Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of councillors Julia Bricknell, Andy Crawford, Roger Cox, Jenny Hannaby and Melinda Tilley

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 adopt and sign as a correct record the council minutes of the meeting held on 13 July 2011.

RESOLVED: to approve the minutes of the meeting held on 13 July 2011 and agree that the chairman sign them as such.

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

The Chairman reminded councillors of the chairman’s dinner taking place on 4 November and provided notice of an ‘any questions’ event scheduled to take place on 20 January 2012.

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

MrClyne submitted the following question to Councillor Matthew Barber. 

“The Grove airfield development approved in the Vale's local plan is over 5 years late. According to the latest version of the Vale's local plan 500 of the 2,500 homes should have been built between 2006 to 2011.  As yet no planning application has been received, in particular the one that I understand is in Paul Davis's office (Mr Davis is an employee of Persimmon homes).  How many meetings have taken place between Vale officer(s) and Persimmon in the last 2 years which discussed explicitly the £200 million plus Grove airfield development rather than general discussions on possible developments,and what were the dates, and how many future meetings are scheduled between Vale officers(s) and Persimmon to explicitly discuss the Grove airfield development, and what are the dates?” 

Councillor Matthew Barber responded as follows:

1.      33 meetings in total have been held to discuss the proposed Grove Airfield development over the last two years, including six internal meetings and two design workshops.  One of the design workshops and the 25 non-internal meetings were held with the developers. Dates of the meetings are set out below.

2.      One future meeting is currently programmed - on 31 October 2011.  The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the progress towards the anticipated submission of the planning application in November 2011. We anticipate more meetings where relevant following agreed actions at the next meeting. I anticipate attending this meeting.

2009

20 November

5 (internal) and 18 December

2010

15 January

12 and 22 February (internal)

12 and 31 March

16, 19, 26 and 30 April (internal)

14 and 28 May

4 and 7 June

9 and 30 July

12 and 27 August

13 (design workshop), 17 and 24 September

19 (internal), 22 and 28 October

19 and 24 November

2011

4 and 17 February (both internal)

30 March (design workshop)

30 September

10 October

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).

None.

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

1.                  Question from Councillor Jerry Patterson to the Leader of the Council. 

“Does the Leader of the Council believe in evidence based policies to run the Vale?”

2.                  Question from Councillor Bob Johnston to Councillor Elaine Ware.  “Does the Councillor accept that successful policies to promote town centre vitality require a mixture of the economic, environmental and social strands?”

3.                  Question from Councillor Bob Johnston to Councillor Elaine Ware.  “Does the Councillor accept that any Vale policy which increases air pollution in town centres is undesirable?”

4.                  Question from Councillor Bob Johnston to Councillor Elaine Ware.  “Did she as a portfolio holder find the recent debate at Scrutiny on monitoring free car parking useful? “

5.                  Question from Councillor Jerry Patterson to Councillor Roger Cox.  “Does the Councillor accept that the Council should use its best endeavour to maintain a five year supply of building land?”

The following questions were asked under Standing order 13.

1.                  Question from Councillor Jerry Patterson to the Leader of the Council. 

“Does the Leader of the Council believe in evidence based policies to run the Vale?”

Councillor Matthew Barber responded that he did.

In response to a supplementary question asking what research supported the decision to proceed with free car parking against the officer recommendation, Councillor Matthew Barber stated that a great deal of research was undertaken and not all policy is required to be evidence based.

2.                  Question from Councillor Bob Johnston to Councillor Elaine Ware.  “Does the Councillor accept that successful policies to promote town centre vitality require a mixture of the economic, environmental and social strands?”

Councillor Elaine Ware responded that she did and referred to the council’s market town strategies.

In response to a supplementary question seeking details of the relevant strategies, Councillor Elaine Ware undertook to provide a written response.

3.                  Question from Councillor Bob Johnston to Councillor Elaine Ware.  “Does the Councillor accept that any Vale policy which increases air pollution in town centres is undesirable?”

Councillor Elaine Ware responded that she agreed that it was undesirable but that it was folly to bar any policy that had a detrimental impact on air pollution.

Councillor Elaine Ware undertook to provide a written response to a supplementary question on the role of the canyon effect in urban air pollution.

4.                  Question from Councillor Bob Johnston to Councillor Elaine Ware.  “Did she as a portfolio holder find the recent debate at Scrutiny on monitoring free car parking useful? “

Councillor Elaine Ware responded that she did.

In response to a supplementary question Councillor Elaine Ware confirmed that she would consider the committee’s suggestions.

5.                  Question from Councillor Jerry Patterson to Councillor Matthew Barber in the absence of Councillor Roger Cox. 

