Talking Oxfordshire Summary of responses to six public events and online consultation December 2013

2

Contents 1 Introduction and approach 2 Summary of key findings 3 Main Findings – public meetings 4 Main Findings - Online Feedback Form 5 Main Findings - Oxfordshire Rural Community Council (ORCC) public

meeting (summary) 6 Main Findings - Feedback from other sources

Annex 1 Talking Oxfordshire Handout Annex 2 Full report of ORCC meeting Annex 3 Summary of Talking Oxfordshire public meetings

3

1. Introduction and Approach

1.1 Talking Oxfordshire was a county-wide exercise to inform residents about the level

of additional savings the council would have to make and to listen to their views and

suggestions. It was designed to inform the 2014/15 service and resource planning

cycle. It ran throughout October and November 2013 and its aim was to provide an

opportunity for people to share their views at a formative stage in the budget setting

process.

Approach

1.2 Talking Oxfordshire comprised of:

Explaining the council’s financial situation and budget pressures using an easy-

read summary of the council’s budget position provided as a leaflet and on the

council’s website (see Annex A)

Hosting a series of public meetings, one in each district council area

Supporting a public meeting organised by Oxfordshire Rural Community Council

(ORCC) focussing on rural issues

Providing a structured online feedback form hosted on the council’s website

Giving other opportunities for people to engage via email, letter, petition or social

media

1.3 Talking Oxfordshire was publicised throughout the county via posters in council

buildings and community noticeboards; a street team handing out flyers; media and

outdoor advertising, the council’s Your Oxfordshire newsletter, press releases and

social media tweets and messages.

1.4 Talking Oxfordshire was publicised throughout the county via posters in council buildings and community noticeboards; a street team handing out flyers; media and outdoor advertising, the council’s Your Oxfordshire newsletter, press releases and social media tweets and messages. This is a summary of the estimated reach of messages about Talking Oxfordshire and the council’s budget:

Media coverage

Oxford Mail x 6

Stories in Banbury Guardian, Witney Gazette, Abingdon Herald, Wantage

Herald and Didcot Herald

BBC Radio Oxford x 3 including interview with Leader

BBC South – 2 news items

ITV Meridian

BBC South Sunday Politics

Jack FM mentions

4

Website

Talking Oxfordshire pages on OCC website had 4900 page views

Social media

20 tweets related to Talking Oxfordshire events to more than 7k OCC followers,

and 56 tweets by other people/organisations, mainly the Oxford Mail

Advertising

Heart FM radio campaign 67 ad spots reaching an estimated audience of 146k

people

2300 flyers handed out in four town centre locations, accompanied by a short

conversation with each person explaining purpose of Talking Oxfordshire

Press ads in local papers with combined readership of 200k readers

Bus shelter ads x 10 with an estimated 2 million views over tow week period

based on footfall

1.5 The council informed the following stakeholders about Talking Oxfordshire:

all county and district councillors,

Oxfordshire’s MPs,

Oxfordshire Partnership Board

parish and town councils

Oxfordshire Lieutenancy

members of the Oxfordshire public involvement network (who comprise a wide

range of groups, organisations and individuals with different circumstances,

including ‘hard to reach’ groups)

individuals who had registered an interest in receiving information and

consultations

1.6 Key questions that people were asked to consider and debate as part of Talking

Oxfordshire were:

Should we (Oxfordshire County Council) only provide services we have to?

Should we increase fees?

Should we charge for more services?

Should people and communities do more from themselves?

Would you support a Council Tax increase?

What services could you live without?

1.7 This report summaries public opinion expressed through the different channels in

the following parts:

Public Meetings

Oxfordshire Rural Community Council Talking Oxfordshire Event

Online Feedback Form

Feedback from other Channels

5

2. Summary of key findings

Public Meetings

2.1 In total, nearly 1,000 people attending the five Talking Oxfordshire public meetings.

Each meeting was chaired by an independent host from the local media who was

asked to focus on the key questions. Councillor Ian Hudspeth, Leader of the

Council and Joanna Simons, Chief Executive, introduced the council’s budget

position and proposed approach to making savings, and took questions.

2.2 The key theme for these meetings was concern about the future of the Early

Intervention Service and children’s centres. This was in response to very recent

media reporting based on a ‘worst case scenario’ for budget savings in the service.

