Agenda and minutes

Reverend Maz Allen opened the meeting with a prayer.

Apologies were received from Councillor Pat Thornton and Councillor Rob Garnham had indicated that he would be arriving late at the meeting.

Councillors Rawson and Seacome both declared a personal interest in agenda item 9 as the borough council’s nominated, non-voting observers on the Festivals Board.

Councillors Smith, Paul McLain, Sudbury, Wheeler and Garnham (later in the meeting) declared personal interests in the motion at agenda item 16 A, as they were all Gloucestershire county councillors.

During the debate on the motion under 16A, Councillor Whyborn declared a personal interest as a member of the Brizen Youth Centre management committee and Councillor Hall declared a personal interest as she had chaired a committee of Gloucestershire youth workers at Naunton Park.

11 October 2010

Resolved that the minutes of the meeting held on 11 October 2010 be agreed and signed as an accurate record.

None received.  

None received.

The Mayor advised that due to the austerity in the Civic Department she would not be sending Christmas cards to councillors this year.

The Leader congratulated Councillor Smith on becoming Group Leader of the Conservative Party.

He advised members that following receipt of the details of the final government settlement Cabinet would be considering the budget proposals on 21 December 2010.

He advised that under the first phase of the Gloucestershire centre restructuring, the Gloucestershire Strategic Partnership along with the Chief Executives group and the Accountable Bodies Group would be replaced by a single Leaders’ Board. This would include two Chief Executives to facilitate the process. A task and finish group had been set up to review how the voluntary sector should be engaged in the process.

The following Member questions and responses were given.

A debate on a petition received at the last Council meeting regarding Imperial Garden’s flowerbeds

The Mayor outlined the procedure for dealing with petitions as this was the first time one had been debated at Council under the new petitions scheme. She welcomed Fiona Wild, the petition organiser, to the meeting and invited her to present the petition.

In her statement, Fiona Wild said that the Imperial Gardens were the heart of the town and the magnificent array of flowers was one of the first things people noticed when they came to Cheltenham. Whilst enjoying the gardens they also spent money in the town and boosted the local economy. Whilst attending the Literature Festival, she had heard people comment that the festival should not be allowed to become any bigger or to spread any further. The sponsors’ marquees had already caused several beds to be removed and the Festival seemed very successful as it is. If any more space were needed then Montpellier Gardens should be used. In her view the flowers in the gardens enhanced the festivals and were there all the time for people to enjoy whereas the festivals and their marquees were only there for a few weeks of the year. She praised the creativity of design in the planting which made Imperial Gardens so different from the landscaping of Montpellier Gardens. She urged Council not to destroy it through misguided short-termism but to consider how popular the flowers are and how much they add to the general ambience of the town.

The Mayor advised that she had agreed to a request from Mr David Stennett, representing the Friends of Imperial Gardens, for him to address the meeting. 

Mr Stennett expressed his concerns that the use of the gardens by the festivals was expanding to an unacceptable level.  He was also concerned about the lack of remedial work following the use of the gardens by the festivals and considered that they had been left in a shameful condition. He referred to a letter from the Chief Executive to the Friends of Imperial Gardens which had indicated that officers would be working closely with the organisers of the festival’s to achieve a balance and organise appropriate repairs. He concluded that the parks and gardens should be there for the benefit of the public and this had been enshrined in an act of Parliament for the last hundred years. 

The Mayor invited the Cabinet Member Sustainability to make a statement. He welcomed the opportunity to respond to the petitioners and said it was his intention to maintain the gardens for the public, for residents, tourists and indeed festival goers to enjoy. He acknowledged that the effect of the Festivals on the turf had been unsatisfactory and this would be addressed in 2011 in conjunction with Cheltenham Festivals.  He also intended to work with them to try and reduce the occupancy rate below the current 107 days per year.

He recognised that the Festivals provide a key and expanding part of Cheltenham’s economy and tourism. Providing a suitable venue for the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

These were included in other agenda items.

Report of the Assistant Chief Executive

The Assistant Chief Executive introduced her report which had been circulated with the agenda. She gave apologies on behalf of the chair of the Independent Remuneration Panel (IRP) who had intended to be present at the meeting but had been called away on urgent business.

She explained that this year the panel had convened to carry out a full review required every four years under legislation.  The IRP had been made fully aware of the council’s budget situation and had taken this into account when making their recommendations which were set out in section 5.1 of the report.

The Leader of the Council thanked the panel for their work on members’ allowances which he acknowledged was a difficult and controversial issue.  His inclination was to accept the recommendations and he also advised Members that as part of the budget process, his Cabinet members would be accepting a voluntary reduction in their Special Responsibility Allowances (SRAs).

