______________________________________

________________________________

 

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

  1. Apologies for Absence

  2. Declarations of Interest

  3. Petitions and Public Address

  4. 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.

 

  1. Peer Review
  2. 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:

    1. to commission officers to bring forward proposals for improving performance management for consideration by the Executive later in the Autumn;

    2. 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."

     

  3. Review of Education, Cultural and Social Services
  4. 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:

    1. a review be carried out of the relationships between the departments of Education, Cultural Services and Social Services and of their structures;

    2. the review should implement the terms of reference at paragraph 7 of the report;

    3. the Chief Executive should circulate the terms of reference to staff and partners.

     

  5. Establishment of Local Strategic Partnership and Outline Process for Development of Community Strategy
    Forward Plan Ref 9/2001
  6. 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:

    1. to approve the proposals for a countywide Local Strategic Partnership and Community Strategy;

    2. to support the replacement of the Oxfordshire Committee and Forum with quarterly meetings of Oxfordshire’s six local authority leaders; and

    3. to approve the appointment of an LSP Secretariat on the basis that the cost will be incorporated in 2002/03 budget.

     

  7. County Council Grant Aid for Village Hall Projects

  8. 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.

 

  1. 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:-

    1. to agree the list of Strategic Outside Bodies set out at EX9B for submission to the Council;

    2. to ask the Democracy & Organisation Committee to carry out a review of the categorisation and appointment process to other Outside Bodies.

 

  1. Member/Officer Working Groups – Interim Arrangements
    Forward Plan Ref 2/2001
  2. 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.

     

  3. 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:

    1. approve the making with immediate effect of agency and joint arrangements relating to executive functions as listed in the Schedules now presented, subject to:

    1. 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;

    2. 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;

    1. formally appoint County Council representatives on:

    1. the Fire Service Control Room Collaboration Joint Committee (3 members of the Executive);

    2. the National Parking Adjudication Service Joint Committee (1 member of the Executive);

    3. Banbury Sports Ground Management Committee (6 representatives on the basis of political proportionality);

    4. Bicester & Ploughley Sports Centre Management Committee (6 representatives on the basis of political proportionality);

    5. Kidlington & Gosford Sports Centre Management Committee (6 representatives on the basis of political proportionality).

 

  1. Forward Plan and Future Business
  2. 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.

     

  1. 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

Return to Agenda Item 5

EXECUTIVE – 6 NOVEMBER 2001

PEER REVIEW

Report by Assistant Chief Executive

Background

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. RECOMMENDATIONS

  4. The Executive is RECOMMENDED:
    1. to commission officers to bring forward proposals for improving performance management for consideration by the Executive later in the Autumn;
    2. 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

Return to Agenda Item 6

EXECUTIVE - 6 NOVEMBER 2001

REVIEW OF EDUCATION, CULTURAL AND SOCIAL SERVICES

Report by Chief Executive

Introduction

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. Terms of Reference

  8. The following terms of reference for a review are proposed:
    1. To review the structures of the Education Service, Social Services and Cultural Services, and to prepare options and recommendations for consideration by the Executive.
    2. 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.
    3. To take account of "Raising our Performance" and the findings of the IDeA Peer Review, in particular the need for:
      1. our services to be more focused on the customer;
      2. a more "one-Council" approach;
      3. the development of a more strategic and corporate role for directors;
      4. a reduction in the number of CCMT directors;
      5. officers to work effectively with the thematic structures and ways of working adopted by the new Executive and Scrutiny Committees;
      6. effective working with partner organisations.

    4. To take account of structures developed in other authorities, and of any evidence about how successful these have been and levels of public satisfaction.
    5. To take account of the views of County Councillors.
    6. To take account of the views of representative groups of managers in the three departments and other key interest groups and users.
    7. To prepare a report for submission to the Executive in Spring 2002.

    The Review Team

  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. It is envisaged that the review team will make arrangements for a wide range of individuals to inform its work.
  12. Communications

  13. 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.
  14. RECOMMENDATIONS

  15. The Executive is RECOMMENDED to agree that:
    1. a review be carried out of the relationships between the departments of Education, Cultural Services and Social Services and of their structures;
    2. the review should implement the terms of reference at paragraph 7;
    3. 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

Return to Agenda Item 7

EXECUTIVE – 6 NOVEMBER 2001

ESTABLISHMENT OF LOCAL STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP AND OUTLINE PROCESS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITY STRATEGY

Report by the Chief Executive

 

Background

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. This paper outlines proposals for action.
  6. The Value of a Community Strategy

  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. Local Strategic Partnership

  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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

