Agenda item

At their meeting on 4 February 2016, the Performance Scrutiny Committee considered the decision of the Cabinet Member for Environment (Councillor Hudspeth substituting) made on 14 February 2016 following proper notice of a call in. The Committee agreed to refer the decision back to Cabinet for it to consider in the light of the following material concern:  thatthe officersdealing withthe matterhad notbeen madeaware ofthe factthat a 1500+signaturepetitionhad beenpresented toCouncilopposing theproposal;

The following documents are attached (CA10):

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

(b)      the report considered by the Leader of the Council together with an extract of the minutes of the delegated decision session.

(c)      additional information provided to the Performance Scrutiny Committee in response to the call in

(d)      a note of the material concern of the Performance Scrutiny Committee (e)report by the Deputy Director for Environment & Economy to Cabinet.

On 4 February 2016, the Performance Scrutiny Committee considered the decision of the Cabinet Member for Environment (Councillor Hudspeth substituting) which had been made on 14 February 2016 following proper notice of a call in. The Committee had agreed to refer the decision back to Cabinet to consider in the light of a material concern that officersdealing withthe matterhad notbeen madeaware ofthe factthat a 1500+signaturepetitionhad beenpresented toCouncilopposing theproposal.

Councillor Brighouse presented the comments from the Scrutiny Committee.

Mark Beddow felt that the current layout worked well with no clear justification to change things. There was insufficient room in Station Road for the new arrangement to work efficiently and pedestrian safety would be compromised particularly in the vicinity of The Cornerstone. It would also detract from the recently awarded Didcot Garden Town status and discriminated against elderly shoppers who would be required to walk greater distances from shops such as Sainsbury.  He felt the Cabinet should at least defer a decision.

David Bird confirmed that the 1500 signature petition had been considered when the planning application had been approved and he referred to a letter of acknowledgement from the Deputy Director for Environment (Strategy & Infrastructure Planning) to that effect. There was need for retail expansion and the traffic regulation order had been through a great deal of scrutiny with no procedural or technical reasons for it not to proceed.

Responding to Councillor Rose he confirmed that the petition had been considered by both South Oxfordshire District and Oxfordshire County Councils.

Councillor Hards did not consider that the petition had been taken fully into account or considered when Councillor Hudspeth had taken his decision on 14 January nor by the South Oxfordshire District Council Planning Committee when it granted permission. Speakers at that meeting had been given insufficient time to state their case and he considered that the scheme was being promoted purely to meet the requirements of the  bus companies and it should not go ahead.

Councillor Rose confirmed that the petition had formed part of the consideration of Cabinet at this meeting.

Councillor Greene felt that consultants and developers had been allowed to influence council officers. Endorsing the comments regarding the lack of democratic opportunity afforded to people to make representations to the district planning committee he felt the application and scheme had been pushed through. A better option would have been to pursue provision of the Didcot Northern Perimeter Road.

Addressing the specific terms of the call-in Mr Kemp confirmed that the petition had been identified by the district council as part of its deliberations and that had been minuted accordingly. The petition had also been considered by county officers and although not specifically mentioned in the report considered by the Leader of the Council on 14 January it would not have influenced the officer recommendation to him.  The A4130 Northern Perimeter Road was not programmed and remained an aspiration.  Additional funding proposed towards a controlled parking zone did not affect the bus lane proposal but would be retained as part of future decisions in the area.  He confirmed the scheme was technically sound.

Councillor Nimmo-Smith accepted that the scheme might not be seen as the most ideal solution to some people but the scheme was technically sound and the bottom line remained that as the district council had granted permission the county council were therefore required to implement the terms of that permission. He moved the recommendation.

RESOLVED: (unanimously) to approve implementation of the proposals as advertised.