Return to AgendaITEM CC1OXFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
MINUTES of the meeting of the County Council held at County Hall on Tuesday 13 January 2009 commencing at 10.00 am and finishing at 4.45 pm
Present:
Councillor TONY CRABBE – in the chair
Councillors:
M Altaf-Khan Alan Armitage Lynda Atkins Marilyn Badcock Michael Badcock Roger Belson Maurice Billington Norman Bolster Mrs Gail Bones Ann Bonner Liz Brighouse Alan Bryden Nick Carter Louise Chapman Jim Couchman Sushila Dhall Surinder Dhesi John Farrow Mrs Anda Fitzgerald-O’Connor Jean Fooks Mrs C Fulljames Barbara Gatehouse Michael Gibbard Patrick Greene Sue Haffenden Timothy Hallchurch MBE Pete Handley Jenny Hannaby Neville F Harris Steve Hayward Mrs J Heathcoat Ian Hudspeth Ray Jelf Bob Johnston Terry Joslin Colin Lamont Lesley Legge Kieron Mallon Charles Mathew Olive McIntosh-Stedman Keith R Mitchell CBE Anne Purse G A Reynolds Dermot Roaf David Robertson Rodney Rose John Sanders Larry Sanders Don Seale Bill Service Chip Sherwood C H Shouler Craig Simmons Peter Skolar Roz Smith Val Smith Lawrie Stratford Melinda Tilley David Turner Nicholas P Turner Carol Viney Michael Waine David Wilmshurst Chris Wise
The Council considered the matters, reports and recommendations contained or referred to in the agenda for the meeting and decided as set out below. Except insofar as otherwise specified, the reasons for the decisions are contained in the agenda and reports, copies of which are attached to the signed Minutes.
1/09 MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING (Agenda Item 1)
RESOLVED: that the Minutes of the meeting of Council held on 27 November 2008 be approved and signed as a correct record.
2/09 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE (Agenda Item 2)
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Brown, Cartledge, Glass-Woodin, Godden, Harvey, Hibbert-Biles, Howell, Nimmo-Smith and Patrick.
3/09 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST (Agenda Item 3)
4/09 OFFICIAL COMMUNICATIONS (Agenda Item 4)
The Chairman of the Council reported that:
(1) Professor Tim Brighouse, former Chief Education Officer, had been made a Knight Bachelor for services to education. He asked Councillor Brighouse to pass on the Council’s best wishes to him. Councillor Brighouse thanked the members who had sent their congratulations to him. (2) Beryl Brown, former librarian at Wychwood Library, Milton-under-Wychwood had been made a MBE for services to local government. (3) Tamsila Tauqir, Partnership Unit, had been made a MBE for services to the Muslim community. (4) Councillor Patrick had thanked Council for her bouquet of flowers and its best wishes for her speedy recovery. (5) William Stone, who had lived in Oxfordshire for more than 20 years and was the only Royal Navy survivor of both the First and Second World Wars, had died on 12 January 2009 at the age of 108.
5/09 PETITIONS AND PUBLIC ADDRESS (Agenda Item 6)
Mr Mike Kerford-Byrnes, Chairman Finmere Parish Council, addressed Council on Item 11 (paragraph 10) (Finmere Quarry – Scrutiny Review).
Mr Patrick Woodrow addressed Council on behalf of the parish councils of Ardley-with-Fewcott, Bucknell, Caversfield, Chesterton, Cottisford, Fritwell, Hardwick and Tusmore, Hethe, Kirtlington, Middleton Stoney, Somerton, Souldern, Stoke Lyne, Upper Heyford and Wendlebury in support of Item 15 (Motion from Councillor Fooks).
Dr Angela Jones, GP of Appleford, addressed Council on Item 15 (Motion from Councillor Fooks) about the risk to environmental health that incinerators posed and to encourage the Council to understand that it had a duty of care in this area and could not entirely devolve this duty to the Health Protection Agency and Environment Agency.
