below
|
Russells Water Village Hall (SO)
|
Access/kitchen fitments
(Priority: existing hall seriously
inadequate)
|
3,617
|
1,250 (35%)
|
1,250 (35%)
APPROVED
|
Standlake Village Hall (WO)
|
Rear paved patio to improve hall exits
and provide additional space
(Priority: health & safety)
|
13,000
|
1,500 (12%)
|
1,000 (8%)
|
Wood Farm Community Centre, Oxford
|
Extension to provide storage (application
not ready for consideration)
|
26,150
|
8,200 (31%)
|
NIL
|
TOTAL:
|
|
303,398
|
57,695
|
50,000
|
Grant conditions
- Elsfield
Grant subject to:
a) the Parochial Church Council giving
a written undertaking to make the building available as a public meeting
space for at least 21 years
b) the approval
of the relevant aspects of the detailed plans by the County Council's
Access Officers.
- Farmoor
Grant subject to: confirmation of District
Council financial support by January 2002.
- Parkhill, Kidlington
Grant subject to:
a) the achievement
of Community Fund grant aid in order that the new building project
can proceed
b) approval of the detailed
car park plans by the County Council Access Officers
EX9A
COUNTY
COUNCIL REPRESENTATION ON OUTSIDE BODIES
A. Categorisation
The Outside Bodies to which the County
Council appoints representatives are categorised as follows:-
Category
|
Type of Body
|
Allowances Paid by the Council
|
A
|
Bodies essential to the work of the Council
|
Attendance, travel and subsistence
|
B
|
Bodies useful to the Council's work
|
Travel and subsistence only
|
C
|
Bodies which request Council representation or are
of primary value to Local Councillors and/or to the Local Community
|
None
|
D
|
Other bodies
|
Allowances paid by the outside body itself
|
B. Method of Appointment
The way in which the Council appoints to individual
Outside Bodies is determined by the category in which the body falls:-
Category
|
Appointed by |
A, B & D |
The appropriate committee as indicated in Annex 1 |
C
|
The Chief Executive under delegated
powers on the basis of:-
(1) inviting the local member to
act or to make a nomination;
(2) if there is more than one local
member, to rotate the appointment for the four years of the Council's
life;
(3) if the local member does not
wish to act and cannot make any other nomination to make no appointment;
and only if there is a dispute e.g.
over the definition of 'local member' to report to the relevant
committee.
In cases where there is no relevant
local member, nominations will be sought from all Political Groups.
Where the total nominations received from the Political Groups are
equal to or less than the number of vacancies to be filled, those
nominated will be appointed; if they exceed the number of vacancies
they will be reported to the relevant committee for determination.
In cases where there are 3 places
on a body and a clear political precedent exists for each political
group to fill one of these places, vacancies will be filled on the
nomination of the relevant political group.
|
C. List of Outside Bodies
A full list of those Outside Bodies to which the County
Council currently appoints representatives, showing for each the category,
appropriate allowances and relevant committee, appears at Annex 1.
OUTSIDE BODIES
CATEGORY A - FULL ALLOWANCES
CRITERIA: These are bodies which are essential to the
Council's work.
EDUCATION COMMITTEE
Nil
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE
Cotswolds and Malverns Transport Partnership
Oxford Airport Consultative Body
County Nature Conservation Forum (jointly with the Cultural
Services Committee)
CULTURAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty - Shadow
Conservation Board
Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Partnership
North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
South Eastern Museums Service
Southern Arts General Meeting/Company
Southern Tourist Board - Executive Committee
Oxfordshire Association of Local Councils
Oxfordshire Rural Community Council
County Nature Conservation Forum (jointly with the Environmental
Committee)
STRATEGY & RESOURCES COMMITTEE
Association of Councils of the Thames Valley Region (ACTVAR)
ACTVAR, European Group
Local Government Association (including County Councils' Network)
South East Employers
SRB Partnership Boards
South East England Regional Assembly (SEERA)
PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE
Nil
SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
NHS Direct Stakeholder Group
Oxfordshire Joint District Housing Group
CATEGORY B - TRAVEL AND SUBSISTENCE
ONLY
CRITERIA: These are bodies which are useful to the Council's
work
EDUCATION COMMITTEE
Youth
Cherwell Divisional Youth Committee
Oxford City Youth Committee
South Divisional Youth Committee
Vale Divisional Youth and Community Committee
West Divisional Youth Committee
Others
Adult Literacy Fund Management Committee
Oxford Brookes University : Court
Reading University: Members of the University's
Court and Council
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE
Didcot Development Agency
GTE for Oxford Limited - Board of Directors
Henley Partnership Ltd
The Oxfordshire Agenda 21 Co-Ordinating Group
Trust for Oxfordshire's Environment
TVEnergy
CULTURAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
Great Western Community Forest Steering Committee
Oxfordshire Play Association
Wilts & Berks Canal Partnership
PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE
North Oxfordshire Area Community/Police Consultative Group
Southern Oxfordshire Area Community/Police Consultative
Group
STRATEGY & RESOURCES COMMITTEE
Nil
SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
Oxford City Council - Housing and Community Care Working
Group
CATEGORY C - NO ALLOWANCES
CRITERIA: Bodies which request Council representation
or are of primary value to local Councillors or to the local community.
