Council stood for a minute’s silence in memory of Councillor Van Coulter who had died suddenly on 13 March 2017.

Councillors Fry and Tanner sent apologies for their late arrival.

Councillor Goddard apologised for leaving the meeting early.

There were no declarations of disclosable pecuniary interest.

Matters which may give rise to public perceptions of bias were drawn to Council’s attention:

·         Minute 102: Councillor Sanders informed Council that she was related to Jo Sanders, who was speaking about a secure dog area

·         Minute 106c: Councillor Humberstone informed Council he was now a trustee of Trax which is a social enterprise.

Minutes of the ordinary meetings of Council held on 6 February and 20 February 2017.

Council is asked to approve the minutes as a correct record.

Council agreed to approve the minutes of 6 February 2017 and 20 February 2017 as a true and correct record of these meetings and that the Lord Mayor should sign these as such.

No proposed changes of membership have been submitted.

Any proposed changes will be circulated with the briefing note.

At the meeting, Councillor Price proposed and Council agreed that Councillor Lygo be appointed to the vacancy on East Area Planning Committee for the remainder of the municipal year.

Announcements by:

(1)          The Lord Mayor

(2)          The Sheriff

(3)          The Leader of the Council

(4)          The Chief Executive, Chief Finance Officer, Monitoring Officer

The Lord Mayor announced:

·         He had held the annual charity dinner on Saturday 23 April: an excellent evening attended by about 100 people.

·         Highlights of his recent visit to Kashmir.

He noted that the Rt Hon Andrew Smith, MP was standing down and thanked him for his 30 years of service to his constituency as the Member of Parliament for Oxford East.

He thanked the Chief Executive for his help and support over his year as Lord Mayor.

There were no other announcements.

Public addresses and questions to the Leader or other Board member received in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11.11 and 11.12 relating to matters for decision on this agenda.

The request to speak accompanied by the full text of the address or question must be received by the Head of Law and Governance by 5.00 pm on Tuesday 18 April.

The briefing note will contain the text of addresses and questions submitted by the deadline, and written responses where available.

A total of 45 minutes is available for both public speaking items. Responses are included in this time. Up to five minutes is available for each public address and three minutes for each question.

There were no public speakers in this section.

The Acting Head of Law and Governance asks Council to vary the method of appointment of the Chief Executive as agreed by Council in its constitution to allow the timely and efficient appointment of an interim Chief Executive to replace Peter Sloman and allow a suitable hand-over period.

The Constitution sets out the role of theAppointments committee.

The relevant sections (7.7) are:

(a) Recommending to full Council who to appoint to the position of Chief Executive

(b) Recommending to full Council who to appoint as Head of Paid Service

…………………….

(d) Deciding upon the salaries of the Chief Executive and directors.

The duty to appoint an officer to the statutory role of Head of Paid Service rests with Council. The Constitution (9.2) specifies that the Chief Executive is automatically the Head of Paid Service

This appointment is for an interim position only, and it is important to have the position filled in good time to allow an effective hand-over period. Appointments may be made at short notice as suitable candidates present themselves.

The Appointments Committee will meet on 24 April and 28 April. In the event that the Committee wishes to recommend an appointee to Council on 24 April, this recommendation will be tabled at the meeting.

Recommendation: Council is recommended to resolve:

1.1  To delegate responsibility to and authorise the Appointments Committee to make an appointment to the positon of Interim Chief Executive to replace Peter Sloman; and

1.2  That the Appointments Committee has authority to agree the start date and initial period of appointment and other terms of employment as the committee considers reasonable; or

2     Alternatively to (1) in the event that the Appointments Committee has met prior to this meeting and is in a position to make a recommendation, to appoint the person recommended for the positon of Interim Chief Executive; and

3     In either case (1) or (2), that the person appointed as Interim Chief Executive will, as set out in the Constitution, be designated as Head of Paid Service as required by the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, Section 4(1), from the first day of their formal employment in that role with Oxford City Council.

As Chair of the Appointments Committee, Councillor Price proposed revised recommendations tabled at the meeting.

He explained that the Appointments Committee were interviewing candidates for the post of Interim Chief Executive In order to allow a proper handover before the current Chief Executive left it was not considered practicable to wait until Full Council could be convened to confirm an appointment. Council must have an appointed Head of Paid Service as required in law.

