Minutes of the ordinary meeting of Council held on 16^th July 2012.

Minutes of the special meeting of Council held on 20^th September 2012.

Council agreed to approve:

(a)       Minutes (previously circulated) of the ordinary meeting held on 16^th July 2012;

(b)       Minutes (previously circulated) of the special meeting held on 20^th September 2012.

No declarations of interest were made.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mohammed Altaf-Khan, Rae Humberstone, Pat Kennedy, Joe McManners, Helen O’Hara and Val Smith.

No appointments to Committees were made.

The Lord Mayor informed Council that officers had, following comments on the sound system in the Council Chamber, investigated the issue.  He was advised that the system was working correctly, however he was also advised that Members when speaking, should speak directly into the microphone and refrain from moving around when speaking as this affected the audibility of their voice also consider sitting when speaking.

The Lord Mayor noted that it was Council procedure and tradition that Members should stand when speaking, but asked Council to agree to an experiment whereby Members chose whether to stand or remain seated when speaking.

Council agreed to the experiment.

The Sheriff informed Council that the annual Sheriff’s Drive on Port Meadow had taken place on 10^th September 2012 and while the date was usually kept secret, it had some how been disclosed.  Despite this, Councillors and volunteers had rounded-up 300 cattle in difficult conditions due to the Meadow being extremely muddy leading to people and vehicles becoming stuck and the local Fire Service coming to the rescue of some vehicles.

Council agreed to suspend Council procedure rules to allow the Deputy Lord Mayor, Councillor Mohammed Niaz Abbasi, to make a statement to Council on behalf of the Muslim Community of Oxford, concerning the film “Innocence of Muslims”

The full text of the statement by Councillor Abbasi is amended to these minutes.

The Leader made the following announcements:

(a)       Innocence of Muslim’s - film

He welcomed the comments made in the statement by Councillor Abbasi and the peaceful nature of the Muslims in Oxford and agreed to speak to Group Leaders to take forward the comments and wishes made in the statement.

(b)       Shelter Campaign – Evict Rogue Landlords

Shelter had approached him requesting support from the Council for the campaign called “Evict Rogue Landlords”.  This had been passed to Group Leaders who had agreed to support the campaign.

(c)        Manager of the BMW Plant Oxford

Jurgen Hendrich who was the Manager of the BMW Plant in Oxford was due to return to Munich and the Company’s Headquarters.  He wished to thank him for his support of Oxford and wished him well for the future.

(d)       Oxford in Bloom

Oxford City Council had won a silver award in the 2012 Oxford In Bloom competition.

No announcements were made by the Chief Executive, The Chief Finance Officer or the Monitoring Officer.

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 4^th October) and the full wording of the address has been given to the Head of Law and Governance.

Council received and took four addresses to Council (text of the addresses are appended to these minutes).

(1)       William Clark – When will it end? The erosion of local facilities.

(2)       Nigel Gibson – Temple Cowley Pools, Judicial Review.

(3)       Sarah Santhosham – Vice President for Charities and Community at Oxford University Student Union.

(4)       Amanda Perry – Serving the Communities of East Oxford.

To hear questions from the public in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11.9 to the Leader or other Members of the City Executive Board for which the required notice (1.00pm on Thursday 4^th October 2012) and the full wording of the question has been given to the Head of Law and Governance, and to hear responses from those Members.

Two questions were submitted by members of the public as follows:

(1)       Question to the Leader of the Council (Councillor Bob Price) from Mark Pitt

            Asset Management Plan 2011-2014

The following question (slightly amended) was submitted on 12/09/12 before the deadline, for a response at the CEB, but was not presented; therefore I must ask the same question to the Full Council.  

Agenda Item: Asset Management Plan 2011-2014

Under the Asset Management Plan, the precious Bury Knowle Barn and Stables with “high local heritage significance” has been granted planning permission at the East Area Planning Committee on 06/09/2012, (12/01605/CT3) for conversion into flats, destroying its heritage value, precluding any possibility of community use, and decreasing accessibility to Bury Knowle Park by increased parking pressure.

This is short sighted as a facility will be required in Bury Knowle in the coming years due to the additional 12,000 residents in Headington by 2026.

Can the Council please explain why this precious heritage asset with very strong community potential located in the busiest corner of BK Park has not been formally assessed prior to disposal as per stated in the AMP paragraph 3.2. “b. Supplemental Policy Objectives and “Community Groups and Asset Transfer” and “d. Heritage and Environment”?

Why isn’t there an AMP option to dispose of assets in sensitive, targeted ways where appropriate when the community can benefit?

