Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for absence.

Councillors Dudley Hoddinott, Peter Jones, Ron Mansfield, Gill Morgan, Kate Precious, and Janet Shelley had each sent their apologies for absence. 

To adopt and sign as a correct record the Council minutes of the meeting held on 12 December 2012 (previously published and attached). 

RESOLVED: To

(a)       adopt as a correct record the minutes of the Council meeting held on 12 December 2012 and agree that the chairman signs them, subject to the following amendments:

·        In minute Co.45 ‘Declarations of interests’, amend the second paragraph to read ‘…Councillor Jim Halliday declared that he worked for a founder partner of Science Vale UK…’

·        In minute Co.51 ‘Councillor Peter Jones’, record the voting on the resolution as: For 25, Against 6, Abstentions 12

·        In minute Co.60 ‘Notices of motions’ motion 1, record the voting as: For 21, Against 19, Abstentions 2

·        In minute Co.60 ‘Notices of motions’ motion 2, amend the first sentence of the first paragraph to read ‘… and an individual maximum grant of £1,000 and that funding was restricted to festivals and events.’  

·        In minute Co.60 ‘Notices of motions’ motion 4, record the voting as: For 19, Against 22, Abstentions 2

(b)       record all votes in future Council, committee, and sub-committee minutes (by 27 votes to 5 with 11 abstentions). 

To receive any declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests in respect of items on the agenda for this meeting.  

None

To receive any announcements from the chairman.  

The chairman reported that she had sent a card of condolence on behalf of the council to Councillor Dudley Hoddinott following the death of his wife, Brenda. 

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

Councillor David Hignell from Sutton Courtenay Parish Council asked the following question:  

‘Sutton Courtenay Parish Council has recently carried out a general land use survey of all the land within its administrative boundaries.  It has broken down the general land use into four basic categories: (i) Housing and associated/incidental uses; (ii) Agriculture; (iii) Commercial/industrial; and (iv) Minerals/waste disposal. 

The most surprising feature of this survey is how little land is comprised within the first two categories.  Only 20 per cent of the land is given over to the village itself and associated uses and only 19 per cent of the land remains in agricultural use.  This means that 61 per cent of the parish land mass is under the other two categories: 29 per cent for commercial/industrial and 32 per cent for minerals/waste disposal.  Neither of these two uses provides any real benefit to the village or its residents.

The general feeling within the parish is that of being "squeezed" by uses that are harmful to both the health and well-being of the community and to the character and rural appearance of the village.  Further, neither the district nor county councils appear to have any regard for the cumulative impact on the village and its infrastructure in so far as continuing blind acceptance of development proposals, whatever they may be.  It appears to the parish, therefore, that neither council is very likely to be influenced by government guidance as set out in both the Localism Bill and the National Planning Policy Framework.

During your council's strategic housing land availability assessmentlast year, the council, through a written reply from Councillor Cox to a specific question on housing allocations to 2025, offered firm assurances that the village would not have to accept further land allocations for housing beyond existing commitments.

Bearing all of the foregoing in mind, will the council now provide a written response to the Parish Council acknowledging its duty of protection to Sutton Courtenay and confirming that it will protect the village from any further development over and above existing commitments and sustainable infill?’

Councillor Cox responded by promising a written response.  He also stated that he recognised the need to retain the identity and character of Sutton Courtenay village (and all of the Vale’s villages) from unacceptable and harmful development, an important role of planning.  The council must balance the needs of our local communities for housing against social, economic, and environmental issues.  The council considered each planning application on its own planning merits and in the context of local and national planning policy as well as local views.  The council considered carefully the necessary infrastructure and the cumulative impacts of new development on our villages and settlements and recognised the value of proportionate growth of our settlements to ensure the council maintained sustainable communities for the future. 

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. 