6/09 QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC (Agenda Item 7)
(a) Dr Su Braden (Sutton Courtenay against the Incinerator) to Councillor Mitchell
Given the extent of public concern expressed by Oxfordshire residents about the proposed use of incinerators: 1. extensive objections by the Vale of the White Horse DC 2. objections by Oxford City Council 3. objections by several Parish Councils 4. a petition from local residents with 4,500 signatures to date. - why have our representatives not held a public consultation meeting and debated the matter in full Council?
Answer from Councillor Mitchell
I am bemused by the “extensive objections” by the Vale of White Horse District Council and the “objections” by Oxford City Council. The waste strategy was developed over a number of years by the Oxfordshire Waste Partnership of which the five district councils and the county council are all members. Each stage of the process was decided on the basis of securing unanimity among the six councils. As part of that process, it was decided to take a technology neutral approach to procurement. This meant that incineration was one of a number of technologies that might become the chosen form of disposal. All six councils understood this; none demurred from it.
The strategy was debated at length by the full County Council on 8 January 2008. To enable a wide ranging debate in which members could provide advice to the Cabinet, standing orders were suspended for this item. The Agenda for the 8 January meeting is available on the County Council web site at: http://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/content/public/Resources/hlpdownloads/CC/CC080108.htm#agitem08 and the minutes of the meeting are available at: http://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/content/public/Resources/hlpdownloads/CC/CC120208-01.htm
The history of the County Council’s decisions is clearly set out in the report to the County Council on 8 January 2008 but I will summarise the main steps below:
· The Executive on 3 Nov 2004 (then a coalition administration of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats) resolved to prepare for procurement on a technology neutral basis. Here is the web link: http://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/content/public/Resources/hlpdownloads/EX/ex031104.htm
· The decision of the Executive of 3 November 2004 was reported to the full County Council on 11 January 2005. Here is the web link: http://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/content/public/Resources/hlpdownloads/CC/CC110105-09.htm
· On 13 July 2005, the Environment & Economy Scrutiny Committee approved a review of potential waste treatment options. Here is the web link: http://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/content/public/Resources/hlpdownloads/EV/ev130705.htm
· On 6 September 2005, the Cabinet formally considered the Environment & Economy Scrutiny Committee review of potential waste treatment options. Here is the web link: http://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/content/public/Resources/hlpdownloads/CA/ca060905.htm · The Cabinet considered the outline business case on 19 September 2006, and approved the start of procurement on a technology neutral basis. Here is the web link: http://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/content/public/Resources/hlpdownloads/CA/ca190906.htm]
· The decisions of the Cabinet on 19 September 2006 were reported to the full County Council on 7 November 2006. Here is the web link: http://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/content/public/Resources/hlpdownloads/CC/CC071106-08.htm
· The contract was advertised in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) in March 2007.
· Throughout the procurement process, County Councillors have been kept informed. They have had the opportunity to attend briefings and, quarterly e-mail updates have been sent to all members. Some members have also visited a range of technologies. Every key decision taken by the Executive/Cabinet has been reported to the next available County Council where all members have a right to put questions to Cabinet Members. Executive/Cabinet agendas and reports are distributed to all County Councillors.
· Decisions taken by the Executive/Cabinet can be “called in” by a number of County Councillors and reviewed by the relevant Scrutiny Committee. No decision relating to the procurement process has been called in.
· All County Council agendas and reports are available on the web site and in public libraries and are issued to the local media.
· The Oxfordshire Waste Partnership, comprising the county council and the five district councils has received regular updates and has remained supportive of the procurement process.
There was extensive consultation by the Oxfordshire Waste Partnership in the early stages of formulating its Waste Strategy. I recollect that the principal concern expressed regularly related to the impact of packaging on the volume of waste.
Full public consultation is being carried out on the planning applications for energy-from-waste incinerators at Sutton Courtenay and Ardley. The Sutton Courtenay proposal has also been discussed at the local liaison committee which members of the local Parish Councils attend to represent the local community. The results of the consultation exercise will be taken into account in the Planning and Regulation Committee's consideration of the planning applications when they come to committee.
Supplementary Question
As technology has moved on since the decision was taken on technology neutral, what mechanism has the Council put in place to deal with and take on board new evidence which was causing the public concern?
