Agenda and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber, Municipal Offices

Contact: Bev Thomas, Democratic Services Team Leader 


No. Item




Apologies were received from Councillors Baker, Coleman, Jeffries and Parsons.


Declarations of interest


Councillors Boyes and Cooke declared a prejudicial interest in agenda item 16. Councillor Babbage declared a personal interest in agenda item 16.

Councillors Brownsteen, Whyborn and Wilkinson declared a prejudicial interest in agenda item 20.


Minutes of the last meeting pdf icon PDF 528 KB

Minutes of the meetings held on  :


20 July 2020

29 July 2020 (extraordinary meeting)


16 November 2020 (extraordinary meeting)

Additional documents:





The minutes of the Council meetings held on 20 July 2020, 29 July and 16 November 2020 were approved and signed as a correct record.


Communications by the Mayor


The Mayor explained that it had been a very strange year since March with regard to engagements, with many cancelled or carried out virtually, or with very few attendees.  He said he would be attending carols by car light and had already prepared the reading for the church carol concert. 


He expressed his thanks to Members and officers for their hard work during these difficult times and said he had seen gestures of extreme generosity and encouragement. He cited that his Chaplin had made the observation that Cheltenham had really stepped up in terms of community support and much of this was credit to the networking of Cheltenham Borough Council staff and Members.  He reported that the Community Champion at Morrisons would be preparing 200+ gift parcels for vulnerable children in schools in that area. He was very encouraged by this and similar initiatives that were happening all over the town.


The Mayor reported that CBC had been awarded an IESE certificate for excellence in innovations in transforming local public services.  The Leader joined the Mayor in congratulating all those involved.


The Mayor also paid tribute to Cllr Ann Melhado / Pennell who recently passed away and her widower had made a gift to the Mayor’s fund. Cllr Melhado had been a member of the liberal democrats and a constituent of his, as well as a member of either Cheltenham or Tewksbury Borough council.


Communications by the Leader of the Council


The Leader of the Council referred to the LGA renewal and recovery review report that had been recently circulated and wished to thank the LGA team for this and for their very positive feedback.


The Leader informed that he would be standing down from Cheltenham Borough Council in May 2021.  He had been leader for 12 years and a councillor for nearly 30 years and he had been trying to put in place an orderly transfer to the new leader, especially as he realised this was not the best time to be handing over.  However, on the basis of the LGA report he had every confidence that the council would be well placed under the new leader. 


The Leader wished to express his thanks to many people and organisations, in particular to everyone in the Cheltenham community in helping to get through the recent difficult times of the pandemic.  He paid tribute to all those in the Health and Social care services for their continued hard work and expressed his sincere thanks to the Chief Executive and the whole team at CBC for a successful LGA review.  Looking to the future, the Leader felt things were looking positive; the council had many good things going on and the vaccine roll out had commenced.  He wished to thank all partners that had worked with the council over the years and had supported him, as well as all Members of the council for their dedicated hard work, especially his cabinet colleagues past and present  and in particular the deputy Leader. 


He concluded that as a leader he had tried to make things happen and contribute positively to the environment and to base decisions on facts and evidence and trusted the council would continue in this vain. 


The Mayor thanked the Leader for his comments and for his significant contribution to the council over the years.


To receive petitions


None received.


Public Questions pdf icon PDF 214 KB

These must be received no later than 12 noon on Tuesday 1 December 2020.



Question from IzaacTailford to the Cabinet Member Climate and Communities, Councillor Max Wilkinson


Given the increased public debate on active travel, what is the council doing to bring forward the proposals for the Cheltways scheme outlined in the Connecting Cheltenham report


Response from Cabinet Member


The Connecting Cheltenham report was submitted to Gloucestershire County Council as part of the Local Transport Plan review. We have received confirmation that the report, and its proposed local cycle improvements, has been considered. The LTP is due for publication in the new year.


We are engaging with Gloucestershire County Council as the Highways Authority, highlighting the importance of investment in cycle schemes in the most urban centres which will benefit the most people. 


