Agenda and minutes

Reverend Maz Allen opened the meeting with a prayer.

Apologies had been received from Councillors Wall and Teakle. 

Councillors Rawson and Seacome both declared a personal interest as Council appointed non-voting members on the Cheltenham Festivals Board and Council appointed members on the Cheltenham Arts Council.

Councillor Sudbury declared a personal interest as a Council appointed member on the Cheltenham Arts Council.

Councillors C.Hay, Walklett, Wheeldon and Driver all declared a personal and prejudicial interest in agenda item 13 (HRA) as Board Members of  Cheltenham Borough Homes.

Councillors Stennett and Fletcher declared a personal and prejudicial interest as Directors of Gloucestershire Airport, were it to be discussed during the Budget debate.

13 December 2010

Upon a vote it was unanimously

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on the 13 December 2010 be agreed and signed as an accurate record.

None received

No public questions were received.

Report of the Chief Executive

The Chief Executive introduced the report as circulated with the agenda.

He informed Council that in accordance with the Council’s constitution the appropriate procedures to seek the appointment of Mayor and Deputy Mayor for the Municipal year 2011-2012 had been put in place.

As a consequence Councillor Driver as Deputy Mayor for 2010-2011 would become Mayor and Councillor Smith had indicated his willingness to be put forward as Deputy Mayor for 2011-2012.

Upon a vote it was unanimously

RESOLVED that Council note the Order of Precedence in Appendix 2 and that Councillor Barbara Driver and Councillor Duncan Smith would be put to the Annual Council Meeting for election as Mayor and Deputy Mayor respectively for the municipal year 2011-2012.

The Mayor welcomed members of the public which included three apprentices who had been invited to observe proceedings.

She reminded all members of the Parisienne Party Night to be held at the Town Hall on Saturday 5 March 2011 in aid of the Mayor’s charities and encouraged  all members to attend. 

The Mayor informed members that a batik sponsored by the Everyman Theatre and created and donated by the Cheltenham Sahara – Saheli women’s group (the name means supportive friends) had been donated to hang in the Municipal Offices. 

The Leader took the opportunity to wish Councillor Driver and Councillor Smith good luck as Mayor Elect and Deputy Mayor respectively for 2011-2012.

He had recently reviewed the timetable which detailed the Joint Core Strategy consultation. This would include member seminars, which would be organised in a matter of weeks and which he hoped members would attend.

Refer to separate sheet of questions and answers.

The following responses were given to the Member questions received:

Report of the Cabinet Member Sport and Culture

The Cabinet Member Sport and Culture introduced the report as circulated with the agenda.

The development of the Art Gallery and Museum (AG&M) had been a long standing issue for the Council since the initial outline proposals in 2005. 

There were no issues with the current scheme, however, recent changes with the Heritage Lottery had resulted in the need to ensure that that the fundraising campaign either secured or had underwritten £5,500,000.

The report sought approval by Council to underwrite any shortfall to the £5,500,000 funding required for the development scheme, up to a maximum of £922,000 and subject to a wholly successful Heritage Lottery Fund bid of £750,000.

The Cabinet Member Finance and Community Development confirmed that Cabinet fully supported the development scheme, which he felt was more practical than that proposed by the previous administration.  He did however reinforce the prudential borrowing risks detailed within the financial implications of the report.

Councillor Smith felt that the recommendations were sensible given that they underpinned the guarantees required by the HLF.

The following responses were given by the Cabinet Member Sport and Culture to questions from Members;

• He was not aware of specific details of meetings with individual groups, which had included disabled groups, but he could arrange for the minutes to be incorporated into the report and Members were assured that access and practical usage issues had been addressed.
• Risk 1.02 in Appendix 1 related the risk of the development scheme being aborted and was being managed through ongoing dialogue with the media and key stakeholders.  The Gloucestershire Echo had already written some very favourable articles. It was felt that the public and stakeholders may be sympathetic to the current economic climate and reduction in funds since the original development scheme was proposed. 