Supplementary Answer
Consultation would involve the Environment Agency and the Health Protection Agency on planning applications for energy-from-waste incinerators on the basis of current knowledge at the time of consultation. If the Cabinet has to take further decisions on this issue, these would be based on the latest information available and best advice from officers. There are further stages beyond that which we address later in the debate with regard to the licensing for any possible incinerator with which all members of this Council are familiar.
(b) Question from Dr Rita Atkinson to Councillor Belson
Do OCC believe that the WRG incinerator proposal would result in an acceptable impact to the quality of the landscape and the visual amenity of receptors, particularly in the light of the planned closure and decommissioning of Didcot A power station?
Answer from Councillor Belson
This question and question (c) are matters for the Planning and Regulation Committee to take into account, insofar as they are relevant to planning matters, in its consideration of the planning application. Moreover, the detailed consideration of pollution control issues is a matter for the Environment Agency in its consideration of any application for an environmental permit.
Supplementary Question
Will the County Council inform the Vale of White Horse District Council that it has got it wrong in objecting to the proposal on the grounds of Policy N9 of its Local Plan?
Supplementary Answer
I am aware of the objection from the Vale of White Horse District Council. It is for the Vale of White Horse District Council, if they want to take their objections further, to discuss the application with the County Council.
(c) Question from Mr Edmund Rowley-Williams to Councillor Belson
The OCC's specialist consultee on pollution control issues, the Environmental Agency, has not commented on this aspect of the application. An independent review by an experienced environment consultant, of the AQA (Air Quality Assessment) and HHRA (Human Health Hazard Risk Assessment) has identified significant omissions and inconsistencies in WRG's submission. Does OCC believe that appropriate consideration has been given to the potential impact of the incinerator's air emissions and the damage this may cause to the health of local residents and to existing air quality?
Answer from Councillor Belson
This question and question (b) are matters for the Planning and Regulation Committee to take into account, insofar as they are relevant to planning matters, in its consideration of the planning application. Moreover, the detailed consideration of pollution control issues is a matter for the Environment Agency in its consideration of any application for an environmental permit.
Supplementary question Why has the County Council not delayed making a decision on the planning application until the Environment Agency has submitted its own human health hazard risk assessment which may cause various design changes to be made to the incinerator and why does it not commission a report to prove conclusively that an incinerator would be safe, particularly in the context of the site in Sutton Courtenay with its vulnerable aquifer, its micro climate and its already poor existing air quality conditions? Will the incinerator provide the most cost effective, most flexible, most environmentally neutral environment and safest waste management system to the Council, not just to the operator?
Supplementary Answer
The Planning & Regulation Committee can consider only planning matters when considering the application. It is for the Environment Agency and the Health Protection Agency to decide whether to grant licences to operate the incinerators. It would not be lawful for the Planning & Regulation Committee to consider only environmental issues.
7/09 COUNTY COUNCIL MEETING DATES 2009/10 (Agenda Item 8)
Council was advised that, at its meeting on 17 June 2008, it had agreed the following dates for its meetings in 2009/10, based on a local election date of 7 May 2009:
2009 2010 13 January 12 January 10 February 9 February 7 April 19 May (Annual Meeting) 23 June 8 September 3 November
In November the UK Parliament had agreed a Government proposal that the date of the local elections in 2009 be moved to 4 June 2009 to coincide with the elections to the European Parliament. It had been necessary, therefore, to look again at the dates agreed for Council to meet in 2009.
Rule 1 (Annual Meeting of the Council) of the Council Procedure Rules in the Constitution stipulated that the Annual Meeting would take place on the second Tuesday after the day of retirement of Councillors or on such other day within twenty-one days after the day of retirement as the Council shall fix. The second Tuesday after retirement would be 16 June 2009 and this date would allow for the least delay to the ordinary business of the Council as a whole. In addition, the May date would no longer be required.
Normally in an election year there were seven meetings not six (six ordinary and one Annual Meeting). A consequence of the proposal above was that by making the June date the Annual Meeting and deleting the May date it reduced by one the number of meetings where ordinary business could be conducted.