Strong support was shown for children’s centres as integral, local institutions in the

community. Service users and professionals talked about their value as a safe

place for parents and carers to seek and receive support and to meet others. They

also set out their role in protecting vulnerable people.

2.3 Audiences wanted to find out more about plans for the Early Intervention Service

and children’s centres and whether other options had been considered; and some

people expressed concerns about the potential impact of reducing these services

on child protection and adult social care. Some attendees suggested charging and

other ways to generate income. It was emphasised that no decisions had been

taken and Cabinet would publish proposals in December.

2.4 The other main talking points common to at least two or more of the public meetings

were:

protecting the most vulnerable in society so they are not further disadvantaged

not compounding rural isolation and forgetting the needs of rural communities

Council Tax increases

the need to lobby/challenge government and make representations about the

council’s financial situation

increasing collaboration and joint working between the council and other local

authorities, including sharing resources and for some exploring the potential for

unitary authorities in Oxfordshire

using the council’s reserves to plug funding gaps

exploring opportunities for increasing the capacity of communities

more collaborative working with the voluntary sector

income generation such as private sector investment and sponsorship or ‘crowd

funding’

2.5 A number of specific concerns, points and questions were raised at each meeting.

These were often issues specifically relevant to the local area and are captured in

the summary reports for each meeting.

6

Oxfordshire Rural Community Council Talking Oxfordshire Event

2.6 Approximately 70 people took part in the Talking Oxfordshire ‘rural’ event organised

by Oxfordshire Rural Community Council (ORCC). Councillor Ian Hudspeth and

Joanna Simons provided contextual information and took questions from the floor.

At this session, people took part in round table discussions to encourage an

ongoing flow of conversation.

2.7 Subjects debated at the tables included:

use of county council reserves to plug funding gaps

Parish Councils delivering grass-cutting services

potential savings for setting up a unitary authority

reviewing the competitive tendering process of the County Council

cutting of school transport subsidies

communities taking responsibility for filling potholes

2.8 The services that were identified as being especially important to rural residents

were:

rural transport

social care for adults and children

children’s services

road maintenance

support for the voluntary and community sector

Online Feedback Form

2.9 The council received 472 responses to the Talking Oxfordshire online feedback form. 444 people identified themselves as residents, with three-quarters of the responses were from women; around two-thirds were from people aged 25 - 44 years. There was a good spread from across the five district council areas. However as this was a self-selecting group it cannot be consider as truly representative of the county’s residents. The results are summarised below. Please note that not everyone chose to answer each question, so the total numbers vary. The number of responses is in brackets

Question Yes No Don't know

Comments

Should Oxfordshire County Council only provide services it legally has to?

10% (49 responses)

80% (375)

10% (46)

The comments associated with this question included: 39 people saying that non-statutory services are still important and that the council should provide what people need, 23 people saying the council should attend to the needs of vulnerable people, and 21 people saying services should exceed the statutory minimum.

7

Should Oxfordshire County Council increase fees?

43% (200)

31% (143)

26% (120)

The comments associated this question included: 31 people saying yes, if it saves services, yes, but only if it is affordable and 19 people saying no, they already pay council tax and that the council should make efficiencies.

Should Oxfordshire County Council charge for more services?

45% (208)

30% (139)

26% (120)

The comments associated with this question included: 71 people saying yes, a small amount, 36 people saying yes, for those that can afford it, and 33 saying it depends on which services.

Should people and communities do more for themselves?

59% (269)

25% (115)

16% (73)

The comments associated with this question included: 63 people saying that delivering a community response requires support, money and training, 43 people pointing out that a lot happens already, and 22 people saying that a lack of free time prevents people’s involvement.

Would you support an increase in the Council Tax?

55% (255)

34% (160)

11% (51)

The comments associated with this question included: 53 people saying yes, if it saves vital services, 32 people saying yes, a small, proportional increase, and 21 people giving a caveat saying it depends on what it is spent on. Fifteen people asked the council to means test any rise to protect those that can’t afford it and 15 people felt they already paid too much and could not afford it.

2.10 The online feedback form also asked two open ended questions. When asked

which services they could live without, those most frequently mentioned were:

libraries and museums (31 mentions),

highways maintenance/street lighting (26 mentions),

early intervention services including children’s centres (18 mentions).

