For the avoidance of doubt the Chair declared a non-pecuniary interest as an employee of St Peter’s College, the main entrance of which was on New Inn Hall Street and part of the ‘red zone’ of the ZEZ and as a member of the  Co Wheels scheme (item 7 of the agenda).

Councillor Simmons also declared a non-pecuniary interest as a member of Co Wheels.

The Chair proposed that the agenda order be changed for the convenience of those who would be addressing the Committee later.

Recommendation: That the minutes of the meeting held on 17 December 2019 be APPROVED as a true and accurate record.

The Committee resolved to APPROVE the minutes of the meeting held on 17 December 2019 as a true and accurate record.

Since the last meeting Cabinet has responded to the Committee’s  recommendations on: Universal Credit; the Council’s draft Corporate Strategy; and the Property Investment Portfolio Analysis & Strategy Report. Copies of Cabinet’s responses are attached. The latter is a confidential paper

The Committee has also considered the Initial Response to the Report of the Citizens’ Assembly but felt no need to make recommendations to Cabinet about it.

The Chair drew attention to the Cabinet’s  responses  to the Committee’s  recommendations on: Universal Credit; the Council’s draft Corporate Strategy; and the Property Investment Portfolio Analysis & Strategy Report. The Committee noted the responses.  A revised version of the draft Corporate Strategy had now been published and could be seen on the Council’s website.

The Scrutiny Committee operates within a work plan which is agreed at the start of the Council year. The Work Plan is  reviewed at each meeting so that it can be adjusted to reflect the wishes of the Committee and take account of any changes to the latest Forward Plan (which outlines decisions to be taken by the Cabinet or Council). The Committee is asked to review and note its work plan for the remainder of the  2019/20 Council year.  

The Scrutiny Officer proposed changes to the Committee’s  workplan for the remainder of the Council year.

The Committee agreed that the item on Apprentices and NEETS, scheduled for February, be delayed until April (to allow inclusion of reporting on the 2020 apprentice cohort) and that the item on Monitoring Social Value be moved from the January Finance Panel to the February Finance Panel (for more even distribution of topics).

Both the East Oxford Community Centre and Oxpens reports were now scheduled for  March Cabinet meeting and therefore the  March meeting of Scrutiny also.

The Committee is asked to approve the following reportsfor submission to Cabinet on 22 January.

·         Waterways (following Committee discussion on 05 November 2019)

·         Mid-point review of the Housing and Homelessness Strategy 2018 - 2021 (following Housing Panel discussion on 07 November 2019)

The Committee approved the following reports (having accepted the published proposals for revisions to the original recommendations) for submission to Cabinet on 22 January.

·         Waterways (following Committee discussion on 05 November 2019)

·         Mid-point review of the Housing and Homelessness Strategy 2018 - 2021 (following Housing Panel discussion on 07 November 2019)

In relation to the waterways report however it was agreed that the original references to the provision of mooring sites and services which had been removed should be woven back in.

At the last meeting of the Committee it was agreed that detailed consideration of the Quarter 2 Performance Monitoring report should be delegated to Cllr Fry.  Cllr  Fry has since considered the report will  discuss it  with the Head of Business Improvement.  The report is attached. Cllr Fry’s commentary will be issued as a supplement . The Committee is asked to note both the report and commentary and to make such comments as it wishes.

At the last meeting of the Committee it had been agreed that detailed consideration of the Quarter 2 Performance Monitoring report should be delegated to Cllr Fry.  Cllr Fry had provided the Committee with a commentary following   discussion with the Head of Business Improvement. Cllr Fry had also provided commentary on the responses made by officers to the Committee’s recommendations in relation to Quarter 1.  The Committee’s response to the Q1 recommendations and responses was as follows:                                         

Rec 1:Target OCC spend in relation to local business

Response accepted and Cllr Fry recommendation agreed

Rec 2:Change in wording re measures to reduce carbon footprint

Response accepted.Noted however that while the revised wording now provides an accurate description of the indicator it does beg the question as to whether this is the most appropriate indicator.

Rec 3: Indicators re use of Council leisure facilities

Response accepted and Cllr Fry recommendation agreed. Noted however that there should be no reason not to ask for revenue data as part of a new contract when the time comes for renewal

Rec 4: Measures re effective delivery of capital programme

Response accepted and Cllr Fry recommendation agreed

Rec 5:Revised target for number of people moved into work by the Welfare Reform Programme

Response accepted.

Rec 6: Time taken to determine DHP applications

Response accepted.

In relation to the Q2 data and the indicator about the time taken to determine DHP applications, there was concern about the proposal to introduce a “more helpful measure” . The Committee agreed to reserve judgment until there was more clarity about what was proposed.

The Committee makes the following recommendations to Cabinet.

1)    That the Council adds an additional indicator: percentage of total spend on non Council-owned local businesses

2)    That the Council amends the description of indicator ED002 (Implementation of measures to reduce the City Council’s carbon footprint by 5% each year) by adding ‘below what it would otherwise have been’ afterwards.

3)    That the Council adds an additional annual indicator: total carbon footprint (excluding the impact of offsetting measures)

4)    That the Council devises an indicator to show the length of time taken between leisure centre repairs being reported and their completion

5)    That the Council, as part of its future contract requirements, seeks to require that leisure centre operators report to the Council year-on-year revenue figures and that Council will include these figures within the performance monitoring report.

6)    That the target WR001 (Number of people moved into work by the Welfare Reform Programme) be reduced by 25%

The item will be introduced by Councillor Tom Hayes, Cabinet Member for Zero Carbon Oxford and Mai Jarvis, Environmental Quality Team Manager. The report for this item will be published as a supplement.