Upon a vote it was unanimously

RESOLVED that:

1.      Subject to a wholly successful Heritage Lottery Fund bid, underwriting of any shortfall to the £5,550,000 funding required for the Development Scheme up to a maximum of £922,000 be approved.

2.      The final project cost of £6.3m as outlined in the report be approved.

Report of the Chief Finance Officer

The Chief Finance Officer referred Members to the Budget papers as circulated with the agenda. He explained that under Section 25 of the Local Government Act 2003 he was required to report to the Council on the robustness of the estimates made for the purposes of setting the Budget and the adequacy of the proposed financial reserves.

The Council was under a statutory obligation to have regard to this report when making its decisions on the proposed Budget. 

The Chief Finance Officer gave a presentation on his Section 25 report (copies of this presentation are available from Democratic Services).

The Chief Finance Officer then responded to questions on the report as follows;

• A member queried whether the £197k grant from the Government in respect of the Council Tax freeze could be jeopardised if Parish Councils were to raise their Council Tax?
  • The grant was independent of the County Council, Police Authority and Parish Councils precepts.
• What was the breakdown of the £500k reported reduction in target for car parking income? 
  • The shortfall was made up of £365k of parking fees and £135k of fines.
• Should members be concerned about the organisation’s capacity to deliver on the Bridging the Gap programme (BtG) referred to in section 5.12 and did this present a major risk? 

·        The section 25 report was emphasising the challenge of the programme and resources were closely monitored. £80K of additional capacity building funding had been agreed by Council as part of the Section 4 report on commissioning to target resource hot-spots. 

• Did the statement in section 8.5 imply some risks were not being addressed and if so which ones?

·        Significant risks were detailed in the Corporate Risk Register. Risk management was now far more embedded in the organisation and in services and the corporate risk register was reviewed on a monthly basis by the Senior Leadership Team.

·        What had happened the £1.6m returned to the Council to date from the Icelandic Banks and where would any future recoveries be used?

·        Why was the Section 151 Officer insisting that the reserves were not be used to off set cuts despite the comments of the Secretary of State?

·        What were the CFO’s views on the use of prudential borrowing to further waste management as detailed in the budget report?

Report of the Cabinet Member Finance & Community Development and Chief Finance Officer

The following is the recommended process to be followed for the debate relating to the Council’s Budget for 2011 - 2012, (Agenda item 13). The rules of procedure shall be varied accordingly for this item only.

1.         The Mayor to propose suspension of the following rules of debate:

-           That the time limit on speeches is relaxed with regard to the following speeches:-

§         Cabinet Member Finance and Community Development, (F), when moving the motion to adopt the budget being proposed by the Cabinet (“the Cabinet’s budget”), Stage 2(i).

§         Group Leaders when making Budget Statement on behalf of group, Stage 3(i) – (ii).

-           To permit the Cabinet Member F and Group leaders to speak more than once in the debate, (in addition to any right of reply etc), for the purpose of putting and answering questions at Stage 2(iii).

2.         Budget Statement and moving of motion.

(i)         The Cabinet Member F shall deliver the budget statement and formally move the resolutions set out in paragraph 1.2 of the report of the Cabinet Member Finance. (N.B. Not time limited)

(ii)        The seconder shall formally second the motion. (N.B. The seconder may reserve their speech until later in the debate prior to the closing speeches) 5 minute limit applies.

(iii)       Members may then ask questions of the Cabinet Member F (who may refer them to the Chief Finance Officer when appropriate), on matters relating to agenda item 13. (N.B. members are limited to one question only, without supplementary, and the Cabinet Member F shall wait until all questions have been put before responding).

3.         Statements by Group Leaders

(i)         Statement on behalf of the Conservative Group including tabling but not moving, any proposed amendment to the Cabinet’s budget. (no time limit)

(ii)        Statement on behalf of the People Against Bureaucracy Group including tabling, but not moving, any proposed amendment to the Cabinet’s budget. (No time limit).