47 responses called for the council to cut back on internal bureaucracy and cost

of ‘politics’

2.11 The final question on the online form provided a free space for people to share their

views on county council services. The comments given broadly echoed those

shared at the public meetings.

Concerns were expressed that the most vulnerable in society (older people,

children, those at risk, children with special needs) should not be put at further

disadvantage as a result of cuts, and should be protected

Concerns were expressed that cutting back on Early Intervention services would

mean more expense to the council in future years

There was a feeling that those who can afford to pay more through Council Tax and

fees and charges

8

People felt that the county council should be lobbying central government and

questioning the budget cuts

Some people suggested that a unitary authority approach would be a good way to

save money and have less bureaucracy

Other correspondence

2.12 A few letters, emails and social media posts were also submitted as part of Talking

Oxfordshire and these continue to be received even after the consultation has

closed. For the most part, this correspondence focuses on children’s centres

although some stakeholder responses address other specific issues. Redacted

copies of all emails and letters will be made available to all councillors to review as

part of the budget setting process and an analysis will be included in the full Talking

Oxfordshire report. Finally, a petition of over 15,500 signatures in defence of

children’s centres was handed to the Leader of the Council on 28 November, the

day before Talking Oxfordshire closed. This is available to all councillors for review.

9

3. Main Findings - Public meetings 3.1 This section of feedback sets out the key themes from the Talking Oxfordshire

Public Meetings. During October, the Leader of the Council and the Chief Executive took to the road, visiting communities across the county to hear their views and answer questions. A public meeting was organised in each of the county’s five districts, as set out below.

Date Venue and Host

7:30 – 9pm , Monday 14 October 2013 Town Hall, Banbury (Peter Henley)

7:30 – 9pm , Tuesday 15 October 2013 County Hall, Oxford (Bill Heine)

7:30 – 9pm, Monday 21 October 2013 Civic Hall, Wantage (Emma Vardy)

7:30 – 9pm, Wednesday 23 October 2013 Cornerstone, Didcot (Neal Veglio)

7:30 – 9pm, Thursday 24 October 2013 Henry Box School, Witney (Peter Henley)

3.2 At the start of each Talking Oxfordshire meeting, Councillor. Ian Hudspeth, Leader

of the Council and Joanna Simons, Chief Executive explained the financial situation and invited feedback and questions from the floor. Each meeting was independently chaired. In total, around 1,000 people took part, with the Banbury event having the largest attendance.

3.3 Attendees at each event were given a handout containing information about the

council’s finances (see annex 3). It gave an overview of the council’s budget and areas of spend, examples of how money has been saved in recent years, context about Oxfordshire and rationale as to why the council has to save money.

3.4 At the Talking Oxfordshire events, a number of different issues were raised but a

strong theme throughout was that of Children’s Centres, due to information about potential proposals becoming available to the public prior to the meetings. Activists used the events as an opportunity to present strong opposition to issues such as Children’s Centres.

3.5 The most popular themes emerging from the five public meetings (i.e. raised a 2 or

more meetings) are as follows:

protecting the most vulnerable in society so they are not further disadvantaged

not compounding rural isolation and forgetting the needs of rural communities

Council Tax increases

the need to lobby/challenge government and make representations about the

council’s financial situation

increasing collaboration and joint working between the council and other local

authorities, including sharing resources and for some exploring the potential for

unitary authorities in Oxfordshire

using the council’s reserves to plug funding gaps

exploring opportunities for increasing the capacity of communities

10

more collaborative working with the voluntary sector

income generation such as private sector investment and sponsorship or ‘crowd

funding’

There were also service specific issues raised at 2 or more meetings but often

these were about local issues

Banbury Meeting

Oxford Meeting

Wantage Meeting

Didcot Meeting

Witney Meeting

Children’s centres / Early Intervention service X X X X X

Older people' services X X

Unitary authority / sharing services with other councils X X X

Reserves X X X

Council tax increase / referendum X X X X X

Home to school transport X X

Rural X X X

Protecting the vulnerable X X X X

Senior council staff salaries X

OCC should reject cuts / lobby central govt X X X X

Broadband X

Income generation X X X

Mental health services X X X

Council properties X

Section 106 funding X

Outsourcing X X

Libraries X

Highways X X

Decision making / which areas may be cut X

Volunteers X

Voluntary sector X

Crime X

Youth services X X

Child protection X

Fire service X

11

4. Main Findings : Online Feedback Form 4.1 Presented below are the main findings from Talking Oxfordshire submissions

received via the online feedback form.

