Agenda and minutes

- guidance note opposite

Councillor Judith Heathcoat declared a prejudicial interest in  Item 8 relating to the Big Society Fund by reason of being a member of the Trustees of FAZE (Faringdon) and took no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on (CA) and to receive for information any matters arising therefrom.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 21 June 2011 were approved and signed.

Any county councillor may, by giving notice to the Proper Officer by 9 am on the working day before the meeting, ask a question on any matter in respect of the Cabinet’s delegated powers.

The number of questions which may be asked by any councillor at any one meeting is limited to two (or one question with notice and a supplementary question at the meeting) and the time for questions will be limited to 30 minutes in total. As with questions at Council, any questions which remain unanswered at the end of this item will receive a written response.

Questions submitted prior to the agenda being despatched are shown below and will be the subject of a response from the appropriate Cabinet Member or such other councillor or officer as is determined by the Cabinet Member, and shall not be the subject of further debate at this meeting. Questions received after the despatch of the agenda, but before the deadline, will be shown on the Schedule of Addenda circulated at the meeting, together with any written response which is available at that time.

Councillor  John  Goddard  had given notice of the following question to the Cabinet Member for Transport:

"In view of the surplus in the on-street parking account in respect of Oxford City Residents' Parking Zones, will the  Cabinet consider returning some portion of this money to residents who have been over-charged?"

Councillor Rose replied:

No.

Supplementary question: Councillor Goddard asked whether the Cabinet Member felt it was worthwhile to explain to residents why charges that should be cost neutral were not. Councillor Rose replied that this matter had been fully discussed elsewhere and that there was a net loss on the parking account. He added that the majority of yellow line enforcement was within Oxford City. He suggested that the City Council could take the provision on and also commented that having had the loss drawn to his attention he would need to review permit charges.

Councillor Zoe Patrick had given notice of the following question to the Cabinet Member for Transport:

"Is it correct that there is a policy not to spray weeds on pavements and gutters?  If so, what is the projected additional cost to the council in having to replace pavements which deteriorate?   (For example the new pavement between Stadhampton and Chiselhampton).  Will the Cabinet consider adopting a more flexible policy which allows spraying in some areas by agreement with parish and town councils? " 

Councillor Rose replied:

“The decision was taken that the £2.3m needed to spray the weeds across the county was not cost effective.  The clearing of noxious weeds is still undertaken and we work closely with the Royal Horse Society and assist their volunteers who pull the ragwort by providing bags and collecting waste.

Members will recall that we set up an Area Stewardship Maintenance Fund this year to provide local members with the flexibility to allocate some funds in their Locality to issues that they agree are of importance to the community. If weed spraying is considered to be a priority then Councillors within each locality can consider whether this is something they would wish to fund.

You make particular reference to the new pavement between Stadhampton and Chiselhampton.  Before any new surface is laid the area is weed treated which should stop weed growth for at least two years, and is covered by an indemnity.  If weed growth returns within this period the work would have to be redone at no cost to the council.”

Supplementary question: Councillor Patrick thanked the Cabinet Member for the information about the Stewardship Scheme and queried whether her understanding was correct that if it was applied for the funding would be given. The Cabinet Member replied that the Council was rolling out the scheme. The funding was split into localities and it was for local members to agree how the money was to be spent.

Councillor Jean Fooks had given notice of the following question to the Cabinet Members for Police & Policy Co-ordination and Safer & Stronger Communities:

" In the Big Society report, Agenda item  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86/11

A petition was submitted by  Liz Leffman on the future of Dean Pit Waste Site at Chadlington. She highlighted the importance of the issue to local people and the need to retain a recycling facility in the area.

The following requests to address the meeting had been agreed:

Item 8 – Concillors speaking as local members-

Annex 1

Councillor Hilary-Biles, Glyme Hall

(pg10), Changing for the Better at The

Lido (pg 57 and Short Footpath Link (pg 59)

Councillor Brighouse Wood Farm (pg20) and Thrive Barton (pg 47)

Councillor Fooks, Wolvercote Young People’s Club bid (pg 22)

Councillor Purse, Wheatley Young

People’s Centre (pg 25)

Councillors Hannaby, The Sweatbox (pg 28) and The Independent Advice Centre

Councillor Patrick, The Sweatbox (pg 28) and The Independent Advice Centre

Councillor Mathew, BartholemewSchool, Eynsham (pg 30 and

Standlake Cycling Track (pg 89)

