Agenda item

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 framed in this way because, in the Government’s view, it would be unreasonable to put a legal requirement on district councils to achieve the objectives, as so many of the sources of emissions are outside their direct control.  This is particularly the case where the ‘exceedence’ is due to traffic on a trunk road or motorway, or emissions arising from an industrial process where the responsibility lies with the Highways Agency, and Health and Safety Executive respectively.

Section 83(1) of the Environmental Act 1995:  Quote:  “Where as a result of an air quality review, it appears that any air quality standard or objectives are not being achieved, or are not likely within the relevant period to be achieved, within the area of the local authority, the local authority shall by order designate as an AQMA any part of its area in which it appears that those standards or objectives are not being achieved, or are not likely to be achieved within the relevant period.”

 

If a local authority fails to discharge its duties under the 1995 Act, the Secretary of State could intervene where he considers that the local authority has not acted and may issue directions to take specific action, the possible scope of which would be spelled out under Section 85 of the Act.   Additionally, failure on the part of the local authority to properly discharge its duties may leave it susceptible to action by way of judicial review by any person aggrieved by the council’s perceived failure to act”.

 

Councillor Debby Hallett asked the following supplementary question:

 

“How will the Vale mitigate the anticipated increase in air pollution brought about by the major new shopping centre where West Way and Elms Parade now stand?” 

 

Councillor Roger Cox undertook to provide a copy of the document setting out details of the action plans.

 

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?”

 

Councillor Matthew Barber responded as follows:

 

“What other sort of policy making is there?”

 

Councillor Tony de Vere asked the following supplementary question:

 

“Could the Cabinet explain why a decision over shared accommodation was taken without evidence of a cost/ benefit analysis of other options such using Old Abbey House?”

 

Councillor Matthew Barber responded that he was comfortable that all other options had been assessed.

 

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?”

 

Councillor Matthew Barber responded as follows:

 

“We all know the status of a resolution of Council, and that is why I am delighted that the proposal to bring Oxfordshire County Council in to share office accommodation at Abbey House, will save significant sums of public money as well as adhering to the spirit and letter of the motion adopted at last Council that the Vale of White Horse District Council should continue to be based in Abbey House, Abingdon”.

 

Councillor Jerry Patterson asked the following supplementary question:

 

“Given the resolution unanimously passed at the last Council meeting, namely:

 

“That when considering sharing accommodation with others, it is this council’s will that Vale of White Horse District Council should continue to be based at Abbey House, Abingdon.”

 

How does the ruling administration define the word “based” in this context”?

 

Councillor Matthew Barber responded that the front office services would continue to be based at Abbey House.

 

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?

 

Councillor Reg Waite responded as follows:

 

“I am more interested in improving the lives of residents.”

 

Councillor Julie Mayhew-Archer asked the following supplementary question:

 

“In order to improve the lives of residents many Councillors deal with casework by coming in to see individual officers. This saves councillor time and allows officers to deal with issues more speedilyto the benefit of all. Does the cabinet member feel that meeting an officer face-to-face, if the member wishes, is a proper and useful request?”

 

CouncillorReg Waite agreed to provide a written reply.

 

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?”

 

Councillor Elaine Ware responded as follows:

 

“I am delighted that Councillor Pighills seems to be one of the only members of her Group who has recognised one of the many benefits of the Cabinet’s accommodation proposals. It will mean an increase in the number of office workers based in Abingdon Town Centre, and is therefore likely to improve town centre vitality”.

 

Councillor Helen Pighills asked the following supplementary question:

 

"I note that the Chief Executive recently stated publicly that up to 150 of the 164 staff currently based in Abbey House could move to Crowmarsh, which would leave just 14 based in Abingdon. Would you agree that if a way could be found to retain many more Vale staff in Abingdon, for example by using the soon to be vacant Old Abbey House, would not this would also be a welcome and further boost to Abingdon's vitality”?

 

Councillor Elaine Ware responded as follows:

 

“There is a huge contrast to these proposals which rationalise office space, but improve town centre footfall, to the actions of the previous administration that closed offices in both Faringdon and Wantage without any such considerations. These proposals retain Abbey House for both councillors and the public.”

 

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?

 

Councillor Elaine Ware responded as follows:

 

“No, the timing of the deal, which can hardly be described as rushed, is largely due to the renewal of the county council’s existing lease which facilitates them moving to Abbey House as a tenant of the Vale”.

 

Councillor Andrew Skinner asked the following supplementary question:

 

“Presumably the decision was the result of a carefully drawn up plan. So why were non-cabinet councillors and the general public not consulted about the proposed staff moves before the report was presented to the Cabinet”.

 

Councillor Elaine Ware responded as follows:

 

“I am grateful to Councillor Skinner for reminding Council that the leader of the opposition did indeed encourage me to bring forward plans to share office accommodation – however this was at a time when the only viable plan on the table would have been for the Vale to surrender its operations in Abingdon and to move wholesale to Crowmarsh Gifford, a move which we have rightly rejected and pursued a better alternative”.

 

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 ?

 

Councillor Matthew Barber responded as follows:

 

“I imagine they could ask for a lift – but why one earth would they want to?”

 

Councillor Pat Lonergan asked the following supplementary question:

 

“If the idea is that officers will always come to Abbey House when needed, has the cost of this been taken into account when examining the savings of the shared accommodation move”?

 

Councillor Matthew Barber responded that he was confident savings were on the cautious side.

 

128.    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?

 

Councillor Matthew Barber responded as follows:

 

“I would agree that all reasonable and viable options should be examined”.

 

Councillor Bob Johnston asked the following supplementary question:

 

“Please could he itemise for me, in writing the expected cost and savings of each option considered by Cabinet members whilst examining the matter of shared accommodation”?

 

Councillor Matthew Barber responded that allreasonable and viable options had been examined and would be covered at the Scrutiny Committee meeting.