Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillor Stuart Davenport.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the council minutes of the meeting held on 16 December 2015 (attached). 

RESOLVED: to approve the minutes of the meeting held on 16 December 2015 as a correct record and agree that the Chairman sign them as such.

None.

The chairman provided housekeeping information.

A.        Councillor June Stock, Chairman of Grove Parish Council, made the following statement on behalf of Grove Parish Council.

“The Vale of White Horse District Council, on its website has a Customer Service Charter which states that it will provide a full reply within seven working days to all letters and emails.

Grove Parish Council has written numerous emails on a number of occasions since 1 January 2015 to which we have not received full replies let alone in the promised seven working days.  Would the Council please explain why this failure has occurred?

On the 17 July 2015, the Vale of White Horse District Council informed the parish council that any further requests for updates and or questions relating to the Grove airfield development “are to be filtered through the elected district council representatives of Grove and this is an expectation of officers and ensures clear lines of communications with messages not being mixed”.

The parish council totally disagree with this policy as it inhibits parish council officers talking directly to district council officers on specific matters such as the Grove Airfield Development and to date the district council representatives for Grove have not given any substantial information to update the parish council at their full Council meetings.

On 4 January 2016, Grove Parish Council asked for a meeting with a member of the Planning Department to discuss the Grove airfield site.  The earliest date given by the Planning department was Wednesday 30 March 2016 (the Wednesday after Easter).  It was suggested by the planning department that the meeting would include following:

• To enhance lines of communications between the local planning authority and the parish council
• Update the parish council on current planning legislation/policy
• Receive and answer questions on general planning issues
• Update on the Grove airfield development

30 March, (at the time) was nearly three months off and this timescale is totally unacceptable.

Is the only way we can get a speedier response is for the parish council to turn up at your offices and wait our turn to be seen as per your Customer Service Charter?

Your published complaints procedure states that a full reply will be sent within 20 working days or, if more complicated, 28 working days.  It should be apparent that our chasing emails are complaints so that you have failed on a second level of your Charter. 

The parish clerk wrote to the chief executive on 4 January 2016 and requested the following;

“David, as you already know, the parish council have become increasingly concerned at the lack of communication between the district council and the parish over planning matters, specifically the Grove airfield development.

Through my own endeavours and with no assistance from the district council, I have been able to make contact with Persimmon Homes and all they have been able to tell the parish council is that they are working to resolve issues regarding the signing of the s106 agreement in respect of the Grove airfield development. 

Therefore, can  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

None.

None.

To receive the following questions from members of the council under standing order 12.

1.      Question from Councillor Bob Johnston to Councillor Mike Murray, Cabinet member for planning policy

Could the Cabinet member please explain the policy and scheme for collecting money paid from developers in lieu of affordable housing, to build affordable housing elsewhere? For example, we have £1 million in reserve from the Old Gaol. How will that be used for affordable housing?

2.    Question from Councillor Debby Hallett to Councillor Mike Murray, Cabinet member for planning policy

Could the Cabinet member please update us on the council’s response to the government's current consultation on changes to the National Planning Policy Framework, which ends on 22 February 2016? 

3.    Question from Councillor Emily Smith to Councillor Roger Cox, Cabinet member for planning (development management and enforcement)

Of all the homes granted full and outline planning permission since 2011, how many have been completed, how many are not yet started, and what actions have Vale taken to speed up construction and make sure homes are delivered as soon as possible?

1.    Question from Councillor Bob Johnston to Councillor Roger Cox, Cabinet member for planning development management and housing.

“Could the Cabinet member please explain the policy and scheme for collecting money paid from developers in lieu of affordable housing, to build affordable housing elsewhere? For example, we have £1 million in reserve from the Old Gaol. How will that be used for affordable housing?”

Councillor Cox responded as follows:

“Our policy is to seek affordable housing on site and to only accept commuted sums where it is not viable or achievable to deliver affordable housing on site.