The chairman reported that she had accepted one item as a matter of urgent business, that being a recommendation from the Cabinet member for economy, leisure and property to add to the capital programme to deliver the Heart of Abingdon Heritage Trail project.  The reason for urgency was that the project funding was needed shortly to allow the project to proceed.  The chairman agreed to take this recommendation under agenda item 9 ‘Recommendations from Cabinet and committees’. 

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.

1.         Question from Councillor Jenny Hannaby to Councillor Reg Waite, Cabinet member for Waste Services:

Will the cabinet member agree with me the loss of the Vale’s position as Top Recycling Council in the country is most regrettable?

2.         Question from Councillor Jim Halliday to Councillor Matthew Barber, Cabinet member for Grants:

On 5 October 2012 all Councillors were sent details of the Capital Grant bids submitted by local organisations. In December the four area committees considered the majority of the bids and decided what if any grant should be awarded.  However, a number of applications were excluded from the area committee agendas as apparently they were considered to be Vale-wide - for example: Age UK Oxfordshire who bid for £2714, Oxfordshire Association for the Blind who bid for £570, and the Oxfordshire Chinese Community Advice Centre who bid for £5000. 

Please could the Leader list all such Vale-wide applications and for each state whether a decision has been made whether to award a grant, who made the decision, and the amount awarded? 

3.         Question from Councillor Tony de Vere to Councillor Matthew Barber, Cabinet member for Grants:

How many festival grant applications were received in 2012/13 and what was the total sum requested?

4.         Question from Councillor Tony de Vere to Councillor Matthew Barber, Cabinet member for Finance:

What allowance for inflation have you made in the budget in each of the years 2013/14, 2014/15, 2015/16, 2016/17?

5.         Question from Councillor Ron Mansfield to Councillor Roger Cox, Cabinet Member for Environmental Services:

How much money was spent helping low-income families procure the services of pest-control companies in 2011/12 and 2012/13?

6.         Question from Councillor Jane Hanna to Councillor Matthew Barber, Cabinet Member for Finance:

Will you undertake to continue to make payments to Parish and Town Councils in 2014/15 and beyond to offset the effects of the new Council tax reduction scheme? 

7.         Question from Councillor Tony de Vere to Councillor Reg Waite, Cabinet member for Waste Services:

Would the Cabinet Member care to comment on the poor condition of a number of Bring Sites around the Vale? 

8.         Question from Councillor Jerry Paterson to councilor Mike Murray, Cabinet member for planning policy (including the local Plan):

In what way is the list of strategic housing sites in paragraph 13 of agenda item 11 of 8 February Cabinet agenda, set out in italics below, different to that consulted on by the council over two years ago?

The allocation of the following strategic housing sites (which are in addition to those already identified in the current Local Plan, such as Grove Airfield) and details of the development they will accommodate, and infrastructure and services that will be sought

·        ValleyPark, Harwell (2,150 homes)

·        Crab Hill, north of Wantage and east of Grove (1,500  ...  view the full agenda text for item 68.

(1)       The chairman reported that question 1 submitted by Councillor Jenny Hannaby had been withdrawn. 

(2)       Question from Councillor Jim Halliday to Councillor Matthew Barber:

‘On 5 October 2012 all Councillors were sent details of the Capital Grant bids submitted by local organisations.  In December the four area committees considered the majority of the bids and decided what if any grant should be awarded.  However, a number of applications were excluded from the area committee agendas as apparently they were considered to be Vale-wide - for example: Age UK Oxfordshire who bid for £2,714, Oxfordshire Association for the Blind who bid for £570, and the Oxfordshire Chinese Community Advice Centre who bid for £5,000. 

Please could the Leader list all such Vale-wide applications and for each state whether a decision has been made whether to award a grant, who made the decision, and the amount awarded?’ 

Councillor Barber agreed to provide a written reply outside of the meeting. 

(3)       Question from Councillor Tony de Vere to Councillor Matthew Barber. 

‘How many festival grant applications were received in 2012/13 and what was the total sum requested?’ 

Councillor Barber agreed to provide a written reply outside of the meeting. 

