Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Billington, Hallchurch, Harbour and Jones.

The Chairman sought approval to the following:

RESOLVED: (nem con)

(a)               to approve, for the purposes of Section 85 of the Local Government Act 1972, the absence of Councillor Peter Jones from any meeting of the Authority from the date of this meeting for six months on the grounds of his serious ill health;

(b)               that Councillor Patrick Greene act as Deputy Chairman for the duration of the Council Meeting.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 15 May 2012 (CC1) and to receive information arising from them.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 15 May 2012 were approved and signed subject to the following amendments to Minute 168/12:

(a)               first line of last paragraph of preamble substitute “Cllr Greene” with “Councillor Seale”;

(b)               fifth line of the first paragraph substitute “tibute” with “tribute”.

Members are reminded that the requirements to declare interests have changed under the Localism Act 2011. Members must declare disclosable pecuniary interests. Please refer to guidance note/briefing circulated.

Mr Clark provided a brief overview of the new regulations for Members.

The Chairman reported as follows:

·                    Council congratulated the following who had been awarded an honour on the Queen’s Honours List for 2012:

·        Sir Tony Baldry, Member of Parliament for Banbury had received a Knighthood for Public and Political Service;

·        Mrs Penny Hannigan, Teaching Assistant, Crowmarsh Gifford Church of England Primary School – had received a BEM for service to Education.

·                    Council welcomed the news that BMW had decided to invest £250m in to the UK. This would have direct benefits for Oxfordshire in terms of the Cowley Plant. Council noted that the money would be spent on production of the Mini model, and create jobs at a time of economic insecurity.

·                    Council paid tribute to a former County Councillor Jo Wilkin who had recently passed away.  Council agreed to send their condolences to his family.

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Hudspeth, has given formal noticethat the Cabinet Member for Education has responsibility for Adult Learning to take effect from 12 June 2012.  As noted at Council, the responsibility was formerly that of the Cabinet Member for Safer & Stronger Communities.  Accordingly, Council are asked to make the following change to the Committee structure:

(a)         Move adult learning from the remit of the Safer & Stronger Communities Scrutiny Committee to that of the Children’s Services Scrutiny Committee;

(b)         to make any changes to the membership of the Cabinet, scrutiny and other committees on the nomination of political groups.

(c)         Under the Localism Act 2011 the Council has adopted a new Code of Conduct and  new arrangements for handling complaints. Under these arrangements independent members are required and following an advertisement and interview process the Council is asked to appoint 2 independent members with the names to be included in the Schedule of Business

(a)    The Council noted that the Leader of the Council, Councillor Hudspeth, had given formal noticethat the Cabinet Member for Education now had responsibility for Adult Learning to take effect from 12 June 2012.  As noted at a former Council, the responsibility was formerly that of the Cabinet Member for Safer & Stronger Communities.  Accordingly, Council were asked to make the following change to the Committee structure:

RESOLVED: (nem con) to move adult learning from the remit of the Safer & Stronger Communities Scrutiny Committee to that of the Children’s Services Scrutiny Committee.

(b)    The Council noted that under the Localism Act 2011 the Council had adopted a new Code of Conduct and  new arrangements for handling complaints. Under those arrangements independent members were required and following an advertisement and interview process the Council was asked to appoint 2 independent members.

RESOLVED: (nem con) to approve Ms Ann Griffiths and Dr Nina Alphey.

as the appointed Independent Persons for Oxfordshire County Council under Section 28 of the Localism Act 2011:

The Council received petitions from the following residents of Oxfordshire:

ProffesorYiannis Ventikos on behalf of the Bladon A4095 Action Group, requesting a 20mph speed limit through park street in Bladon; and

Mr Ian Leggett, on behalf of Bike Safe, requesting (in light of a recent feasibility study prepared by Sustrans into the construction of an off-road pathway for cyclists and pedestrians from Eynsham to Dean Court, Botley, along the B4044 via Farmoor) that the County Council respond to the high level of community support for the project outlined in the feasibility study, by strengthening the relevant passages in the Local Transport Plan (LTP) in order to demonstrate its commitment to;

·                    addressing the need to improve travel and choice along a busy, winding and unlit stretch of road;

·                    working proactively with local organisations to finalise a business plan and to secure external contributions to the cost;

·                    give greater priority to investment in a project that is fully consistent with the LTP’s objectives.