Councillor Bely-Summers joined the meeting during this item.

Councillor Djafari-Marbini  left the meeting during this item.

The report was introduced by Councillor Tom Hayes, Cabinet Member for Zero Carbon Oxford and Mai Jarvis, Environmental Quality Team Manager. Councillor Hayes said the report represented the latest phase in a process of development over the previous three years which involved very close and co-operative working with the County Council as the Transport Authority. The consultation on proposals for the introduction of a red zone by the end of the year was underway and generating high levels of interest. He encouraged members of the Committee to engage members of their communities with the consultation. The subsequent development of the green zone would be important but the initial focus on the red zone would provide a small scale scheme at the outset from which to learn. The scheme reflected the ambitions of the Citizens’ Assembly and was ultimately underpinned by a desire to change behaviours.

In parallel with the proposals for a ZEZ, the importance of working closely with the City’s transport providers, notably the bus and taxi  companies, had been recognised from the outset. Hackney cabs in the City were already subject to an ambitious and separate scheme, as a licensing condition, for a progressive move to the use of zero emission capable vehicles. The Council was working with bus companies on schemes to introduce increasingly environmentally friendly vehicles.   

In discussion the following matters were raised or discussed among others.

·         Members of the Committee were very supportive of the ambition behind the proposals.

·         Many members of the Committee however challenged the designation of “Zero Emissions Zone” given that what was proposed would not result in an area free of emissions, with liberty given to any vehicle to enter subject to a charge or exemption. “Ultra Low Emissions Zone”, it was argued, would be a more accurate description.  Councillor Hayes was clear that the chosen designation was the correct one, recognised by the relevant bodies. It was noted that London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone has less strict criteria for entry than the Zero Emission Zone so it would be misleading to change the designation.

·         The proposed timing of the red zone (7am to 7pm) was driven in part by data which showed that to be the time of greatest pedestrian and cyclist activity.

·         While there would be an appetite in many quarters for greater pedestrianisation of some parts of the City Centre, access would still be required, on a timed basis, to serve business etc.

·         Raising bollards were not considered to be an appropriate means of enforcing the red zone.

·         The use of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) was the proposed means of enforcing the red zone, via mobile cameras, used by staff contracted by the County Council. Some members of the Committee had assumed that the ANPR would be via fixed cameras at the entrances to the red zone and were concerned the current  proposals would not be effective  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.

To consider the outcome of the electric vehicle charging pilot and next steps. The item will be introduced by Councillor Tom Hayes, Cabinet Member for Zero Carbon Oxford and Sarah Hassenpflug, Sustainable City Projects Officer.

Councillors Lloyd-Shogbesan and Bely-Summers left the meeting during this item.

The report was  introduced by Councillor Tom Hayes, Cabinet Member for Zero Carbon Oxford and Sarah Hassenpflug, Sustainable City Projects Officer. The report described the outcome of the electric vehicle charging pilot and next steps. Councillor Hayes said that in parallel with the introduction of the ZEZ it was appropriate to provide every inducement to move to more sustainable forms of transport.

In discussion the following matters were raised or discussed  among others.

·         The Committee welcomed the excellent research and  clear recommendations which provided a solid foundation for future work in this area.

·         A key question for the future would be whether charging for electric vehicles will be predominantly via centralised locations or distributed more thinly and widely. Domestic charging was attractive because of a potentially low tariff.  Centralised charging seemed more likely to be the main focus in the longer term but it was too early to give a definitive answer as to the future balance that needed to be struck  between centralised and dispersed infrastructure.

·         Decisions about future investment would need to be informed to some extent by the final answer.

·         It was recognised that the cost of electric vehicles (EVs)was currently prohibitive for many people and it was important to mitigate this inherent inequality as much as possible. 

·         Promoting the benefits of EVs (environmental and long term cost benefits) was important as well “busting the myths” surrounding EVs such  as their range etc.

·         It was noted the presence of on street charging facilities and EVs of themselves encouraged investment by others in that locality.

·         The use  of ‘cable gullies’  which would take charging cables to residential premises was a potentially safe and viable option for those wishing to charge at home in the future.

·         Charging points for electric bikes would be welcome.

·         Cllr Hayes and officers met representatives of the Hackney Cab taxi trade on a very regular basis. Meetings with representatives of the private hire business was more difficult in the absence of a representative body. 

The Committee makes the following recommendation to Cabinet.

1)    That electric bikes are included within the matrix of the Council’s future strategy for improving usage of ultra-low emissions forms of transport, particularly in regard to the availability of electric bike hire and electric bike charging points.

Meetings are scheduled as followed:

Scrutiny Committee                                  

·         04 February             

·         03 March                  

·         06 April                     

Standing Panels

·         Housing Standing Panel: 05 March, 08 April

·         Companies Panel: 12 March

Scrutiny Review Groups

·         Budget: 20 & 29 January

·         Climate Emergency: 13, 21 & 30 January, and 19 February

All meetings start at 6.00 pm

Meetings are scheduled as followed:

Scrutiny Committee                                  

·         04 February             

·         03 March                  

·         06 April                     

Standing Panels

·         Housing Standing Panel: 05 March, 08 April

·         Companies Panel: 12 March

Scrutiny Review Groups

·         Budget: 20 & 29 January

·         Climate Emergency: 13, 21 & 30 January, and 19 February

All meetings start at 6.00 pm

If the Committee  wishes to exclude the press and the public from the meeting during consideration of any of the items on the exempt from publication part of the agenda, it will be necessary for the Committee to pass a resolution in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 4(2)(b) of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012 on the grounds that their presence could involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as described in specific paragraphs of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

The Committee may maintain the exemption if and so long as, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information,

No matters were considered in confidential session.