Why does the Council believe the community criteria only apply to “Community Centres and Pavilions” and not heritage agricultural buildings in parks such as Bury Knowle barn and stables, Cheney barn and Headington Hill dairy?

Would it be possible to review AMP, freeze the disposal process, and consider sale to, for example, a community business such as café or club for the benefit of the surrounding community and Bury Knowle Park that would retain its precious internal heritage space?

Appendix 1 - Asset Management Plan Extract

“b. Community Groups and Asset Transfer

The Council is supportive of the content the ‘Quirk Report’ (Department for Communities and Local Government 2007) and the government’s response ‘Opening the Transfer Window’ (Department for Communities and Local Government 2007), which sets out the principles of Community Asset Transfer.

The Council considers that this will be mainly relevant to its Community Centres and Pavilions and therefore the strategy for these asset classes will have due regard to these principles.”

And:

“d. Heritage and Environment

The Council has significant land and building holdings in key parts of the city centre and elsewhere in the city. In some cases this property not only supports the Council in delivering its services or supporting its budgets but also, incidentally, it contributes to the historic and/or environmental fabric of the city. In managing and reviewing its property holdings the Council will be mindful of this, and where it considers that the historic or environmental fabric of the city may be prejudiced unless it continues its ownership, it will retain ownership.”

Response:The buildings that make up the formal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

The Head of Finance has submitted a report which sets out the forecast outturn position for the Council’s Capital and Revenue budgets as at 30^th June 2012 compared to the approved 2012/13 budget and in addition provides information on key financial indicators in order to provide an assessment of the overall financial health of the organisation.

This report was submitted to the City Executive Board on 12^th September 2012 and an extract from the minutes of this meeting is also attached.

Council is asked to approve the addition to the Capital Programme schemes detailed in table 5 of the report.

Council had before it the report of the Head of Finance, together with a minute extract of the meeting of the City Executive Board held on 12^th September 2012.  (Both documents previously circulated, now appended).

Councillor Turner moved the report.

Councillor Simmons stated that the Green Group did not have a problem with the proposed additions.  However it found it distasteful that in the budget there was provision for 2% pay inflation which was not used.  He said that it was wrong not to spend the money, wrong not to give the inflation rise and wrong to give rewards for making cuts.

Councillor Turner in response said that there was a national bargaining framework in place, which the City Council was part of and that the pay freeze was part of this national framework.  He said that the Council had reached a positive agreement with the Unions on the Partnership payment which had been a success.  He added that the Green Group budget had not “stacked up” as there had been no provision for redundancies.  He further added that Councillor Simmons comments were regrettable, but so was the fact that the employers wanted to continue with the pay freeze.

Councillor Williams in response said that the Green Group’s budget proposals had balanced out and asked why the Administration had added £500k to the budget for redundancies when there was none.

Councillor Simmons said that there was no need to leave the national bargaining framework to pay a bonus.  The money was there to pay the inflation rise and should be used to support jobs and services

Councillor Fooks said that the Café was still not open and this did not show the Council in a good light.

Councillor Mills asked why there was an extra £2m of capital spend (Table 5, paragraph 41) and should Members be concerned on slippage due to the new competition pool which would put us in a poorer position.

Councillor Turner in response to questions said that the Capital Programme was healthy.  He stated again that the Council was part of the national bargaining framework, but this did not prevent the Chief Executive from negotiating with the Unions.  With regard to redundancies, he said that when voluntary redundancies were sought, the staff that generally came forward where those that would cost more due for example to their length of service and this had to be budgeted for.

Council agreed to approve the addition of additional schemes to the Capital Programme as detailed in Table 5 of the report.

The Head of Corporate Assets has submitted a report which seeks approval so the Asset Management Plan 2011-14.

This report was submitted to the City Executive Board on 12^th September 2012 and an extract from the minutes of the meeting is also attached.

Council is asked to approve adoption of the Asset Management Plan 2012-14.

Council had before it the report of the Head of Corporate Assets together with a minute extract of the meeting of the City Executive Board held on 12^th September 2012.  (Both documents previously circulated, now appended).

Councillor Turner proposed an amendment to the fourth paragraph in section 4.5 – Community Centre as follows:

Deletion of the words – These leases will be between one and three years, but will not guarantee future security of tenure.

Insertion of the words – These short leases will be for an appropriate time-frame to be agreed with the Community Association, but will not guarantee future security of tenure.

Council following a debate voted and agreed to approve the adoption of the Asset Management Plan 2011-2014 subject to the inclusion of the further amendment.