Requests from public:

FazKayani, Oxford Boxing Academy (pg.42)

Mr Michael Ryan, Nortmoor Parish Council, The Stonehenge Project (pg 91)

Item 9 - Councillor Anne Purse as Shadow Cabinet Member for Growth & Infrastructure

Councillor Charles Mathew

Item 10 - Councillor Anne Purse as Shadow Cabinet Member for Growth and Infrastructure

Item 11 - Councillor Goddard as Shadow Cabinet Member for Safer & Stronger Communities Tim May, Deputy Chairman, Soldiers of

Oxfordshire

Item 13 – Councillor Zoe Patrick

Item 14 – Councillor Jean Fooks as local member

Item 15 – Councillor Altaf-Khan

Cabinet Member: Finance & Property

Forward Plan Ref: 2011/047

Contact: Tim Chapple, Financial Manager  - Treasury & Pension Fund Investments Tel: (01865) 323978

Report by Assistant Chief Executive & Chief Finance Officer (CA6).

The report sets out the Treasury Management activity undertaken in the financial year 2010/11 in compliance with the CIPFA Code of Practice. The report includes Debt and Investment activity, Prudential Indicator outturn, changes in Strategy, any Breaches of approved Strategy and interest receivable and payable for the financial year.

The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to note the report, and to RECOMMEND Council to note the Council’s Treasury Management Activity in 2010/11.

Cabinet considered a report that set out the Treasury Management activity undertaken in the financial year 2010/11 in compliance with the CIPFA Code of Practice. The report included debt and investment activity, Prudential Indicator outturn, changes in strategy, any breaches of approved strategy and interest receivable and payable for the financial year.

The Cabinet Member for Finance & Property in introducing the report commented that the decision to take external borrowing ahead of the external review had resulted in a considerable saving to the Council.

RESOLVED:                        to note the report, and to RECOMMEND Council to note the Council’s Treasury Management Activity in 2010/11.

Cabinet Member: Finance & Property

Forward Plan Ref: 2011/046

Contact: Kath Wilcox, Principal Financial Manager Tel: (01865) 323981

Report by Assistant Chief Executive & Chief Finance Officer (CA7).

Monthly financial report on revenue and capital spending against budget allocations, including virements between budget heads. This is the second report for 2011/12 and covers the period to the end of May 2011 for both revenue and capital budgets.This report focuses on significant issues and risks around the delivery of the Directorate Business Strategies which were agreed as part of the Service and Resource Planning Process for 2011/12 – 2015/16.  These are set out in the context of the wider forecast position for each Directorate so parts 1 and 2 include projections for revenue, reserves and balances as at the end of May 2011.  The Capital monitoring and Capital Programme Update is included in Part 3.  A proposal to reinstate charges for parking in Oxford City Centre on Sundays is set out in Part 4.

The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to:

(a)               note the report;

(b)              approve the virement requests set out in Annex 2a;

(c)               approve the on-street parking charges for Oxford city for evenings and Sundays as set out in paragraph 64;

(d)              recommend that Council approve the allocation of £1.5m of additional grant funding to the Older Peoples Pooled Budget as set out in paragraph 38;

(e)               approve the updated Capital Programme as set out in Annex 10 and the associated changes to the programme in Annex 9c.

RESOLVED:             to:

(a)               note the report;

(b)               approve the virement requests set out in Annex 2a;

(c)               approve the on-street parking charges for Oxford city for evenings and Sundays as set out in paragraph 64;

(d)               RECOMMEND that Council approve the allocation of £1.5m of additional grant funding to the Older Peoples Pooled Budget as set out in paragraph 38;

(e)               approve the updated Capital Programme as set out in Annex 10 and the associated changes to the programme in Annex 9c.

Cabinet Member: Police & Policy Co-ordination/Safer & Stronger Communities

Forward Plan Ref: 2011/065

Contact: Claire Phillips, Partnership Officer Tel: (01865) 323967/Alexandra Bailey, Corporate Performance & Review Manager Tel: (01865) 816384

Report by Head of Strategy & Communications (CA8).

Cabinet are asked to consider bids to the Big Society Fund from the first wave of applications and agree which bids to award funding.  Bids may also include applications for asset transfer.

The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to

(a)               Approve those bids which meet the assessment criteria

(b)              Approve asset transfers in accordance with the asset transfer policy with the exception of Wolvercote where the Council will continue to repair and maintain the property.

