Decisions

Purpose: to agree that the neighbourhood plan can proceed to a referendum

1.         To accept all modifications to the Brightwell-cum-Sotwell Neighbourhood Plan recommended by the Examiner;

2.         To determine that the Brightwell-cum-Sotwell Neighbourhood Development Plan, as modified, meets the basic conditions, is compatible with the Convention rights, complies with the definition of a neighbourhood development plan and the provisions that can be made by a neighbourhood development plan;

3.         To take all appropriate actions to progress the Brightwell-cum-Sotwell Neighbourhood Development Plan to referendum on 7 September 2017; and

4.         To agree that the neighbourhood area should not extend beyond the neighbourhood area approved by the district council on 13 April 2015. 

To approve a final assessment of the performance of Biffa Municipal Limited, in delivering the household waste collection, street cleansing and ancillary services contract for 2016 as ‘good’. 

To approve a final assessment of the performance of Sodexo Limited, in delivering the grounds maintenance contract for 2016 as ‘excellent’. 

Purpose: to approve amendments for consultation

To publish the following documents for a six weeks consultation period ending on 11 October 2017:

(i)    Revised Community Infrastructure Levy Regulation 123 List

(ii)  Revised Section 106 Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document

Purpose: to consider a deed of variation to the contract.  (This is likely to an exempt decision as it relates to the financial or business affairs of any person, including the authority.)

Purpose: to approve a marketing campaign

Cabinet considered the report of the interim head of development, regeneration and housing.  This proposed South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse district councils together spending £183,000 on a campaign to market the Science Vale UK and Enterprise Zone in 2017/18.  The funding had been provided by a government grant for this purpose.  Tabled at the meeting was an addendum to the report setting out key performance indicators to measure the main aim, which was to secure inward investment.  This would also generate additional business rates. 

Cabinet supported the marketing plan and the proposed spend, noting that the £183,000 would be shared between South Oxfordshire and the Vale, equating to £91,500 for each council. 

RESOLVED: to

(a)       agree to spend £91,500 for the Science Vale UK and Enterprise Zone 2017/18 marketing campaign production and advertising placement, from the previously approved Department of Communities and Local Government grant funds budget, to implement the marketing plan set out in the interim head of development, regeneration and housing’s report; and

(b)       agree to submit the Enterprise Zone Marketing Plan to the Oxfordshire Local Enterprise Partnership and the Department of Communities and Local Government, in accordance with the Enterprise Zone Implementation Plan previously agreed by all Enterprise Zone partners including this council. 

Purpose: to determine the provision of engineering services

Purpose: proposal to deliver an Article 4 direction at Kingsholme Close in East Hagbourne

Cabinet considered the head of planning’s report on a proposal to make an Article 4(1) Direction to provide additional controls on future development at Kingsholme Close, East Hagbourne.  The proposal had been made by local residents to protect the character of Kingsholme Close.  The proposal had been supported during consultation on the draft Article 4(1) Direction. 

Cabinet welcomed the proposal and confirmed the Article 4(1) Direction.  It was noted that this would be registered on the council’s geographic information system and flagged for future planning applications at the site, and it would appear on any land searches also. 

RESOLVED: to confirm the Article 4(1) Direction, served at Kingsholme Close in East Hagbourne, making it permanently binding. 

Purpose: to approve the Statement of Community Involvement in planning matters

Cabinet considered the head of planning’s report, which proposed the adoption of a revised statement of community involvement in the planning service.  The draft statement had been subject to a statutory consultation process and had received support.  The report set out the changes made to the draft as a result of the consultation. 

Cabinet considered that the previous statement, dated 2006, was out of date and should be replaced by the 2017 draft appended to the report.  This would help streamline the planning process and help applicants and residents. 

RESOLVED: to

(a)     adopt the Statement of Community Involvement April 2017, as set out in appendix 1 of the head of planning’s report; and

(b)     authorise the head of planning in consultation with the Cabinet member for planning policy to make any minor changes, typographical corrections or non-material amendments to the Statement of Community Involvement prior to formal publication. 