“Does the Councillor accept that the Council should use its best endeavour to maintain a five year supply of building land?”

Councillor Matthew Barber responded that he did.

Councillor Jerry Patterson asked a supplementary question asking why the council was running the risk of planning by appeal.

Councillor Matthew Barber responded that delays had occurred under the previous administration and the current administration was undertaking a fundamental review of the core strategy and that the interim housing policy would ensure no planning by appeal.

At its meeting on 8 July 2011 Cabinet considered a report on the council’s car parking policy and agreed to introduce two hours free parking at all Vale car parks.

Scrutiny Committee, at its meeting on 24 August, considered a call-in of the decision. The committee did not recommend an alternative course of action. Council is asked to consider the following recommendation from Cabinet:   

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL: to approve a supplementary revenue estimate of £75,000 to fund these changes in the current financial year, with the money taken from the new homes bonus reserve. 

Council considered the Cabinet’s recommendation, made at its meeting on 8 July 2011, on the council’s car parking policy. Cabinet had resolved to introduce two hours free parking at all Vale car parks. To fund the change in this financial year cabinet recommended Council agree a supplementary revenue estimate from the new homes bonus reserve.

RESOLVED: to approve a supplementary revenue estimate of £75,000 to fund these changes in the current financial year, with the money taken from the new homes bonus reserve.

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.  Details are attached to this agenda.

RESOLVED: to note the schedule of virements attached to the agenda for the Council meeting held on 19 October 2011.

At its meeting in December 2010 Council agreed to authorise the head of legal and democratic services to amend the constitution to reflect the re-allocation of duties to alternative heads of service following the retirement of Mike Mackay, Head of Commercial Services. Following the departure of a number of service managers the chief executive undertook a further review of the management structure. In deleting the post of head of commercial services from the establishment he confirmed the temporary arrangements reported at the December meeting and appointed service managers to cover the work of those service managers who had departed. One of these appointments, that of Liz Hayden as service manager for community safety,

licensing, land charges and business support working to the head of legal and

democratic services, involves the transfer of responsibility of community safety from the head of corporate strategy to the head of legal and democratic services.

In order to ensure the council’s constitution reflects these changes Council is asked to authorise the head of legal and democratic services to make the necessary changes to the council’s constitution.

RECOMMENDATION: to authorise the head of legal and democratic services to make the necessary changes to the council’s constitution to reflect the allocation of community safety to the head of legal and democratic services and the permanent reallocation of services following the retirement of the head of commercial services.

Council considered an agenda item which sought Council’s agreement to authorise the head of legal and democratic services to make changes to the council’s constitution to reflect the outcome of a management restructure.

RESOLVED: to authorise the head of legal and democratic services

to make the necessary changes to the council’s constitution to reflect

the allocation of community safety to the head of legal and

democratic services and the permanent reallocation of services

following the retirement of the head of commercial services.

At its meeting on 21 May 2008 Council appointed the following persons to the Independent Remuneration Panel until May 2011:

1.      Dr Robert Smith

2.      Dr Charles Swaisland

3.      Mr Marc Thompson

4.      Mr James Davies

5.      Mr Stephen King

Councilis asked to re-appoint the above to undertake reviews of the Members’ Allowances Scheme.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council appoint the following persons to the Independent Remuneration Panel to undertake a review of the Members’ Allowances Scheme until May 2016:-

             (1)      Dr Robert Smith

             (2)      Dr Charles Swaisland

             (3)      Mr Marc Thompson

             (4)      Mr James Davies

             (5)      Mr Stephen King

Council considered an agenda item which asked Council to re-appoint persons to the Independent Remuneration Panel to undertake reviews of the Members’ Allowances Scheme.

RESOLVED: to appoint the following persons to the Independent Remuneration Panel to undertake reviews of the Members’ Allowances Scheme until May 2016:

1.      Dr Robert Smith

2.      Dr Charles Swaisland

3.      Mr Marc Thompson

4.      Mr James Davies

5.      Mr Stephen King

(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 chair 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 scheme of delegation to Cabinet members. 

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

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

Council received the leader of council’s report.

To receive the following notices of motion under standing order 11.

1.      Motion to be proposed by Councillor Kate Precious and seconded by Councillor John Amys:

 " The Council notes the great success of the Vale's Community Safety Partnership's Faringdon Project to improve public confidence, public safety and encourage community cohesion. This Council welcomes the work of the Partnership across the District and restates commitment to the Partnership. The Council also requests the Partnership to investigate initiating similar projects in the Vale, particularly in Grove, where there concern over anti-social behaviour is a significant issue."

2.      Motion to be proposed by Councillor Richard Webber and seconded by Councillor Jenny Hannaby:

“This Council believes that all receipts from the “New Homes Bonus” should be spent on infrastructure within the Vale.”

