Agenda and minutes

The reverend Tim Mayfield opened the meeting with a prayer.

Apologies were received from Councillors Godwin, Hibbert, Wall and MacDonald.

Councillor R Hay apologised for having to leave at 4.46pm during agenda item 9 (Joint Core Strategy: developing the Preferred Option) to meet a commitment she had made prior to the Extraordinary Council having been organised, to judge the ‘Young Designer Competition’ at the Fashion Show. 

A number of members made declarations in respect of item 9 (Joint Core Strategy: developing the Preferred Option) as follows;

Councillor Garnham declared a personal and prejudicial interest in respect of his business, Mediation in Planning Ltd.

Councillor Regan declared a personal interest as a member of LEGLAG and Warden Hill Parish Council.

Councillor Webster declared a personal interest as a member of ‘Save the Countryside’. 

Councillor Sudbury declared a personal interest as a member of LEGLAG.

Councillor Massey declared a personal interest as a member of ‘Save the Countryside’. 

Councillor Teakle declared a personal interest as a member of LEGLAG.

Councillor Bickerton declared a personal interest as a member of LEGLAG.

Councillor Stennett declared a personal interest as a member of Prestbury Parish Council. 

Members had received advice form the Monitoring Officer in respect of item 15 and any consequent declarations would be recorded at item 15 and within the declaration forms which had been submitted. 

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

Councillor Stennett asked that the minutes note that he and Councillor Godwin had left the meeting prior to the vote on item 16 (North Place and Portland Street).  This would be amended.  

Upon a vote it was unanimously

RESOLVED that the amended minutes of the meeting held on the 10 October 2011 be agreed and signed as an accurate record.

These must be received no later than 10am on the fifth working day before the date of the meeting

The following responses were given to the public questions received.

The Mayor appealed to members to join her at Remembrance Sunday if possible, in remembering and honouring the service men and women who have lost their lives in wars, not just World War 1 and 2 but still today. 

She had attended the Voluntary Sector Awards, where she presented an award to teenagers who were being commended for their volunteer work with local Scout groups and without whom these groups couldn’t function. 

Councillor Barnes was thanked for his money raising efforts in aid of the Mayor’s Charity and congratulated on his recent dramatic weight loss.  Members were reminded about the Fashion Show that was scheduled for later in the evening at the Town Hall. 

The Leader made no communications.   

No member questions were received.

Report of the Leader

The Leader welcomed the vast number of members of public who filled the public gallery and apologised for the volume of paperwork that had been circulated to Members, which he appreciated was a difficult undertaking.  He took this opportunity to thank Officers for their hard work. 

Given that a number of seminars had been organised for the benefit of Members over the preceding months, it was proposed that the item would follow the normal format of debate.  Officers were in attendance to assist with answering any questions of a technical nature and would note any issues raised.

The Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) was being abolished and Cheltenham Borough Council would be the decision maker in determining long term development needs of the Borough, and it would need to get this right, which would be no easy task. 

Cheltenham, Tewkesbury and Gloucester had agreed to work together and prepare a single core strategy covering the entirety of each of the three areas. 

Colleagues would be aware that Tewksbury Borough Council was the first to consider the document on the 26 October and it had been approved for consultation purposes. Gloucester City would be considering the document on the 24 November and it was hoped that all three authorities would then be in a position to move forward. 

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) had undergone a consultation process and Cheltenham had duly submitted a number of responses.  Consultation on the ‘Preferred Option’ would conclude in early summer 2013 and all feedback from the consultation and clarity on the NPPF would enable conclusions to be formed. 

He talked through the recommendations, providing some context and explanation for each.

Councillor Whyborn proposed an amendment (for insertion after recommendation 4 and subsequent recommendations be renumbered accordingly), copies of which were circulated to members;

5. This Council does not necessarily endorse development on any of the specific sites named in the document “Developing a preferred option”;

He felt that, whilst it could be considered to be a statement of the obvious, it was important given that a number of sites had been named in the document by Officers and the Council had previously taken a view on some and not on others. 

Councillor Thornton reserved her right to speak as the seconder of the amendment. 

Councillor Jordan accepted the amendment and invited questions on the substantive motion before it was debated. 

The Leader, in response to questions from members emphasised the fact that there had been a genuine attempt by Gloucestershire County Council (GCC) to calculate the population in 20 years, using the ages of the current population, the proportion of inward migration from within the UK and outside and projecting forward to a potential population.  Admittedly, there was a risk of generating more demand with no specific solution to affordability - Cheltenham was a highly popular place to live and none of the scenarios would solve this issue.  To deal with the high demand for housing in the Lake District it was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Proposed by: Councillor Rawson

Seconded by: Councillor Massey

This Council, bearing in mind the impact on the local community of the proposed replacement of the overbridge at junction 10 of the M5 (Piffs Elm), including:

a)      potential traffic disruption and congestion resulting in longer journey times;

b)      extra costs to Cheltenham residents, such as higher fuel costs and potentially higher bus fares; and

c)      extra operating costs for local businesses at a time when the economy is already weak;

resolves as follows:

1. To urge the Highways Agency to look at every possible way of keeping the duration of the work to a minimum, and certainly to a significantly shorter timeframe than the period of up of a year that has been quoted;

