(1)       Minutes of the ordinary meeting of Council on 18 April 2011

(2)       Minutes of the annual meeting of Council on 19 May 2011

Council resolved to approve:

(a)       The minutes of the ordinary meeting held on 18 April 2011

(b)       The minutes of the Annual Council meeting held on 19 May 2011

Councillors declared interests as follows:-

(a)       Councillor Van Coulter declared a personal and prejudicial interest in agenda item 9 (Addresses by the public – Address by Mark Pitt – Barton AAP and Ruskin Fields) as he was a Member of the Governing Council of Ruskin College (Minute 21(a) refers).

(b)       Councillor Mary Clarkson declared a personal interest in agenda item 9 (Addresses by the public – address by Mark Pitt – Barton AAP and Ruskin Fileds) as she was a resident in the area (Minute 21(a) refers).

(c)        Councillors Mohammed Altaf-Khan and Mike Rowley declared personal interests in agenda item 9 (Address by the public – address by Mark Pitt – Barton AAP and Ruskin Fields) as they were former students of Ruskin College (Minute 21(a) refers).

(d)       Councillor Beverley Hazell declared a personal interest in agenda item 13 (Questions on notice from members of Council – Question 6 – St. Clement’s Car Park) as she was employed by the organisation which had recently purchased the Blue Boar Street offices from the Council. (Minute 25(a)(6) refers).

(e)       Councillors Alan Armitage, Elise Benjamin, Tony Brett, Stephen Brown, Jim Campbell, Colin Cook, Van Coulter, Jean Fooks, Rae Humberstone, Mark Lygo, Susanna Pressel, Bob Price, Gwynneth Royce, Gill Sanders, John Tanner, Bob Timbs, Ruth Wilkinson and Dick Wolff, declared personal interests in agenda item 15 (Motions on Notice – Motion (b) – Public Sector Pension contributions increase) as they were members of the Local Government Pension Scheme (Minute 27(b) refers).

(f)         Councillor Mark Mills declared a personal and prejudicial interest in agenda item 15 (Motions on Notice – Motion (e) – Health and social Care Bill) as his father was an employee of the Primary Care Trust. (Minute 27(e) refers).

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Stuart Craft, Stuart McCready, Joe McManners and Nuala Young.

No appointments were made.

(a)       The Lord Mayor during her first eight weeks in office said that she had received many visitors to the Lord Mayor’s Parlour which had been very enjoyable.

(b)       The Lord Mayor’s Parade had taken place and despite the inclement weather the day had been very enjoyable and had raised funds for her two charities.

(c)        The Lord Mayor thanked both the Deputy Lord Mayor (Councillor Alan Armitage) and the Sheriff (Councillor Jean Fooks) for deputising for her on engagements she was unable to attend.

(d)       Council stood for a minute’s silence in memory of Kate Chirnside, Planning Lawyer – Law and Governance, who had passed away following a long illness.

(a)       A drive of the cattle on Port Meadow had recently been held. 

(b)       The Sheriff’s Aunt Sally Match had taken place and the Sheriff’s team had won one of the three matches.

(c)        A meeting with Natural England would be held shortly concerning Port Meadow and its management.

(a)       The Leader thanked the Lord Mayor for the arrangements for the Lord Mayor’s picnic, which despite the rain had been a great day.

(b)       The Leader said that despite Ang San Sui Chi, still not being allowed to leave Burma following the recent lifting of her house arrest, he was very pleased that she had been able to record her lectures and suggested that the Council obtain recordings of these lectures.

(c)        The Leader thanked officers for their work in achieving Investors in People (IIP) accreditation and welcomed the comments of the Assessor.  He hoped that the good work would continue, so as to enable achievement of the bronze, silver and gold standards and that this work linked to the continuing improvements in the reduction of sickness levels at the Council.

The Chief Executive announced that he was delighted that the Council had been awarded Investors in People National Standard following a recent two week assessment.  The Assessors had examined the processes and practices relating to organisation and people development and people management.  Over 70 people from across the Council had been randomly selected and interviewed and on the basis of the discussions accreditation had been awarded.  This nationally recognised award would enhance the reputation of the Council and reflected the progress made particularly in recent years.  The Assessor concluded that “Oxford City Council values its people extremely highly and values learning and development similarly highly”.  He also felt “(the Council) was made up of people who are proud of their jobs…..who are committed to performing at a high level…..and delivering outstanding service to residents, workers and visitors to Oxford”.  The progress was a continuous journey, the next steps would be to continue building on the strengths and develop the areas for improvement. The Chief Executive said that an action plan was being designed around these aspects.