If Council was minded to agree the suggested changes then it would also be necessary to suspend Section (1) of The Full Council (Section D, page D1) that assumed 6 ordinary meetings in a year and Rule (2) of the Council Procedure Rules (Section D, page D4) that stated that ‘Meetings of the Council other than the Annual Meeting will take place on the:…third Tuesday in June’. The Leaders of the Political Groups had been consulted on the proposal.
The Chairman moved and the Vice-Chairman seconded the following motion:
“Following consultation with the Leaders of the Political Groups, Council is RECOMMENDED to:
(a) agree to the suspension of Section (1) of The Full Council and Rule (2) of the Council Procedure Rules in the Constitution insofar as is necessary; and
(b) agree the following amended dates for meetings of the Council in 2009/10:
2009 2010 13 January 12 January 10 February 9 February 7 April 16 June (Annual Meeting) 8 September 3 November
Councillor Fooks proposed and Councillor Legge seconded the following amendment (shown in italic):
“Following consultation with the Leaders of the Political Groups, Council is RECOMMENDED to:
(a) agree to the suspension of Section (1) of The Full Council and Rule (2) of the Council Procedure Rules in the Constitution insofar as is necessary; and
(b) agree the following amended dates for meetings of the Council in 2009/10:
2009 2010 13 January 12 January 10 February 9 February 7 April 16 June (Annual Meeting) 21 July 8 September 3 November
This also necessitates the move of the Cabinet and Cabinet Member Decisions meetings proposed for 21 July to 28 July.”
After debate, the amendment was lost by 37 votes to 18.
RESOLVED: (by 37 votes to 19) to:
(a) agree to the suspension of Section (1) of The Full Council and Rule (2) of the Council Procedure Rules in the Constitution insofar as is necessary; and
(b) agree the following amended dates for meetings of the Council in 2009/10:
2009 2010 13 January 12 January 10 February 9 February 7 April 16 June (Annual Meeting) 8 September 3 November
8/09 OXFORDSHIRE 2030 - SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY STRATEGY – A PARTNERSHIP PLAN FOR IMPROVING QUALITY OF LIFE IN OXFORDSHIRE (Agenda Item 9)
Council considered a report (CC9) on Oxfordshire 2030, the Sustainable Community Strategy for the county.
RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Mitchell and seconded by Councillor Robertson and carried by 41 votes to 4) to approve Oxfordshire 2030: A partnership plan for improving quality of life in Oxfordshire.
9/09 APPOINTMENT TO SOUTH EAST ENGLAND COUNCILS (Agenda Item 10)
Council was advised that the Cabinet had considered, at its meeting on 16 December 2008, a report on the South East England Councils (SEEC). This body had been set up to work with the South East England Development Agency (SEEDA) on developing the Single Integrated Regional Strategy for the South East.
SEEC came into being on Friday, 12 December 2008 following a meeting of the Leaders of the 74 principal councils in the South East region, constituted on the basis that a member was nominated from each of the 74 principal councils in the South East region.
Under Section H of the Constitution, the Cabinet was responsible for appointments to those outside bodies which had been identified by the Cabinet 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". (The Democracy & Organisation Committee had responsibility for appointments to other outside bodies.)
Since SEEC was a new body, it did not currently appear on the Council’s list of Outside Bodies and so no appointment to it had been made.
RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Mitchell and seconded by Councillor Robertson and carried by 46 votes to 0) to add South East England Councils to the list of ‘strategic’ Outside Bodies to which the Cabinet makes appointments.
10/09 REPORT OF THE CABINET (Agenda Item 11)
The Council had before it the report of the Cabinet meetings on 18 November and 16 December 2008 (CC11).
On paragraph 2, Councillor Johnston asked what steps was the Council taking to address the high vacancy rates in some directorates. On paragraph 2, Councillor Harris asked how many part-time staff equated to full-time equivalents in each directorate (excluding teachers and staff working in schools). Councillor Robertson agreed to provide written answers.
On paragraph 5, Councillor Fooks asked how many ‘looked after children’ had been employed by the Council under the ‘Employability’ programme. Councillor Chapman agreed to provide a written answer.
