Agenda, decisions and minutes

An apology was received on behalf of Councillor Lindsay-Gale.

The Minutes of the meetings held on 28 January and 4 February 2014 were approved and signed.

Any county councillor may, by giving notice to the Proper Officer by 9 am two working days 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 Nick Hards had given notice of the following question to Councillor Hibbert Biles:

"I understand that the sexual health clinics which provide contraception advice on two evenings a week for Didcot and the surrounding area at Didcot Health Centre, will from 1 April be replaced by a morning clinic and an evening clinic at the Oak Tree Health Centre on the Ladygrove Estate. Please would the Cabinet Member for Public Health explain why these changes are being made?"

Councillor Hibbert Biles replied:

“Public health went out to tender for “sexual health services” at the end of 2013 and the contract was awarded to Oxford University Hospitals Trust (OUHT). The new service will commence 1 April 2014  and will provide an improved integrated sexual health service across the whole of Oxfordshire. This means clinics which could previously only provide either contraception or testing for sexually transmitted infections can now provide both services, thus meeting the changing needs of users in the County.

In commissioning these improved services we have required that the new provider secure premises in geographical locations where previous services were in place.”

Councillor Nick Hards had given notice of the following question to Councillor David Nimmo Smith:

"What criteria did the County apply when deciding to preserve in-situ the Roman building at Great Western Park, Didcot, whilst allowing the considerably older and rarer Mesolithic camp and pond barrow to be mitigated, along with the Iron Age village and other well preserved Roman remains and what input did the Didcot community have in mitigation decisions?"

Councillor Nimmo Smith replied:

“The significance of all the archaeological features recorded by the evaluation on the proposed development site were assessed using the Secretary of States non-statutory criteria as set out in annex 4 of PPG16. It was noted that agricultural activity had caused considerable and extensive damage to many of the archaeological deposits and features. The small Roman villa building had also been heavily damaged by both ploughing and the robbing out of the stone walls, probably in antiquity. None of the sites, including the Roman villa, were concluded to be of national importance or of schedulable quality.

In line with the guidance in PPG16 and local plan policy the then County Archaeologist recommended that a condition requiring that their preservation by record, i.e. the excavation and recording of these features, was attached to any planning permission for the site.

Subsequently the villa site and the other areas of archaeological interest were preserved in situ. This was a decision made by the developer but it was supported by the then County Archaeologist. It was not however a formal requirement of a planning condition or a requirement of the planning authority.”

The following request to address the meeting had been agreed:

Item 7, Mr Simon Hunt, Chair of Cyclox.

Cabinet considered a report that focused on the delivery of the Directorate Business Strategies which were agreed as part of the Service and Resource Planning Process for 2013/14 – 2016/17. Parts 1 and 2 included projections for revenue, reserves and balances as at the end of December 2013.  Capital Programme monitoring was included at Part 3.

Councillor Fatemian in introducing the contents of the report, paid tribute to all the County’s staff in delivering on the Business Strategies. He highlighted the projected small overspend and in particular the significant shift in the projected overspend of Social & Community Services. He also referred to changes in the Treasury Management lending list with the removal of Investec and noted that the Council no longer had a claim against Landsbanki.

Councillor Heathcoat recognised the hard work in Social & Community Services to reduce the overspend, commented that there were huge benefits to pooled budgets but that there were also risksand commended the work of staff.

RESOLVED:             to:

(a)                   note the report;

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

(c)                    approve the supplementary estimate requests set out in Annex 2e and paragraph 50;

(d)                   note the updated Treasury Management lending list at Annex 4; and

(e)                   note the changes to the Capital Programme set out in Annex 7c.

The county council has been consulted by Oxford City Council, in their role as local planning authority on an application for re-development of the Westgate centre in Oxford. In addition to the main application, the developer had also submitted two applications for temporary parking to manage the situation and maintain access to the city centre during the construction phase.  Cabinet considered a report setting out a suggested response to the consultation.

Mr Simon Hunt, Chair of Cyclox, spoke as a representative of cycling and highlighted the threats to cycling of the new development. He highlighted key issues including that the aspirations to attract cyclists were not sufficiently ambitious. He also commented that in the response too much was left for reserved matters that depended on favourable planning conditions. First class cycle access was needed with shared space rather than the ban between 10.00 am and 6.00 pm. The cycle hub was essential.

Councillor Nimmo Smith in moving the recommendations stressed that the transport assessment had been worked through with officers. The Cycling Strategy was wider than this development and would pick up a number of the points raised by Mr Hunt. Councillor Hudspeth added that there were active discussions ongoing about the siting of the cycle hub. He noted that paragraph 21 of the report  highlighted cycling and and thanked Mr Hunt for his input.

During discussion Cabinet raised the following points:

(1)       There was some reservation about the level of car parking to be provided with a decrease in spaces in the new development. Officers agreed that there was a small decrease in the number of spaces but that there was capacity in the park and ride. It was noted that the current spaces were only full during the run up to Christmas. Officers added that it was necessary to look at the whole transport network and that overall there was capacity. In noting that not everyone with heavy shopping would want to use Park & Ride cabinet asked that this issue be looked at again before the detailed application stage.

(2)       Cabinet Members were glad to see that progress was being made and welcomed the addition of John Lewis to the City centre as a big draw.

(3)       In noting that it was an outline application a Cabinet member queried why no mention was made of charging points for electric cars. Councillor Hudspeth noted that generally the City had more charging points than elsewhere. An officer added that discussions were taking place with the developers.

(4)       Responding to a question from Councillor Heathcoat about parking during development Cabinet was assured that contingency plans were in place to ensure that sufficient temporary spaces were available.

RESOLVED:             to:

(a)               note the issues raised in the responses to this consultation; and

(b)       approve the county council’s single response to the consultation.

Cabinet had before them a quarterly staffing report that provided details of key people numbers and analysis of main changes since the previous report.

RESOLVED:             to:

(a)              note the report; and

(b)              confirm that the Staffing Report meets the requirements in reporting and managing staffing numbers.

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.