Councillor Surgenor and Councillor Fletcher, speaking as chair and vice-chair of Planning Committee respectively, were pleased that the IRP had acknowledged the responsibilities of both the chair and vice-chair and noted the recommendations for the related increases in their SRAs.   However in view of the current budget situation they advised that although they wished the increases to be approved in the overall scheme, it was their intention to request that they personally did not accept any increases in their SRAs.

Another member referred to the recommendation regarding provision of a laptop or VPN link for every member that required it. He requested that the Council chamber and committee rooms were rewired so that members could bring their laptops into meetings.  This would result in considerable savings in printing committee papers and would therefore be a very green initiative.

Another member pointed out that a number of members did not have a council laptop and the proposal would be unfair to those who were not computer literate and therefore the previous suggestion was not relevant to the recommendations.

Upon a vote the recommendations of the IRP were agreed unanimously.

Resolved that:

1. The recommendations set out in the IRP report and summarised in part 5 of the covering report be adopted and the Assistant Chief Executive Council be authorised to implement any necessary changes to the scheme of allowances
   
   
2. The Borough Solicitor and Monitoring Officer be authorised to make any necessary changes to Council’s constitution.

Report of the Leader

The Cabinet Member Built Environment introduced the report. The report explained that on 27 July 2010 Cabinet had approved a consultation exercise on the proposed revisions of the North Place and Portland Street Development Brief and its associated technical appendix; the Cheltenham Civic Pride Urban Design Framework Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). These revisions were considered necessary by the Cheltenham Development Task Force in order to reflect current market conditions and enable greater flexibility in the type and mix of uses that could be accommodated on the site.

He stressed that whilst the SPD was far more flexible than before, there would still be high standards set for the quality of the development.

Consultation had been key to the development of the brief and a wide range of comments had been received. He was pleased that many of the suggestions had now been incorporated. He thanked the Strategic Land Use Team for their work in carrying out the consultation and drafting responses.

In summary he said it was the most significant development scheme in the town in the last 30 years.  It would bring huge environmental improvements as well as creating jobs and boosting the local economy.

Councillor Fletcher declared an interest as a member of the board of trustees for Dowty House. She highlighted the need for the developers to take great care in this area particularly with regard to the distance between buildings.

A member suggested that the reference to underground car parking in 5.2 was not strong enough and developers would be unlikely to consider this if it was presented as an option. Forcing developers to introduce underground car parking would improve the environment and free up land.

Another member was concerned about the cost of underground car parking which could be as much as 10 times the cost of over-ground parking and asked where the council would get the money from. Another member suggested that if developers were forced to fund this, this would reduce the potential funding for other improvements paid for by the developer which the council might negotiate.

A member sought reassurance that land would not be sold for a supermarket in order to finance the rest of the development.  He also commented that the risk assessment in appendix 1 was inadequate and asked what would happen if the council did not get a developer for the site. Was that the end of Civic pride?

Other members made the following comments and questions:

• There was a reference to restricting the number of storeys in residential properties to 5, was there a similar intention to restrict the number of storeys in commercial properties?
• Would the 300 car parking spaces be in addition to car parking provided as part of a business or residential development?
• In reviewing the proposals members should be looking at the bigger picture and the vision for the next 20 years.
• It was important not to be too restrictive with developers and the council must be flexible and work with them.
• The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

Report of the Chairman of Staff and Support Services Committee – Councillor Jordan

Councillor Jordan, as chair of the Staff and Support Services Committee introduced the report. He thanked the members of the constitution working group. The recommendations in the report were in response to the Action Plans approved by the Council in March 2010. He advised an amendment to recommendation 2. to allow one further meeting of the Staff and Support Services Committee to deal with one outstanding item of business as set out in 3.1 of the report. A further amendment was that the membership of the constitution working group as set out in Appendix 2C, would be increased to five members.

Regarding the Appointments Committee, he had been advised  that with the current political proportionality the committee of 9 members, could be made up of 3 Conservatives, 5 Liberal Democrats and 1 PAB or a 3,6,0 split. He indicated he was happy with a 3,5,1 split and requested Group Leaders to make their nominations on that basis as a matter of urgency given the need to make appointments in the new structure. The chair and vice-chair would be determined at the first meeting of the committee.  He indicated that the group had concluded that it was not necessary to set up a permanent working group to look at staff issues but this could be set up at any time if there proved to be a need.

As a member of the constitution working group, Councillor Smith gave thanks to the Borough Solicitor and the Monitoring Officer for her work.

Upon a vote the recommendations were carried unanimously.

