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 than 9.30am on Friday 8 July 2011.

 

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

(a)       Questions notified in time for replies to be provided in writing for Council

 

1.         Question to the Board Member, City Development (Councillor Colin Cook) from Councillor Nuala Young

 

                        West Barton Development

 

“Where did the advice that the Barton West Development could not go ahead without a reduction to 40% social housing and lower energy limits come from? Who gave this ‘professional’ advice to the Council….or was it suggested by Councillors?

 

Could the portfolio holder explain what is the point of having a policy in the Core Strategy that generally upholds a 50% level of affordable housing when it is proposed that the largest development proposed in that strategy at Barton will not conform to that requirement?”

 

Answer: The Council sought advice from external professional property consultants, who advised that a scheme would not be viable with the delivery of 50% affordable housing, particularly having regard to the significant infrastructure costs associated, and the Council’s desire to maintain the provision of social rented accommodation. There is no suggestion that “lower energy limits” are being proposed.
 
The Council’s planning policies require a minimum of 50% of the proposed dwellings in any development to be affordable units, with 80% of that requirement being social rented and 20% shared ownership.  The current policies provide that if a developer can very clearly evidence that a development is not viable at that level, then there is an opportunity to negotiate the social housing provision down to a level that makes the development viable.

 

2.         Question to the Board Member, Housing Needs (Councillor Joe McManners) from Councillor Nuala Young

 

                        No.16 Tawney Street

 

“Is the portfolio holder aware that the Council was proposing to sell off 16 Tawney Street, a Council owned property, because they suggest it would cost too much to modernise.  However this property had a substantial modernisation of the kitchen and bathroom done by a previous tenant and the reason given would seem spurious.  

 

Could the portfolio holder provide figures to indicate how many other Council properties have been sold off over the last ten years using this criteria of ‘costing too much to modernise’.

 

Would the portfolio holder agree that it seems strange that developers seem able to find the money to improve these properties and sell them for a large profit but the Council seem unable to do the same.

 

Could the portfolio holder at least give an assurance that all the properties under this category are offered on the open market and that a variety of developers come forward to purchase the properties?”

 

Answer: This matter was reported to the City Executive Board on 20^th May 2009. The property was sold under Right to Buy Legislation 1978 and subsequently repurchased in 1985. During this sole period the previous owner built single storey extension to the rear which housed the kitchen and bathroom. Consultants at that time recommended that the extension needed rebuilding due to poor mortar joints in the brickwork and foundation problems. There were also works needed to meet the decent homes standards. At that time the cost estimate of the work was £50,000 for works to the extension etc plus approximately £13,000 to bring the property up to Decent Homes standard. Various options had been considered, but given the level of anticipated expenditure, a decision had been made to dispose of the property on the open the market.

 

All surplus property was offered for sale on the open market, and attracted a variety of purchasers. 

 

It may be that the Councillor was unaware that assets from the sale of such properties were reinvested in improving the quality of the Council's housing stock, meeting the Decent Homes standard and going beyond it. 

 

It is not surprising that investors have greater capital than Oxford City Council to undertake these works, since, if the property is subsequently rented out on the open market, the rent which can be charged is far higher.  Of course, an alternative strategy would be for the Council to increase rents for such properties to 80% of the market level through the "affordable rent" process, and forego the receipt.  This would mean less investment in our existing stock, and it would not provide the sort of affordable housing the administration believes is needed.  However, we would welcome serious contributions which recognise the realities of the HRA financial position.   We note that the Green Group has declined to propose costed amendments to the HRA budget in recent years, and has confined its interventions to complaints about the implementation of the budget, but perhaps this will change.

 

The Council does not retain the requested information on historic sales in a readily accessible form.

 

3.         Question to the Board Member, Cleaner, Greener Oxford (Councillor John Tanner) from Councillor Matt Morton

 

                        Response to the Energy Conservation Act

 

“DCLG has repealed the Home Energy Conservation Act and in its place wants "all local authorities to play a role in the successful implementation of the Green Deal, whether as Green Deal providers in their own right, in forming partnerships with providers in their areas or  in encouraging take up across communities" (March 2011).

 

Having earlier this year cut its external energy efficiency budget, how is the Council going to meet its Green Deal commitments?”