Council resolved:

1.    to delegate responsibility to and authorise the Appointments Committee to make an appointment to the positon of Interim Chief Executive to replace Peter Sloman; and

2.    that the Appointments Committee has authority to agree the start date and initial period of appointment and other terms of employment of the Interim Chief Executive as the committee considers reasonable; and

3.    that the person appointed as Interim Chief Executive will, as set out in the Constitution, be designated as Head of Paid Service as required by the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, Section 4(1), from the first day of their formal employment in that role with Oxford City Council after the current Head of Paid Service ceases to be employed in the post of Chief Executive.

The Acting Head of Law and Governance has submitted a report recommending changes to the Council’s constitution.

The Leader of the Council will move the recommendations.

Recommendations: Council is recommended to approve, with immediate effect, the amendments to the Constitution outlined in the report and detailed in appendices 1 to 4.

Appendix 1 – Petitions Scheme

Appendix 2 – Contract Procedure Rules

Appendix 3 - Miscellaneous proposed changes

Appendix 4 – Annex to Whistleblowing Policy

Council considered a report of the Acting Head of Law and Governance setting out proposed changes to the Council’s Constitution.

Council resolved to approve, with immediate effect, the amendments to the Constitution outlined in the report and detailed in appendices 1 to 4:

Appendix 1 – Petitions Scheme

Appendix 2 – Contract Procedure Rules

Appendix 3 - Miscellaneous proposed changes

Appendix 4 – Annex to Whistleblowing Policy

The Head of Business Improvement has submitted a report setting out the Annual Pay Policy Statement in accordance with legislative requirements.

The Board Member for Customer and Corporate Services will move the recommendations.

Recommendation: Council is recommended to approve the Annual Pay Policy Statement 2017 as attached at Appendix 1.

Council considered a report of the Head of Business Improvement setting out the Annual Pay Policy Statement in accordance with legislative requirements.

Council resolved to approve the Annual Pay Policy Statement 2017 as attached at Appendix 1 to the covering report.

The Acting Head of Law and Governance has submitted this report.

The Leader of the Council will move the recommendations.

Recommendation: Council is asked to note the Council’s use of its powers under the Regulation of Investigative Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) for the period 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017.

Council considered a report of the Acting Head of Law and Governance.

Council resolved to note the Council’s use of its powers under the Regulation of Investigative Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) for the period 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017.

This item has a time limit of 15 minutes.

Councillors may ask the Board Members questions about matters in these minutes:

Questions asked of the Board Members on these minutes and their responses are listed below.

·         Minute 127

Councillor Gant asked what had happened with the proposal to tender to provide cleaning services for the new Westgate Centre.

Councillor Price undertook to provide a response.

·         Minute 129 (a) - Councillor Simmons asked for an update on the recycling incentive scheme.

Councillor Price said there was funding for the scheme for 3 years, but it was being reviewed as it was not providing good value for money in its current form.

·         Minute 129 (b) - Councillor Gant asked if there were there any responses from MPs or from Westminster to the request for a debate on safeguarding language schools students.

Councillor Sinclair said the request for a parliamentary debate would be resubmitted after the General Election. She would follow up or complete the other requests in the minutes.

·         Minute 130 - Councillor Thomas asked about the relationship between the right to buy and Oxford City Housing Limited.

Councillor Rowley said he hoped the position would be clarified by the new DGLC team after the General Election.

·         Minute 131 - Councillor Wade asked how long a delay would be caused by changing the current boundary of the North Oxford Victorian Suburb Conservation Area.

Councillor Hollingsworth said he would provide a response.

·         Minute 133 (a) - Councillor Gant asked and Councillor Price agreed that partners in joint initiatives should receive appropriate credit and the oversight in the corporate plan should not be repeated.

Questions asked of the Board Members on these minutes and their responses are listed below.

·         Minute 149 – Councillor Thomas asked whether this degree of power should be vested an interim post-holder.

Councillor Turner reassured councillors that while authority was vested in one officer, decisions would be taken more collectively.

·         Minute 151 – Councillor Thomas asked if the scoping exercise for the proposed lottery would consider where the money would be coming from as well as what it would fund.

Councillor Price said the report would look at the source of income, and also the impact on other lotteries in the city to avoid competition and duplication.

Questions asked of the Board Members on these minutes and their responses are listed below.

