Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of councillors Ron Mansfield and Aidan Melville.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the council minutes of the meeting held on 17 July 2013 (attached). 

RESOLVED: to adopt the minutes of the meeting held on 17 July 2013 as a correct record and agree that the Chairman signs them.

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 thanked those councillors who had hosted a table at the recent awards ceremony and reminded them of his forthcoming annual dinner.

He invited those present to observe a minutes silence in memory of former councillor Ted Perkins.

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

None.

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. 

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 .

(1)       Question from Councillor Debby Hallett to the Cabinet member for environmental health, Councillor Roger Cox

What are the possible legal exposures or risks to the Vale of failure to take action to reduce air pollution in defined Air Quality Management Areas?

(2)       Question from Councillor Catherine Webber to the Cabinet member for economic development, Councillor Elaine Ware

Who knows best – Cabinet, Council or Residents?

(3)       Question from Councillor Tony de Vere to the Leader of Council, Councillor Matthew Barber

Does the ruling administration believe in evidence-based policy making?

(4)       Question from Councillor Dudley Hoddinott to the Cabinet member for economic development, Councillor Elaine Ware

How does the Cabinet member define the word “significant”?

(5)       Question from Councillor Jerry Patterson to the Leader of council, Councillor Matthew Barber

When the Council unanimously passes a motion, does the ruling administration believe that such a resolution should be binding?

(6)       Question from Councillor Julie Mayhew Archer to the Cabinet member for waste services, Councillor Reg Waite

How does the Cabinet member imagine that the lives of Vale district councillors will be affected by the shared accommodation plans?

(7)       Question from Councillor Elizabeth Miles to the Leader of Council, Councillor Matthew Barber

Does the ruling administration believe in the idea of “civic pride”?

(8)       From Councillor Helen Pighills to the Cabinet member for economic development, Councillor Elaine Ware

What effect will the proposed move to Crowmarsh have on Abingdon Town Centre vitality?

(9)       From Councillor Andrew Skinner to the Cabinet member for economic development, Councillor Elaine Ware

Did the Liberal Democrat request that the Cabinet get on with negotiations over shared accommodation play any part in the speed with which the current deal was arrived at?

(10).    Question from Councillor Pat Lonergan to the Leader of council, Councillor Matthew Barber

Please could the Leader explain how councillors who either do not have a car or who try to minimise car use can get to Crowmarsh ?

(11)     Question from Councillor Debby Hallett to Deputy Leader Councillor Roger Cox

Who in the Council has read the South Oxfordshire District Council report into the state of their Crowmarsh building?

(12)     Question from Councillor Bob Johnston to the Leader of Council, Councillor Matthew Barber

Does the Leader believe that complex decisions should be informed by a thorough financial analysis examining all possible options?

The Chairman reminded councilors that standing order 12 only allows questions on any matter which the council has powers or duties or which affects the district. He ruled questions 2, 4, 7 and 11, as set out on the agenda out of order because in his view it was not appropriate or helpful to members of the public, councillors to whom the questions are addressed, other councilors or officers if councilors do not make it clear what is being referred to. The questions set out below did not meet these criteria:

2.         Question from Councillor Catherine Webber to the Cabinet member for economic development, Councillor Elaine Ware

“Who knows best – Cabinet, Council or Residents?”

4.         Question from Councillor Dudley Hoddinott to the Cabinet member for economic development, Councillor Elaine Ware

“How does the Cabinet member define the word “significant”?“

7.         Question from Councillor Elizabeth Miles to the Leader of council, Councillor Matthew Barber

“Does the ruling administration believe in the idea of “civic pride?”

11.       Question from Councillor Debby Hallett to Deputy Leader Councillor Roger Cox

“Who in the Council has read the South Oxfordshire District Council report into the state of their Crowmarsh building?”

The following questions were put.

1.         Question from Councillor Debby Hallett to the Cabinet member for environmental health, Councillor Roger Cox

“What are the possible legal exposures or risks to the Vale of failure to take action to reduce air pollution in defined Air Quality Management Areas?”

Councillor Roger Cox responded as follows:

“Local authorities have been given a statutory duty to assess and review air quality under Part VI of the Environment Act 1995.  The Act sets national air quality objectives and requires, in two tier areas, that district councils should risk assess and examine likely air quality problem areas - for example, industrial sites or major road junctions.

