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 7^th December 2011 are attached to this agenda.

Council had before it 14 Motions on Notice and reached decisions as follows:

 

(1)       Means tests for Councillors – (Proposer – Councillor Stuart Craft, seconded by Councillor Nuala Young)

 

This Council agrees that Councillors with an annual household income exceeding £75,000 have no need to claim their allowance and that this money would be better spent in the interests of the City’s Council Tax payers.

 

With this in mind, Council agrees to set up a Committee to decide the details of a system of means testing for City Councillors in order to remove the allowance from those councillors with annual incomes exceeding £75,000.

 

Council requests that those Councillors currently falling into this category voluntarily give up their allowance until a formal system is introduced.

 

Council also agrees to request that City Councillors who are also County Councillors put forward a motion to the same ends to the County Council.

 

Following a debate, Council voted and the Motion was not adopted

 

(2)       Resignation of the City Council Leader – (Proposer – Councillor Stuart Craft)

 

Oxford City Council has engaged in transactions resulting in public land being sold to the benefit of Oxford Brookes University.   Council has also decided a major planning application by Brookes that received a large amount of opposition from local residents.

 

Council understands that it would be perfectly reasonable for members of the public to conclude that the Leader of Oxford City Council, Bob Price, has a conflict of interest when dealing with Oxford Brookes as he is a Director at the university.

 

With this in mind Council agrees, to remove the Leader from office as provided for in paragraph 1.4(c) of the Constitution.

 

            The Motion fell as there was no seconder.

 

(3)       Temple Cowley and Blackbird Leys Pools – (Proposer – Councillor Stuart Craft seconded by Councillor David Williams)

 

If the current plans for a new swimming pool at Blackbird Leys were to go ahead, the land at Temple Cowley along with playing fields (and mature trees) in Blackbird Leys will be lost – probably forever.

 

As councillors we are entrusted to safeguard the City’s assets for future generations.

 

With this in mind, this Council asks the Executive to put plans for a new swimming pool at Blackbird Leys on hold until:

 

(a)      An alternative source of funding becomes available other than the proposed funds from the sale of Temple Cowley Pool.

 

(b)      An alternative site for the new pool, which does not encroach on existing playing fields or have a negative effect on neighbouring residents’ lives, is found.

 

            Following a debate, Council voted and the Motion was not adopted

 

(4)       Oxford Transport Strategy and Motorcycles – (Proposer – Councillor Stuart Craft seconded by Councillor Dick Wolff)

 

Oxfordshire County Council’s Transport Strategy fails to address the benefits of motorcycle use as an alternative to the car.  

Motorcycles can be a cheap alternative to cars for commuters who live off the main bus routes.  Motorcycles take up less road space than cars and can fit through smaller gaps which keeps traffic flowing.  

Modern bikes are very fuel efficient and are subject to more emission controls (within the EU) than cars.  As motorcycles spend less time stationary than other vehicles the engines also run more efficiently.

With this in mind, this Council agrees to write to the County Council encouraging councillors to investigate initiatives that would encourage more motorcycle usage across the county.

 

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

 

(5)       Business Rate Concessions – (Proposer – Councillor Dick Wolff, seconded by Councillor David Williams)

 

            Councillor Sajjad Malik declared a personal interest as he owned a business in Oxford.

 

This Council will investigate the possibility, suggested in amendments to the Localism Bill  that there may be the potential to vary the level of business rate and if Oxford City Council is able to introduce a reduced business rate for small independent trading units offset by a higher rate for units which are part of national and multinational chains. A report on the possibility of introducing such a scheme to be brought to the Executive Board in the spring once the full extent of the new legislation is known with a view to the potential implementation in the financial year 2013 -2014. 

 

            Following a debate, council voted and the Motion was not adopted.

 

(6)       Language Schools – (Proposer – Councillor Nuala Young, seconded by Councillor David Williams)

 

            Councillor Nuala Young declared a personal interest as she had in the past given language tours.