·         Minute 159 (d) – Councillor Fooks asked whether the City Council’s views on the workplace levy had changed given the County Council’s comments.

Councillor Hollingsworth said it had not.

Questions on notice from councillors received in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11.10(b).

Questions on notice may be asked of the Lord Mayor, a Member of the City Executive Board or a Chair of a Committee. One supplementary question may be asked at the meeting.

The full text of questions must be received by the Head of Law and Governance by no later than 1.00pm on Thursday 13 April.

The briefing note will contain all questions submitted by the deadline, and written responses where available.

35 written questions on notice were submitted. These, written responses, and 20 supplementary questions and responses are set out in the supplement to these minutes.

Public addresses and questions to the Leader or other Board member received in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11.11 and 11.12 and not related to matters for decision on this agenda.

The request to speak accompanied by the full text of the address or question must be received by the Head of Law and Governance by 5.00 pm on Tuesday 18 April.

The briefing note will contain the text of addresses and questions submitted by the deadline, and written responses where available.

A total of 45 minutes is available for both public speaking items. Responses are included in this time. Up to five minutes is available for each public address and three minutes for each question.

Councillors Azad, Fry, and Tanner arrived and Councillor Goddard left before the start of this item.

Four speakers addressed Council and one speaker asked a question.

The full text of these speeches and question; responses from the Board Members in writing before the meeting; and summaries of verbal responses given at the meeting are in the supplement to these minutes.

1.    Artwell addressed Council about the provision of football pitches in Barton.

2.    Nigel Gibson addressed Council about meeting the needs of ordinary people (replacing health and fitness facilities in Cowley)

3.    Joanna Sanders addressed Council asking for provision of a secure area for exercising dogs off-lead in East Oxford, preferably in Florence Park

4.    Laura Coyle addressed Council about the petition on this agenda

5.    Sarah Lasenby asked about the proposed salary of any interim Chief Executive and asked the Council to exercise restraint.

This item has a 15 minute time limit in total.

The head petitioner has been invited to speak to Council for a maximum of 5 minutes at the start of this item.

Council is asked to consider a petition meeting the criteria for debate under the Council’s petitions scheme in line with the procedure for large petitions.

The petition proposes:

Can you support Iffley Open House in calling on Oxford City Council to do the right thing and to re-open Lucy Faithful House as a night shelter?

The full text of the petition is contained in the accompanying report of the Acting Head of Law and Governance.

Council is recommended to:

·         hear the head petitioner for the petition;

·         debate the proposal to the Council contained within the petition;

·         debate motions submitted by the deadline; and

·         decide the action it wishes to take.

Council considered a petition meeting the criteria for debate under the Council’s petitions scheme in line with the procedure for large petitions.

Council heard an address from Neo, the head petitioner. He spoke about the problems of the (by his estimate) nearly 130 homeless people in the city who needed a home and a safe place to go. Lucy Faithfull House would get people off the streets. Half of the people housed by the Iffley Open House project were in work but had no home - if they stayed on the streets they would lose their jobs. More and more people were forced out of their homes. He had seen at least 20 new people on the city streets coming here from across the county. These were massive failures by government. To solve the issues there needed to be collective responsibility: everyone needed to work together. There was a desperate need for the facilities Lucy Faithfull House could provide.

Council considered two motions submitted in response to the petition, circulated before the meeting.

Councillor Rowley proposed his motion, seconded by Councillor Turner.

Councillor Thomas proposed his motion, seconded by Councillor Gant.

After debate and on being put to the vote:

·         Councillor Rowley’s motion was declared carried

·         Councillor Thomas’ motion was declared lost.

Council resolved to approve the following motion in response to the petition, as proposed by Cllr Rowley:

Council notes the petition, and welcomes the support from the signatories for sustainable solutions to single-person homelessness in Oxford.

As elsewhere in the country, the rise in single-person homelessness is as a consequence of the government’s attack on Social Security, its cuts in mental health provision, and its failure to increase the number of affordable and social homes over the last seven years in government.

In noting the petition, Council also observes that re-use of Lucy Faithfull House would not be a sensible proposition, because no need has been demonstrated. All of the LFH beds have been replaced by beds in Oxford with support provided, and existing homelessness provision is not over-occupied. Council also noted, in rejecting the Budget amendment referred to, that there is no way to make LFH sustainable beyond the lifetime of the Budget.