EDUCATION COMMITTEE
Youth
Bampton Youth Committee
Bicester - Courtyard Youth Arts Centre
Faringdon Youth Project
Oxford - Cowley Youth Association
Community Education
Banbury, The Mill
Non-maintained Schools
Chipping Norton Penhurst School Governors
Standlake, Mulberry Bush School
Other Educational Establishments
Cranfield University - Court and Council
Shrivenham - Royal Military College of Science Liaison
Committee
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE
Airfields
Brize Norton R A F Consultative Body
Employment Generation
Oxford Co-operative Development Agency
Traffic Advisory Committees
Abingdon
Banbury
Bicester
Botley
Burford
Carterton
Chipping Norton
Didcot
Eynsham and District
Faringdon
Henley
Kidlington
Thame
Wallingford
Wantage
Witney
Woodstock
Trust
Oxford Preservation Trust
Oxfordshire Buildings Trust Ltd
Others
Culham Local Liaison Committee
Didcot Power Station Local Liaison Committee
Harwell Liaison Committee
Oxford Science Park Advisory Group
Oxford Trust - Advisory Council for Central Oxfordshire
Science
CULTURAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
Sports and Arts
Banbury, Spiceball Park Sports Centre
Berinsfield - Abbey Sports Centre Management Committee
Chinnor School Joint User Agreement Management Committee
Didcot Sports Centre Management Committee
Faringdon Leisure Centre - Advisory Group
Henley & District Indoor Sports Centre
Holton Park Sports Centre Management Committee
Littlemore (Peers School) Sports and Arts Centre
Management Committee
Oxford - Pegasus Theatre Management Committee
Oxford Sports Centres and Pools Advisory Group
Oxford Sports Council
Thame Sport and Arts Centre
Wallingford, The Castle Leisure Centre
Wantage Leisure Centre Management Committee
Wheatley Park Sportsfield Management Committee
Witney Sports Centre Management Committee
Recreational
Oxfordshire Federation of Young Farmers' Clubs
Oxfordshire Playing Fields Association - Executive
Committee
Trusts
Cogges Agricultural Museum Trust
Vale and Downland Museum Trust
Heritage
Oxfordshire Museums Advisory Council
STRATEGY & RESOURCES COMMITTEE
Local trusts
Adderbury Educational Fund
Aston Rowant Educational Trust
Bampton Exhibition Foundation
Banbury Bluecoat Foundation
Banbury, William Dickason's Foundation
Berinsfield Abbey Educational Trust
Blewbury, William Malthus Charity
Buckland, Henry Southby Trust
Burford School Foundation
Childrey, Fettiplace and Godfrey Trust
Cumnor Old Primary School Trust
Donnington Hospital
Ewelme Exhibition Endowment
Eynsham, Bartholomew Educational Foundation
Henley Educational Foundation
Kingston Bagpuize, John Blandy’s Educational Foundation
Middleton Stoney: Countess of Jersey's Educational
Foundation
Minster Lovell, St Kenelm’s School Charity
North Newington, Saye and Sele Foundation
Nuffield County Primary School Trust
Oxford Blue Coat Girls' School Trust
Oxford School - Donald Gordon Perry Endowment
Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation
South Stoke Educational Charity
Steeple Aston, Dr. Radcliffe's School Educational
Foundation
Wallingford Bridge Estate Charity
Watlington Educational Foundation
Witney Educational Foundation
Woodstock Exhibition Foundation
Woodstock Relief in Need Charity
Woodstock, Sir Robert Cock's Charity
Community Centres/Associations
Banbury - Chasewell Community Association
- Joint Advisory Committee
Chinnor - Whites Field Community Centre
East Oxford Community Association
North Oxford Community Association
Oxford, Barton Community Association
Oxford, Blackbird Leys Community Association
Oxford, Blackbird Leys - Jubilee 77 Community Association
Oxford, Bullingdon Community Association
Oxford, Cheney Community Association
Oxford City Council - African Caribbean Centre Working
Party
Oxford City Council Asian Cultural Association
Oxford, Cowley Community Association
Oxford, Cutteslowe Community Association
Oxford, Donnington Community Association
Oxford, Jericho Community Association
Oxford, Northway Community Association