 

Answer: If and when the Coalition Government finally decides the details of its scheme we will be very pleased to get involved. Meanwhile and in any case we are working with our partners in Low Carbon Oxford to take this idea forward. It is vital that we find ways to invest in energy saving and  renewable energy for Oxford's homes, both to help people cope with rising fuel prices and to help reduce the City's carbon footprint.

 

4.         Question to the Board Member, Cleaner, Greener Oxford (Councillor John Tanner) from Councillor David Williams

           

                        Bonn incinerator

 

“No doubt the portfolio holder will be delighted to know that on a recent visit to Bonn our twin town in Germany I learnt that they are about to close down their incinerator built 19 years ago burning local waste materials and to convert it to a gas fired power station.

 

Would he agree that the move vindicates the recommendation in the so called ‘Bonn Report ‘on Waste Management and Recycling that burning waste was not a solution to waste management  problems and that if  Oxfordshire County Council went ahead with their controversial local incinerator it would very quickly become a redundant white elephant?”

 

Answer: Yes I'm pleased to hear about developments in Bonn. The Viridor incinerator at Ardley, commissioned by the County Council, will make Oxfordshire a rubbish dump for the rest of the country. Oxford City Council is completely opposed to the incineration of waste as a method of diverting waste from landfill. 

 

Councillor Williams in a supplementary question asked if the portfolio holder would make late representation to the County Council on the incinerator.  Both himself and Councillor Fooks had been taken to see an incinerator on a previous visit to Bonn and were informed that the facility was to be turned into a gas fired power station as the incinerator had become a ‘white elephant’, and that if the decision had been taken today, it would not have been built.

 

In response Councillor Tanner said that he would be happy to make representations and that it had been a bad day for Oxfordshire as the High Court had now given the incinerator the go ahead.  He added that the incinerator would be a blot on the landscape and, in order to fulfil its capacity would have to draw in waste from outside the boundaries of Oxfordshire.  He further added that this was a last century solution to a 21^st century problem and that because the City Council was part of the Waste Partnership it would have to send its mixed waste to this facility.

 

5.         Question to the Board Member, Cleaner, Greener Oxford (Councillor John Tanner) from Councillor Clark Brundin

 

                        Garden waste collection

 

“Would the Portfolio Holder please provide the following information:

 

(1)       The number of households having garden waste collected under the old arrangements with green Hessian bags (or estimate, if accurate figure is not available);

 

(2)       The number of households paying for the new brown wheelie bin service;

 

(3)       The number of households paying for the non-reusable sacks?”

 

Answer:

 

(a)       Of 58,000 properties in Oxford about 40,000 are houses and each was issued with at least one hessian sack for garden waste. About 30,000 households used these sacks for garden clippings at least once a year. 

 

(b)       brown wheelie bins issued: 7127 paid for plus 2106 free = 9,233

 

(c)        paper sack sets issued: 566 paid for plus 2 free = Total  568

 

A total of 9,801 households are participating in the new garden waste scheme, which is a remarkable success.

 

Councillor Brundin in a supplementary question said that the take-up was less than a third and asked if the new scheme with such a small take-up was actually viable.

 

In response Councillor Tanner said that he deplored the introduction of charges on any services, but the council had been forced into this through the spending cuts.  He said that there seemed to be a misunderstanding of the £35 charge.  The saving was the withdrawal of the present collection lorry.  The new system had a lorry which only went to the properties which had subscribed to a brown bin, thus making the service quicker.

 

6.         Question to the Deputy Leader of the Council (Councillor Ed Turner) from Councillor Nuala Young

 

                        St. Clements Car Park

 

“Could the Portfolio Holder confirm that the former Blue Boar Street Offices of the Council have been sold for many millions of pounds to an Evangelical Christian Community.

 

Given the fact that the local authority has received such large scale capital could he confirm that there is more to come with the sale of other properties and that as a consequence the need to make money from St. Clements Car Park project has dissolved?”

 

Councillor Beverley Hazell declared a personal interest as she was employed by the organisation which had recently purchased the Blue Boar Street offices from the Council.

 

Answer: It is confirmed that the property was recently sold to the Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship, and the International Fellowship of Evangelical Students as joint purchasers. The purchase price was £3.255m.