Report by Deputy Director for Environment & Economy – Highways & Transport (CC8).

The Oxfordshire Local Transport Plan 2011-2030 (LTP3) was approved by Cabinet on 15 March 2011 and adopted as Council policy on 5 April 2011.  The 20 year timescale of the Plan gives major benefits in terms of providing a transport strategy that covers the period of the district councils’ Local Development Frameworks and allows for long term planning of major infrastructure but it does present the risk that the Plan would gradually become less relevant as time passed.  A fixed, printed text was therefore rejected for the Plan in favour of a more flexible, internet based document.

To ensure that the Plan was kept up to date it was agreed that LTP3 should be subject to a system of annual review, and also that interim changes could be made by the agreement of the Head of Transport and Cabinet Member for Transport provided that these were presented to County council for approval within 12 months.

This report outlines the changes to LTP3  that have been provisionally agreed during the year together with other suggested changes which have been the result of a review of LTP3 in the light of external events over the last year.  This includes updates to the Local Area Strategies and policy changes and clarifications concerning High Speed Rail, the county rail strategy, network classification and lorry routeing, network improvements,  electric vehicles and controlled parking zones.  

County Council are RECOMMENDED that the revised document is adopted to replace the 2011 version.

The Council had before them a report (CC8) which outlined proposed changes to the Local Transport Plan 3 as a result of the Annual Review, including updates to the Local Area Strategies, policy changes and clarifications concerning High Speed Rail, the County Rail Strategy, network classification and lorry routeing, network improvements, electric vehicles and controlled parking zones.

Councillor Rose moved and Councillor Hudspeth seconded the recommendations as set out it the report and on the face of the Agenda.

Councillor Tanner moved and Councillor John Sanders seconded the following five amendments:

“The document as revised by Cabinet is accepted except that:

(a)               High Speed 2: Policy PT6 to read: “Oxfordshire County Council fully supports the High Speed 2 rail proposals because of the positive impact HP2 will have on the British economy, including Oxfordshire”. 11.52 to read: First paragraph, delete last 2 sentences and replace with: “Oxfordshire County Council is convinced about the overall business case for HS2 and welcomes the positive impact the construction of HS2 will have on jobs and businesses in Oxfordshire especially at a time of recession.” In the second paragraph delete: “particularly” and insert “nonetheless”

(b)              Controlled Parking Zones: 5.42 delete last sentence and replace with: “We would expect that CPZs could offset the cost of their operation through charging for the issue of parking permits but that enforcement costs would be met from the Council’s general enforcement budgets as with non-CPZ areas”.   

(c)               Shores Green: 18.31and following,re-word to read: “Oxfordshire County Council welcomes the deletion of the costly Cogges Link Road scheme and agrees to take forward the alternative and more effective Shores Green scheme without delay.”   

(d)              Eastern Arc: add at the end of paragraph13.23: “The new medical research campus at Old Road and the development of Oxford Brookes University add to the need for a new strategic approach to traffic in the Headington area of Oxford.”     

(e)               Capital Programme: “Council further resolves to amend the Capital Programme (Annexe 2 – Appendix D) to install traffic lights on the A40 at the junction with Colinwood Road in Oxford to enable vehicles to get in and out of Risinghurst and pedestrians and cyclists to cross the A40 safely at this point, using funds made available by the cancellation of the Cogges Link Road scheme”.

Following a lengthy debate:

The first amendment (a) was put to the vote and was lost by 16 votes to 50.

The second amendment (b) was put to the vote and was lost by 7 votes to 54.

The third amendment (c) was put to the vote and was lost by 9 votes to 58.

The fourth amendment (d) was put to the vote and was lost by 19 votes to 48.

The fifth amendment (e) was put to the vote and was lost by 7 votes to 56.

In response to general agreement as a result of debate, Councillor Rose undertook to ensure that future reviews of the Local Transport Plan 3 would be submitted to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 185/12

Report by the Assistant Chief Executive & Chief Finance Officer (CC9).

As set out in the Revenue and Capital Outturn Report to Cabinet on 19 June 2012 and Annex 1a and b to this report, some of the carry forward of underspends from 2011/12 for use in 2012/13 require virements which are larger than £0.5m. Since these represent a change in policy, albeit temporary in 2012/13, approval by Council is required under the authority’s Financial Regulations. 

Council is RECOMMENDED to approve the virements larger than £0.5m and the associated carry forwards as set out in annex 1a and 1b.

