Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Jeffries and Councillor Stennett.

Councillors Duncan Smith and Suzanne Williams declared an interest agenda item 9 as directors of Cheltenham Borough Homes and announced their intention to leave the chamber for this item.

Minutes of the meeting held on 25 February 2016

The minutes of the meeting held on 25 February were approved and signed as a correct record subject to Councillor Tim Harman being recorded as the "Leader” and not “chair” of the Conservative Group.

The Mayor confirmed that he was standing down at the next elections and therefore this would be his last Council meeting.  He said his last 18 years as a Councillor had been interesting and he was proud of the innovation and the cross-party working that the council had achieved during that time in the interests of the town.

He also bid farewell to his fellow Councillors Anne Regan, Rob Reid, John Rawson and David Prince who were also standing down.

The Mayor invited retiring Members to speak and other Members thanked them for their contributions.

The Leader advised that voting on the process for BID was now under way and he asked Members to encourage eligible businesses to vote.  There would be a formal announcement on 28 April after the close of voting.

He was pleased to announce that work was now under way on the improvements to Royal Well and the reinstatement of the telephone boxes in the Promenade which would be used for displaying artwork.

The Leader referred to his detailed answer to the question regarding devolution. He was concerned at the prospect of CDC potentially leaving Gloucestershire and the county council trying to rush through an elected Mayor deal by May. The lines of accountability and responsibility needed to be considered carefully and it was not a matter that should be rushed through in this way.

He added his thanks to the retiring Members and in particular to Councillor Rawson as his deputy and for his leadership on the budget and in his role of facilitating improvements and change in Cheltenham.

These must be received no later than 12 noon on Tuesday 29 March 2016

These must be received no later than 12 noon on Tuesday 29 March 2016

Report of the Cabinet Member Corporate Services

The Cabinet Member Corporate Services introduced the report on the Council Diary September 2016 to August 2017.  There has been wide consultation with councillors and officers, and any feedback had been considered and the diary revised as appropriate.

A Member suggested that in future Council meetings should start at 5 p.m. to encourage a wider range of people to stand as councillors, including mothers with young children, and to facilitate public attendance.

In the debate that followed, there were mixed views about whether an afternoon meeting would be preferable for Councillors with families and it was acknowledged that working patterns were very different in the modern world. It was suggested that web casting should be looked at as a more effective way of getting more public engagement. One member suggested that all council meetings should avoid school holidays. Members also highlighted that consideration also needed to be given to officers in attendance at evening Council meetings as they too had family commitments.

The Cabinet Member thanked members for their comments. Apart from the point about school holidays the timing issue had not been raised during the consultation on the diary for the coming Municipal Year but he would be happy to look at the issues ahead of the drafting of the diary for 2017/18. He would also investigate the options for web casting.

Upon a vote it was unanimously

Resolved that the draft Council diary of meetings for September 2016 to August 2017 be approved.

Report of the Cabinet Member Housing to be presented by the Cabinet Member Finance

(**Please note that in accordance with paragraph 3 Part 1 Schedule 12A Local Government Act 1972 any discussion on appendices 2 and 3 should take place in EXEMPT session**)

The Deputy Mayor took the chair for this item.

The Cabinet Member Finance introduced the report which sought approval from Council to authorise the allocation of up to £1,405,150 for the construction of eight new dwellings on three HRA garage sites- Rowanfield Exchange, Hester's Way Road and Ullswater Road. The scheme would provide 5 x 3 bed dwellings; 2 x 2 bed dwellings and 1 x 4 bed dwelling.

The Cabinet Member explained that the new build policy had delivered an impressive number of homes in the borough to date and this scheme was good news for the council and the town for the following reasons :

·         it made good use of council owned brownfield sites that were currently under-used and unproductive

·         it would deliver homes of a kind that were greatly needed in the town-good quality family homes, built to provide high standards combined with low long term maintenance costs and energy efficiency.

·         the development would have a positive impact on housing finances both in the short and long terms as it would deliver a positive cash flow from year 1 and also a very significant return on investment over 40 years

·         the new houses represented good value for money.  The build costs had been market tested through the tender process.

