Councillor Turner re-joined the meeting.

Council had before it the original text of the motion proposed by Councillor Wolff (set out in the agenda and briefing note) and amendments proposed by Councillors Gant, Hayes, and Upton (set out in the briefing note).

Councillor Wolff drafted a new text for the motion as set out below. This incorporated elements of the original motion and two of the three amendments in the briefing note. This was tabled for all councillors to consider.

Councillor Wolff, seconded by Councillor Henwood, proposed this new text for their submitted motion as set out below.

Councillors Hayes and Gant withdrew their amendments.

Councillor Upton, seconded by Councillor Simm, proposed her amendment to the new text of the motion. After debate and on being put to the vote the amendment was declared lost.

After debate and on being put to the vote the motion as set out below (as revised and tabled at the meeting) was agreed.

Council resolved to adopt the following motion:

Council welcomes and supports the youth-led climate strikes that took place in September around the world. The march in Oxford on 20th September was one of the largest gatherings in the City's history and enjoyed cross-party support. Council wishes to place on record its support for the climate strikers and our admiration for their commitment and determination.

Council has already recognised the climate emergency and established a Citizen's Assembly, which is on-going, to engage residents in the inevitable de-carbonisation of our economy that must happen over the next few decades. 

Council notes that the Scrutiny function is independent and can and does give serious and detailed attention to selecting matters to consider, and that Council as a whole cannot and does not wish to influence that process. Council also notes that resource for panels and other functions is set as part of the budget process.

Council also notes and welcomes initiatives taken by a number of councils recently, and encourages further close co-operation and learning from best practice.

Council therefore asks the Cabinet to:

1.    Establish a Climate Advisory Group to support all-member engagement to build on the aims of the Citizens’ Assembly; to engage the public in the issue; and bring recommendations to the Cabinet on how best to use its powers of control and influence to meet the Climate Emergency across the City Council and the city of Oxford; noting  that this does not pre-empt the outcome of the Citizen’s Assembly;

2.    Ask officers to report back to Cabinet on the financial and constitutional issues.

Council also asks the Leader to write to Oxfordshire County Council’s Cabinet Member for Education & Cultural Services, to request that she contacts Oxford's schools setting out our support for the youth strikers and our request that absenteeism from school to attend climate strikes is treated leniently.

Councillor Turner left the meeting for the debate and decision on this motion.

Councillor Garden, seconded by Councillor Gotch, proposed the submitted motion as set out in the agenda and briefing note.

After debate and on being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Council resolved to adopt the following motion:

Council notes that EU nationals are part of our shared communities. They are our husbands, wives, parents, friends and colleagues. They are an integral part of a vibrant and thriving Oxfordshire.

Since 2016 EU nationals were promised again and again that "there will be no change for EU citizens already lawfully resident in the UK and […] will be treated no less favourably as they are at present”.

After three years of living in limbo, their homes and livelihoods are yet again being threatened by the further uncertainty brought about by the prospect of an even more chaotic no-deal Brexit.

According to the Home Office’s June statistics, only a third of EU nationals have applied for the Settled Status and 42% of them have been granted the inferior Pre-Settled status leading them to reapply for the Settled status later on. There is no possibility to know how many EU nationals need to apply, leaving vulnerable and unaware EU nationals left at risk of becoming unlawful residents at the mercy of the Home Office’s Hostile Environment. Lack of clarity regarding differentiating between EU citizens arriving before and after the UK’s exit from the EU will likely lead to discrimination in the labour market and will prevent many from accessing the services that they are entitled to.

Another Windrush-like scandal is unfolding right before the eyes of this Council and we mustn’t be passive observers to it.

Therefore, the Council asks that:

1.            Officers undertake an urgent review of how a disorderly exit from the EU is likely to affect EU nationals accessing services provided by the Council (licensing, benefits etc).

2.            Officers report on how the Council can mitigate adverse impacts on the rights of EU nationals (including but not limited to advising on what the Council can do to help landlords and employers to be trained on immigration status and therefore avoid potential discrimination against EU nationals).

