Agenda and minutes

The Reverend Paul Smith led the Council in prayer. 

To receive apologies for absence.

Councillors Samantha Bowring, Andrew Crawford, Bill Melotti, John Morgan, Zoe Patrick, Alison Thomson and Chris Wise had all sent their apologies for absence. 

To adopt and sign as a correct record the council minutes of the two meetings held on 8 December 2010 (previously published). 

RESOLVED: To adopt the Council minutes of the two meetings held on 8 December 2010 and agree that the chair signs them. 

To receive any declarations of personal or personal and prejudicial interests in respect of items on the agenda for this meeting.   

Councillors made the following declarations of interests:

To receive notification of any matters which the chair determines should be considered as urgent business and the special circumstances which have made the matters urgent, and to receive any announcements from the chair.

(1)       Chair’s Announcements

(i)                 The chair reminded everyone of the evacuation procedure. 

(ii)               The chair asked everyone to switch off their mobile telephones during the meeting. 

(iii)             She reminded the public not to interrupt the meeting. 

(iv)       The chair invited all councillors to a reception to celebrate the end of the council’s four-year term. 

(v)        The chair presented Councillor Jenny Hannaby, the portfolio holder for commercial services, with an award that the council had received for its waste recycling service. 

(2)       Urgent Business

None

Any statements, petitions and questions from the public under standing order 32 will be made or presented at the meeting.

Three members of the public made statements to the Council.

(1)               Dr Les Clyne made a statement about the proposed transfer of the Guildhall to Abingdon Town Council.  The Council was about to decide on the capital expenditure of £1.2 million in relation to the transfer of the Guildhall to Abingdon Town Council.  He considered that the town council was financially irresponsible and could not manage projects, especially large ones.  It had increased its council tax by 24 per cent in the current year and was going to spend around half a million pounds of its money on the museum this year.  The ongoing revenue cost of the museum after the development would jump from £120,000 to almost £180,000 a year.  It was unable to spend its budget on enhancing and maintaining its children’s play areas last year.  He urged the council to develop the Guildhall as a Vale asset rather than transferring it to an organisation, which because of its size, lack of expertise in managing or overseeing large projects, and financial laxity, was not up to the job of managing the building and associated services. 

(2)               Abingdon Town Councillor Lesley Legge made a statement about the proposed transfer of the Guildhall to Abingdon Town Council.  The Guildhall complex included the old buildings around Roysse Court and the Bear Room, the Council Chamber and the Abbey Room, as well as the 1960s/1970s part, which housed the Abbey Hall.  She thanked the staff from the district and town councils who had found a fair means of devolving this complex to the town council and ensuring that it remained open for the people of Abingdon and the wider community.  This was a good example of the current move to devolve power nearer to the community as the Localism Bill intended.

The Guildhall complex was an Abingdon Borough Council building until 1974.  The town's wonderful treasures had remained in the Roysse Room and the old Mayor's Parlour, as had the interesting paintings in the Council Chamber and on many of the walls of the original building.  These treasures and paintings had always been under the care and responsibility of the town council.  The town council had catalogued, insured, and cared for these treasures since 1974. 

The town council was planning to set up a trust to run the facility; with £0.2 million of the capital funding to undertake a short-term refurbishment and work - mainly to the newer part of the building - and to market the refurbished facility.  A full review with the community was planned during the first year to explore the needs and possibilities towards a long-term sustainable strategy.  The larger £1 million capital funding would be earmarked for the future capital needs of the Guildhall complex over the next 10 years.  She hoped the district council would continue to use these facilities. 

As previous projects had shown, the town council had worked well to sustain and improve facilities in Abingdon with both  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

Any non-exempt urgent business will be considered at this point in the meeting. 

None

To receive petitions from members of the council under standing order 13 (if any).

Councillor Reg Waite presented a petition on behalf of Mrs Ann Lewis and Mr John Mackerness concerning the former grade 2 listed dwelling known as The Thatched Cottage King (also known as The Thatched Cottage), Reading Road, Harwell.  He read the petition, which contained 651 signatories:

“We, the undersigned residents of Harwell village, hereby seek the immediate action of the chief executive and officers of the Vale of White Horse District Council in resolving the problems encountered by two nearby residents following the collapse of the above dwelling on Sunday 13 February 2005. 

