Agenda and minutes

None.

Purpose: to approve the minutes of the meeting on 5 November 2013

Minutes circulated separately.

Consideration of the minutes was deferred to the next meeting.

Purpose: to make comments on the current and future support proposed for the district’s market towns (Henley, Thame and Wallingford) so that Cabinet can take these into account before considering the proposed growth bid as part of the council’s budget setting process.

The Wallingford market town co-ordinator, Chair of Wallingford Partnership, Wallingford Town Clerk, and Director of the Henley Partnership will attend to speak to the committee, along with representatives from Henley and Thame town councils.

If committee members have specific questions, these should be submitted to democratic services in advance to ensure that answers can be given at the meeting.

The committee considered the report of the Head of Economy, Leisure and Property setting out the current and proposed support for the three market towns of Henley on Thames, Thame, and Wallingford.

Ms Suzanne Malcolm, Economic Development Manager, and Mrs Judith Nimmo-Smith, Cabinet member, introduced the report. Representatives from the three market towns spoke to the committee and answered questions as summarised below.

Thame and Chinnor

Mr Peter Woodman, representing 21^st Century Thame, explained how the council funding supported a number of initiatives to help businesses. These included a loyalty card scheme supported by about forty per cent of shops; equipment and furniture for hire by charities and organisations; and leaflets to promote the town’s leisure attractions. Expanding the loyalty scheme, keeping the leaflets current, and funding new projects required funds and would not happen as easily or at all without the district council’s contribution. Shops in Chinnor had approached the town and work to integrate the two community’s businesses and help Chinnor’s shops was underway.

Ms Helen Stewart, Thame Town Clerk, said that Thame’s business community did not have strong common issues to unite it and there was a low vacancy rate. The current support worked well as all the funding went towards specific projects focussed on maintaining Thame’s viability as a market town; the business community supported the model and was involved; and matching funding was provided by a wide variety of groups. Projects were successful, sustainable, and cost-effective. A small group from the town council, the district council and 21^st Century Thame agreed and oversaw the projects.

Businesses were generally positive and there was little support for major initiatives, but there were new challenges posed by proposals for a large supermarket. Business buy-in was not measured by attendance at meetings; the work was strongly supported by independent shops. The number of events attracting people into the town (such as the arts, food, and Christmas events) was increasing. It was hard to quantify the increase in trade as a result of schemes but traders and customers were positive about them.

The Neighbourhood Plan’s economic section emphasised walking and cycling links to the town. The increased population and a new supermarket gave an opportunity to encourage new residents from the town and outlying villages to use Thame’s specialist shops rather than shop elsewhere.

Henley on Thames

Mr Mike Kennedy, Henley on Thames Town Clerk, said that the part-time town centre manager provided an accessible contact between local businesses; with the Henley Partnership; and with the local authorities. The manager co-ordinated schemes funded by the district and town councils (for example training and the shop-front improvement scheme), and was involved in larger events. Sponsorship for Henley in Bloom, the Christmas lights and shop front improvements all helped improve the town’s profile.

The town council understood the constraints on the district council and was grateful for the continuing support. The town could make use of a full-time manager if funds were available. The business action  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

Board report showing a graphical summary of the councils’ performance from 1 April 2013 to the end of October 2013 (attached, pages 9 - 60).

Five year report - a graphical summary of the councils’ performance over the five years 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2013 (attached, page 61 - 68).

Purpose: to discuss the council’s performance and make any recommendations for improvement.

If committee members have specific questions, these should be submitted to democratic services in advance to ensure that answers can be given at the meeting.

The committee considered the board report showing the council’s performance in key areas from April 2013 to October 2013 and a five-year summary of performance in selected areas from April 2008 to March 2013.

Mr M Prosser, Strategic Director, answered questions from the committee.

The committee noted that:

·          The numbers of homeless households in temporary accommodation rose from 20 in September to 25 in October which is over the target of 23. At the end of November numbers were back at 23 and down to 18 in mid-December. There appeared to be no specific reason for this increase in terms of type of applicant aside from a general increase in homelessness, a trend reflected nationally.  However officers were awaiting a number of tenancy start dates for applicants which appeared to have temporarily inflated the figures

·          In October two out of three major planning applications were determined within their target time. The one application that went over the 13 week target was a housing scheme submitted by SOHA which was improved on advice from officers, referred to the Planning Committee and planning permission granted. The impact of failing to process one application within target has a comparatively big impact on the monthly percentage due to the relatively small numbers of major applications. The overall performance on major applications to date is still strong at just over 90 per cent and significantly above the government's national target of 60 per cent.

·          There were no plans at the moment to change the way the council used the New Homes Bonus to support local projects.

·          All local authorities provided the same data for waste and recycling but there were different ways of accounting for the rejection rates from recyclables which affected the comparative figures. Figures would be finalised once the tonnages of street sweepings recycled and landfilled were known.

Members of the committee asked for written information about:

·          The reasons for the reduction in council tax collection rate since July;

·          Lessons learned from recent planning appeal decisions.

The committee thanked the teams responsible for producing the interesting and informative reports.