Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies had been received from:

Councillor Andrew Gant (substituted by Councillor Robin Bennett)

Councillor Sally Povolotsky (substituted by Councillor Andy Graham)

Councillor Liam Walker (substituted by Councillor Ian Corkin)

With regard to item 6, SEND Top-up Funding for Schools, Councillors Juliette Ash and Robin Bennett declared that they were school governors.

With regard to Item 7, Department of Transport Tranche 3 Active Travel Bid, Councillor Dan Levy was Cycling Champion at West Oxfordshire District Council.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 3 June 2021 (PSC3) and to receive information arising from them.

The minutes of the meeting held on 3 June 2021 were approved.

Report by the Corporate Director for Customers and Organisational Development

To discuss this item which will be taken by Cabinet at its meeting on 20 July 2021.

That meeting is to

·         seek approval of the approach to the development of a new corporate plan for the period commencing 2022/23, including a programme of public consultation and stakeholder engagement to take place in the Autumn and

·         endorse the priorities of the Fair Deal Alliance for Oxfordshire to form the basis of the new corporate plan.

The Committee is RECOMMENDED to consider the Cabinet report attached as Appendix 1 with its associated Annex attached as Appendix 2 and present their findings to the Cabinet meeting on 20 July 2021.

The Committee had before it a report setting out the policy objectives and areas of priority for the new Council administration.  The Committee had been invited to present their comments to the Cabinet meeting on 20 July 2021.

Councillor Liz Leffman, Leader of the Council, introduced the item.  The nine objectives laid out had been agreed between the three parties that made up the new administration.  It was a pre-cursor to a new Corporate Plan and outlined the principles by which the Council will be judged.

Councillor Dan Levy welcomed the list of priorities.  He believed that the administration will be judged on the delivery of its policies.  He suggested an alternative strap-line “A greener, fairer county” to replace “A great place to live, learn, work or visit.”

Councillor Ian Corkin welcomed the new administration setting out its stall, the consequences of which would play out over the four-year term.  In the wake of the pandemic, Public Health and preventive measures will become more important.  There was nothing in the document on the Integrated Care System which was going to be increasingly important going forward.  Digital infrastructure was an essential enabler and the Council needed to show leadership in this.

Councillor Corkin added that the real challenge was to prioritise, given limited time and resources.  Environmental concerns were prominent throughout the objectives and it was right that the Council should show leadership but its ability to affect these concerns was relatively small.  He noted that there was no reference to Looked After Children for whom councillors were Corporate Parents.

Councillor Kieron Mallon expressed concerns that:

·         green issues were going to be prioritised over business interests;

·         some green travel plans had not worked elsewhere because they did not address the real needs of people;

·         there was still a need for better roads and parking;

·         it was easy to provide public transport on arterial routes but many people did not live near these and there were no buses at all in rural areas.

·         active travel proposals were too skewed towards cycling over walking.

Addressing issues of equality, Councillor Mallon added that increasing use of digital can exclude, particularly those with visual or hearing impairment.  He believed that young males from disadvantaged backgrounds were often forgotten when it came to equality concerns, despite the fact that data indicates they have among the lowest educational attainment.

Councillor Mallon added that Members could not shift responsibility for decisions onto stakeholders or pressure groups.  Many people did not have the time to engage with consultations.  Elected representatives at all levels had a good understanding of their local areas.

The Chair commented that it was one thing to identify what to prioritise but, with limited resources, something else therefore had to be de-prioritised.  The document did not say what would be trimmed back.  If it was intended to increase Council funding, he asked if that would be achieved by increasing tax over inflation or building more houses.  He added a suggestion to allocate budgets to localities.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32/21

Report by Corporate Director for Children’s Services.

At its meeting on 20 July 2021, Cabinet will be asked to seek agreement of the SEND top-up funding arrangements for academic year beginning September 2021.

The Committee is RECOMMENDED to consider the Cabinet report attached as Appendix 1 and present their findings to the Cabinet meeting on 20 July 2021.

The Committee had before it a report for the Cabinet meeting on 20 July 2021 with a proposal for SEND (Special Educational Needs and Disability) top-up funding for schools and they had been invited to pass on comments to the Cabinet meeting.

Councillor Liz Brighouse, Cabinet Member for Children, Education and Young People’s Services, introduced the report.  She stated that the Council had an overriding need to support our most disadvantaged children.  These funds were needed to ensure that schools were able to provide for vulnerable children in the classrooms.  She invited questions on the proposal.