To hear addresses from members of the public in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11.8 for which the required notice (1.00pm on Thursday 7 July 2011) and the full wording of the address has been given to the Head of Law and Governance.

Council received four addresses (texts of the addresses appended to these minutes) as follows:

(a)       Mark Pitt, a local resident submitted in advance details of his address to Council (now appended) on the Barton Area Action Plan (AAP) and Rusking Fields and addressed Council.

            An explanatory note prepared by Oxford City Council officers was also submitted (now, appended).

            Councillor Price, following the address reminded Council there was no decision before it at this meeting and that no decision would be taken until the autumn of 2012.

            Councillor Van Coulter declared a personal and prejudicial interest as he was a Member of the Governing Council of Ruskin College.  He took no part in the address and left the Council Chamber.

            Councillor Mary Clarkson declared a personal interest as she was a resident in the area.

Councillors Mohammed Altaf-Khan and Mike Rowley declared personal interests as they were former students of Ruskin College.

(b)       Nigel Gibson, a local resident, submitted in advance details of his address to Council (now appended), on the proposed new competition standard swimming pool in Blackbird Leys and addressed Council.  Following his address he presented a petition to Council entitled “No confidence in our Labour Council”.

            A note prepared by Oxford City Council officers was also submitted in response to the address (now appended).

(c)        Martha McKenzie, Oxford University Students’ Union President and Daniel Stone, Oxford University Students’ Union Vice-President, submitted in advance details of their address to Council (now appended), which introduced themselves to the City Council and both addressed Council.

(d)       Vim Rodrigo, a local resident, submitted in advance details of his address to Council (now appended) concerning unparished areas and new homes at rose Hill.

Vim Rodgrigo was not able to attend Council to make his address due to illness and his address was taken as a written submission.

To hear questions from the public in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11.9 to the Leader or other Board Members of the City Executive Board for which the required notice (1.00pm on Thursday 7 July 2011) and the full wording of the question has been given to the Head of Law and Governance, and to hear responses from those Members.

Four questions were asked by members of the public:

(1)       Question to the Board Member, City Development (Councillor    Colin Cook) from James Rowland

            Student units

“How many new student units have been built since July 2010?  How many of these have been occupied?  Can the figures for each university be provided, and how many net additional student units have been acquired for Oxford University and Oxford Brookes University since 2005?”

Response: The first question requires information from the Annual Monitoring Report 2011 for which data has not yet been collated or analysed.  This data is likely to be available in September.  The AMR 2011 is likely to be taken to the City Executive Board for approval for submission to the Secretary of State in December 2011.  The City Council has no method of monitoring when student rooms are occupied so this question would be best directed to the Universities and colleges.  The City Council is not itself able to monitor when the Universities acquire student accommodation.  This would need to be obtained from the Universities directly.  An exception would be if the acquisition resulted in the need for a planning application (such as a change of use) in which case it would appear in the data required for the AMR 2011 available in September.

(2)       Question to the Board Member, Leisure Services (Councillor Van          Coulter) from Charlotte Barrow

            Competition Standard Swimming Pool consultation

“What’s the detailed evidence for people in Blackbird Leys wanting a new, somewhat colder 25m swimming pool at a different site, when the existing, smaller and warmer pool could be retained?”

Response: We have fully consulted and published the consultation on the proposed pool on the Council’s website.  This information has continually been kept up to date.  Alongside consultation other key factors in the decision making process are; Blackbird Leys pool is a stand alone facility just 482 metres from Blackbird Leys Leisure Centre, it is towards the end of it operational life and not meeting modern day standards (it is a small pool approximately 18 metres long) and it is not fully DDA accessible.  The new proposed pool adjoined to the leisure centre will meet modern day guidance and be accessible to a wider user audience.  The temperature of the new facility will be in line with industry standards and be able to maintain its temperature unlike Temple Cowley Pools which is unable to cope when the external temperature drops.