An action plan is currently being developed and finalised as a result of the Connecting Cheltenham report – which identified considerable funding needed to achieve aspirations. This action plan will help inform and develop “bid ready” projects in which to apply for funding should opportunities arise.  The predicted cost of Cycle Cheltways, as identified within the Connecting Cheltenham report is estimated to be £5 to £20 million.



Question from Izaac Tailford to the Cabinet Member Climate and Communities, Councillor Max Wilkinson


Given the lack of formal proposals for cycle infrastructure in Cheltenham from Gloucestershire County Council, the highways authority, is the council looking at any other ways to deliver off-road cycle paths like the Honeybourne line?


Response from Cabinet Member


See response to question 1.


Officers are working with relevant teams within Gloucestershire County Council to agree priorities of cycle infrastructure; this will include exploring opportunities for off road cycle paths.



Question from Dan Harte to Cabinet Member Climate and Communities, Councillor Max Wilkinson


Cycling is my primary means of transport for short journeys around Cheltenham. And my 5-year-old son has just started riding to school. But many of the roads around our town can feel dangerous. What is the Council doing to provide high quality, segregated cycling infrastructure to keep myself, my son and other cyclists safe?


Response from Cabinet Member


Gloucestershire County Council is the Highways Authority and therefore responsible for undertaking any segregated cycling related works on the public highway.


In 2019, CBC developed the ‘Connecting Cheltenham’ report this was informed by key stakeholders, including the County Council. This is being considered in GCC’s Local Transport Plan due for release in the new year.


Additionally, we have for many years been working with partners on a southern extension of the Honeybourne Line to Lansdown Road.  This information has been discussed publicly and I understand has been an ambition of local cycle campaigners for decades.  Most recently, officers and cabinet members have been engaged in discussions with GWR and Network Rail about the project.  I hope to be able to announce positive news soon.


See response to question 1.



Question from Sarah Pineger to Cabinet Member Climate and Communities, Councillor Max Wilkinson


I’ve noticed a significant increase in families out cycling together during  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.


Member Questions pdf icon PDF 491 KB

These must be received no later than 12 noon on Tuesday 1 December 2020.



Question from Councillor Karl Hobley to Cabinet Member Climate and Communities, Councillor Max Wilkinson


Residents are increasingly demanding more cycle infrastructure. I understand that the highways authority is Gloucestershire County Council. However, in the absence of any proposals from the County, what is Cheltenham Borough Council doing to develop proposals for consultation on segregated cycle schemes in line with the governments Gear Change report? 


Response from Cabinet Member


During 2019 we worked on a transport plan for Cheltenham, working with key stakeholders, including the County Council. The Connecting Cheltenham report was submitted to Gloucestershire County Council as part of the Local Transport Plan review. We have received confirmation that the report, and its proposed local cycle improvements, has been considered. The LTP is due for publication in the new year.

The West Cheltenham Transport Improvement Scheme (WCTIS), led by GCC, has plans for Phase 3 and 4 to deliver segregated cycling and footway from the Arle Court roundabout to the Lansdown Road/Gloucester Rd junction (by the Shell garage).

An action plan is currently being developed and finalised as a result of the Connecting Cheltenham report – which identified considerable funding needed to achieve aspirations. This action plan will help inform and develop “bid ready” projects in which to apply for funding should opportunities arise – including the mentioned government Gear Change report. 

The predicted cost of Cycle Cheltways, as identified within the Connecting Cheltenham report is estimated to be £5 to £20 million.


Question from Councillor Karl Hobley to Cabinet Member Climate and Communities, Councillor Max Wilkinson


The Honeybourne Line is the key piece of cycle infrastructure in our town and it runs to the edge of my ward in St Paul's. There is a protected corridor north of there which would make an ideal extension. Will the Cabinet member work with officers and other partners to investigate the ownership of the land and explore opportunities for developing it as a cycle path and pedestrian link? 


Response from Cabinet Member


The protected corridor is currently inaccessible, unused and unusable as a cycle path or pedestrian link.  I have walked the line myself after a suggestion from a local resident.