We, severally and jointly, are grossly concerned that after more than six years since the collapse of this grade 2 listed dwelling, no action to reinstate the cottage has been taken by the owner, Mr Keith Dawson.  He has only recently made any attempt whatsoever to tidy up the unkempt site which has been the subject of vegetation and rodent problems. 

The two neighbouring dwellings and their inhabitants have suffered throughout and despite correspondence with the Vale of White Horse District Council the site remains in a disgraceful state. 

The end partition wall to the grade 2 listed Thatch Cottage, Reading Road, Harwell, owned by Mrs Ann Lewis, received some urgent remedial work following the collapse.  Mrs Ann Lewis, a retired person, is unable to sell her property whilst the current situation continues.  With the passage of time the whole affair has caused tremendous undue and increasing stress, and suffering for Mrs Lewis, who in the circumstances has been unable to enjoy her retirement.  Her financial circumstances have suffered too. 

During the past 18 to 24 months, some cracks have appeared in her property towards that end of the dwelling which was attached to the collapsed cottage.  Her property appears to be further deteriorating and a recent professional inspection has been undertaken to establish the cause.  The report will be available shortly. 

The dwelling at the other end of the collapsed cottage is Elderfield Cottage, Reading Road, Harwell and owned by Mr John Mackerness.  His internal wall shared with the collapsed cottage was covered by polythene which has become ripped and washed away, and parts of this partition wall are now back to bare wattle and daub.  Daylight can be seen from his loft.  The property is cracking and creaking regularly and in the circumstances Mr Mackerness has been afraid to sleep in his bedroom on the first floor for many months.  

The properties are being gradually eroded and both Mrs Lewis and Mr Mackerness feared the latest winter weather could bring further devastation to their homes.  The value of both dwellings has been dramatically affected by this disturbing occurrence. 

We seek the Vale’s urgent formal attention to this matter and request that all possible legal proceedings, including prosecution and compulsory purchase order if necessary, are enforced with utmost speed for the benefit of the site and the neighbourhood.  

We seek the Vale’s immediate legal action to ensure that –

1)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.

To receive questions from members of the council under standing order 12 as follows:

(1)       Councillor Peter Saunders to Councillor Jenny Hannaby

"During the severe weather conditions in December, why is that villages in the Vale were so poorly served with regards to the collection of rubbish?"

(2)       Councillor Robert Sharp to Councillor Richard Webber

“Is the reinstatement of the community grants budget this year, after last year’s cut of £100,000, and before the reduction in grants of £20,000 next year in any way connected with the date of the district council elections?”  

There were two questions from councillors under Standing Order 12. 

(1)       Question to Councillor Jenny Hannaby from Councillor Peter Saunders:

"During the severe weather conditions in December, why is that villages in the Vale were so poorly served with regards to the collection of rubbish?"

Councillor Hannaby replied that the council had cancelled waste collections on Monday 20 and Tuesday 21 December due to snow causing roads to be unsafe for use by large waste collection vehicles in residential roads.  Collections resumed on Wednesday on roads deemed safe.  However, on Thursday and Friday the waste crews collected some missed collections on the main safer routes.  Due to bank holidays over the Christmas and New Year period, and in accordance with its pre-agreed waste winter plan, the council decided not to attempt to catch up on the missed collections, as doing so would cause more disruption for every household in the district.  Collections returned to normal by 24 January. 

Councillor Saunders asked a supplementary question.  Why had the Vale been unable cope when West Oxfordshire suffered no missed collections in similar snow conditions? 

Councillor Hannaby replied that the reason was as stated in her original reply. 

(2)       Question to Councillor Richard Webber from Councillor Robert Sharp:

“Is the reinstatement of the community grants budget this year, after last year’s cut of £100,000, and before the reduction in grants of £20,000 next year in any way connected with the date of the district council elections?” 