Kevin Gordon, Corporate Director for Children’s Services, added that these funds came directly from the Government and the Cabinet was required to make a decision on their allocation alongside the Schools’ Forum.  This was not the final answer.  A systematic way was needed to deal with this going forward, having consulted with schools and parents.  However, this was one way of strengthening support for children with SEND in mainstream schools which was in line with the direction of policy.

Councillor Brighouse and Kevin Gordon responded to Members’ questions as follows:

·         It was up to the schools to decide how they used the money to support vulnerable children, keep them in school and avoid exclusions.

·         These funds were proposed on top of what schools already get for SEND.

·         It was true to say that some schools had higher numbers of children with SEND – sometimes this was because the school had a good reputation for supporting such students.

·         The deficit for the High Needs Block was growing.  The Government had promised a review but their decision was still awaited.  The Local Government Association had lobbied central government and the Cabinet Member would welcome a letter being sent from this Committee.

·         The increase in mental health needs was being seen across the country.

·         The Council was developing a more child-centred and tailored approach. When funding was scarce a more targeted system was needed.

·         The ambition was to have local schools where children felt comfortable, engaged and could be creative and where teachers felt they had the support they need.

·         The deficit for 2021/22 was expected to be £11.7m.  Five local authorities had received a ‘bail-out’ from central government but it was not clear what the criteria for these were.  The Council had received indications that it would be dealt with.

·         A consultation on whole-system reform was due to start in September 2021 to be implemented in September 2022.

·         In terms of making more specialist school provision within the county, the landscape was complicated.  A new school would have to be an academy but this did not necessarily have to be about new schools.  It could include developing specialist bases in existing schools - perhaps repurposing existing spaces.

·         There was an issue around how teachers in some schools were supported – in the classroom and with training.  Teachers in specialist schools could be a resource for others.

Members also made the following suggestions and comments:

·         The pressure  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33/21

Report by Corporate Director Environment and Place

At its meeting on 20 July 2021 Cabinet will be asked to approve to delegate to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Highway Management, the final sign-off of Oxfordshire County Council’s bid to the Department for Transport Active Travel Tranche 3 fund.

The Committee is RECOMMENDED to consider the Cabinet report attached as Appendix 1 with its associated Annex attached as Appendix 2 and present their findings to the Cabinet meeting on 20 July 2021.

The Committee was to consider a report for Cabinet that outlined the approach to the Council’s bid for Tranche 3 of Active Travel funding from Government.

Eric Owens, Assistant Director for Growth and Place, introduced the report.  He gave apologies from Councillor Tim Bearder, Cabinet Member for Highway Management, who had a prior engagement.

Eric Owens highlighted that the three main components were outlined at the top of Addendum Page 20.  The funds could potentially be over the £3m received for Tranche 2.  However, the deadline for bids was short.  Officers were considering suggestions received during the Tranche 2 process as well as proposals in the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plans (LCWIPs).  It was intended to consult with stakeholders before submitting the bid.

Eric Owens and Councillor Duncan Enright, Cabinet Member for Travel and Development Strategy, responded to Members’ points as follows:

·         More LCWIPs were needed but Tranche 3 funds could not be used to develop them.  The Council was also bidding for capacity funding to work on these.

·         With the short deadlines on these bids, the previous administration struggled to manage the consultation with stakeholders.  It was accepted this time that consultation needed to include wider areas that were affected including across county boundaries.

·         Consultation with councillors should include county, city, district, town and parish councillors who all know their patch well.

·         Tackling areas with high levels of deprivation was included in the list of criteria.

·         Schemes were being considered across the county but the condition of delivery by March 2023 was challenging.

·         This scheme included funding for feasibility studies so that wider options could be considered in future funding rounds.

·         It was expected that the list of schemes for consideration would be circulated in the week following this meeting.

·         Officers will assess the proposals to ensure that they fit in with the overall strategy and comply with the guidance in LTN1/20.

·         The street design guide will also have to comply with LTN1/20.  All of these guides allow for exceptions for local contexts

·         The Council engages advice from consultants in regard to the cost estimates and deliverability of bids.

·         The Council will have to bear maintenance costs of these schemes into the future.

·         The guidance for Mini-Hollands suggested that they would be suitable across the county.

Members made the following suggestions and comments on the Cabinet proposal:

·         They urged that the bid be for substantially more than last year’s allocation of £3m.

·         There were concerns expressed that cycling was getting a lot more attention than walking.  Designs should ensure that the two are not in conflict.

·         Designs for cycling were generally good – the exception being where they met roads and this was where it is most important to get it right.

·         The bid must comply with the instructions in the government's paper to bidders, including compliance with LTN1/20.

·         There was too much focus on Oxford City and the larger towns.  The other areas needed facilities too.

RESOLVED: to consider the Cabinet report attached as Appendix 1 with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34/21