Agenda and minutes

Reverend Robert Pastelli invited members to take a moment of reflection.

Councillors Smith, Lansley, Garnham, Hibbert, Wheeler, Thornton and Prince had given their apologies. 

Councillors Smith and Thornton subsequently arrived late at the meeting.  

Councillor Garnham had asked that the Mayor explain that his apologies had been given on two counts, firstly as the Chairman of Gloucestershire Police Authority he had to be present at their last ever meeting which was also scheduled for this afternoon and secondly as he had declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 10 (Joint Core Strategy) and therefore should not take part in the debate.

No interests were declared at the meeting.

25 June 2012

The minutes of the last meeting had been circulated with the agenda.

Councillor Teakle proposed an amendment to the minutes of Agenda Item 9 (Petition Regarding Weavers Field).  She felt that the amendment being proposed would provide clarity to members of the public that whilst she had supported the motion she had commented that the scheme as it stood was unacceptable to her.  Councillor Jordan seconded the amendment being proposed which related to the paragraph starting “A number of members”:

“A number of members, including Councillor Teakle, urged the Cabinet Member Sustainability to recognise the value of Weavers Field as a habitat and a space enjoyed by many for a variety of reasons. The invitation for further discussion with the representatives of the petitioners and ward members was welcomed. Councillor Teakle also stressed that the scheme as it stood was completely unacceptable as 88 allotments would cover the most attractive and scenic open space for walking.  She wondered if it would be possible in the proposed discussions to look at amending the scheme (perhaps with fewer allotments on a less scenic area with reduced car parking space) in a way that might me more acceptable to all parties.”

Councillor McLain’s recollection of the debate was that a number of members from across the chamber had made a variety of comments and they had not been named. Councillor Teakle explained that a number of her constituents had raised queries with her regarding the debate and she felt that the proposed amendment set the record straight.  The Mayor explained that it was not normal practice to name individual Councillors unless specifically requested.

Upon a vote the amendment was CARRIED.

Upon a vote it was

RESOLVED that the amended minutes of the meeting held on the 25 June 2012 be agreed and signed as an accurate record.

The Mayor raised the issue of member attendance at Civic events.  Recent events such as Battle of Britain and the upcoming Remembrance Sunday were important to people in the town and he hoped members would make an effort to attend. 

He was pleased to report the news that Rosehill Street had been opened again following the gas explosion.

Despite the inclement weather over the summer it had been an exciting and enjoyable period what with the Jubilee and Olympics and he felt this had lifted the mood in Cheltenham and across the country.  He sympathised greatly with those that had put a great deal of effort into organising events only to have to cancel them at the last minute as a result of the inclement weather we had endured this summer. 

The Leader had no communications.

These must be received no later than 12 noon on the fourth working day before the date of the meeting (18 September 2012)

The following responses were given to the 8 public questions received;

The following responses were given to the 5 member questions received;

Report of the Director of Commissioning

The Cabinet Member Corporate Services introduced the report.  In his introduction he explained that the Independent Remuneration Panel had received a report on the new Standards arrangements in July following Council’s decision in June to adopt a new local code of conduct and continue to have a Standards committee but in a new format.  The new Standards committee was made up of a politically balanced group of seven elected members and two Independent Persons who will be in attendance to offer their advice to the committee but will not have a vote.  The chair will be a borough councillor elected by the committee at its first meeting and the committee has not met yet. In May, Council had resolved that the Independent Person should receive an allowance of £300 per annum plus travelling expenses.  This did not form part of the members allowance scheme and an additional allowance for attendance at the Standards Committee was not appropriate. The previous SRA for the chair of the Standards Committee was determined on the basis of 12 meetings per year, a MEDIUM level of experience and knowledge and a HIGH level of responsibility and risk.  Using the current basis of calculations, the SRA came out at £907 per annum. In practice the number of meetings was much less.  Under the new regime, the Monitoring Officer would be responsible for considering the initial complaint in consultation with the Independent Person(s). This should reduce the number of trivial complaints which come before the committee and as it is no longer statutory committee, the IRP took all this into account and reduced the level of risk and responsibility for the chair from HIGH to MEDIUM.  With an estimated 4 meetings per year this produces an allowance for the chair of the new Standards Committee as £302 per annum. There were no budgetary implications as this will be covered by the current budget for members allowances.

Upon a vote it was (unanimously)

RESOLVED that:

1. That the Special Responsibility Allowance (SRA) for the chair of Standards Committee  under the new Standards arrangements should be set to £302 per annum, effective from 1 July 2012.
2. That all other aspects of the Members Allowance Scheme remain unchanged.
3. That the director of commissioning be authorised to implement any necessary changes to the scheme of allowances and the Borough Solicitor and Monitoring Officer be authorised to make any necessary changes to Council’s constitution.

Report of the Leader

The Leader introduced the item by highlighting some key points.  The process to date had been a long and complicated one but without a Local Plan the Council would be indefensible against a development free for all.  As such it was in the best interest of the Council to get a Local Plan in place and working with Tewkesbury and Gloucester would ultimately benefit all three authorities. 

There was still some important work to be done with regard to household sizes and economic growth.  He felt that this was an important point in the process with work towards a preferred option emerging in Spring 2013 after taking into account social and economic figures.

Consultation on a range of options had taken place between December 2011 and February 2012 and he thanked the thousands of residents that had responded. He reminded members that this was not simply a referendum and although they would endeavour to incorporate the views of local people, the end result must be sound and open to inspection.   

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPFF) emerged in March 2012 and there was a need to fully understand its implications.  Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners (NLP) were appointed after a tender process to assist with reviewing the JCS evidence so far and objectively assessing the need for housing.

The NLP report was circulated only two weeks ago and members had been invited to attend a presentation.  The Joint Member Steering Group had then agreed the seven draft resolves and a covering report produced by Officers which offered their advice.  The Leader was now proposing amendments to the resolutions (copies of which had been circulated throughout the chamber and public gallery).  He explained that these amendments addressed local concerns for Cheltenham and that the other authorities may have their own similar concerns. He explained each resolution in turn;

1.            Historically population projections had been calculated by Gloucestershire County Council but given recent staff reductions there was no longer capacity for them to continue to do this.  NLP advocated the use of Department for Communities and Local Government and the Office of National Statistics data in forming the methodology.

2.            He took issue with some of NLP’s dismissals of consultation responses but stressed that at this stage Council was only being asked to ‘note’ this commentary and advice.  No evidence had yet been presented to back up the conclusions.

3.            He considered the population projection to be the least disputed figure given that the projection spanned a 20 year period but he felt that it was also fair to say that the dwellings figure (28,500) was not without controversy. 

4.            Added by the Leader this recommendation aimed to address concerns about the estimated household size where different methods of calculation produced conflicting results and for which there was evidence to suggest that the trend in household size was broadly static.

5.            Added by the Leader this recommendation would form part of the debate about where the economy was heading and he did not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

No notices of motion had been received.

No petitions were submitted, nor had any been received since the last meeting.

There were no urgent items for discussion.