Agenda and minutes

Reverend Maz Allen opened the meeting with a prayer.

Apologies had been received from Councillors Cooper, Regan and Smith.

Regarding agenda item 16, the Head of Legal Services advised members that they should complete and submit the declaration form as necessary  but there would be no need to verbally inform the meeting of the nature of their interest.

Councillor Macdonald declared a personal and prejudicial interest in agenda item 9 as a homeowner of a property in the area being considered.

Councillor Sudbury declared a personal and prejudicial interest in agenda item 9 as a committee member of LEGLAG and homeowner of a property near Leckhampton white land.   She also had a personal interest as a member of Gloucestershire County Council (GCC).

Councillor Garnham declared a personal interest in agenda item 9 as a member of GCC who owned some of the land in the area under discussion.

Councillors Massey and Webster declared a personal interest in agenda item 9 as a signatory of the LEGLAG petition.

Councillors Fletcher, Teakle and Bickerton, declared a personal interest in agenda item 9.

Councillors Surgenor declared a personal interest in agenda item 9 as a member of LEGLAG and a member of the Planning Committee.

The Head of Legal Services reminded members that they should submit their declaration of interest form advising of the nature of their interests before a vote on agenda item 9 was taken.

11 February 2011

The minutes of the last meeting had been circulated with the agenda.

Upon a vote it was unanimously

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on the 11 February 2011 be agreed and signed as an accurate record.

These must be received no later than 10am on Friday 18 February 2011.

None received.

The Deputy Mayor advised members that Councillor Roger Whyborn and his wife would be joining the Mayor in attending the Royal Garden Party at Buckingham Palace. 

The Leader advised members that he had been requested to inform members that Councillor Godwin had been nominated a substitute for the Environment Overview and Scrutiny Committee for the People against Bureaucracy group. 

This appointment was confirmed by Council.

None received.

A debate on a petition received on 13 December 2010.

The Deputy Mayor reminded members of the procedure for dealing with petitions.  She welcomed Kit Braunholtz, the petition organiser, to the meeting and invited him to present the petition.

In his statement, Kit Braunholtz thanked the Mayor for receiving the petition outside the Municipal Offices prior to the Council meeting on 13 December 2011 and thanked Council for considering it at this meeting. The petition had been organised with two objectives in mind:

• To make the public aware of the potential development on the land they were trying to protect. A consortium of developers had already announced their intention to submit an application for 1300 homes on this land.
• To make the councillors and officers aware of the strength of opposition to any development and the 1200 signatures on the petition was an indication of this.

He indicated that he had brought a map to illustrate the area. He stressed that the area was very attractive and an asset to Cheltenham. He read out a summary of the conclusion of the Inspectors Report 2005. In the report the inspector had considered the area of land in question and had concluded that it was not suitable for large-scale development.

In summary he emphasised that in signing the petition, it was not an expression of NIMBYism but people were expressing their genuine desire to preserve the rural character of an important piece of land.

The Deputy Mayor invited the Leader to make a statement.

The Leader said that it had always been council’s policy to protect its rural areas from large-scale development and this policy would continue.  This council was working with Gloucester City and Tewkesbury councils on the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) and how to protect valued land would be a key issue for discussion. He advised members that if an area was designated as a country park, unlike a National Park, it had no protection in planning terms.  However the land would be subject to existing planning policies which would offer some protection. He added that it was unlikely that the council would have the necessary funds for compulsory purchase of the land.

Councillor Jordan proposed the recommendation set out in the report.

Councillor Ian Bickerton, seconded by Councillor Walklett, proposed an amendment requesting

“officers provide a point of contact in the JCS Team to provide direction and technical assistance to LEGLAG in the context of the new localism directives and options for longer term protection of the Leckhampton green land which are clearly of special community interest.”

In proposing the amendment he  informed members that four inspectors had previously rejected large scale developments on Leckhampton white land and he quoted Inspector David Asher as saying, “development of the objection site would materially harm the rural character and appearance of the area, and the important contribution that this makes to  the  landscape within the site and when seen  from  the AONB, the rural character up to the edge of the town which would be lost if development were to take  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Joint report of the Cabinet Member Finance and Community Development and Chief Finance Officer  (appendix to follow)

The Cabinet Member Finance and Community Development introduced the report and referred members to the appendix that had been circulated at the start of the meeting. 

The appendix contained the total council tax to be paid by residents of Cheltenham in 2011-12 by council tax band and included the precepting authorities (Gloucestershire County Council and Gloucestershire Police Authority).

Upon being put to the vote it was unanimously;

RESOLVED THAT: the council tax resolution at Appendix 2 be approved. 

Report of the Chief Executive

The Chief Executive introduced the report, which sought approval of the provisional diary of meetings for September 2011 to August 2012.  The provisional dates had been circulated in advance of the meeting, comments received and amendments made. He advised that the asset management working group for 28 June 2012 should be listed as a 5 pm. start and not 6 pm.

Upon being put to the vote it was unanimously;

RESOLVED THAT: the Council diary of meetings for September 2011 – August 2012 as amended be approved. 

None received.

None received

None.

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 items of business 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 1, 3 and 5, Part 1, Schedule 12A (as amended) Local Government Act 1972, namely:

1.         Information relating to any individual.

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

5.         Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings.

Upon a vote it was unanimously: 

 RESOLVED that that in accordance with Section 100A(4) Local Government Act 1972 the public be excluded from the meeting for the remaining items of business 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 1, 3 and 5, Part 1, Schedule 12A (as amended) Local Government Act 1972, namely:

1.         Information relating to any individual.

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

5.         Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings.

Report of the Staff and Support Services Committee

(Members will need to refer to the papers of the Staff and Support Services Committee – 14 February)

The following members were in attendance for this item: Councillors Garth Barnes, Ian Bickerton, Nigel Britter, Bernard Fisher, Jacky Fletcher, Wendy Flynn, Penny Hall, Diane Hibbert, Sandra Holliday, Peter Jeffries, Robin MacDonald, Paul Massey, Helena McCloskey, Heather McLain, Paul McLain, John Rawson, Malcolm Stennett, Charles Stewart, Klara Sudbury, Jon Walklett, Andrew Wall,  Paul Wheeldon, Simon Wheeler and Jo Teakle

In the absence of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor, the Chief Executive took the chair and invited nominations for a member to preside as set out in rule eight of the Council Procedure Rules.  Councillor Barnes took the chair.

The Council received a report from the Staff & Support Services Committee making a recommendation in response to a request for a discretionary allowance under the Local Government (Discretionary Payments) Regulations 1996.  The Council, having considered the request, the reports of the Staff& Support Services Committee and of the Assistant Director of Human Resources and Organisational Development which had been received, determined the request.  A discretionary allowance was approved subject to review in 2013.