(3)       Question to the Deputy Leader of the Council (Ed Turner) from SietskeBoeles

            Council Tax Exemptions

“As from December 2010 how many properties were exempt from paying Council Tax due to being solely occupied by full time students, and:

(1)       How many of these were classified as Halls of Residence and how many of these were classified as private properties;

(2)       Has there been a decrease in student exempt Council Tax private properties since December 2009 and if not why;

(3)       Does the Council get a full re-imbursement by central government for this loss of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

City Executive Board decisions (Minutes)

(1)       Minutes of the meeting held on 25 May 2011

(2)       Minutes of the meeting held on 22 June 2011

Single Executive Member Decisions (Decision sheet)

(1)       Decision Sheet of the Single Executive Member Decision meeting (Board Member – Cleaner, Greener Oxford) held on 16 June 2011

(2)       Decision Sheet of the Single Executive Member Decision meeting (Board Member – Cleaner, Greener Oxford) held on 29 June 2011

(3)       Decision Sheet of the Single Executive Member Decision meeting (Board Member – Finance and Efficiency) held on 30 June 2011 (to be circulated separately)

Council had before it (previously circulated, now appended):

(a)       Minutes of the City Executive Board held on 25 May 2011 and 22 June           2011

(b)       Decision Sheets of Single Executive Member Decisions meetings:

            (i)         Board Member, Cleaner, Greener Oxford – 16 June 2011

            (ii)        Board Member, Cleaner, Greener Oxford – 29 June 2011

            (iii)       Board Member, Finance and Efficiency – 30 June 2011

City Executive Board – 25 May 2011 - Questions

(1)       Councillor David Williams with regard to minute 4 (Fusion Annual Service Plan 2011/12) asked Councillor Tanner if he could identify the buildings that had been sold or mothballed ready for disposal as part of the 25% carbon reduction, and was this made up of selling the family jewels and if so was not a genuine reduction in carbon.

In response Councillor Tanner said he was proud of the 25% reduction and thanked officers for their hard work in achieving this.  However it was only a beginning and it was right to put the Councils “own house” in order.  It was true that an element of the reduction had been achieved by disposing of vacant properties, and added that this was a valid way of reducing carbon emissions.

(2)       Councillor David Williams with regard to minute 5 (Barton – Land Development) said that he was concerned at the change in policy regarding the percentage of social housing from 50% to 40%.  He asked how when a general principle had been laid down, the Council could now decide to reduce the amount of social housing on the site.

In response Councillor Turner said that the Barton development required a large amount of upfront infrastructure and that if the full Core Strategy had kicked in with 50% required, then the scheme would not have gone ahead as it would not have been viable.  He added that there was no question on compromising on social rented housing and that there may in the future be the opportunity to increase the amount of intermediate accommodation.

Single Executive Member Decision meeting – 16 June 2011

Councillor David Williams raised concerns on voluntary organisations not being exempt from the control and distribution of free printed Matter policy.  He also raised concerns on the process of having a meeting with only one Member and questioned the democracy of this.

In response Councillor Tanner said that he too shared the disquiet of Councillor Williams on Single Executive Member Decision meetings and added that voluntary organisations were already exempt from the policy referred to.

Single Executive Member Decision meeting – 30 June 2011

Councillor Fooks questioned the amount of spending and felt that this should have been considered by the City Executive Board.

In response Councillor Turner said that Council had approved the capital programme and this decision was putting the details on to the large sums involved.  He added that this decision had been available to call-in if Members had questions/concerns on the decision, but that a call-in had not been initiated.

None.

None submitted.

Questions on notice under Council Procedure Rule 11.10(b) may be asked of the Lord Mayor, a Member of the City Executive Board or the Chair of a Committee.

Questions on notice must, by the Constitution, be notified to the Head of Law and Governance by no later than 9.30am on Friday 8 July 2011.

Full details of any questions for which the required notice has been given will be circulated to Members of Council before the meeting.

(a)       Questions notified in time for replies to be provided in writing for Council

1.         Question to the Board Member, City Development (Councillor Colin Cook) from Councillor Nuala Young

                        West Barton Development

“Where did the advice that the Barton West Development could not go ahead without a reduction to 40% social housing and lower energy limits come from? Who gave this ‘professional’ advice to the Council….or was it suggested by Councillors?

Could the portfolio holder explain what is the point of having a policy in the Core Strategy that generally upholds a 50% level of affordable housing when it is proposed that the largest development proposed in that strategy at Barton will not conform to that requirement?”

Answer: The Council sought advice from external professional property consultants, who advised that a scheme would not be viable with the delivery of 50% affordable housing, particularly having regard to the significant infrastructure costs associated, and the Council’s desire to maintain the provision of social rented accommodation. There is no suggestion that “lower energy limits” are being proposed.
 
The Council’s planning policies require a minimum of 50% of the proposed dwellings in any development to be affordable units, with 80% of that requirement being social rented and 20% shared ownership.  The current policies provide that if a developer can very clearly evidence that a development is not viable at that level, then there is an opportunity to negotiate the social housing provision down to a level that makes the development viable.

