Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Lillywhite and Holliday.

Councillor Wilkinson declared a personal interest in agenda item 12 as he worked in communications for the energy sector.

Councillor Babbage declared a personal interest in agenda item 12 as he worked for an energy company.

Minutes of the meeting held on 20 July 2015

The minutes of the meeting held on 20 July 2015 were approved and signed as a correct record.

The Mayor reminded Members that the Remembrance Service would take place on Sunday 8 November and encouraged all to attend.

The Mayor highlighted that a special Council meeting would be held on Monday 16 November to discuss devolution.

The Leader took the opportunity to welcome back Chris Brierley, politics reporter at BBC News.

The Leader wished to put on record his thanks to Severn Trent for the way they had communicated with communities during the recent works.

The Leader informed Members that a planning application would be submitted this week for Pittville Play Area and further details of the scheme would be publicised the following week.

These must be received no later than 12 noon on Tuesday 13 October 2015.

These must be received no later than 12 noon on Tuesday 13 October 2015.

Report of the Leader

The Mayor invited Members to consider suspending standing orders to enable the Leader to speak for longer than the 10 minutes laid down in the Council Procedure Rules. Upon a vote this was agreed.

The Leader started by thanking Members and Officers across the council for their contribution in enabling him to bring this report today in support of what was a very key decision for this Council.

He began by responding to the question of why he was recommending to Council that they enter into the 2020 Vision parternership structure (2020). 

The first reason was financial and with the ongoing financial pressures on local government budgets it was necessary to look at alternative solutions in order to avoid future cuts in services. The 2020 report detailed the significant projected savings over the period of the MTFS with potential additional savings from the formation of a local authority company.

The second reason was that this council had a track record of sharing services and with the success of GO and ICT shared services it was the logical step to build on these existing arrangements in 2020.

He acknowledged that there were concerns about the potential political and cultural differences across the four councils and also that Cheltenham was an urban authority going into partnership with three rural authorities. However he could reassure members that services that were special or unique to Cheltenham, in particular those delivered by REST and the Cheltenham Trust, were not going into the 2020 arrangements.

Customer services, revenues and benefits and property services had been identified within the project as the next services to be considered for sharing. He added that this detailed work would begin shortly with a report being brought to Cabinet at some stage in the New Year. He highlighted that members would be involved in this process.

He emphasised that before any future services were moved into 2020 there would need to be a full report to Cabinet, including a business case and alternative options, which would have to be agreed before any future transfer of services takes place. The recommendation agreed by Cabinet stated that Cabinet would receive and have to approve further business case briefings and proposed Service Level Agreements for these services under consideration.

There was the potential for staff to be transferred into a Local Authority company which would assist with the pensions’ deficit and a further business case for this would be brought back next year.

He stressed the importance of Cheltenham maintaining its own democratic governance in the new arrangements.

He explained that 2020 would be governed by a Joint Committee with two members represented from each authority. Cabinet proposed that the current Cabinet Member Corporate Services, Councillor Walklett, undertake one of these roles. He was the current council representative on the member governance board and the CBC representative on the Joint Monitoring and Liaison Group for GOSS. The Leader highlighted the suggestion from Overview and Scrutiny Committee that the second member on the Joint Committee  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Report of the Cabinet Member Corporate Services

The Cabinet Member Corporate Services introduced the report and explained that the council had a duty to ensure that all electors have such reasonable facilities for voting as practicable and to ensure that the polling stations are accessible to all electors including those with special needs. He explained that a consultation exercise had been completed for Lansdown Ward.

Members supported the proposal of rationalising Polling District HB to Polling District HA as the situation for some electors had been rather anomalous.

RESOLVED (unanimously) that the following changes to polling districts HA and HB be approved :

Move Douro Road, Drakes Place, Lansdown Terrace, Lansdown Terrace Lane, Malvern Place and Malvern Road from Polling District HB to Polling District HA

Report of the Cabinet Member Clean and Green Environment

The Cabinet Member Clean and Green Environment introduced the report. He was delighted that he was able to bring this report to Council and he gave thanks to the excellent team of officers who had made a tremendous input to the project. He also acknowledged the contribution made by Councillors Reid, McCloskey and Ryder as members of the Cabinet Member working group who had been a very useful sounding board to himself and the rest of the team.

The Cabinet Member explained that it had been acknowledged that investment was needed to improve public facilities and in particular, the reliability of the cremators at Cheltenham’s cemetery and crematorium. This follows the poor quality cremator installation which took place in 2011, during which the main contractor went into liquidation, leaving a number of authorities with sub-standard equipment issues. At this point he thanked the scrutiny task group which had produced an excellent report on the issues. To ensure that the best solution was secured, architects Robert Potter and Partners were commissioned to look at a number of options ranging from installing new cremators in the current building, to building a new chapel and crematorium. The options identified were diverse and had different operational, customer service and financial implications.

