Return to Agenda

ITEM CA3

CABINET

MINUTES of the meeting held on 20 February 2007 commencing at 2.00 pm and finishing at 4.40 pm.

Present:

Voting Members:                       

Councillor Keith R Mitchell – in the chair

Councillor Roger Belson
Councillor Louise Chapman
Councillor Jim Couchman
Councillor John Howell
Councillor Ray Jelf
Councillor David Robertson
Councillor Don Seale
Councillor C.H. Shouler
Councillor Michael Waine

Other Members:

Councillor Alan Bryden(for Agenda Item 5)
Councillor David Turner (for Agenda Item 6)
Councillor Barbara Gatehouse (for Agenda Item 6)
Councillor Bob Johnston (for Agenda Item 8)

Officers:

Whole of meeting:

J Simons (Chief Executive, A. R. Cloke and K. Coldwell (Democratic Services

Part of meeting:

Item 21.07 - I. Kirkman (Educational Effectiveness);
Item 22.07 - R. Dudding (Director for Environment & Economy) and J. Boyd (Transport);
Item 23/07 - M. Petty and S. Skivington (Finance;
Item 25/07 - S. Corrigan (Human Resources) and R. Harmes (Strategy & Performance);Item 26/07 - P. Edwards (Corporate Performance); Item 27/07 – K. Bartley (Director for Children, Young People & Families).

The Cabinet considered the matters, reports and recommendations contained or referred to in the agenda for the meeting, together with a schedule of addenda tabled at the meeting, and the following additional document:

·                    A written statement relating to Agenda Item 5

 and decided as set out below.  Except insofar as otherwise specified, the reasons for the decisions are contained in the agenda, reports, schedule and additional document, copies of which are attached to the signed Minutes.

19/07         MINUTES

The Minutes of the meeting held on 16 January 2007 were approved and signed subject to amending Minute 3/07 as follows (amendments in bold italic and strikethrough):

·              a full internal review of why Dunmore School had been was being  put into special measures was underway and would feed into the consultation process;

·              schools’ exam results were only part of the Ofstead inspection.

20/07         PETITIONS AND PUBLIC ADDRESS

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

A statement from Mr Tim Smith was circulated and read out in relation to Agenda Item 5.

21/07          THE FUTURE OF DUNMORE INFANT AND JUNIOR SCHOOLS

(Agenda Item 5)

The Cabinet considered a report (CA5) which summarised the evaluation by officers and a joint representative group of Dunmore Infant and Junior School governors of three possible models of achieving a primary school on the Dunmore site and included a detailed Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis for by each model. 

The Cabinet considered a statement submitted by Mr Tim Smith, who was both Chair of Governors at Dunmore Junior School and a member of the Dunmore Restructuring Committee. Mr Smith had made the following points:

·              the restructuring committee had met regularly with officers from the Local Authority to evaluate the various possible models for the future of the Infant and Junior schools;

·              the culmination of this work had resulted in the production of a detailed SWOT analysis;

·              the unanimous opinion of the restructuring committee was in favour of the adoption of model A - the closure of both the Infant and Junior schools and the opening of an All Through Primary School;

·              the junior governing body had held a secret ballot and the result had also been in favour of model A; and

·              the restructuring committee wished to request that great care was taken to ensure that the problems of the past were not repeated in future and that the future for the schools was secured and supported to the fullest extent by the Local Authority.

Councillor Bryden, speaking as a local Member and on behalf of Councillor Lesley Legge made the following points:

·              the last Ofsted report for Dunmore Junior and Infants School had stated that it was a good school where children achieved well. The Inspectors had only suggested that one improvement should be made (accommodation) and this had already been identified by the school;

·              an acceptable solution needed to be found as soon as possible;

·              although he was in favour of a Federation school in principle, this would require a stable solution; and

·              he supported Model A.

Mrs Pat Hobby, Vice-chair of Dunmore Infant School Governors, commented that she preferred option B – the creation of a new primary school by closing the Junior School and extending the age range of the infant school from age 3 – 7 to age 3 – 11. She supported retaining the leadership and head teacher expertise commenting that current management practices had been rated good by Ofsted and that the Council should build on the strengths of both schools.