Once an “exceedence” (the legislative term) of an objective has been identified, the council is required to produce a detailed assessment demonstrating the scale of the air quality problem; this covers both area and severity.  Once completed a council is required to declare an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA).

Following the declaration of an AQMA the council has to develop an Air Quality Action Plan setting out the actions necessary to achieve the National objectives. It is then required to submit a progress report every year. All reports are scrutinised by central Government – you will recall this was done in April 2013 and I sent you a copy and officers sent it to opposition members.

If this council fails to act appropriately, it’s AQMA and action plans would be scrutinised by Government.  Failure to act within a reasonable timescale to known “exceedences” could result in declaration of an AQMA and censure.

However, councils are not legally obliged to achieve the National Air Quality Objectives, but are required to work towards meeting them by drawing up action plans containing measures which could improve local air quality.

The legislation was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

To consider the following recommendations from Cabinet, individual Cabinet members, or committees since the last Council meeting. 

(1)       Gambling policy

The Licensing Acts Committee, at its meeting on 19 September 2013,  reviewed the council’s gambling policy.  The responses to the consultation mostly favoured the draft policy or had a neutral view.  However, most respondents also supported the council retaining its ‘no casinos’ policy. 

The policy adopted in 2010 included a ‘no casinos’ clause due to the rural nature of the Vale with country market towns being inappropriate locations for a casino.  The committee considered that the council should retain the ‘no casinos’ policy for the same reason; large towns or cities were more appropriate locations. 

The committee recommended the adoption of the draft joint gambling policy to Cabinet, which, at its meeting on 4 October 2013, recommended its adoption to Council with an amendment to paragraph 4.10.5 to enforce the limits on the number of gaming machines in betting premises.  However, the legislation prohibits Cabinet from recommending the ‘no casinos’ clause. 

The Licensing Acts Committee:

LICENSING ACTS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: to

Adopt a ‘no casino’ resolution under section 166 (1) of the Gambling Act 2005 and that paragraph 4.9.3 of the Joint Gambling Policy be amended to read:

‘Section 166 of the Act gives the council the power to pass a ‘no casino’ resolution, meaning that applications for a casino would not be considered.  The council has adopted a ‘no casino’ resolution on the basis that this rural district with country market towns is an inappropriate place for a casino, that casinos are better located in large towns or cities, and the council should also protect the most vulnerable people from gambling in casinos.  This resolution is required to be renewed within three years.’ 

CABINET RECOMMENDATION: to

(i)                 adopt the proposed Joint Gambling Policy, subject to paragraph 4.10.5 being amended to read:

‘The councils may, in accordance with section 181 of the Act, enforce a limit on the number of betting machines…’ 

(ii)               authorise the head of legal and democratic services to make minor editorial changes to the Joint Gambling Policy; and

(iii)             authorise the head of legal and democratic services to publish the Joint Gambling Policy in accordance with the Gambling Act 2005 (Licensing Authority Policy Statement)(England and Wales) Regulations 2006. 

(2)       Treasury management outturn 2012/13

Cabinet, at its meeting on 4 October 2013, considered a report on the outturn performance of the treasury management function for the financial year 2012/13.

Despite a fall in market interest rates during 2012/13, the council’s investments generated income of £553,000.  This was £136,000 above the original budget estimate and was above the industry average for 2012/13. 

RECOMMENDATION: to

(a)       approve the treasury management outturn report 2012/13; and

(b)       approve the actual 2012/13 prudential indicators within the report. 

Council considered the following recommendations from Cabinet and the Licensing Acts Committee since the last Council meeting.

(1)       Gambling policy

At its meeting on 19 September 2013 the Licensing Acts Committee reviewed the council’s gambling policy. 

The committee recommended the adoption of the draft joint gambling policy to Cabinet, which, at its meeting on 4 October 2013, recommended its adoption to Council with an amendment to paragraph 4.10.5 to enforce the limits on the number of gaming machines in betting premises. 

RESOLVED: to

1.         adopt a ‘no casino’ resolution under section 166 (1) of the Gambling Act 2005 and that paragraph 4.9.3 of the Joint Gambling Policy be amended to read:

‘Section 166 of the Act gives the council the power to pass a ‘no casino’ resolution, meaning that applications for a casino would not be considered. The council has adopted a ‘no casino’ resolution on the basis that this rural district with country market towns is an inappropriate place for a casino, that casinos are better located in large towns or cities, and the council should also protect the most vulnerable people from gambling in casinos. This resolution is required to be renewed within three years.’