3.            The Leader of the Council writes to the Home Secretary to ask that the current European Settlement Scheme is clarified by:

a.    Providing a clear deadline for application to the EUSS in case of no-deal exit from the EU.

b.    Providing those with settled status with physical proof that can be used to access services.

c.    Confirming that there will be no changes to the rights of settled EU citizens that they currently have by ratifying the Immigration Bill as primary legislation before the exit day.

d.    Replacing the current European Settlement scheme with a registration scheme without a deadline where EU citizens are considered legally settled by default and can request a proof of immigration status only when they are asked to demonstrate it.

Councillor Brown, having declared a disclosable pecuniary interest, left the meeting for the debate and decision on this motion. Councillors Bely-Summers, Cook, and Lygo left the meeting at this point.

With Council’s agreement the Lord Mayor extended the time for debating motions to the end of this debate and vote.

Councillor Haines proposed his submitted motion, accepting the amendment proposed by Councillor Hollingsworth as set out in the briefing note. This was seconded by Councillor Harris.

After debate and on being put to the vote the motion as amended was agreed.

Council resolved to adopt the following motion:

Motion:

Council resolves to continue to work with the management of Oxford University Hospitals Trust as a matter of urgency to help them to undertake a review of the approach to sustainable transport at all the Trust’s sites including the John Radcliffe hospital, including a review of the Trust’s approach to the allocation of car parking capacity so as to allow for an increased proportion of parking at the sites for the disabled, patients and visitors, and for the operational needs of critical medical staff as part of a comprehensive masterplan for all the Trust’s sites in Headington including the John Radcliffe hospital, to promote a sustainable approach to transport to those sites as part of the Local Transport Strategy 5.

Reason:

It is grossly unfair on people who are sick and the friends and family of those wanting to urgently visit people in hospital to allow the current situation to continue. A comprehensive shift to more sustainable transport approaches would:

·         Reduce the congestion on local roads, freeing up the road network to other traffic including buses and ambulances;

·         Reduce the pollution inhaled by cyclists, pedestrians and local residents from vehicles queuing with engines running;

·         Reduce lost time and missed appointments which cost the health service a fortune;

·         Make it easier for staff to access the hospital, helping to reduce staff shortages;

I hope this motion can be carried to allow us to resolve this long standing issue for now and in to the future, and to alleviate some of the problems that the public so clearly and desperately need resolving.

Councillor Howlett, seconded by Councillor Turner, proposed the submitted motion as set out in the agenda and briefing note.

After debate and on being put to the vote the motion was agreed.

Council resolved to adopt the following motion:

Council notes:

·         That Oxford City Council was the first UK local authority to pay a Living Wage, pays the Oxford Living Wage, spends around 50% with small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), spends over 70% with local suppliers, and operates a higher level of support for the local voluntary sector than that of many other districts.  It has agreed to include a social value element in non-OJEU procurement activity and apply the Green Public Procurement Policy, and it has appointed a Co-operatives Champion.

·         That the Community Wealth Building (CWB) model has had success in Preston in uniting the city’s key employers and procurers (known as ‘anchor institutions’) to reorganise their supply chains and identify where they could buy goods and services locally, showing what can be achieved by effective local leadership.

·         While Oxford’s economy is relatively buoyant, high levels of inequality and concentrations of poverty make a focus on adding social value crucial for our city.

Council believes:

·         That there is potential for our City Council to work alongside  other ‘anchor institutions’ in Oxford in using our spending powers to forge a local economy that shares wealth and power more equally and puts environmental sustainability at its heart, and this work is making good progress under the Inclusive Employer Task Group strand of the Oxford Strategic Partnership.

·         There are clear benefits to co-operation and substantial growth in the sector provides a true alternative to business as usual.

Council resolves to:

·         Explore with leading Oxford employers how they can together target our significant procurement spend to achieve social and environmental goals, and monitor its impact.

·         Work to ensure that public spend in Oxford maximises the achievement of social value, including in the activity of City Council-owned companies.

·         Request an update report from the relevant officer to Cabinet and Council within six months of this meeting.

Council had before it six motions on notice submitted in accordance with Council procedure rules and reached decisions as set out below.

Council resolved to adopt the following motions as set out in these minutes:

a)    Supporting EU nationals

b)    Responding to the youth-led climate strikes

c)    Community Wealth

d)    John Radcliffe Hospital Parking

The following motions were not taken as the time allocated for debate had elapsed:

e)    Expanding Car Free Days

f)     Multilateral nuclear disarmament

g)    Support second EU membership referendum

With Council’s consent this item was taken before the break.