City Executive Board decisions (Minutes)

(1)       Minutes of the meeting held on 12^th September 2012.

Single Executive Member decisions (Minutes)

(1)       Minutes of the Single Executive Member Decision Meeting (Board Member – Corporate Governance and Strategic Partnerships) held on 30^th July 2012.

(2)       Minutes of the Single Executive Member Decision Meeting (Board Member – Customer Services and Regeneration) held on 16^th August 2012.

(3)       Minutes of the Single Executive Member Decision Meeting (Board Member – Cleaner, Greener Oxford) held on 23^rd August 2012.

Council had before it minutes (previously circulation, now appended) of the City Executive Board and Single Executive Member meetings held since the last meeting of Full Council.

(a)       City Executive Board decisions – 12 September 2012 (Minutes)

(1)       Minute 22 – Youth Ambition Programme for Oxford City – Councillor Fooks asked when this was going to be taken forward.

(2)       Minute 23 – The Oxford Challenge: Achieving world class teaching in Oxford City Schools serving disadvantaged people – Councillor Fooks said that this did not mention the Leadership Plan or which schools would be included.

Councillor Tanner said that a simple change to the schools funding formula would mean that Rose Hill Primary School would have a real term funding cut and would lose 2.5% in funding each year and would effectively cancel out the pupil premium.

Councillor Price said that a meeting would be held on 10^th October 2012 and following this it would be known which Schools would be included.

(3)               Minute 24 – Community Grants Programme 2011/12 – Monitoring Feedback.  Councillor Simmons said that the City Council was not providing funding for the Cowley Road Carnival and hoped the Council would change its mind on this.

Councillor Bance in response said that the organisers were not eligible to run the Carnival in the year that there was no carnival and that is why no funding was provided.

Councillor Price said that the document was for the Council and that the budget was as a supporter not a provider.  He said regarding the Cowley Road Carnival, discussions had taken place with the ‘Cowley Road Works’ Group which would be organising the Carnival.

Councillor Wolff said that it was true that the Committee felt that a grant could not be given as there was no Carnival.  However he said that the event was on-going as it was about building community capacity.  He added that the timing of grant funding did not always match with the work that had to be done, for example issues of safety for the carnival started very early before the grants process, so early notification of any successful grant funding was vital.  He further added that the Community and Partnerhsips Scrutiny Committee would be looking into how the Council supported these types of events.

(4)       Minute 30 – Culture Strategy – Consultation Outcome.  Councillor Benjamin asked where was the plan for the inclusion of smaller groups and she was concerned that there was no mention of better access for studio space for artists.

Councillor Campbell commenting on Councillor Turner’s response in the minutes, felt it was very important that there was a representative from the smaller groups on the Cultural Actions Group.

(b)       Single Executive Member Decisions (Minutes)

(1)               Minutes of the Single Executive Member Decision meeting (Board Member – Corporate Governance and Strategic Partnerships) held on 30^th July 2012).

(2)               Minutes of the Single Executive Member Decision meeting (Board Member – Customer Services and Regeneration) held on 16^th August 2012.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

None received.

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 that 9.30am on Friday 5^th October 2012.

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

(a)       Question notified in time for replies to be provided before the Council meeting

(1)       Question to the Board Member, City Development (Councillor Colin Cook) from Councillor Craig Simmons

Planning enforcement

What action are planning enforcement officers taking against cafes and restaurants (A3 use class) that are operating without change of use in A1 premises?

In the past year, how many warning or prosecutions have been issued to A3 businesses operating out of A1 premises?

How is the Portfolio Holder ensuring that the proportion of A1 units does not fall below 50% on the Cowley Road and what is the percentage now?

Response: Planning enforcement officers open an enforcement investigation and examine the need for planning permission in response to every complaint received, including where this relates to concern that an alleged café or restaurant (A3) that would appear to be operating without a change of use permission in A1 premises.

Where it is established that there is a need for planning permission then applicants would normally have the option of submitting a retrospective planning application to seek to regularise the unauthorised use / works, otherwise the case is closed. Where development, (use or works), remains unauthorised; if acceptable and not harmful, no further action is taken. If harm is identified then officers consider whether it is expedient to take enforcement action, and if the answer is yes, they proceed accordingly seeking to stop the breach of planning control.

No ‘warnings’ or prosecutions have been issued as unauthorised uses do not constitute a criminal offence. However officers have investigated or are investigating all allegations of unauthorised A3 uses in A1 premises. Over the last year there have been seven investigations of alleged unauthorised food and drink uses in Class A1 retail premises. Three of which have been closed and four are currently under investigation.  