2.         Question to the Board Member, Housing Needs (Councillor Joe McManners) from Councillor Nuala Young

                        No.16 Tawney Street

“Is the portfolio holder aware that the Council was proposing to sell off 16 Tawney Street, a Council owned property, because they suggest it would cost too much to modernise.  However this property had a substantial modernisation of the kitchen and bathroom done by a previous tenant and the reason given would seem spurious.  

Could the portfolio holder provide figures to indicate how many other Council properties have been sold off over the last ten years using this criteria of ‘costing too much to modernise’.

Would the portfolio holder agree that it seems strange that developers seem able to find the money to improve these properties and sell them for a large profit but the Council seem unable to do the same.

Could the portfolio holder at least give an assurance that all the properties under this category are offered on the open market and that a variety of developers come forward to purchase the properties?”

Answer: This matter was reported to the City Executive Board on 20^th May 2009. The property was sold under Right to Buy Legislation 1978 and subsequently repurchased in 1985. During this sole period the previous owner built single storey extension to the rear which housed the kitchen and bathroom. Consultants at that time recommended that the extension needed rebuilding due to poor mortar joints in the brickwork and foundation problems. There were also  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

Statements on Notice under Council Procedure Rule 11.10(b) may be made.  Statements do not need to be directed to a specific Councillor.

Statements on notice must, by the Constitution, be notified to the Head of Law and Governance by no later that 9.30am on Friday 8 July 2011.

Full details of any statements for which the required notice has been given will be circulated to Members of Council before the meeting.

Councillor Tony Brett gave the following Statement on Notice

“I want to make a brief statement about the implementation of new additional HMO licensing scheme. While I recognise and fully support the vital work of holding landlords to account and ensuring adequate and safe conditions for tenants I do want to sound a note of caution about discouraging landlords to stay in the HMO market.

Oxford is a lively and vibrant City and has a large population of young people trying to make their way after School, College or University.  Housing is scarce and expensive and living in HMOs is the only way many such people can afford to stay in Oxford.  I have seen one example (near to my own home) and heard of others where I wonder if perhaps this Council is requiring more work than is strictly necessary on properties that are being used as-built (i. e. with no extra bedrooms or partitions, or rooms being used as bedrooms that were intended for other use), and to modern building regulations standards. While I of course understand the duty of care the Council has to HMO residents I hope that will be kept in balance with the need to maintain a supply of HMOs for those who are not able to afford to live in our wonderful City of Oxford in any other way. Our City's economy is strong and healthy and this is due in no small part to the number of skilled professionals that live here.  I would hate to get into a position where they can no longer afford to live in Oxford because too many landlords have chosen to leave the HMO market.

It is a delicate balance and I certainly have no sympathy for landlords that don't look after their properties ensuring they are safe for their tenants, nor for tenants who engage in antisocial behaviour.   On the other hand I don't want to see tenants who are responsible members of the community who do not keep neighbours awake, do not have loud parties, do not abuse parking and properly manage their refuse and recycling to be the unintentional victims of a licensing regime that is meant to protect them, not drive their landlords out of the rental market and therefore them out of their homes.

I am grateful to officers for taking the time to discuss this issue with me in the last week or so and grateful for all the excellent work they are doing in bringing Oxford’s HMO stock up to a good and safe standard.  I also welcome the fact that the council has taken my comments on board and I'm sure officers will bear them in mind when making future assessments of works required to recently-built and/or non-overcrowded residential dwellings.  I will be asking the portfolio member for housing for an update in a question to Council later in the year on progress in this important and delicately-balanced area.”

Councillor Turner in response to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

Council Procedure Rule 11.14 refers.  The Motions (listed in the order received) that have been notified to the Head of Law and Governance by the deadline of 1.00pm on Wednesday 29June 2011 are attached to this agenda.

Council had before it nine Motions on Notice and reached decisions as follows:

(a)       Proposed closure of BBC Oxford News Operations – (Proposer – Councillor Stuart McCready)

This Council notes with concern the reported plan to close BBC Oxford and move the BBC's operations from here to Southampton, with the loss of the local news and sport bulletin and the discontinuation of many local radio programmes, to be replaced with national and regional content.
 
This Council further notes that BBC Radio Oxford is Oxford's most popular local radio station and has risen in popularity over the past year, increasing from 76,000 to 80,000 listeners according to May's Radio Joint Audience Research figures.
 