The council received 472 responses to the Talking Oxfordshire online feedback form. 444 people identified themselves as residents, with three-quarters of the responses were from women; around two-thirds were from people aged 25 - 44 years. There was a good spread from across the five district council areas. However as this was a self-selecting group it cannot be consider as truly representative of the county’s residents. The results are summarised below. Please note that not everyone chose to answer each question, so the total numbers vary. The number of responses is in brackets

Should Oxfordshire County Council only provide services it legally has to?

4.2 When people were asked if the council should only provide the legal minimum, quite

a lot of respondents said that they were unsure what the legal requirements were around the council’s service provision, and felt that a list should have been provided.

4.3 Other comments included:

Talk of the council’s moral duty as well as legal duty “The legal minimum is, in my opinion, significantly less than the morally-defensible minimum.”

Residents felt that all services are important, not just the ones the council legally has to provide “The County Council should provide the services that its citizens need. The legal minimum should be exceeded wherever necessary.” “They should provide the services the community needs.”

Some felt that to provide less service was unfair to the people who pay council tax “It has a duty to use council tax wisely to the benefit of society in Oxfordshire.”

There were a few mentions of rurality in the county, and also protecting libraries “People in rural communities always lose out because the towns & cities are always seen as more in need.”

Preventative services should be protected “Preventative services are required in order to reduce the eventual need for statutory services. Very short-sighted to cut preventative services”

Respondents felt that the vulnerable in society should be protected “the county council should always help the most needy” “The Council should be doing all it can to retain those services which vulnerable people require whether they are legally required services or not.”

12

Should Oxfordshire County Council increase fees?

4.4 When people were asked if the council should increase fees, the following areas

were particularly prevalent in people’s responses:

There was a strong feeling that fees would be acceptable if it meant that services could be continued “They should increase fees if it mean keeping important services” “Some increase would be acceptable to keep vital services”

There were questions around the level of fees, and the suggestion that any increase should be in line with inflation “Unsure as to which fees are referred to here. However, any fee increase should be in line with inflation.”

A lot of people commented that there should only be increases for those who can afford them, and that the vulnerable should be protected “The principle that people should pay (at least something) for the services they get should be practised as much as possible. Provided there is support for those on low incomes then it is right that the user is the person charged for the service.”

Some people felt that there shouldn’t be an increase in fees because they already pay council tax “we already pay for our services through our council tax”

A small number of people thought that council tax levels could be increased “Raising council tax would seem a fair way to reduce the shortfall as long as it is planned carefully and those nearest the poverty line are least affected.”

4.5 Some suggestions included: - “Could increase parking charges or start charging in some areas.” - “Fees for services yes. Higher charges for groups at children's centres” - “With regard to the Childrens Centres a lot has been provided for free or a

nominal £1 voluntary contribution. This could be increased. I think it wouldn't affect attendance from families on their own if it was £3 per visit. People in hardship could have help.”

- “Some fees could increase e.g. Adult Centres. and introduce parking charges at Park and Ride parks”

- “Possibly some sessions within Children's Centres could be chargeable”

13

Should Oxfordshire County Council charge for more services?

4.6 The main themes where people added additional comments included:

Only supporting charges for those who can afford it (both in terms of charging the more wealthy, and protecting those who would miss out on services due to low incomes)

Small charges would be acceptable

Whether or not they support it depends which service might introduce charging

4.7 Suggestions of areas which could introduce charging included: - “Could maybe introduce a cultural slice card for libraries, museums, children's

centres as well as leisure centres but they could be free for some and then a sliding scale?”

- “I regard library services as essential but payment for them should be considered, with exemption for students and anyone on public benefit .The charges for books overdue and special services should be substantially increased. There should be a charge for internet access with exemption for students, and anyone on public benefit. Trivial token charges are no good :they probably cost as much in the accountancy etc as they bring in”

- “I was shocked to find that most children’s centre sessions asked only a £1 donation. I would happily have paid a little more, perhaps £2.50 - £3.00? The charges could be dependent upon income, so those on benefits could continue to make the £1.00 donation.”