Mr Stephen Lavender, a concerned parent and Dunmore Infant School Governor, made the following points:

o             Model B was favoured by the Governors of both schools;

o             if Model B was chosen then restructuring could begin immediately and a new Head teacher could be appointed within the hour. There would be a seven month handover period between the Schools Improvement Team and the Head Teacher of the Infants School to allow continuation of the excellent work already achieved within the junior school;

o             the Infant School was a successful school and its strengths should be carried forward to encompass the Junior School;

o             there was strong parent support for the Head teacher of Dunmore Infants School, who should remain in post;

o             under Model A the schools would be left in uncertainty and there would be no decision on headship until January 2008. This would result in job insecurity, more pupil loss and potential staff loss; and

o             the County Council had mishandled the consultation; and fifty-nine children had subsequently left the school as a result of the current uncertainty.

Mr Bruce Kennedy, a concerned parent, echoed many of the points made by Mr Lavender, commenting that closing both schools would be taking a gamble on recruiting a new Head teacher in time.

Councillor Waine made the following points in response:

·              he thanked the governors of both schools for their ongoing commitment to the process and in particular the restructuring committee for feeding into the SWOT analysis;

·              the two models and their alternatives had undergone very thorough examination;

·              in recommending Model A the current important leadership of the Infant School was not sidelined;

·              the head teacher would, if she wished, be able to apply for the substantive headship and in any case there would be a very significant role for her to play in the leadership and management of the new school;

·              the promised review of factors leading to Dunmore School going into special measures, and of the recent consultation process was nearing completion. The findings would be shared with appropriate elected Members and made public; and

·              lessons learnt would be actioned.

Ms Judith Morris (Head of Educational Effectiveness Service) confirmed that under Model A the period for which there would not be a substantive Head Teacher in the school was somewhat dependent on recruitment, but it was expected that the new Head Teacher would be in place by January 2008. This date was necessary to ensure that there was sufficient time to recruit and for the processes to go through the Schools’ Organisation Committee. The Acting Head Teacher and Deputy Head Teacher in the Junior School would be retained until then.

RESOLVED:         to:

(a)         agree that Model A – the creation of a new primary school by closure of the infant and junior schools – be adopted as the means of establishing a primary school on the Dunmore site;

(b)         instruct officers to issue formal consultation notices for the closure of both the infant and junior schools;

(c)          work further with the joint representative sub group of governors from both schools to draw up an implementation plan with the objective of opening the new primary school in January 2008, if possible; and,

(d)         instruct officers, on behalf of governors, to prepare a bid for Fresh Start Funding for the financial years 2007-10.

22/07         STOPPING UP: ROMAN WAY AND GARSINGTON ROAD, OXFORD

(Agenda Item 6)

The Cabinet considered a report (CA6) which recommended the Cabinet to authorise the County Solicitor to make an application to the Magistrates’ Court for the stopping-up of the highways shown on drawing number 786/G170 on the grounds that they were unnecessary, subject to BMW meeting a number of conditions. BMW had requested that the County Council apply to the Magistrates Court for an order under section 116 of the Highways Act 1980 for the stopping up of Roman Way, Bridleway 75 and a thin section of footway in Garsington Road, Oxford. As a replacement BMW had agreed to provide at their expense a new footway and cycle track partly on existing highway and partly on their land.

Councillor David Turner, speaking as a local Member, made the following points:

·              the site had been purchased by BMW in full knowledge of the right of way;

·              children made use of the bridleway, for example, to access Horspath Rd sports facilities and the educational facility nearby;

·              the Eastern route didn’t seem viable as it was near to a busy bypass and part of the route was dangerous; and

·              he urged the Cabinet to reject the proposal before them, commenting that if the Cabinet supported the recommendations then the new southern bypass needed to be part of the conditions, together with the upgraded railway.