The path follows the former railway line and is not in the ownership of the Borough Council, nor is it highways land.  A future northern extension could link to homes around the boundary of Swindon Village and Prestbury parishes, extending this important piece of cycle and walking infrastructure northwards and opening up more green areas to local residents.


Supplementary question


Would the Cabinet Member be willing to look into the ownership of the strip of land concerned, and potentially contact them to see if they would be interested in discussing plans relating to the cycle route?


Response from Cabinet Member


I would be happy to look into this, consulting the relevant officers. This is an important topic with great benefits for the town, and I encourage our county council colleagues to take it forward too.


Question from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.


Appointment of the Leader

To appoint the Leader of the Council for the ensuing 4 years and to note the membership of Cabinet including the Deputy Leader.


The Mayor will invite a proposer and seconder for Leader of the Council. After a vote, the Mayor will invite the newly appointed Leader to address the Council and announce the Deputy Leader and the membership of the Cabinet.




Councillor Jordan proposed that Councillor Rowena Hay be elected as the new Leader of the Council.  He said he had known Cllr Hay for over 35 years and was confident that she would do an excellent job in helping the council through the difficult financial times that lay ahead.  Cllr Hay had been a cabinet member for many years and latterly, the Cabinet Member for Finance and had a wealth of experience. 


Councillor Brownsteen seconded the proposal saying Cllr Hay was an outstanding member of the council.


Upon a vote it was




Councillor Rowena Hay be appointed as the Leader of the Council until May 2021.


The Mayor invited Councillor Hay as the new leader to address the Council.  Cllr Hay set out her plans and challenges for the council, saying she would ensure that communities would recover from the pandemic and prosper, by empowering them to support themselves.  She spoke about pressing ahead with key projects despite the additional financial pressures put on the council by covid-19. She felt the groundwork had been laid for the future success of the town, which in no small measure was down to Cllr Jordan and his leadership. 


She paid tribute to Cllr Jordan for his hard work and the volume of projects he had been engaged in during his time as leader in some very challenging times and outlined some of the changes during that period.  His diligence, calmness, patience and sense of humour had earned him great respect not just within the council but also with local community groups, businesses and fellow council leaders across the county, earning him the reputation as one of the country’s best council leaders.  Cllr Hay wished him well for the future.


Cllr Hay confirmed that Cllr Peter Jeffries would continue to be the deputy leader until May 2021 and that cabinet member roles would also remain the same, with the addition of Cllr Jordan taking on the role as Cabinet Member Finance and Assets.


Cllr Harman, conservative group leader, paid tribute to the work and leadership of Cllr Jordan and congratulated Cllr Hay on her appointment and to their continued cooperation for the good of the town.


Cllr Payne, representative for the PAB party, also paid tribute to Cllr Jordan, to the huge number of projects he had succeeded on in such a calm manner for the benefit of the residents of Cheltenham and wished him all the best in retirement.


The Mayor wished Cllrs Hay and Jordan every success in their new roles.


Appointment of Vice Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee

The Mayor will invite a proposer and seconder for the Vice Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.


The Leader proposed Councillor Horwood for the position of vice-chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.


Councillor Mason seconded this nomination.


Upon a vote it was unanimously




Councillor Horwood be appointed as vice-chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.


Special Responsibility Allowances and Outside Bodies pdf icon PDF 342 KB

Report of the Chair of Overview and Scrutiny

Additional documents:


The Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (O&S), firstly took the opportunity to thank the members of the task group that had undertaken the detailed work, and the officers that had supported it. 


He reminded Members that O&S were asked to consider the issue and in turn established a task group.  The task group considered advice from the Legal Officer on the Regulations relating to Members’ Allowances and found that where a Member took the position of Director or Trustee on an outside body, they then attended those meetings in their capacity as a Director or Trustee, rather than ‘representing the authority’.  As such the Regulations weren’t triggered and a Special Responsibility Allowance could not be paid.  The task group came back to O&S to ask if any further work should be undertaken on the subject and the decision was no.  Council were asked to note the recommendations of O&S Committee. 