           

There are a number of sources of capital financing, including capital receipts, prudential borrowing and direct revenue funding. Our proposed capital programme for 11/12 is GF £23.8m and HRA  £11.2 the current programme allows for funding of £8.7m on GF and £2.6 on HRA in 11/12 from prudential borrowing which has a direct revenue impact, so we will wish to minimise this. Capital receipts will reduce the need for prudential borrowing and hence the financial pressure on General Fund revenue.

 

7.         Question to the Deputy Leader of the Council (Councillor Ed Turner) Councillor David Williams

 

                        Hoarding money

 

“Could the Portfolio holder confirm that Council reserves are now well in excess of £5.2million and that despite the crocodile tears he knew in February that we would be in this position of having bloated balances?”

 

Answer: The Council’s General Fund working balance is in line with the Medium Term Financial Strategy presented to and agreed by Council in February 2011.  The councillor will recall that the administration presented four-year budget proposals, and that balances reduce steadily over that period.  It is not helpful to look at just the first year in abstract.  I would also remind the councillor that we are losing close to a quarter of our central government grant in the first year alone, and that unfounded suggestions of ‘hoarding money’ risk detracting from the scale of central government’s attack upon public services in Oxford, and in particular upon local government.  The truth is that these government funding cuts have been hard for the Council to bear and have necessitated significant sacrifices on the part of our workforce and the people of Oxford.

 

As at the 31^st March 2011 the General Fund working balance (subject to audit) stands at £4.4m as per the budget plan.  The budget approved by Council for 2011-12 provides for a further £0.8m to be transferred into balances in year.  Hence the balance at the 31^st March 2012 is projected to be £5.2m.  Over the subsequent 3 years of the Medium Term Financial Strategy (2013-15) the General Fund working balance is budgeted to reduce to £3.7m. 

 

There is an underlying pressure of £0.6m in subsequent years which if not addressed will erode the General Fund working balance further.

 

The Council’s earmarked reserves, (those held for specific purposes and including the Insurance Fund) increased by £1m in 2010/11.  This is predominantly a consequence of a windfall VAT reimbursement of about £800k and an underspend on the 2010/11 budget.  An earmarked reserve to support capital expenditure has therefore been created, which reduces the scale of borrowing to fund the capital programme. 

 

All reserves held will be reviewed as part of the annual refresh of the Medium Term Financial Strategy which will take place in the autumn.

 

Councillor Williams in a supplementary question said that the Council should not be in a position of having bloated reserves of £5.2m and asked the Portfolio Holder for a commitment that there would not be a spending spree in Labour controlled Wards prior to the 2012 local elections.

 

In response Councillor Turner said that a four year budget had been set and within this there were inbuilt pressures in each of the years, otherwise the Council would have to make all of the cuts in one go.  These reserves would be drawn down over the coming four years and in year four, the level of reserves would be at the minimum level required.  He further added that the Administration would not be allowed to go on a “spending spree”.

 

8.         Question to the Board Member, Finance and Efficiency (Councillor Ed Turner) from Councillor David Williams

 

                        Partners who go bankrupt

 

“Could the Portfolio Holder list the names and the number of partners and contractors (such as Capital Shopping and ISIS) who have gone into liquidation or simply withdrawn from the ‘partnership’ during their relationship with the City Council over the last 10 years.

 

As Labour have been in control for the bulk of that time could the Portfolio holder explain why this authority has such a poor track record when it comes to evaluating potential partners and contractors? Would the portfolio holder agree this stream of partner contractors going into liquidation or pulling out is a symptom usually associated with local government in the third world?” 

                                   

Answer: The Council does not specifically retain the type of information requested in the first question. I find the final question rather tasteless and am surprised that the councillor is so unaware of the impact of the recession upon the UK’s construction sector. 

 

However, over the past 12 months two construction companies engaged on capital schemes have gone into administration, they are: Rok and Isis Projects Limited. The Council has reviewed its procedures as a consequence.  It should be noted however, that due to the slow economic recovery market conditions remain difficult and in procurements for contracts covering several months or years it is impossible to guarantee that the contractor will remain financially robust throughout the period. 