The report set out the results of the detailed public consultation process in addition to the member seminars which had been held. The Cabinet Member reported that there had been an overwhelming response in favour of option E. He explained that very detailed work had been undertaken on the business case for Option E and having assessed and benchmarked Cheltenham’s charges and level of service against other local providers there was scope for increasing fees to cover the cost of the borrowing required to invest in a new facility on land currently identified for expansion of the cemetery site.

In summing up the Cabinet Member acknowledged that this was an ambitious project but was considered to be the best approach to secure the long term success and viability of the service.

Members praised the work done in bringing this project to this stage, in particular the way that officers had engaged with members of the public in the consultation which was reflected in the consultation responses. They welcomed the prospect of an enhanced, fit for purpose facility which would benefit Cheltenham residents and those in surrounding areas. Key officers at the crematorium were praised for their professionalism. The valuable work of the cross party Cabinet Member working group was also recognised.

Whilst Members supported the financial implications of Option E they did however emphasise the importance of keeping project costs under close scrutiny.  In response to this the Cabinet Member reported that the Cabinet Member working group would maintain a role in monitoring this.

RESOLVED (unanimously)

To allocate the budgets for financing Option E as detailed in Appendix 4 (exempt).

Report of the Chair of Overview and Scrutiny, Councillor Tim Harman

The Chair of Overview and Scrutiny introduced the annual report and gave thanks to officers who had supported the work of the committee and the task groups over the year. Scrutiny had covered a wide range of issues and the committee had also invited representatives of community groups to speak to the committee about the valuable services they provide.

He encouraged members to bring forward any issues which they felt would be worthy of scrutiny and to put themselves forward for O&S task groups. He also encouraged Members to complete the Members Skills Audit so those with the appropriate experience are invited to join the relevant group.

It was noted that the membership of the Cycling and Walking Scrutiny Task group was incorrect and should read Councillors Wilkinson, Lillywhite, Murch and Williams with co-optees John Mallows, Bronwen Thornton and John Newbury.

RESOLVED

To note the Annual Report of Overview and Scrutiny 2014-15.

Motion A

Proposed by: Councillor Wilkinson and seconded by: Councillor Clucas

“Council notes with concern the Government's antipathy to the renewable energy industry. In particular, council condemns the removal of support for popular technologies such as solar and wind which, between 2010 and 2015, helped the UK become a world leader in renewable energy.  Council resolves to write a letter to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change encouraging her to reconsider the decision to make such drastic cuts to the subsidy for the industry.”

Motion B

Proposed by: Councillor Harman and seconded by Councillor Mason

“That this Council commends the initiative of the "Wombles" group of volunteers and other groups of volunteers in tackling the issues of litter and general grot which plagues our Town and calls upon the Borough Council to raise its game in tackling these issues.

Whether litter, graffiti, etc is on public or private land it detracts from our splendid Town and it is surely the duty of all of us to show leadership backed by practical steps I hope that Council will support this motion today and instruct the Cabinet to bring forward an action plan.”

Motion C

Proposed by: Councillor Whyborn           and seconded by Councillor Flynn

“Cheltenham Borough Council notes that many councils across the country, of various party political control, have implemented or are now implementing 20mph speed limits over wide areas without traffic calming. Over 14 million people now live in areas, where 20 mph has become the default speed limit in residential and urban streets, except for arterial roads.

Council recognises that 20 mph limits have the potential to promote increased road safety, particularly for young and elderly pedestrians and cyclists, as well as to enable active and sustainable travel. Nationally Public health and other bodies such as NICE, Public Health England, the LGA and the WHO all support such a policy. It is described as the most cost-effective way to improve health equality by tackling inactivity, obesity and isolation, whilst also being child, disability, elderly and dementia friendly.

Council notes that the report of the Cycling and Walking Scrutiny Group includes recommendations to "initiate a review to assess the appetite for a 20 mile speed limit across town from residents, businesses, and visitors”.

Council requests that Cabinet consider the recommendations of the Cycling and Walking Scrutiny Group, and include provision for a consultation exercise in the 2016/17 corporate work plan to establish where there is potential for 20 mile per hour limits in Cheltenham and that the Council use its best endeavours in conjunction with Gloucestershire County Council to work towards trials in suitable areas where public support exists.”

Motion A

Proposed by: Councillor Wilkinson and seconded by: Councillor Clucas

“Council notes with concern the Government's antipathy to the renewable energy industry. In particular, council condemns the removal of support for popular technologies such as solar and wind which, between 2010 and 2015, helped the UK become a world leader in renewable energy.  Council resolves to write a letter to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change encouraging her to reconsider the decision to make such drastic cuts to the subsidy for the industry.”

In proposing the motion Councillor Wilkinson said that between 2010 and 2015 renewable energy generation soared. There were dramatic increases in the amount of energy generated from solar, wind and other renewable sources, largely thanks to government support for these initiatives. The UK was now exceeding renewable energy targets set by European directives. However, he expressed concern that in the past few months things have changed and he was extremely concerned about the direction of government policy on renewable energy with reduced support for wind generation, solar power generation, a U-turn on a pledge to ban fracking in national parks, axing regulations encouraging zero carbon homes, closing the green deal energy efficiency scheme, scrapping the tax reductions on less polluting  vehicles and adding a climate change levy to renewable energy generation.