(c)               Waive the ‘cooling off’ for the following four time-critical community asset transfers:

·        Allandale, Carterton

·        Glyme Hall, Chipping Norton

·        Faze, Faringdon

·        Wolvercote 

(d)              Ask officers to work with community groups to enable them to take over buildings to facilitate continuity of provision as much as possible from 1 September.

(e)               Ensure a grant funding agreement that meets legal requirements is in place for all successful projects

Cabinet considered bids to the Big Society Fund from the first wave of applications.

The Chairman noted that Councillor Heathcoat having declared a prejudical interest would exercise her right to speak to the meeting in line with the rights of members of the public but would then withdraw from the meeting and take no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

The Cabinet Member for Police & Policy Co-ordination introduced the report highlighting the work done by local councillors working with local people. Local Councillors had assessed the bids in their geographic area and he commented that 55% of bids received had been for services to young people. He intended to wait to the end of the discussion before proposing the recommendations as it was important to listen to what was said.

Councillor Judith Heathcoat spoke in support of the FAZE Youth and Community Centre bid referring to the huge support from the local community and to a number of successful funding events. She referred to the involvement of Faringdon Town Council and the interest in using the facility from the local Scout Group and Tennis Club.

The Chairman indicated that he would be taking the speakers in three groups based on the 3 Annexes to allow discussion by the Cabinet Members at each stage.

Councillor Hibbert-Biles spoke in support of the Glyme Hall bid noting that without it there would be no youth provision in Chipping Norton. She commented that there were still a number of issues to be negotiated in the lease and she hoped that there would be flexibility. The recommendation was to support the bid and she expressed her thanks on behalf of the residents of Chipping Norton who would be delighted.

Councillor Brighouse spoke in support of the Wood Farm Youth Work Training Project  hoping that it would receive support as it was in an area of massive social deprivation.  A successful bid would be underpinned by continued fund raising towards a professional youth worker and towards the maintenance of the building. The bid would enable the existing volunteers to increase their skills. She invited Cabinet Members to visit the project and Councillor Mallon replied that he would welcome the opportunity if invited.

Councillor Fooks spoke in support of the bid by  Wolvercote Young People’s Club noting that there were pockets of deprivation in the area. The local community had risen to the opportunity given them by the Fund process and she was sure that local support would be secured. The youth club was purpose built and the nearby Primary School was full and likely to expand. Councillor Fooks was impressed by the response from local people and commented that it had been hard work and there was some concern from them about how they could be ready by 1 September. Councillor Fooks thanked all the officers involved who were helpful in the bid preparation.

Councillor Purse commended the bid for the Wheatley Young People’s Centre which would serve the wider area. She was aware that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 90/11

Cabinet Member: Growth & Infrastructure

Forward Plan Ref: 2011/125

Contact: Peter Day, Minerals & Waste Policy Team Leader Tel: (01865) 815544

Report by Deputy Director for Environment & Economy – Growth & Infrastructure (CA9).

The Minerals and Waste Core Strategy will set out the vision, objectives, spatial strategy, core policies and implementation framework for the supply of minerals and management of waste in Oxfordshire to 2030.  The County Council must carry out consultation on a preferred strategy before the Core Strategy is submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination.  This consultation is to be undertaken in September/October 2011.  A draft strategy for minerals was considered by the Minerals and Waste Plan Working Group on 9 May 2011.  The Working Group has recommended to Cabinet that this should form the basis of a preferred minerals core strategy for consultation.

The report summarises comments that have been received on the report by Atkins on Local Assessment of Aggregates Supply Requirements for Oxfordshire and sets out actions to address the key points raised.  It puts forward a draft (preferred) planning strategy for minerals, for public consultation.  This includes a vision and obectives for minerals, minerals polices and other core polices.  It incorporate the aggregates supply figures and the strategy for the location of mineral workings agreed by Cabinet on 16 February 2011.

The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to:

(a)               Agree Annex 2 as the County Council’s draft minerals planning strategy for the purposes of consultation.

(b)              Delegate authority to finalise the consultation document to the Deputy Director (Growth and Infrastructure) in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Growth and Infrastructure.

RESOLVED:             to:

(a)               Agree Annex 2 as the County Council’s draft minerals planning strategy for the purposes of consultation subject to the following corrections:

Page 254, Paragraph 4.10, line 5:

Delete ’15.75 million tonnes of crushed rock’; Insert ’13.23 million tonnes of crushed rock’;

Page 255, Figure 6:

In the third box:

Delete ’15.75 million tonnes’; Insert ’13.23 million tonnes’;

Net requirement over plan period (mt): Delete ‘2.26’; Insert ‘Nil’.