3.      Motion to be proposed by Councillor Dudley Hoddinott and seconded by Councillor Debby Hallett.

 “Council requests the Chief Executive to write to Eric Pickles MP to ask that the £250 million fund for weekly collections of waste be distributed on a per capita basis among all the waste collection authorities so that it can be used to pay for more recycling.”

4.      Motion to be proposed by Councillor Bob Johnston and seconded by Councillor Ron Mansfield.

  “This Council believes that the current proposal by the Parliamentary Boundary Commission to place Radley in a future Henley Consituency is fundamentally flawed.  Radley has nothing in common with the proposed new Henley and is physically separated from it by the Thames, with no direct road connection whatsoever.  This Council believes that if a rebalancing in the number of electors is required to equalise the new constituencies, then this would be better achieved by transferring a suitably sized area in the Gosford/Yarnton/Water Eaton area adjacent to similar areas which are already proposed to form part of the new Henley Constituency.  This would leave Radley as an integral part of its present constituency.  Council resolves to make representations accordingly.”

5.      Motion to be proposed by Councillor Yvonne Constance and seconded by Councilor Matthew Barber

“Council instructs the chief executive to consult with group leaders on the process for recognizing those who have made a significant contribution to the Vale of White Horse by creating Freemen of Vale”.

6.      Motion to be proposed by Councillor Matthew Barber and seconded by Councillor Roger Cox

“That this council’s current vision statement “to build and safeguard a fair, open and compassionate community” is replaced with the following “taking care of your interests throughout the Vale with Enterprise, Energy and Efficiency”.”

Council considered the following motions under standing order 11.

1.                  Motion proposed by Councillor Kate Precious and seconded by Councillor John Amys:

"The Council notes the great success of the Vale's Community Safety Partnership's Faringdon Project to improve public confidence, public safety and encourage community cohesion. This Council welcomes the work of the Partnership across the District and restates commitment to the Partnership. The Council also requests the Partnership to investigate initiating similar projects in the Vale, particularly in Grove, where their concern over anti-social behaviour is a significant issue."

In accordance with standing order 24(3) Councillor Sue Marchant moved and Councillor Jane Hanna seconded an amendment to delete all the words after Vale in the sixth line of the motion.

In accordance with standing order 29(3) councillors requested a recorded vote on the amendment. The voting was recorded as follows:

For: Councillors Tony de Vere, Timothy Foggin, Debby Hallett, Jim Halliday, Jane Hanna, Dudley Hoddinott, Bob Johnston, Pat Lonergan, Ron Mansfield, Sue Merchant, Julie Mayhew-Archer, Jerry Patterson, Helen Pighills, Judy Roberts, Richard Webber and John Woodford (16)

Against: Councillors John Amys, Marilyn Badcock, Mike Badcock, Matthew Barber, Eric Batts, Yvonne Constance, Charlotte Dickson, Gervase Duffield, Jason Fiddaman, Anthony Hayward, Holly Holman, Simon Howell, Peter Jones, Mohinder Kainth, Sandy Lovatt, Aidan Melville, Gill Morgan, John Morgan, Michael Murray, Kate Precious, Fiona Roper, Robert Sharp, Janet Shelley, Alison Thomson, Margaret Turner, Reg Waite, Elaine Ware (27)

Abstentions: Councillors Jane Crossley and Bill Jones (2)

The amendment was therefore declared lost.

On being put the original motion was declared carried.

RESOLVED:

THAT Council notes the great success of the Vale's Community Safety Partnership's Faringdon Project to improve public confidence, public safety and encourage community cohesion. This Council welcomes the work of the Partnership across the District and restates commitment to the Partnership. The Council also requests the Partnership to investigate initiating similar projects in the Vale, particularly in Grove, where their concern over anti-social behaviour is a significant issue.

2.                  Motion proposed by Councillor Richard Webber and seconded by Councillor Angela Lawrence:

“This Council believes that all receipts from the “New Homes Bonus” should be spent on infrastructure within the Vale.”

Councillor Matthew Barber moved and Councillor Elaine Ware seconded an amendment to add the words ‘and services’ after infrastructure in the second line of the motion.

Councillor Richard Webber sought the consent of the seconder and Council to withdraw his original motion. Whilst he received the consent of the seconder Council did not consent to his request.

On being put the amendment was declared carried.

On being put the motion as amended was declared carried.

RESOLVED:

That Council believes that all receipts from the “New Homes Bonus” should be spent on infrastructure and services within the Vale.

3.                  Motion moved by Councillor Dudley Hoddinott and seconded by Councillor Debby Hallett:

 “Council requests the Chief Executive to write to Eric Pickles MP to ask that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.