Mr John Orchard, speaking as Chair of the Footpaths Sub Committee and as a representative of the Ramblers’ Association, expressed concern that there appeared to be an inaccuracy in the papers before the Cabinet. He commented that he could find no record of the Transport Implementation Committee meeting on 10 October. The report stated that the Cowley Area Committee had made the decision to consent to the application by the County Council to the Magistrates Court for the stopping up of the highways shown on drawing number 786/G10 on 4 October. He commented that the wording in the report was ambiguous and stated that if the Area Committee had not been speaking on behalf of Oxford City Council then the decision to stop up Roman Way and Garsington Road should have been held in abeyance.  He urged the Cabinet to reject the proposal to take the item to the Magistrates Court.

Councillor K. R. Mitchell responded that his understanding of the report was that the County Council had confirmed on 10 October the decision taken by the Cowley Area Committee on 4 October under its delegated powers; it was not that a meeting had taken place on that date.

Councillor Barbara Gatehouse, speaking as a local Member, made the following points:

·              she supported the closure of the bridleway as it was unsafe for children;

·              the bridleway was not often used by horses;

·              if a horse rider, cyclist and pedestrian were all on the bridleway at the same time and the horse reared up then there would be nowhere for the others to move to in order to keep out of its way;

·              there were also cars going back and forth from the factory which was dangerous;

·              riding horses on Garsington Rd and Watlington Rd would be very unsafe;

·              BMW had done their best by providing an alternative, which appeared to be safe; and

·              she urged the Cabinet to support the proposals before them.

Ms Troth Wells, speaking on behalf of the Oxford Area Bridleways Association and the British Horse Society, made the following points:

·              she rode on the bridleway and as a result, many children had now taken up horse riding;

·              the horse riding industry generated £3.4 billion annually to the economy and contributed to the community;

·              page 5 of the report was inaccurate as horse riders had only ridden twice as part of organised protests and did frequently use the bridleway;

·              she had asked BMW to record her ride as they had said that they had no records of any horse riders using the bridleway;

·              she expressed concern that no alternative provision was being made for horses when the County Council had a vision to improve the existing public rights of way network for all users and would-be-users; and

·              she urged the Cabinet to reject the proposal.

Mr Terry Hanley, Strategic Project Manager, BMW UK Manufacturing Ltd made the following points:

·              there were problems with having to cross an operational rail system on the Eastern route and south of the plan there was a very busy road system;

·              the bridleway crossed through the middle of the site which was traversed by 1000 vehicles daily and was therefore unsafe;

·              BMW monitored equestrian use by means of cctv, employee reports and company records. There was no record until May 2006 of any horse rider using the bridleway; and

·              there were conflicting statements of usage of the bridleway. Therefore the Magistrate’s Court should scrutinise all the evidence put forward.

Councillor K. R. Mitchell also read out a letter from Michael Wills, MP for North Swindon, in support of the request, since the pressings plant for BMW was located in his constituency.

Councillor Robertson reported as follows:

·              at the 19 December meeting the Cabinet had agreed to defer decision on this item to enable Cabinet Members to visit BMW. A site visit had taken place on 19 January, attended by 5 Members of the Cabinet,  supported by officers;

·              Bridleway 75 had very few good points. There were high metal security fences on some of it and the rest followed a busy surface road through the BMW plant. There didn’t appear to be any green spaces;

·              the bridleway to the North and the South East connected to Bridleway 75 across busy roads;

·              there appeared to be no evidence of horse riders using Bridleway 75;

·              the Eastern route had several restrictions, for example, the existing railway line and was therefore not a practical option;

·              the Western route appeared to be the only practical option but there was no space for horse riders;

·              the survey had been conducted over three consecutive days in September over a Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday. Out of a total of 100 movements, 89 had been by BMW employees;

·              there was another route open to horse riders but it involved a long detour; and

·              he drew the Cabinet’s attention to the written submission from Mr Patrick Simpson (Cyclox) who wished to alert the Cabinet to the railway bridge just North East of BMW, together with a map showing the location of the bridge. Mr Simpson had made the following points:

·              considering that an embankment had been built for the railway line, the bridge must have been built to take the railway over an old road, path or lane. He didn’t know if it was part of BMW;

·              there were no railway tracks left and therefore no safety issue. There was a power cable underground but there were cables underground everywhere;

·              people walked their dogs there; and

·              if BMW were willing and able to move their fence in by 3 metres and build a cycle track round the west side of their site (all at their own expense), he thought it would be possible (and cheaper) to establish a bridleway going round the east side and under this bridge.

