Public addresses and questions received in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11.10 and 11.11. The full text of any address or question must be received by the Head of Law and Governance by 5.00pm on Tuesday 28^th January 2014.

 

Full details of the addresses and questions submitted by the deadline will be provided separately prior to the meeting.

Addresses

 

(1)          Chaka Artwell – Oxford Voice

 

(2)          Alasdair de Voil – Concerning abuse/conflict of interest: Visit Oxfordshire

 

Councillor Colin Cook, Board Member, City Development responded to the address by stating that he understood that Mr de Voil had already raised these and similar matters in correspondence both directly with the City Council and through his Member of Parliament.  A written response will be sent to Mr de Voil on these matters in the near future.

 

(3)          Nigel Gibson – Why Oxford City Council could and should deliver the services the people of Oxford want and need

 

Councillor Mike Rowley, Board Member, Leisure Services provided the following response prior to the meeting:

 

The Council’s website contains detailed answers to these points which have already been provided to Mr Gibson.

 

http://www.oxford.gov.uk/PageRender/decLP/ConsultationonLeisureFacilities.htm

 

To assist members I have summarised a few key points:

 

The new pool costs are just over £9 million, not the stated £13 million. The £9 million figure is made up of the professional fees and constructions costs.

 

Temple Cowley Pools costs the council in excess of £500,000 per year.  The table shown in Mr Gibson’s address to council shows the estimated management fee but excludes utilities and repair and maintenance costs. Both these costs are very high at the two centres that are being replaced by the new pool at Blackbird Leys.

 

The management fee paid to Fusion Lifestyles is the combined net fee for all the centres. The ice rink and Ferry Centre generate a surplus which is then offset against the cost of the other centres, of which temple Cowley is by far the most costly.

 

Whist Fusion are responsible for maintenance at the newer centres, the council continues to be responsible for the maintenance costs at the older sites with higher risk of failure (Temple Cowley, Blackbird Leys Pool, the Ice Rink and Hinksey outdoor pool). This is because the cost of transferring that risk to Fusion Lifestyles is prohibitively high.

 

The £150,000 management fee for the new pool is inclusive of all utilities and maintenance costs.

 

The business case and feasibility study were developed with the support of Mace. Mace are an highly respected international consultancy and construction firm who have stood by their advice throughout intense scrutiny over recent years.

 

Questions

 

(1)          Question to the Board Member, City Development (Councillor Colin Cook) from Sietske Boeles

 

Oxford University Old Road Campus buildings

 

Recently Oxford University occupied two new bio medical research buildings at the Oxford University Old Road Campus. These are the Kennedy Institute for Rheumatology, and Research Facilities building for the Nuffield Orthopaedic Department.

 

Oxford University was permitted to move into the buildings despite not meeting the requirements of the Core Strategy Policy CS 25 

 

“That  no increase in academic floor space is allowed if there are more than 3,000 students outside of accommodation provided by the relevant University ”. (1)

 

Every year the Universities are required to submit figures where their students live to the Council.  These figures are then recorded in Oxford Annual Monitoring (AMR)

 

Attached are the figures for Oxford University since 2011:

Number of Oxford University students living in private accommodation whilst only 3000 students are permitted in private accommodation:

 

AMR 2011 (page 21/22): 3251*

AMR 2012 (page 23/24): 3401*

AMR 2013 (page 30/31): 3508**

 

The Question is:

 

Given the above figures why was Oxford University permitted to move into the new buildings on the Old Road Campus when it has not met the requirement of the CS 25, and given the above figures, will Oxford City Council enforce CS Policy 25 by not permitting Oxford University to occupy newly completed academic buildings like for example the Mathematical Institute until it has met the Policy requirements ?

 

* Please note that Oxford University states that it will meet its requirements the following year whilst it has not. .

 ** The Council cannot rely on the argument that the University say that it will reach the 3000 target the following year as the University has said this on previous occasions and this undertaking was subsequently not met. 

 

It was accepted by Oxford University that research facilities are regarded as academic floor space (letter by Colin George to oxford City Council, 8th July 2011

 

Response: Ms Boeles quotes from the October 2013 Annual Monitoring Report April 2012 - March 2013 which says that as at 31st March 2013 the University exceeded the 3,000 threshold by 508 students.
 