Oxford, Regal Community Association
Oxford, Rose Hill Community Association
Risinghurst Community Association
West Oxford Community Association
Others
One-Stop-Shop Steering Groups - Didcot
- Thame
Oxford City Council - Blackbird Leys City Farm
Working Group on Links with South Africa
PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE
Nil
SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
Abbeyfield Oxenford Society
Abbeyfield Oxford Society
Abingdon - Charter Development Day Centre Management
Committee
Banbury Day Centre Management Committee
Banbury Family Centre Consultative Group
Didcot: Ladygrove Day Centre Management Committee
Midland Regional Association for the Deaf
National Council for One Parent Families
Oxford Diocesan Council for Social Work
Oxford Handicapped Centre - Rectory Centre
Oxfordshire Association for the Blind
Oxfordshire Playbus
Southern Regional Association for the Blind
CATEGORY D - ALLOWANCES PAID BY OUTSIDE BODY
CRITERIA: These are bodies which pay allowances themselves.
EDUCATION COMMITTEE
Nil
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE
Environment Agency - Thames Region Flood Defence Committee
CULTURAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
Nil
STRATEGY & RESOURCES COMMITTEE
Oxfordshire Valuation Tribunal
PUBLIC PROTECTION COMMITTEE
South East Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Association
SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
Oxfordshire Community Health Council
West Berkshire Community Health Council
THAMES VALLEY POLICE AUTHORITY APPOINTMENTS
JOINT COMMITTEE
Thames Valley Police Authority
EX9B
Return to Agenda Item 9
Body
|
OCC seats
|
Status of OCC appointees
|
Current Appointees
|
Association of Councils of the Thames
Valley Region (ACTVAR)
|
3
|
Must be county councillors;
+ 3 substitutes
|
Councillor Mrs C Fulljames (m)
Councillor Keith Mitchell (s)
Councillor Terry Joslin (m)
vacancy (Labour) (s)
Councillor Dermot Roaf (m)
Councillor Margaret Godden (s)
|
ACTVaR, European Group
|
1
|
Should be county councillor on ACTVaR;
rotates (June)
|
Councillor Mrs C Fulljames
|
Local Government Association
|
4
|
Must be county councillors; review
after one year
|
Councillor Brian Hodgson
Councillor Norman Matthews
Councillor Keith Mitchell
Councillor Dermot Roaf
|
Local Government Association County
Councils Network
|
4
|
County councillors on LGA;
Executive Cttee - 1 member, rotates
annually (Mitchell 2001/02)
|
Councillor Brian Hodgson
Councillor Norman Matthews
Councillor Keith Mitchell
Councillor Dermot Roaf
|
Oxfordshire Association of Local Councils
|
1
|
Usually a county councillor
|
Councillor Margaret Ferriman
|
Oxfordshire Rural Community Council
|
1
|
Usually a county councillor
|
Councillor Mrs C Fulljames
|
South East Employers
|
3
|
Must be county councillors - 3 members
+ 3 deputies
|
Councillor David Wilmshurst (m)
Councillor Dickie Dawes (s)
Councillor Neville Harris (m)
vacancy (Labour) (d)
Councillor Zoe Patrick (m)
vacancy (Liberal Democrat) (d)
|
South East England Regional Assembly
(SEERA)
|
1
|
Must be county councillor
1 substitute
|
Councillor Brian Hodgson (m)
Councillor Dermot Roaf (s)
|
ITEM EX10
EXECUTIVE – 6 NOVEMBER 2001
MEMBER/OFFICER WORKING GROUPS -
INTERIM ARRANGEMENTS
Report by Assistant Chief
Executive & Solicitor to the Council
- At their last meeting the Shadow Executive
agreed to ask officers to undertake a review of the existing Member/Officer
Working Group structures with a view to identifying those groups which
need to be continued within the new political management arrangements
and to advise whether they are required:-
- to advise the Executive on policy implementation,
or
- to advise the Executive on policy development,
or
- to advise or support any of the Scrutiny
Committees, or
- to advise or support any of the other
Council Committees
and if so how they should be constituted,
what terms of reference they should be given, how long they should be
established for and to whom and who they should report.
