Agenda and minutes

Venue: The Fountain Conference Centre, Howbery Park, Crowmarsh Gifford

Contact: Susan Harbour  Democratic Services Team Leader

Items
No. Item

17.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 137 KB

To adopt and sign as a correct record the Council minutes of the annual meeting held on 18 May 2017 - attached. 

Minutes:

RESOLVED: to approve the minutes of the meeting held on 18 May 2017 as a correct record and agree that the Chairman sign them as such.

18.

Declarations of disclosable pecuniary interest

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

Minutes:

None.

19.

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:

There were no urgent items.

 

On behalf of the council, the Chairman welcomed new councillors Mocky Khan and Ian Snowdon to the council following their election as the ward councillors for Didcot South and Didcot West respectively at last week’s by elections.

 

The Chairman asked that the debate was listened to in silence and that mobile phones were switched to silent during the meeting.

20.

Public participation

To receive any questions or statements from members of the public that have registered to speak. 

Minutes:

Diane Wyatt and Simon Hewerdine had registered to address Council on the petitions which they were presenting and would speak at the relevant item.

21.

Review of political balance following Didcot South and Didcot West by elections pdf icon PDF 193 KB

To consider the report of the head of legal and democratic services (to follow)

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Council considered the report of the head of legal and democratic services on the review of the political balance following the Didcot South and Didcot West by elections.

 

Council agreed the allocation of seats to each political group, and the non-group councillor, as set out in the schedule attached to the report, subject to the allocation of an additional Planning Committee seat to the Opposition Forum Group.

 

No councillor voted against these proposals.

 

RESOLVED:

 

1.     to appoint the below committees, joint committees and panels and to appoint the membership and substitutes, as indicated, to sit on them;

2.     to allocate the vacant seat on the Joint Scrutiny Committee and the Community Governance and Electoral Issues committee to the Opposition Forum Group;

3.     to allocate the vacant seat on the Appeals Panel to Paul Harrison (independent councillor);

4.     to allocate one of the Conservative group’s seats on the Planning Committee to the Opposition Forum Group (with no councillor voting against);

5.     to authorise the head of legal and democratic services to make appointments to any vacant committee or panel seat and substitute positions in accordance with the wishes of the relevant group leader.

 

Names

Planning Committee, 11 Members

Conservative (9)

Opposition Forum Group (2)

Joan Bland

Mocky Khan

Anthony Dearlove

David Turner

Lorraine Hillier

 

Elaine Hornsby

 

Sue Lawson (Vice-Chairman)

 

Jeannette Matelot

 

Toby Newman (Chairman)

 

Richard Pullen

 

Ian White

 

(seat given to Opposition Forum Group)

 

PREFERRED SUBSTITUTES

 

Conservative (9)

Opposition Forum Group (1)

Charles Bailey

Stefan Gawrysiak

Kevin Bulmer

 

Nigel Champken-Woods

 

Steve Connel

 

Pat Dawe

 

Stephen Harrod

 

Imran Lokhon

 

Vacancy

 

Vacancy

 

 

Names

Scrutiny Committee, 9 Members

Conservative (8)

Opposition Forum Group (1)

Anna Badcock

David Turner

Steve Connel

 

Pat Dawe

 

Anthony Dearlove

 

Elaine Hornsby

 

Richard Pullen (Chairman)

 

John Walsh (Vice-Chairman)

 

Ian White

 

PREFERRED SUBSTITUTES

 

Conservative (8)

Opposition Forum Group (2)

Charles Bailey

Stefan Gawrysiak

David Dodds

Mocky Khan

Will Hall

 

Stephen Harrod

 

Lorraine Hillier

 

Sue Lawson

 

Toby Newman

 

Vacancy

 

 

Names

Joint Scrutiny Committee, 5 Members

Conservative (4)

Opposition Forum Group (1)

David Dodds

David Turner

Sue Lawson

 

Richard Pullen (Co-Chairman)

 

John Walsh

 

PREFERRED SUBSTITUTES

 

Conservative (4)

Opposition Forum Group (2)

Pat Dawe

Stefan Gawrysiak

Imran Lokhon

Mocky Khan

Toby Newman

 

Ian White

 

 

Names

Corporate Services Joint Scrutiny Committee, 2 Members

Conservative (2)

Opposition Forum Group (0)

Toby Newman

Will Hall

 

SUBSTITUTES: All other councillors from the relevant political group.