2.         adopt the proposed Joint Gambling Policy, subject to paragraph 4.10.5 being amended to read:

‘The councils may, in accordance with section 181 of the Act, enforce a limit on the number of betting machines…’

3.         authorise the head of legal and democratic services to make minor editorial changes to the Joint Gambling Policy; and

4.         authorise the head of legal and democratic services to publish   the Joint Gambling Policy in accordance with the Gambling Act 2005 (Licensing Authority Policy Statement)(England and Wales) Regulations 2006.

(2)       Treasury management outturn 2012/13

At its meeting on 4 October 2013, Cabinet considered a report on the outturn performance of the treasury management function for the financial year 2012/13.

RESOLVED: to

(a)       approve the treasury management outturn report 2012/13; and

(b)       approve the actual 2012/13 prudential indicators within the report of the head of finance to Cabinet on 4 October 2013.

.

To consider the report of the Chief Executive on the terms of reference for a community governance review – a review of parish arrangements within the district (attached).

Council considered the report of the chief executive on draft terms of reference for a community governance review – a review of parish arrangements within the district.

The Chairman reported that although paragraph 11 of the report referred to requests from Faringdon Town Council to extend the town boundary to include potential areas for development to the west of the town and to consider potential warding arrangements these requests were not reflected in the terms of reference appended to the report.  With these additions Council was invited to agree the terms of reference.

RESOLVED: to

1.            approve the terms of reference set out in Appendix A attached to the report of the chief executive to Council on 23 October 2013 for a community governance review of the Vale of White Horse subject to the addition of the above issues; and

2.            authorise the chief executive, in consultation with the members of the Community Governance Review Working Group, to add additional items to the terms of reference where appropriate up to the end of November 2013. 

To consider the report of the Head of Legal and Democratic Services on proposed changes to the council’s constitution (attached).

Council considered the report of the head of legal and democratic services on proposed changes to the council’s constitution.

The Chairman of Council reported that the leader’s scheme attached to the report contained incorrect details about cabinet membership. A revised correct version was circulated at the meeting.

RESOLVED: to

1.                  note the Leader’s delegations as set out in appendix 1 of the report of the head of legal and democratic services to Council on 23 October 2013;

2.                  note the Leader’s delegation to the Head of Health and Housing  in respect of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013 as set out in paragraph six of the report of the head of legal and democratic services to Council meeting on 23 October 2013;

3.                  note the Leader’s revised scheme of delegation attached to the minute book copy of these minutes;

4.                  agree the revised financial procedure rules attached at appendix three of the report of the head of legal and democratic services to Council meeting on 23 October 2013;

5.                  agree the proposed amendments to officer delegation set out in appendix four of the report of the head of legal and democratic services to  Council on 23 October 2013;

6.                  authorise the head of legal and democratic services to make the necessary changes to the council’s constitution to reflect the changes set out in the report;

7.                  authorise the head of legal and democratic services to make any minor or   consequential amendments to the constitution required for clarification, consistency and compliance with the council’s style guide.

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.  This information will be reported at the meeting (if any).

None.

(1)       Urgent cabinet decisions

In accordance with the overview and scrutiny procedure rules, a cabinet 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.

The Leader of council to report that he took a decision on 9 August 2013 to approve consultation on a revised council tax reduction scheme to replace the existing scheme from 1 April 2014. The chairman of the scrutiny committee had agreed that any delay caused by the call-in process would impact on the consultation period.

(2)       Delegation of cabinet functions

To receive details of any changes to the leader’s 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). 

The Leader of council reported that he took a decision on 9 August 2013 to approve consultation on a revised council tax reduction scheme to replace the existing scheme from 1 April 2014. The chairman of the scrutiny committee had agreed that any delay caused by the call-in process would impact on the consultation period.

To receive notices of motion under standing order 11.

(1)       Motion to be proposed by Councillor Jim Halliday, seconded by Councillor Yvonne Constance:

"Council welcomes the measures that the Head of Legal and Democratic Services has put in place to ensure that where an undertaking has been given at any meeting of Council and its committees to provide a response in writing to a question from a councillor or a member of the public, a record of the written answer is published as soon as it is available and in the same place as the minutes of the meeting." 