Where we accept a commuted sum, secured within a planning obligations Section 106 agreement, we specify when this should be paid.

Planning obligations are managed and monitored by the council’s Section 106 officer, who ensures the money is paid on the due date.

The Housing Development Team, in liaison with the Cabinet member, is responsible for ensuring commuted sums are used in a range of ways that bring forward affordable housing.  The sums may be used to top up affordable housing schemes to improve viability or to meet particular housing needs. 

The commuted sum agreed in lieu of provision at Harcourt Way was £1 million.

A payment schedule was agreed with the developer for £100,000 in 2015 and £180,000 per year for each of the next five years to 2020. 

Therefore, we do not have £1 million in reserves, but will use those funds in an appropriate way, as opportunities arise, to increase delivery of affordable housing.”

Councillor Cox undertook to provide a written response to a supplementary question which asked if, in light of impending changes to housing benefit which come into force in 2017, he, as Cabinet Member, could confirm whether any social housing schemes in the Vale have either been postponed or scrapped because they will no longer be financially viable.

2.    Question from Councillor Debby Hallett to Councillor Mike Murray, Cabinet member for planning policy.

“Could the Cabinet member please update us on the council’s response to the government's current consultation on changes to the National Planning Policy Framework, which ends on 22 February 2016?” 

Councillor Murray responded as follows:

“The current government consultation seeks views on proposed changes to national planning policy on a range of issues including, broadening the definition of affordable housing, increasing the density of development around commuter hubs, development on brownfield land and delivery of starter homes.

South and Vale councils have responded jointly to this consultation. Our response may be seen on our website within the planning policy section, http://www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk/services-and-advice/planning-and-building/planning-policy.”

3.    Question from Councillor Emily Smith to Councillor Roger Cox, Cabinet member for planning development management and housing

“Of all the homes granted full and outline planning permission since 2011, how many have been completed, how many are not yet started, and what actions have Vale taken to speed up construction and make sure homes are delivered as soon as possible?”

Councillor Roger Cox responded as follows:

“Planning permission has been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

At its meeting on 28 January 2016, Cabinet considered the strategic director’s report on the procurement of corporate services.  The corporate services project had commenced in April 2014, attracting three new district council partners (Hart, Havant Borough, and Mendip) in addition to the council’s existing partner, South Oxfordshire District Council.   

The Joint Scrutiny Committee had met on 21 January 2016 and supported the recommendations contained in the report. 

Both South Oxfordshire’s and the Vale of White Horse’s Cabinets met together informally to discuss the officer’s report. 

Cabinet agreed with the recommendations set out in the report subject to an amendment to consult the chairman of the Scrutiny Committee on finalising the terms of reference of the joint scrutiny committee and also consultation with the relevant Cabinet member on the terms of reference of the joint committee. 

The report of the strategic director, which Cabinet considered on 28 January 2016, was circulated to all councillors. Please bring this report to the meeting. Hard copies are available on request. 

RECOMMENDATION: to

1.         agree to establish a corporate services joint scrutiny committee in accordance with the draft terms of reference outlined in appendix 4 to the strategic director’s report;

2.         authorise the chief executive, in consultation with the chairman of the Scrutiny Committee, to finalise the terms of reference of the committee;

3.         authorise the head of legal and democratic services to appoint members and substitutes to the committee in accordance with the wishes of the relevant group leader(s) and make consequential changes to the constitution.

Council considered Cabinet’s recommendations, made at its meeting on 28 January 2016, to establish a corporate services joint scrutiny committee.

RESOLVED: to

1.         establish a corporate services joint scrutiny committee in accordance with the draft terms of reference outlined in appendix 4 to the strategic director’s report to Cabinet on 28 January 2016;

2.         authorise the chief executive, in consultation with the chairman of the Scrutiny Committee, to finalise the terms of reference of the committee;

3.         authorise the head of legal and democratic services to appoint members and substitutes to the committee in accordance with the wishes of the relevant group leader(s) and make consequential changes to the constitution.