- “hire out our buildings more” - “why don't you seek more local / national sponsorship from companies and

businesses.” - “In some instances there could be a way of offering a Second and First class

service - much like our beloved train service where people who can will be prepared to pay more for increased, improved, quicker etc services.”

- “can you start charging for museums? Most people who go to them can afford to pay”

14

Should people and communities do more for themselves?

4.8 In the comments section for this question, the main areas were as follows:

Quite a few people felt they would need to know more about the kinds of services the council had in mind, in order to be able to provide a full answer

It was felt by many that professionals either could not be replaced for services, or would be needed as well as volunteers, to support and help them

Some respondents discussed that people do not have the time to volunteer

There were a few mentions about the issue of bureaucracy getting in the way

A large proportion of comments mentioned that people and communities could indeed do more for themselves but it needs to be supported by the council. Whether this was financially or in terms of organisation it was seen as important to the success of community self-help

There was the feeling from a lot of people that communities are already doing lots for themselves

People felt that the council should be protecting the vulnerable, and their services should not be affected

4.9 Below is a selection of comments received: “There is an enormous skill base in the community, and people, perhaps those on benefits, who could provide a useful resource. A bit of ingenuity is needed to identify them and motivate them. They would benefit from this too.” “We already have an incredibly rich and varied culture of voluntary organisations and millions of people (on Radio 4 recently I heard the figure 20 million quoted) volunteer their time for free.” “Unfortunately if you have grown up in a society where you have never seen things done by non officials it is important to empower individuals by giving them the knowledge and understanding so that they can then go out and make changes. This initial empowerment would have to be an investment, but could easily show a healthy return if individuals feel they are able to make changes for the good of their communities.” “Provided the communities are provided with support and the necessary means/tools, I feels they should do more for themselves, but the council needs to enable the local communities for this to happen” “I think volunteering and opportunities to contribute are valuable. However, they often need to be enabled by a paid member of staff or service - without this coordination or expert input, volunteers are often unable to operate” “I think everyone is very stretched at the moment, and we are all doing what we can.”

15

“I know that in my small community, there are lots of volunteer workers and there is little scope for more.” “i don’t see how they can, most people i know are doing two jobs to survive and feed their families and care for elderly relatives. How can anyone help if they dont have any time or resources. We need the councils help to look after the children and elderly who have no one to help them.” “But this doesn't excuse the county council from providing services where required” Some comments around suggestions, or thing which already work included:

“Do you mean everyone weeding and clearing the pavement and kerb outside of “their property for example?”

Our community already maintains our village environment and flood defences

“Yes, I am a strong believer in volunteering and I volunteer myself as a Trustee of a local charity. I think there are really interesting lessons to learn from the development of Friends Groups and volunteering in the library service.”

“Yes, provided appropriate support and delegated authority....self help cannot reach the most disadvantaged. However open access sessions in Children's centres, for example, could use volunteers as part of 'staffing' group provided appropriate training/ support set up.”

16

Would you support an increase in the Council Tax?

4.10 When asked for any other comments, these were the kinds of things people

mentioned: - That a small increase would be acceptable, but not if more charges were introduced

for services “Small increase in Council Tax OR increase charges BUT not both”

- Some residents would be happy to pay more council tax, if it meant that the serviced they are especially concerned about was protected “Yes, to pay for such important services like Early Intervention and Children's services.”

- Others would be happy to pay more if essential services would be protected “Within reason and to ensure essential services are properly maintained”

- Some people said they would support an increase if the council could show that the money would be spent on valuable services – and some said that their support would be dependent on what the council planned to spend the money on (or not make cuts from) “As long as a clear statement about how the money was going to be used was issued.”

- Some suggested that a means tested approach would be necessary – not everyone would be able to afford to pay more “If necessary to gather additional needed money, the council could consider something means tested as many may not be able to cope with further charges”

- Quite a few people said that they were already paying a lot of council tax, and couldn’t afford to pay more “I earn a low salary and am a single home owner. I could not afford to pay any more.”

17

What County Council services could you live without? 4.11 A large number of people used this opportunity to say that all council services were

needed, and there weren’t any that people could do without. “I would imagine that if the service is still being used then the demand is still there.” “We have no need for many parts of the council's work but may do in the future.”