 

This Council will re-establish the Language School Forum with full officer support. The Forum will seek to bring together all summer school and EFL providers with the intention of establishing a Code of Conduct to guide the operation of local language school groups and their activities in the City and to create a set of quality standards for foreign students studying in the City for long and short periods of time. A report on restabilising the Language School Forum be brought to the Executive in the New Year with an outline of objectives, an operational plan and full costings.

 

            Following a debate, Council voted and the Motion was not adopted.

 

(7)       Autumn Budget – (Proposer – Councillor David Williams, seconded by Councillor Matt Morton)

 

With accrued surpluses in reserves now in excess of £5.2million and the excellent news that Icelandic Bank investments are to be released. Oxford City Council adopts the amended budget as set out in below. The Council will retain £2 million, plus the extra returned reserves from the Icelandic investments as a prudent reserve and spend £3.7 million on the identified themes as set out in the appendix.

 

£1000's	2011/12	2012/13	2013/14	2014/15
	(half year)
Additional Savings
Limit SRA allowance on CEB to five Councillors and reduce remainder by £2k each	-22.5	-45	-45	-45
Further energy savings and income from grants and advice to external organisations	0	-10	-10	-15
Increase parking charges in line with inflation (2% more than assumed in base budget)	-75	-150	-150	-150
Increase taxi licensing fees in line with inflation (2% more than assumed in base)	0	-13	-13	-13
Increase Planning fees in line with inflation (2% more than assumed in base)	0	-3	-3	-3
Increase Licensing fees in line with inflation (2% more than assumed in base)	0	-10	-10	-10
Revise down senior staff no.s/salaries to reflect reduced budgets & responsibilities	-50	-200	-200	-200
Abandon sale of St Clement Car Park	0	-60	-60	-60
Increase incomes from property by 0.5% over 4 years	0	-50	-100	-150
income from solar feedin tariff	-10	-40	-40	-40
Take out £1500 per member in exchange for area cttee budget	-36	-72	-72	-72
Total additional savings	-193.5	-653	-703	-758
Cumulative additional savings	-193.5	-846.5	-1549.5	-2307.5
Additional costs
Additional pru borrowing costs on lost capital receipt from St Clements car park	115	224	219	213
additional part-time sustainability officer	10	20	20	20
reinstate area committee budgets, area planning & staffing	101	202	202	202
Prudential borrowing on other capital investment of £500k	25	49	48	46
keep Temple Cowley Pool open	113	159	159	159
reinstate free green waste collection	74.5	214	279	279
new fund-raising officer	25	50	50	50
Total additional costs	463.5	918	977	969
Net effect on budget in-year	270	265	274	211
Cumulative effect on budget	270	535	809	1020
Alternative budget transfer to/(from) reserves	-270	-265	-274	-211
Alternative Budget Net Budget Requirement	0	0	0.0	0.0
General Fund Working Balances
1st April	4,427	4,973	4,135	3,492
Approved Transfers to (From) working balances (Feb 11)	816	-573	-369	-610
Additional transfer to (from) working balance  - Green proposals	-270	-265	-274	-211
Working Balances as at 31st March	4,973	4,135	3,492	2,671

 

Green Group amendment to Capital Budget
	2011/12	2012/13	2013/14	2014/15
	£000'S	£000'S	£000'S	£000'S
CAPITAL PROGRAM AS PER CEB 9TH FEBRUARY	28,777	13,677	13,480	12,295
SAVINGS
Pool extn to BBL leisure centre	7,365	500	0	0
Rephasing of buildings refurbishment programme (5 years not 4)		500	500	500
ADDITIONAL SPENDING
buildings & energy improvements to Temple Cowley Pools & Gym	3,000	0	0	0
investment in solar array (s) on Council buildings	500	0	0	0
REVISED CAPITAL PROGRAM	24,912	12,677	12,980	11,795
FINANCING
FINANCING AS PER CEB REPORT 9TH FEBRUARY	28,777	13,677	13,480	12,295
Savings
Savings in Prudential borrowing re competition pool	-7000
Savings in use of capital receipts re competition pool	-365	-500
Savings in use of capital receipts rephasing of refurbishment		-500	-500	-500
Additions
Additional prudential borrowing re solar arrays	500
Additional prundetial borrowing re Temple Cowley Pool	3000
REVISED CAPITAL FINANCING	24,912	12,677	12,980	11,795

 

            Councillor David Williams withdrew the Motion on Notice.