(4)       The chairman reported that question 4 submitted by Councillor Tony de Vere had been withdrawn. 

(5)       The chairman reported that question 5 submitted by Councillor Ron Mansfield had been withdrawn. 

(6)       Question from Councillor Jane Hanna to Councillor Matthew Barber. 

‘Will you undertake to continue to make payments to parish and town councils in 2014/15 and beyond to offset the effects of the new Council tax reduction scheme?’ 

Councillor Barber reported that medium term financial plan (this formed part of the budget papers to be discussed later in the meeting) included £602,000 to offset the effects to parish and town councils over the next five years. 

Councillor Hanna asked a supplementary question.  Would this amount completely offset the effects of the council tax reduction scheme? 

Councillor Barber replied that there were no guarantees as the level of funding depended on the council tax reduction scheme in place at the time.  The government grant was unlikely to completely offset the cost of the change.  The council had allocated £400,000 to offset the effects to parish and town councils. 

(7)       Question from Councillor Tony de Vere to Councillor Reg Waite. 

‘Would the Cabinet member care to comment on the poor condition of a number of Bring Sites around the Vale?’    

Councillor Waite replied, stating that he had been concerned with the poor condition of many of the council’s ‘bring sites’, some of which he believed were dirty and out of character to what the council wanted.  Various actions had been taken to improve the situation.  Clearer signage informed users what the sites were for, and enforcement action had been taken against several people and businesses. 

Bring  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.

To consider recommendations from Cabinet and committees since the Council meeting held in December 2012.

(1)       Treasury management mid-year monitoring report 2012/13

The Cabinet, at its meeting on 8 February 2013, considered the treasury management mid-year monitoring report of the head of finance.

The report of the Head of Finance, considered by the Cabinet on 8 February 2013, was circulated to all councillors.  Please bring this report to the meeting.  

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL: tonote that Cabinet is satisfied that the council’s treasury activities are being carried out in accordance with the treasury management strategy and policy. 

(2)       Treasury management and investment strategy 2013/14

The Cabinet, at its meeting on 8 February 2013, considered the report of the head of finance on the approval of the treasury management strategy, the annual investment strategy and the prudential indicators.

The report of the Head of Finance, considered by the Cabinet on 8 February 2013, was circulated to all councillors.  Please bring this report to the meeting.  

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL to approve:

(a)               approve the treasury management strategy 2013/14 as set out in Appendix A to the head of finance’s report, subject to Cabinet keeping the strategy under review;

(b)               approve the prudential indicators and limits for 2013/14 to 2015/16 as set out in table 2, appendix A to the report;

(c)               approve the annual investment strategy 2013/14 set out in appendix A to the report and the lending criteria detailed in table 5. 

(3)       Budget 2013/14

The setting of the budget is covered in agenda item 10. 

(4)       Skin piercing

General Licensing Committee, at its meeting on 21 January 2013, considered a report on the adoption of a new single consolidated set of byelaws, produced by the department of health, to regulate acupuncture, tattooing, semi-permanent skin-colouring, cosmetic piercing and electrolysis. 

A copy of the byelaws agreed for recommendation to Council is attached. 

RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL: to

(a)               make new model byelaws under Sections 14 and 15 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 (as amended by the Local Government Act 2003) for the regulation of acupuncture, tattooing, semi-permanent skin-colouring, cosmetic piercing and electrolysis (and revoke existing byelaws); and

(b)               authorise the head of legal and democratic services to take all steps necessary to obtain confirmation of the byelaws from the Secretary of State for Health.  

Council considered the following recommendations from Cabinet, the Cabinet member for economy, leisure, and property, and the General Licensing Committee: 

(1)       Treasury management mid-year monitoring 2012/13

At its meeting on 8 February 2013, Cabinet had considered the treasury management mid-year monitoring report of the head of finance. 

RESOLVED: to note that Cabinet is satisfied that the council’s treasury activities are being carried out in accordance with the treasury management strategy and policy. 