“They all pay a vital role in the maintenance of our county, I could not think if one that should be abolished.” 4.12 There were also a fairly large number of people who either said they didn’t know which services were provided by Oxfordshire County Council, or named a service they could live without which is not a responsibility of the county council (such as household waste collection, housing benefit, leisure centres). 4.13 Some people acknowledged that even if they personally could live without a certain service at the moment, that didn’t mean it wasn’t essential for others, and also didn’t mean they themselves wouldn’t need it in the future. 4.14 For those who did name services, these were the most popular ones people could live without:

Libraries

Street lighting could be reduced

Savings could be made internally

Road maintenance

Libraries “I could live without libraries, but I wouldn't want to” “With the development of e-books and cheaper retail prices for books I could probably manage without as many library services, however there are members of the community who would be lost without these.” Street Lighting “I am sure as with many other areas there are certain routes of highway that could have its street lights reduced during certain hours of the day.” Internal council changes “Fewer councillors to reduce costs for reimbursement of expenditure” “The chief executive being paid £40k more than the Prime Minister and many officials being paid over £100k.” Road maintenance “Road maintence is not a huge priority for me personally.” “Economise on spending on roads. If pot holes were filled faster, before they required the whole road to be re surfaced it would cost less.”

18

Are there any other comments you would like to make about Oxfordshire County Council's services? 4.15 This was the area of the online feedback form which received the most free-text

comments. The most common themes of which were:

Children’s Centres (almost half of the comments included something about this)

The need to protect the vulnerable in society

Roads, footpaths and potholes

Libraries

Internal changes and cutbacks the council could make

Calling on the council to lobby central government

Support for the council

Children’s Centres “I am concerned that the loss of children's centres could ultimately lead to more children going into care or becoming looked after or more parents needing support through mental health provision etc. which could cost the council more in the long run.”

Vulnerable people “Failing to invest in children and families might cut short term costs but the long term impacts will be far more expensive. Our communities are richer (in all senses) because of our children's centres and these services must be protected. Vulnerable families with children with special needs and older people also need to be cared for properly. We have a duty to protect those who cannot protect themselves.” Roads, footpaths and potholes “Roads are vital to many communities and I feel it should be encouraged to ensure these run smoothly.” Libraries “I live in a small village and we have saved our part-time library by involving volunteers to help maintain the service. This is a great idea, and one that I hope can be repeated with other similar services.” Internal changes and cutbacks the council could make “Re-structuring at director and management level will save money” “Make staff more efficient, by linking pay to performance very closely.” Calling on the council to lobby central government “i believe you should also be lobbying National Government to extend your funding and seek alternatives to these cuts instead of what seems to be giving up.” Support for the council “Only that I realise that there are no easy decisions to make here, and I understand that cuts are not being made to improve services, but in response to budget reductions imposed by central government.”

19

5. Main Findings - Oxfordshire Rural Community Council (ORCC) public meeting

5.1 Approximately 70 people took part in the Talking Oxfordshire ‘rural’ event organised by Oxfordshire Rural Community Council (ORCC). Councillor Ian Hudspeth and Joanna Simons provided contextual information and took questions from the floor. At this session, people took part in round table discussions to encourage an ongoing flow of conversation.

5.2 Subjects debated at the tables included:

use of county council reserves to plug funding gaps

Parish Councils delivering grass-cutting services;

potential savings for setting up a unitary authority

reviewing the competitive tendering process of the County Council;

cutting of school transport subsidies

communities taking responsibility for filling potholes.

5.3 The services that were identified as being especially important to rural residents were:

rural transport

social care for adults and children

children’s services

road maintenance

support for the voluntary and community sector.

5.4 ORCC, as organisers of this event, wrote up the findings – please see annex 2 to this report for this.

20

6. Main Findings – Feedback form other sources Written feedback received at the 5 public events

6.1 All attendees were given a feedback form which asked about how they felt about

aspects of the event itself (venue, time, length of meeting) and if they had any other comments to make. We received 173 completed feedback forms at the events.