The Council had before them a report (CC9) which sought approval, under the Authority’s Financial Regulations, to virements larger than £0.5m and associated carry forwards and underspends as set out in Annex 1(a) to the report.

Councillor Mallon moved and Councillor Hudspeth seconded the recommendations as set out in the report and on the face of the Agenda.

Councillor Brighouse moved and Councillor Tanner seconded the following amendment as shown in bold italic:

“Council is RECOMMENDED to delete the virement of £349k to the efficiency reserve and add this figure to the carry forward of £657k for the Early Intervention Hubs, and to approve other virements larger than £0.5m and the associated carry forwards as set out in Annex 1(a) and 1(b).”

Following debate, the amendment was put to the vote and was lost by 47 votes to 24.

The substantive motion was then put to the vote and was carried by 56 votes to 9.

RESOLVED: (by 56 votes to 9) to approve the virements larger than £0.5m and the associated carry forwards as set out in Annex 1(a)and 1(b) to the report.

This Scrutiny Annual Report (CC10) provides an overview of the work of the council’s six scrutiny committees over the course of 2011/12.

The report is structured to reflect the Council’s corporate objectives and links to the business strategies. In the face of budget pressures, the role of scrutiny has become increasingly pertinent in ensuring that the needs of service users are at the forefront of Council policy. Where previously, scrutiny’s role was largely retrospective, we have sought to align scrutiny meetings so that they enable key policy proposals to be considered as part of the decision-making process. Scrutiny has a central role in assessing whether or not the Council is meeting the targets set out in the Business Strategy and ensuring savings are being delivered in the most effective manner.

Council is RECOMMENDED to receive the report.

The Council had before them the Annual Report of the Scrutiny committees (CC10).

Councillor Carter moved and Councillor Lindsay-Gale seconded the recommendation as set out on the face of the Agenda.

Following a lengthy date, Councillor Brighouse moved and Councillor John Sanders seconded “that the question be now put”.

The motion was put to the vote and it was

RESOLVED: (by 32 votes to 7) that the question be now put.

The substantive motion was then put to the vote and was agreed by 56 votes to10.

RESOLVED: (by 56 votes to 10) to receive the report.

Report of the County Solicitor & Monitoring Officer (CC11).

At the Annual Meeting of Council this year, the Council formally adopted a new Members’ Code of Conduct under the Localism Act 2011, to come into effect on 1 July 2012.  At that time, Authorities were aware of the Coalition Government’s intention that the previous standards arrangements would cease from the 1 July. However, the Regulations which would govern any future codes had not been issued at the time the Council needed to agree arrangements to apply from 1 July. These have now been issued but there is some concern with the wording, which seems to imply that the power for the Council to adopt a new Code of Conduct as required under the Localism Act only came into force as from the date of implementing the Regulations (i.e. 6 June 2012).  In order for there to be no doubt with regards to the lawful adoption of a Code by this Council, Members are asked to reaffirm the Code that they agreed to adopt at their Annual Meeting this year. This report also informs all Members of the arrangements now in place to brief and support Councillors and Co-Opted Members in meeting their obligations under the new Code of Conduct.

The Council is RECOMMENDED to:

(a)         confirm the adoption of the Members’ Code of Conduct attached to the Guidance at Annex 1 to this report;

(b)         encourage Members to attend the briefings arranged by the Monitoring Officer on the requirements of the new Code of Conduct;

(c)          note the Guidance on the new Code of Conduct and Register of Interests at Annex 1 to this report.

The Council had before them a report (CC11) which set out new arrangements in relation to the Members’ Code of Conduct and Registration of Interests in response to the Localism Act 2011.

RESOLVED: (on a motion by Councillor Seale, seconded by Councillor Greene and carried nem con) to:

(a)          confirm the adoption of the Members’ Code of Conduct attached to the Guidance at Annex 1 to the report;

(b)          encourage Members to attend the briefings arranged by the Monitoring Officer on the requirements of the new Code of Conduct;

(c)          note the Guidance on the new Code of Conduct and Register of Interests at Annex 1 to the report.

Report of the Cabinet Meetings held on 22 May 2012 and 19 June 2012 (CC12).

The Council noted the report of the Cabinet Meetings held on 22 May and 19 June 2012.