11/09 QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE FROM MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL (Agenda Item 12)
22 questions with notice were asked. Details of the questions and answers and the supplementary questions and answers, where asked and given, are set out in the Annex to the Minutes (download as .doc file).
12/09 MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR ARMITAGE (Agenda Item 13)
Councillor Armitage moved and Councillor Johnston seconded the following motion as amended by strikethrough and in italic type:
“Council notes that the Government has approved a further six per cent increase in First Great Western's regulated train fares from Oxfordshire stations with effect from January 2009.
Council further notes that rail fares from Oxford and Didcot are already among the highest per mile in the South East of England, and is concerned that the effects of another above-inflation increase will include increased use of private cars, at a time when Oxfordshire's councils and their partners are working to reduce carbon emissions and to improve air quality. Increases in traffic on the local highway network at peak times could have a particularly serious effect on the implementation of the Local Transport Plan, business costs, pollution, serious accidents and quality of life for many in the county.
Council considers that with local residents feeling the effects of the financial crisis, it is unfair and short-sighted to increase the cost of rail fares, which the majority of rail users cannot avoid paying.
Council
therefore asks the Leader to write to First Great Western and to the Secretary
of State for Transport RESOLVED: (nem con) as follows:
“Council notes that the Government has approved a further six per cent increase in First Great Western's regulated train fares from Oxfordshire stations with effect from January 2009.
Council further notes that rail fares from Oxford and Didcot are already among the highest per mile in the South East of England, and is concerned that the effects of another above-inflation increase will include increased use of private cars, at a time when Oxfordshire's councils and their partners are working to reduce carbon emissions and to improve air quality. Increases in traffic on the local highway network at peak times could have a particularly serious effect on the implementation of the Local Transport Plan, business costs, pollution, serious accidents and quality of life for many in the county.
Council considers that with local residents feeling the effects of the financial crisis, it is unfair and short-sighted to increase the cost of rail fares, which the majority of rail users cannot avoid paying.
Council therefore asks the Leader to write to First Great Western and to the Secretary of State for Transport accepting that some fares have been reduced, protest that the method of using July’s inflation figure + 1% has created these increases and seek assurance that this methodology would not be used in future to avoid further above-inflation increases while the recession continues.”
13/09 MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR ZOÉ PATRICK (Agenda Item 14)
Councillor Fooks moved and Councillor Roaf seconded the following motion as amended by strikethrough and in italic type:
“Council
notes that the worsening financial downturn is likely to hit Oxfordshire along
with other parts of the country. This requires the council to use its community
leadership role, to be at the forefront of actions to help keep the economy
moving and assist those who could lose their jobs, along with Council
Council suggests the full range of issues to be addressed will include:
(a) Identifying the need for re-skilling individuals who have lost their jobs (b) Support for individuals made redundant wishing to set up businesses (c) Intensification of advice through inter alia “Job clubs”
(j) Consideration of a programme to provide insulation and support for micro-renewables in county-owned and private buildings.”
RESOLVED: (nem con) as follows:
“Council notes that the worsening financial downturn is likely to hit Oxfordshire along with other parts of the country. This requires the council to use its community leadership role, to be at the forefront of actions to help keep the economy moving and assist those who could lose their jobs, along with other vulnerable groups. Council notes that the Leader of the Council has already instituted a debate at the Oxfordshire Partnership about the impact of the recession on Oxfordshire and that the Oxfordshire Economic Partnership has acknowledged its lead role by setting up an Economic Task Force comprising representatives from Oxfordshire councils and the business sector. The Task Force has already met and will be meeting again on 26 January and regularly thereafter, to devise an action plan for how the public and private sector can work together to offer practical help to local residents and businesses.
Council suggests the full range of issues to be addressed will include:
(a) Identifying the need for re-skilling individuals who have lost their jobs (b) Support for individuals made redundant wishing to set up businesses (c) Intensification of advice through inter alia “Job clubs” (d) A re-evaluation of public spending priorities (e) Actions to keep public and private sector capital projects going (f) Income maximisation programmes for residents, including take up of benefits (g) Implementation of programmes for young people to gain work experience (h) Debt advice to residents and businesses (i) Advice and assistance for older people, including on fuel poverty (j) Consideration of a programme to provide insulation and support for micro-renewables in county-owned and private buildings.”