(b)               Delegate authority to finalise the consultation document to the Deputy Director (Growth and Infrastructure) in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Growth and Infrastructure.

Cabinet considered a report summarising comments that had been received on the report by Atkins on Local Assessment of Aggregates Supply Requirements for Oxfordshire and setting out actions to address the key points raised. Cabinet agreed a draft (preferred) planning strategy for minerals, for public consultation. This included a vision and objectives for minerals, minerals policies and other core policies. It incorporated the aggregates supply figures and the strategy for the location of mineral workings agreed by Cabinet on 16 February 2011.

Councillor Anne Purse, Shadow Cabinet Member for Growth & Infrastructure stated that she would like to see the areas of  extraction in West Oxfordshire restored as far as possible to what was there before. She would like to see the open lowland wet meadow restored not just rushes and water. She also commented that the Strategy relied too heavily on gravel extracted from West Oxfordshire. There should be more efforts to extract gravel from other areas closer to the areas of need where growth was expected. It would have been better to have looked at a hybrid solution.

Councillor Mathew  expressed reservations about the draft document  as in his view it was not in the Council’s interest for a single operator to dominate extraction in Oxfordshire. He referred to the figures for extraction in West Oxfordshire commenting that the need was in South Oxfordshire and the Thames was a barrier between extraction and need.  The bridges were an obstacle. He suggested an additional paragraph relating to a hybrid solution that he would like to see included in the consultation document. He had circulated this wording to Cabinet Members prior to the meeting. He suggested that there was a perception of prejudice that they were in a position to address..

The Cabinet Member for Growth & Infrastructure replied that two members of the Cabinet were from West Oxfordshire. The implication of prejudice was unfair. As the Cabinet Member she was unable to accept his suggested amendment. The issues raised had been discussed many times. There was a pressing need for clarity and certainty in the face of significant population growth leading to development. The figures had been reduced and the amount from secondary and recycled materials had been maximised.

Councillor Louise Chapman in speaking against the recommendations recognised the need for a policy and that there had been some changes made in the past. However she considered that the areas of growth should  ...  view the full minutes text for item 91/11

Cabinet Member: Growth & Infrastructure

Forward Plan Ref: 2011/124

Contact: Peter Day, Minerals & Waste Policy Team Leader Tel: (01865) 815544

Report by Deputy Director for Environment & Economy – Growth & Infrastructure (CA10).

The Minerals and Waste Core Strategy will set out the vision, objectives, spatial strategy, core policies and implementation framework for the supply of minerals and management of waste in Oxfordshire to 2030.  The County Council must carry out consultation on a preferred strategy before the Core Strategy is submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination.  This consultation is to be undertaken in September/October 2011.  A draft strategy for waste was considered by the Minerals and Waste Plan Working Group on 9 May 2011.  The Working Group has recommended to Cabinet that this should form the basis of a preferred waste core strategy for consultation.

The report puts forward a draft (preferred) planning strategy for waste, for public consultation.  This includes a vision and obectives for waste; the need for additional waste facilities; options for meeting these requirements; a draft planning strategy for the location of new waste management facilities; polices for waste; and other core policies.

The strategy makes planning provision for dealing with all wastes in Oxfordshire, including municipal waste; commercial and industrial waste; construction and demolition waste; hazardous waste; and radioactive waste.  It aims to move the way waste is dealt with in the county away for landfill towards increased recycling and treatment to recover resources.  The strategy makes provision for the additional facilities that will be needed to enable this, mainly located at or near Oxford and the other large towns.  It includes proposals for an additional plant for treatment of and recovery of resources from commercial and industrial waste located in the Abingdon / Didcot / Wantage and Grove area; and proposals for dealing with nuclear legacy radioactive wastes at Harwell and Culham.

The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to:

(a)                Agree Annex 2 as the County Council’s waste strategy options and draft waste planning strategy for the purpose of consultation.

(b)                Delegate authority to finalise the consultation document to the Deputy Director (Growth and Infrastructure) in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Growth and Infrastructure.