Councillor Webber replied that the 2010/11 budget provided no community grant budget in 2010/11.  The saving of £103,400 was for one year only and the medium term financial plan allowed for the reinstatement of the budget in 2011/12.  The draft budget for consultation proposed to reduce the 2011/12 budget to £83,400 to help the council deal with the impact of the cut in government grant.  However, he later rejected this, adding a further £20,000 as the fit for the future programme found further savings.  The budget restored the funding for community grants for one year at least.  This was another example of a caring council. 

Councillor Sharp asked a supplementary question.  Was there a connection between the timing of this decision and the forthcoming election, like other recent decisions on Abingdon town centre? 

Councillor Webber reported that the council took decisions every year; the timing of these had nothing to do with the election. 

To consider the recommendations from the Executive and committees as set out below:

AG.     Audit and Governance Committee

The Audit and Governance Committee considered the treasury management and investment strategy and made recommendations to the Executive for forwarding on to the Council – see Ex. (5) below. 

DC.     Development Control Committee

Ex.      Executive

(1)    Community grants

         The Executive, at its meeting on 7 January 2011, considered report 85/10 on the recommendations of the Scrutiny Committee for the awarding of community grants. The Executive agreed the committee’s recommendation to amend the existing delegation to allow for a designated officer in consultation with the Chair of the relevant area committee (or Executive) to determine grant applications up to £1,000 (existing delegation is £500).

         The recommendation is included in the schedule of constitution amendments set out in agenda item 17. 

(2)    Guildhall, Abingdon

The Executive, at its meeting on 31 January 2011, considered report 98/10 on the future of the Guildhall in Abingdon.

The confidential report of the Head of Economy, Leisure and Property, considered by the Executive on 31 January 2011, was circulated to all councillors with the Executive agenda.  Please bring this report to the meeting.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL

To agree that as part of its budget-making process a capital sum of £1,200,000 is added to the 2011/12 capital programme and to allow a capital payment of the same amount to Abingdon Town Council on 1 April 2011 following completion of the necessary agreements.

(3)       Joint Environmental Trusts

The Executive, at its meeting on 11 February 2011, considered report 99/10 on the future working arrangements of the Joint Environmental Trusts. 

The report of the Head of Planning, considered by the Executive on 11 February 2011, was circulated to all councillors with the Executive agenda.  Please bring this report to the meeting.

At its meeting the Executive resolved to close the JET bank accounts and offer any uncommitted JET funds to the relevant parish/town council for environmental improvements.

RECOMMENDATION to Council

To wind up the council’s joint committees (the Joint Environmental Trusts) for Abingdon, Faringdon, Grove and Wantage. 

(4)       Treasury management monitoring mid year report 2010/11

The Executive, at its meeting on 11 February 2011, considered report 100/10 on the treasury activities for the first six months of 2010/11.

The report of the Head of Finance, considered by the Executive on 11 February 2011, was circulated to all councillors with the Executive agenda.  Please bring this report to the meeting.

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL:

To note that the council’s treasury management activities in the first half of 2010/11 are within the treasury management strategy and policy. 

(5)       Treasury management and investment strategy

The Executive, at its meeting on 11 February, considered report 101/10 that reviewed the treasury management and investment strategy.  The Executive considered recommendations from the Audit and Governance Committee on the wording of the investment counterparty selection criteria  ...  view the full agenda text for item 74.

Since the last meeting of the Council, there had been a number of Executive and committee meetings.  The Executive and the Scrutiny Committee had made recommendations to the Council. 

(1)       Community grants

The Executive, at its meeting on 7 January 2011, considered Scrutiny Committee’s recommendations on the community grants scheme.  The Executive agreed the committee’s recommendation to amend the existing delegation to allow for a designated officer in consultation with the chair of the relevant area committee (or Executive) to determine grant applications up to £1,000.  Previously this was £500. 

The recommendation was included in the schedule of constitution amendments set out in agenda item 17.  The Council noted this recommendation at this stage of the meeting. 

