Return to AgendaITEM CC1OXFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
MINUTES of the meeting of the County Council held at County Hall on Tuesday 4 November 2008 commencing at 10.00 am and finishing at 3.37 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 Ann Bonner Liz Brighouse Iain Brown Alan Bryden Nick Carter Patrick Cartledge 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 David Harvey Steve Hayward Mrs J Heathcoat Hilary Hibbert-Biles Ian Hudspeth Ray Jelf Bob Johnston Colin Lamont Lesley Legge Kieron Mallon Charles Mathew Olive McIntosh-Stedman Keith R Mitchell CBE David Nimmo-Smith Zoé Patrick Anne Purse G A Reynolds Dermot Roaf David Robertson 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.
90/08 MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING (Agenda Item 1)
RESOLVED:
(a) that the Minutes of the meeting of Council held on 9 September 2008 be approved and signed as a correct record subject to the following amendments shown in italic type and by strikethrough:
(i) Minute 74/08 .
(ii) Minute 85/08, paragraph 5
“Councillor Legge
moved and Councillor
(iii) Minute 89/08
“RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Mrs Fulljames and seconded by Councillor Bolster and carried nem con)”
(b) On Minute 83/08 (Question 14 from Councillor Mathew), Council noted the following answer from Councillor Belson to Councillor Mathew’s supplementary question:
“Following the Council meeting, an officer visited the site and took photos of the ragwort. We have spoken with WRG and they have agreed to remove the existing ragwort.”
91/08 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE (Agenda Item 2)
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mrs Bones, Glass Woodin, Godden, Howell, Joslin and Rose.
Councillor L Sanders informed Council that Councillor Glass Woodin was unable to attend meetings of the Authority at present for reasons connected with her health.
RESOLVED: to approve, for the purposes of Section 85 of the Local Government Act 1972, the absence of Councillor Glass Woodin from any meeting of the Authority for health reasons from the date of this meeting.
92/08 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST (Agenda Item 3)
The following declarations of interest were made:
93/08 OFFICIAL COMMUNICATIONS (Agenda Item 4)
The Chairman of the Council reported as follows:
(a) The County Council had won an award from the Oxford Preservation Trust for a new building at Florence Park Family Centre. He had attended the opening of the Centre.
(b) Abingdon Town Council had won an award from the Oxford Preservation Trust for the Market Place Improvement Project, Abingdon and wished to thank the County Council formally for its help through a generous grant towards the overall cost of the refurbishment of Abingdon’s Market Place. He had attended the opening.
He accepted, on behalf of the Council, a copy of the award presented by the Mayor of Abingdon.
94/08 PETITIONS AND PUBLIC ADDRESS (Agenda Item 6)
Mr Paul Gibbs petitioned Council against the proposed incinerator at Sutton Courtenay (App No SUT/APF/616 60 CM) in the following terms:
“We the undersigned believe that an unacceptable concentration of pollutants is proposed for this district on top of the excessive effects of the two power stations.
Our objection is made because no evaluation of the accumulation of these pollutants on residents has ever been undertaken by the appropriate authorities, and we call on the planning authorities and consultees to reject the incinerator application.”
The petition was referred to the Planning & Regulation Committee.
95/08 QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC (Agenda Item 7)
Dr Su Braden addressed the following question to Councillor Belson, Cabinet Member for Sustainable Improvement.
“Does the Cabinet Member for Sustainable Development consider that the technology-neutral process for obtaining tenders for a residual waste management solution adopted by OCC complies with all relevant European directives?
In particular to directives calling for:
(a) The essential objective of all provisions relating to waste management should be the protection of human health and the environment against harmful effects caused by the collection, transport, treatment … of waste. (2006/12EC) and (b) Member States shall take appropriate measures, in cooperation with other member states where this is necessary or advisable, to establish an integrated and adequate network of disposal installations, taking account of the best available technology not involving excessive costs. The network must enable the Community as a whole to become self-sufficient in waste disposal (2006/12EC).”
Councillor Belson, Cabinet Member for Sustainable Improvement replied:
“At the start of the procurement of a residual waste treatment solution for Oxfordshire, Cabinet recognised that there was a number of waste technologies that could provide a value for money solution and therefore to follow a policy of being technology neutral.