 

(8)       Health and Care Bill – (Proposer – Councillor David Williams, seconded by Councillor Nuala Young)

 

            Councillor Mark Mills declared a personal interest as his parents were both employees of the National Health Service.

 

Councillor Beverley Hazell declared a personal interest as her husband was an employee of the National Health Service.

 

Councillor Ben Lloyd-Shogbesan declared a personal interest as he was an employee of the National Health Service.

 

            "Oxford City Council believes the Health and Social Care Bill currently before Parliament and in the House of Lords will:

 

- Significantly increase the portion of Oxfordshire NHS owned and operated in the interests of profit-making corporations.

 

            - Increase costs, fragment services and reduce the quality of care.

 

            - Lead to the closure of NHS hospitals in Oxfordshire.

 

            - Dismantle vital cooperative relationships built over many years.

 

            - Force drastic change on an organisation which requires stability.

 

            - Create increased transaction costs and profits at the expense of patient care.

 

- Give powers to the Oxfordshire Clinical Consortia to deny care, close services, introduce charges and top-up fees and sell private insurance.

 

- Remove the Secretary of State’s duty to provide a Health Service free at the point of use.

 

- Leave Oxfordshire NHS unprotected against the full impact of

European Union competition Laws by removing the public service exemption clause.

 

- Remove the cap on the number of private patients NHS Hospitals in Oxfordshire can treat, thus denying care to NHS patients.

   

For these reasons this Council urgently writes forthwith to the Government spokesperson in the House of Lords to consider these issues and decide if he should:

           

(a)       Call upon all members of the House of Lords, regardless of Party affiliation, to reject the Health and Social Care Bill.

 

(b)       Explore the reasons behind the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nurse’s opposition to this Bill.

 

(c)               Take into account the general level of opposition by the public

to the privatisation of the NHS.

 

Councillor Mark Mills, seconded by Councillor Stephen Brownmoved an amendment as follows:

 

Delete

 

Delete all of the first and second lines at the beginning of the Motion.

 

Insert

 

Insert the following at the start of the Motion “this Council notes the concerns expressed both by Members of Council and residents of the city about the Health and Social Car Bill currently before Parliament and in the house of Lords, which include but are not limited to the perception that the Bill will:”

 

Insert

 

A new bullet point at the end to read “Despite this Council does not believe that the present arrangement of the NHS can be left unchanged.  For to long, previous governments have centralised the NHS, resulting in structures that often feel remote and confusing to patients, and have in relative terms neglected social care.”

 

Delete

 

Delete point (a)

 

Insert

 

Insert a new point (a) to read “Calls upon Members of the House of Lords to seek amendments that protect and strengthen the NHS, while promoting social care.”

 

- Lead to the closure of NHS hospitals in Oxfordshire.

 

- Dismantle vital cooperative relationships built over many years.

 

- Force drastic change on an organisation which requires stability.

 

- Create increased transaction costs and profits at the expense of patient care.

 

- Give powers to the Oxfordshire Clinical Consortia to deny care, close services, introduce charges and top-up fees and sell private insurance.

 

- Remove the Secretary of State’s duty to provide a Health Service free at the point of use.

 

- Leave Oxfordshire NHS unprotected against the full impact of European Union competition laws by removing the public service exclusion clause.

 

- Remove the cap on the number of private patients NHS Hospitals in Oxfordshire can treat, thus denying care to NHS patient

 

- Despite this Council does not believe that the present arrangement of the NHS can be left unchanged. For too long, previous governments have centralised the NHS, resulting in structures that often feel remote and confusing to patients, and have in relative terms neglected social care. 

 

For these reasons this Council resolves to ask the Chief Executive to write forthwith to the Government spokesperson in the House of Lords to consider these issues and decide to:-

 

(a)       Calls upon Members of the House if Lords to seek amendments that protect and strengthen the NHS, while promoting social care.

 

(b)       Explore the reasons behind the British Medical Association with the Royal College of Nurses opposition to this Bill.