(2)       Treasury management and investment strategy 2013/14

At its meeting on 8 February 2013, Cabinet had considered the report of the head of finance on the treasury management strategy, the annual investment strategy and the prudential indicators.  The Audit and Governance Committee also considered this report in January and made recommendations, which Cabinet has supported.  In addition, Cabinet also agreed to keep the strategy under review. 

RESOLVED: to

(a)               approve the treasury management strategy 2013/14 as set out in Appendix A of the report of the head of finance to Cabinet on 8 February 2013, subject to Cabinet keeping the strategy under review;

(b)               approve the prudential indicators and limits for 2013/14 to 2015/16 as set out in table 2, appendix A of the report of the head of finance to Cabinet on 8 February 2013; and

(c)               approve the annual investment strategy 2013/14 set out in appendix A of the report of the head of finance to Cabinet on 8 February 2013 and the lending criteria detailed in table 5. 

(3)       Budget 2013/14

On 8 February 2013, Cabinet had made recommendations on the 2013/14 budget.  The chairman agreed to consider these under agenda item 10 relating to the 2013/14 budget. 

(4)       Skin piercing

On 21 January 2013, the General Licensing Committee had considered a report on the adoption of a new single consolidated set of byelaws, produced by the department of health, to regulate acupuncture, tattooing, semi-permanent skin-colouring, cosmetic piercing and electrolysis.  Council supported the committee’s recommendation. 

RESOLVED: to

(a)               make new model byelaws under Sections 14 and 15 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 (as amended by the Local Government Act 2003) for the regulation of acupuncture, tattooing, semi-permanent skin-colouring, cosmetic piercing and electrolysis (and revoke existing byelaws); and

(b)               authorise the head of legal and democratic services to take all steps necessary to obtain confirmation of the byelaws from the Secretary of State for Health. 

 (5)      Funding to deliver the Heart of Abingdon Heritage Trail project

On 15 February 2013, the Cabinet member for economy, leisure, and property had made an individual Cabinet member decision to recommend Council to approve the addition of £14,200 to the capital programme, from externally received monies, to deliver the Heart of Abingdon Heritage Trail project.  Council approved the recommendation. 

In answer to a question, the Cabinet member for economy, leisure, and property, Councillor Elaine Ware, agreed to advise Councillor Patterson of the external funding sources outside the meeting. 

RESOLVED: to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.

The Cabinet, at its meeting on 8 February 2013, considered a report on the council’s revenue budget 2013/14, medium term financial plan to 2017/18 and capital programme to 2017/18.

The Cabinet’s budget proposal is bound separately and will follow this agenda (blue pages refer). 

The Scrutiny Committee will consider this item at its meeting on 14 February 2013.  Any alternative recommendation will be circulated prior to the Council meeting.

Council considered Cabinet’s budget proposals.  These were contained in the head of finance’s report that covered the revenue budget for 2013/14, the medium term financial plan and the capital programme. 

Before considering the budget, the chairman reminded councillors that they were not entitled to vote on any issue affecting the level or administration of the council tax if they were over two months in arrears with their council tax payments. 

Contained within the budget report at appendix H was a report from the chief finance officer on the robustness of the budget estimates and the adequacy of the reserves.  Council noted this report. 

The chairman sought Council’s agreement to allow one councillor from each political group to make their budget speech for longer than the time limited by standing orders.  Council noted that Councillor Matthew Barber would present the Cabinet’s budget proposal and Councillor Richard Webber would speak on behalf of the opposition. 

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

Councillor Barber moved the Cabinet’s budget proposals; this was seconded by Councillor Yvonne Constance. 

Councillor Barber, Leader of the Council, then made his budget speech.  He reported that last year the Conservative group had set about putting the council’s finances in order.  This year the group had built on its success and continued to deliver high quality public services in the areas that people cared about, whilst keeping taxes low and delivering value for money.  For just £116.69 per year for the average household, the Conservative group was managing the council’s finances prudently to improve public services at a time of decreasing government grant. 