The approach the Council took was completely above board and professional. It was not designed to avoid the question about which technology to procure, but it was designed to give the market the freedom to propose the most economically and technologically viable solution for Oxfordshire. This procurement technique is commonly referred to as using an ‘output specification’ whereby the Council sets out what it wants to achieve and tenderers develop their best solutions to deliver this. Using an output specification is recommended procurement practice and delivers better and fairer competition and better value for money.
The Council evaluated fairly and equitably all the solutions that were put forward using evaluation criteria that included technical, legal and commercial considerations. All the solutions that the Council received were for energy from waste incineration.
We are aware that some members of the public are concerned about possible health implications of incineration. Please let me assure you that modern incinerators emit very low levels of emissions and do not pose a risk to public health. Any treatment facility will need to be permitted by the Environment Agency who has the responsibility for regulating waste treatment plants. The Environment Agency has very strict rules for such facilities and will not allow anything that is unsafe. The Environment Agency has a position on waste incineration which can be found on its web site.
In addition the Health Protection Agency has responsibility to protect human health and it too would not allow anything that is unsafe. The Health Protection Agency has a position statement on municipal solid waste incineration which can be found on its web site.
Campaign groups have singled out Energy from Waste as an option to be opposed. However, this technology is widely and safely used in many European countries and is increasingly used here in Britain. There are already approximately 20 Energy from Waste facilities in the UK, 128 in France, 65 in Germany, 30 in Denmark, 29 in Sweden, and 28 in Switzerland.”
Supplementary Question
“I am sure the Cabinet Member for Sustainable Development is aware that under the revised EU directive on energy for waste incineration (21.10.2008) ‘Member States are required to set new recycling targets. By 2020 Member States must recycle 50% of their household and similar waste and 70% of their construction and demolition waste.’ May I ask what steps Oxfordshire County Council (OCC) has put in place to reach these targets and how distribution of the current WRG Energy for Waste proposal is to become a reality within the hierarchy of waste disposal laid out in this new directive? There are no precise details given for the distribution of the waste-heat energy to local populations in the current planning proposal. Why has OCC not followed the example of other councils in Britain that have chosen to follow a zero incineration waste strategy despite having much larger waste-streams than Oxfordshire?”
Supplementary Answer
“I will attempt to answer your questions if I am able to do so but will provide a written response where this is not possible. Oxfordshire’s recycling is now at 45.7% I believe and we are working extremely hard to increase it to the required 50%. I might add that the local authority target is far less than 40% as an average so we are exceeding our targets set by the Government. I am conscious that there are a number of objections to this particular proposal and I am sure there are to the Ardley site as well. But at this stage we have not actually decided whether the incinerator should be at Sutton Courtenay or Ardley and that decision will not be made until April. Between now and April there is plenty of time for people to raise their objections and their health and environmental concerns. It is not up to the County Council to issue the licences to operate: the licences are granted by the Health Protection Agency and Environment Agency. We are not experts in this Council on the effects of incinerators and we rely on other people to advise us. We believe incineration is the right solution. In the next few months, the County Council will select the site for the incinerator.”
96/08 FINANCIAL MONITORING AND REVISIONS TO THE TREASURY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY (Agenda Item 8)
The Council had before it a report on Financial Monitoring and Revisions to the Treasury Management Strategy (CC8).
RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Shouler and seconded by Councillor Mitchell and carried nem con) to approve:
(a) the addition to the approved credit matrix of any nationalised bank which has a government guarantee for wholesale deposits, with maturities up to the period of the guarantee, up to a limit of £15m;
(b) the increase to the lending limit for the Debt Management Account Deposit Facility to 100% of the investment portfolio;
(c) an increase to the level of funds placed externally with Investec by £20m. These additional funds will be held in a sub-fund which invests in UK Sovereign Issues, Government Gilts and European Supranationals (traded in Sterling);
(d) the revised tables of specified and non-specified investments as set out in the Annex to CC8;
(e) that any further changes required to the credit matrix be delegated to the Chief Finance Officer after consultation with the Cabinet Member for Finance and leaders of the Opposition and other groups.
97/08 MEMBER CHAMPION – ROLE (Agenda Item 9)
Council was advised that the Cabinet had considered, at its meeting on 21 October 2008, draft guidance (CC9) in relation to the role of ‘Member Champions’, including a person specification/role description and reporting framework.