 

The position with Capital Shopping Centres is entirely different and a consequence of the company opting to assign its leasehold interest to Crown Estate. Capital Shopping Centres cited a change in their business model as the principal reason for their withdrawal.  As a result, the Council novated the benefit of the development agreement to Crown Estate. Crown Estate have subsequently entered into a 50:50 joint venture with Land Securities; this matter is amply set out in papers of the Council’s City Executive Board, and I am very happy to investigate if the councillor has not received them.

 

Councillor Williams in a supplementary question asked if the portfolio holder would agree that the response did not actually answer the question.  He asked for actual facts and figures on how much these failures had cost the Council and the rate of failures.

 

In response Councillor Turner said that the Council’s Procurement Team had undertaken outstanding work on reducing costs to the Council.  He added with regard to the Westgate Centre, that many shopping centre schemes had not gone ahead because of the recession and Capital Shopping Centres had not gone bankrupt. 

 

9.         Question to the Board Member, Finance and Efficiency (Councillor Ed Turner) from Councillor Jean Fooks

 

Customer Services Area – Inspection of Planning Applications

 

“Accepting that the intention in the new Customer Services area is to restrict public access to planning applications to looking at plans on screens, will there be enough space in the new offices for planning officers, building control officers and sometimes the public to look at large plans when necessary?

 

Answer:The new Customer Service Centre will have a separate large table to enable the public to look at large plans.  In addition, there would be six interview rooms that also have tables that could be utilised.  One of these rooms is particularly large (fifteen square metres).  This room will also have a large television screen that will be available to view large plans, and there will be a bank of six self service computers, three of which will have twenty two inch screens available to view plans. Finally, there is display space designed into the Customer Service Centre so that planning models can be viewed.

 

Councillor Fooks in a supplementary question asked if a large space not just for the public, but for officers as well, be provided as a screen would not be enough.

 

In response Councillor Cook said that this would be the case.

 

10.       Question to the Board Member, Finance and Efficiency (Councillor Ed Turner) from Councillor Jean Fooks

 

                        Review of new Customer Services Area

 

Can the Board member assure Council that the new Customer Services area will be monitored after six months to see what changes , if any, are needed to the layout and public access to planning applications?”

 

Answer: The service provided by the Customer Service Centre will be constantly monitored, from customer and officer feedback.  We shall be implementing a system where customer feedback is provided at the point of service delivery, customers being able to record their experience at a kiosk in the Customer Service Centre.  Internal reviews will be performed after two weeks, eight weeks and three months. The Customer Service Centre is designed to be flexible, within the limits of the space available in the building.

 

11.       Question to the Leader of the Council (Councillor Bob Price) from Councillor Matt Morton

 

                        Cowley Road Carnival

 

Would the Portfolio holder join with me in expressing our disappointment that the Cowley Road Carnival will not be held on Cowley Road again this year?

 

`Would he acknowledge that the primary reason why the carnival has retreated to South Park to stage what in effect is the old Fun in the Park Festival of yesteryear is lack of money.  This being the case would he agree that there is a strong case for a much larger central donation of funds from the City Council especially as the perennial funder, the East Area Parliament has been abolished?”

 

Answer: The character of the Carnival is clearly affected by its location. Sunday’s event was seen as a great success by the organisers from Cowley Road Works both in the quality of the entertainment and the level of community participation in the parade. It also covered its costs of about £75k. In recent years, the bulk of the funding for the Carnival was supplied by the City and County Councils from corporate budget heads, but in the wake of the savage reductions in grant income from the Tory/Lib Dem coalition, these budget heads are no longer available. The City Events team is now funded only for the two major civic occasions; Xmas Light Night and the Lord Mayor’s parade/picnic. In 2012, a specific additional allocation has been made for the Olympic Torch Relay and associated evening event.

 

The Carnival Trustees are considering the scope for attracting additional funding from local businesses and community groups for future years with the support of Saira Khan and we are in close touch with them in support of these initiatives.

 

There was also a special allocation for May Day and this will be incorporated as a core event.

 

Councillor Morton in a supplementary question said that organisations etc. had regretted that the Carnival had not been in Cowley Road, but it was still a wonderful event.  He asked if the Portfolio Holder could suggest a form of organisation that could organise the event in a way that the local community wanted and importantly access funding for example from European Union funds.

