Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Murch and Williams.

There were no declarations of interest.

Minutes of the meeting held on 12 February 2016

The minutes of the meeting held on 9 February were approved and signed as a correct record.

The Mayor informed Members that this would be the last Council meeting for Andrew North, Chief Executive. He invited Group Leaders to address Council in this regard.

On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, the Leader thanked the Chief Executive for his service over the last ten years. He had been appointed at a difficult time for the Council but had taken it forward. He paid tribute to his key role in enabling and leading CBC as a commissioning council in difficult financial circumstances which had been positive for the town.

The Leader of the Conservative Group acknowledged the great work the Chief Executive had achieved during his time in office. He had come into post at a traumatic time for the organisation but had quickly brought back stability. He had always provided Members with sound and impartial advice which was listened to with respect and provided him personally with help and guidance as a group leader. The Chair of the Conservative Group welcomed the fact that he would continue to play a part in the life of the town and wished him every success.

The Leader of the PAB group echoed the comments of his colleagues and thanked the Chief Executive for his open door policy, his information and advice that he had provided to him as group leader. On behalf of the PAB he wished him a long, happy and healthy retirement.

In exercising his right of personal explanation the Chief Executive thanked the Group Leaders for their comments. He said that he would not return in any council capacity but hoped he would play a part in the cultural life of the town.

The Leader informed Members that an announcement had been made that day by Cotswold District Council with 5 Oxfordshire district councils that they were proposing the creation of new Local Unitary Councils.

He explained that Leadership Gloucestershire had met that day and reacted to the unexpected news with dismay and a statement had been issued to that effect but maintained that Leadership Gloucestershire were keen to do the best for Gloucestershire in terms of a devolution deal with Government.

Whilst recognising that it was still early days there would undoubtedly be an impact on the Gloucestershire devolution bid and there would be implications in terms of the existing 2020 partnership should the Oxfordshire deal progress.

The deadline for public questions has now passed.

Report of the Cabinet Member Finance

The Cabinet Member Finance introduced the report the purpose of which was to enable the Council to set the Council Tax for 2016/17. He explained that the Council had agreed its budget and level of Council tax for 2016/17 at its meeting on 12 February 2016. The Council was required to formally approve the total Council Tax for residents of Cheltenham, including the Council Tax requirement of the precepting organisations Gloucestershire County Council (GCC) and Gloucestershire Police. He reported that the Borough Council share of Council Tax for a band D property had increased by £5, the County Council share had increased by £43.51 and the Police by £2.58.

The motion was seconded by Councillor Jordan.

In accordance with the legislation a recorded vote was required.

Voting For 36: (Babbage, Barnes, Baker, Britter, Chard, Clucas, Coleman, Fisher, Fletcher, Flynn, Harman, C Hay, R Hay, Holliday, Jeffries, Jordan, Lillywhite, Mason, McCloskey, McKinlay, Nelson, Payne, Rawson, Regan, Reid, Ryder, Savage, Seacome, Smith, Stennett, Sudbury, Thornton, Walklett, Wheeler, Whyborn, Wilkinson)

Councillor Prince had left the meeting by the time the vote was taken.

RESOLVED (unanimously) THAT

The formal Council tax resolution at Appendix 2 be approved and that the commentary in respect of the increase in Council Tax at Paragraph 6 of Appendix 2 be noted.

Report of the Cabinet Member Development and Safety

The Cabinet Member Development and Safety, Councillor Andrew McKinlay, introduced the report regarding the release of reserve funds for the Cheltenham Transport Plan (CTP). The report recommended the release of funds to implement temporary and mitigation works related to the Cheltenham Transport Plan. Implementation was about to commence using a phased programme, which differed significantly from the single phase implementation previously envisaged. He explained that funding was from two tranches:

·         £100,000 from unallocated capital receipts was to be available for use immediately the implementation of phase 1 commenced; and

·         £50,000 from Civic Pride reserve (approved as part of the 2014/15 Budget Setting Report – 14^th February 2014 - specifically for mitigation) was to be available for use when phase 4 (works at Boots Corner) commences.

He referred to the amended recommendations which had been circulated to Members before the start of the meeting. The changes addressed some of the concerns expressed by Members and the public in their questions in that the £50K from the Civic Pride reserve would now be held until phase 4 commenced.   This would ensure that there would be funding available for any mitigating issues as a result of the works at Boots Corner.

He emphasised that in passing the resolutions, Council would be allocating funds already included in the budget. There was an immediate need to progress with phase 1 due to the agreement with John Lewis. He emphasised that the council would not necessarily be spending all the money allocated but it would be there if required to carry out mitigation work for any unforeseen issues.

The Mayor invited Members to ask questions of the Cabinet Member.