There were no questions. 


The Leader thanked both O&S and the task group for their work on this subject.  He explained that he had made the original request in recognition that much of what the council now did in terms of the ‘day job’ was delivered by third party partners (e.g. CBH, Ubico, Publica and the Cheltenham Trust) and in many cases member representatives were appointed to those bodies.  Clearly, once appointed to those bodies (as Directors or Trustees), they had different legal responsibilities meaning that the authority could not pay a SRA, but he still felt that there was a case for paying those members an allowance in recognition of what they do for partner bodies that deliver council services. 


Despite the conclusions of the task group, Councillor Horwood, as chair, made clear that the outside bodies themselves were not prevented from paying an allowance to those members that were appointed and felt that wholly appropriate that they be treated in an equitable way as any other Directors or Trustees. 


The Mayor advised that he had not declared an interest in this item as there was an obscure clause within the Airports Act which meant that neither, the authority or Airport itself were permitted to pay an allowance to member representatives, of which he was one.  Whilst he was a strong advocate of voluntary work, he acknowledged that some responsibilities were quite onerous and that without some form of allowance, some members would find it difficult to spare the time, in financial terms. 


Upon a vote it was




the report be noted.




Scrutiny Annual Report 2019-20 pdf icon PDF 308 KB

Report of the Chair of Overview and Scrutiny

Additional documents:


The Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (O&S), was pleased to present the 2019/20 Annual Report for O&S.  He very much enjoyed his role as Chair and thanked members for approaching the work of the committee in a non-political way.  He thanked officers for their support and took the opportunity to thank Councillors Parsons and Wilkinson, who had sat on the committee during the period the report covered, and welcomed Councillors Britter and Horwood, who he looked forward to working with in the future. 


Over the last 12 months, the committee had been striving to make the committee meetings more effective and efficient and as part of this, guests were expected to produce a report in advance and permitted only 5 minutes to provide an overview of highlights as way of introduction, with the rest of the allotted time dedicated to question and answers; this was undoubtedly a working progress, but he felt that progress was good.  The most significant aspect of the 2019/20 report was the review that had been undertaken by Campbell Tickell, which had been searching and unafraid of asking challenging questions.  All of the recommendations had been accepted by O&S and the most important for him personally, was the recommendation that O&S should focus its time and resources on issues where Cheltenham Borough Council could control or influence the outcome, and the committee had been looking to do this; and would continue to adopt this approach going forward. 


There were no questions.


Councillor Wilkinson reflected on his time on the committee, which had proved more effective and efficient of late, having in his opinion, become far too parochial in the past, which was not where he felt scrutiny ought to be.  He echoed the comments of the Chair in relation to the committee being non-political and felt that Councillor Mason demonstrated the value of opposition led scrutiny, commending his ability to hold people to account.  He felt that Members should be proud of scrutiny at Cheltenham Borough Council and hoped that the Campbell Tickell recommendations would further inform and improve process and outcomes.


As the previous vice-chair of O&S, Councillor Sudbury thanked Councillors Mason and Payne for their support, she had enjoyed the role and wished Councillor Horwood luck.


Upon a vote it was unanimously




the Annual Report of Overview and Scrutiny (2019/20) be noted.


Adoption of Licensing Act 2003 Policy Statement pdf icon PDF 345 KB

Report of the Cabinet Member Development and Safety

Additional documents:


The Cabinet Member for Cyber and Security introduced the report.  He outlined that Section 5 of the Licensing Act 2003 required the Council to review, determine and publish its Licensing Act 2003 Policy Statement every five years.  The current policy statement was last adopted by Council in December 2015.


The Cabinet Member reminded Members that the policy covered licensing requirements for the sale of retail alcohol, the supply of alcohol by clubs, the provision of late night entertainment and late night refreshments and further stated that the council was obligated to promote its four licencing objectives. He advised there were no significant changes to the policy, but pointed out that a more proactive stance was recommended going forward.   Most of the changes were as a result of national changes in policy and all the revisions were outlined in the report.