Councillor Mitchell moved and Councillor Robertson seconded that the recommendation be adopted with the following addition in italic type:
(b) To note the following additional informal champions, not formally appointed by Democracy and Organisation Committee:
RESOLVED: (nem con) to agree that the Constitution be amended to include the role of Member Champion on the basis of the duties and the means of appointment as set out in paragraph 11 of the report (CC9) and the guidance at Annex 1 to CC9.
98/08 NEW EXECUTIVE ARRANGEMENTS – EXTRAORDINARY MEETINGS (Agenda Item 10)
Council was advised that the Cabinet had considered, at its meeting on 21 October 2008, a report in order to make recommendations to Council on what executive arrangements the Council should operate after the 2009 Elections. In line with the legislation, the recommendations on the executive arrangements would be considered at an extraordinary meeting of the Council. The Cabinet had also considered proposals in relation to the calling of extraordinary meetings of the Council and had agreed to recommend to Council amendments to the Constitution for approval.
RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Mitchell and seconded by Councillor Robertson and carried nem con) to amend Section D, Council Procedure Rules, Rule 4 of the Constitution as follows:
(a) Add the words “or in the case of an extraordinary meeting such other appropriate venue as the Chairman may determine after consultation with Group Leaders” after the first bullet point “be held at County Hall, Oxford”;
(b) After “at 10:00 am” in the second bullet point, add “or in the case of an extraordinary meeting such other time as the Chairman may determine after consultation with Group Leaders”.
99/08 REPORTS OF THE CABINET/PARTNERSHIPS (Agenda Item 11)
Council considered a report of the Cabinet meetings held on 9 September and 21 October 2008 (CC11(a)) and a report on Partnership Working in Oxfordshire (CC11(b)).
On Paragraph 2, Councillor Robertson agreed to provide a response in writing on the actual levels of vacancies (excluding schools) within the Authority, in particular the Environment & Economy Directorate, and an explanation if higher than 10%.
At this point, the Council Chamber had to be evacuated due to a fire alarm having been activated. As a consequence, the meeting was adjourned between 11.40-11.55 am.
The Chairman proposed and Council agreed that Council Procedure Rule 13(n) be suspended to allow an extra 10 minutes for this agenda item to enable questions to be asked on the remaining paragraphs of the report of the Cabinet and on the report of Partnership working.
On paragraph 17, Councillor Altaf Khan was asked to provide his question in writing and Councillor Heathcoat agreed to provide a written reply to it.
RESOLVED: to receive the reports.
100/08 QUESTIONS WITH NOTICE FROM MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL (Agenda Item 12)
18 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).
101/08 MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR ARMITAGE (Agenda Item 13)
Councillor Armitage moved and Councillor Patrick seconded the following motion:
“Council notes recent events in global financial markets, and that its officers have followed Treasury advice and invested its capital within the guidance, like many other authorities. This Council has been fortunate in being one of the least exposed in the country but its investments have still been affected by the recent problems.
Council welcomes the government’s commitment to support local authorities and its aim to recover as much money as possible from banks on behalf of public sector investors, but recognises that there is an uncertain prospect of the full capital and anticipated interest being returned.
Council calls on government to:
(a) work with local government to protect tax payers and front-line services;
(b) ensure that DCLG and the Treasury are working together to advise and support local authorities who have investments at risk;
(c) support the capitalisation of such losses as occur to ensure that in-year front-line service cuts do not become necessary; and
(d) liaise closely with the Local Government Association to ensure that all councils are able to benefit from the freezing of the UK assets of foreign banks.
Council asks officers to report to Cabinet on cash holdings, investments and cash flow in the context of the collapse of some banks.
Council asks the Cabinet Member for Finance to write to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to lay out the specific situation facing this authority and to keep Council informed of developments as they occur.”
Councillor Shouler moved and Councillor Mitchell seconded the following amendment to the motion shown in italic type:
“Council notes recent events in global financial markets, and that its officers have followed Treasury advice and invested its capital within the guidance, like many other authorities. This Council has been fortunate in being one of the least exposed in the country but its investments have still been affected by the recent problems.
Council welcomes the government’s commitment to support local authorities and its aim to recover as much money as possible from banks on behalf of public sector investors, but recognises that there is an uncertain prospect of the full capital and anticipated interest being returned.