Council notes that its current approach to homelessness funding has allowed us to shield vital services affected by County Council cuts and maintain funding for services across the City.

Council also notes that it is untrue that "luxury" accommodation is intended to be built on the Lucy Faithfull House site. The site has potential to contribute to the Council's affordable housing strategy, although this will require an agreement with the leaseholder.

1.    On behalf of Councillor Price, the OSP Manager and Principal Economic Development Officer has submitted a report with an update on the Oxford Strategic Partnership

Council is invited to ask questions, comment on and note the submitted report.

2.     Each ordinary meeting of Council shall normally receive a written report concerning the work of one of the partnerships on which the Council is represented.

3.     Members who are Council representatives on external bodies or Chairs of Council Committees who consider that a significant decision or event has taken place, will give notice to the Head of Law and Governance by 1.00 pm on Thursday 20 April that they wish present a written or oral report on the event or the significant decision and how it may influence future events.

Council had before it a report from the OSP Manager and Principal Economic Development Officer(submitted on behalf of Councillor Price) giving an update on the work of the Oxfordshire Local Strategic Partnership. Councillor Price said that a report on the future of the partnership would be presented to their September meeting.

Councillor Fooks asked for an update on the TEFL work. Councillor Price said that funding was channelled through refugee support groups such as Asylum Welcome.

Councillor Gant asked how the review of the Economic Narrative linked to Council policies and the Local Plan. Councillor Price said that the two would inform each other within the context and scope of each one.

Council noted the report.

The Chair of the Scrutiny Committee has submitted a report which updates Council on the activities of scrutiny and other non-executive Councillors and the implementation of recommendations since the last meeting of Council.

The Chair of the Scrutiny Committee will present the report.

Council is invited to comment on and note the report.

Councillor Gant presented his report and paid tribute to Councillor Coulter’s contributions to the work of the committee.

He reminded Councillors that they were welcome to suggest items for the committee’s work plan and that should Council resolve to ask the committee to consider any matter, this would be added to the agenda of the 14 June meeting.

Council noted the Scrutiny Committee would next meet on 2 May then 12 and 14 June, and noted the report.

This item has a time limit of 60 minutes.

The full text of motions received by the Head of Law and Governance in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11.17 by the deadline of 1.00pm on 10 April is below. Motions will be taken in turn from the Liberal Democrat, Green, and Labour groups in that order.

Substantive amendments to these motions must be sent by councillors to the Head of Law and Governance by no later than 10.00am on Friday 21 April. The briefing note will list amendments submitted before its publication.

Council is asked to consider the following motions, the full text of which is below:

1. Power to impose a tourist tax in Oxford proposed by Councillor Wilkinson, seconded by Councillor Goff
2. Making vacant buildings within Oxford available for the use as temporary homeless shelters proposed by Councillor Thomas, seconded by Councillor Simmons
3. Supporting Local Social Enterprise proposed by Councillor Smith, seconded by Councillor Hayes
4.  Joint working to address needs of the boating community proposed by Councillor Wade, seconded by Councillor Landell Mills
5. Motion proposed by Councillor Simmons, seconded by Councillor Wolff
6. Addressing concerns about short-term lets via websites proposed by Councillor Wolff, seconded by Councillor Brandt

Council had before it six motions on notice and amendments submitted in accordance with Council procedure rule 11.17 and published with the agenda and briefing note, and reached decisions as set out below.

Council adopted motions:

a.    Power to impose a tourist tax in Oxford.

b.    Making vacant buildings within Oxford available for the use as temporary homeless shelters.

c.    Supporting social enterprise.

d.    Joint working to address the needs of the boating community.

Two motions were not taken as the time for debate had elapsed:

e.    Opposing the Better Oxfordshire Proposals.

f.     Addressing concerns about short term lets via websites.

Power to impose a tourist tax in Oxford

Proposed by Councillor Wilkinson, seconded by Councillor Goff

Liberal Democrat member motion

Council notes that a number of local authorities are currently lobbying for the power to impose tourist bed taxes or “hotel levies”. These include Camden, Westminster, Bath, Birmingham, Brighton, Edinburgh and Cornwall.

Council also notes the recent support by the Mayor of London for the introduction of such a levy following the publication for the London Finance Commission by the GLA of Working Paper 83 entitled Options for a tourism levy for London. This report gives details of tourist taxes levied across the world in cities that have a high proportion of tourists.

