Agenda and minutes

Reverend Robert Pastelli invited members to take a moment of reflection.

Councillors Smith, Wall, Stennett, Fisher, Williams and Prince had given their apologies.

Councillor Garnham declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in agenda item 10 (Council Tax Discounts on Empty Properties) as a landlord of property which would be subject to the new policy.

Councillor Seacome declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in agenda item 10 (Council Tax Discounts on Empty Properties) as a landlord of property which would be subject to the new policy.

Councillor Regan declared a personal interest in agenda item 13 (Scrutiny Task Group – Community Governance Review) as a member of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish Council. 

Councillor Massey declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in agenda item 10 (Council Tax Discounts on Empty Properties) as a landlord of property which would be subject to the new policy.

Councillor Chard declared a personal interest in agenda item 13 (Scrutiny Task Group – Community Governance Review) as a member of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish Council. 

Councillor Helena McCloskey declared a personal interest in agenda item 13 (Scrutiny Task Group – Community Governance Review) as a member of Charlton Kings Parish Council. 

Councillor Reid declared a personal interest in agenda item 13 (Scrutiny Task Group – Community Governance Review) as a member of Charlton Kings Parish Council. 

15 October 2012

Prior to the meeting Councillor Godwin had made the Mayor aware that there was an inaccuracy in the minutes of the meeting on 24 September and had asked for this to be addressed. 

Upon a vote it was unanimously

Resolved; That the minutes of the meeting on 24 September 2012, approved and signed by the Mayor at the meeting on 15 October 2012 be amended in the following respect to correct an inaccuracy subsequently discovered.

The sentence in the minutes for Agenda item 10 where Cllr Godwin was speaking in support of his amendment to 10d -  "He warned that at a recent appeal the planning inspector had made it clear that the authority’s local plan was out of date and indeed a barrister at the appeal had advised that the plan should be updated “tout suite” should read "He warned that at a recent appeal the planning inspector had made it clear that the authority’s local plan was out of date. On another occasion when the Local Plan was discussed, a Barrister had also advised members that the Local Plan should be updated “tout suite”.

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 15 October 2012 be agreed and signed as an accurate record.

The Mayor reminded members that throughout the Jubilee celebrations across the town there had been a photographer taking photographs.  These now formed part of a commemorative book which was in the process of being published.  Unfortunately it would not be available for Christmas but would be available in the Tourist Information Centre in the New Year at a cost of approximately £5-6.  Following a request from a member the Mayor confirmed that he would be happy to forward a copy of the book to the Queen.  

He thanked those members that had attended Remembrance Sunday of which there had been a good number and whilst he understood that some members had alternative commitments he felt member attendance was very much appreciated by the many members of public and service men and women that turned out for the event. 

The year was rapidly drawing to an end and he was in the midst of attending various carol concerts and alike. 

The Leader congratulated Martin Surl on his election as Police and Crime Commissioner in spite of the disappointing turnout by voters.  He and Andrew North were scheduled to meet with Martin on the 10 January 2013.

These must be received no later than 12 noon on the fourth working day before the date of the meeting

No public questions had been received.

The following responses were given to the 14 member questions received;

Report of the Cabinet Member Finance

The Cabinet Member Finance took great pleasure in being able to present this report.  As members would be aware from the response provided to the question raised by Councillor Regan, the Government had decided that from April 2012, local councils would be able to set up their own local schemes for administering council tax benefit to people of working age.  The bad news was that this new arrangement was accompanied by a 10% cut in Government funding for council tax support.

Whilst he welcomed these new freedoms, he could not ignore the fact that it could potentially come at a heavy cost to some of the poorest and most vulnerable members of the community.  If the council were to recover the 10% cut from those on benefit, the cut faced by people of working age would be much greater than 10%, because people of pension age would be protected from any such cut.  This would result in taking money away from people who by their very definition were least able to meet the cost.  A decision taken within Gloucestershire councils was that the people on benefit should be protected as far as possible from the Government cut.

Following public consultation, the proposal is to do this in two stages: in the first year of localisation (2013/14) the council would continue to operate a slightly modified version of the DCLG’s default scheme, which was almost identical to the present scheme.  The council would shoulder the shortfall in income rather than passing the cost on to benefit claimants.  In Cheltenham’s case this was estimated to be £90,000, less a one-year transitional grant from the Government, which would bring this figure down to £68,000.  The means by which this money would be found was detailed in the next report on the agenda (Council Tax Discounts on Empty Properties).   Existing council tax benefit customers would be transferred over to the new scheme automatically and should see no difference in awards.  Meanwhile, over the next year, working with other Gloucestershire councils, a fully local council tax support scheme would be devised with the aim of helping those in greatest need, within the limits of the resources available.

He felt strongly that this was an issue of social justice and the council should not place the full burden of cuts on those who had the least and instead shift as much of that burden as was possible to people who were better able to shoulder it.  It was in that spirit that he put the recommendations as the best way to deal with a difficult and potentially distressing situation.