Resolved that Council:

1. Accepts the recommendation of the Constitution Working Group that the Staff and Support Services Committee should be discontinued.
2. Implements recommendation 1 above with effect from the decision of the Council on the 13^th December 2010 subject to the need for one further meeting of the Staff and Support Services Committee.
3. Approves the amendments to the Employee Scheme of Delegation and the membership and functions of the Constitution Working Group set out in Appendix 2 subject to there being up to 5 members on the working group.
4. Approves the setting up of an Appointments Committee with the membership and functions set out in Appendix 3.
5. Approves the revisions to the functions of the JNC Disciplinary Committee and the setting up of a JNC Appeals Committee as set out in Appendix 4.
6. Approves the revised Article 14 of Part 2 of the Council’s Constitution as set out in Appendix 5.
7. Approves the revised Article 13 of Part 2 to the Council’s Constitution as set out in Appendix 6 and revisions to Part 3H of the Constitution as set out in Appendix 7.
8. Approves the amendment to Rule 14 of the Council Procedure Rules (Voting on appointment of statutory officers) as set out in paragraph 5.2.2 of the report at Appendix A.
9. Approves the amendment to Rule 14 of the Council Procedure Rules and to the corresponding Rules in the Cabinet, Committee and Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules (Recording of Number of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

Report of the Chief Executive

The meeting adjourned for tea between 4.10 and 4.45 pm. Following this adjournment the Mayor had to leave the meeting so the chair was taken by the Deputy Chair, Councillor Barbara Driver.

The Chief Executive introduced his report which had been circulated with the agenda. He emphasised that in producing the report he had consulted widely and for the purposes of brevity he had not circulated the consultants report to the meeting although it was available to all members.

He acknowledged that at this stage the role of members was not as clearly defined as some members would like.  However he emphasised that this section 4 report was concerned with the proposed officer structure. The members working group had been set up to help define member involvement going forward.

He emphasised the huge implications arising from the government financial settlement and the Localism Bill. He considered that the recommendations for the officer structure were fit for purpose in the context of the new Coalition government’s agenda which it would be unwise to ignore. Indeed he felt there was no realistic alternative as maintaining the status quo was not an option.

He acknowledged that some members thought that commissioning was just good management and officers should just get on and do it. In his view the important difference was to start with a much clearer idea of the desired outcomes for citizens and the community. Commissioning did not assume there would be no in-house delivery in the future but decisions would be made on the basis of the most effective business case. It opened up opportunities for the voluntary and community sector and it was not a case of all services being transferred to the private sector. He had circulated an outline plan to councillors which provided an indicative timetable for when services would be reviewed.

From his consultation with members, he concluded that members were supportive of the need to reduce the number of Assistant Directors. He emphasised the importance of the role of the Strategic Directors in their management to date of key change projects such as GO and Civic Pride so it was logical for them to take on the commissioning role in the new structure.

Finally he stressed that the project was very much frontloaded and therefore the “one-off’ resource of £80,000 funded from virement as recommended by Cabinet would be very welcome to manage the transition period.

The Leader indicated that his party would be supporting the recommendations. He emphasised that member involvement and public involvement would be key when the future of each service was being considered. He also encouraged members of overview and scrutiny to come forward with their own ideas on how they wish to be involved in the monitoring of the services in the future.

A member expressed concerns that the officer structure had been mapped out but there are was still a big gap in the definition of how members and residents would be involved.  He had raised these concerns back  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

Report of the Cabinet Member Finance and Community Development

The Chief Finance Officer introduced the report and highlighted the key points. He explained that the Treasury Management  Code of Practice was updated in Nov 2009. The code now requires treasury activities to be reported to Council at least twice a year i.e. a mid term report and a year end outturn report.

In response to a question from a member, he referred members to the lending policy set out on page 186 which stated that new investments were restricted to UK banks.

The Chief Finance Officer updated members on the government settlement which had been announced earlier that day.

Upon the vote the recommendations were agreed unanimously.

Resolved that in compliance with the requirements of the CIPFA Code of Practice the report be noted.

Proposed by: Cllr K Sudbury

Seconded by: Cllr P Jeffries

This council wishes to recognise the very significant contribution Gloucestershire Youth Service and its staff make in Cheltenham both in youth centres and with regard to detached youth work. We also recognise the many voluntary groups, who play an important role in youth provision in the town.

Cheltenham’s youth centres are highly valued, provide positive opportunities for young people in a safe environment, have a positive impact on young people’s development and are widely regarded as helping reduce anti-social behaviour in our communities.

This Council notes the planned budget cuts and service changes contained in Gloucestershire County Council’s Meeting the Challenge proposals. Whilst accepting that the County faces difficult budgetary pressures and a need to make savings, this Council is concerned that the budget cuts to young people’s services will mean an end to highly valued County Council funded universal youth provision.

