Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Holliday, McCloskey, McDonald and Surgenor.

Grahame Lewis, Executive Director, had also given his apologies and the Mayor wished him well in his operation on Thursday.

Reverend Tim Mayfield opened the meeting with a prayer.

Councillors Barnes and Seacome declared a personal interest in agenda item 9 as members of the Cheltenham in Bloom committee. Councillor Thornton declared a personal interest in agenda item 9 as a Friend of Montpellier Bandstand and Gardens. Councillor Smith declared a personal interest in the Notices of Motion relating to the County Council as a member of the County Council.  Councillor Garnham declared a similar interest.  

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on the 16 May 2011 be agreed and signed as an accurate record subject to Councillor Holliday and Smith being listed as giving their apologies for the meeting.

The following responses were given to the public questions received:

The Mayor said she had written a  letter of condolence To the family of Colour Sergeant Kevin Fortuna, who had been killed recently in Afghanistan.

She referred to the recent death of former Councillor Gerry Gearing and asked Council to stand for a minutes silence as a mark of respect.  She invited Councillor Garnham to say a few words.

Councillor Garnham reminded members that Gerry Gearing had been a borough councillor for nine years from 1999 to 2008. During that time he had served both his ward and party conscientiously and had been tenacious in getting answers and actions on behalf of his constituents.  He had taken pride in being a Councillor and serving the people of both Park Ward and Cheltenham. He thanked him for his personal support and said that the thoughts of everybody were with his wife Diana and the family.

The Mayor referred to the Challenge she had put out to all councillors and officers to help raise money for her charities.

She confirmed that she had asked that a seating plan be reintroduced for the Council Chamber at Council meetings. This would benefit both herself and the press and public in identifying speakers.

The Leader added his own tribute to Gerry Gearing in that he had been an enthusiastic director of Gloucestershire Airport.

The Leader reminded members that any bids for Community Pride awards had to submitted by 1 July 2011. 

No member questions were received.

Discussion paper of the Cabinet Member Sustainability

The Cabinet Member Sustainability introduced the report as circulated with the agenda.  The report informed members of progress on the garden redesign and consultation process and the Cheltenham Festival proposals for Imperial and Montpellier Gardens. The intention was for the designs, together with feedback from the consultation and today’s Council Debate to be reported back to Cabinet for a decision at the end of July. If approved by Cabinet, phase 1 of the works would be worked up in more detail and more accurate costings obtained. Planning and listed building consent would be applied for where required with a view to works being undertaken during this coming Autumn and Winter.

During the debate that followed, Members acknowledged that the festivals were vital for Cheltenham and the council needed to support them. However the gardens were an iconic part of Cheltenham which had been there long before the festivals and needed to be protected. It was accepted that the balance between the festivals and the gardens was a difficult issue to resolve but it was a very important issue to the people of the town and therefore they should have the have the biggest say.

Councillor Malcolm Stennett, as the Chair of Economy and Business Improvement Overview and Scrutiny Committee (EBI), raised particular concerns about the involvement of overview and scrutiny in the process. Whilst he supported the festivals he had seen no proper business plans. On 7 March 2011, EBI had requested a report on the issue but the paper had been light weight and contained no economic information.  Consequently the committee had passed two resolutions. Firstly the committee had recommended that Cabinet receive additional economic and financial information in order for them to be in a position to assess the benefit of implementing changes to the town centre parks in an endeavour to meet the requirements of Cheltenham Festivals. Along with the proposed options consideration should also be given to maintaining the status quo and / or using areas at the racecourse or in Pittville Park. Secondly the committee requested that they be involved in reviewing the economic aspects during the next stage of the consultation and receive a detailed report on the options with a full financial breakdown when it is available.

The Cabinet Member Sustainability had received a reminder in May that EBI were expecting this report at their July meeting. The response received had been disappointing as the Cabinet Member had refused EBI’s request for the second time saying that he saw no benefit in officers spending time preparing the information requested. As chair of EBI, he had insisted that a report was received at their next meeting on the 18 July so that O&S comments could be fed into the Cabinet meeting on the 26^th of July.   He would continue to press for this report.