The Leader, in response to a question from another member, explained that, as demonstrated when four yearly elections had been previously considered such a move would not generate significant savings in the first year and could in fact result in an increase in costs as a result of more regular bi-elections.  In addition to this the Cabinet Member Finance suggested that benefit claimants would indeed need  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Report of the Cabinet Member Finance

 Having declared an interest in this item Councillors Garnham, Massey and Seacome left the chamber.

The Cabinet Member Finance presented the report which set out the greater discretions allowed to local authorities by the Government in deciding council tax exemptions and discounts.  He felt the proposals in the report were quite simple; to remove the 10% discount on second homes and abolish the exemptions in Classes A and C and replace them with discounts, as set out on page 3 of the report.  More details about the situations in which these changes would apply were given on pages 5 and 6 of the report. 

He believed the changes being proposed were right for three reasons; firstly, they would result in the distribution of the tax burden more fairly, secondly, they would generate additional income and help to offset the Government cut in council tax support and thirdly, they would encourage owners to bring empty properties back into use more quickly, a desirable objective in itself, which would also benefit the Council by increasing the tax base, as explained on page 4.

The Cabinet Member Finance gave the following responses to questions from members;

• A letter was sent to all landlords who were awarded class C discounts and for some time this had included a reference to the upcoming changes.  The consultation that had been undertaken had included an online questionnaire and a letter to relevant people across the county and representations from landlords had been received.  He took the point that landlords would need time to advertise a property, etc, but felt that many would receive 1 months notice from tenants and at this stage, given that countywide agreement had been achieved, he was reluctant to unpick parts which would cause delays and have a considerable impact.  It was his feeling and one shared by Officers that 1 month free and 5 months discount was reasonable. 
• Members could be assured that the council was relentless in its pursuit of outstanding council tax and Officers worked hard to identify owners.  A common misconception was that collection did not continue beyond the year end once the in-year collections figures were published. 

A member gave the recommendations her wholehearted support and expressed her hope that this would help to increase housing availability within the town.

The Mayor raised a general point regarding instances whereby councils worked together to develop common policies.  He queried how borough councillors were able to influence recommendations in a timely manner before matters were brought before Council for a decision, at which point amendments resulted in delays which may not be acceptable to other authorities.   

Upon a vote it was unanimously

RESOLVED that;

1.      The level of discount for former class A exempt properties be set at 25% for the 12 month period, as detailed in table 1.

2.      The level of discount for former class C exempt properties be set at 100% for the first month and 25% for the remaining 5 months, as detailed in table  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

Report of the Cabinet Member Finance

Councillors Garnham, Massey and Seacome returned to the chamber. 

The Cabinet Member Finance introduced the Treasury Mid-Term Report, which reported the councils Treasury Management activities for the first half of the current financial year.  He suggested that there was nothing significant to report, given that the investment market was very flat and under these circumstances paying off debt as investments matured, rather than re-investing the money had been made a priority.

It was for this reason that the amount of short-term borrowing had fallen significantly, from £7 million to £2 million, in the 6months between the start of April and the end of September 2012.  It was also one reason why the council’s borrowing costs for the current financial year were projected to be £35,000 under budget, which he considered to be a more than satisfactory situation.

In terms of investments, the overriding concern had continued to be safety.  The council now put money only into the types of investment outlined at point 4 of the report and listened carefully to the advice of its Treasury Adviser, as demonstrated by the shorter deposit durations with investment counterparties in May which were extended again in July.  This was active management that was constantly looking out for changes in the economy and the financial markets, and he felt that it was absolutely right that the council do this.  The council had set up a Safe Custody Account in order to widen the range of investment instruments available.  Given the economic climate at present members could not expect the council’s investment performance to be dazzling, and it wasn’t but nonetheless was achieving a return on investment of 1.13% and projecting investment income to come at around £10,000 over budget in the current financial year.

He was pleased to report that the council continued to recover money from the Icelandic banks and anticipated recovery of 100% of deposits in the Icelandic based banks (Landsbanki and Glitnir) together with the interest up to the time when they failed and expected to recover 85% from the London-based bank KSF.  This had only happened because this council along with other local authorities were prepared to fight for their money in the Icelandic courts, and council Officers, the Local Government Authority and their lawyers Bevan Brittan, all deserved credit for this outcome.

Upon a vote it was unanimously

RESOLVED that in compliance with the requirements of the CIPFA Code of Practice the report be noted.

A report of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee - to be introduced by the vice-chair of the committee, Councillor Klara Sudbury who will ask Councillor Penny Hall as chair of the scrutiny task group to introduce their report.