Council calls on government to:
(a) work with local government to protect tax payers and front-line services;
(b) ensure that DCLG and the Treasury are working together to advise and support local authorities who have investments at risk;
(c) support the capitalisation of such losses as occur to ensure that in-year front-line service cuts do not become necessary; and
(d) liaise closely with the Local Government Association to ensure that all councils are able to benefit from the freezing of the UK assets of foreign banks.
Council asks officers to report to Cabinet on cash holdings, investments and cash flow in the context of the collapse of some banks.
Council asks the Cabinet Member for Finance to write to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to lay out the specific situation facing this authority and to keep Council informed of developments as they occur.”
Councillor Armitage and Councillor Patrick accepted the amendment.
RESOLVED: (nem con)
“Council notes recent events in global financial markets, and that its officers have followed Treasury advice and invested its capital within the guidance, like many other authorities. This Council has been fortunate in being one of the least exposed in the country but its investments have still been affected by the recent problems.
Council welcomes the government’s commitment to support local authorities and its aim to recover as much money as possible from banks on behalf of public sector investors, but recognises that there is an uncertain prospect of the full capital and anticipated interest being returned.
Council calls on government to:
(a) work with local government to protect tax payers and front-line services;
(b) ensure that DCLG and the Treasury are working together to advise and support local authorities who have investments at risk;
(c) support the capitalisation of such losses as occur to ensure that in-year front-line service cuts do not become necessary; and
(d) liaise closely with the Local Government Association to ensure that all councils are able to benefit from the freezing of the UK assets of foreign banks.
Council asks officers to report to Cabinet on cash holdings, investments and cash flow in the context of the collapse of some banks.
Council asks the Cabinet Member for Finance to write to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to lay out the specific situation facing this authority and to keep Council informed of developments as they occur.”
102/08 MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR LIZ BRIGHOUSE (Agenda Item 14)
The Chairman ruled that agenda items 14 and 15 should be debated together but voted on separately.
Councillor Brighouse moved and Councillor Harris seconded the motion in the following amended form shown in italic type:
"This Council:
(a) reaffirms its support for the Sustainable Communities Act;
(b) notes that the Act resulted from campaigning by a coalition of over 90 national citizens organisations called Local Works and was supported in parliament by all the main English parties;
(c) notes that the Act provides a process designed to allow local authorities and their communities to drive the help that central government gives in reversing community decline and promoting thriving, sustainable communities;
(d) asks the Cabinet to explore the possibility of using the Act to make, following consultation with one or more panels of representatives of local people and via the Local Government Association which has been appointed as the “selector” under the terms of the Act, proposals to the Secretary of State that would contribute to the promotion of sustainability in Oxfordshire (and which could include requests for transfers of functions from one body to another);
(e) further asks the Cabinet to inform the local media and local MPs about this motion and about the opportunities the Act could provide for local groups.”
Councillor Mitchell moved and Councillor Robertson seconded the following amendment to the motion shown in italic type:
"This Council:
(a) reaffirms its support for the Sustainable Communities Act based on an expectation that it will devolve more power from Whitehall to councils and communities in Oxfordshire and other areas;
(b) notes that the Act resulted from campaigning by a coalition of over 90 national citizens organisations called Local Works and was supported in parliament on second reading (19 Jan 2007) by 175 MPs voting for (overwhelmingly Conservatives) and with 17 against (all of whom were Labour MPs);
(c) notes that the Act provides a process designed to allow local authorities and their communities to drive the help that central government gives in reversing community decline and promoting thriving, sustainable communities but is deeply sceptical about the willingness of the current government to support a reversal of community decline when it singularly failed to prevent the closure of thousands of Post Offices that were so important to the sustainability of the communities they served;
(d) asks the Cabinet to explore the possibility of using the Act to make, following consultation with one or more panels of representatives of local people, proposals to the Secretary of State that would contribute to the promotion of sustainability in Oxfordshire (and which could include requests for transfers of functions from one body to another);
(e) further asks the Cabinet to inform the local media and local MPs that the Cabinet will be exploring what opportunities it might provide for furthering the social, economic and environmental well-being of our residents.
After debate, the amendment to the motion was carried by 57 votes to 4.