14/09 MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR JEAN FOOKS (Agenda Item 15)
The Chairman of the Council asked Council whether it would agree to the recording of the debate on this item. Council agreed to its recording.
Councillor Fooks moved and Councillor Wise seconded the following motion:
“Council notes the public concern about possible risks to public health and to the environment from the proposed waste-to-energy plants in Oxfordshire. Although the statutory bodies for assessment of this risk are the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency, rather than the Council itself, Council feels that it would be wise to request an independent assessment of these risks before deciding to proceed with the procurement of either plant.
Council therefore asks the Cabinet to commission such an assessment so that the public can have confidence that their fears are being taken seriously before any final decision is taken.”
Councillor Mitchell moved and Councillor Belson seconded an amendment to the motion (shown by strikethrough and in italic type) as follows:
“Council
notes the public concern about possible risks to public health and to the environment
from the proposed waste-to-energy plants in Oxfordshire. Council
therefore asks the Cabinet to ensure that any energy-to-waste facility in
Oxfordshire be subject to After debate, the amendment was put to the vote. The amendment was carried by 37 votes to 18. The motion as amended was put to the vote. Seven members by standing in their places required a named vote in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 15(a). Voting was as follows: Councillors voting for the motion (38) Councillors Atkins, Marilyn Badcock, Michael Badcock, Belson, Billington, Bolster, Bonner, Carter, Chapman, Couchman, Crabbe, Dhesi, Farrow, Fitzgerald-O’Connor, Gibbard, Greene, Haffenden, Hallchurch, Handley, Heathcoat, Hudspeth, Jelf, Mallon, McIntosh-Stedman, Mitchell, Reynolds, Robertson, Rose, Seale, Service, Shouler, Skolar, Stratford, Tilley, N Turner, Viney, Waine and Wilmshurst Councillors voting against the motion (16) Councillors Altaf-Khan, Armitage, Bones, Bryden, Dhall, Fooks, Fulljames, Johnston, Legge, Purse, Roaf, L Sanders, Simmons, R Smith, V Smith and Wise Councillors abstaining (8) Councillors Brighouse, Gatehouse, Hannaby, Harris, Joslin, Mathew, J Sanders and Sherwood
The motion as amended was declared carried.
RESOLVED: as follows:
“Council notes the public concern about possible risks to public health and to the environment from the proposed waste-to-energy plants in Oxfordshire. The statutory bodies for assessment of this risk are the Health Protection Agency and the Environment Agency, rather than the Council itself and Council feels that it would be wise to ensure there is an independent assessment of these risks before the commissioning of either plant. Council therefore asks the Cabinet to ensure that any energy-to-waste facility in Oxfordshire be subject to such an assessment by the relevant statutory bodies so that the public can have confidence that their fears are being taken seriously before any plant is finally commissioned.”
(Councillors Hayward and Lamont left the Chamber for this item.)
15/09 MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR LIZ BRIGHOUSE (Agenda Item 16)
Councillor Brighouse moved and Councillor Gatehouse seconded the following motion:
"This Council
(a) expresses deep concern about the possibility that Oxford citizens could be left without a community hospital while community hospitals continue to be provided in areas of lower population density and social need;
(b) asks the Chairman of the Oxfordshire Joint Health Overview & Scrutiny Committee to write to the Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals Trust and the Oxfordshire Primary Care Trust:
(i) expressing the Council’s concern, (ii) asking them to advise the Scrutiny Committee whether other hospitals affected by Clostridium Difficile infection have had to be closed down, (iii) asking them to advise the Scrutiny Committee whether it is their intention to use the Churchill site primarily for the direct provision of health care or, alternatively, to expand research facilities on the site, (iv) requesting an assurance that they will provide a community hospital in Oxford, for example on the Churchill site or (through negotiation with the University) on the Old Infirmary site;
(c) asks that, if the trusts do not provide the Scrutiny Committee with the information requested in accordance with (b)(ii) and (b)(iii) and the assurance requested in accordance with (b)(iv), it should summon their Chief Executives to its March meeting to explain why.”