Councillor Klara Sudbury, introduced the report of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee of the scrutiny task group - Events Submission, as the vice-chair of that committee.  She commended Councillor Penny Hall for her excellent work as chair of the scrutiny task group and explained that the report had been brought to Council so that all members would have an opportunity to comment on the findings. She felt that the recommendations set out in 2. needed clarification and suggested the following amendment:

That Rec 2 reads – “to request that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and Cabinet take note of the comments raised by Council when they consider the report of the task group”

This amendment was agreed.

Councillor Sudbury invited Councillor Penny Hall to introduce the report of the scrutiny task group.

Councillor Hall explained that she was very pleased to bring this report to Council as it was such an important issue and she would welcome any proactive suggestions from members. In her introduction she explained the background to the review and why the task group had been initiated. The review had highlighted that currently there was a lack of any coherent process in the procedures for dealing with event requests in the town and there was often no notification to members or the public at an early stage. To tackle these issues, the scrutiny task group had come up with a number of recommendations based around an Events Advisory Group and a Safety Advisory Group. She acknowledged that the review had been challenging at times and commended the efforts of Saira Malin and Rosalind Reeves from Democratic Services who had supported the review along with Grahame Lewis, Louis Krog and other officers from Parks and Gardens, One Legal, Integrated Transport and Public Protection.

In responding to the report, members commended the working group and acknowledged the great deal of work that had gone into producing their final report and recommendations.

A member asked how the council should prioritise events where more than one applicant was interested in holding an event at the same location at the same time and suggested the task group should give this further consideration.

Another member requested clarity on whether a local street party would fall under category A or B. The guidelines suggested a category B event was over 500 people but this would be difficult to assess.

Members had some discussion about the reference in para 6.4 that ward councillors involved in the ECG could keep the public and local interest groups informed of any potential events and represent their views. One member was concerned that the onus should not be on the local councillors to inform their residents as they did not have the tools available to the authority for communicating with residents and local interest groups on a mass scale. Councillor Hibbert, as a member of the working group, advised that the use of the word "could" was deliberate highlighting that this stage in the process provided an opportunity  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

A report of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee - to be introduced by the vice-chair of the committee, Councillor Klara Sudbury who will ask Councillor Barbara Driver as the elected member of the scrutiny task group to introduce their report.

Councillor Klara Sudbury, introduced the report of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee of the scrutiny task group - Community Governance Review, as the vice-chair of that committee.  She commended Helen Down, Strategy and Engagement Officer for her excellent work as a support officer to this scrutiny task group and she also thanked the representatives of the parish councils who had been co-optees on the task group.

She wished to put on record how much she valued parish councils and the vital role they played in representing their communities. She felt that parish council boundaries must represent genuine community boundaries and it was important for all residents to have their say about whether they wish to become part of a parished area. She referred members to the comments made by the Overview and Scrutiny committee when they considered the report which were set out in appendix 4. They had concluded that it was appropriate to make an alternative recommendation to defer the review as set out in their report. It was her personal view that the budget set aside for the consultation was insufficient and any review must be comprehensive and fair.

She invited Councillor Driver, as the only elected member on the task group, to add any comments.

Councillor Driver confirmed that she had been present at every meeting of the task group and commended the officers for their support in what had been some difficult meetings.  In her view, the review needed to be started again and done properly following a structured approach and with consistency of attendees. 

The Leader, as the member responsible for parish council liaison, highlighted the starting point for this review had been a report to Council in December 2011 from the Cabinet Member Corporate Services.  Council had agreed to set up a cross party member working group which had subsequently become a scrutiny working group under the new arrangements. He noted that there had been no Cabinet involvement in the review. His understanding was that the review should have been an early opportunity to tidy up any loose ends but it appeared to have grown well beyond this. His personal view was that parishing the whole of Cheltenham made no sense as parish councils are only effective because of their association with former village areas and this does not apply to the central areas of the town. Under the circumstances, he was supportive of the overview and scrutiny recommendations to defer the review as he did not think it could be dealt with effectively before 2014.

In the debate that followed members made the following comments;

• there could be a unitary debate as early as 2017 and this could challenge the current three tier democratic structure in parished areas and parish councils could become an anachronism.
• even if there is no unitary debate, future Borough council boundaries could be affected by the results of the Joint Core Strategy work and current and further housing development, which would in turn affect parish council boundaries.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

No notices of motion had been received.

No petitions were presented nor had any been received since the last meeting.

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, 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 proceeding

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 paragraphs 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

Report of the Head of Human Resources (GO Shared Services) and the Borough Solicitor & Monitoring Officer

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

The following members were in attendance for this item:

Councillors Barnes, Bickerton, Britter, Chard, Fletcher, Flynn, Hall, Harman, Holliday, Jeffries, Lansley, Massey, McCloskey, McLain, Rawson, Regan, Reid, Stewart, Sudbury, Teakle, Walklett and Wheeler.

In the absence of the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor took the chair. 

The Council received a report from the Head of Human Resources (GO Shared Services) regarding a request for discretionary allowance.  The Council, having considered the report and appendices, determined the matter.