Council recognizes that the British Hospitality Association is strongly opposed to any imposition of a bed tax, and that the VAT rates in the UK on hotel accommodation are much higher than in other EU countries.

Oxford is the seventh most visited city in the UK by international visitors and is the tourism gateway to the rest of Oxfordshire. The opening of the new Westgate retail offer is expected to generate increased visits to Oxford. Council welcomes tourism in Oxford as this brings many benefits to the City, however this does bring with it an extra demand for infrastructure and environmental improvements, and cost to the Council of increased workload in some departments, for example Streetscene and Parks.

Council notes that there are uncertainties ahead post-Brexit with respect to Oxford’s economy, and that it may be wise to join other authorities in lobbying for the power to introduce and retain a tourism levy.

Council therefore asks the Chief Executive and the Leader of the Council to work with other local authorities representing cities with high rates of tourism to lobby jointly for the devolution of the above power. It further requests that Council writes to Oxford’s two MPs to inform them of this Council’s motion and ask for their support.

Useful references:

https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/tourism-levy-for-london-wp83.pdf

http://uk.businessinsider.com/sadiq-khan-calling-for-visitors-to-be-hit-by-new-tourism-tax-2017-1

http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/could-bath-be-the-first-uk-city-to-bring-in-a-tourist-tax-a7516856.html

This motion was debated before Minute 102 as there was sufficient time before the scheduled start of the public speaking item.

Councillor Wilkinson proposed her submitted motion, seconded by Councillor Goff.

After debate and on being put to the vote, the motion was declared carried.

Council resolved to agree the following motion:

Council notes that a number of local authorities are currently lobbying for the power to impose tourist bed taxes or “hotel levies”. These include Camden, Westminster, Bath, Birmingham, Brighton, Edinburgh and Cornwall.

Council also notes the recent support by the Mayor of London for the introduction of such a levy following the publication for the London Finance Commission by the GLA of Working Paper 83 entitled Options for a tourism levy for London. This report gives details of tourist taxes levied across the world in cities that have a high proportion of tourists.

Council recognizes that the British Hospitality Association is strongly opposed to any imposition of a bed tax, and that the VAT rates in the UK on hotel accommodation are much higher than in other EU countries.

Oxford is the seventh most visited city in the UK by international visitors and is the tourism gateway to the rest of Oxfordshire. The opening of the new Westgate retail offer is expected to generate increased visits to Oxford. Council welcomes tourism in Oxford as this brings many benefits to the City, however this does bring with it an extra demand for infrastructure and environmental improvements, and cost to the Council of increased workload in some departments, for example Streetscene and Parks.

Council notes that there are uncertainties ahead post-Brexit with respect to Oxford’s economy, and that it may be wise to join other authorities in lobbying for the power to introduce and retain a tourism levy.

Council therefore asks the Chief Executive and the Leader of the Council to work with other local authorities representing cities with high rates of tourism to lobby jointly for the devolution of the above power. It further requests that Council writes to Oxford’s two MPs to inform them of this Council’s motion and ask for their support.

Making vacant buildings within Oxford available for the use as temporary homeless shelters

Proposed by Councillor Thomas, seconded by Councillor Simmons

Green member motion

Recognising:

•        the growing number of individuals sleeping on our streets;

•        the dangers of sleeping rough;

•        the significant number of long and short-term vacant buildings within the city [1];

•        the potential to move on with their lives and off the street (into permanent accommodation and employment) that a period of stable and safe accommodation could offer many of those current sleeping rough;

The Council requests the City Executive Board to commission and give consideration to an urgent report that would enable the City Council to:

•        Make policy that allows for all vacant City Council owned buildings – including commercial premises - to be made freely available for use as temporary homeless shelters, to be run by community charity and voluntary organisations that are able and willing to do so [2];

•        Encourage other parties with similarly vacant buildings – particularly Oxford University and Oxford Colleges  – to make those buildings available to be utilised as part of this initiative; 

•        Publicises the availability of relevant vacant buildings to the voluntary and community sector, and calls for expressions of interest from the community to operate these spaces;

•        Assist in the co-ordination of the provision of key “wrap-around” services to residents making use of the temporary accommodation;

•        Make preparations for this at the earliest possible time, and offers clear guidance frameworks and assistance to all interested parties;

•        Sets terms of reference for use of spaces, conditions of use, and clearly sets out the arrangements for reclaiming possession of the relevant premises when circumstances require it [3]

[1] As witnessed by the on-going, serial occupation of empty premises being organised by the 'Open House' project

[2] Recent experience of Iffley Open House that the willingness and capacity for such an undertaking exists within Oxford’s voluntary community

[3] For example, Iffley Open House was vacated without issue on a date agreed between the free-holder and the homeless community.