- A list of the existing Member/Officer Working
Groups together with their composition is attached.
- This review has just started but is unlikely
to be completed by 5 November. Some of the existing Member/Officer Working
Groups will need to continue and to meet before the review can be completed
and before the Executive has taken a decision about their final form.
- In the circumstances it is suggested that
pending the outcome of the review and a final decision by the Executive
on the future of all Member/Officer Working Groups the following interim
arrangements should be agreed.
- Existing Member/Officer Working Groups
should continue on an interim basis where there is a need for them
to meet pending the outcome of the review and a final decision by
the Executive;
- the Working Groups should be deemed to
be appointed by the Executive and report to the Executive or where
appropriate to the relevant Scrutiny or other Council Committee with
a copy to the Executive.
- The current composition of the Working
Groups as shown on the attached list should continue but with the
following changes:-
Schools of Concern informal Member/Officer
Working Group
|
Reference to Schools Performance &
Quality Sub-Committee Group Spokespersons to be a reference to the
two Executive Lead Members for Schools and Learning and Culture
and the Chair of the Education Scrutiny Committee.
|
All Environmental Member/Officer Working
Groups
|
References to the Environmental Committee
Group Spokespersons to be a reference to the two Executive Lead
Members for Transport and Strategic Planning and Waste Management
and the Chair of the Environment Scrutiny Committee
|
Structure Plan Review Working Group and
Minerals & Waste Local Plan Working Group
|
Reference to one other member of the
Environmental Committee from each of the three largest groups to
be a reference to one other member of the Environment Scrutiny Committee
from each of the three largest groups.
|
Premium Routes and Interchanges Study
Working Group and Interlink Routes Study Group
|
Reference to the Group Spokespersons
of the Public Transport Sub-Committee to be a reference to one other
member of the Environment Scrutiny Committee from each of the three
largest groups.
|
The Externalisation of the County’s Homes
for Older People Member/Officer Working Group
|
Reference to all members of the Homes
for Older People Sub-Committee to be a reference to 10 Members,
four from the Conservative Group and three each from the Liberal
Democrat and Labour Groups.
|
Thame Library/Arts Development Member/Officer
Working Group
|
The reference to the Cultural Services
Group Spokespersons to be a reference to the two Executive Lead
Members for Schools and Learning & Culture and the Chair of
the Learning & Culture Scrutiny Committee.
|
- The Chairs of all Member/Officer Working
Groups to be elected by their Groups on a standing basis.
- There are a number of informal Member/Officer
working Groups, e.g. budget working groups. It is suggested that these
should continue on the basis that theIr membership includes the two
relevant Lead Members of the Executive together with the Chair of the
relevant Scrutiny Committee.
- Under the current arrangements:
- the leader of each of the three largest
political groups has a right to attend and speak at all Member/Officer
Working Groups meeting, and
- other Councillors attend at the discretion
of the Member/Officer Working Group.
- there can be ‘free substitution’ in the
case of all appointed members.
It is suggested that these
arrangements should continue until the review is completed.
- There are a number of internal management
committees in Education including, ones for Hill End Field Study Centre,
the three out county residential Outdoor Education Centres, and the
Music House Committee. It is suggested that the current arrangements
continue but that their future is included in the review.
RECOMMENDATION
- The Executive is RECOMMENDED to agree
the proposed interim arrangements.