 

Names

Joint Audit and Governance Committee, 4 Members

Conservative (4)

Opposition Forum Group (0)

Charles Bailey

 

Kevin Bulmer (Co-Chairman)

 

Toby Newman

 

John Walsh

 

PREFERRED SUBSTITUTES

 

Conservative (4)

Opposition Forum Group (0)

David Dodds

 

Joan Bland

 

Richard Pullen

 

Alan Thompson

 

 

Names

Community Governance and Electoral Issues Committee, 6 Members

Conservative (5)

Opposition Forum Group (1)

Charles Bailey

Mocky Khan

Steve Connel

 

Anthony Dearlove

 

Will Hall

 

Ian White (Chairman)

 

PREFERRED SUBSTITUTES

 

Conservative (5)

Opposition Forum Group (2)

Anna Badcock

Stefan Gawrysiak

Joan Bland

David Turner

Toby Newman

 

John Walsh

 

Vacancy

 

 

Names

Joint Staff Committee, 3 Members

Conservative (3)

Opposition Forum Group (0)

John Cotton

 

David Nimmo-Smith

 

Anthony Nash

 

SUBSTITUTES

 

Conservative

Opposition Forum Group  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

22.

Petition - Wallingford Bridge

The council has received the following petition signed by in excess of 1,500 people:

 

“We believe that closing Wallingford bridge to traffic would cause irreparable damage to businesses in the town and lead to increased rather than reduced atmospheric pollution. A solution which leads to more vehicle miles (as travellers access the town through Winterbrook or down Wantage Road) and to increased idling time because of the congestion on both those roads (both of which are effectively single-carriageway for much of their length due to residential parking) is unlikely to reduce emissions, merely to displace them. We ask SODC Councillors not to proceed with this scheme but to investigate alternatives such as a one-way system which would reduce vehicle idling times everywhere in the town”.  

 

The council’s Petition Scheme states the following regarding petition debates at Council meetings:

 

When petitions containing more than 500 signatures are submitted, the petition organiser will be given three minutes to present the petition and the petition will then be discussed by councillors.  Council will decide how to respond to the petition at this meeting.

 

In response to a petition, Council may decide to

·       take the action the petition requests;

·       not to take the action requested for reasons put forward in the debate;

·       to refer the matter to Cabinet or the relevant committee and decide whether to make recommendations to inform that decision.

 

Any Council recommendation will be reported to the General Licensing Committee as the body responsible for the consultation on the Low Emissions Strategy.

Minutes:

Diane Wyatt, the petition organiser, spoke on behalf of nearly 1700 petitioners from Wallingford or the neighbouring area. They were petitioning Council not to close the bridge, even for a trial period. They believed that it would simply divert traffic to other areas and displace the air quality problems. It would damage local businesses in Wallingford. Other options should be considered, including better traffic light phasing and more environmentally friendly buses.

 

Tony Harbour, the Cabinet member, responded to the address and moved a motion to refer the petition to the General Licensing Committee for consideration as the appropriate body, together with any views expressed by councillors at the Council meeting. Councillor David Dodds, Chairman of the General Licensing Committee, seconded the motion.

 

Councillor Harbour thanked Diane Wyatt and the people of Wallingford for the petition. He explained that the Environment Act 1995 placed a statutory duty on councils to address issues of air quality. The council adopted an air quality action plan in February 2015, which included a Low Emissions Strategy. The only modelled solution which improved air quality in Wallingford involved closing the bridge for a few hours per day and would only be done on a trial basis. The trial would assess air quality, traffic and the impact on local businesses. Public safety and public transport would not be compromised. Other options were considered but were either not viable, or would not bring about significant improvements to air quality.

 

Councillors debated this motion. There was concern that the public would not have full access to information, as the Low Emissions Strategy would only be finalised at the General Licensing Committee after which councillors and the public would wish to debate this strategy.

 

The committee considered that the issues involved were significant and that further consideration needed to be given to all of the options and issues, including: enforcing the weight limit on the bridge; modelling the effect of closures on the wider road network; the issues of damaging business; isolating Crowmarsh from Wallingford, and the provision of more rapid electric vehicle charging points.

 

Although the district council had responsibility for the air quality, the county council was responsible for highways, and issues were being debated between these councils, and other bodies in respect of air quality in Wallingford, Watlington and Henley.

 

An amendment was proposed, and seconded, that recommendations from the General Licensing Committee should come back to full Council for further debate and ratification.

 

Some councillors also considered that the General Licensing Committee was the right and proper place to consider all of the issues and would include expert opinion and be open to all councillors and to the public. The matter would come back to Council or Cabinet (as appropriate) if there were budgetary implications to be considered.

 

Council debated the amendment.

 

A full debate would be had in General Licensing Committee, and it would be premature to suggest that it needs to come back to Council at this point. The General Licensing Committee was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

23.

Petition - Didcot Garden Town

The council has received the following petition signed by in excess of 2000 people:

 

“Please promise to protect all of Didcot’s green spaces, paths and amenities on Ladygrove from loss, shrinkage or relocation through future development”.

 

The council’s Petition Scheme states the following regarding petition debates at Council meetings:

 

When petitions containing more than 500 signatures are submitted, the petition organiser will be given three minutes to present the petition and the petition will then be discussed by councillors.  Council will decide how to respond to the petition at this meeting.

 

In response to a petition, Council may decide to

·       take the action the petition requests;

·       not to take the action requested for reasons put forward in the debate;

·       to refer the matter to Cabinet or the relevant committee and decide whether to make recommendations to inform that decision.