 

In response Councillor Price said he too would like to see the Carnival back in Cowley Road and even though the event was not organised by the City Council Events Team, the Team did provide advice to the organisers.  He added that there was an issue of funding and he was disappointed at the lack of support from local businesses, but hoped that this funding would increase in future years.  He further added that  for the 2012 Carnival the City Council Events Team may be able again provide advice not just on the organisation, but also on ways of identifying and bidding for national funding.

 

Councilor Price acknowledged the support of BMW Mini for the 2011 Carnival as they had stepped in at the last minute, when it looked like the Carnival would not take place.  He also said that with the 2012 London Olympic torch Relay coming to Oxford it may be possible to link the two events.

 

12.       Question to the Leader of the Council (Councillor Bob Price) Councillor David Williams

 

                        A Humiliating Grace at the University of Oxford

 

“Would the Leader of the Council join with me in congratulating the Dons at the University of Oxford in making history by passing a motion of no confidence in the Universities Minister David Willets during a debate on the National Coalition Government’s Higher Education policies?

 

Would he agree that if Labour had won the election judging by comments from Peter Mandelson the Universities Minister until 2010 the same grace would have been passed on a Labour Minister for they would have followed exactly the same policies?”

 

Answer: I doubt that Mr Willetts will regard the motion passed by Congregation as a humiliation since the Coalition’s policy for higher education is explicitly intended to remove government funding from teaching and to reduce support for research in order to stimulate private institutions which provide lower quality instrumentalised forms of post secondary education. The Coalition’s policies are designed to reduce the proportion of GDP spent on higher education to well below the OECD average, in contrast to the last Labour Government which consistently restored the unit of resource and raised the level of participation to around 45% of the age cohort. A re-elected Labour Government would have maintained those policies.

 

Councillor Williams in a supplementary question asked if the Portfolio Holder would agree that the last line of his response was highly dubious.

 

In response Councillor Price said that he did not and that while there may have been changes to the funding regime, there had not been changes to the voucher scheme, nor would they (the previous Labour Government) have gone for a set number of places at a set fee.

 

13.       Question to the Leader of the Council (Councillor Bob Price) from Councillor Nuala Young

 

                        Harwell Radiation Monitoring and Fukushima

           

“Is the portfolio holder aware that the Harwell Atomic Research Centre monitoring in Oxfordshire picked up an  increased level of airborne background radiation 5 days after the nuclear meltdown at the  Japanese Fukushima nuclear plant on 11^th March 2011 ?

 

Is the portfolio holder concerned at the global impact of this meltdown, confirmed now by the Japanese authorities as the worst nuclear accident ever to have taken place and the fact that the plant continues to emit airborne radiation eventually finding its way to Oxford and all other cities across the world?

 

Would he agree that the Fukushima meltdown is more evidence that a new generation of nuclear power stations is not a wise investment and that the UK should be taking the road of the German Government of an end to nuclear and large scale investment in cheap and safe renewable energy sources ?  

 

Would the Leader of the Council seek to contact Harwell Monitoring Centre to establish clearly the level and nature of the radiation threat to Oxford and if the present increased levels have been sustained?”

 

Answer: The Health Protection Agency has confirmed that the levels of background radiation detected locally after the Fukushima incident did not constitute a material risk.

 

Trace levels of iodine 131 ranged from 80-94 micro becquerels per cubic metre/minute, caesium 134 from 38-46mbs and caesium 137 from 38-42 mbs. Tellerium 132 was not detectable.

 

The evidence that can be drawn from Fukushima incident on the safety and resilience of nuclear power plants is two-fold: a) it is unwise to construct such plants immediately above a known major earthquake fault line; and b) even in such a hazardous location, the more modern Fukushima Daini plant, that is located immediately adjacent to the damaged Fukushima Daiichi plant and was affected by the same earth tremor and same tsunami wave, went into emergency cold shutdown and survived.

 

As George Monbiot expressed it in an article last week, ‘using a plant built 40 years ago to argue against 21^st century power stations is like using the Hindenburg disaster to contend that modern air travel is unsafe’. And it remains the case that France has generated 80% plus of its electricity from nuclear power for the past 30 years without incident.