A review of the current policy statement had been undertaken as well as the consultation process and council were asked to adopt the revised licensing statement.


A Member had a point of clarification regarding the number of temporary events notices that a premises could apply for, which the Licensing Officer duly explained and clarified.  The point in question related to statutory legislation and the member asked that this matter be raised with government.  The issue would be further looked at by the Licensing Team.  A Member suggested raising concerns with the Institute of Licensing and the Local Government Association’s Safer Community Board to try and get national lobbying to central government.


One Member wished to place on record his thanks to the Licensing Officers for the hard work they had put in to getting this policy reviewed, as keeping it compliant with the law was a very important part of the work of the council.  He also expressed his disappointment that the Licensing Committee were the only ones to have responded to the consultation process, when it had been shared and was on the council’s website.  However he praised it as a good policy for the council.





the revised licensing policy statement be adopted.


Local Council Tax Support Scheme 2021/22 pdf icon PDF 265 KB

Report of the Cabinet Member Finance

Additional documents:


The Leader introduced her report and explained that each year the council was required to consider its Local Council Tax Support Scheme for working age customers for 2021/22. Consultation had been undertaken although no significant changes are being proposed to the scheme for 2021/22.


The number of working age council tax support recipients had increased during 2020/21 due to the impact of Covid-19. On 1st March 2020 the number of recipients was 3,984 and this increased by almost 20%  to 4,805 at the end of October 2020.


As part of the measures of assistance in relation to COVID-19, the Government had provided a Council Tax Hardship Fund grant to local authorities to support economically vulnerable people and households in their local area. Cheltenham received a grant of £851,709.  As part of this fund the Government paid an additional £20 p/w Universal Credit or Working Tax Credit during 2020/21 to help council tax support recipients.


As it was not legally possible to change the council tax support scheme when this extra income was announced, the hardship fund has been used to top the level of support back up to the amount before the additional income was included.


The total amount of council tax support being paid to working age recipients at 31 October amounted to £4.4m which included top up hardship awards of £306,000.


The Leader expressed that without hardship funding it would not be possible to top up the level of support and she wished to ensure that the level of support to those most in need remained at today’s level.





1.    the Local Council Tax Support Scheme for 2021/22 for working age customers in Appendix 2 and summarised in Appendix 3 be approved

2.    the Executive Director for Finance and Assets, in consultation with the Cabinet Member Finance, be authorised to uprate income levels in line with any uprating of Welfare Benefits by 31 January 2021, if required.


Treasury Mid-Term Report 2020/21 pdf icon PDF 522 KB

Report of the Cabinet Member Finance

Additional documents:


The Leader introduced the Council’s Treasury Management Strategy for 202/21 which had been approved at a meeting on 23rd March 2020. She explained that the Council had borrowed and invested substantial sums of money and was therefore exposed to financial risks including the loss of invested funds and the revenue effect of changing interest rates. The successful identification, monitoring and control of risk remained central to the council’s treasury management strategy. The Council had pursued its strategy of keeping borrowing and investments below their underlying levels, sometimes known as internal borrowing, in order to reduce risk and keep interest costs low.

The coronavirus pandemic had dominated the world economy and had had a detrimental effect on investment returns. Investment income in the Council’s budget for 20/21 was set against a very different economic backdrop. The Bank Rate, which was 0.75% in January 2020, now stood at 0.10%. 

Income on investments was predicted to be £127,500 down. Cash was earning as little as 0.02%, but the council was returning an average rate of 1.77%

Cheltenham Borough Council was however a net borrower. This had resulted in temporary borrowing becoming very cheap and had favoured the borrowing costs, estimated to be a saving of £125,000. 

Overall though, the treasury budget was now expected to come in on target as the borrowing cost saving matched the investment losses.

Pooled Funds at the start of the financial year had taken a big hit on their capital valuations. This had remained throughout the first six months although the dividend returns had been in excess of 4%, however since the announcement of the vaccination, stocks/equities across the UK and indeed the world had climbed.  The UK FTSE had now risen by 16% since the vaccination announcement which in turn had seen capital values of the council’s pooled funds increase by £280,000 in one month.