(2)               Motion to be proposed by Councillor Sandy Lovatt, seconded by Councillor Charlotte Dickson:

"This Council welcomes the decision in principle of Cabinet to let part of Abbey House to Oxfordshire County Council, and Citizens Advice Bureau.  This move will bring public services closer together in a more convenient location for our residents; will preserve Abingdon as the administrative centre for the Vale; and will save Vale tax payers approximately £200,000 per annum." 

(3)               Motion to be proposed by Councillor Yvonne Constance, seconded by Councillor Simon Howell:

“Council notes the possibility of submitting the following proposal to the government under the Sustainable Communities Act:

‘That the Secretary of State help protect community pubs in England by ensuring that planning permission and community consultation are required before community pubs are allowed to be converted to betting shops, supermarkets and pay-day loan stores or other uses, or are allowed to be demolished.’ 

The Council notes that if this power was acquired it would allow the council to determine if pubs should be demolished or converted into other uses and could save many valued community pubs.

The Council resolves to submit the proposal to the government under the Sustainable Communities Act and to work together with Local Works and the Campaign for Real Ale to gain support for the proposal from other councils in the region and across the country.” 

(4)       Motion to be proposed by Councillor Debby Hallett, seconded by Councillor Dudley Hoddinott:

“In view of the universally unpopular proposal for the wholesale redevelopment of the West Way shopping area in Botley, this Council should request the Cabinet to withdraw the option to sell the Vale’s West Way property to the developers, Doric.”

(5)       Motion to be proposed by Councillor Tony de Vere, seconder to be confirmed: 

“Council notes the recently issued report “Final report on progress against the Energy Reduction Plan 2008/9 - 2012/13” and that the council’s baseline Co2 emissions in 2007 were 5134 tonnes, and that the emissions in 2012/13 were 4270 tonnes, a reduction of 17 per cent on the baseline. Council is also pleased to note that the 5 year capital budget of £200,000 it allocated for energy saving measures, has been so effective :  In 2012/13 the annual savings on gas, electricity, and diesel exceeded £139,000. Council therefore 1) congratulates all the staff involved in achieving these significant energy savings, 2)  ...  view the full agenda text for item 39.

(1)       Motion proposed by Councillor Jim Halliday and seconded by Councillor Yvonne Constance:

"Council welcomes the measures that the Head of Legal and Democratic Services has put in place to ensure that where an undertaking has been given at any meeting of Council and its committees to provide a response in writing to a question from a councillor or a member of the public, a record of the written answer is published as soon as it is available and in the same place as the minutes of the meeting."

RESOLVED:

That Council welcomes the measures that the Head of Legal and Democratic Services has put in place to ensure that where an undertaking has been given at any meeting of Council and its committees to provide a response in writing to a question from a councillor or a member of the public, a record of the written answer is published as soon as it is available and in the same place as the minutes of the meeting.

(2)               Motion proposed by Councillor Sandy Lovatt and seconded by Councillor Yvonne Constance:

"This Council welcomes the decision in principle of Cabinet to let part of Abbey House to Oxfordshire County Council, and Citizens Advice Bureau. This move will bring public services closer together in a more convenient location for our residents; will preserve Abingdon as the administrative centre for the Vale; and will save Vale tax payers approximately £200,000 per annum."

A number of councillors did not consider it appropriate for Council to consider this motion on the eve of Scrutiny Committee’s consideration of the call in of Cabinet’s decision. As such they would abstain from any vote.

Those councillors supporting the motion stated the following:

• Some teams would maintain a significant presence in Abbey House;
• Vale of White Horse District Council would continue to be based in Abingdon from the public point of view;
• The sharing of accommodation with Oxfordshire County Council would enable better joint working with the County Council, provide a more convenient service for customers and save public money;
• The increase in the number of office workers will have a positive impact  on Abingdon.

Those councillors opposing the motion stated the following:

·        Vale of White Horse District Council should remain based in Abbey House, Abingdon;

·        Councillors would have less access to officers based at Crowmarsh Gifford;

·        Lack of involvement in the decision making process with non-Cabinet members.

In accordance with standing order 29(3), at the request of more than a fifth of councillors present, the chairman asked for a recorded vote.  Votes on the amendment were recorded as follows:

None.

None.