 

(c)        Take into account the general level of opposition by the public to the privatisation of the NHS.

 

The mover of the substantive Motion, Councillor David Williams did not accept the amendment by Councillor Mills and following a debate, Council voted and the substantive Motion was adopted.

 

(9)       National Planning Framework – (Proposer – Councillor David     Williams, seconded by Councillor Nuala Young)

 

With the Coalition Government launching a consultative period on changes to planning requirements for land development under a new National Planning Policy Framework, Oxford City Council would seek to input to that consultation by making the following comment:

 

“The key to new housing development rests with general economic development and change, not deregulation. This obvious conclusion was accepted by both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Parties prior to the last election and neither party proposed radical changes to planning policies. There is therefore no popular mandate for these changes

 

This Council supports the stance taken by the Campaign for Rural England, the National Trust  and the RSPB that  revision of the protection of the most fertile farmland as identified in the original Open Green Space Planning Document by a revised code that suggests (paragraph 167) ‘Local Authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land’  is a retrograde step and will effectively lead to a free for all of development on prime agricultural land.

 

This Council believes that the existing requirements on developers have been built up over many generations to provide a balance between the need to meet housing need and the duty to protect the environment. The structure as it is already provides a positive range of opportunities and great flexibility for developers and to abandon controls that have worked will only lead to further erosion of the Green Belt and green space availability.

 

The presumptions within the new proposals will shift the emphasis in planning from developing brownfield sites first in preference to prime greenfield sites. This will mean not only loss of countryside areas but will also undermine urban redevelopment.

 

At the heart of the framework is the weak definition of ‘sustainable development’ which emphasises the primacy of business and housing development over almost all considerations. Oxford City Council believes, notwithstanding having an approved Core Strategy, there will be increased pressures on Oxford's green open spaces, transport system and community facilities from developers being able to suggest that virtually any project is ‘sustainable’. Oxford City Council  believes that there is an intrinsic value to Greenfield sites not only  aesthetically but because best quality agricultural land will play a critical part in sustainable development providing food in a world of global pressures from climate change and population growth. The Oxford Green Belt also needs strong protection to provide a unique setting to this important historic City.

 

Oxford City Council calls on the Government not to implement the changes envisaged in the consultative National Planning Framework Document and directs the Chief Executive to write to the relevant Coalition Government Minister expressing the themes of this motion.”

 

Councillor Bob Price moved an amended Motion seconded by Councillor Stephen Brown as follows:

 

With the Coalition Government launching a consultative period on changes to planning requirements for land development under a new National Planning Policy Framework Oxford City Council would seek to input to that consultation by making the following comment:

 

The City Council have an acute housing shortage and are seeking to provide as much housing as we can given the scarcity of land within the tight administrative boundaries of the city and the constraints of the Green Belt, attractive landscape setting and flood plain.

 

Cities such as Oxford which are keen to provide more housing but are subject to significant constraints on development with a limited land supply should be encouraged to consider ‘urban extensions’ working jointly with neighbouring authorities. The only alternative will be for densities to increase on existing and or redeveloped residential sites, which will risk harming the character and appearance of suburbs.  Council is concerned that wording on the Green Belt is overly restrictive and will lead to less sustainable locations being developed as an alternative.

 

The Council believes that the NPPF should allow for targeted reviews of the Green Belt to be undertaken,

 

The NPPF talks in terms of planning for a mix of housing to meet local needs but does no give importance to the provision of affordable housing as a national priority. 

 

Council believes that the NPPF should be much stronger in requiring all major housing development to make provision for affordable housing including that for social rent.

 

Council expresses concern that at the heart of the draft NPPF is the weak definition of sustainable development which emphasises the primacy of business and housing development over almost all considerations. Oxford City Council is concerned that, not withstanding having an approved Core Strategy, there will be increased pressures on Oxford's green open spaces, transport system and community facilities from developers being able to suggest that virtually any project is sustainable.

 

Council believes that there needs to be a stronger balance between the three pillars of sustainability throughout the document.

 

The NPPF advises against the ‘long-term’ protection of employment land or floorspace; instead it advocates the consideration of alternative uses to be assessed ‘on their merits’. This advice does not allow Local Authorities such as Oxford to recognise local circumstances.