C J IMPEY
Assistant Chief Executive &
Solicitor to the Council
Background papers:
Contact Officer:
October 2001
EX10 - ANNEX 1
Return
to Agenda Item 10
INFORMAL MEMBER/OFFICER WORKING GROUPS
Corporate Working Groups
Body
|
Member/Officer Composition
|
1. Working Group on Organisation & Democracy
|
The Leader and two other members of each of the 3
largest groups, plus 1 member of the Green Group.
Chief Executive, Assistant Chief Executive, Head of
Corporate Services, Head of Committee Services.
|
2. Social Inclusion (Anti-Poverty)
Working Group
|
The Leader and 2 other members of each of the 3 largest
groups, plus 1 member of the Green Group.
Assistant Chief Executive, Social & Economic Development
Manager and Social & Economic Development Officer.
|
3. Medium Term Planning
& Review Working Group
|
The Leader and 2 other members of each of the 3 largest
groups.
Chief Executive, Assistant Chief Executive, Head of
Policy & Review, County Treasurer, Director of Environmental
Services, Deputy Chief Fire Officer, Deputy Chief Education Officer,
Assistant Director of Social Services.
|
4. Electoral Issues Working
Group
|
The Leader and 2 other members of each of the 3 largest
groups, plus 1 member of the Green Group.
Assistant Chief Executive & Solicitor to the Council
and Head of Corporate Services.
|
5. Quarterly Financial
Report Working Group
|
One member of each of the 3 largest groups.
County Treasurer, Assistant County Treasurer and Chief
Accountant.
|
6. The Finance Working
Group
|
4 Group Leaders and 1 other member of each of the
3 largest groups.
The County Treasurer, the Assistant County Treasurer
and Principal Financial Manager, Environmental Services and the
Principal Policy Analyst.
|
7. Strategic ICT Working Group |
Two members of each of the largest 3 groups, plus
1 member of the green group .
Assistant Chief Executive, Assistant Chief Executive
& Solicitor to the Council, Head of Corporate Information &
Communication Technology, Chief Education Officer, County Treasurer,
Director of Environmental Services, Director of Social Services
and Director of Cultural Services.
|
8. Oxford Castle Member/Officer Working
Group |
The Leader and 2 members from each of the 3 largest
groups plus City Council Members.
Chief Property Officer, Principal Planning & Development
Officer, Joint Head of Legal Services and Assistant County Treasurer.
|
Education
Body
|
Member/Officer Composition
|
1. Special Educational Needs Working Group
|
The Leader and 2 other members of each of the 3 largest
groups, plus 1 member of the Green Group.
Senior Education Officer (Special Needs), Mainstream
Special Education Needs Co-ordinator, Head of Special School, Union
Representative, Special Educational Needs Advisor.
|
2. Education Planning
& Development Group
|
The Leader and 2 other members of each of the 3 largest
groups, plus 1 member of the Green Group.
Chief Education Officer, Deputy Chief Education Officer
and other relevant officers.
|
3. Schools of Concern
Informal Member/Officer Working Group
|
The Schools Performance & Quality Sub-Committee
Group Spokespersons or their nominees, plus local members as appropriate.
Advisory & Inspection Service Principal Advisor
|
Environmental
Body
|
Member/Officer Composition
|
1. Abingdon Integrated Transport and Land Use Steering
Group
|
The Environmental Committee Group Spokespersons.
Chief Assistant Transport Planner and Principal Planning
Officer (Transport Local Plans)
|
2. Banbury Integrated
Transport and Land Use Steering Group
|
The Environmental Committee Group Spokespersons
Principal Planning Officer (Transport Local Plans)
and Senior Transport Planner.
|
3. Bicester Integrated
Transport and Land Use Steering Group
|
The Environmental Committee Group Spokespersons
Chief Assistant Transport Planner and Principal Planning
Officer (Transport Local Plans)
|
4. Witney Integrated
Transport and Land Use Steering Group
|
The Environmental Committee Group Spokespersons
Principal Planning Officer (Transport Local Plans)
|
5. Local Transport Plan
Working Group
|
The Environmental Committee Group Spokespersons and
one other member of each of the 3 largest groups.
Assistant Director (Transport Development) and Principal
Planning Officer (Policy and Traffic Monitoring)
|
6. Cross Thames Travel
Study
|
The Environmental Group Spokespersons and 1 South
Oxfordshire District Council member.