(2)       Guildhall, Abingdon

Councillors Julia Bricknell, Jim Halliday, Angela Lawrence, Pat Lonergan, Julie Mayhew-Archer, and Alison Rooke all declared personal and prejudicial interests in this item and in accordance with standing order 34, they left the room during its consideration. 

The Executive, at its meeting on 31 January 2011, considered the future of the Guildhall in Abingdon.  It recommended the Council as part of its budget-making process, to add a capital sum of £1,200,000 to the 2011/12 capital programme and to allow a capital payment of the same amount to Abingdon Town Council on 1 April 2011, following completion of the necessary agreements. 

The Scrutiny Committee, at its meeting on 22 February 2011, reviewed the activity of the Executive and this item in particular.  It recommended the Council not to transfer the Guildhall to Abingdon Town Council, as it believed that this did not represent the best financial or social outcome for the residents of the Vale. 

Tabled at the meeting was an officer briefing note advising the Council of the consequences of adopting the Scrutiny Committee’s recommendation and the options open to the Council if it did.  The Council noted that it could not adopt this recommendation, as this was an Executive decision, not a Council decision.  The appropriate way to deal with this was to debate and vote on the Executive’s recommendation.  If the Council did not agree the Executive’s recommendation, it could not set a budget at this meeting.  

The Executive portfolio holder for the Guildhall, Councillor Richard Webber, reminded the Council that previously it had required the officers to find savings in the costs of the council’s property portfolio, including the Guildhall.  The revenue losses on this building were unsustainable.  The town council came forward and negotiated with this council to take over the ownership and management of the facility, maintaining it for community use.  He believed that the district council should not be subsidising this facility when the Guildhall’s user base was predominantly Abingdon residents and community groups.  Local people should run this facility for local people, supporting localism principles.  The town council was in the best position to do this.  He was aware of the contractual concerns raised by the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.

To remind councillors that they are not entitled to vote at any meeting on any issue affecting the level or administration of the council tax if they are over two months in arrears with their council tax payments. 

Where such circumstances apply, councillors are under a statutory obligation to disclose the restriction placed on them and refrain from voting at the relevant meeting.  Failure to comply is a criminal offence, which on conviction could lead to a substantial fine. 

The Council noted the voting restrictions placed on councillors by the Local Government Act 1972.  Councillors were not entitled to vote on the council tax if they were over two months in arrears of council tax payments. 

To approve the 2011/12 budget. The Executive’s budget proposals will be circulated as a separate document.

Council’s attention is drawn to the Chief Finance Officer’s report on the robustness of the budget estimates and the adequacy of the reserves.

The following councillors declared personal interests in this item and in accordance with standing order 34, they remained in the meeting during its consideration: Councillors Julia Bricknell, Terry Cox, Mary de Vere, Tony de Vere, Richard Farrell, Beth Fleming, Terry Fraser, Jim Halliday, Jane Hanna, Jenny Hannaby, Angela Lawrence, Pat Lonergan, Julia Mayhew-Archer, Julia Reynolds, Alison Rooke, Peter Saunders, and Melinda Tilley. 

The Council considered report 112/10 being the draft budget for 2011/12 as recommended by the Executive.  This set out the revenue and capital budgets for the year, together with an indicative capital programme to 2015/16, and the medium term financial plan to 2015/16.  The Council noted that in appendix 1 to the report, the gross income figure was £39,259,450. 

Contained within the budget proposal was a report from the chief finance officer on the robustness of the budget estimates and the adequacy of the reserves.  The chief finance officer concluded that the budget estimates had been prepared in a properly controlled and professionally supported process, and had been subject to due consideration, and identifiable risks should be capable of management.  Overall, he believed that the council had adequate reserves in relation to the proposed revenue budget and capital programme, the estimates were robust and the budgets were sustainable.  The Council noted the chief finance officer’s report. 

The chair proposed and with the agreement of the Council, it was:

RESOLVED: To suspend standing order 31(4) to allow one councillor from each political group to speak for 10 minutes to make their budget statements. 