Cabinet, at its meeting on 5 February 2016, considered the treasury management mid-year monitoring report of the head of finance.

The Joint Audit and Governance Committee had considered the report at its meeting on 25 January 2016 and had not recommended any adjustments to the strategy as a result of the first six months’ activities.  Likewise, Cabinet concluded that the treasury management activities had operated within the agreed parameters set out in the approved treasury management strategy.

The report of the head of finance, considered by the Cabinet on 5 February 2016, was circulated to all councillors.  Hard copies are available on request. 

RECOMMENDATION: to approve the treasury management mid-year monitoring report 2015/16.

Council considered Cabinet’s recommendations, made at its meeting on 5 February 2016, on the treasury management activities for the first six months of 2015/16.

The Joint Audit and Governance Committee had considered the report at its meeting on 25 January 2016 and had not recommended any adjustments to the strategy as a result of the first six months’ activities.  Likewise, Cabinet concluded that the treasury management activities had operated within the agreed parameters set out in the approved treasury management strategy.

RESOLVED: to approve the treasury management mid-year monitoring report 2015/16

Cabinet, at its meeting on 5 February 2016, considered the report of the head of finance on the treasury management strategy, the annual investment strategy and the prudential indicators.

The Joint Audit and Governance Committee considered the report at its meeting on 25 January 2016 and had not recommended any adjustments to the strategy.  Cabinet agreed to recommend Council approve the strategy as attached to the report.

The report of the head of finance, considered by the Cabinet on 5 February 2016, was circulated to all councillors.  Hard copies are available on request. 

RECOMMENDATION: to

1.    approve the treasury management strategy 2016/17 as set out in appendix A to the head of finance’s report to Cabinet on 5 February 2016;

2.    approve the prudential indicators and limits for 2016/17 to 2018/19 as set out in table 2, appendix A to the head of finance’s report;

3.    approve the annual investment strategy 2016/17 set out in appendix A to the report (paragraphs 25 to 60) and the lending criteria detailed in table 5 to the head of finance’s report.

Council considered Cabinet’s recommendations, made at its meeting on 5 February 2016, on the council’s treasury management strategy and investment startegy for 2016/17.

The Joint Audit and Governance Committee considered the report at its meeting on 25 January 2016 and had not recommended any adjustments to the strategy.  Cabinet agreed to recommend Council approve the strategy.

RESOLVED: to approve

1.         the treasury management strategy 2016/17 set out in appendix A to the head of finance's report to Cabinet on 5 February 2016;

2.         the prudential indicators and limits for 2016/17 to 2018/19 as set out in table 2, appendix A to the head of finance's report; and

3.         the annual investment strategy 2016/17 set out in appendix A (paragraphs 25 to 60) and the lending criteria detailed in table 5 to the head of finance's report.

Cabinet, at its meeting on 5 February 2016, considered the report of the head of finance on the draft revenue budget 2016/17, and the capital programme to 2020/21.

Cabinet resolved to agree that the Cabinet member for finance, in conjunction with the head of finance, may make minor adjustments to the report and prudential indicators should they prove necessary prior to submission to Council. Any adjustments will be reported to Council.

The report of the head of finance, considered by the Cabinet on 5 February 2016, was circulated to all councillors.  Hard copies are available on request. 

The Scrutiny Committee will consider this report at its meeting on 11 February 2016. Any views or recommendations will be reported to Council.

RECOMMENDATION: to

(a)  set the revenue budget for 2016/17 as set out in the appendix A.1 to the head of finance’s report to Cabinet on 5 February 2016;

(b)  approve the capital programme for 2016/17 to 2020/21 as set out in appendix D.1 to the head of finance’s report, together with the capital growth bids set out in appendix D.2 of the head of finance’s report;

(c)  set the council’s prudential limits as listed in appendix E to the head of finance’s report;

(d)  approve the medium term financial plan to 2020/21 as set out in appendix F.1 to the head of finance’s report; 

(e)  authorise the head of finance, in consultation with the cabinet member for finance, to issue an efficiency statement to government in order to secure a four year settlement, if this is considered to be beneficial to the council.

