Agenda and minutes

Reverend Tim Mayfield opened the meeting with a prayer.  

Apologies had been received from Councillors Smith, Fisher and Britter.  

The Mayor invited the Borough Solicitor to give some advice mainly for the benefit of Planning Committee members in connection with items 9 (Starevhall Farm petition) and item 16 (North Place and Portland Street).

The Borough Solicitor advised Planning Committee members that they were entitled to participate in the debate but there was a need for them to approach any future applications relating to Starvehall Farm and North Place and Portland Street with an open mind. 

No interests were declared.

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 27 June 2011 be agreed and signed as an accurate record. 

None received. 

No public questions were received.

The Mayor called for all members to stand for a minutes silence in memory of

Amanda James, Elections Manager who had been with the Council since 1990, Ian Williams who had worked as a Visiting Officer in revenues for more than 20 years and Wendy Stanton, a cleaner at the Municipal Offices who had all passed away recently. 

She had been asked to mention the Prestbury Memorial which she had been shocked and appalled to learn had fallen victim to vandalism. 

She passed on the thanks of Tony Mason, who, on behalf of the Cheltenham Branch of the Royal Air Force, had written to thank the Aldermen and Councillors who had supported the Battle of Britain commemoration.  He had commented that such a demonstration of civic support was deeply appreciated by all ages and ranks. 

As part of Nightstops ten year celebrations, the Mayor had met with some Cheltenham based host families, whom she had thanked on behalf of the people of Cheltenham for the support they offer to homeless people. 

She reminded members about the mock debate with sixth formers from a local school which was scheduled to take place in the Council Chamber at 10am the following day (Tuesday 11 October). 

For those colleagues that were not aware, the Leader confirmed that he had been notified by Gloucestershire County Council that the A4019 bridge would be shut for repair as it was in a potentially dangerous state.  The current indication was that the bridge would be closed for one year from March 2012 and whilst he accepted that the repairs were wholly necessary he was concerned about the impact this would have on the town and the disruption that a year long closure would cause. 

A response to the National Planning Policy Framework would be sent this week and whilst Cabinet felt that it was not practicable to set up a group as proposed by the Planning Committee, the letter that had been drafted did cover the comments made by that committee.

He echoed the sentiments of the Mayor in acknowledging the sad loss of staff recently, in particular, Amanda James, Elections Manager, who he worked with closely over the years in his role as an Election Agent.  Her hard work and commitment to make ‘every vote count’ would be a great loss to the Council. 

2 received (see separate sheet).

The following responses were given to the member questions received.

A debate on a petition received on the 10 August 2011

The Mayor referred members to Appendix 1 which set out the process for dealing with petitions at Council.  She invited Councillor Hibbert, as petition organiser, to present the petition;

“We the undersigned petition Cheltenham Borough Council as follows: We wish the protection you have afforded Starvehall Farm and the recreation land adjacent to Prestbury Parish Council playing field in the local plan that ends in 2011 be included in the new Local Development Framework currently being developed”.

In her statement, Councillor Hibbert attributed the fact that the petition had in excess of 1700 signature,s to it being a vital open space to the communities which it separated, Oakley, Pittville and Prestbury.

In 2006, the Council found sufficient reason to afford the site protection, which the community were calling for again.  She had attended a number of seminars recently at which it had been suggested that the number of new homes needed was being drastically exaggerated in the context of the economic climate. 

In summary, she asked that Council consider whether housing needs could be met without surrendering Starvehall Farm and Playing Fields, taking account of the fact that local Schools were at full capacity and the NHS and Police resources were stretched in this area already.  She welcomed the Officers comments on the environmental implications. 

In response to a question from another member, the Leader confirmed that matters had progressed since the report was compiled and as such the issue would now be considered by the Planning Committee at their meeting on the 17 November.

The Mayor invited the Leader as the Cabinet Member whose portfolio was most relevant to the petition to speak on the subject of the petition. 

The Leader understood the concerns of those that had organised and signed the petition.  This was an important site but stressed Council could not assume the role of the Planning Committee.