Councillor Wilkinson referred to an opinion survey produced by the Department for Energy and Climate Change - the government department charged with energy generation policy and tackling climate change which highlighted that solar was supported by more than 80% of people and opposed by less than 5%, Offshore wind was supported by almost 75% and opposed by fewer than one in ten and Onshore wind was supported by almost 70% and opposed by only 10%.

He said that according to the leading think tank Policy Exchange only 1% of the average household bill went towards paying the feed in tariffs but despite this, and despite the fact that subsidies make up a relatively small proportion of spending by the DECC and a small proportion of overall public spending, the government was planning subsidy cuts which were likely to have profound implications for the future of the energy generation industry.

Councillor Wilkinson reminded Members that solar panels installed by Cheltenham Borough Homes gave energy bill savings of between £100 and £200 per year per tenant. Whether this success could be replicated in future council housing developments would seem in doubt.

Councillor Wilkinson made reference to the potentially ground-breaking project in Bath Terrace car park and explained that part of the scheme involved installing solar panels, which would generate electricity to be consumed locally. He warned however that unfortunately, the renewable energy aspect of the project may now not be affordable due to proposals to cut the Feed in Tariff..

Councillor Wilkinson highlighted that these subsidy cuts were taking place while the government progressed with new nuclear generation at Hinkley Point.

He urged Members to support the motion to demonstrate that Cheltenham was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

None received.

The following motion has been proposed by Councillor Chris Nelson and seconded by Councillor Chard

“This Council directs the Leader of the Council to write urgently to the National Planning Casework Unit in support of the SD2 Call-In request by Alex Chalk MP and Laurence Robertson MP, highlighting the need to await the recommendation of the JCS Examination in Public on Local Green Space”

At this point the Deputy Mayor left the chamber.

The Mayor reported that a motion had been submitted by Councillor Chris Nelson in relation to the call in on the SD2 site/decision. He explained that he had determined the motion as urgent as it could not be delayed to another meeting of Council and related to business and matters already under consideration in terms of the Joint Core Strategy.

Councillor Chris Nelson then proposed the following motion which was seconded by Councillor Chard :

This Council requests the Leader of the Council to write urgently to the National Planning Casework Unit in support of the SD2 Call-In request by Alex Chalk MP and Laurence Robertson MP, highlighting the need to await the recommendation of the JCS Examination in Public on Local Green Space.

The following amendment had been proposed by Councillor McKinlay and seconded by Councillor Jordan and circulated prior to the meeting:

Delete working of motion and replace with:

“This Council requests the Leader of the Council to write urgently to the National Planning Casework Unit in support of a SD2 call in request, in relation to Tewkesbury Borough Council Planning decision 14/00838/FUL consistent with the original letter of objection to this application sent by the Borough Council on the 6^th July 2015”

As the amendment was accepted in full by Councillor Nelson, he then spoke to the amended substantive motion.  He explained that it was important that the council wrote to the NPCU in support of the call in request as this would add weight to it and highlight the cross border issues which it raised. He explained that it had been supported by LEGLAG, CPRE and 3 Parish Councils. Whilst the amended motion referred to the Borough Council’s original letter of objection to the application on 6 July a previous letter had been submitted on 1 December 2015. Councillor Nelson explained that the original motion had made specific reference to the local green space issue and referred to the fact that when Council signed up to the JCS in April 2014 the Leader spoke about the importance of the Local Green Space Application and the wish to see this considered in Leckhampton and North West Cheltenham. He reported that there had been agreement in principle of the need to examine Local Green Space in the ongoing JCS examination in public and an interim statement on Local Green Space was expected in January 2016.

He believed that if the council wanted the JCS process to be conducted in a proper manner, there was a need for the examination in public to take place and be concluded so the Secretary of State could consider the issues strategically.

Councillor Nelson stated that given the Council’s emphasis on Local Green Space and the Local Green Space consultation exercise which had taken place across the borough, there was a good case for it to be included in the letter.

As proposer of the accepted amendment Councillor McKinlay expressed his support for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

The Council is recommended to approve the following resolution:-

“That in accordance with Section 100A(4) Local Government Act 1972 the public be excluded from the meeting for the remaining agenda items as it is likely that, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, if members of the public are present there will be disclosed to them exempt information as defined in paragraph 3, Part (1) Schedule (12A) Local Government Act 1972, namely:

Paragraph 3; Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular

person (including the authority holding that information)

RESOLVED

That in accordance with Section 100A (4) Local Government Act 1972 the public be excluded from the meeting for the remaining agenda items as it is likely that, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, if members of the public are present there will be disclosed to them exempt information as defined in paragraph 3, Part (1) Schedule (12A) Local Government Act 1972, namely :

Paragraph 3 : Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information)

Exempt Minutes of the meeting held on 20 July 2015

The exempt minutes of the meeting held on 20 July 2015 were approved and signed as a correct record.