Therefore this Council:

1)   Resolves to ask the Chief Executive of Cheltenham Borough Council to write to the Leader of Gloucestershire County Council asking him to reconsider the decision to withdraw all County Council youth work activity from youth centres and to allocate only £50k to each district to help community and other groups to extend existing services and create new ones;

2)   Seeks urgent discussions with County to clarify their future proposals and how best we can work with them to provide best possible youth service;

3)   Will seek wherever possible to work in partnership with the County Council, community and voluntary groups and the young people themselves to strengthen and develop the future of universal youth services in the town; and

4)  Asks Cheltenham Borough Council Cabinet to develop plans on how to       allocate the funding available to achieve the best possible outcomes for   the       benefit of our young people and the rest of the community.

Councillor Sudbury, seconded by Councillor Jeffries, proposed the following motion.

“This council wishes to recognise the very significant contribution Gloucestershire Youth Service and its staff make in Cheltenham both in youth centres and with regard to detached youth work. We also recognise the many voluntary groups, who play an important role in youth provision in the town.

Cheltenham’s youth centres are highly valued, provide positive opportunities for young people in a safe environment, have a positive impact on young people’s development and are widely regarded as helping reduce anti-social behaviour in our communities.

This Council notes the planned budget cuts and service changes contained in Gloucestershire County Council’s Meeting the Challenge proposals. Whilst accepting that the County faces difficult budgetary pressures and a need to make savings, this Council is concerned that the budget cuts to young people’s services will mean an end to highly valued County Council funded universal youth provision.

Therefore this Council:

1)   Resolves to ask the Chief Executive of Cheltenham Borough Council to write to the Leader of Gloucestershire County Council asking him to reconsider the decision to withdraw all County Council youth work activity from youth centres and to allocate only £50k to each district to help community and other groups to extend existing services and create new ones;

2)   Seeks urgent discussions with County to clarify their future proposals and how best we can work with them to provide best possible youth service;

3)   Will seek wherever possible to work in partnership with the County Council, community and voluntary groups and the young people themselves to strengthen and develop the future of universal youth services in the town; and

4)  Asks Cheltenham Borough Council Cabinet to develop plans on how to           allocate the funding available to achieve the best possible outcomes for the       benefit of our young people and the rest of the community.

In supporting the motion she praised the work of the youth workers and volunteers.

Councillor Paul McLain, as the County Cabinet Member Lead for Children and Young People offered some outline context to the proposals made. The County Council had to save £108 million in next year’s budget and unfortunately that would result in some services having to cease. A consultation exercise had been carried out and although subjective it was also quantitative and the public had expressed a view that services for adults, social care and vulnerable children should all be protected. There was also a huge increase in the cost of children in care particularly those with multiple disabilities.  The proposed cuts were not a criticism of the work of Youth Services but it was simply a case that the council could no longer afford to provide them. The policy was to replace universal youth provision with targeted youth work and prevention. Although he had no problems with the motion he challenged members to come up with an alternative for the funding of Youth Services.

In supporting the motion members made the following points:

• Many young people  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

If any

The Deputy Mayor announced that the Mayor had today received a petition with a total of 2130 signatures. 

“The petition urged the Council to allocate a designated area to the south of Cheltenham (including the land formerly known as the Leckhampton White Land, Brizen Farm and Land West of Farm Lane) that shall be protected from inappropriate large-scale development.

This area of land is of high local community interest due to its attractiveness, views in an out of the AONB and the contribution it makes to the setting of Cheltenham.  We also highly value its easy accessibility for informal recreation, local food production, wildlife, environmental and ecological interest.

We suggest that although parts of this area are in Shurdington, this designated land may for convenience (at the council’s discretion) become known as LECKHAMPTON COUNTRY PARK.”

The petition was handed to Democratic services for the appropriate process to be followed.

As the Council had been in session for over four hours, upon a vote the members unanimously agreed to continue the meeting.

Report of the Assistant Chief Executive

The Assistant Chief Executive introduced her report which had been circulated with the agenda. She explained that the Council had a statutory obligation to adopt new executive arrangements; either a new style strong leader and cabinet model or a directly elected Mayor and cabinet model.  There had been a period of public consultation resulting in 1000 hits to the website and 1 person responding. They had been in support of the strong leader model. The DCLG had advised that the new arrangements must be adopted by the end of December 2010 hence this report to Council.

Resolved that:

1. A new style strong leader and cabinet model be adopted to take effect from May 2012
   
   
2. The Borough Solicitor and Monitoring Officer be authorised to update the Council Constitution to facilitate the new executive arrangements as set out in paragraph 3.4 of the report.