Councillor Robertson further stated that officers had visited the location that morning and had made a number of observations relating to the suggestion that the existing bridge should be used. These were as follows:

·              there was no highway through the bridge;

·              it was private property;

·              it would require the creation of 1½ km of bridleway on private land to connect the roads ;

·              the bridge looked in reasonable condition but would need inspecting by the bridge engineer;

·              this could only be considered as a long term solution and might require a compulsory purchase order; and

·              the bridleway wasn’t used very often by horse riders and the ends of the route were on busy urban roads.

RESOLVED:         (unanimously)to authorise the County Solicitor to make an application to the Magistrates Court for the stopping-up of the highways shown on drawing number 786/G170 on the grounds that they were unnecessary subject to:

(a)         BMW contractually undertaking to meet all the costs associated with this process (including any costs awarded against the County Council by the Magistrates Court if the Application does not succeed), prior to the making of an application to the Magistrates Court;

(b)         BMW entering into an agreement at their expense under sections 38 and 278 of the Highways act 1980 for the construction of the alternative highway to be constructed and supervised all at BMW’s expense and completed to the full satisfaction of the Director for Environment and Economy, prior to the making of an application to the Magistrates Court;

(c)         BMW entering into an agreement at their expense that permitted permissive use by pedestrians and cyclists along Roman Way and bridleway 75, shown as A and B on drawing number 786/G170, until the alternative highway in ‘b’ above had been completed, prior to the making of an application to the Magistrates Court;

(d)        BMW entering into a Bond (to the satisfaction of the County Solicitor) as security for the works to be carried out under the section 38/278 agreement prior to the making of an application to the Magistrates Court; and

(e)        BMW meeting the cost associated with the revocation of the Traffic Regulation Order on Roman Way.

23/07         FINANCIAL MONITORING

(Agenda Item 7)

The Cabinet considered a report (CA7) which covered the period ended 31 December 2006 for both revenue and capital. 

RESOLVED:         to:

(a)         note the report;

(b)         approve the temporary virement to transfer £0.345m from the Schools Contingency budget to Primary, Secondary and Special Individual Schools Budgets (paragraph 37 of the report);

(c)          approve the £0.977m draw down from the Emergency Reserve requested by the Director for Social & Community Services as set out in (paragraph 54 of the report);

(d)         subject to approval of (c), approve an additional one-off contribution of £0.740m to the Older Peoples, Physical Disabilities and Equipment pooled budget and £0.250m to the Learning Disabilities pooled budget (paragraph 55 of the report); and

(e)         approve the changes to the Capital Programme as set out in paragraphs 98 – 103.

24/07         UPPER THAMES MAJOR RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT (STEVENTON RESERVOIR)

(Agenda Item 8)

The Cabinet considered a report (CA8) on the Upper Thames Major Resource Development (Steventon Reservoir). Thames Water Utilities Ltd had commenced Stage 2 of their public consultation exercise on their proposal for a large reservoir in Oxfordshire, which formed part of a package of proposed measures to guarantee the supply water for London, Swindon and Oxfordshire to beyond 2030.

Councillor Bob Johnston, speaking on behalf of the Shadow Cabinet Member for Sustainable Development, stated that the Liberal Democrat Group wished to make the following points:

·              the report did not make it absolutely clear that Thames Water was consulting on behalf of Thames Water and not as part of the planning process. The public did not realise this;

·              the main body of the report did not say that they considered the case for the reservoir as unproven at present;

·              he urged that Cabinet to think seriously about the ownership of Thames Water, commenting that it was owned by an Australian Bank and therefore they were actively buying and selling;

·              he queried the effect that a new reservoir would have on Thames Water’s profit margins; and

·              he urged the Cabinet to obtain specialist advice as this might generate a number of useful questions to put to Thames Water and Ofwat.