After debate, the motion was put to the vote. Seven members by standing in their places required a named vote in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 15(a). Voting was as follows:
Councillors voting against the motion (39)
Councillors Marilyn Badcock, Michael Badcock, Belson, Billington, Bolster, Bonner, Carter, Chapman, Couchman, Crabbe, Farrow, Fitzgerald-O’Connor, Fulljames, Gibbard, Greene, Haffenden, Hallchurch, Handley, Hayward, Heathcoat, Hudspeth, Jelf, Lamont, Mallon, Mathew, Mitchell, Reynolds, Robertson, Rose, Seale, Service, Shouler, Skolar, Stratford, Tilley, N Turner, Viney, Waine and Wilmshurst Councillors voting for the motion (17) Councillors Atkins, Bones, Brighouse, Dhall, Dhesi, Gatehouse, Hannaby, Harris, Joslin, Legge, McIntosh-Stedman, J Sanders, L Sanders, Sherwood, Simmons, R Smith and Wise
Councillors abstaining (4)
Councillors Armitage, Bryden, Purse and Roaf.
The motion was declared lost.
16/09 MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR JOHN SANDERS (Agenda Item 17)
Councillor J Sanders moved and Councillor Joslin seconded the following motion:
"This Council:
(a) shares the Cabinet’s ambition to make Oxford a more pleasant city for pedestrians;
(b) notes, however, that Oxford residents living east of The Plain – including older people, people with disabilities and parents with pushchairs – need access to the city centre so that they can work, shop and enjoy their city’s heritage;
(c) asks the Cabinet to explain how its proposals to transform the city centre can be implemented without forcing people to take two buses rather than one, making people walk long distances to bus stops and turning The Plain into a bus station.”
After debate, the motion was put to the vote. Seven members by standing in their places required a named vote in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 15(a). Voting was as follows: Councillors voting for the amendment (58)
Councillors Armitage, Marilyn Badcock, Michael Badcock, Belson, Billington, Bolster, Bones, Bonner, Brighouse, Bryden, Carter, Chapman, Couchman, Crabbe, Dhall, Dhesi, Farrow, Fitzgerald-O’Connor, Fooks, Fulljames, Gatehouse, Gibbard, Greene, Haffenden, Hallchurch, Handley, Hannaby, Harris, Hayward, Heathcoat, Hudspeth, Jelf, Joslin, Lamont, Mallon, Mathew, McIntosh-Stedman, Mitchell, Purse, Roaf, Robertson, Rose, J Sanders, L Sanders, Seale, Service, Sherwood, Shouler, Simmons, Skolar, R Smith, Stratford, Tilley, N Turner, Viney, Waine, Wilmshurst and Wise
Councillors abstaining (2)
Councillors Atkins and Legge
The motion was declared carried.
RESOLVED: as follows:
"This Council:
(a) shares the Cabinet’s ambition to make Oxford a more pleasant city for pedestrians;
(b) notes, however, that Oxford residents living east of The Plain – including older people, people with disabilities and parents with pushchairs – need access to the city centre so that they can work, shop and enjoy their city’s heritage;
(c) asks the Cabinet to explain how its proposals to transform the city centre can be implemented without forcing people to take two buses rather than one, making people walk long distances to bus stops and turning The Plain into a bus station.”
17/09 MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR LIZ BRIGHOUSE (Agenda Item 18)
Councillor Brighouse moved and Councillor J Sanders seconded the following motion:
"This Council asks the Cabinet to review the Fair Funding Formula for schools in the light of the following statement in the Annual Performance Assessment of the council’s children’s services published by Ofsted on 17 December 2008: “Delegated school funding does not fully reflect the council’s priorities for areas of disadvantage.” (p. 7).”
After debate, the motion was lost by 38 votes to 19.
................................................................................... in the Chair
Date of signing.................................................................. 2009
|