Councillor Tony de Vere, Chair of the Executive and Leader of the Council, moved the Executive’s budget proposals.  He looked back on the budget set by the council in 2007.  At that time, he had viewed the sustainability of the council as delicate and vulnerable to economic knocks.  Services were vulnerable without radical change.  Four years ago the Liberal Democrat group predicted the council’s service costs would reach £19 million by 2010/11, and external income would reach £11 million; future savings and council tax would fund the difference.  In comparison, the budget before the Council showed costs of £16.2 million and income of £9.2 million.  As costs had reduced by £3 million over the past four years, income had reduced by £2 million.  Although the gap had narrowed, the council would have been in a much better position had it not been for reduced income.  The costs had reduced because the Liberal Democrat group had taken the step to share its senior management with neighbouring South Oxfordshire District Council. 

Looking forward, Councillor Tony de Vere reported that the costs would further reduce in 2011/12 to £13.7 million.  He believed that the council was ahead of the pack in reducing the cost of services.  However, since the last parliamentary election, the coalition government had had to make severe cuts to public spending.  The government settlement to the council in 2011/12 was 16  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.

To set the Council Tax for the year commencing on 1 April 2011 and ending on 31 March 2012 by adopting the formal resolution under Section 30 of the Local Government Act 1992, as set out in Appendix 8attached to the Executive’s budget proposals. 

The Council considered report 113/10 of the head of finance regarding the need to set the Council Tax for 2011/12.  As a correction to the report, councillors noted that in table 11, the overall average percentage increase of council tax in 2011/12 was 0.1 per cent.  

RESOLVED:

(a)       To note that at its meeting on 8 December 2010, the Council calculated the following amounts for the year 2011/12 in accordance with regulation 3 of the Local Authorities (Calculation of Council Tax Base) Regulations 1992 made under Section 33(5) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992:

(i)                 48,426 being the amount calculated by the council, in accordance with regulation 3 of the Local Authorities (Calculation of Council Tax Base) Regulations 1992, as its council tax base for the year;

(ii)        The amounts set out in column 1 of appendix 1 to report 113/10 for each parish being the amounts calculated by the council, in accordance with regulation 6 of the Regulations, as the amounts of its council tax base for the year for dwellings in those parts of its area to which one or more special items relate.

(b)       That the following amounts now be calculated by the council for the year 2011/12, in accordance with Sections 32 to 36 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992:

(i)                 £53,581,727 being the aggregate of the amounts which the council estimates for the items set out in Section 32(2)(a) to (e) of the Act;

(ii)        £39,259,450 being the aggregate of the amounts which the council estimates for the items set out in Section 32(3)(a) to (c) of the Act;

(ii)               £14,322,277 being the amount by which the aggregate at (2)(a) above exceeds the aggregate at (2)(b) above, calculated by the council, in accordance with Section 32(4) of the Act, as its budget requirement for the

(iv)              £5,742,315 being the aggregate of the sums which the council estimates will be payable for the year into its general fund in respect of redistributed non-domestic rates and revenue support grant, increased by the amount of the sums which the council estimates will be transferred in the year from its collection fund to its general fund in accordance with Section 97(3) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988;

(v)                £177.18 being the amount at (2)(c) above less the amount at (2)(d) above, all divided by the amount at (1)(a) above, calculated by the council, in accordance with Section 33(1) of the Act, as the basic amount of its council tax for the year;

(vi)              £2,929,127 being the aggregate amount of all special items referred to in Section 34(1) of the Act, as set out in column 2 of appendix 1 of report 113/10;

(vii)      £116.69 being the amount at (2)(e) above less the result given by dividing the amount at (2)(f) above by the amount at (1)(a) above, calculated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.

At its meeting on 8 December 2010, Council agreed to adopt Schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 as amended by section 27 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009, so that the provisions for the control of sexual entertainment venues shall apply.  Council resolved that the new powers should take effect from 1 March 2011.  In order to allow for the publication of the required legal notices, Council is asked to agree that the powers take effect instead on 1 April 2011.  All the other resolutions remain unchanged.