 

If one starts from the premise that the greatest threat facing humanity at present is the acceleration of global warning, the reaction of the German government can only be seen as a disaster, pushing , as it eventually will, an extra 40 million tonnes of CO2 a year into the atmosphere. A rational response to the Fukushima incident, as to the earlier Chernobyl and Three Mile Island cases, is to increase the pace of technical innovation in fourth generation systems that will run on the waste produced by current technologies, to increase the risk based design requirements for new nuclear stations and, of course, to increase investment in renewables.

 

14.       Question to the Leader of the Council (Councillor Bob Price) from Councillor David Williams

 

                        Oxford votes yes for electoral reform

 

“Would the Portfolio holder join with the Green Party in congratulating the people of Oxford in voting YES in the recent referendum on electoral reform and would he agree that although the vote was lost nationally this is not the end of the debate related to making our voting system more proportional and democratic.

 

Could he confirm that divisions amongst Labour Party leading figures and poor leadership was the primary cause of the failure of the national referendum to endorse electoral reform and that when it matters the majority of Labour MPs put their own security of tenure before democracy?”

 

Answer: The result of the referendum on the Alternative Vote system was primarily a consequence of the massive unpopularity of the Liberal Democrat Party after a year of their coalition partnership with the most right wing government that the UK has ever experienced. A system which that party championed, and which was seen as potentially benefiting a group of politicians who were perceived to have systematically reneged on their principles and key policy pledges was not likely to recommend itself to the UK electorate. Neither did it recommend itself to the many people who would wish to see a proportional representation system, since they would agree with Mr Clegg that it was a ‘miserable compromise’.

 

Councillor Williams in a supplementary question asked if the Portfolio Holder would agree that the feeling for democracy in Oxford was rejuvenated by the AV Campaign and that the desire for democracy was strong and this would be shown at the next elections.

 

In response Councillor Price said no.

 

15.       Question to the Leader of the Council (Councillor Bob Price) from Councillor Dick Wolff

 

                        The No.4 Bus

           

“Was the City consulted about the re-routing of buses such as the no 4?  Does he agree with the decision to cut off thousands of people in the west of the City from the rail station and the east of the City? Will the Leader be writing to the Oxford bus companies about this and the numerous other reductions in services that are being announced alongside the welcome news of the cross ticketing?”

 

Answer: No; the bus companies keep the City Council well informed about their decision but do not consult us even informally on routing decisions.

 

I will happily raise these points with the companies and with the County Council which is the transport authority for the City.

 

(b)       Questions notified by the deadline in the Constitution (replies given orally at Council)

 

                        16.       Question to the Board Member, City Development

(Councillor Colin Cook) from Councillor Jean Fooks

 

                                    Planning Policy CP15, Energy Efficiency

 

“Can the Board Member confirm that Policy CP15, Energy Efficiency, in the Local Plan 2001-2016 does still apply to development in Oxford?  Could he explain why the provisions in this policy i.e. developments will be assessed against the following criteria:

 

(a)       The use of appropriate materials, siting, form, orientation and layout of buildings to maximise the benefits of passive solar (or natural) heating, cooling, lighting and natural ventilation:

 

(b)       The use of soft landscaping, including tree planting, to increase summer shading and reduce heat loss in winter; and

 

(c)        The use of energy efficient, renewable-energy technology, whether new or traditional, for heating, cooling, power and lighting.

 

do not appear to be followed in the way planning applications are being assessed at present?  Why are none of these criteria regularly mentioned in the reports to Planning Committees?”

 

Response: No.  Local Plan policy CP15 has been superseded by Core Strategy Policy CS9"

 

Councillor Fooks in a supplementary question asked why the Council was reneging.  In response Councillor Cook said, firstly it is worth highlighting that carbon emissions are already being reduced through the progressive tightening of the Building Regulations. The current administration is committed to Zero Carbon buildings and has confirmed that they will be continuing to strengthen Part L of the Building Regulations. Zero Carbon for residential buildings will become the industry standard by 2016, and for non-residential buildings by 2019.