In respect of the land at Starvehall Farm, no designation of this area was made by the Local Plan which had a plan end date of 2011.  He reminded members that all plan policies would be retained until replaced by the current Local Development Framework arrangements or its prospective successor. 

He agreed with the issue raised about housing numbers and emphasised the difficulty associated with projecting needs 20 years in advance and he hoped that numbers would be included in the consultation as they would be key to the entire process. 

The Leader hoped that colleagues would support the resolution set out in the report.

In response to a question, the Leader reiterated that all plan policies would be retained until replaced by the current Local Development Framework arrangements or its prospective successor.  Cheltenham was however, in a stronger position than other areas to have its Local Plan upheld given that it was fairly modern (2006).  A sentiment reaffirmed by a recent planning review which had commented that the Council had a good Local Plan. 

Upon a vote it was unanimously

RESOLVED that officers consider the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Report of the Constitution Working Group

The Cabinet Member Corporate Services introduced the report which had been circulated with the agenda.  He explained that there had been an aim across the four authorities in the GO project to agree a common set of financial rules which would be a cheaper and more effective approach.  He commended officers for the great job they had done in achieving this.  He highlighted the reference to the strategic cross party member working group in paragraph 4.4.  The consideration of the best way to scrutinise commissioning was now part of the scrutiny review and likewise the review of the overall commissioning plan was being carried out by the group leaders on a regular basis.  Therefore he considered the strategic cross party member working group had done its job and could now be disbanded. He indicated that Cabinet portfolios in appendix 2.2 were slightly out of date and these would be amended and all members made aware.

A member suggested that the designations of Cabinet Members should be listed in the appendix rather than naming individuals which would eliminate the need to change the Constitution every time the membership of the Cabinet changed. The Cabinet Member Corporate Services considered naming individuals was quite helpful and typically portfolios changed at the same time as individuals and therefore an update to the Constitution would still be necessary. He did not consider updating the Constitution was a big issue. In response to a question he acknowledged the omission of the risk of scores in the risk assessment and would ensure they were added.

The Mayor was very keen to open up the Council meeting to members of the public by enabling them to ask questions without the need for too many rules and regulations.  She indicated that she had brought this idea back from her visit to Göttingen in Germany and she had discussed it with the Chief Executive and had e-mailed Councillors Smith and Colin Hay asking them to consider it as members of the Constitution working group.

Councillor Jordan advised members that Gloucester City had been doing this for some time with a slot in their Council meeting for the public to ask questions without notification. He said there was a balance to be achieved as members may not be able to respond to unnotified questions and will only be able to supply a written response at a later date. The challenge with notified questions was to find the shortest possible time to allow for guaranteed answers to be prepared and set the deadline accordingly. This would be a reasonable matter for debate.

Another member suggested that the first challenge was to get more public attending the meeting and this could be achieved by more publicity and making the meeting more interesting.

The Cabinet Member Corporate Services agreed that the Constitution working group would consider these ideas as part of their review of the procedural rules. He was in favour of encouraging the public to attend but the council was bound by process  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

Statement of the Chair of the Audit Committee

The Chairman of the Audit Committee, Councillor Wall, explained that last year Council had delegated authority to the Audit Committee to review and approve the audited Statement of Accounts. 

The Audit Committee had discussed the Statement of Accounts 2010/11 at their meeting on the 23 September and identified no issues for further investigation and as such Councillor Wall had signed the accounts to signify their approval by the Council. 

He highlighted that KPMG had described their audit of the financial statements as a ‘model audit’ owing to the excellent quality of the accounts and supporting papers.  Staff were to be commended for this, given that this had been achieved in the first year of a new accounting system.

The Cabinet Member Corporate Services highlighted that not only had this been the first year of a new accounting system, officers had undertaken a sizeable piece of work to re-do last years accounts in order to draw comparisons, for which officers were to be congratulated. 

Upon a vote it was unanimously

RESOLVED that Council note the decision of the Audit Committee to approve the Statement of Accounts for 2010/11, including the Annual Governance Statement and note that the Chair of the Audit Committee, Councillor Wall, signed the accounts to formally signify their approval by the Council. 