 

Any Council recommendation will be reported to Cabinet as the body responsible for the Didcot Garden Town Proposed Delivery Plan.

Minutes:

Simon Hewerdine, the petition organiser, presented this petition which had been signed by in excess of 2,000 people.

 

Councillor Robert Simister, the Cabinet member, welcomed the petition and was able to confirm that the Didcot Garden Town proposal, which is currently out for consultation, broadly met the aims of the original petition which requested the removal of the partial development of Ladygrove Park from the plan. Councillor Simister proposed a motion to refer the Didcot Garden Town petition to Cabinet, as the appropriate body, with any views expressed by councillors at the Council meeting. Councillor John Cotton seconded the motion.

 

The Council debated this motion.

 

The petition had changed, after signatures were added. The first iteration was responded to positively.

 

House building and development would need to happen, regardless of garden town status, but the intention was to use this as an opportunity to improve Didcot for its residents now, and in the future, by providing more and better green spaces. The bids for money to central government are, and will be, for hundreds of thousands of pounds.  Residents are continuously encouraged to give feedback and there has been extensive public consultation.

 

It is important to achieve the balance between good development and green spaces. A town is a living organism which needs to evolve to meet the needs of its residents.

 

A number of councillors raised concerns about:

·           traffic going through the proposed route, and particularly the proposed closure of Cow Lane as this would have the effect of dividing the town;

·           Ladygrove was designed with these spaces built into their design and they are important for the whole of Didcot, not just Ladygrove;

·           Didcot Garden Town will impact on all of Didcot, not just Ladygrove. All green spaces around Didcot need to be protected.

 

The issue of moving the railway station was raised. Officers confirmed that Network Rail had asked for some retained space for a possible move at some point in the future.

 

RESOLVED

 

To refer the petition to Cabinet, including the views expressed by councillors.

24.

Report of the leader of the council

To receive any updates from the leader of the council.

 

 

Minutes:

With the agreement of the leader, Councillor Kevin Bulmer, the Co-Chairman of Joint Audit and Governance Committee gave a briefing on the issues raised on the council’s control environment.

 

The Joint Audit and Governance Committee was receiving an increasing number of reports that indicated a significant reduction in the council’s control environment, to the extent that internal and external audit were raising concerns with committee members.  Whilst he recognised and supported the efforts the officers were undertaking to address the concerns raised and to engage with internal and external audit, the general weakening of the council’s control environment was a significant risk and firm and swift action must be taken to address it.

 

At the July meeting of the Joint Audit and Governance Committee, the internal audit annual opinion 2016/2017 reported that:

·           There had been a notable weakening of the councils’ control environment from the previous year, particularly within key financial systems; 

·           Assurance ratings within five key financial systems had reduced from the previous year – general ledger, pro-active anti-fraud review, housing benefits and council tax reduction scheme, national non-domestic rates and treasury management;

·           From 45 completed audits in 2016/17, 40 per cent received limited assurance which span all service areas; 

·           In total 210 recommendations to improve controls and procedures were made, and 30 per cent (17.5 per cent previous year) were classified as high risk.

 

At the March and July committee meetings, Capita’s attendance had been requested to respond to any questions members may have had on the numerous reports being presented.  Capita failed to send any representatives to attend either meeting.  It was agreed at the July meeting that the Co-Chairmen would send a strongly worded letter to Capita’s managing director requesting greater engagement and assurance from Capita on the services they are providing which underpin the council’s control environment.

 

It was necessary to draw these concerns to the attention of all councillors, and to ensure the concerns are addressed by officers and the Five Councils’ Partnership and the control environment is strengthened.  Whilst control issues do have a reputational and operational impact, the concern was greater than that as it is the control environment which ensures the council spends the public’s money efficiently, effectively and transparently. 

 

Councillor Bulmer was satisfied that officers were pursuing these matters vigorously, and they had the full support of the Joint Audit and Governance Committee in doing so.

 

 

The leader of the council gave his report.

·           He had been peer reviewing another council;

·           He had attended the LGA conference;

·           He would be attending the Oxfordshire Leaders’ and Chief Executives’ meeting next week to discuss our own emergency procedures and activities.

 

Questions to leader

 

Question: This was not the first time that we have had difficulties with Capita contracts: there is no value in saving money if it results in a worse service.

Response: The leader agreed that the Five Councils’ Partnership should not be about lowering standards but rather about levelling up to the best of the Five Councils. There are specific  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

25.

Questions on notice

No questions have been received by councillors in accordance with Council procedure rule 33. 

Minutes:

None.

26.

Motions on notice

No motions have been received from councillors in accordance with Council procedure rule 38. 

 

Minutes:

None.

 

Contact us - Democratic services

Phone icon

01235 422520
(Text phone users add 18001 before dialing)

Address icon

South Oxfordshire District Council
Abbey House, Abbey Close,
Abingdon
OX14 3JE