Building the local economy remained central to what the council did, and he reported that the budget established a significant fund to allow appropriate investment in infrastructure and services for the future.  The announcement this week of Oxfordshire’s success in the City Deal programme brought the council a step closer to the reality of genuinely devolved decision making on local infrastructure. 

He continued to lobby government to simplify the business rates retention scheme to ensure a real financial incentive to grow the local economy.  The council was also working increasingly closely with local businesses to ensure the economy of the Vale continued to thrive.  From the shopkeeper to the scientist, the Vale was an excellent place to do business and he would ensure that the infrastructure was in place to help that continue. 

Access to sports and leisure facilities would improve as a result of this budget.  For example, the White Horse Leisure and Tennis Centre would see an extension to its car park, allowing more people from across the district to enjoy the facilities offered there.  This ran alongside improvements that would be made as a result of the council’s new leisure contract which would look at every leisure facility in the district. 

In Wantage, the Civic  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

To consider the report of the Head of Finance regarding the setting of the council tax for the 2013/14 financial year (report to follow). 

Council considered the head of finance’s report on setting the council tax for the 2013/14 financial year. 

The chairman reminded councillors that they were not entitled to vote on any issue affecting the level or administration of the council tax if they were over two months in arrears with their council tax payments. 

RESOLVED:

1.                  to note that at its meeting on 12 December 2012 the council calculated the council tax base 2013/14:

(a)       for the whole council area as 45,964.9 [Item T in the formula in Section 31B of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, as amended (the “Act”)]; and

(b)               for dwellings in those parts of its area to which a parish precept relates as in column 1 of appendix 1 of the report of the head of finance to Council on 20 February 2013;

2.                  that the council tax requirement for the council’s own purposes for 2013/14 (excluding parish precepts) is £5,363,644;

3.                  that the following amounts be calculated for the year 2013/14 in accordance with Sections 31 to 36 of the Act:

(a)       £51,356,947 being the aggregate of the amounts which the council estimates for the items set out in Section 31A(2) of the Act taking into account all precepts issued to it by parish councils.

(b)       £43,175,634 being the aggregate of the amounts which the council estimates for the items set out in Section 31A(3) of the Act.

(c)        £8,181,313 being the amount by which the aggregate at (3)(a) above exceeds the aggregate at (3)(b) above, calculated by the council, in accordance with Section 31A(4) of the Act as its council tax requirement for the year.  (Item R in the formula in Section 31B) of the Act).

(d)       £177.99 being the amount at (3)(c) above (Item R), all divided by Item T (1(a) above), calculated by the council, in accordance with Section 31(B) of the Act, as the basic amount of its council tax for the year (including parish precepts).

(e)       £2,817,669 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 the report of the head of finance to Council on 20 February 2013.

(f)                 £116.69 being the amount at (3)(d) above less the result given by dividing the amount at (3)(e) above by Item T (1(a) above), calculated by the council, in accordance with Section 34(2) of the Act, as the basic amount of its council tax for the year for dwellings in those parts of its area to which no parish precept relates.

4.                  to note that for the year 2013/14 Oxfordshire County Council has stated the following amounts in precepts issued to the council, in accordance with Section 40 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, for each of the categories of dwellings shown below:

5.                  to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

To consider the report of the strategic director that recommends the designation of the shared head of finance as the section 151 officer for both councils from 4 April 2013 (report attached).  

Appended to the agenda was the report of the strategic director regarding the section 151 officer.  Council agreed to defer consideration of this report until the annual Council meeting in May to allow further work on consequential changes and implications to the constitution and to align the decision with councillor appointments traditionally made at the May meetings. 

RESOLVED: to defer consideration of the report of the strategic director regarding the section 151 officer. 

To consider the report of the Head of HR, IT and Customer Services on the adoption of a pay policy statement to meet the requirements of the Localism Act (report attached).