Councillor Stennett concluded that it was exceedingly worrying that work was proceeding without giving due consideration to the full financial aspects of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Joint report of the Director of Resources and Cabinet Member Finance and Community Development

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Community Development introduced the joint report and made the following points:

• The predicted overspend of £801,700 in the budget monitoring report to the end of August 2010 had been converted to an underspend of £174,086 in 2010/11 which was an outstanding achievement by officers across the council.
• £303,200 required Member approval at Council to carry forward requests.
• The proposed solution for the Bath Road toilets was an innovative approach involving local people in the service and satisfying their needs at a reduced cost to the council.
• Indications were that there would be a favourable verdict to the Icelandic Bank situation but this had not been assumed.
• The LAA performance reward grant was enabling a further round of Community Pride awards to the value of £30,000.
• An innovative use of the New Homes Bonus was being proposed to fund small environmental works and a fund to support events in the town. Both of these initiatives would help to attract visitors and trade to the town during the difficult economic climate.
• He supported the recommendations of the Section 151 Officer and considered it was prudent to increase the bad debt provision in view of the changes to the benefit regime.
• Additional proposals for bringing forward the roof repairs at the Everyman Theatre and funding the much-needed toilet refurbishment at the Town Hall were included.
• There had been a drop in income from offstreet parking. He considered that this was due to the current economic climate, the increased usage of buses by those eligible for concessionary fares and the public opting for more greener ways of travel.
• The take up of the garden waste scheme had been slower than anticipated in this financial year and if this trend continued there would be a shortfall of income of £223,200 in 2011/12.  He acknowledged that some members of the public were angry at having to pay a charge for a garden waste service which had previously been free. Despite the result in the take-up for the new garden waste scheme he still considered that the previous scheme had been unsustainable and it would not have been possible to continue subsidising it to the tune of £1 million per annum.  A marketing campaign would now be put in place to encourage people to take up the service.  

The Cabinet Member Finance and Community Development concluded that careful monitoring of the budget situation throughout the year had provided early warnings of problem areas which could then be addressed.  This would continue to be a rolling programme in the current budget climate. 

Councillor Garnham welcomed the use of the New Homes Bonus for environmental improvements but questioned the benefits of spending £180,000 on promoting the town in order to attract visitors and trade. The Cabinet Member had acknowledged in his introduction that footfall in the town was up and therefore there was no point in spending more money on improving it still further. He emphasised that the government was providing the New  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

Report of the Constitution working group

The Cabinet Member Corporate Services introduced the report as a member of the constitution working group. The report advised members on the proposed timescale for the review of the Constitution.  The review was commenced last year but was deferred pending the outcome of various matters which will have an impact upon the drafting of the Constitution, including the Council’s decision in December 2010 on strategic commissioning and the approval of a new management structure.  At that meeting the Council also approved amendments to the Constitution to address actions identified by the Council to respond to recommendations in the Public Interest Report.  Amendments to the Officer Delegation Scheme in Part 3H of the Constitution have also been made under authority delegated to the Borough Solicitor to ensure that the Scheme is consistent with the new management structure which was implemented in April 2011. 

He advised that the Constitution Working Group had now resumed its work and intends to complete the review by October 2011.  This timescale reflects the need for the Financial Rules to be amended in collaboration with the Council’s partner authorities in the GO project.

He referred to an e-mail he had written to members on 25 June 2011 suggesting that as there seemed to be a consensus from members on the need for change to the current scrutiny arrangements, a small working group be set up and proposals brought back to the October council meeting. This timetable would enable the constitution working group to consider the constitutional changes required for the new arrangements in the same timescales. The current timetable for the scrutiny review targeted the implementation of the new arrangements following the elections in May 2012 but he hoped that this could be brought forward once Council had agreed the new arrangements.

Resolved that the amendments that have been made to the Officer Scheme of Delegation be noted and the timescale for the comprehensive review of the Constitution be approved.

Motion A

Proposed by:                      Councillor Sudbury

Seconded by:         Councillor McCloskey

This Council notes with concern the County Councils proposals to cut £2 million from the £5 million budget for subsidised bus services. Bus journeys provide a vital public service, helping to prevent social isolation for the elderly and the vulnerable; allowing people to access essential healthcare services, employment, and leisure and shopping opportunities. Encouraging people to travel by bus also helps reduce congestion. We therefore believe the effective use of public subsidy for bus services is an appropriate use of public money.