RESOLVED: (nem con)
"This Council:
(a) reaffirms its support for the Sustainable Communities Act based on an expectation that it will devolve more power from Whitehall to councils and communities in Oxfordshire and other areas;
(b) notes that the Act resulted from campaigning by a coalition of over 90 national citizens organisations called Local Works and was supported in parliament on second reading (19 Jan 2007) by 175 MPs voting for (overwhelmingly Conservatives) and with 17 against (all of whom were Labour MPs);
(c) notes that the Act provides a process designed to allow local authorities and their communities to drive the help that central government gives in reversing community decline and promoting thriving, sustainable communities but is deeply sceptical about the willingness of the current government to support a reversal of community decline when it singularly failed to prevent the closure of thousands of Post Offices that were so important to the sustainability of the communities they served;
(d) asks the Cabinet to explore the possibility of using the Act to make, following consultation with one or more panels of representatives of local people, proposals to the Secretary of State that would contribute to the promotion of sustainability in Oxfordshire (and which could include requests for transfers of functions from one body to another);
(e) further asks the
Cabinet to inform the local media and local MPs that the Cabinet will be
exploring what opportunities it might provide for furthering the social,
economic and environmental well-being of our residents.
103/08 MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR ZOÉ PATRICK (Agenda Item 15)
Councillor Patrick moved and Councillor Fooks seconded the motion in the following amended form shown in italic type:
“Oxfordshire County Council:
(a) supports the bottom up process in the Sustainable Communities Act designed to allow local authorities and their communities to drive the help that central government gives in reversing community decline and promoting thriving, sustainable communities;
(b) notes that the Act gives local authorities the power to:
(i) make proposals to government on the action and assistance government must take or give to promote sustainable communities; and
(ii) argue for a transfer of public money and function from central to local control; and
(c) further notes that the Act defines the work of creating sustainable communities as:
(i) improvement of the local economy;
(ii) protection of the environment;
(iii) promotion of social inclusion; and
(iv) participation in civic and political activity.
Council resolves to ask the Cabinet to:
(a) use to the full its powers under the Act by preparing and submitting proposals to central government;
(b) seek to establish a representative panel of residents to consult with the Council in deciding on which local issues are submitted to the Communities and Local Government Minister through the “selector” appointed by the Secretary of State to short-list proposals for the government; and
(c) inform MPs, other local partners and the media of this decision.”
After debate the motion was lost by 42 votes to 13.
104/08 MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR BARBARA GATEHOUSE (Agenda Item 16)
Councillor Gatehouse moved and Councillor Dhesi seconded the following motion:
"This Council:
(a) notes that blind residents face additional costs as a result of their difficulty in accessing their community, including Council and other services, without practical help to get around;
(b) supports the campaign of the Royal National Institute of Blind People on securing the Higher Rate Mobility Component of Disability Living Allowance for blind people;
(c) notes that the RNIB has been lobbying the Department for Work and Pensions about giving blind people access to this component;
(d) welcomes the support for the RNIB campaign from Andrew Smith, MP for Oxford East, who has written to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the issue and put down a parliamentary question about it;
(e) notes that the government has committed itself to continue to look at this issue and asks the Leader of the Council to write to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions explaining why Oxfordshire residents who are blind should have access to this component.”
Councillor Couchman moved and Councillor Mitchell seconded the following amendment shown in italic type and by strikethrough:
"This Council:
(a) notes that blind residents, together with others with serious disabilities, face additional costs as a result of their difficulty in accessing their community, including Council and other services, without practical help to get around;
(b) supports the campaigns of the Royal National Institute of Blind People and of other disability groups on securing the Higher Rate Mobility Component of Disability Living Allowance for blind and other disabled people;
(c) notes that the RNIB has
been lobbying the Department for Work and Pensions about giving blind people
access to this component with the support of the Oxfordshire MPs
(
Councillor Gatehouse and Councillor Dhesi accepted the amendment.
RESOLVED: (nem con)
"This Council:
(a) notes that blind residents, together with others with serious disabilities, face additional costs as a result of their difficulty in accessing their community, including Council and other services, without practical help to get around;
(b) supports the campaigns of the Royal National Institute of Blind People and of other disability groups on securing the Higher Rate Mobility Component of Disability Living Allowance for blind and other disabled people;
(c) notes that the RNIB has been lobbying the Department for Work and Pensions about giving blind people access to this component with the support of the Oxfordshire MPs and many others;
(d) notes that the government has committed itself to continue to look at this issue and asks the Leader of the Council to write to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions explaining why Oxfordshire residents who are blind or have other serious disabilities should have access to this component.”
................................................................................... in the Chair
Date of signing.................................................................. 2008
|