Council considered the report of the head of HR, IT and customer services on the adoption of a pay policy statement to meet the requirements of the Localism Act. 

RESOLVED: to approve the statement of pay policy for 2013/14. 

(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 Cabinet decisions

There were no urgent Cabinet decisions to report. 

(2)       Delegation of Cabinet functions

There were no changes to the scheme of delegation to Cabinet members to report. 

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

The leader reported on two matters.  The first was the announcement by Government that Oxfordshire had been awarded ‘City Deal’ status.  The deal would mean greater spending powers at a local level and increased funding for the local economy.  The government had backed Oxfordshire because of the huge potential of the local knowledge-based economy and contribution to the national economy, especially in the Science Vale area.  The council would work with other Oxfordshire councils to develop the proposal to explore precisely how to achieve economic potential and address the transport bottlenecks across the county, such as the A34, which were barriers to growth. 

The second matter was the publication next week of the council’s consultation on the draft of the Local Plan Part 1.  There would be a ten-week consultation to allow local residents to consider the proposals and respond.  This would include public exhibitions and stakeholder meetings. 

At this stage, the version of the local plan being consulted on was based on housing need evidence that supported the South East Plan.  The housing requirement figures in the final local plan were likely to be different.  The council was working closely with neighbouring councils to produce robust figures of local housing need.  The final version of the local plan, based on the latest local housing need evidence available, would follow in December this year, and would be preceded by another consultation.  This was a step towards providing a five-year housing land supply.  He encouraged the public and councillors to take part in the consultation, as it was an opportunity to engage with the plan-making process to deliver the best possible future for the Vale. 

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

Motion to be proposed by Councillor Jenny Hannaby, seconder to be notified:

This Council congratulates officers and contractors responsible for waste and ground maintenance for their excellent efforts in keeping our paths and car parks as safe as possible throughout the recent bad weather.

This Council also congratulates all officers responsible for alleviating the threat of flooding to vulnerable homes by delivering sand bags and other flood protection equipment.

This Council acknowledges the efforts made by Oxfordshire County Council (OCC) to keep main roads open during the January snow fall.

However, this council regrets that OCC did not carry out their full statutory duties and keep all roads treated with the resulting impact on the Vale’s waste collection service, which were severely disrupted. Council requests the leader to write to the OCC Cabinet member responsible for Highways requesting a review on road clearing policies before the next bout of bad weather.

Council received one motion under standing order 11. 

Motion proposed by Councillor Jenny Hannaby, and seconded by Councillor Richard Webber:

‘This Council congratulates officers and contractors responsible for waste and ground maintenance for their excellent efforts in keeping our paths and car parks as safe as possible throughout the recent bad weather. 

This Council also congratulates all officers responsible for alleviating the threat of flooding to vulnerable homes by delivering sand bags and other flood protection equipment. 

This Council acknowledges the efforts made by Oxfordshire County Council (OCC) to keep main roads open during the January snow fall. 

However, this council regrets that OCC did not carry out their full statutory duties and keep all roads treated with the resulting impact on the Vale’s waste collection service, which were severely disrupted.  Council requests the leader to write to the OCC Cabinet member responsible for Highways requesting a review on road clearing policies before the next bout of bad weather.’ 

Councillor Hannaby praised the actions of the county council in keeping the main roads open during the worst of the winter weather and praised the council’s contractor for its efforts in collecting as much recycling and waste as possible during the same period.  However, the county council was only required to keep the main roads open and this meant that the majority of residential roads were not cleared; consequently, the waste collections were unable to take place in some instances.  She urged Council to support the motion to ask the county council to review its current practice. 

Councillor Matthew Barber, in his right of reply, also congratulated the council’s staff and the contractor for their work during the winter snows.  However, he believed that this motion was not necessary as he, in his capacity as leader, had already written to the county council leader and raised issues about road gritting in rural areas. 

The chairman put the motion to the vote.  By 14 votes in favour, 24 votes against and with 4 abstentions, the motion was declared not carried. 

None