The Council’s planning service determine planning applications in accordance with the Council’s adopted planning policies and where development proposals do not comply with those policies and there are no material considerations that indicate otherwise, proposals are refused.  Where unauthorised changes of use occur, planning enforcement officers investigate, as above and, if expedient, take enforcement action.

The current proportion of Class A1 retail uses along the Cowley Road secondary shopping frontage is 50.34% based upon a very recent survey in August 2012, (which is just above the 50% Oxford Local Plan policy threshold).

Councillor Simmons in a supplementary question asked if the enforcement was proactive.  In response Councillor Cook said no, this was not the case.

(2)       Question to the Board Member, City Development (Councillor Colin Cook) from Councillor Elise Benjamin

                        Oxford Heritage Plan

Does  the Portfolio Holder agree with the officers comment at the Inspectors Review of the Sites and Housing that Oxfords Heritage Plan was only a ‘background consideration’ when it came to planning applications.

Response: Council officers do not recall commenting at the Examination that the Heritage Plan was ‘only a background consideration’.  In their response to the Inspector officers confirmed that the Heritage  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.

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 5^th October 2012.

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

There were no Member statements.

The Head of Law and Governance has submitted a report which advises on the procedure that Council needs to follow under the Council’s Petitions Scheme in respect of large petitions, and to provide information specifically on the petition entitled “Labour Must Listen to Oxford”.

Council is being recommended to follow the procedure for large petitions by hearing the head petitioner and to then debate the petition and decide how to advise the Executive.

The Head of Law and Governance submitted a report (previously circulated, now appended) which advised on the procedure that Council needed to follow under the Council’s Petitions Scheme in respect of large petitions and provided information specifically on the petition concerning “Labour must listen to Oxford”.

Nigel Gibson the head petitioner presented the petition and spoke on its contents.

Councillor Coulter in response to the presentation of the petition said that the new pool would be more convenient to a wider population and that the carbon emissions would be greatly lower than that of the Temple Cowley Pools and that that the new pool was only 1.6 miles from the existing Temple Cowley Pool.  He added that the priority was to provide facilities where people needed them.

Councillor Williams said that he had attended a public meeting and almost all those present had denounced the proposed closure of Temple Cowley Pool.  He said that the largest petition presented to the Council had been ignored.  The Green Group had put forward four Motions, all had been voted down.  He said that this was not about the needs of Oxford or Blackbird Leys, but for Fusion and their profits.  He said that all the way trough there had been mis-leading information.  Costs had been quoted at the start as being £6m, but where now £13m.  He said that the truth should be told.

Councillor Price said that all opinions were listened to, but you needed to look at the evidence.  What was lacking in the arguments against the closure was the attention that should be given to the vast amounts of data on the need to replace the pool.

Councillor Tanner said that Councillors had been democratically elected by the people of Oxford and he deplored the un-necessary use of the law to delay the democratic process.

Councillor Rowley said that everyone had the right to their opinion.  However a decision had to be come to.  He congratulated the Save Temple Cowley Pool Campaign for their efforts, but the results were unequivocal, the people have spoken the case is closed.

Councillor Malik said that what matters is what comes across of the ballot paper and twice the people of Oxford have felt that Oxford is safe in Labour’s hands.

Councillor Rundle said that the Council Chamber was not the best venue for a serious debate and discussion and would have preferred it held somewhere where the public could be involved.  He urged the Administration to sit down and talk with the public.  The last local elections were not a referendum on the Temple Cowley Pool issue as there were other matters which concerned the voters, and he believed that the petition was wrong on this.  The idea of a new pool in Blackbird Leys was exciting, but the Temple Cowley Pool was still a well loved facility and he did not see that this facility necessarily needed to be closed.  He added that the Ice Rink was coming to the end  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.

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 26^th September 2012 are attached to this agenda.

Council had before it 18 Motions on Notice and reached decisions as follows.

(1)       Building Regulations – (Proposer – Councillor Mike Gotch, seconder Councillor Graham Jones)

Council notes that Building Regulations are due to be radically tightened in 2013 and 2016, when new dwellings must be constructed and run to have a carbon neutral footprint .

Council further notes the ambition to lead the country in reducing carbon emissions, and therefore asks the City Executive Board

(i)         to require the City Development department to adopt a strategy of requesting private and public sector planning and building regulations’ applicants to begin to adopt those standards now, rather than delay that which will soon become compulsory, and,

(ii)        as an exemplar, ensure that all of the new Barton West is in full conformity with the 2016 standards, including a combined Heat and Power unit, to serve all new dwellings, but also existing Barton dwellings following a feasibility study to establish viability.