6.2 Quite a few people used the feedback form to express their views about Children’s

Centres: “This appears to be very short sighted in terms of long term expenditure. The loss of cutting early intervention services will lead to extensive costs in the future.” “The beauty of these services, children’s services, is that they are universal, regardless of income…etc. To take them away would be a tragedy” “Ladygrove children's centre was a saviour for me when my children were young, i would happily pay for these sessions” 6.3 Here are the other main areas people commented on:

Calls to protect older people and the vulnerable

Ideas of how to make savings - turning off street lighting - “Ask local businesses to "adopt a highway" as they do in the USA” - Dual use of buildings such as children’s centres - Use of reserves - Introduce / increase donations or charges in children’s centres

Questioning whether the council could become unitary

Discussions of an increase in council tax (and the necessary referendum) 6.4 The council received a number of emails regarding the possible closure of

Children’s Centres, and changes to the Early Intervention hubs. This included what appears to be an organised campaign centered on Grandpont Children’s Centre. In addition, a small number of emails were received with comments on how to make savings on individual services such as concessionary passes, garden waste collection, floral and Christmas decorations and commercial sponsorship. Requests were also made for more Talking Oxfordshire events.

21

Annex 1 – Summary of Talking Oxfordshire public meetings (Attendance numbers are all approximates) Themes from all (or most) meetings:

Council tax – can it be raised in order to stop the cuts?

Council should reject cuts - has Councillor Hudspeth had made any significant representation to the Chancellor or PM about the cuts?

Reserves – it was suggested that we should use our reserves to offset the need for cuts

Unitary authority - could this achieve back office savings to prevent front line cuts?

Cutting senior staff salaries

Children’s centres / early intervention: - Children’s centres and early intervention help prevent long-term problems. Without

them, more children will end up being taken into care at greater cost to the council. - Don’t forget about those living in rural areas who are already isolated. - The centres are a life line even for those not classified as ‘in need’. - How would the council protect vulnerable people who would be more at risk if early

intervention is removed? - Has the council looked at long-term costs for other services if centres close?

Banbury (240)

Cuts in children’s centres could see more pressure placed on adult social care.

Children’s centre need to be staffed by professionals (could not be modelled on library service redesign).

Why did the council spend £10 million on broadband?

Income generation suggestions (including selling empty properties, using s106 money specifically to finance children’s centres, charging more, bringing services back in-house).

Suggestions that people would be happy to go without libraries and museums and would also be happy to live with roads that were not maintained if this would save children centres.

Concern raised that vulnerable groups were being pitted against each other to vie for funding (in regard to home to school transport).

Oxford (200)

Some suggested savings or income generation: reducing roadworks (eg installation of traffic lights) and linking up better with utilities on roadworks; use of reserves; crowd funding for popular services; improved take-up of mobile working; charging academies more.

Residential rehabilitation for addicts.

Suggestions for keeping children’s centres open (multi-use, more private sector involvement).

Wantage (130)

There is a need for an inclusive consultation process about potential children’s centre closures (schools, voluntary sector, rural communities).

Should be learning from best practice and experiences of similar local authorities.

22

Didcot (180)

Potholes – question of efficiency if multiple holes in an area were filled at the same time.

Savings from the reduction in street lighting was suggested.

People were willing to offer up the government proposal for all children to receive free school meals in order to offset savings elsewhere.

Mental Health – plea to continue to support services for this vulnerable group.

Concern expressed over social isolation of older people and the need for services for them.

Plea not to reduce provision for young people with SEN. Specific mention of the cutting-edge service at Marlborough School, Woodstock.

Witney (220)

Concern that service delivery would shift to charities and voluntary sector.

Interest in why certain budgets were protected, e.g. why the fire service budget couldn’t be cut.

How will the council demonstrate it has listened to the issues raised?

What is being done to support mental health services, as there is a long waiting list for NHS care?

What cuts / savings are being proposed in relation to the elderly?

23

Annex 2 – Summary of ORCC meeting What rural needs and circumstances need to be kept in mind re: service reviews, planning and prioritising?:

Transport for those that cannot access public transport (because of distance, cost, availability, disability etc.)

Accessibility of services. Pay particular attention to transport or the lack of it; don’t make assumptions that everyone has access to a car

Concern for elderly and disabled in respect of transport for medical appointments

Maintain bus services

The few services that rural areas have we want to keep

Distance from services

Poor rural broadband compounds access problems

Adult social care-access/ isolation of young and old

Rural services often cost more to provide but should continue to be provided nevertheless. This is an issue of fairness - rural dwellers pay their Council Tax like everyone else.