RESOLVED:             to:

(a)              Agree Annex 1 as the County Council’s waste strategy options and draft waste planning strategy for the purpose of consultation subject to the following corrections:

Page 304, paragraph 4.40:

Delete whole paragraph and replace with:

‘4.40 This requirement mainly arises after 2020, mainly due to the temporary nature of many existing facilities, and is primarily needed to serve the large towns of Bicester, Abingdon and Didcot and their surrounding areas. The reasonable options for provision of this capacity are:

a): Concentration of additional provision at or close to Oxford.

b): Additional provision at or close to large towns in:

• Northern Oxfordshire (Bicester); and

• Southern Oxfordshire (Abingdon; Didcot).

c) Additional provision at or close to large and smaller towns in:

• Northern Oxfordshire (Bicester); and

• Southern Oxfordshire (Abingdon; Didcot; Faringdon; Henley; Thame).’

Page 307, paragraph 4.52, Policy W5, line 8:

Delete ‘Oxford and’ and ‘Banbury’.

Page 313, paragraph 4.79, line 6:

Delete ’option a’; Insert ‘option b)’.

(b)              Delegate authority to finalise the consultation document to the Deputy Director (Growth and Infrastructure) in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Growth and Infrastructure.

Cabinet considered a report on a draft (preferred) planning strategy for waste, for public consultation. This included a vision and objectives for waste; the need for additional waste facilities; options for meeting these requirements; a draft planning strategy for the location of new waste management facilities; polices for waste; and other core policies.

Councillor Purse, Shadow Cabinet Member for Growth & Infrastructure expressed her pleasure that this matter had been deferred to allow consideration by Scrutiny. This was the first time this Strategy had come forward and although there were clear explanations as to why the sites were needed the policies would have far reaching effects so a great deal of consultation was needed. There was a need to ensure that the pressure to recycle commercial/industrial waste was maintained.

The Cabinet Member for Growth & Infrastructure in introducing the report highlighted the need for new facilities to deal with the County’s commercial waste streams. A number of options had been identified and the consultation was to seek views on a way forward.

RESOLVED:             to:

(c)               agree Annex 1 as the County Council’s waste strategy options and draft waste planning strategy for the purpose of consultation subject to the following corrections:

Page 304, paragraph 4.40:

Delete whole paragraph and replace with:

‘4.40 This requirement mainly arises after 2020, mainly due to the temporary nature of many existing facilities, and is primarily needed to serve the large towns of Bicester, Abingdon and Didcot and their surrounding areas. The reasonable options for provision of this capacity are:

a)  Concentration of additional provision at or close to Oxford.

b)  Additional provision at or close to large towns in:

• Northern Oxfordshire (Bicester); and

• Southern Oxfordshire (Abingdon; Didcot).

c)   Additional provision at or close to large and smaller towns in:

• Northern Oxfordshire (Bicester);  ...  view the full minutes text for item 92/11

Cabinet Member: Safer & Stronger Communities

Forward Plan Ref: 2011/136

Contact: Martyn Brown, Heritage & Arts Officer Tel: (01993) 814114

Report by Director of Social & Community Services (CA11).

Cabinet in June agreed that any matters relating to the Soldiers of Oxfordshire museum development which could not be resolved be brought back to Cabinet for decision.  Following that meeting negotiations have continued and a further decision is required relating to the ongoing commitment to the site and future arrangements. The decision needs to be taken at the full Cabinet meeting on 19 July  2011 as enabling work is planned to start on site in August 2011 to avoid increased costs to SOFO.

The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to

(a)             require the Council’s Money Laundering Reporting Officer (the Assistant Chief Executive and Chief Finance Officer) to satisfy herself as to the appropriateness of the financial arrangements for SOFO and the bona fides of the donor

(b)             agree that should the Council no longer be able to provide and maintain The Oxfordshire Museum at any time during the 25 years following completion, to offer a lease of those premises, on terms to be agreed, to SOFO (or a new trust or similar body) in order that they have opportunity to consider running The Oxfordshire Museum independently, subject to the County Council’s approval of a viable business case and its obligations.

Cabinet considered a report relating to a project by The Soldiers of Oxfordshire who were seeking to build a new museum within the grounds of The Oxfordshire Museum. The report sought final approval for the legal and property details, to be concluded, so that work may start on site in September.

Councillor Goddard welcomed the recommendations.

Mr Tim May, Deputy Chairman, Soldiers of Oxfordshire stated that there had been considerable progress since the last meeting in June. The SOFO Executive Board were seeking a period of stability after the building was completed and suggested a period of 5 years in which no change could be introduced. The exact period was not set but the Trustees needed to be able to give their sponsors some reassurance.