Councillors Goddard, McManners and Linda Smith left at the start of this item. Councillors Iley-Williamson and Turner arrived after the break and for the start of this item.

There were four addresses and one question to Council.

1.    South Oxfordshire District Councillor Alexandrine Kantor gave a speech in support of Motion (a) Supporting EU nationals.

2.    Zile Huma gave a speech about the humanitarian crises in Jammu and Kashmir.

3.    Henry Owen from the Community Action Groups Project gave a speech in support of Motion (c ) Community Wealth.

4.    Judith Harley asked a question about Oxford Direct Services review of its property portfolio and its plans to vacate the Cowley Marsh depot.

5.    Judith Harley gave a speech supporting retaining the William Morris Sports Field as a sports field.

The full text of these speeches read as submitted; responses from the Cabinet members in writing before the meeting; and summaries of any verbal responses given at the meeting are set out in the printed pack of these minutes.

40 written questions were asked of the Cabinet members and Leader, and these and written responses were published before the meeting.

These along with summaries of the supplementary questions and responses asked and given at the meeting are set out in the printed pack of these minutes.

Council had before it the minutes of Cabinet meetings of 11 September 2019.

There were no addresses or questions.

The Lord Mayor announced his main civic events since the Annual Council meeting, including attending the St Giles Fair.

He reminded councillors of Remembrance Sunday events on 10 November 2019.

The Lord Mayor asked the City Rector, Rev Anthony Buckley, to speak about his work in the city.

The Sheriff announced the events he had attended, including the annual cattle round up on Port Meadow and the National Association of City & Town Sheriffs of England & Wales AGM held in Oxford.

The Leader of the Council announced that she would attend the South Oxfordshire District Council meeting to speak about the impact on the city and wider county should they agree their Cabinet’s recommendations on their Local Plan.

The Chief Executive notified Council of the arrangements on 14 October for the funeral at Christchurch of PC Andrew Harper, killed while on duty in August 2019.

There were no changes to committee memberships.

Council agreed to approve as a true and correct record the minutes of the ordinary meeting held on 22 July 2019.

Minute 50 (a): Councillor Turner left the room and took no part in the debate or decision on this item as it concerned matters relevant to his secondment to The Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Minute 50 (d): Councillor Brown declared that, while the motion did not affect her disclosable pecuniary interest as an employee of the Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, to avoid any appearance of impropriety she would leave the chamber and take no part in the debate.

Minute 50 (d): Councillor Tarver stated for the record that although he was an employee of the Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, his role did not encompass parking and he did not use the parking facilities and so he had no declarable interest. He would remain in the chamber and take part in the debate.

Apologies from Cllrs Aziz, Donnelly, Djafari-Marbini, Lloyd-Shogbesan.

Minute 58:

Councillor Wolff asked how much had been written off in total as a result of the Icelandic banking crash in 2008.

Nigel Kennedy, S151 officer, reported the sum written off was £170k from an initial investment of between £4.5m (figures confirmed after the meeting.

With Council’s consent this item was taken before the break.

The Chair of the Scrutiny Committee updated Council on the committee’s work plan for the year ahead. He also presented the committee’ annual report for 2018/19, noting that this would be finalised and published on the council’s website.

Council noted the committee’s work plan for 2019/20 and the annual report for 2018/19.

To report to Committee on the responses to the public consultation on the Street Trading Policy review 2019.  To seek Committee’s agreement to the revised Street Trading Policy and recommend the revised Policy to Council. 

Council considered a report of the Head of Regulatory Services and Community Safety to the General Purposes Licensing Committee on 18 September2019 setting out the proposed Street Trading Policy, to take effect from 1 April 2020.

Councillor Clarkson, the Chair of the Committee, presented the report and moved the recommendations, which were agreed on being seconded and put to the vote.

Council resolved to adopt the Street Trading Policy 2019 attached as Appendix B to the report.

Report outlining the short and longer term plans for the commissioning of services for rough sleepers and single homeless people at Floyds Row and seeking approval to commission the services in the first instance via short term contracting arrangements.

Councillors Corais and Gotch arrived during this item.