Consultant Transport Planner, Principal Planning Officer
(Policy and Traffic Monitoring) and Senior Transport Planner.
|
7. OTS Working Party
(informal)
|
The Environmental Group Spokespersons and the Leader
of each of the three largest Groups.
Assistant Director (Transport Development), Group
Manager - Public Transport/Special Projects Planner, Group Manager
– Oxford and Parking Group.
|
8. Structure Plan Review
Working Group
|
The Environmental Committee Group Spokespersons plus
one other member of the Environmental Committee from each of the
3 largest groups.
Chief Planning Officer, Principal Planning Officer
(Policy & Monitoring).
|
9. Minerals & Waste Local Plan Working Group
|
The Environmental Committee Group Spokespersons plus
one other member of the Environmental Committee from each of the
3 largest groups.
Chief Planning Officer and Principal Planning Officer
(Minerals & Waste Policy).
|
10. Premium Routes &
Interchanges Study Working Group. |
The Group Spokespersons (or their nominees) of the
Environmental Committee and Public Transport Sub-Committee.
Group Manager - Public Transport/Special Projects
Manager and Public Transport Officer.
|
11. Oxfordshire Planning
Issues Group |
The Environmental Group Spokespersons or their nominees.
Assistant Director (Transport Development) and Major
Projects Implementation Group Manager.
|
12. Headington Area Transport
Study Steering Group |
The Environmental Group Spokespersons or their nominees.
Transport Planning Group Manager and Consultant Transport
Planner.
|
13. Broad Street Enhancement
Joint Working Group |
The Environmental Group Spokespersons or their nominees.
Assistant Director (Transport Development) and Major
Projects Implementation Group Manager.
|
14. Interlink Routes Study
Working Group |
The Group Spokespersons (or their nominees) of the
Environmental Committee and Public Transport Sub-Committee.
Group Manager - Public Transport/Special Projects
Manager and Public Transport Officer.
|
Social Services
Body
|
Member/Officer Composition
|
1. Learning Disabilities Member/Officer Working
Group
|
The Social Services Group Spokespersons, and 3 other
members from each of the 3 largest groups, plus 1 member of the
Green Group.
Director of Social Services, Assistant Director of
Social Services (Disabilities), Assistant Director of Social Services
(Adult Service Provision) Assistant County Treasurer, Joint Commissioner
(Learning Disabilities).
|
2. Physical Disability Member/Officer Working Group
|
The Social Services Group
Spokespersons and 2 other members of each of the 3 largest groups,
plus 1 member of Green Group.
Director of Social Services, Assistant Director of
Social Services (Disabilities), Assistant County Treasurer, Service
Manager (Physical Disabilities).
|
3. The Externalisation of the County’s Homes for Older
People Member/Officer Working Group
|
All members of the Homes for Older People Sub-Committee
plus 1 member of the Green Group and a representative of UNISON.
Director of Social Services, Assistant Director (Adult
Service Provision Division), Assistant Director (Strategic Planning
& Resources Division) and Assistant County Treasurer.
|
Cultural Services
Body
|
Member/Officer Composition
|
1. Thame Library/Arts Development Member/Officer
Working Group
|
The Cultural Services Group Spokespersons.
Director of Cultural Services and Assistant Director
of Cultural Services.
|
ITEM EX11
EXECUTIVE – 6 NOVEMBER 2001
AGENCY AND JOINT ARRANGEMENTS -
SCHEDULES
Schedule 1 – Agency Arrangements
|
Partner Authority
|
Function
|
- District Council
|
|
(a) Cherwell District Council
|
- Verge, tree and hedge maintenance.
- Adoption of private streets.
- Administration of Advance Payments
Code.
- Implementation of traffic measures,
High Street, Bridge Street and Broad Street, Banbury.
- Implementation of traffic measures,
Sheep Street, Bicester.
- Implementation of highway improvements
in Bretch Hill, Edinburgh Close and Margaret Close, Banbury and
Portland Road, Milcombe.
- Implementation of traffic management
and calming works, West Street, School View and Howard Road, Banbury.
- Implementation of traffic calming,
Earls Lane, Deddington
|
|
(b) Oxford City Council
|
- Minor highway and traffic schemes
where funded from developer contributions.
- Management of Thornhill Park &
Ride Car Park.
|
|
(c) South Oxfordshire District Council
|
- Recovery and disposal of abandoned
vehicles.