·         the scheme would make the best possible use of Right to Buy receipts. These receipts have to be spent within three years of receiving them and must be spent on providing additional affordable housing.   £420,000 of Right to Buy receipts would be put towards this scheme, with the balance being found from a combination of borrowing and new build reserves.

The Cabinet Member thanked Martin Stacy, Lead Commissioner, Housing Services and Cheltenham Borough Homes for the work they had put into this scheme.

The following issues were addressed :

·         The legal implications for third party risks had been given a high score on the risk assessment. The Cabinet Member clarified that this was due to potential Rights of Way legal issues. Currently the proposal was for up to 8 homes but this covered the scenario where there were insolvable legal problems which did not enable the council to develop 8 units.

·         Members welcomed the development of the garage sites in general and paid tribute to CBH who had in some instances gone over and above their remit. They also commended the high quality of housing provision and sustainability of the developments. One member suggested that CBH could consider developing its own in house team to build homes by working together with, for example, Gloucestershire College to take on apprentices. Members also paid tribute to CBH for its work on significant redevelopment of communal areas and the added social benefits that this work generated.

·         CBH was congratulated on its excellent consultation undertaken during the process of this particular scheme which was appreciated by ward councillors and residents alike

·         Concern was expressed with regard to current government policy on starter homes which was likely to have a detrimental effect on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Report of the Cabinet Member Finance

The Cabinet Member Finance introduced the Asset Management Plan 2016/17-2020/21, as circulated with the agenda.  The Council’s current Asset Management Plan (AMP) had been due to expire in 2015 and the production and approval of the replacement Asset Management Plan had been deferred.  This was to allow time for consideration to be given to the advice and suggestions made by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) following their review of the council’s approach to asset management.  The Asset Management Working Group (AMWG) had considered the replacement plan the previous week.  Council was now being required to specifically approve Appendix G of the report although the Cabinet Member would welcome comments on the report in its entirety. 

The Cabinet Member explained that a key recommendation of the CIPFA review was that the AMP should be a more dynamic, ‘living’ document which played a key role in the organisation. He believed effective asset management assisted the council in achieving its core objectives –

• delivering better services,
• helping to bridge the ongoing budget gap,
• helping to make the town a more beautiful, vibrant place,
• supporting the local economy,
• nurturing the town’s cultural life,
• providing more and better housing,
• and supporting the voluntary sector.

All of these threads were woven into the plan, together with policies and strategies to achieve them.

He stated that there were a number of things that were clearly required of an effective Asset Management Plan :

·         clear objectives (set out in the Asset Management Policy Appendix A)

·         clear performance indicators (set out at appendix J)

·         a series of policies and methodologies covering such things as :

roles and responsibilities

capital investment

planned maintenance

Disposals and rental policy

·         Procedures to ensure the decision-making processes are clear, considered and transparent.

The Cabinet Member referred members to appendix I of the report which set out a clear policy for carrying out and prioritising planned maintenance; he highlighted the fact that the CIPFA report recognised that CBC had made great progress in this area. He also commented that the CIPFA report was very positive about the cabinet member role in asset management, but it strongly recommended that the Asset Management Working Group be given a wider and more strategic role.  This recommendation had been accepted and made a crucial part of the decision-making process.  The Working Group would be encouraged not just to look strategically at the way assets were managed but also to monitor performance on a systematic basis.

The Cabinet Member also said that another significant feature of the Plan was that it proposed a clear policy and process for acquiring assets for investment purposes as set out at appendix G. He explained that this sought to smooth the process and seize opportunities where they arose, but without taking away the constitutional role of the Cabinet and Council in making property decisions.  He highlighted the importance of this if property income was going to be used as a means to do more than simply bridge the financial gap.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

Report of the Leader

The Leader introduced the draft corporate strategy which had been endorsed by Cabinet at their meeting on 8 March and was now coming to Council for their approval. The strategy was ambitious but achievable and set out a clear vision for Cheltenham under four high-level outcomes. The strategy highlighted areas where plans were to be achieved through working in partnership. The strategy had been developed in parallel with the budget and consideration was also given as to whether there was adequate resource to undertake what was identified in the strategy. He wished to thank both officers and Members for their input including the Overview and Scrutiny committee which had considered the report at its last meeting and whose suggestions had been incorporated into the draft strategy.