  1. 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.
  2. The Chair of the LSP would be elected by the LSP representatives on an annual basis.
  3. 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.
  4. Secretariat

  5. 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.
  6. Annual Forum

  7. 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.
  8. Partnership Action Groups

  9. 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.
  10. The LSP would be expected to review existing arrangements for partnership working and recommend changes to streamline and reinvigorate the arrangements.
  11. 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.
  12. Oxfordshire Committee and Forum

  13. 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.
  14. Next Steps

  15. The proposals are:
    1. establish a countywide LSP by December 2001, to include members of the organisations listed in paragraph 13.
    2. ask the County Council to establish a Secretariat to serve the countywide LSP and community strategy.
    3. invite the countywide LSP to approve a draft Community Strategy, with priority action areas, for consultation in Spring 2002.
    4. convene the first annual Forum to approve the countywide Community Strategy and action priorities in Summer 2002.
    5. ask the countywide LSP to establish partnership action groups to implement the countywide Community Strategy and coordinate joint action by Autumn 2002.
    6. invite the countywide LSP to review partnership working in the county and to bring forward proposals for rationalisation and reinvigoration
    7. where arrangements are not already underway, take steps to agree appropriate district or sub-district level LSPs by Autumn 2002.
    8. replace the Oxfordshire Committee and Forum with quarterly meetings of Oxfordshire’s six local authority Leaders.

     

    RECOMMENDATIONS

  16. The Executive is RECOMMENDED:
    1. to approve the proposals for a countywide Local Strategic Partnership and Community Strategy;

    2. to support the replacement of the Oxfordshire Committee and Forum with quarterly meetings of Oxfordshire’s six local authority leaders; and

    3. 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

Return to Agenda Item 8

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

Return to Agenda Item 8

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

Return to Agenda Item 8

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

  1. 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.

  1. Farmoor
  2. Grant subject to: confirmation of District Council financial support by January 2002.

  3. 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

Return to Agenda Item 9

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

    - Barton
    - Blackbird Leys
    - East Oxford

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

Return to Agenda Item 10

EXECUTIVE – 6 NOVEMBER 2001

MEMBER/OFFICER WORKING GROUPS - INTERIM ARRANGEMENTS

Report by Assistant Chief Executive & Solicitor to the Council

 

  1. 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.

  1. A list of the existing Member/Officer Working Groups together with their composition is attached.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.

  1. 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

  1. 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

Return to Agenda Item 11

EXECUTIVE – 6 NOVEMBER 2001

AGENCY AND JOINT ARRANGEMENTS - SCHEDULES

 

Schedule 1 – Agency Arrangements

 

Partner Authority

Function

  1. District Council
 

(a) Cherwell District Council

  1. Verge, tree and hedge maintenance.
  2. Adoption of private streets.
  3. Administration of Advance Payments Code.
  4. Implementation of traffic measures, High Street, Bridge Street and Broad Street, Banbury.
  5. Implementation of traffic measures, Sheep Street, Bicester.
  6. Implementation of highway improvements in Bretch Hill, Edinburgh Close and Margaret Close, Banbury and Portland Road, Milcombe.
  7. Implementation of traffic management and calming works, West Street, School View and Howard Road, Banbury.
  8. Implementation of traffic calming, Earls Lane, Deddington

 

 

(b) Oxford City Council

  1. Minor highway and traffic schemes where funded from developer contributions.
  2. Management of Thornhill Park & Ride Car Park.

 

 

(c) South Oxfordshire District Council

  1. Recovery and disposal of abandoned vehicles.
  2. Administration of on-street pay & display parking places in Wood Street/St Peter’s Street, Wallingford.
  3. Implementation of environmental improvements, North Street, Thame.

 

 

(d) Vale of White Horse District Council

  1. Verge, tree and hedge maintenance.
  2. Adoption of private streets.
  3. Administration of Advance Payments Code.
  4. Recovery and disposal of abandoned vehicles.
  5. Implementation of cycle improvement works etc under Abingdon Integrated Transport & Land Use Strategy.

 

 

(e) West Oxfordshire District Council

  1. Verge, tree and hedge maintenance.
  2. Adoption of private streets.
  3. Administration of Advance Payments Code.
  4. Implementation of environmental improvements, Woodstock Town Centre
  5. Implementation of Environmental Improvement Scheme, Market Place, Chipping Norton
  6. Implementation of new parking restrictions, Bottomside, Chipping Norton

 

  1. Town and Parish Councils:

 

 

(f) All Town & Parish Councils

(subject to specific agreement in each case)

  1. Removal of unauthorised signs from the highway.
  2. 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

  1. Administration of on-street parking places in High Street/Upper High Street, Thame.
  2. 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