The chairman referred to regulations that require councils to record the names of those councillors voting in favour, against or abstaining from any vote on the budget, including amendments, and the council tax. In accordance with the regulations he would call for a named vote on each of these matters at this meeting.

The chairman reminded councillors that they were not entitled to vote on any issue affecting the level or administration of the council tax or other decisions which might affect the making of any such calculation such as the budget, if they were over two months in arrears with their council tax payments. Where such circumstances applied, councillors were under a statutory obligation to disclose the restriction placed on them and refrain from voting at the relevant meeting. No councillor made any such declaration.

Council noted the report of the chief finance officer, appendix G to the budget report, on the robustness of the budget estimates and the adequacy of the reserves.

Councillor Barber moved and Councillor Cox seconded a motion to approve Cabinet’s recommendations as follows:

That Council:

1.         sets the revenue budget for 2016/17 as set out in the appendix A.1 to the head of finance’s report to Cabinet on 5 February 2016;

2.         approves the capital programme for 2016/17 to 2020/21 as set out in appendix D.1 to the head of finance’s report, together with the capital growth bids set out in appendix D.2 of the head of finance’s report;

3.         sets the council’s prudential limits as listed in appendix E to the head of finance’s report;

4.         approves the medium term financial plan to 2020/21 as set out in appendix F.1 to the head of finance’s report; and

5.         authorises the head of finance, in consultation with the cabinet member for finance, to issue an efficiency statement to government in order to secure a four year settlement, if this is considered to be beneficial to the council.

Councillor Hoddinott moved and Councillor Johnston seconded an amendment to the above budget to provide a video webcasting system for Council and committee meetings held at Milton Park and The Beacon at a cost of £20,000 for each of the six years of the medium term financial plan to be funded by the cancellation of the growth bid in Cabinet’s budget proposals to fund car park expansion.

Those councillors who spoke in support of the amendment were of the view that a webcasting system would improve access to meetings and communication with the public, encourage the public to become more involved in the democratic process and take part in local government, increase the accountability of local councillors and potentially increase the pool of potential candidates.

Those councillors who spoke against the amendment stated that the benefits would not justify the cost. The number of viewers would be low, decisions were already published and available on the council’s website and, whilst webcasting may increase passive participation, it would not increase the level of active participation by members of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

Council considered the report of the head of finance on the setting of the Council Tax for the 2016/17 financial year.

In accordance with regulations requiring councils to record the names of those councillors voting in favour, against or abstaining from any vote on the council tax the chairman called for a recorded vote which was carried with the voting being as follows:

RESOLVED:

1.    to note that at its meeting on 16 December 2015 the council calculated the council tax base 2016/17:

(a)    for the whole council area as 48,176.9 [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.

2.    that the council tax requirement for the council’s own purposes for 2016/17 (excluding parish precepts) is £5,621,762

3.    that the following amounts be calculated for the year 2016/17 in accordance with Sections 31 to 36 of the Act:

(a)    £76,039,313 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)    £67,056,575 being the aggregate of the amounts which the council estimates for the items set out in Section 31A(3) of the Act.

(c)    £8,982,738 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

(d)    £186.45 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)    £3,360,976 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.

(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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

To consider the report of the head of HR, IT and technical 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 technical services on the adoption of a pay policy statement to meet the requirements of the Localism Act.

RESOLVED: to approve the pay policy statement for 2016-17 attached to the report of the head of HR, IT and technical services to Council on 17 February 2016.