The Cabinet Member for Safer & Stronger Communities referred to the nature of local government finance that made such a guarantee impossible. However there was no question of the Council’s commitment to the project. She added that a huge amount of work had been undertaken by officers and she thanked them for their efforts. In moving the recommendations she stressed that they safeguarded both SOFO and the Council and underlined the Council’s support.

RESOLVED:             to:

(a)       require the Council’s Money Laundering Reporting Officer (the Assistant Chief Executive and Chief Finance Officer) to satisfy herself as to the appropriateness of the financial arrangements for SOFO and the bona fides of the donor

(b)       agree that should the Council no longer be able to provide and maintain The Oxfordshire Museum at any time during the 25 years following completion, to offer a lease of those premises, on terms to be agreed, to SOFO (or a new trust or similar body) in order that they have opportunity to consider running The Oxfordshire Museum independently, subject to the County Council’s approval of a viable business case and its obligations.

Cabinet Member: Growth & Infrastructure

Forward Plan Ref: 2011/103

Contact: Mark Watson, Waste Contracts Officer Tel: (01865) 815747

Report by Deputy Director for Environment & Economy – Growth & Infrastructure (CA12).

The council currently holds a contract which provides a disposal point for residual municipal wastes produced in the south of the county. Waste collected by South Oxfordshire and Vale of the White Horse District Councils and residual waste from Household Waste Recycling Centres are currently disposed of at Sutton Courtenay landfill site. The current contract expires on 27 September 2011. A project to procure a new contract for the disposal and/or treatment of waste in the south of the county has been undertaken.

Tenders have been evaluated by the council's waste management, procurement, financial and legal teams against pricing and quality criteria. The criteria were weighted according to their relative importance to the council.

By procuring a new contract, the council will ensure sufficient waste disposal capacity is provided in the south of the county in the period between the end of the current contract and the opening of a residual waste treatment facility at Ardley which is expected to become operational in 2014.

This report sets out the details of the procurement process and the outcomes of the tender evaluation. The cabinet is recommended to note the outcome of the evaluation and endorse the award of the contract.

The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to;

(a)               note the outcome of the evaluation which is that Tender 2 is the leading bid for Lots 1 and 2; and

(b)              endorse the award of the contract to Tenderer 2.

Cabinet considered a report that set out the details of the procurement process for a new contract for the disposal and/or treatment of waste in the south of the county and the outcomes of the tender evaluation.

The Chairman referred to Annexes 1-3 which contained exempt information and indicated that if Cabinet were able to discuss without direct reference to the information contained within them the discussion would remain in public.

 The Cabinet Member for Growth & Infrastructure referred to the need for a new contract to ensure service provision continued. Three tenders had been received and the robust evaluation had identified a clear winner.

RESOLVED:             to:

(a)               note the outcome of the evaluation which is that Tender 2 is the leading bid for Lots 1 and 2; and

(b)               endorse the award of the contract to Tenderer 2.

.

N.B.  Following the decision Cabinet was advised that Tenderer 2 is WRG at Sutton Courtenay

Cabinet Member: Growth & Infrastructure

Forward Plan Ref: 2011/067

Contact: David Groves, Transport Development Control Manager Tel: (01865) 816042

Report by Deputy Director of Environment & Economy – Growth & Infrastructure (CA13).

To consider adoption of the policy in light of public consultation.

On 16th November Cabinet was asked to accept the content and principles of the draft document, and authorise a wider consultation process.

The public consultation exercise was carried out from 28th March to 8th May 2011.

The results and comments received from the consultation are presented. The draft document has been amended in places in response to the comments received and from additional factors coming to light throughout the consultation.

Cabinet is being asked to accept the changes to the policy document and endorse the revised document as policy for immediate use.

The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to:

(a)               adopt the parking standards for new residential developments as set out in Annex 3 to this report;

(b)              agree that the Deputy Director Highways and Transport in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Transport can make editorial changes prior to publishing, and keep the document up to date in response to other policy changes.

RESOLVED:             to:

(a)               adopt the parking standards for new residential developments as set out in Annex 3 to this report;

(b)               agree that the Deputy Director Highways and Transport in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Transport can make editorial changes prior to publishing, and keep the document up to date in response to other policy changes.

Cabinet considered a report setting out the results of public consultation carried out from 28th March to 8th May 2011 and adopted the policy on parking standards for new residential developments.