Report of the Chief Executive

The Chief Executive introduced the report which formed part of the statutory duty to review polling stations, polling districts and polling places every four years. 

As a result of the consultation exercise, three changes were suggested.  Two of these suggestions were being recommended for approval and were set out in the report. The third suggestion was that the Polling Station at St. Michaels Cornerstone Centre changed to either Berkhampstead School or Cheltenham Town Football Club.  Given that St. Michaels Cornerstone Centre was located in the centre of the Polling District and as the Elections Office had not received any previous complaints from electors in this polling district and nor were there any records of any incidents either in or surrounding the polling station, the existing polling station would remain. 

The Chief Executive noted that if approved the consultation period would continue for a further six weeks, during which time individuals would have the right to make representations to the Electoral Commission. 

Upon a vote it was unanimously

RESOLVED that the following changes to polling districts, places and stations be approved;

College Ward, Polling District FB – change from Naunton Park Primary School, Naunton Lane to Emmanual Church, Fairfield Parade

Up Hatherley Ward, West Ward of the Parish of Up Hatherley – move Broad Oak Way and Caernarvon Close from Polling District SA to Polling District SB

Up Hatherley Ward, West Ward of the Parish of Up Hatherley – move  2-8 Coombe Glen Lane, Hollis Road and Hollis Gardens from Polling District SA to Polling District SC

Up Hatherley Ward, West Ward of the Parish of Up Hatherley – move 315 to 365 Hatherley Road from Polling District SA to Polling District SC

Up Hatherley Ward, West Ward of the Parish of Up Hatherley – move 15-25 and 22-36 Montgomery Road from Polling District SA to Polling District SC

Up Hatherley Ward, West Ward of the Parish of Up Hatherley – move  4-8 Greatfield Lane from Polling District SB to Polling District SC

The full list of polling districts, polling places and polling stations as set out in appendix 6 and 7 is published for a further period of six weeks, during which time individuals have the right to make representations to the Electoral Commission.

Motion A

Proposed by: Councillor Bickerton

Seconded by: Councillor Jeffries

This Council considers there are alternatives to mass incineration of domestic waste.  This is mature technology which has economic advantage both in the short-term and overall life cycle costs, more environmentally friendly, and compatible with the planned future improved recycling rates across the County.    

The Council requests of Gloucestershire County Council, as part of the Waste Management Strategy of reducing Landfill, that alternative UK waste technologies are considered in detail along with the existing incinerator schemes being put forward for Javelin Park/Haresfield.

 Councillor Bickerton, seconded by Councillor Jeffries, proposed the following motion;

“This Council considers there are alternatives to mass incineration of domestic waste.  This is mature technology which has economic advantage both in the short-term and overall life cycle costs, more environmentally friendly, and compatible with the planned future improved recycling rates across the County.    

The Council requests of Gloucestershire County Council, as part of the Waste Management Strategy of reducing Landfill, that alternative UK waste technologies are considered in detail along with the existing incinerator schemes being put forward for Javelin Park/Haresfield.”

Councillor Bickerton, as proposer of the motion, felt that there were three key elements for consideration in opting for any form of waste scheme namely economics, environment and health.

The Government’s Review of Waste Policy 2011 by DEFRA which was guided by what he described as a waste hierarchy, with prevention at the top, followed by, reuse, recycling and incineration.  He did not consider burning waste to avoid landfill a very green policy, reporting that the UK burned a relatively small amount in comparison to other EU countries, just 9% at present. 

The evidence of the medical hazards of incineration were getting harder to ignore.  During his research of the issue he had considered several reports, including the 1996 Elliot publication, an extensive piece of work which collected data on all cancer patients within a 3km radius of 20 of the 72 incinerator sites – 14 million people.  The research showed a 5-8% increase in risk of cancer near incinerator sites, which equated to over 11,000 cancer deaths a year. 

He also read an extract from a fairly recent comprehensive report on The Health Effects of Waste Incinerators, 4th report of the British Society for Ecological Medicine, 2nd edition, June 2008, Dr Jeremy Thompson and Dr Honor Anthony (71pp)

“Since the publication of this report, important new data has been published strengthening the evidence that fine particulate pollution plays an important role in both cardiovascular and cerebrovascular mortality and demonstrating that the danger is greater than previously realised. More data has also been released on the dangers to health of ultrafine particulates and about the risks of other pollutants released from incinerators. With each publication the hazards of incineration are becoming more obvious and more difficult to ignore.”