- Administration of on-street pay &
display parking places in Wood Street/St Peter’s Street, Wallingford.
- Implementation of environmental improvements,
North Street, Thame.
|
|
(d) Vale of White Horse District Council
|
- Verge, tree and hedge maintenance.
- Adoption of private streets.
- Administration of Advance Payments
Code.
- Recovery and disposal of abandoned
vehicles.
- Implementation of cycle improvement
works etc under Abingdon Integrated Transport & Land Use Strategy.
|
|
(e) West Oxfordshire District Council
|
- Verge, tree and hedge maintenance.
- Adoption of private streets.
- Administration of Advance Payments
Code.
- Implementation of environmental improvements,
Woodstock Town Centre
- Implementation of Environmental Improvement
Scheme, Market Place, Chipping Norton
- Implementation of new parking restrictions,
Bottomside, Chipping Norton
|
- Town and Parish Councils:
|
|
(f) All Town & Parish Councils
(subject to specific agreement in each
case)
|
- Removal of unauthorised signs from
the highway.
- Treatment of weeds on the highway.
|
|
(g) Abingdon Town Council
|
Administration of town centre on-street
pay & display and residents’ parking in Abingdon.
|
|
(h) Bampton Parish Council
|
Implementation of traffic calming, Bampton.
|
|
(i) Burford Town Council
|
Implementation of new and amended waiting
and parking restrictions, Burford.
|
|
(j) Cassington Parish Council
|
Implementation of heavy goods vehicle
restrictions, Cassington and associated permit system.
|
|
(k) Cholsey Parish Council
|
Implementation of waiting restrictions,
Cholsey
|
|
(l) Drayton Parish Council
|
Implementation of traffic calming measures,
Henleys Lane, Drayton.
|
|
(m) Eynsham Parish Council
|
Implementation of traffic measures, village
centre and Oakfield Industrial Estate.
|
|
(n) Henley Town Council
|
Administration of town centre on-street
pay & display and residents’ parking in Henley.
|
|
(o) Kidlington Parish Council
|
Implementation of new and amended waiting
and parking restrictions, Kidlington town centre.
|
|
(p) Sutton Courtenay Parish Council
|
Implementation of traffic measures, Harwell
Road, Sutton Courtenay.
|
|
(q) Thame Town Council
|
- Administration of on-street parking
places in High Street/Upper High Street, Thame.
- Implementation of 40 mph speed limit
and toucan crossing, A4129.
|
|
(r) Woodstock Town Council
|
Implementation of traffic calming measures,
A44 Old Woodstock.
|
|
(s) Yarnton Parish Council
|
Implementation of traffic calming, Yarnton.
|
Schedule 2 – Joint Committees
|
(a) Fire Service Control Room Collaboration
Joint Committee
Partner Authorities:
Royal Berkshire Fire Authority
and Buckinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service
Existing County Council representation
(3):
Conservative (1) |
Labour (1) |
Liberal Democrat (1) |
Cllr John Farrow |
Cllr Sandra Mold |
Cllr Harry Wyatt |
|
|
(b) National Parking
Adjudication Service Joint Committee
Partner Authorities:
Other traffic authorities outside
London operating Special and Permitted Parking Areas as defined
in Schedule 3 to the Road Traffic Act 1991
Existing County Council representation
(1):
Terry Joslin
Named Deputy - Sandra Mold
|
|
Banbury Sports Ground Management Committee
Partner Authority: Cherwell District
Council
Existing County Council representation
(6):
Conservative (2) |
Labour (2) |
Liberal Democrat (2) |
Cllr Kieron Mallon
Cllr George Reynolds |
Cllr Roy Mold
Mr M. Lines
|
2 Vacancies |
|
|
Bicester & Ploughley Sports Centre
Management Committee
Partner Authority: Cherwell District
Council
Existing County Council representation
(6):
Conservative (2) |
Labour (2) |
Liberal Democrat (2) |
Cllr C H Shouler
Mr D Spencer |
Cllr Les Sibley
1 Vacancy
|
District Cllr Hunter
District Cllr Wyse |
|
|
Kidlington & Gosford Sports Centre
Management Committee
Partner Authority: Cherwell District
Council
Existing County Council representation
(2):
Conservative (1) |
Labour (1) |
Mrs Y. Munday |
Cllr Chris Robins |
|
|