It was noted that the Cabinet Member for Transport was the relevant portfolio holder and not the Cabinet Member for Growth & Infrastructure as notified on the agenda. Councillor Zoe Patrick, Opposition Leader asked that in future the correct Cabinet Member be identified on the agenda as it made planning very difficult. Councillor Patrick commented that the consultation was welcome but that she could not see her response. She had completed it online and was worried that it and others had been lost. With reference to the proposals she stated that there was not enough parking. Grove was a congested area and rural developments relied on their cars. Also of concern was the reduction in rural public transport.

The Cabinet Member for Transport introduced the report referring to the background to the consultation.

RESOLVED:             to:

(c)               adopt the parking standards for new residential developments as set out in Annex 3 to this report;

(d)               agree that the Deputy Director Highways and Transport in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Transport can make editorial changes prior to publishing, and keep the document up to date in response to other policy changes.

Cabinet Member: Schools Improvement

Forward Plan Ref: 2011/080

Contact: Barbara Chillman, Principal Officer – School Organisation & Planning Tel: (01865) 816459

Report by Director for Children, Education & Families (CA14).

Until recently Cutteslowe Primary School had planned to admit 30 children each year (as a 1 form entry school). Due to rising numbers of children needing primary school places in Oxford, the school worked with the county council in meeting the demand and agreed to admit more than its admission number in 2009 and 2010. The school's admission number for 2011 was published at 60, and we now need to decide whether to keep this arrangement permanently, so expanding the school to 2 forms of entry.

In recent years Oxford has experienced a significant and sustained rise in primary pupil numbers. To meet this demand, in 2008 an additional 105 primary school places across the city were agreed; in 2009 a further 245 additional primary school places were created, and in 2010 another 238 additional places were created. Looking to the future, significant additional housing is included in Oxford City Council's Core Strategy, which will, in turn, lead to increased pupil numbers across the city.

The proposal to expand Cutteslowe Primary School is one part of the County Council's strategy to meet the need for primary school places in Oxford. Several other schools across Oxford are also planned for expansion over the next few years.

The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to approve the publication of a statutory notice for the expansion of Cutteslowe Primary School, Oxford.

Cabinet considered a report on a proposal to expand permanently Cutteslowe Primary School to two forms of entry.

Councillor Jean Fooks, speaking as a local member supported strongly the recommendations.

RESOLVED:             to approve the publication of a statutory notice for the expansion of Cutteslowe Primary School, Oxford.

Cabinet Member: Schools Improvement

Forward Plan Ref: 2011/074

Contact: Barbara Chillman, Principal Officer – School Organisation & Planning Tel: (01865) 816459

Report by Director for Children, Education & Families (CA15).

New Marston Primary School is a primary school for 3-11 year-olds in the north-east of Oxford. Its catchment area includes Headley Way and Northway. Until recently the school had planned to admit 30 children each year. Due to rising numbers of children needing primary school places in Oxford, the school agreed to take more than its admission number in September 2009 and 2010. The school's admission number for 2011 was published at 60 and a decision is now needed on whether to permanently expland the school to 2 forms of entry (with an admission number of 60), requiring an enlargement to the physical capacity of the school.

In recent years Oxford has experienced a significant and sustained rise in primary pupil numbers. To meet this demand, in 2008 an additional 105 primary school places across the city were agreed; in 2009 a further primary 245 additional places were created (including 30 at New Marston Primary School); and in 2010 another 238 additional places were created (including 25 at New Marston Primary School). Looking to the future, significant additional housing is proposed in Oxford City Council’s Core Strategy, which will, in turn, lead to increased pupil numbers across the city.

The proposal to expand New Marston Primary School is one part of the County Council’s strategy to meet the need for primary school places in Oxford.

The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to either:

(a)               reject the proposals;

(b)              approve the proposals;

(c)               approve the proposals with a modification (e.g. the proposal implementation date); or

(d)              approve the proposals subject to them meeting a specific condition.

Cabinet considered a report setting out a proposal to expand permanently the New marston Primary School to two forms of entry.

Councillor Altaf-Khan, Shadow Cabinet Member for Schools Improvement, referred to two letters from the Primary School about local developments and wanted to update. He felt that there was a need to look at the road infrastructure. He was surprised that planning permission had been agreed and that the County Council made no comment. The proposals were now amended for 58 flats opposite the School. He was concerned that a lot of children would  attend from outside the area causing congestion . He commented that the numbers of parents from outside the area would lead to difficulties with the parents not being seen by the School as often as they should.