• Would the local ward councillors be fully engaged in discussions on any mitigation issues?
• The traffic officers at GCC would not necessarily consult with the Cabinet Member but he would pass on any advice he was given to local ward councillors. He suggested that if there were knock-on effects in Oriel Road or St Lukes, which GCC hadn’t addressed as part of their mitigation measures, then this could be a case for using some of the additional funding allocated in this resolution today for mitigation measures.
• Was the Cabinet Member confident that the funding referred to in the report would cover all the necessary mitigation work across the town and would this include mitigation work beyond the ring road?
• The Cabinet Member was confident that it would be sufficient and emphasised that £50K was being held back for phase 4. The funds of £100K that GCC had allocated for mitigation work would be confined to where the TROs were taking place whereas the CBC funds could be allocated in areas beyond this where there were knock-on impacts.
• Asked to consider the hypothetical situation where the funds the Council had allocated were insufficient, the Cabinet Member suggested that something would have gone seriously wrong if the council was to get to that point. The Cabinet Member Finance added that the success of the CTP was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Report of the Chief Executive

The Chief Executive introduced the report and explained that he was due to leave the council on 27 March 2016 following the decision by Council in October 2015 to make his post redundant. The Council had a statutory duty to appoint a designated Head of Paid Service (HoPS) under section 4 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989

and it was intended that the new HoPS post undertook the statutory role.

The Chief Executive reported that on 20 January 2016 the Appointment and Remuneration Committee met to consider the options and he now had great pleasure in proposing a valued and respected colleague for the role in Pat Pratley, the current Deputy Chief Executive. The Chief Executive referred to the job description in Appendix 1 and explained that the role attracted an additional salary of £8k per annum to be funded from part of the savings from the deletion of the CEO post. He highlighted that the appointment would be on an interim basis due to the fact that the council was about to enter another significant period of change with uncertainty about the impact the 2020 Partnership would have on the retained authority, the announcement from Cotswold and West Oxfordshire with regard to unitary authority status and the possibility of a combined authority. He reported that the council intended to carry out a further review of the senior structure in 12-18 months time when it was hoped that a more detailed position of the impact of the 2020 Programme and the devolution agenda would be known. He added that he would remain the Returning Officer/Electoral registration Officer for the scheduled Borough Council and Police and Crime Commissioner elections on May 5 but the new Head of Paid Service would be in a good position to take up this role for the EU Referendum scheduled for 23 June.

The Chair of the Appointments and Remuneration Committee explained how the committee had considered in detail the appointment and believed the current Deputy Chief Executive would provide the stability and consistency the authority required going forward in this time of change.

The Leader of the Council supported the appointment and gave thanks to the Appointments and Remuneration Committee for their work. He wished Pat Pratley all the best in her new position.

RESOLVED (unanimously) THAT

1.    Pat Pratley be appointed to the role of Head of Paid Service and that the appointment will be from 28 March 2016.

2.    It be noted that the appointment incorporates the responsibility for the role of Returning Officer and Electoral Registration Officer from 23 May 2016

3.    It be noted that a further review of the council’s Senior Leadership Team structure would take place during 2017.

Report of the Chairman of the Constitution Working Group

The Chairman of the Constitution Working Group introduced the report and reminded members that at its meeting on 14 December 2015 the Council approved an updated set of contract rules which was common to all 2020 vision partner councils. He explained that the contract rules included the requirement for a bond or a parent company guarantee for contracts over £1million. He said however that in practice the need for a bond or guarantee can be negated by holding back retention sums and making staged payments i.e. only for actual work that has been undertaken. Also, the requirement can be difficult and costly to obtain and it was not always necessary to obtain a bond in order to protect the council. As such it was now proposed that there was a revision to the Contract Rules to provide a practical and workable solution to the awarding of high value contracts which provides flexibility in the use of bonds/guarantees. This revision would allow the section 151 Officer, in consultation with the council’s Solicitor, to decide that a bond/guarantee was not appropriate in the circumstances of a particular contract.

The Chairman of the Constitution Working Group said that one sensitive issue which had been raised by Audit Committee was on not having a bond in place and he suggested that Audit Committee kept a watching brief on how the variant was used and not misused so there was no additional risk. He highlighted that by not having to have a bond in place did make it easier for smaller local companies to bid for a project rather than rely on larger companies.

In response to a question the Head of Legal clarified that the existing contract rules covered contracts of £1 million or less; the specific issue under discussion was contracts of more than £1 million to ensure that discretion sat with the Section 151 officer as to whether a bond was required for a particular contract.

A member commented that staged payments would not compensate for the additional cost when a contract encountered difficulties. In response the Chair of the Constitution Working group said it was all about risk which would have to be managed and the S151 and Borough Solicitor would have to look at each circumstance individually. Large projects would be project managed and be assessed by the project board. Gateway reviews also were submitted to Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the decisions which were taken with large contracts would be published. Where it was felt that the variant was not used appropriately this would be reported to Audit Committee.

When asked whether this proposal corresponded with the latest best practice the Director Resources said that the use of the variant was a judgement by the S151 Officer due to the nature of the activity and the size of the contract.

The Cabinet Member Housing welcomed the proposals and said it would give more flexibility to officers and he gave the example of CBH who were entering into contracts on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

There were no notices of motion.

None received.

There were no urgent items.