The Annual Monitoring Report is a snapshot and is based on information for the 2012-13 academic year provided to the City Council by the University in a letter received in August 2013, and from which the 2012-13 Annual Monitoring Report was compiled.
 
The Annual Monitoring Report itself went on to explain that although the target to have fewer than 3,000 students outside of university-provided accommodation was not met in the monitoring period, the University was expected to meet this requirement in the next monitoring period as a result of the additional units of accommodation under construction.
 
Through a footnote to her question to Council Ms Boeles casts doubt on the University’s ability to reach the 3,000 threshold because on previous occasions such an undertaking was subsequently not met.
 
However, in August last year the University anticipated completion of an extra 540 units by the start of Michaelmas Term 2013.  Indeed this has been achieved now and is made up of 45 units for Corpus Christi College, 25 for Kellogg College, 11 for Linacre College, 37 for Lincoln College, 54 for St Anthony's College, 59 for St Hilda's College, and 312 for the University itself at Roger Dudman Way. 
 
The current assessment is that there are fewer than 3,000 students living outside University of Oxford provided accommodation.

 

(2)          Question to the Board Member, City Development (Councillor Colin Cook) from Sarah Wild

 

Planning consultation methods

 

One of the recommendations following the investigation into what happened over Roger Dudman Way is that consultation methods between the council and members of the public should be improved.  This would mean that the public had optimal access to planning documents.

 

So why have the public been denied access to hard copy planning application documents, except for major developments, when the on-line version is unclear?

 

Response: Approximately 80% of all planning applications to the City Council are now submitted electronically.  The City Council no longer holds a paper copy of all planning applications in the reception area at St Aldate's Chambers ready to be viewed by the public.  It is Council policy to encourage customers to access Council information via its website as far as possible.
 
However, the City Council does not deny access to hard copies of planning application documents.  It has been, and remains, willing to make a hard copy of a planning application available on request in reception if a customer makes an appointment to come and view a particular application because the on-line copy is unavailable or unclear.
 
Furthermore, the City Council will be reviewing its post-application guidance on planning processes in response to one of the recommendations in the Independent Report on Roger Dudman Way.

 

Under Procedure Rule 11.11(f), Councillor Craig Simmons, seconded by Councillor Dick Wolff requested that the question be referred to the East Area Planning Committee for further consideration.  Council voted and agreed to refer the question to the West Area Planning Committee.

 

(3)          Question to the Board Member, City Development (Councillor Colin Cook) from Alasdair De Voil

 

Visit Oxfordshire

 

Since the city council has agreed to let Visit Oxfordshire Ltd deliver tourism information services on its behalf, can you please report back on what documentation exists to demonstrate Visit Oxfordshire’s remit and obligations to ensure that it delivers these services in a way which benefits local businesses and which is impartial. Please can you also report what steps exist to supervise this arrangement and to take action against Visit Oxfordshire Ltd, where it is not found to be delivering its remit appropriately?

 

Response: The City Council and Visit Oxfordshire Ltd entered into a co-operation agreement, with a commencement date of 1^st April 2011, under which the Tourist Information service, previously provided by the City Council, was combined with a tourist information service for the remainder of Oxfordshire.  Both elements of the combined service, from the commencement of the agreement, were placed under the single management control of Visit Oxfordshire Ltd.  The agreement has a term of 12 years.  As would be expected in an arrangement of this nature, the contract’s primary aim is to seek to ensure that the combined service is delivered in an efficient and effective way, which best meets the requirements of visitors to Oxford and Oxfordshire and other customers.  A number of key performance indicators were specified. Governance arrangements created by the contract ensure that the City Council is able to monitor the performance of Visit Oxfordshire Ltd. In the event that Visit Oxfordshire Ltd were to be in breach of contract, the City Council would have the right to seek appropriate contractual redress.

 

The Council has no legal obligation to provide a tourist information service.  I understand that previously the City Council, and now Visit Oxfordshire, derive some income from providing a booking facility for the Blue Badge Tours.  There is no legal obligation on Visit Oxfordshire to advertise the services of competing tours in the same way there is no legal requirement on the City Council to advertise the services of other local suppliers of the discretionary services we provide, e.g. pest control and commercial waste collection etc.   If Mr de Voil thinks that he is not getting a good deal from his membership of Visit Oxfordshire, then the remedy is entirely in his own hands.