Purpose: to approve proposals for spending grant allocations

Cabinet considered the report of the interim head of development, regeneration and housing on the use of the new flexible homelessness support grant.  This grant replaced the temporary accommodation management fee and was ring-fenced for two years to help councils prevent or deal with homelessness.  The report set out a proposal to spend the grant in accordance with the government’s conditions. 

Cabinet agreed to the proposed spend, believing this would bring significant benefits to tackling homelessness in the district.  The alternative option of returning the ring-fenced grant was rejected.  Cabinet asked officers to arrange suitable publicity. 

RESOLVED: to approve the proposed expenditure of the flexible homelessness support grant as set out in paragraph 12 of the interim head of development, regeneration and housing’s report. 

Purpose: to review the waste policy

Cabinet considered the report of the chief executive that sought approval of a revised waste collection policy.  This included the new clear sacks policy and some legislative changes. 

David Turner addressed Cabinet, asking why households with fewer than five occupants could not have an extra food caddy if they were prepared to pay for it.  He asked why biodegradable food bags were not acceptable, and he asked why churches had a competitive advantage over village halls when it came to paying for waste collection. 

In response to Mr Turner’s questions, the officer reported that the council wished to retain ownership of the waste bins.  The anabolic digester could not deal with biodegradable bags tied in knots; this outlined a need for further education for residents.  The recharging of churches and village halls for waste collection was set out in legislation but officers could review charging where premises were used for events. 

The changes to the policy included allowing households with five or more residents to automatically qualify for an additional free food waste caddy as an incentive to encourage more food waste recycling.  Officers reported that requests for additional food waste bins would be dealt with on a case by case basis.  Cabinet supported the policy set out in appendix 1 to the report but considered that residents should be charged for the cost of delivering an additional food caddy. 

Cabinet also asked officers to keep recycling performance under review and to consider any actions to increase it. 

RESOLVED: to approve the new waste collection policy attached as appendix 1 to the chief executive’s report, subject to adding that residents will be charged for the cost of delivering an additional food waste caddy. 

Purpose: to approve commencement of procurement for a new sewage treatment plant 

Cabinet considered the report of the head of HR, IT and technical services.  This set out a case to procure a new sewage treatment plant at Moulsford.  The council was responsible for running and maintaining this plant. 

David Turner addressed Cabinet, expressing concern that Thames Water had chosen not to adopt the replacement plant.  He suggested that the council should write to the government seeking a review to require water companies to adopt community sewage treatment works.  The leader agreed that this should be raised with the government and asked officers to draft a letter that he and David Turner, the leader of the opposition, could jointly sign. 

The report set out the following options:

1.    taking no action

2.    upgrading the existing treatment works

3.    connecting the private drainage system to the Thames Water sewer on the east side of the River Thames at South Stoke at an estimated cost of £2.36 million

4.    replacing the treatment works at a cost of £300,000 (funding previously allocated to the provisional capital programme)

Cabinet considered that the existing treatment works had exceeded its design life span and needed replacement rather than upgrading.  The cost of connecting to the Thames Water system was considered too high.  Cabinet therefore agreed to replace the treatment works. 

Cabinet also noted that the council would contact the housing association SOHA to seek a contribution towards the capital cost of the work. 

RESOLVED:

(a)     To begin a procurement process to identify a suitable supplier for a new replacement sewage treatment works at Moulsford;

(b)     Subject to the winning tender being within capital allocation, to delegate the award of the contract to supply and install a new sewage treatment works to the head of HR, IT and technical services in consultation with the cabinet member for technical services.  Decision to award to be recorded and fully documented using ‘record of officer decision’ documentation;

(c)     To note that the transfer of budget for the project from the provisional to the approved capital programme will be undertaken using an individual cabinet member decision once actual costs are known; and

(d)     To request officers to draft a letter, to be signed jointly by the council leader and the leader of the opposition, expressing the council’s concern and disappointment that there is no mechanism to require water companies to adopt community sewage treatment works and requesting that this situation is reviewed.