The Leader highlighted the following:

·         It was hoped that the JCS would be completed this year.

·         The 3 year business plan for the Cheltenham Development Task Force

·         The council was also driving the economic development and tourism strategy.

·         New tranche of affordable housing.

·         The Pittville Play area project was a positive enhancement of the town.

·         The development of the cemetery and crematorium

·         The planned review of recycling services

The Leader emphasised that this could not be achieved without the positive hard work of officers.

A Member suggested that second homes were having a real impact on communities by causing an inbalance between housing need and supply and that domestic violence should be a strand in all strategies for safer communities.

The  Leader thought the comments regarding domestic violence were entirely appropriate and the council was awaiting the outcome of two homicide reviews in the town and there may be learning points arising which needed to be incorporated in council policies and strategies. The council had attempted to address the issue of second homes through higher council tax and the bigger picture would be addressed as part of the JCS.

A Member referred to ‘Econ 4’ on page 11 which stated that the council would support the delivery of the Taskforce Business Plan. He asked where was the business plan that the Council were being asked to support as a copy was not attached to the strategy document. He understood that earlier this year, the Cabinet had signed off the task Force funding for another three years and he assumed they had received the business plan prior to this decision. He asked for clarification on the current version as he had only been able to find one that runs 2013 to 2015, with no dates into 2016.

He also sought clarification on the proposed role of the Taskforce?   According to the latest Memorandum of Understanding and Councillor McKinlay at the last Council meeting on 25th February, the role of the Task Force was  purely advisory and CBC had no say or influence in what it does despite paying well over 95% of its costs. He questioned why an advisory body appeared to have a delivery role in the strategy with the MD as Project manager,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

Report of the Leader

The Leader introduced the report which had been circulated with the agenda. The report explained that on 14 April 2015 Cabinet had agreed a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule (PDCS) for public consultation.  This work was progressed in collaboration with Gloucester and Tewkesbury councils and consultants Peter Brett Associates (PBA) were appointed to help consider whether a CIL should be taken forward.

The report brought together all the relevant threads of information informing the revisions to the charging schedule, taking account of consultation responses to the PDCS and further detailed viability assessment. The report had been discussed in detail by the Planning and Liaison member working group and the proposals had also been the subject of a recent member seminar.

The purpose of the report was to gain agreement to undertake public consultation on the Cheltenham CIL Draft Charging Schedule (DCS) prior to independent examination.  The other councils were being asked to make the same decision.

A CIL rate is proposed for development within the Borough for the following uses: Residential, Out of Town Retail and Retirement and Care Homes. Other development uses were assessed, but based on viability evidence recommended as a zero rate (£0). Separate CIL rates were proposed for the JCS strategic allocations and for development within Gloucester City and Tewkesbury Borough areas. Taking on board the evidence on viability a one size fits all approach was not appropriate for the JCS area as a whole.  The report detailed the recommended CIL charge for Cheltenham, but the details for Gloucester and Tewkesbury are set out in the PBA report appended.

The Leader emphasised that the council was not proposing to scrap Section 106s as they may still be relevant in some cases but they must be kept distinct from CILs.

In response to a question he clarified that the levy was not designed to promote green field development ahead of brownfield. There were infrastructure costs related to urban extensions which would apply across council boundaries.

A Member raised a question regarding the position of a charity such as the Cheltenham Trust where they were leasing a building from the council. What would be their position if they wanted to develop the building and would they be liable for CIL?

The Head of Planning, Tracey Crews, had given an initial response to the member on this issue. There was a facility for exemptions and discretionary relief within the policy and a further advice was needed on whether this was applicable in this situation. She agreed to take further advice from One Legal and produce a briefing note for all members.

Upon a vote it was unanimously

RESOLVED THAT

1.            The publication of the Draft Charging Schedule for public consultation purposes be approved;

2.            The Director of Planning in consultation with the Leader of the Council be authorised to prepare the final publication documents as required, based on the detail of this report and information in Appendix 2;

3.            The Director of Planning be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

These must be received no later than 12 noon on Thursday 24 March 2016

None received.

None received.

There was no urgent business.