Council considered a report of the Head of Housing submitted to Cabinet on 3 October 2019 seeking approval to increase the capital budget envelope for the Floyds Row project; to delegate authority to commission further capital works; and to commission the service contract to operate services from this new project.

Councillor Linda Smith, the Cabinet Member for Leisure and Housing, presented the report and answered questions. She moved the recommendations, which were agreed on being seconded and put to the vote.

Council resolved to:

1.    revise the capital budget for this project, to take the capital envelope of the project to £1,892,300, including contingencies, as outlined in Appendix 3 Option A, increasing the budget by £1,134k. (Noting grant funding already secured of £275k capital funding from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), and £100k from Public Health England, which will reduce the funding requirement from the Council’s 2019/20 capital programme accordingly, and noting that additional external funding contributions are being progressed from a variety of sources, including the MHCLG; Oxfordshire District and County Councils; the Oxfordshire Clinical Commissioning Group and other charitable sources); and

2.    make budget provision for the gross revenue costs of providing Floyds Row in the sum of £1.069 million in 2019-20 funded by grants and contributions.

The Localism Act 2011 requires Oxford City Council to appoint one or more Independent Persons to assist the Monitoring Officer in dealing with complaints about councillors’ standards of behaviour and alleged breaches of the Members’ Code of Conduct. 

In addition, The Local Authorities Regulations 2015 require the Council to invite relevant Independent Persons to join the Investigation and Disciplinary Committee to consider evidence and provide advice on the course of action to follow whenever there is the prospect of dismissal of a statutory officer of the Council (these are the Chief Executive, Chief Finance Officer and Monitoring Officer).

Council will be asked to approve the appointment of up to four Independent Persons for a period of five years to July 2024.

Council considered a report of the Monitoring Officer asking Council to approve the appointment of the council’s independent persons.

Council noted that due to the availability of applicants and suitable interview dates, it had not been possible to complete all the interviews before this meeting. A recommendation as to suitable appointments could not be made until these were completed.

Consequently, new recommendations had been circulated to councillors in the briefing note.

As the Committee Chair was not present, Councillor Pressel, the Vice-Chair of the Standards Committee, presented and moved these new recommendations, which were agreed on being seconded and put to the vote.

Council resolved to extend the term of the current independent persons by a further month to 30 November 2019 to allow the recruitment process to conclude, and to consider the outcome and recommendations at its next meeting.

Reconfiguration of existing ground floor and part first floor retail unit (Tesco store to remain in situ) with extensions and alterations to existing building to provide 137 units of purpose-built, managed student accommodation with associated management suite and communal facilities at upper levels.

The Committee considered an application (19/01821/FUL) for planning permission for the reconfiguration of existing ground floor and part first floor retail unit (Tesco store to remain in situ) with extensions and alterations to existing building to provide 137 units of purpose-built, managed student accommodation with associated management suite and communal facilities at upper levels.

The Planning Officer presented the report and gave a number of verbal updates on matters that had arisen since publication of the report.  The County Council had raised additional concerns in regard to flooding, specifically that:

•        the proposal was not aligned with Local or National Standards.

•        the discharge rates have not been improved

•        there was no consideration of SuDS methodologies

The Planning Officer recommended that a new condition should be added to the application requiring the submission of a revised Drainage Strategy.

One of the ward councillors had also pointed out the proximity of the development to local night clubs and to a local primary school, and expressed concerns about the prevalence of antisocial behaviour, homelessness and drug dealing in the vicinity of the development site.

The Planning Officer advised the Committee that The Bullingdon had raised a concern that future occupiers of the new development may complain about noise from their venue in future.  The Planning Officer explained that Paragraph 182 of the NPPF advises that new development should be effectively integrated with existing businesses and community facilities, such as pubs, Churches and music venues. 

The Planning Officer proposed three additional conditions to provide suitable noise mitigation before completion of the development.  This would meet the requirements of Paragraph 182 of the NPPF and ensure that future occupiers of the development are not adversely impacted by noise from The Bullingdon, which itself would not be unreasonably restricted as a result of the new development. The three additional conditions would require:

• a scheme of noise attenuation measures for the new building; 
• a noise control scheme for any proposed mechanical ventilation or associated plant; and
• restrict occupation of the development until approval by the Local Planning Authority of a report on internal noise levels.