 

Council believes that there should be recognition that the provision of employment land is an essential part of the infrastructure requirements for an area.

 

Council express concern that in the transitional period, until new local plans are in place and are confirmed to be in conformity with the NPPF, there is a risk of a policy vacuum and for that reason argues for a presumption that existing local planning policies are in conformity with the NPPF, unless this is clearly not to be the case.

 

Council notes the draft NPPF recognises the ‘duty to cooperate’ on planning issues. This promotes collaborative working on strategic issues across local boundaries. This is particularly important in the case of two tier areas, such as Oxfordshire which has County and District authorities. But Council believes the ‘duty to co-operate’ simply will not work if different local authorities have different policy positions which are irreconcilable.

 

Council believes that the duty to cooperate needs strengthening.

 

Council asks the Chief Executive to ensure that these points are put forward as part of the Council’s response to the draft NPPF.

 

The mover of the substantive Motion, Councillor David Williams did not accept the amendment and following a debate, council voted and the amended Motion was adopted.

 

(10)     Feed in Tariff – (Proposer – Councillor David Williams, seconded by Councillor Dick Wolff)

 

Councillor David Williams declared a personal interest as he had recently installed solar panels at his property.

 

Councillor Elise Benjamin declared a personal interest as she had solar panels installed at her property.

 

This Council is of the belief that the reduction in the solar tariff feed in rate from 43p per kilowatt hour to 21p and bringing forward the implementation date twice recently announced by the Coalition Government  will have a profound effect on the solar power companies not only here in Oxford but also nationally and will dramatically undermine the potential of achieving even the very modest targets set by the previous Labour Government for reducing carbon emissions by 2020.

 

The Chief Executive therefore is directed to write to the Secretary State indicating the Councils concern on this issue and asking that reduction in the tariff rate be postponed.

 

Councillor David Williams moved an amendment to include the following words at the end of the substantive Motion:

 

Council:

 

(1)       Notes that at least 145 households in Oxford have installed solar power since the introduction of the Feed-in Tariffs scheme under the last Labour Government;

 

(2)       Believes that solar power gives families greater control over their energy bills and will help Oxford meet our renewable energy targets and reduce our carbon emissions;

 

(3)       Regrets the Government’s planned cuts to Feed-in Tariffs which put scores of solar industry jobs in the Oxford area at risk and exclude nearly nine out ten families in Oxford from installing solar power;

 

(4)       Further regrets the cuts to multi-installation tariffs, which will hit this Council, local housing associations and Oxford's low carbon community groups and make solar power the reserve of a wealthy few;

 

(5)       Calls on the Coalition Government to rethink their devastating cuts to Feed-in Tariffs.

 

Councillor Jean Fooks moved an amendment to:

 

(1)       Delete all of the words after ‘Coalition Government’, in the first and second paragraphs and insert the words ‘is causing problems for suppliers and local authorities alike.’

 

(2)       Insert the following new paragraphs:

 

Council notes that whereas previous Labour and Conservative Governments banned councils from exporting electricity to the national grid, the current government, following Liberal Democrat pressure, changed the law so councils could export electricity from PV and other renewable sources.

Council further notes the government consultation on changes to the            ‘Feed in Tariff’ scheme, which is helping to fund these installations, and is concerned that this halving of the tariff at short notice will reduce the systems being installed and will mean fewer jobs will be created.

Council therefore asks the Chief Executive to write to the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, and relevant Ministers of State asking that:

1.        The Tariff is reduced progressively over a longer period to enable the industry and householders to adjust but not before April 2012.

2.        A Community Tariff is established, ensuring Councils and other Social Housing providers are excluded from the lower Tariff proposed for multi-installations, so that more households in fuel poverty can benefit from free electricity.

 

The Mover of the substantive Motion, Councillor David Williams accepted the amendment by himself, but did not accept the amendment by Councillor Jean Fooks.  Following a debate, council voted and the Motion as amended by himself was adopted as follows:

 

This Council is of the belief that the reduction in the solar tariff feed in rate from 43p per kilowatt hour to 21p and bringing forward the implementation date twice recently announced by the Coalition Government will have a profound effect on the solar power companies not only here in Oxford but also nationally and will dramatically undermine the potential of achieving even the very modest targets set by the previous Labour Government for reducing carbon emissions by 2020.