Responding to a question from Councillor Robertson Councillor Altaf-Khan stated that he was not against the proposal but that the issues he raised needed consideration.

Councillor Rose clarified the role of the County highways team who were only consultees in the City Council planning process.

The Cabinet Member for Schools Improvement responded that the points raised would be considered during the consultation period. The question of traffic would be considered as part of the feasibility.

RESOLVED:             to approve the proposals.

Cabinet Member: Schools Improvement

Forward Plan Ref: 2011/082

Contact: Barbara Chillman, Principal Officer – School Organisation & Planning Tel: (01865) 816459

Report by Director for Children, Education & Families (CA16).

On the basis of their current published admission numbers, the four Henley primary schools between them offer 119 places per year. Until 2008 entry (the current Year 2) this was sufficient, but the last two years have been over-subscribed. Our demographic data, taking into account proposed housing developments, indicated that this level of deamdn is likely to be sustained.

Following consultation, it is proposed to expand Badgemore Primary School  from 0.5 form entry to 1 form entry on a permanent basis from September 2012. To accommodate this growth in pupil numbers, Badgemore Primary School will be remodelled and extended to provide 6 classrooms for Key Stage 1 and 2 pupils.

A statutory notice to this effect was published on 6 May 2011 and expired following 4 weeks of formal consultation on 3 June 2011. Two representations were received. Cabinet is now requested to determine the notice in accordance with government guidance and statutory requirements.

The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to either:

(a)         reject the proposals;

(b)        approve the proposals;

(c)         approve the proposals with a modification (e.g. the proposal implementation date); or

(d)        approve the proposals subject to them meeting a specific condition.

Cabinet considered a report on the outcome of consultation, on proposals to expand Badgemore Primary School from 0.5 form entry to 1 form entry on a permanent basis from September 2012.

RESOLVED:             to approve the proposals.

Cabinet Member: Schools Improvement

Forward Plan Ref: 2011/078

Contact: Barbara Chillman, Principal Officer – School Organisation & Planning Tel: (01865) 816459

Report by Director for Children, Education & Families (CA17).

Until recently Woodstock CE Primary School had planned to admit 30 children each year. Due to growth in the local population of young children, in recent years the school has received more applications from within the Woodstock catchment area than it has been able to accommodate.

Population data shows that this level of demand can be expected to continue. In addition, nearly 100 new homes are being, or have recently been built, close to the school, and this can be expected to increase demand for pupil places.

The proposal is to increase the school admission number (at F1 entry) from 30 to 45.  Because the published admission number for 2011 and 2012 has already been decided, the school's admission number can only now formally change from 2013. However, the school would like to accept over its official admission number in 2011 and 2012 to allow all in-catchment children to attend. The plan is therefore to accept up to 45 children into Reception (F1) from September 2011.

To accommodate this growth in pupil numbers, there will be some extension of the school’s buildings, and a feasibility study is underway to investigate how this can best be provided.  Some minor enabling works are already programmed to be carried out in the summer holiday 2011 at the school to extend the current Foundation room to ensure that the agreed 45 pupils may be accommodated from September 2011, as stated above.??

The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to approve the publication of a statutory notice for the expansion of Woodstock CE Primary School, Oxford.

Cabinet considered a proposal to increase the school admission number (at F1 entry) from 30 to 45 at Woodstock Primary School.

RESOLVED:             to approve the publication of a statutory notice for the expansion of Woodstock CE Primary School, Oxford.

Cabinet Member: All

Contact Officer: Sue Whitehead, Committee Services Manager (01865 810262)

The Cabinet Procedure Rules provide that the business of each meeting at the Cabinet is to include “updating of the Forward Plan and proposals for business to be conducted at the following meeting”.   Items from the Forward Plan for the immediately forthcoming meetings of the Cabinet appear in the Schedule at CA20.  This includes any updated information relating to the business for those meetings that has already been identified for inclusion in the next Forward Plan update.

The Schedule is for noting, but Cabinet Members may also wish to take this opportunity to identify any further changes they would wish to be incorporated in the next Forward Plan update.

The Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to note the items currently identified for forthcoming meetings.

The Cabinet considered a list of items for the immediately forthcoming meetings of the Cabinet together with changes and additions set out in the schedule of addenda.

RESOLVED:                        to note the items currently identified for forthcoming meetings.