2. To urge the Highways Agency and the Department of Transport to work with Gloucestershire Highways, the County Council, Tewkesbury Borough Council and Cheltenham Borough Council to resolve the traffic problems arising from the lengthy closure of the motorway bridge and part of Tewkesbury Road, bearing in mind this may require measures such as weight restrictions, road resurfacing and junction improvements to cope with displaced traffic on minor routes; and to urge the Department of Transport to provide additional funding to Gloucestershire Highways to carry out these works;

3. To urge the Highways Agency and the Department of Transport to reconsider offering financial compensation to businesses worst affected by the bridge and road closure, bearing in mind the relatively long duration of the works and the impact they will have;

4. To urge the Highways Agency and the Department of Transport to reconsider combining the bridge replace with works to create a full motorway interchange at Piffs Elm; or, failing this, to ensure that the specification of the new bridge is such that it could be part of a full interchange at a later date; and

5. To seek the support of Cheltenham's local MPs for these measures.

Councillor Rawson, seconded by Councillor Massey, proposed the following motion;

This Council, bearing in mind the impact on the local community of the proposed replacement of the overbridge at junction 10 of the M5 (Piffs Elm), including:

a)     potential traffic disruption and congestion resulting in longer journey times;

b)     extra costs to Cheltenham residents, such as higher fuel costs and potentially higher bus fares; and

c)      extra operating costs for local businesses at a time when the economy is already weak;

resolves as follows:

1. To urge the Highways Agency to look at every possible way of keeping the duration of the work to a minimum, and certainly to a significantly shorter timeframe than the period of up of a year that has been quoted;

2. To urge the Highways Agency and the Department of Transport to work with Gloucestershire Highways, the County Council, Tewkesbury Borough Council and Cheltenham Borough Council to resolve the traffic problems arising from the lengthy closure of the motorway bridge and part of Tewkesbury Road, bearing in mind this may require measures such as weight restrictions, road resurfacing and junction improvements to cope with displaced traffic on minor routes; and to urge the Department of Transport to provide additional funding to Gloucestershire Highways to carry out these works;

3. To urge the Highways Agency and the Department of Transport to reconsider offering financial compensation to businesses worst affected by the bridge and road closure, bearing in mind the relatively long duration of the works and the impact they will have;

4. To urge the Highways Agency and the Department of Transport to reconsider combining the bridge replace with works to create a full motorway interchange at Piffs Elm; or, failing this, to ensure that the specification of the new bridge is such that it could be part of a full interchange at a later date; and

5. To seek the support of Cheltenham's local MPs for these measures.

In proposing the motion, Councillor Rawson had no doubt that the work on the proposed replacement of the overbridge was needed. The Highways Agency had indicated that the work would start in March 2012 and last for up to a year and he considered it was absurd that it should take so long. Whilst the work was in progress it would be impossible to get on the motorway at J10, large sections of the Tewkesbury Road would be closed and there would be significant displacement of traffic on to Gloucester Road, Lansdown Road and Princess Elizabeth Way.  There would be additional travel costs for residents and commuters and considerable impact on local businesses.  In his view the Highways Agency should be considering 24-hour working and it was a wasted opportunity if they did not make J10 a four way junction at the same time. This would have enormous benefits to Cheltenham.

As seconder, Councillor Massey spoke in support of the motion.  He had a particular interest as the Ward Councillor for Swindon Village and whilst there  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

At this point the Deputy Mayor took the chair as the Mayor had a prior engagement. 

No petitions were received. 

There were no urgent items for discussion.

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 paragraphs 1,3 and 5 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

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 1, 3 and 5, 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

Members of the public were ushered from the public gallery.

To approve the exempt minutes of the meeting held on the 10 October 2011

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

Councillor Stennett asked that the minutes note that he and Councillor Godwin had left the meeting prior to the vote on item 16 (North Place and Portland Street). 

Councillor Holliday noted that she had also left at this point.

The minutes would be amended accordingly. 

Upon a vote it was unanimously

RESOLVED that the amended exempt minutes of the meeting held on the 10 October 2011 be agreed and signed as an accurate record. 

To follow

Following advice received from the Monitoring Officer, a number of Members left the meeting having declared their intention not to participate in this item. 

The following members were in attendance for this item:

Councillors Garth Barnes, Ian Bickerton, Nigel Britter, Tim Cooper, Bernard Fisher, Jacky Fletcher, Wendy Flynn, Penny Hall, Sandra Holliday, Paul Massey, Helena McCloskey, John Rawson, Anne Regan, Malcolm Stennett, Charles Stewart, Klara Sudbury, Jon Walklett and Simon Wheeler.

In the absence of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor, the Strategic Director 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.

Council formally approved the minutes of the Staff & Support Services Committee meeting of the 14^th February 2011 as a consequence of the Committee no longer being in existence. 

The Council received a report from the Director of People, Organisational Development and Change seeking a decision on a request for a discretionary allowance under the Local Government (Discretionary Payments) Regulations 1996.  The Council, having considered the request and the report and appendices of the Director of People, Organisational Development and Change, determined the request.