Recommendation

To agree that the adoption of Schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 as amended by section 27 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 agreed by Council at its meeting on 8 December 2010 should take effect on 1 April 2011. 

At its meeting on 8 December 2010, the Council agreed to adopt Schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, as amended by section 27 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009, so that the provisions for the control of sexual entertainment venues would apply.  The Council resolved that the new powers should take effect from 1 March 2011.  In order to allow for the publication of the required legal notices, the Councilwas asked to agree that the powers took effect instead on 1 April 2011.  All the other resolutions remain unchanged. 

RESOLVED: To agree that the adoption of Schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 as amended by section 27 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 agreed by Council at its meeting on 8 December 2010 shall take effect on 1 April 2011. 

To consider the report of the Head of Legal and Democratic Services on interim changes for implementation at the forthcoming elections in May 2011 (attached).

The Council considered report 106/10 of the head of legal and democratic services on interim changes to polling district and polling places for implementation at the forthcoming elections in May 2011. 

Some concern was expressed about the proposal to remove the polling station at Goosey.  However, the Council agreed the recommendations, believing that the cost of a mobile unit to house the polling station in Goosey each year was too high.  However, councillors asked that where there were changes to polling stations, there was good publicity about the location of the alternative polling station and the postal vote option and that the officers write to all electors in Goosey and Chilton advising them of this change and the availability of a postal vote. 

RESOLVED: to

(a)               agree no changes to the existing polling district boundaries;

(b)               agree the proposals described in paragraph six and appendix one to report 106/10;

(c)               authorise the head of legal and democratic services to implement (b) above;

(d)               publicise changes to polling stations and offer a postal vote alternative;

(e)               note that the review is ongoing and a further report will be brought to Council in due course; and

(f)                 instruct officers to write to the electors of Goosey and Chilton advising them of their new voting arrangements and the procedure for obtaining a postal vote. 

Due to the meeting having lasted two hours thirty minutes, the Council was asked to determine whether it should finish the meeting or continue for a further thirty minutes to complete its remaining business. 

RESOLVED: To continue the meeting for a further thirty minutes to complete the remaining business, in accordance with standing order 27(5). 

At its meeting on 8 December 2010 Council adopted its chosen form of executive arrangements for implementation following the May 2011 district elections. The report to Council set out the need to review the council’s constitution to ensure it supports the new decision making arrangements. Attached are proposed changes to Article 4 and Article 7 of the council’s constitution with deleted words marked with a strikethrough and additional words shown in bold.

RECOMMENDATION: to approve the amendments to the council’s constitution as attached to this agenda following the May 2011 elections. 

At its meeting on 8 December 2010, the Council adopted its chosen form of executive arrangements for implementation following the May 2011 district elections.  The report to Council set out the need to review the council’s constitution to ensure it supported the new decision making arrangements. 

Appended to the agenda were proposed changes to Article 4 and Article 7 of the council’s constitution, with deleted words crossed through and additional words shown in bold text. 

RESOLVED: to approve the amendments to Articles 4 and 7 of the council’s constitution for implementation after the May 2011 elections. 

The paper attached sets out a number of amendments to the council’s constitution with an explanation for the proposed amendment.

RECOMMENDATION: to approve the amendments to the council’s constitution attached to this agenda.

The Council considered several amendments to the council’s constitution, as set out in an appendix to the agenda item. 

RESOLVED: to approve the amendments to the council’s constitution, as set out in the appendix to the agenda. 

To consider the report of the head of legal and democratic services on the re-appointment of the current independent members to the Standards Committee.  (attached)

The Council considered report 107/10 of the head of legal and democratic services on the re-appointment of the independent members to the Standards Committee.  The report suggested re-appointing the existing independent members until the government disbanded the standards regime. 

RESOLVED: To re-appoint Mr David Howard, Mr Jeffery Lemon, Mr Mike Roberts, and Mrs Vanessa Shenton as independent representatives to the Standards Committee until May 2015 or until the abolition of the Standards Committee, if this is sooner. 

