Issue - meetings

At their meeting on 5 June the Performance Scrutiny Committee considered the decision of the Cabinet Member for Environment made on 15 May 2014 following proper notice of a call in.

The Committee AGREED to refer the decision back to Cabinet for it to consider in the light of the following material concerns this committee has about the following aspects of the decision: lack of proper consultation with local Bicester County Councillors.

The following documents are attached:

(a)          A report (CA11) setting out the names of the Councillors who have required the call in and the reasons given for the Call in.

(b)          The report considered by the Cabinet Member for Environment together with an extract of the minutes of the delegated decision session. (CA11).

(c)          Additional information provided to the Performance Scrutiny Committee in response to the call in (CA11):

(i)            a copy of the SW Bicester Planning Statement

(ii)        a summary of the consultation requirements for highways works

(d)          a note of the material concerns of the Performance Scrutiny Committee

The Cabinet Agreed by 6 votes to 3, with 1 abstention not to go back out to consultation with local Bicester County Councillors and to confirm the Decision of the Cabinet Member for Environment made on 15 May 2014:

to approve the implementation of proposals as advertised.

(Councillor Chapman asked that her vote against be recorded).

At their meeting on 5 June 2014, the Performance Scrutiny Committee had considered the decision of the Cabinet Member for Environment made on 15 May 2014 following proper notice of a call in.

The Committee AGREED to refer the decision back to Cabinet for it to consider in the light of the following material concerns that the committee had about the following aspects of the decision: lack of proper consultation with local Bicester County Councillors.

The Cabinet had before them the report considered by the Cabinet Member for Environment together with an extract of the minutes of the delegated decision session; a copy of the SW Bicester Planning Statement; a summary of the consultation requirements for highways works and a note of the material concerns of the Performance Scrutiny Committee

Councillor Liz Brighouse, speaking as Chairman of the Performance Scrutiny Committee confirmed that the main concerns of the Scrutiny Committee had been around the lack of proper consultation with local Bicester County Councillors and in particular, that the Scrutiny Committee remained concerned that if due process had been carried out whether the outcome would have been different.  This was the question the Cabinet need to address today.

Councillor Waine, speaking as local member indicated that since joining the Council in 2005 he had felt that Cabinet members and officers had ensured that local members had been kept in the loophole and in fact that this had often happened earlier than the required amount of time.  This had not been the case with this scheme.  Although emails had come through saying that local members had been consulted, the reality was that members had received emails informing them of what was going to be done.  Furthermore, the matter had not been raised with local members at Locality Meetings.  He believed if local members had been consulted correctly they would have come forward with a united view.  He stressed the importance of the road for the viability of Bicester Town Centre and of getting the correct traffic calming along that stretch of road.  He urged the Cabinet to refer the Decision back to the Cabinet Member to allow for adequate consultation and to ensure that the correct decision was made, even if this incurred additional cost.

Councillor Hibbert-Biles noted that the local Member for this area was in fact Councillor Les Sibley.  She referred to a copy of an email to Councillor Sibley in February and questioned if Councillor Waine thought that this was not early enough and if it was not the responsibility of Councillor Sibley to disseminate this information to the other local members.

Councillor Mrs Fulljames, speaking as local member for Ploughley questioned why she had not been consulted on the proposals when she represented to the right of Middleton Stoney Road.  She further questioned why a proposal for 16 Road Humps along the Middleton Stoney Road had been put before the Cabinet Member when there had been no discussion or consultation on that specific proposal.  She reiterated that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59

Written notice has been given in accordance with the Council’s Scrutiny procedure Rules requiring the decision of the Cabinet Member for Environment on 15 May 2014 to be called in for review by this Committee.

The following documents are attached:

(a)            A report (PSC5(a)) setting out the names of the Councillors who have required the call in and the reasons given for the Call in.

(b)            The report considered by the Cabinet Member for Environment together with an extract of the minutes of the delegated decision session. (PSC5(b)).

(c)            Additional information provided in response to the call in (PSC5(c)):

(i)              a copy of the SW Bicester Planning Statement

(ii)       a summary of the consultation requirements for highways works

Written notice had been given in accordance with the Council’s Scrutiny Procedure Rules requiring the decision of the Cabinet Member for Environment on 15 May 2014 to be called in for review by this Committee.

The Performance Scrutiny Committee had before them:

(1)            A report setting out the names of the Councillors who have required the call in and the reasons given for the Call in.

(2)            The report considered by the Cabinet Member for Environment together with an extract of the minutes of the delegated decision session.

(3)            Additional information provided in response to the call in :

(i)              a copy of the SW Bicester Planning Statement

(ii)       a summary of the consultation requirements for highways works

Councillor Sibley, speaking as the originator of the call in and as a local councillor spoke in support of the concerns set out in the call in request.

With regard to reason 1 Councillor Sibley highlighted the lack of a properly constructed footpath and cycle ways and referred to the planning statement for South West Bicester which supported such provision. In particular he was concerned at the lack of a footpath on the South side of Middleton Stoney Road and the position of the bus stop which put pedestrians at risk.

With regard to reason 2 on the lack of proper consultation with local Bicester County Councillors he stressed that these proposals resulted in a major impact from an agreed development and consultation with local councillors was vital.

With regard to reason 3 Councillor Sibley detailed his concerns over the use of road humps including increased traffic noise, vehicle damage, increased vehicle emissions and emergency vehicles being impeded.

With regard to reason 4 he noted that the use of build outs with priority traffic signs to control the speed of traffic was the preferred traffic calming measure.

Councillor Sibley referred to reason 5 noting that the characteristics of Middleton Stoney Road with no houses fronting on either side of the road lent itself to a speed limit of 40mph. He suggested that the new 30mph speed limit was to accommodate the speed humps. He considered that had consultation been sufficient the Cabinet member would have had information on this from the Town Council and the local Traffic Advisory Committee.

Councillor Mrs Catherine Fulljames, speaking as a signatory to the call in and as a local councillor indicated that she was not a Bicester councillor but that she represented part of this area and that a number of villages in her Division would use this road to get to Bicester. She commented that the current proposals for 16 road cushions was madness and noted that in her area cushions had been put in and then removed because of noise. The cushions would have a detrimental impact on the ambulances using that road to access the hospital. She considered that the cushions would result in rat running in the surrounding roads. She referred to the lack of consultation although noting that she was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16