There was still the added complication of the end of the Brexit transition period on 31st December and what a trade deal may or may not look like that could also have an impact.

The Cabinet Member concluded that overall the mid term report that the  Council was being asked to note was a pleasing result given the difficulties of Covid and Brexit on the investment strategy and added that the Treasury Management Panel had discussed and supported this report at its recent meeting in November.

The Mayor thanked the Cabinet Member for her report.  There were no questions, but a Member commented that she felt Members should be proud of the position they were in given the circumstances and again thanked the officers and Member for the report.  The Cabinet Member expressed her thanks to the council’s financial advisors who had worked closely alongside the treasury management team.


the contents of the summary report of the treasury management activity during the first six months of 2020/21 be noted.


NHS Fit for the Future Consultation-Council response pdf icon PDF 429 KB

Report of the Cabinet Member Healthy Lifestyles

Additional documents:


The Cabinet Member Healthy Lifestyles introduced the report, stating this followed on from the debate held on the Council motion at the last Council meeting on 16 November about the hospital trust consultation ‘Fit for the Future’ on how things should work out at Gloucestershire hospitals over the next few years. 


The report set out the council’s recommendations as part of the response to the Fit for the Future consultation which had to be submitted before 17 December.


The Cabinet Member stated that changes proposed to provision at Cheltenham General Hospital needed careful consideration, evaluation and response. It was therefore critical that the Council agreed its formal response to the consultation and made its position clear not only as a key stakeholder but also as a critical friend.  Comprehensive NHS provision in Cheltenham was critical for not just the people of Cheltenham but also those service users who received treatment from Cheltenham General Hospital throughout Gloucestershire and surrounding areas.


The Cabinet Member wished to place on record her thanks to all those working in the health care services for their commitment and humanity in doing such an incredible job.  She also referred to the unenviable timing of reorganising medical services during the current pandemic.


The Cabinet Member citied a couple of examples of incidents regarding use of Gloucester hospital as opposed to Cheltenham and the large number of patients waiting at Gloucester A&E whilst Cheltenham A&E was empty as it was now a minor injuries unit.  This situation caused pressure to staff and stress to patients. She felt it would be logical to move elective surgery to Cheltenham as Cheltenham was fully equipped to do this and then both hospitals would be fully functional.  This would also assist with proper planning for the future for the hospitals.


The response to be submitted by the Council was set out in Section 6 of the report and the Cabinet member wished to thank senior Doctors in the county who had assisted with compiling this report.  The Fit for the Future document was appended to the report but the way the questions were posed at the end of the document was queried as it was felt they guided you to vote a particular way.  The Cabinet Member urged Members and the public to read the document and to speak up as employees of the NHS were sometimes afraid to do so.


The Member hoped the Council would agree and support the response to this consultation.


There being no questions, the following points were raised by Members:

·         Agreed this was not the right time for such a major consultation and that there was definitely a capacity issue at Gloucester.  Thanks were expressed to all staff across the health services and the council needed to ensure they worked with the Trust.  The Conservative group were happy to support the response.

·         Thanks was expressed to the Cabinet Member who had been proactively working on this and had brought it to Members’ attention.  One slight  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.


Notices of Motion pdf icon PDF 10 KB


Motion A : Proposed by Councillor Horwood, seconded by Councillor Harvey

This Council:
Welcomes the celebration of Bonfire Night, New Year's Eve, Diwali, Eid, Chinese New Year and other festivals and celebrations at which fireworks are traditional.