In accordance with the virement policy, all virements of £10,000 and over and virements across service areas require prior authorisation of the executive and must be reported to the council. 

Recommendation

To note the virements attached. 

In accordance with the virement policy, the Council noted all virements of £10,000 and over, approved since its last meeting. 

(1)       Urgent executive decisions

In accordance with the overview and scrutiny procedure rules, an executive decision can be taken as a matter of urgency, if any delay by the call-in process would seriously prejudice the council’s or the public’s interest.  Treating the decision as a matter of urgency must be agreed by the chairman of the Scrutiny Committee and must be reported to the next meeting of the council, together with the reasons for urgency.

To receive any details of urgent executive decisions taken since the last ordinary meeting of the council, (if any).

(2)       Delegation of executive functions

To receive details of any changes to the executive scheme of delegation. 

(3)       Matters affecting the authority arising from meetings of joint committees, partnerships and other meetings

To receive the report of the leader (if any).

(1)       Urgent Executive decisions

There were no urgent Executive decisions to report. 

(2)       Delegation of Executive functions

There was no change to the existing scheme of delegation since the last Council meeting. 

(3)       Matters affecting the authority arising from meetings of joint committees, partnerships and other meetings

The Council noted the leader of the council’s report. 

To receive notices of motion under standing order 11:

(1)               Motion to be proposed by Councillor Tony de Vere, seconded by Councillor Alison Rooke:

"That council requests the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to undertake a periodic electoral review of the district with a view to reducing the number of councillors from the current 51 to 34, such reduction to reflect the efficient working practices in place at the council and to achieve a significant saving in the costs of democracy."

(2)               Motion to be proposed by Councillor Matthew Barber, seconded by Councillor John Morgan:

“This Council instructs the Executive to investigate ways in which this Authority can support the Sweatbox youth centre?” 

(1)               Motion proposed by Councillor Tony de Vere, seconded by Councillor Alison Rooke:

"That council requests the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to undertake a periodic electoral review of the district with a view to reducing the number of councillors from the current 51 to 34, such reduction to reflect the efficient working practices in place at the council and to achieve a significant saving in the costs of democracy." 

Councillor Tony de Vere reported that in late 2010, the Local Government Boundary Commission had invited the council to indicate if it would like an electoral review of the district.  As the council had carried out a number of recent efficiency savings to protect services, he believed the democratic process should replicate this.  The council had more councillors than needed, and a reduction by a third could save around £65,000 per year.  The motion was in line with others adopted by councils across the country, including neighbouring South Oxfordshire District Council.  He recognised that the reduction would not take effect until 2015 but adopting this motion would start the review process. 

Councillor Rooke, in seconding the motion, believed that it necessary to achieve savings in the cost of democracy. 

Councillor Matthew Barber proposed an amendment, seconded by Councillor Roger Cox:

“That council agrees in principle to request the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to undertake a periodic electoral review of the district with a view to reducing the number of councillors.  This Council further agrees to set up a cross-party working group to put recommendations to a future Council meeting on the size of that reduction.”   

Whilst not objecting to the principle of the motion, Councillor Barber believed that the choice of 34 councillors seemed arbitrary and he called for a more scientific approach.  He believed that a cross-party working group should look at this issue and come back to the Council with recommendations.  Councillor Roger Cox supported the amendment. 

Some councillors accused Councillor Barber of trying to delay this decision.  However, other councillors pointed out that a cross-party group had made recommendations on the last review. 

Councillor Tony de Vere, as mover of the original motion, had a right of reply.  He offered to change his motion to read “around 34”.  Councillor Barber stood by his amendment but did not object to the change suggested by Councillor de Vere. 

The chair asked councillors to vote on the amendment; this was lost by 14 votes to 24. 

Councillor Tony de Vere then offered to alter his original motion to read “around 34”.  Councillor Alison Rooke, as seconder, supported this suggested change.  This was put to the Council and was agreed.  This became the substantive motion, which was agreed by the Council unanimously. 

RESOLVED: That council requests the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to undertake a periodic electoral review of the district with a view to reducing the number of councillors  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.

None