Councillor Craig Simmons moved an amendment as follows:

(1)       To delete the first paragraph and replace with the following words:

Council notes that the Government is proposing to tighten Building Regulations in 2013 and 2016 when new dwellings will need to meeting ‘carbon neutral’ standards either through on-site ‘allowable solutions’.

(2)       In the second bullet point to insert the words “or other ‘allowable solution’ after the words ‘combined heat and power unit’.

The mover of the substantive Motion, Councillor Michael Gotch accepted the amendment by Councillor Craig Simmons.  Following a debate, Council voted and the amended Motion was adopted as follows:

Council notes that the Government is proposing to tighten Building Regulations in 2013 and 2016 when new dwellings will need to meeting ‘carbon neutral’ standards either through on-site or off-site ‘allowable solutions’.

Council further notes the ambition to lead the country in reducing carbon emissions, and therefore asks the City Executive Board

(i)         to require the City Development department to adopt a strategy of requesting private and public sector planning and building regulations’ applicants to begin to  adopt those standards now, rather than delay that which will soon become compulsory, and,

(ii)        as an exemplar, ensure that all of the new Barton West is in full conformity with the 2016 standards, including a combined Heat and Power unit, or other ‘allowable solution’  to serve all new dwellings, but also existing Barton dwellings following a feasibility study to establish viability.

(2)       Institutional investment in Private Rented Housing – (Proposer – Councillor Ed Turner)

Council notes the review commissioned by the Government into institutional investment into Private Rented Housing, Chaired by Sir Adrian Montague, of 3i.

Council further notes, with concern, proposals from the British Property Federation to this review, and associated media reports suggesting that the review will endorse these, which would allow developers freely to substitute institutionally-financed private rented housing for affordable housing provided through the planning process.

Council believes that there is a major shortage of genuinely affordable housing in Oxford.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.

Councillor Graham Jones spoke on behalf of himself and Councillor Bev Clack, who had been appointed as the City Council representatives on the Asian Cultural Centre.  He said that they had attended a recent meeting which he found very good and discovered that the Centre wants to be more than just a venue where rooms can be hired, but a real asset to the community.  He said he was particularly pleased that four of the nine Management Committee Members were women and he would continue to report back on further developments and activities at the Centre.

The Head of Human Resources and Facilities has submitted a report which presents a revised Disciplinary Policy and Procedure, and Alcohol and Drug Misuse Policy for adoption.

Council is asked:

(a)       To approve for adoption with immediate effect the Disciplinary Policy and Procedure agreed with the Trade Unions;

(b)       To approve for adoption with immediate effect the Alcohol and Drug Misuse Policy agreed with the Trade Unions;

(c)        To authorise the Head of Human Resources and Facilities to implement these Policies and procedures within an appropriate time frame, making changes as required in accordance with best practice and relevant legal frameworks.

The Head of Human Resources and Facilities submitted a report (previously circulated, now appended) which presented a revised Disciplinary Policy and Procedure, and Alcohol and Drug Misuse Policy for adoption.

Councillor Price said that these revised polices and procedure followed long and extensive discussions with the Unions.

Councillor Simmons welcomes the revised polices and procedures.

Councillor Fooks felt that the policies and procedures were sensible but highlighted that not all staff were members of a Union and she hoped that they had been consulted,  In response Councillor Price said that the Unions were recognised bodies and the Council had consulted with them.

Council agreed:

(a)       To approve the adoption with immediate effect of the Disciplinary Policy and Procedure agreed with the Unions;

(b)       To approve the adoption with immediate effect of the Alcohol and Drug Misuse Policy agreed with the Unions;

(c)        To authorise the Head of Human Resources and Facilities to implement these policies and procedures within an appropriate time frame, making changes as required in accordance with best practice and relevant legal frameworks.

The Head of Law and Governance has submitted a report which reviews the composition of the Council’s Policy Framework; it explains that the Policy Framework has developed over time and has not been comprehensively reviewed; it reviews the present Policy Framework; and it proposes a reconfiguration.

Council is asked to approve the reconfigured Policy Framework as set out in Annex 2 to this report.

The Head of Law and Governance submitted a report (previously circulated, now appended) which reviewed the composition of the Council’s Policy Framework explaining that the Policy Framework had developed over time and had not been comprehensively reviewed.  It reviewed the present Policy Framework and proposed a reconfiguration.

Council agreed to approve the reconfigured Policy Framework as set out in Annex 2 to the report.