In relation to paragraph 3 (Corporate Plan Performance and Risk Management for the fourth Quarter 2011) (Question from Councillor Michael Badcock) Councillor Rose undertook to provide a written response to a question on flooding and loss of insurance cover when Oxfordshire County Council drop out of the national agreement.

The report of the Monitoring Officer containing the schedule of meeting dates proposed for the 2013/14 Council year is attached (CC13) and has been drawn up to reflect the various rules about frequency of meetings set out in the Council’s Constitution. 

It is expected that in 2013 and 2014 the budget information from Government will not be available until late in the process. The draft schedule for 2013/14 includes a budget Council date of 18 February 2014 and it is suggested that budget Council in 2013 be moved from 12 to 19 February 2013 necessitating the waiving of Council Procedure Rules, paragraph 2.1

Council is RECOMMENDED to:

(a)       agree the schedule of meeting dates for the 2013/14 Council Year; and

(b)       agree the February Council dates for 2013 and 2014 and the consequent waiving of the Council procedure Rules in respect of paragraph 2.1.

The Council had before them the report of the Monitoring Officer (CC13) containing the schedule of meeting dates proposed for the 2013/14 Council year.

RESOLVED:  (on a motion by Councillor Seale, seconded by Councillor Greene and carried nem con) to:

(a)       agree the schedule of meeting dates for the 2013/14 Council Year; and

(b)       agree the February Council dates for 2013 and 2014 and the consequent waiving of the Council procedure Rules in respect of paragraph 2.1.

Report by County Solicitor & Monitoring Officer (CC14).

Cabinet considered a report that reviewed the present panel members’ allowances and asked the Cabinet to make recommendations to the full Council to determine rates and arrangements for their payment.

Cabinet agreed to RECOMMEND the Council:

(a)       to approve, for school admission and exclusion appeal panel members, the same travel and subsistence allowances as are payable to members of the Council, subject to the same requirements as to the submission of claims and the supply of evidence except that the rate for the first 10,000 miles claimed for car travel be set at 40p per mile and not 35p per mile;

(b)       only in the case of loss of business to continue to pay £100 per day as the maximum amount payable to a school admission or exclusion appeal panel member for financial loss necessarily incurred as a result of attendance at an appeal panel hearing, subject to sufficient documentary evidence being produced to identify actual loss; and

(c)       that the revised allowances and rates be effective from 1 April 2011.

The Council had before them a report (CC14) which sought approval to travel and subsistence allowances for the panel members of Independent Admission Appeals.

RESOLVED:  (on a motion by Councillor Rose, seconded by Councillor Hudspeth and carried by 54 votes to 0):

(a)       to approve, for school admission and exclusion appeal panel members, the same travel and subsistence allowances as were payable to members of the Council, subject to the same requirements as to the submission of claims and the supply of evidence except that the rate for the first 10,000 miles claimed for car travel be set at 40p per mile and not 35p per mile;

(b)       that only in the case of loss of business to continue to pay £100 per day as the maximum amount payable to a school admission or exclusion appeal panel member for financial loss necessarily incurred as a result of attendance at an appeal panel hearing, subject to sufficient documentary evidence being produced to identify actual loss; and

(c)        that the revised allowances and rates be effective from 1 April 2011.

15 Questions with notice were asked.  Details of the questions and answers and the supplementary questions and answers (where asked) are set out in Annex 1 to the signed copy of the Minutes.

In relation to Question 2, Councillor Tilley undertook to provide Councillor John Sanders with a written answer detailing whether it will be possible for officers to collect information regarding the cost of transporting siblings to different schools.

In relation to Question 13, Councillor Fatemian undertook to circulate the findings of the Scrutiny Report into Oxfordshire residents receiving fully paid NHS Continuing Care to all Councillors.

This Council notes that the Health and Social Care Act 2012 received Royal Assent on 27 March 2012.

This Council further notes that:

·                    under the legislation, the Council will assume responsibility for public health in Oxfordshire;

·                    figures obtained under freedom of information legislation and published on 13 March 2012 indicate that it is costing £654,500 to set up the Oxfordshire clinical commissioning group (CCG), money that could otherwise be spent on patient care in Oxfordshire;

·                    in a letter to the Oxford Mail on 14 March 2012, doctors from 24 GP surgeries in Oxford voiced their professional opinion that the legislation will harm patient care; and

·                    that, in the face of the ruling of the UK Information Commissioner, the government has refused to publish the risk register detailing the risks posed by the legislation, which would allow local authorities affected by the legislation - such as this Council - to properly assess the risks to the people of Oxfordshire.