Councillor Thomas proposed his submitted motion.

He said he would accept Councillor Rowley’s submitted amendment provided Councillor Rowley agreed a further minor amendment (read out at the meeting as ‘the Council requests the City Executive Board to commission a report from officer to be submitted to the Board no later than September 2017 on the process and procedures that could be used to make empty properties available for use as temporary homeless shelters’).

Councillor Rowley agreed to this change and Councillor Thomas then proposed his submitted motion as amended.

Councillor Simmons seconded the amended motion.

After debate and on being put to the vote, the amended motion was declared carried.

Council resolved to agree the following motion:

Recognising:

•        the growing number of individuals sleeping on our streets;

•        the dangers of sleeping rough;

•        the significant number of long and short-term vacant buildings within the city;

•        the potential to move on with their lives and off the street (into permanent accommodation and employment) that a period of stable and safe accommodation could offer many of those current sleeping rough;

The Council requests the City Executive Board to commission a report from officers to be submitted no later than September 2017 on the processes and procedures that could be used to make empty properties available for use as temporary homeless shelters.

Supporting Local Social Enterprise

Proposed by Councillor Smith, seconded by Councillor Hayes

Labour member motion

Social enterprise is a business that trades for a social and/or environmental purpose.  It will have a clear sense of its ‘social mission’: which means it will know what difference it is trying to make, who it aims to help, and how it plans to do it. It will bring in most or all of its income through selling goods or services. And it will  also have clear rules about what it does with its profits, reinvesting these to further the ‘social mission’.

Since 2014 Oxfordshire has been designated a ‘social enterprise place’ by Social Enterprise  UK, this designation recognises the variety of local social enterprises on our doorstep and makes it easier to stay informed about what local social enterprises have to offer.

As a council we already recognise that our procurement power is a mechanism for delivering and realising tangible benefits for local  communities.  Over 50% of the Council’s spend is local to Oxfordshire with approximately  27% of this being paid to Smalland Medium Enterprises.  Social Value is also a key consideration when high value contracts are let.

This Council asks the City Executive Board:

to establish an officer group to identify any further actions to embed  the social value act and it’s principles across the council and encourage the use of local social enterprise suppliers; and to recommend to the Board Member any changes to the Procurement Strategy or rules to achieve this.

Councillor Smith proposed her submitted motion, seconded by Councillor Hayes.  

Councillor Gant proposed his submitted amendment, seconded by Councillor Wade.

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 originally proposed was declared carried.

Council resolved to agree the following motion:

Social enterprise is a business that trades for a social and/or environmental purpose. It will have a clear sense of its ‘social mission’: which means it will know what difference it is trying to make, who it aims to help, and how it plans to do it. It will bring in most or all of its income through selling goods or services. And it will also have clear rules about what it does with its profits, reinvesting these to further the ‘social mission’.

Since 2014 Oxfordshire has been designated a ‘social enterprise place’ by Social Enterprise UK: this designation recognises the variety of local social enterprises on our doorstep and makes it easier to stay informed about what local social enterprises have to offer.

As a council we already recognise that our procurement power is a mechanism for delivering and realising tangible benefits for local communities.  Over 50% of the Council’s spend is local to Oxfordshire with approximately 27% of this being paid to Small and Medium Enterprises.  Social Value is also a key consideration when high value contracts are let.

This Council asks the City Executive Board:

to establish an officer group to identify any further actions to embed the Social Value Act and its principles across the council and encourage the use of local social enterprise suppliers; and to recommend to the Board Member any changes to the Procurement Strategy or rules to achieve this.

Joint working to address needs of the boating community

Proposed by Councillor Wade, seconded by Councillor Landell Mills

Liberal Democrat member motion

This Council welcomes the work done by the Board Member and City Council officers in consulting with the boating communities, riparian owners, the Canal and River Trust and others on the draft Waterways Public Spaces Protection Order.