 

Policy CS.15 of the Oxford Local Plan has now been replaced by Core Strategy Policy CS9. This is an important policy and reducing the impacts of climate change is a key plank of the Core Strategy. Policy CS9 is in two distinct parts. The second part maintains a continued support for the NRIA which applies to all qualifying developments and has been a successful tool for mitigating climate change. Qualifying developments comprise of 10 or more residential units or non-residential developments of 2,000m² and over, or a pro-rata combination of the two. The headline from the NRIA is the 20% renewable energy which is provided on-site.

 

The first part of Policy CS9 states that “All developments should seek to minimise their carbon emissions”. This is a policy which encourages and supports the minimisation of carbon emissions as part of development proposals. The policy continues “Proposals for development are expected to demonstrate how sustainable design and construction methods will be incorporated”. Again, this encourages inclusion of energy efficiency measures through design, layout orientation, landscaping and use of materials, although they are not all necessarily directly applicable in all planning proposals and as such there is no specific requirements to be referred to in every report. Indeed details of some of these elements of the proposal are required by conditions on the planning permission. Where relevant, one or more of these criteria are some of the material considerations that are weighed in the balance and officers use them in assessing planning proposals. I shall ask officers to consider making reference to them in committee reports, where directly relevant and appropriate.

 

17.       Question to the Board Member, Leisure Services (Councillor Van Coulter) from Councillor Dick Wolff

 

                                    QUEST Assessments and the SALIX Funds

 

“Blackbird Leys Leisure Centre, Ferry Leisure Centre, Hinksey Outdoor Pool and Oxford Ice Rink will be completing QUEST assessments in the 2011/12 operational year.  Why has City Leisure not submitted Temple Cowley Pools for this assessment?

 

Could the Portfolio Holder also indicate why Temple Cowley Pools were not entered for SALIX funded energy efficiency projects as other leisure centres seem to have been.

 

In addition could the Portfolio Holder give an assurance that this was not part of some devious plan to make Temple Cowley look inefficient in terms of its energy usage compared with other sites and thereby create another justification to push ahead with Labour’s massive waste of ratepayers money in building a new pool at Blackbird Leys and closing Temple Cowley”?

 

Response: We are committed to continually improving the service standards across all our leisure centres and with our partner Fusion Lifestyle have made marked improvements in this area.

 

We are due to receive a report at the City Executive Board on the 21^st of July on the proposed competition standard pool at Blackbird Leys Leisure Centre which in turn would result in the closure of Temple Cowley Pools. As such it would not be the best use of resources to put Temple Cowley Pools through a quality audit.

 

SALIX energy funding is in essence a loan where the monies are paid back from the savings generated .  While we have previously made several adaptations to Temple Cowley to improve its energy efficiency the potential closure means that SALIX would only be used if opportunities with a very short pay back were identified.

 

Councillor Wolff in a supplementary question asked what opportunities had been considered for a quick and immediate payback.

 

In response Councillor Coulter said that it was a simple economic proposition.  Various options were considered and the payback would not work.  He expected that a report would be submitted to the City Executive Board on 21 July 2011.

 

18.       Question to the Board Member, Leisure Services (Councillor Van Coulter) from Graham Jones

 

                                    Competition Pool canvassing

 

“Will the Portfolio Holder please detail the canvassing of opinion by individual Councillors about the proposals to build a competition pool at Blackbird Leys and to close Temple Cowley Pool, which were referred to on the report to the City Executive Board on 22 June?  Will he also say what additional canvassing of opinion he has personally conducted since 22June and what were the results in terms of those for, against, and undecided about the respective proposals?”

 

Response: Councillors canvassed people across Oxford and that these discussions were within a Councillor/constituent relationship which would require the consent of the constituent in order to answer the question.

 

Councillor Jones in a supplementary question asked if the Portfolio Holder would accept his thanks for his very diligent fact finding and if he could provide some information, informally he would be grateful.  In response Councillor Coulter agreed to speak with Councillor Jones informally.

 

19.       Question to the Board Member, Cleaner, Greener Oxford (Councillor John Tanner) from Councillor Matt Morton

 

                                    Oxford Brookes First for Green Policies

 

“Would the Portfolio Holder join with me in congratulating Oxford Brookes University in their national ranking with a first for their Green Policies?  Would he agree that this top ranking is a model that other universities and colleges in the City should seek to emulate.  Would he give a commitment to write to the Pro Vice Chancellor of Brookes to congratulate her on the University’s first class award for Green Standards?”