Specifically, we are concerned that the current proposals could and should have been the subject of better consultation, with more meetings in Cheltenham giving more detail on the cuts proposed and changes considered.

Therefore this Council;

1. Whilst understanding the financial pressures facing local authorities, urges the county to listen to the residents of Cheltenham who are concerned about cuts to their valued bus services.

2. Recognising the high turnout at a recent public meeting in Charlton Kings about the threat to the P & Q service, appeals to the County Council to extend the consultation period and hold more public information sessions in the town with a view to protecting those subsidised services that are most valuable to local people. 

Motion B

Proposed by:                      Councillor P McLain

Seconded by:         Councillor Godwin

It is now two years since the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Garden Land and Infill Sites was published and a first review of the document should be undertaken. 

Parts of the SPD are out-of-date- and as a result of changes introduced by Planning Policy Statement (PPS3).  There are also differences of opinion regarding the interpretation of parts of the document from all sources, which indicates that the time has come for the SPD to be reviewed and updated. 

Therefore this Council;

1. Propose that members of the original working group, plus replacements and additions where required, should be reconvened as soon as possible with the aim of reporting back to the Council meeting on October 10^th 2011.

Motion C

Proposed by:                      Councillor Smith

Seconded by:         Councillor Stennett

The Cheltenham Borough Local Plan (second review) was adopted in July 2006 and covers the period 1991 to 2011.  Plan policies have been saved and will form part of the Local Development Framework (LDF).

Important changes have occurred to core policies and proposals as a result of central government changes contained in Planning Policy Statement (PPS3).  Whilst these changes have affected housing development policies, other changes have occurred, or they have become outdated. 

Therefore this Council;

1. Propose that a third review of the Local Plan policies as a matter of urgency should be undertaken before final acceptance of the LDF. 

Motion D

Proposed by:                      Councillor Godwin

Seconded by:         Councillor Wall

The present system of dealing with planning appeals appears to be flawed.  Whether a planning application is refused by the committee, or as a result of an officer’s delegated recommendation to refuse and the applicant goes  ...  view the full agenda text for item 12.

Motion A

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

“This Council notes with concern the County Councils proposals to cut £2 million from the £5 million budget for subsidised bus services. Bus journeys provide a vital public service, helping to prevent social isolation for the elderly and the vulnerable; allowing people to access essential healthcare services, employment, and leisure and shopping opportunities. Encouraging people to travel by bus also helps reduce congestion. We therefore believe the effective use of public subsidy for bus services is an appropriate use of public money.

Specifically, we are concerned that the current proposals could and should have been the subject of better consultation, with more meetings in Cheltenham giving more detail on the cuts proposed and changes considered.

Therefore this Council;

1. Whilst understanding the financial pressures facing local authorities, urges the county to listen to the residents of Cheltenham who are concerned about cuts to their valued bus services.

2. Recognising the high turnout at a recent public meeting in Charlton Kings about the threat to the P & Q service, appeals to the County Council to extend the consultation period and hold more public information sessions in the town with a view to protecting those subsidised services that are most valuable to local people.  “

As proposer of the motion, Councillor Sudbury, emphasised the value of the bus services to local people for retail, leisure and employment. She felt that local people had been left unclear about the exact nature of the proposals. The low attendance of 10 people at the meeting arranged as part of the County Council consultation at Charlton Kings contrasted with the 300 plus people who attended the event organised by the local parish council. This was an example of the failure of the consultation organised by the County Council and there was a need for more face-to-face events so people could have their say on the proposals.   

Other members disagreed that the consultation had been ineffective and said there had been extensive coverage in the local media. They could not support the motion as it appeared to focus on Charlton Kings whereas local bus services were an issue across the town. They cited examples where the county was proposing to reduce services which were not well used and therefore uneconomic and other services which were being increased to respond to residents needs. As the   consultation had now closed the second part of the motion was inappropriate.

Councillor McClain, speaking as the County Council Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Vulnerable Families explained that the County Council were aiming to redesign the bus services by providing a hub of town centre services with links to the rural bus services forming the spokes. The key priorities were to provide transport to get people to hospital, schools and to work. This would be achieved by asking bus companies to take on more, to change the service or to provide flexible transport alternatives. If £2 million pounds was not saved  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

No petitions were received.

There were no urgent items for discussion.