4.         Formal moving, Seconding, debating, discussion and voting on any amendments tabled in the following order:

            - People Against Bureaucracy Group

            - Conservative Group

N.B. 

§         The Cabinet Member F has the right to a speech in reply at the end of the debate on any amendment. (10 mins).

§         The mover of an amendment may speak to move the amendment, (10 mins), and also has the right of reply to the debate immediately before the speech of the Cabinet Member F. (10 mins).

§         Amendments carried will become part of the substantive motion going forward. Once all proposed amendments have been debated and put to the vote the final version of the motion shall go forward to the next stage.

5          Consideration of Amendments

(a)       If the Cabinet’s budget has not been amended, the Cabinet Member Finance and Community Development to formally propose the budget (no speech), and the final proposal will be debated and voted upon subject  ...  view the full agenda text for item 12.

Members returned at 4.10pm.

The Mayor, to facilitate the presentation of the Budget, proposed suspension of certain rules of debate, namely:-

That the time limit on speeches is relaxed with regard to the following speeches

• Cabinet Member Finance and Community Development when moving the motion to adopt the budget being proposed by the Cabinet.

• Group leaders or Group spokesperson when making budget statements on behalf of their group.

The Cabinet Member Finance and Community Development and Group Leaders could also speak more than once in the debate (in addition to any rights of reply etc) for the purpose of putting and answering questions. 

This was agreed by Council.

The Cabinet Member Finance and Community Development referred Members to the joint report of himself and the Chief Finance Officer as circulated with the agenda.  The report summarised the revised budget for 2010/11 and Cabinet’s final budget proposals for 2011/12 following consultation.

The Cabinet Member Finance and Community Development introduced the

budget proposals with a detailed speech (please refer to the papers for agenda item 4 for Council on 25 February 2011 for a full copy)  

The Cabinet Member Finance and Community Development moved acceptance of the 2011/12 Budget as set out in the report.  The motion was seconded by Councillor Jordan, who reserved his right to speak.

The Cabinet Member Finance and Community Development then responded to questions on the proposed Revenue and Capital Budget, with some input from the relevant Cabinet Members;

• Why under the new waste collection scheme, were areas such as Lansdown Road considered differently?

o       It was recognised that areas such as Lansdown Road had a large amount of multiple occupation housing and didn’t necessarily have storage at the front or rear of the building to house additional bins.  All residents would be offered this service but some tailor made solutions were required.

• With dwindling resources and the cost of maintaining the Municipal Offices, when would Cabinet accept the benefits of moving to a new location?

o       Cabinet were awaiting a report on the accommodation strategy but in reality, the Municipal Offices were relatively cheap to occupy and as such there was doubt about whether major savings would be achieved by such a move. Overview & Scrutiny Committees would be given the opportunity to comment on the report.

• Why was it taking such a time to arrange new management for the various park cafes, surely this didn’t bode well in view of strategic commissioning?

o       All cafes would be open by Race Week (15-18 March) and this had always been the timescale to which officers had been working. A significant amount of effort had gone into finalising arrangements with the new contractors.

• The Council Tax freeze was shown as a cost incurred and not a grant in future years, why was this?

o       The £197k grant that had been received from Government in support of the council tax freeze was shown in Appendix 2. The MTFS at appendix 11 took consideration of marginal changes over the next  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

Report of the Cabinet Member Finance & Community Development and Chief Finance Officer

The Cabinet Member Finance and Community Development introduced the joint report of himself and the Chief Finance Officer as circulated with the agenda. 

He explained that the HRA budget has been prepared to meet 3 financial objectives:

• To adequately fund services to tenants
• To maintain a revenue reserve of at least £1m
• To put additional funds into capital investment in the stock
  
  

The disappointing news for tenants was that, according to the Government formula that seeks to adequately finance housing, rents will rise from (on average) £66.88 to £70.51 – or £3.63 a week over a 52 week year. This amounts to a total of £188.76p – greater than the entire annual Band D Council Tax for Cheltenham. 