This Council notes that on 6 April the City Executive Board accepted a Scrutiny recommendation that the draft Waterways Public Spaces Protection Order should not be progressed. However officers are still being asked to identify localized solutions to specific concerns raised at four locations which might require ‘bespoke solutions, many of which are already available through existing legislation’ i.e. statutory provision and local bye-laws.

This Council asks the Board Member to request officers to continue working with the Canal and River Trust to explore the following possibilities, proposed by members of the boating community, which should assist with the problems identified:

a)     a sanitary facility on the Thames in Oxford - currently there is no disposal point for sewage between Abingdon and Eynsham (there is one on the canal at St Edward's but this is difficult to reach from the Thames). The disposal point could also include a waste disposal facility to save rubbish piling up.

b)     a caretaker boater with a boat moored at a city site, to manage over-staying, inappropriate behaviour etc. The City Council would provide a free mooring in Oxford (worth perhaps £300 – 500 p.m.) with the boater performing caretaking duties in exchange, initially perhaps 12 hours p.w. This proposal would involve no cost to the Council beyond the use of a mooring.

Councillor Wade proposed her submitted motion, accepting the submitted amendment proposed by Councillor Sinclair.

Councillor Landell Mills seconded the amended motion.

After debate and on being put to the vote, the motion as amended was declared carried.

Council resolved to agree the following motion:

This Council welcomes the work done by the Board member and City Council officers in consulting with the boating community, riparian owners, the Canal and River Trust and others on the draft waterways PSPO.  This Council notes that on 6 April the CEB approved the following recommendations which were supported by the Scrutiny Committee.

These were as follows:

1. Not to progress the proposal for a Public Spaces Protection Order for the generality of the waterways of Oxford;

2. Commission officers to develop localised solutions to public safety concerns for four identified priority areas;

3. Commission officers to further develop policy proposals that will address public safety and antisocial behaviour problems and improve public enjoyment of the city’s waterways resources.

This Council will now continue to develop the solutions on the identified areas with local stakeholders and particularly welcomes the investment and commitment to improving the city’s waterways. This Council now asks the Board member to request officers to continue working with the Canal and River Trust to explore a range of possible measures, which could, if practical, include the following:

a)     a sanitary facility on the Thames in Oxford - currently there is no disposal point for sewage between Abingdon and Eynsham (there is one on the canal at St Edward's but this is difficult to reach from the Thames). The disposal point could also include a waste disposal facility to save rubbish piling up.

b)     a caretaker boater with a boat moored at a city site, to manage over-staying, inappropriate behaviour etc. The City Council would provide a free mooring in Oxford (worth perhaps £300 – £500 p.m.) with the boater performing caretaking duties in exchange, initially perhaps 12 hours p.w. This proposal would involve no cost to the Council beyond the use of a mooring.

The text of this motion concerns proposals for local government restructure and will be tabled at the meeting.

This motion was not taken as the allowed time had elapsed.

Addressing concerns about short-term lets via websites

Proposed by Councillor Wolff, seconded by Councillor Brandt

Green member motion

Council is aware that through AirBnB, and similar websites, over three hundred properties in Oxford are available for short-term let over the internet in an unregulated, supposedly self-policing system.

Some of these lets are rooms within owner-occupied properties.  Others are otherwise unoccupied, unsupervised properties.

Whilst recognising that in the majority of cases there is mutual benefit for hosts and guests, and for the city as a whole:

a)     Council is aware of the potential abuse of this system by organised criminal elements running ‘pop-up brothels’, ‘pop-up drug shops’, human sex trafficking and child sexual exploitation.

b)     Council is also concerned about the as-yet unmeasured impact on housing supply for long-term Oxford residents, on registered guest houses and on the regulated hotel sector.

Other local authorities in the UK and elsewhere are currently exploring ways of better monitoring and regulating online short-term letting agencies

Council therefore:

1.    Asks its Hotel Watch partnership with the police and other agencies, through its representatives on that body:

a.    to monitor, record and collate concerns about these letting services picked up by police, ASBIT and HMO Licensing team

b.    to monitor issues arising in other cities around the world and the city authorities’ various regulatory responses to them (e.g. in Berlin, London, San Francisco, New York, Barcelona, Madrid, Reykjavik and Cambridge)

2.    Agrees to review the situation this autumn, after the summer season, to see whether – if any – further action is needed. 

This motion was not taken as the allowed time had elapsed.