Councillor Bickerton said he understood the importance of getting the economics of any waste strategy correct, but there was a need to protect public health and the environment.

Councillor Jeffries, as seconder of the motion, was invited to speak in support but had nothing further to add. 

Councillor Whyborn, seconded by Councillor Wheeldon, proposed an amendment to add a third paragraph to the motion:

“Therefore Cheltenham Borough Council calls upon Gloucestershire County Council, to pause on the selection of incinerator schemes, until other processes have been fully evaluated in terms of their economic, health and environmental impact, and that these process comparisons must be objectively demonstrated, scrutinised and debated in public.”

Councillor Bickerton accepted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

No petitions were received. 

There was one additional urgent item which featured on the agenda as Item 19 (Local Government (Discretionary Payments) Regulations 1996).

Report of the Cabinet Member Built Environment (any discussion on the financial information will be taken in exempt session)

The Mayor invited Jeremy Williamson, the Managing Director of the Cheltenham Development Task Force to make his presentation.  

Jeremy Williamson advised that the presentation was in two halves, the first half would be open to the public but the second half would need to be taken in exempt session given the financial and commercially sensitive content.  The public would be permitted to return to the chamber for the debate. 

He apologised on behalf of Graham Garbutt, the Independent Chair of the Advisory Board, who had hoped to attend but was unable to for medical reasons. 

He introduced the presentation (see attached) and highlighted that the number of residential properties referred to in the presentation, 122, differed from the 130 referenced within the report that was circulated in advance of the meeting.  This was a consequence of the decision to create more houses and less apartments. 

The following responses were given by Jeremy Williamson to questions from members;

• Construction time would be 18 months.
• Diverts to alternative parking would be in place but there were no funds for an electronic signage system. 
• Cosmetic improvements could be made to the Grosvenor Terrace car park, though this would require funding.
• The revised development brief for this site was approved by Council in December 2010.  The brief allowed for uses including residential, commercial and/or leisure and therefore did not exclude a hotel or food store.
• It would be for the Planning Committee to undertake an Impact Assessment in determining whether there was a need for a hotel and ultimately the planning application.
• The level of response to the consultation (168 of a possible 120,000 residents) was an unfortunate reality of any such consultation.  Key issues had been identified as a result of the exercise which would be addressed by the applicant.  There would be further consultation at the appropriate time. 
• An option for underground/croft parking was included in the development brief but not stipulated.  The proposed scheme did include residential under-croft parking.
• An exact figure for those against the proposal for a food store would be made available to Councillor Godwin outside of the meeting.

The Mayor moved a resolution and it was;

RESOLVED 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)

Members of the public were ushered from the public gallery. 

Jeremy Williamson talked through the slides of the presentation which contained financial and commercially sensitive information and answered questions relating to this information. 

Once discussion had concluded, members of the public were welcomed back to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

The Council 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 for agenda item 18 and paragraphs 1, 3 and 5 for agenda item 19, Part (1) Schedule (12A) Local Government Act 1972, namely:

Paragraph 1; Information relating to any individual.

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

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

 The Council was recommended to approve the resolution as set out on the agenda.

Upon a vote it was unanimously

RESOLVED 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)

Members of the public were asked to vacate the gallery.

Report of the Chief Executive

The Chief Executive introduced the exempt report which had been circulated with the agenda. The report asked Council to note a decision that the Chief Executive had taken on a financial matter following the urgency procedures set out in Rule 4 of the Council’s Constitution.

Resolved to note the report.

Briefing by the Director of People, Organisational Development and Change / Borough Solicitor and Monitoring Officer

The Director of Human Resources and Organisational Development provided members with a verbal briefing update on the developments regarding the discretionary payment to a former employee of the council. Members were given the opportunity to ask questions on the information they had been given.

The Director of Human Resources and Organisational Development undertook to provide appropriate briefings as required.