The following spoke against the application: Cllr Hayes and Cllr Azad (ward councillors), Graham Jones, Sally Moss and Ross James Clarke (local residents). 

Sara Dutfield, Simon Shaw and Nick Roberts (representing the applicant) and Philipp Kukura (local resident) spoke in favour of the application.

The Committee observed that many of the concerns raised by the objectors were not planning matters and should be addressed through other regulatory functions.

The Committee noted the concern expressed by the objectors that the number of student living in area had reached saturation point but considered that the provision of bespoke, dedicated student accommodation in a district centre location was an appropriate solution as it took students out of the private rented sector properties in the heart of residential communities.

The Committee were mindful of safeguarding issues and sought officers’ advice as to whether they could expand condition 6 to impose an over-18 age limit for non-term time use.  In response officers said that they would need to take further advice on the “reasonableness” of such a restriction and would explore options to amend the condition in order to address the Committee’s concerns on this point. If the age restriction could not be added then condition 6 should be amended to limit use to full-time courses in an academic year.

In reaching its decision, the Committee considered all the information put before it.

After debate and on being proposed, seconded and put to the vote, the Committee agreed with the officer’s recommendation to approve the application with the inclusion of the 4 additional conditions detailed above.

The West Area Planning Committee resolved to:

1.     approve the application for the reasons given in the report and subject to the 20 required planning conditions set out in section 12 of the report and the 4 additional conditions detailed above and subject to:

·       the satisfactory completion of a legal agreement under section.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and other enabling powers to secure the planning obligations set out in the recommended heads of terms which are set out in this report and subject to the completion of a Unilateral Undertaking with the County Council;

2.     agree to delegate authority to the Acting Head of Planning Services to:

·       finalise the recommended conditions as set out in the report, including any amendment to Condition 6 as detailed above, including such refinements, amendments, additions and/or deletions as the Acting Head of Planning Services considers reasonably necessary; and

·       finalise the recommended legal agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and other enabling powers as set out in the report, including refining, adding to, amending and/or deleting the obligations detailed in the heads of terms set out in this report (including to dovetail with and where appropriate, reinforce the final conditions and informatives to be attached to the planning permission) as the Acting Head of Planning Services considers reasonably necessary; and

·       complete the section 106 legal agreement referred to above and issue the planning permission.

Demolition of existing building and construction of 30 apartments (16 x 1 bed, 14 x 2 bed) and associated works (amended plans and additional information)

The Committee considered an application (18/03370/FUL) for planning permission for the demolition of existing building and construction of 30 apartments (16 x 1 bed, 14 x 2 bed) and associated works.

The Planning Officer presented the report and proposed an additional condition relating to the solar panels. The condition will require the technical specifications of the panels to be provided and approved to ensure that the development continues to comply with the sustainability requirements.

Jim Smith and Henry Venners (representing the applicant) were present to answer questions.

The Committee asked for the following informatives to be included:

•        The double stack cycle racks should comply with the Thames Valley Police standards

•        The applicant should be encouraged to find an alternative treatment to the existing road-side railings on the front elevation which were not in keeping with a quiet and historic street

In reaching its decision, the Committee considered all the information put before it.

After debate and on being proposed, seconded and put to the vote, the Committee agreed with the officer’s recommendation to approve the application.

The West Area Planning Committee resolved to:

1.       approve the application for the reasons given in the report and subject to the 23 required planning conditions set out in section 12 of the report, the additional condition on solar panels, the 2 informatives detailed above and grant planning permission subject to:

·       the satisfactory completion of a legal agreement under section.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and other enabling powers to secure the planning obligations set out in the recommended heads of terms which are set out in the report; and

1.       agree to delegate authority to the Acting Head of Planning Services to:

·       finalise the recommended conditions as set out in the report including such refinements, amendments, additions and/or deletions as the Acting Head of Planning Services considers reasonably necessary; and

·       finalise the recommended legal agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and other enabling powers as set out in the report, including refining, adding to, amending and/or deleting the obligations detailed in the heads of terms set out in the report (including to dovetail with and where appropriate, reinforce the final conditions and informatives to be attached to the planning permission) as the Acting Head of Planning Services considers reasonably necessary; and

complete the section 106 legal agreement referred to above and issue the planning permission.

Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of site to provide 140 dwellings (3x studios, 68 x 1 bed, 65 x 2 beds, and 4 x 3 beds) with associated works.  Additional information and amended plans and description.

The Committee considered an application (18/03369/FUL) for planning permission for demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of site to provide 140 dwellings (3x studios, 73 x 1 bed, 60 x 2 beds, and 4 x 3 beds) with associated works.  Additional information and amended plans and description.

The Planning Officer presented the report and briefed the Committee on representations received since the agenda had been published.

3 additional representations have been received from properties located in Mill Street, Barrett Street and Gibbs Crescent which referred to

•          Fire service access

•          Fire safety of the building

•          Compliance with building regulations

•          planning application was inaccessible on the website for a period of time

•          improvements to the public right of way

•          involvement of local residents in any future art installation

•          inaccuracies in the application

•          impact on the right of way due to amendments to the kerb along the access road

Letters of representation were also received from The National Federation of the Blind of the UK and Oxfordshire Association for the Blind objecting to the scheme on highway grounds and the inclusion of a shared space.

The Planning Officer confirmed that all of the issues raised had been addressed in the report and advised that following the above representations the Highway Authority has again commented on the application and proposed that a further planning condition be applied to require a plan detailing the technical details of the access and shared surfaces areas. This would allow officers to look at the technical details and have further regard to its compliance with the Equality Act.

The Planning Officer also corrected an error in Condition 33: “12 months” to be replaced with “5 years”. 

In conclusion the Planning Officer informed the Committee that the Fire Service had sent a fire engine to the site and had confirmed that they are able to access the whole of the site using the existing road. 

Ann McKinley, Rhiannon Ash (local residents) and Peter Monk (representing the National Federation of the Blind) spoke against the application. 

Councillor Landell Mills joined the meeting at this point but took no part in the consideration of this application.

Jim Smith and Henry Venners (representing the applicant) spoke in favour of the application.

The Committee asked questions of the officers and public speakers about the details of the application.

The Committee discussion centred on the issues relating to the access to the site and the safety concerns which had been raised by objectors, speaking at the meeting and during the public consultation.  The Committee noted the limitations of the current site access and acknowledged that the scheme would deliver improvements through a better delineation between the carriageway and footpath; a reduction in the width of the kerb; and the removal of foliage and other debris from the cemetery.   

The Committee were reassured that the inclusion of a robust condition requiring technical details for the access road and shared surface areas would provide the necessary control to ensure that all of the safety concerns are addressed. 

The Committee asked for the following informative to be included:

•        the applicant should be encouraged to seek to introduce further improvements to the southern footpath to encourage it’s use as a pedestrian and cycle route to the city centre

In reaching its decision, the Committee considered all the information put before it.

After debate and on being proposed, seconded and put to the vote, the Committee agreed with the officer’s recommendation to approve the application.

The West Area Planning Committee resolved to:

1.              approve the application for the reasons given in the report and subject to the 33 required planning conditions set out in section 12 of the report (and as amended above), the additional condition detailed above and grant planning permission subject to:

·       the satisfactory completion of a legal agreement under section.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and other enabling powers to secure the planning obligations set out in the recommended heads of terms which are set out in the report; and

2.              agree to delegate authority to the Acting Head of Planning Services to:

·       finalise the recommended conditions as set out in the report including such refinements, amendments, additions and/or deletions as the Acting Head of Planning Services considers reasonably necessary; and

·       finalise the recommended legal agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and other enabling powers as set out in this report, including refining, adding to, amending and/or deleting the obligations detailed in the heads of terms set out in the report (including to dovetail with and where appropriate, reinforce the final conditions and informatives to be attached to the planning permission) as the Acting Head of Planning Services considers reasonably necessary; and

complete the section 106 legal agreement referred to above and issue the planning permission.

To design and seek approval for the repair of the Gasworks Pipe Bridge.

A first phase of a feasibility study (now completed) undertook a general condition survey of the existing structure. The survey identified areas of significant thinning by corrosion in some of the steel frame members and cracking in the reinforced concrete decking. These defects require further site investigation of a more intrusive and detailed nature and to undertake a desktop analysis of the residual structural strength in order to assess the risk. From that, the nature and extent of necessary repairs can be determined and likely cost.