Agenda and minutes

Cabinet - Friday, 1 June 2012 2.00 pm

Venue: The Abbey House, Abingdon, OX14 3JE

Contact: Steve Culliford, Democratic Services Officer. Tel. (01235) 540307 Email:  steve.culliford@southandvale.gov.uk 

Items
No. Item

1.

Apologies for absence

To receive apologies for absence. 

Minutes:

Councillor Matthew Barber (Chairman) had sent his apologies for absence.  Councillor Roger Cox, the Vice-Chairman, took the chair for this meeting.  

2.

Minutes

To adopt and sign as a correct record the minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on 11 May 2012 (previously published). 

Minutes:

RESOLVED: To agree to adopt the minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on 11 May 2012 and agree that the chairman signs them. 

3.

Declarations of interest

To receive any declarations of personal or personal and prejudicial interests in respect of items on the agenda for this meeting. 

Minutes:

None

4.

Urgent business and chairman's announcements

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

Minutes:

None

5.

Statements, petitions, and questions relating to matters affecting the Cabinet

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

Minutes:

Councillor Dudley Hoddinott requested to ask questions on the capital community grants scheme, item 7.  These questions were considered later in the meeting.  

6.

Petition pdf icon PDF 100 KB

At the annual meeting of Council on 16 May 2012, Councillor Jane Hanna presented a petition on behalf of 38 Marcham residents, objecting to the interim housing supply policy.  This is referred to Cabinet as it has responsibility to prepare the local development framework.   The petition text is appended to this agenda. 

Minutes:

At the annual meeting of Council on 16 May 2012, Councillor Jane Hanna presented a petition on behalf of 38 Marcham residents, objecting to the interim housing supply policy.  This was referred to Cabinet as it had responsibility to prepare the local development framework.  Cabinet formally acknowledged receipt of the petition, and noted its contents. 

 

RESOLVED: To request the Cabinet member for planning to reply to Councillor Jane Hanna explaining how the council will proceed. 

7.

Capital community grant scheme pdf icon PDF 78 KB

To consider the head of corporate strategy’s report. 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Cabinet considered the head of corporate strategy’s report that proposed a new capital community grants scheme. 

 

Councillor Dudley Hoddinott was invited to ask his questions to Cabinet on the community grants scheme.  He asked:

  1. when would the revenue grants scheme be available and open for review?
  2. how much money would be available for revenue projects that communities could apply for?
  3. was the re-establishment of a revenue grants scheme a ‘u-turn’? 

 

In reply to Councillor Hoddinott’s questions, the officers reported that the revenue scheme would be considered by Cabinet on 15 June, and it had a £50,000 budget for 2012/13. 

 

The report set out three options to apportion the capital grants budget for 2012/13:

·        Option 1 - dividing the available budget by four (the number of area committees). 

·        Option 2 - allocating funds on a per councillor basis as each councillor had approximately the same number of electors, ensuring that the funds would be distributed evenly 

·        Option 3 - calculating the number of parishes x £525 and the number of electors x 60 pence in each area 

 

Cabinet noted that the Scrutiny Committee had considered the same report on 24 May and had made suggestions.  Cabinet considered these and responded as set out below:

 

Scrutiny Committee’s suggestion

Cabinet’s response

The council should provide examples of capital projects that might be successful under the new capital grants scheme as the public might not be aware of the difference between capital and revenue expenditure in local government terms 

 

Agree this proposal but there should also be examples of schemes that might be successful under the new revenue grants scheme 

The council should inform applicants that there would be a separate revenue grants scheme at a later date 

 

Agreed – publish details of the schemes on the website

Applications should be allowed from charitable bodies and community interest companies

 

Agreed

Area committees should consider the grant applications.  (One Scrutiny Committee member had suggested an alternative to the area committees distributing grants funds, that councillors should each have an amount to spend on projects in their ward as they thought fit.  However, this suggestion did not receive the committee’s support, as this would result in each councillor having a very small budget.  The committee considered that it would be better to pool resources and determine grants collectively through area committees.) 

 

Agreed – area committees would continue to determine grant applications

Where area committees initiate their own schemes, these must be subject to a formal agreement for ownership, liability and future maintenance, for example, perhaps through the formal involvement of a third party 

 

Agreed

The scheme eligibility criteria needed clarification on the difference between items such as repairs, maintenance, and professional fees, which were not normally eligible for capital grants, and refurbishment, which might be 

 

Agreed – officers to clarify the criteria before publication 

Each applicant should always obtain support of their parish or town council, and ideally an appropriate financial contribution 

 

Agreed but it must be the applicant’s responsibility to declare that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

8.

Rye Farm and Hales Meadow car parks, Abingdon pdf icon PDF 103 KB

To consider the report of the head of economy, leisure and property. 

Minutes:

Cabinet considered a report from the head of economy, leisure, and property.  This reported that there had been no public objections to the draft car park order for Rye Farm and Hales Meadow car parks in Abingdon.  Therefore, the cabinet member recommended the adoption of the order without amendment.  Cabinet agreed. 

 

RESOLVED: To

 

(a)               make no changes to the draft car park order for Rye Farm and Hales Meadow car parks in Abingdon; and

 

(b)               authorise the head of legal and democratic services to make the car park order 2012 and determine the date it comes into effect. 

Exempt information under section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972

None

 

Vale of White Horse District Council