This Council:-

·                    regrets the cost and bureaucracy created by the Health and Social Care Act in Oxfordshire;

·                    regrets the disregard of the warnings of medical professionals in Oxfordshire:  and

·                    calls on the government to repeal the Health and Social Care Act 2012, and calls on Cabinet to write to the Secretary of State for Health to express the same.

There being no proposer or seconder the motion was considered dropped in accordance with Rule 15.1 as set out in the Constitution.

“The NHS in Oxfordshire faces years of severe financial pressures which will inevitably affect the quality of health care for the people of the County. One of the larger elements of pressure comes from the need for the Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust to pay at least £53 million per year to the owners of its PFI facilities. PFI payments are inflated by the profits taken by the owners and by the higher interest rates required from private companies as compared to public entities, such as County Councils.

In February 2012 Northumberland County Council proposed lending £100 million to the Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust. They said “The provision of financial support would benefit the residents of Northumberland by enabling the Foundation Trist to secure savings from its existing PFI contracts which would prevent potential reductions in both the range and quantity of healthcare provision offered across Northumberland.”

Under the Local Government Act, local authorities can “do anything which they consider is likely to achieve the promotion or improvement of the economic wellbeing of their area.”

This County Council therefore requests the Cabinet to appoint a working party of appropriate Members and Officers to investigate, with colleagues from the Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, the potential for savings to be made through the provision of financial support by the County Council.”

Councillor Larry Sanders moved and Councillor Sherwood seconded the following motion:

“The NHS in Oxfordshire faces years of severe financial pressures which will inevitably affect the quality of health care for the people of the County. One of the larger elements of pressure comes from the need for the Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust to pay at least £53 million per year to the owners of its PFI facilities. PFI payments are inflated by the profits taken by the owners and by the higher interest rates required from private companies as compared to public entities, such as County Councils.

In February 2012 Northumberland County Council proposed lending £100 million to the Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust. They said “The provision of financial support would benefit the residents of Northumberland by enabling the Foundation Trist to secure savings from its existing PFI contracts which would prevent potential reductions in both the range and quantity of healthcare provision offered across Northumberland.”

Under the Local Government Act, local authorities can “do anything which they consider is likely to achieve the promotion or improvement of the economic wellbeing of their area.”

This County Council therefore requests the Cabinet to appoint a working party of appropriate Members and Officers to investigate, with colleagues from the Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, the potential for savings to be made through the provision of financial support by the County Council.”

Following debate, the motion was put to the vote and was lost by 46 votes to 2.

The Secretary of State refusal to permit the Council compulsorily to purchase the land required for the proposed £20 million Cogges Link Road has caused a serious setback to the expectations of the people of Witney.  The Council believes this project was wrong and was an extremely expensive mistake.  The Council calls on the Cabinet to investigate with urgency the Shores Green proposal with a view to its implementation. 

Councillor John Sanders moved and Councillor Tanner seconded the following motion:

“The Secretary of State refusal to permit the Council compulsorily to purchase the land required for the proposed £20 million Cogges Link Road has caused a serious setback to the expectations of the people of Witney.  The Council believes this project was wrong and was an extremely expensive mistake.  The Council calls on the Cabinet to investigate with urgency the Shores Green proposal with a view to its implementation.”

Councillor Rose moved and Councillor Harvey seconded the following amendment shown in bold italics and strikethrough:

“The Secretary of State refusal to permit the Council compulsorily to purchase the land required for the proposed £20 million Cogges Link Road has caused a serious setback to the expectations of the people of Witney.  The Council believes this project was wrong and was an extremely expensive mistake.  The Council calls on the Cabinet to investigate with urgency the,Down’s Road, Ducklington Lane, Shores Green, West End link along with other proposals with a view to its implementation.”

Following debate, the amendment was put to the vote and was carried by 53 votes to 8.

The substantive motion as amended was then put to the vote and it was:

RESOLVED: (nem con)

The Secretary of State refusal to permit the Council compulsorily to purchase the land required for the proposed £20 million Cogges Link Road has caused a serious setback to the expectations of the people of Witney.  The Council calls on the Cabinet to investigate with urgency,Down’s Road, Ducklington Lane, Shores Green, West End link along with other proposals with a view to implementation.