 

Response: Councilor Tanner congratulated Oxford Brookes University, which was one of our partners on its award for green standards.

 

20.       Question to the Board Member, Cleaner, Greener Oxford (Councillor John Tanner) from Councillor Dick Wolff

 

                                    Cancellation of Single Member Decision Making event

 

“Can the Portfolio Holder explain why his Single Member Decision making meeting scheduled for 16^th June was cancelled with only 2 hours notice?”                                 

 

Response: Councillor Tanner said that the reality was that the meeting was not cancelled, indeed it met and a member of the public was there.  It was important that meetings were publicised, more so than the City Executive Board.  The actual meeting which was cancelled was the meeting concerning the Board Member for City Development, as there was no decision to make.  Dates for Single Member Decision Meetings were placed in the meetings calendar on the assumption that there would be decision to make.  However as these dates are set in advance, sometimes there are no decisions that need to be taken and the meeting was cancelled.  The meeting which was cancelled was done so with more than five working days notice and not the 2 hours as stated in the question.

 

21.       Question to the Board Member, Finance and Efficiency (Councillor Ed Turner) from Councillor David Williams

 

                                    Standingford House Small Business Centre

 

“What is the occupancy rate of the Standingford House Small Business Centre?”

 

                                    Response: The property comprises 18 units situated                            over two floors of which 11 (61%) are currently let. 4                          lettings are in progress/under offer which officers are                                     reasonably confident will complete. This will then give an                        occupancy of some 83%."

 

22.       Question to the to the Leader of the Council (Councillor Bob Price) from Councillor Matt Morton

 

                                    Blackbird Leys Pool the ‘Preferred Option’?

 

“The Portfolio Holder is on record as saying that the building of a new super pool at Blackbird Leys has been identified by previous studies as the ‘preferred option’.  Could he confirm that the only report that comes to such conclusion was the 2009 report written by Ian Brooke, Head of Leisure and therefore not independent.

 

Would the Leader of the Council give an undertaking that the whole decision regarding the building of a new pool at Blackbird Leys will be investigated by a truly independent board and the social cost of taking out of commission Temple Cowley Pool be an integral part of that investigate?”.

 

            Response: Councillor Price informed Council of the various stages and reports:

 

                                    (i)         Deloitte report commissioned in 2001

                                    (ii)        KPMG report commissioned in October 2006

                                    (iii)       MACE report presented in August 2010

(iv)       Sport England and Oxford Sports Partnership also involved in the process

 

Councillor Morton in a supplementary question asked if a further independent report be requested as he had concerns on the independence of the MACE report as he felt it had not been as impartial as it should have been.  In response Councillor Price restated that the MACE report was an independent report.

 

23.       Question to the Leader of the Council (Councillor Bob Price) from Councillor Dick Wolff

 

Council website and Area Forums

 

Now that Labour have abolished a layer of local democracy with the Area Committees, why is it that some Area Forums seem to get a great deal more publicity than others on the Council website?  Why for example does the Cowley Area Forum seem to have so much more coverage that the others? Could the Leader of the Council deny the rumour that the lover levels of publicity given to the East and North areas may be as a result of these areas having the good sense not to return Labour Councillors?”.

 

Response: Councillor Price said he had spoken with the Communities and Neighbourhoods Manager who informed him that all Forums would have a press release a week before each took place.  The issue raised in the question, was due to press releases being issued at different times by the Team Leaders.  However the Council’s website did carry the dates of each Forum.

 

24.       Question to the Leader of the Council (Councillor Bob Price) from Councillor David Williams

 

                                    Parking meters in very small car parks

 

“Clearly the Council must establish parking meters on a minor car parks which are being used as mini park and rides by commuter, but does the Leader of the Council agree that establishing meters on very small car parks that are obviously related to local parks may be a barrier to people from all over the city enjoying these facilities, Cutteslowe Park being a prime example?”.

 

Response: Councillor Price said that this had been looked at as part of the budget process and there was a difference between car parks.  A great deal of comments had been received during the consultation and these would be analysed and a report submitted in due course.