This Council believes that local news is important to local democracy, and that local journalism helps build community by being able to keep in touch with what is important to local people and to shape reporting accordingly.
 
This Council opposes the BBC's plans, strongly asserts the importance of local broadcasting to people in Oxford, and resolves to request the Leader and the Chief Executive to write to the Director-General of the BBC, the Chair of the BBC Trust and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport expressing our views.

Following a debate, Council voted and the Motion was adopted.

(b)       Public Sector Pension Contributions – (Proposer - Councillor Mike Rowley)

Council notes with grave concern the decision of the coalition government announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) to impose a 3.2% contribution increase on members of the Local Government Pension Scheme.  Scheme average member contributions will increase from 6.6% to 9.8% next year.  Additionally the value of all local government employees’ pensions will be reduced on a cumulative basis by the change in the basis of indexation to the Consumer Price Index (CPI)

Council shares the views expressed by the Local Government Association (LGA) in its letter to the Chancellor of February 16^th 2011 where it pointed out that this level of increase will inevitably lead to a massive increase in opt-outs from the pension scheme by lower paid employees who form the majority of the local authority workforce.

Council resolves to write to the Chancellor, the Chief Secretary and the Secretary of State for Local Government to support the LGA and to call for a fundamental rethink of this damaging approach to public sector pension schemes.

Councillors Alan Armitage, Elise Benjamin, Tony Brett, Stephen Brown, Jim Campbell, Colin Cook, Van Coulter, Jean Fooks, Rae Humberstone, Mark Lygo, Susanna Pressel, Bob Price, Gwynneth Royce, Gill Sanders, John Tanner, Bob Timbs and Ruth Wilkinson, declared personal interests as they were members of the Local Government Pension Scheme.

            Following a debate Council voted and the Motion was adopted.

(c)       Business Rate Concessions – (Proposer – Councillor David Williams)

Given that the New Localism Bill  will return the Business Rate back to local authority control and the new legislation may provide the Council with the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

(1)       Councillor Brown asked Councillor Price if any decisions had been taken by the Oxford Strategic Partnership (OSP) and the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) and if so, whether the minutes of these meetings could be placed on the Council’s website.

In response Councillor Price said that £350k had been allocated to the LEP and that the County Council had also allocated a large part of its Economic Unit to the LEP as well.  He said that the LEP suffered from faults which had been highlighted by Labour Councillors as they had no funding or powers of their own and were not a voice of business.   Oxford Business First had more say on issues.  He further added that the LEP was holding an away-day to try and clarify the support available for local businesses.  With regard to the OSP, this was a very successful body. 

(2)       Councillor Jones asked Councillor Price for an update on the East/West Rail Consortium.  In response Councillor Turner said that he was the representative on the Spacial Planning and Infrastructure Partnership.  He said that the EWR Bid had been turned down.  However there remained interest and discussions continued between district local authorities on how they might be able to contribute to the costs.  All local authorities remained supportive of the proposals.

The Head of Law and Governance has submitted a report the purpose of which is to advise Council about the position of Honorary Recorder and to invite Council to appoint the Resident Judge at the Crown Court as Honorary Recorder in place of His Honour Judge Julian Hall who is no longer the Resident Judge. 

Council is asked to:-

(a)       Appoint His Honour Judge Gordon Risius CB to the post of Honorary Recorder of Oxford for as long as he holds the position of resident Judge at the Crown Court;

(b)       Thank His Honour Judge Julian Hall for his services as Honorary Recorder.

The Head of Law and Governance submitted a report (previously circulated, now appended) the purpose of which was to advise Council of the position of Honorary Recorder and to invite Council to appoint the Resident Judge at the Crown Court as Honorary Recorder in place of His Honour Judger Julian Hall who is no longer the Resident Judge.

Council resolved:

(a)       To appoint His Honour Judge Gordon Risius CB to the post of Honorary Recorder of Oxford for as long as he hold the position of resident Judge at the Crown Court;

(b)       To thank His Honour Judge Julian Hall for his services as Honorary Recorder.

If Council wishes to exclude the press and the public from the meeting during consideration of any aspects of the preceding agenda items it will be necessary for Council to pass a resolution in accordance with the provisions of Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 specifying the grounds on which their presence could involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as described in specific paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act if and so long as, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

(The Access to Information Procedure Rules – Section 15 of the Council’s Constitution – sets out the conditions under which the public can be excluded from meetings of the Council).

None.