Rural communities are tired of being accused of being expensive and feel they are regarded as “second class citizens”. They do not get a number of services that are provided in urban areas but there is no Council Tax discount for them-this should be recognised when looking at the cost of rural service provision

Importance of facilities like children’s centres that serve isolated families in the surrounding rural hinterland. What will happen to those families if centres close?

Need to maintain bridleways and footpaths in order to have safe routes to other communities

Priority services that must not be cut:

Rural transport

Social care (for both adults and children)

Children’s services

Road maintenance

Support for the Voluntary and Community Sector Creative/practical ideas to deliver services that mitigate cuts:

Encourage and support community transport

More dialogue between communities and transport planners

Greater efficiency in road maintenance contracts

Community ownership of village assets: pubs, shops etc.

Create community hubs (cuts need for transport)

Freeze school catchment areas

Strategic plan for Section 106/ CIL county-wide

Communities coming together to get their own broadband

OCC working with PCs to devolve services such as grass-cutting, potholes, gritting, snow clearing: reduce red tape to do this

Possible devolution of services, but only with funding

Joint working with parishes to consider providing services that are not currently being supplied. For example, Swyncombe Parish Council, along with neighbouring

24

parishes, hires its own bus to take residents to the shops once a week. Would need facilitation and co-ordination to roll out to other areas of Oxfordshire

Walkers could be invited to “adopt” their local paths and help with maintenance

Cost of competitive tendering process – short termism doesn’t allow you to plan

Possible single journey fare of say £1 for bus pass holders to keep schemes viable

Encourage more volunteering How can other groups be involved and better supported to help deliver services (e.g. Town and Parish Councils, community members, voluntary and faith sector)?:

Parish council members under time pressure and often hold down full time jobs

Self-reliance and resilience are as strong as they can be in small communities but there is a limit to the community capacity of these communities, especially as much is done by the same few

Recognise Parish Councils as first tier of local government

Encourage new/ younger councillors

Encourage volunteering (support for Voluntary and Community sector)

Need to encourage young people to get involved in communities

Support Community Led Plans (they achieve much more than Neighbourhood Plans)

Mix of Voluntary sector, Parish Council, District and County Council to provide services in a target way to the people who need them in a way that suits communities not service providers

More support from ORCC and OALC for parish councils and communities (requires funding from OCC)

Facilitated collaboration between parishes

Open up broadband delivery as this helps with rural isolation and home workers

Real joined up thinking with communities and Parish Councils to design cost effective services using a variety of delivery methods

Provide resource centres for hiring of equipment Other non-service savings:

Reduction of the number of County Councillors

Review salaries of chief officers

Sell County Hall

Share services with other councils

Put covenants on Academy lands

Tighten contract procedures and more transparency

Brainstorming- having once a year meetings like these

Tendering process should be more robust and open/ transparent

Social impact bonds

Uncollected Council Tax

Wider use of OCC buildings

Remove politicians from the decision to create an Oxfordshire wide unitary authority. Hold a referendum and let the people decide

Share premises (e.g. schools) and use school buses inside school hours

Sale of land and property by OCC – saves management and up keep costs

25

Supporting statistical introduction

In rural Oxfordshire, higher proportions of people live more than 2km from a dentist, large GP surgery, cash point, post office, secondary school, petrol station, and bank in rural areas than across rural areas in England as a whole.

A higher proportion of people live more than 10km from a job centre in rural areas in Oxfordshire (43%) than across rural England as a whole (30%).

In the most deprived rural areas of Oxfordshire, 21% of households have no access to a car or van.

There are 4200 people with a limiting long-term illness in rural areas in Oxfordshire who lack access to a car or van. These people are likely to face particular challenges to accessing health services.

22.1% of people in deprived rural areas have a limited long term illness, compared to 13.4% across Oxfordshire as a whole.

2.5% of the economically active population in the most deprived rural areas of Oxfordshire are unemployed, compared with 1.8% across Oxfordshire as a whole.

6.5% of people live more than 60 minutes travel time from a hospital in rural areas of Oxfordshire.

Sources: Action with Communities in Rural England and Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, 2011: Deprived Rural Areas in Oxfordshire and Access to Services in Oxfordshire.

Annex 3 – Talking Oxfordshire Handout

27

28