 

The Chief Executive therefore is directed to write to the Secretary of State indicating the Councils concern on this issue and asking that reduction in the tariff rate be postponed.

 

(1)       Notes that at least 145 households in Oxford have installed solar power since the introduction of the Feed-in Tariffs scheme under the last Labour Government;

 

(2)       Believes that solar power gives families greater control over their energy bills and will help Oxford meet our renewable energy targets and reduce our carbon emissions;

 

(3)       Regrets the Government’s planned cuts to Feed-in Tariffs which put scores of solar industry jobs in the Oxford area at risk and exclude nearly nine out ten families in Oxford from installing solar power;

 

(4)       Further regrets the cuts to multi-installation tariffs, which will hit this Council, local housing associations and Oxford's low carbon community            groups and make solar power the reserve of a wealthy few;

 

(5)       Calls on the Coalition Government to rethink their devastating cuts to Feed-in Tariffs.

 

(11)     Cut to Feed-in Tariff – (Proposer – Councillor John Tanner,         seconded by Councillor Van Coulter)

 

Councillor David Williams declared a personal interest as he had recently installed solar panels at his property.

 

Councillor Elise Benjamin declared a personal interest as she had solar panels installed at her property.

 

            Council:

 

(1)       Notes that at least 145 households in Oxford have installed solar power since the introduction of the Feed-in Tariffs scheme under the last Labour Government;

 

(2)       Believes that solar power gives families greater control over their energy bills and will help Oxford meet our renewable energy targets and reduce our carbon emissions;

 

(3)       Regrets the Government’s planned cuts to Feed-in Tariffs which put scores of solar industry jobs in the Oxford area at     risk and exclude nearly nine out ten families in Oxford from installing solar power;

 

(4)       Further regrets the cuts to multi-installation tariffs, which will hit this Council, local housing associations and Oxford's low carbon community groups and make solar power the reserve of a wealthy few;

 

(5)       Calls on the Coalition Government to rethink their devastating cuts to Feed-in Tariffs.

 

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

 

(12)     Strike Action – (Proposer Councillor John Tanner, Seconded by Councillor Mike Rowley)

 

(1)       This Council believes that all employees, both private and public, should have decent pensions. Elderly people who have worked hard all their lives should not be forced into poverty in their declining years.

 

(2)       We regret the disruption caused to public services on 30^th November. But that day of action demonstrated just how valuable are the services provided by local government staff, teachers, National Health Service employees and other public sector workers.  We recognise that for local government employees, whose wages have been frozen, a cut in pension benefits is the last straw.

 

(3)       We applaud those dedicated public servants, including our own employees, who were prepared to lose a day’s pay in order to campaign for decent pensions and proper services for the public.

  

(4)       It is unreasonable to ask employees to pay more, work longer and get less when many public pension funds are already fully funded. The public sector has a responsibility to show others what it is to be good employers, to pay decent wages and provide proper pensions.

 

(5)       We call on the Coalition Government to

 

(a)       Negotiate just pension settlements with the public sector unions;

 

(b)       Support the local government employers in providing good pensions for local government workers;

 

(c)        Encourage private employers to provide pensions at least as good as the public sector.

 

Councillor David Williams submitted an amendment to delete words in section (5) and replace with the following words:

 

We call on the Government to:

 

(a)       To abandon the present round of negotiations designed to reduce public sector pensions initiated by the previous Labour Government.

 

(b)       To recognise that the recommendations to dramatically reduce public sector pensions by Lord Hutton previously the Labour Secretary of State    for Work and Pensions were flawed and that the level of public sector pensions (which are not high by European standards) can easily be sustained by the existing economy.

 

(c)        To acknowledge that the cuts in pension provision proposed firstly by Labour’s Alistair Darling and continued by the Liberal Democrat Danny Alexander will have a dramatic effect on local government services, secure pensions being an important motivational factor amongst the workforce.