Councillor Belson undertook to ensure that future paperwork would take Councillor Johnston’s first two points into account. He expressed concern that Thames Water had progressed to stage 2 when the case for a new reservoir had not yet been proven and stated that officers were still pursuing answers to the questions which had been asked in relation to stage 1.

Councillor K. R. Mitchell reported that he had previously questioned the impact on Thames Water's balance sheet of spending money on a new reservoir against repairing the existing distribution network and had received a verbal response. However, he undertook to ask Richard Aylard (Thames Water) to put in writing his previous verbal assurance that repairing the existing distribution network in London would have the same impact on the balance sheet as building a new reservoir.

Mr John Boyd (Land & Highway Records Manager) reported that part (b) (2) of the recommendation on the paper before the Cabinet which referred to paragraphs 7 to 11 of the report should be amended to read ‘paragraphs 8 to 12’.

RESOLVED:         to:

(a)        advise Thames Water that:

(b)        It considered that it was premature for the company to be consulting on stage 2 while fundamental questions about the need for the reservoir remained;

(1)               it therefore reserves its position in relation to the questions raised at stage 2;

(2)               nonetheless the views expressed in paragraphs 8 to 12 of the report represent its provisional response to stage 2; and,

(c)         ask officers to continue to work with the Environment Agency, the Vale of White Horse District Council and South Oxfordshire District Council, in pursuing outstanding questions with Thames Water.

25/07         REVISED REDUNDANCY PROCEDURE FOR SCHOOL EMPLOYEES

(Agenda Item 9)

The Cabinet had before them a report on the revised redundancy procedure for school employees (CA9), together with a copy of the revised policy, which had been circulated with the Addenda.

Councillor K. R. Mitchell undertook to write to the Secretary of State for Education & Skills to ask the Government to recognise the staffing issues that would arise from the introduction of diplomas in secondary schools.

RESOLVED:         to:

(a)         agree that the existing procedure would be applied to cases where estimates of benefits had been given and the termination of employment date was on or before 31 March 2007; and

(b)         approve the revised Redundancy Policy for School Employees subject to comments from the Teacher’s Joint Committee on 22 February 2007.

26/07         PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

(Agenda Item 10)

The Cabinet considered a quarterly report (CA10) for the County Council’s performance at the end of the third quarter of 2006/07, together with a copy of a Cabinet report by the County Council Management Team which was circulated with the Addenda.

Councillor Howell reported that performance at the end of the third quarter was encouraging, showing green traffic lights for over 80% of indicators where information was available.

RESOLVED:         to note the report.

27/07         CONSULTATION ON A NEW PRIMARY SCHOOL IN DIDCOT

(Agenda Item 11)

The Cabinet considered a report (CA11) which outlined the outcomes from the consultation on a new primary school in Didcot, responded to the issues raised and requested that statutory notices for a community school were now published to be considered by the Cabinet Member for School Improvement or by the school organisation arrangements in place at the time.

RESOLVED:         to agree the publication of statutory notices for a new community school in Didcot with the final decision to be made by the Cabinet Member for Schools Improvement or through the appropriate school organisation arrangements in place at the time.

28/07         FORWARD PLAN AND FUTURE BUSINESS

(Agenda Item 12)

The Cabinet RESOLVED: to note the list of items for the immediately forthcoming meetings of the Cabinet (CA12), together with the changes set out on the Addenda and the additional amendments listed below:

·              to defer Agency Arrangements – Adoption of Private Streets (currently listed for 20 March Full Cabinet); and

·              to delete Oxford Marston South New Controlled Parking Zone Permit Charges (currently listed for 29 March Cabinet Member for Transport decision) on the grounds that although the decision had been called in by the Environment & Economy Scrutiny Committee it had had not been referred back to Cabinet.

....................... in the Chair