A key risk in the self-financing proposals is future Government rent policy and associated welfare reform, with over 70% of tenants reliant on housing benefit. It was important to understand what the impact of such rent rises will be and how changes in the benefits system may affect HRA finances. CBH have proposed the employment of a money and benefits officer – to give advice on benefits, borrowing and help in controlling rent arrears. This will give much needed additional help to our tenants in these difficult times.

The Finances are in sound order. CBH is well managed and effective and The CBH Board had endorsed the budget for 2011/12.

He moved the recommendations which were seconded by Councillor Jordan.

The Cabinet Member Finance and Community Development responded to questions on the HRA budget proposals.

Upon a vote it was

Resolved that;

1. The HRA revised budget for 2010/11 be approved;
2. The HRA 2011/12 budget including a proposed average rent increase of 5.43% applied in accordance with the rent restructuring guidelines (subject to restraints on individual property increases when aggregated with service charges) and increases in other rents and charges as detailed at Appendix 5 be approved;     
3. The revised HRA capital programme for 2010/11 at Appendix 6 be approved;
4. The HRA capital programme for 2011/12 at Appendices 6 and 7 be approved;
5. Receipts of up to £3m from the sale of HRA assets (other than through Right To Buy) in the period 1^st April 2011 to 31^st March 2014 be used for affordable housing provision.

(CARRIED, with 1 Abstention)

Report of the Chief Finance Officer

The Chief Finance Officer introduced the report which had been circulated with the budget papers.  He explained that the Council had a responsibility to set out its Treasury Management Strategy Statement for borrowing and to prepare an Annual Investment Strategy for council approval prior to the start of a new financial year.

The strategy had been approved by the Treasury Management Panel at its meeting on the 27 January 2011.

The strategy included prudential indicators based on the budget decisions that had been made today, as well as details of next years loans to the Gloucestershire Airport, Everyman Theatre and Cheltenham Borough Homes.

Upon a vote it was unanimously

RESOLVED that the Treasury Management Strategy Statement and Annual Investment Strategy for 2011/12 at Appendix 2 be approved including; 

• The general policy objective ‘that Council should invest prudently the surplus funds held on behalf of the community giving priority to security and liquidity’;
• That the Prudential Indicators for 2011/12 including the authorised limit as the statutory affordable borrowing limit determined under Section 3 (1) Local Government Act 2003 be approved;
• Additions to the Council’s lending list are proposed in order to provide some further capacity. These proposals have been put forward after taken advice from the Council’s treasury management advisers and are prudent enough to ensure the credit quality of the Council’s investment portfolio remains high;
• To increase the time period of investing up to two years with counterparties noted in the recommended lending list;
• For 2011/12 in calculating the Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP), the Council will apply Option 1 in respect of supported capital expenditure and Option 3 in respect of unsupported capital expenditure as per section 21 in Appendix 3.

None received

No motions were submitted.

If any

No petitions were submitted.

The Mayor invited the Chief Executive to introduce an urgent item which required a decision.

The Chief Executive explained that as per part 10.1 of the constitution, Council were to be advised of changes of nominated substitutes on committees, which were as follows;

Councillor Whyborn would no longer be a Liberal Democrat substitute on Staff and Support Services Committee (S&SSC).

Councillors Fisher, Jeffries, Massy, McCloskey, Stewart, Sudbury and Wheeldon would now be Liberal Democrat substitutes on S&SSC.

Councillors Cooper and Hall would now be Conservative substitutes on S&SSC.

Councillor Hibbert would now be a People Against Bureaucracy substitute on S&SSC.

And finally, Councillor Walklett would fill the Liberal Democrat vacancy on Economy and Business Improvement O&S Committee.