 

(d)       To recognise that public sector pensions, low as they are, should in fact be a bench mark that the private sector should aspire to copy and that Government policy should be focused not at dramatically cutting public sector pensions as envisaged by the previous Labour Government but in increasing pension provision in the private sector.

 

Councillor John Tanner’s Motion on Notice was not considered, nor was Councillor David William’s amendment as the time allowed by the Constitution for Motions on Notice had lapsed.

 

(13)     Opposition to Right to Buy – (Proposer – Councillor David Rundle, seconded by Councillor Stuart McCready)

 

This Council notes the announcement at the Autumn's Conservative Party Conference of a renewal of the Thatcherite policy of Right to Buy (RTB) and its subsequent inclusion as a proposal in the Government's Housing Strategy.

This Council also notes the long-standing cross-party opposition to RTB with its impact of decreasing the social housing stock in our city which has a very real housing crisis.

This Council further notes the aspiration in the Government's Housing Strategy to offset the loss of social housing via RTB by provision of replacement dwellings, but not necessarily in the same part of the country. This Council does not accept that this provides sufficient safeguard against the damaging effects of RTB.

This Council therefore calls on the Chief Executive to ensure that there is a robust response to the consultation on this proposed policy, restating Oxford's reasoned opposition to RTB. That response should express opposition in principle to the policy and also underline the special situation of Oxford which would mean a return to RTB would make our city suffer more than most.

 

Councillor David Williams submitted an amendment as follows:

 

To delete the word “Government” where it appears and to replace with the words “Coalition Government”

 

To added an additional paragraph as follows:

 

Council Officers will investigate the option of establishing a Cooperative Trust to manage all out Council house stock as suggested by the Local Authority Cooperative Network and the Rochdale model if that will circumvent the RTB provisions to be announced by the Secretary of State and thereby retain a form of social housing in Oxford.

 

Councillor David Rundle’s Motion on Notice was not considered, nor was Councillor David William’s amendment as the time allowed by the Constitution for Motions on Notice had lapsed.

 

 (14)    Affordable Housing Provision – (Proposer – Councillor Van Coulter)

 

            Council notes that Britain is gripped by a growing housing crisis.

 

Whereas sixty thousand new affordable homes were planned, financed and started in the last six months of the Labour Government, only 454 affordable homes were started under the Tory led coalition government for the six months ending September 2011.

 

This is the consequence of the introduction by the coalition government of a radically different model for funding the building of new affordable homes. This model significantly reduced grants available – indeed, funding was slashed by sixty-three percent.

 

Our housing crisis is symptomatic of miserably inadequate policies from this out of touch government – policies that fail Britain and fail Oxford.

 

This Council condemns the coalition government for imposing policies that cause significant hardship for many and notes with concern that statutory homelessness increased by 10.3 percent in England, and by 17.1 percent in Oxford, within the year ending April 2011.

 

Councillor David Williams submitted an amendment as follows:

 

(1)       To add the following words after the word “crisis” in the first paragraph: “that has been developing over the last 20 years caused by a lack of real investment by this Coalition Government and the previous Labour Government”

 

(2)       To include a new fourth paragraph as follows: “Clearly developers are responding to the weakness of the economy by reducing the number of housing starts and therefore the number of affordable homes over the last twelve months. Given this fact Government should come to terms with the objective reality that following the previous Labour Governments philosophy of reliance on the private sector to deliver social housing will not work.”

 

(3)       To include a new fourth paragraph as follows: “Government ministers should recognise that what is needed is a direct building programme financed via Local Government and Housing Associations as the real way to provide the desperately needed social housing.”

 

(4)       To amend the existing fifth paragraph by deleting the words “out of touch government” and replace with the words “and the previous government”

 

(5)       To amend the final paragraph to delete all the words after the word “policies” and replace with the following words “such as reduction in Housing Benefit and reintroduction of massive discounts to the Right to Buy which will significantly increase hardship for a great many already increasing homelessness in Oxford by over 17% in one year.

 

Councillor Van Coulter’s Motion on Notice was not considered, nor was Councillor David William’s amendment as the time allowed by the Constitution for Motions on Notice had lapsed.