Nevertheless notes that the noise from modern consumer fireworks can legally reach 120 decibels and that professional displays can exceed 150 decibels, both far above the threshold for possible permanent human hearing loss of 85db, causing distress to household pets, horses, birds and other animals and potentially discomforting and distressing people with PTSD, auditory and other conditions

Further notes the RSPCA campaign 'Bang Out Of Order' and the concerns regularly expressed by the RSPCA, British Horse Society, RNID and many local residents, as well as hundreds of thousands of signatories to parliamentary petitions

Further notes the potential negative impact of plastic and other non-biodegradable firework debris on wildlife and the environment

Notes the current law which forbids the setting off of fireworks between 11pm and 7am on most nights of the year and forbids the sale of any fireworks to under 18s but otherwise offers few powers to the Police or local councils to mitigate the impact of the noisiest and most environmentally harmful fireworks

Is disappointed in the government response to fireworks petitions and campaigns to date have focussed on little more than raising public awareness

Therefore asks Cabinet to urge government to again review the current law with a view to banning or more seriously restricting fireworks causing noise in excess of 90db, and imposing a ban on non-biodegradable components, and to report back to Council on the government’s response


Further asks Cabinet to explore with local partners such as the BID and Chamber of Commerce the feasibility of a scheme to encourage the sale and purchase of quieter and more environmentally friendly fireworks for private use in Cheltenham, and the advance advertisement of public displays and to report back to Council.


In proposing the motion, Councillor Horwood stated he enjoyed fireworks, but felt there was no reason for households or small public displays to be letting off very loud fireworks, which had a detrimental impact on wildlife and pets, including horses, as well as people with some medical disorders.  He pointed out that the noise limit in the UK was much louder than in other countries, being 120 decibels which is very loud as permanent hearing damage can occur at 85 decibels.


He continued that there were very few powers that a local council had to be able to do anything about fireworks and as  many councillors received complaints, a change in the law was needed. He proposed it was necessary to urge the government to ban non-biodegradable elements in fireworks and to impose a decibel level along the lines suggested by the RSPCA of 90 decibels.


He also proposed looking  into the feasibility of a local scheme, together with the BID and Chamber of Commerce, to encourage the purchase of quieter and more environmentally friendly fireworks.   He felt  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.


Any other item the Mayor determines as urgent and which requires a decision




Local Government Act 1972 -Exempt Information

The committee 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)




“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)



A Financial matter

Report of the Leader TO FOLLOW

Additional documents:


The Cabinet Member Finance and Assets introduced the report and explained that this had been a long and complex process. He emphasised that as joint shareholder in the airport with Gloucester City, the council has made significant effort in supporting the company.

The proposal was for a further £15.5 m investment, split between the two councils, to ensure the company had a sustainable future. The current issue with the runway had been identified as a result of work undertaken to date. He explained that the main runway required full replacement as, whilst currently still operational, it had potential to cause a problem in the immediate future. The second runway was not currently in use, as it required repair but at a modest cost. The third runway, which ran north to south, required a temporary repair. If the investment was supported and the two runways were upgraded the third runway would be shut on a permanent basis to facilitate future development.

The Cabinet Member reported that detailed work on the runway had been undertaken by the consultant but the exact cost would be determined by the procurement process.

It was noted that Gloucester City Council would be considering the same proposals next week. The Cabinet Member wished to highlight that while most of the previously agreed loan of £14.5m had not yet been taken up, it was recognised that the councils could not continue to increase support for the company. To that end alternative options had been considered and the proposal before Members comprised a “swap”-for the shareholder councils to provide the money for the runway upgrade in exchange for Meteor Business Park which would provide £650k rental income to the councils.

When considering whether the company would remain viable after the swap the Cabinet Member stated that the councils did receive a commercial return from the company on the loans and councils had taken 5% of rental income from property rents. He confirmed that the Airport company were of the view that they would remain viable due partly to their original investment programme which would generate extra income.

He highlighted that the LEP had extended a grant of £1.88 m to facilitate that investment opportunity and this was clearly something the airport company wished to take advantage of urgently.

The potential financial risk to the shareholders if the option of permanently closing the airport was taken up was outlined in the report although this option would then free up the asset in the long term.  There was however an economic value of having an airport, particularly in light of the golden valley and cyber park developments.  The GVA was over £ 50 million per annum.

He also added that once the runway situation has been resolved then the ownership of the company would be reviewed.

He emphasised that the company had continued to operate and he wished to pay tribute to Peter Hibberd who had made a significant contribution to its work.

He then outlined the recommendations to Members.


The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.