To consider the report of the head of planning on the proposed Oxford Flood Alleviation Scheme (OFAS) and seek approval for the delegation to Oxfordshire County Council of any planning responsibilities that would otherwise be exercised by Vale of White Horse District Council in relation to the OFAS (report attached).

Council considered the report of the head of planning on the proposed Oxford Flood Alleviation Scheme which sought approval for the delegation to Oxfordshire County Council of any planning responsibilities that would otherwise be exercised by Vale of White Horse District Council in relation to the scheme. 

RESOLVED: to

1.         delegate the discharge of the district planning authority functions of this council to Oxfordshire County Council, in connection with the processing and determination of a planning application for the Oxford Flood Alleviation Scheme, under section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972;

2.         authorise the Head of Planning to negotiate and agree a memorandum of understanding with Oxfordshire County Council to determine the operational arrangements of the delegation of the district council’s planning functions in relation to the scheme; and

3.         place a long stop date on the delegation such that the delegation will be revoked if any scheme application is not determined by 18 February 2019. 

At its meeting in July 2008 Council established a Joint Staff Committee with South Oxfordshire District Council to manage the appointments process for the employment of officers to the senior management team and make recommendations on appointments to Council. The Committee comprises three members from each Council.

In light of the forthcoming retirement of David Buckle, Chief Executive, Council is invited to agree revised terms of reference for the Committee to progress the recruitment of a chief executive and appoint councillors to sit on the Committee (to be the Leader of the council, one Conservative member and one Liberal Democrat member in accordance with the political balance of the council).

Revised terms of reference for the Committee are attached.

Council considered revised terms of reference for the Joint Staff Committee to progress the recruitment of a chief executive and an invitation to appoint councillors to sit on the Committee (the Leader of the council, one Conservative member and one Liberal Democrat member in accordance with the political balance of the council).

RESOLVED: to

1.         approve the terms of reference of the Joint Staff Committee as set out on page 25 of the Council agenda for the meeting on 17 February 2016; and

2.         appoint Matthew Barber, Leader of the council, Roger Cox as the Conservative member and Debby Hallett as the Liberal Democrat member to the Joint Staff Committee. 

Matthew Barber, Leader of the council, provided the following updates:

·         Refugees – the Home Office had requested the council to house six families. No timescale was provided and he undertook to keep councillors informed.  

·         Oxfordshire devolution – councillors would be provided with a briefing note on developments.

·         Housing delivery – the council was working on a joint venture with East Harwell Campus which would require a Council decision.

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

(1)   Motion to be proposed by Councillor Judy Roberts, seconded by Councillor Ed Blagrove.

Council agrees to change the name of the Abingdon Area Committee to the Abingdon and Northeast Area Committee, to more accurately reflect the ward locations of committee members.

(2)   Motion proposed by Councillor Debby Hallett, seconded by Councillor Catherine Webber.

Council reconfirms its commitment to Localism principles as laid out by Government in general, and to Neighbourhood Planning in particular, and will continue to both help communities create and adopt Neighbourhood Plans and support their plans once adopted.

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

(1)   Councillor Judy Roberts moved and Councillor Councillor Ed Blagrove seconded the following motion:

Council agrees to change the name of the Abingdon Area Committee to the Abingdon and Northeast Area Committee, to more accurately reflect the ward locations of committee members.

RESOLVED: to change the name of the Abingdon Area Committee to the Abingdon and Northeast Area Committee, to more accurately reflect the ward locations of committee members.

(2)   Councillor Debby Hallett moved and Councillor Catherine Webber seconded the following motion:

Council reconfirms its commitment to Localism principles as laid out by Government in general, and to Neighbourhood Planning in particular, and will continue to both help communities create and adopt Neighbourhood Plans and support their plans once adopted.

RESOLVED: that Council reconfirms its commitment to Localism principles as laid out by Government in general, and to Neighbourhood Planning in particular, and will continue to both help communities create and adopt Neighbourhood Plans and support their plans once adopted.