Agenda and minutes

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

Councillors Lansley, Holliday, Teakle and Hibbert had given their apologies.

Councillor C. Hay declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in agenda items 11 (Final Housing Revenue Account Revised Budget 2013/14) and 17 (Cheltenham Borough Homes Development Options) as a CBH Board Member.

Councillor Smith declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in agenda items 11 (Final Housing Revenue Account Revised Budget 2013/14) and 17 (Cheltenham Borough Homes Development Options) as a CBH Board Member.

Councillor Driver declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in agenda items 11 (Final Housing Revenue Account Revised Budget 2013/14) and 17 (Cheltenham Borough Homes Development Options) as a CBH Board Member.

Councillor Williams declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in agenda items 11 (Final Housing Revenue Account Revised Budget 2013/14) and 17 (Cheltenham Borough Homes Development Options) as a CBH Board Member.

Councillor Flynn declared a personal interest in agenda items 11 (Final Housing Revenue Account Revised Budget 2013/14) and 17 (Cheltenham Borough Homes Development Options) as a tenant of CBH. 

17 December 2012

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 17 December 2012 be agreed and signed as an accurate record.

The Mayor referenced a communication from the Cabinet Office regarding the Honours system in which they considered Gloucestershire as being underrepresented.  He explained that they were particularly interested in younger candidates and whilst the process could be a long one, of up to 18 months, help and support was available and members should contact the Chief Executives office for more information.

The Jubilee book had now been published and was available to buy from Hannah Wright or the Tourist Information Centre for only £5.

He explained that staff, were today taking part in a dress down day in aid of Age UK’s ‘Bobble Day’.  ‘Bobble Day’ aimed to make winter a better season for older people and Councillor Harman would be collecting donations from members if they wished to donate.

The Leader explained that a number of the reports being considered by Council today had previously been to Cabinet and he had therefore considered it prudent to circulate a sheet which summarised what was being asked of Council. 

He referenced the recent suspension of waste collections and confirmed that the matter would be reviewed by the Cabinet Member Waste Group which would be meeting later in the month. 

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

No public questions had been received.

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

Report of the Cabinet Member Built Environment

The Cabinet Member Built Environment introduced what was largely a technical matter following a set of revisions to a document with which any Planning Committee members would be reasonably familiar with.  Cabinet had agreed the draft revisions for consultation on the 25 September 2012, eight comments had been received (as set out at Appendix 3) and the amendments were approved by Cabinet at their meeting on the 15 January 2013.

There had been nine specific wording changes which covered three main areas; (A) the type of uses deemed to be acceptable; (B) the role of the Municipal Offices Heritage Assessment September 2010 in the design and decision-making process; and (C) the nature of bus interchange provision and the work emerging from the Local Sustainable Transport Fund.  B and C aimed at bringing the document up to date and A addressed an inconsistency between the Brief and the SPD in the description of acceptable uses, the wording was less prescriptive, suggesting what might be acceptable and offering more flexibility in line with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework which called for councils to encourage development. 

There were no questions or comments.

Upon a vote it was

RESOLVED (with 1 abstention) that for planning purposes the schedule of revisions to the Royal Well Development Brief, part of the Cheltenham Civic Pride Urban design Framework Supplementary Planning Document as set out at Appendix 2, be approved. 

Report of the Cabinet Member Finance

The Mayor invited the Cabinet Member Finance to introduce the budget which would then be followed by a presentation by the Section 151 Officer and to facilitate the presentation of the Budget, the Mayor proposed suspension of certain rules of debate, namely:-

That the time limit on speeches is relaxed with regard to the following speeches

• Cabinet Member Finance when moving the motion to adopt the budget being proposed by the Cabinet.

• Group leaders or Group spokesperson when making budget statements on behalf of their group.

The Cabinet Member Finance and Group Leaders could also speak more than once in the debate (in addition to any rights of reply etc) for the purpose of putting and answering questions. 

This was agreed by Council.

The Cabinet Member Finance introduced the 2013/14 budget proposals with a detailed speech (please see Appendix 1).  

The Cabinet Member Finance moved acceptance of the 2013/14 budget as set out in the report.  The motion was seconded by Councillor Jordan who reserved his right to speak.

The Section 151 Officer made his presentation (please see Appendix 2) and in response to a question from a member he explained the reason that there was no specific reference to the New Homes Bonus in the risk register.  The projection of £699k agreed for 2013/14 was guaranteed until 2016/17 and there would be more in addition to this for any new homes built during this time.  Admittedly, after this period, some would fall away but projections suggested that the figure of £699k was very conservative. He believed that the strategy being proposed followed the same principle in that only £450k had been built-in, with £250k supporting the base budget and £200k for maintenance which could be revisited at any time.  He felt confident that this was a prudent approach.

In response to questions from members, the Cabinet Member Finance gave the following responses:

• The suggestion of a ‘snow reserve’ would be considered only after any recommendations were reached by the Cabinet Member Waste Group following their review of the issue. 
• He felt it would be more sensible to review green waste costs at the start of a new calendar year rather than a new financial year.
• Leisure costs increased in Cheltenham each year, with costs generally increasing by 2.5% and he accepted that there were a number of organisations that were concerned about this.
• The plans of the Police and Crime Commissioner were still unfolding but there had already been considerable discussions and the council wanted very much to work with the P&CC, not only to save money. 
• It was the Governments view that now was not the right time to consider the formation of unitary authorities and for the time being the council was achieving a lot through shared services.  His view was that a unitary authority with GCC would be too big but that a unitary with Tewkesbury Borough Council or Cotswold District Council could be a way forward in the future.
• He had tried to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

Report of the Cabinet Member Finance

Members returned to the chamber at 5:00pm.

This did not include Councillors C. Hay, Smith, Driver and Williams who had declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in this item. 

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

The Cabinet Member Finance was pleased to introduce the Housing Revenue Account revised budget for 20012/13 and the final budget proposals for 2013/14.  He believed the report was a positive one, not only because it showed sound management in the current financial year, but because it set out a very positive agenda for the future. 

The HRA budget for the year ahead included substantial investment in repairs and maintenance, energy saving measures and adaptations for disabled people.  It also recognised that housing was not simply about bricks and mortar but more so the security and wellbeing of the tenants.  This was why the budget provided for a number of new or enhanced services, including support for older people and disabled people, proposed enhanced services for young people and an expansion of employment services for tenants and their families.

Both cabinet members, and CBH recognised that many tenants and others would find themselves in difficulty because of the coming, complex changes in the welfare system, with some even finding themselves at risk of homelessness.  It was considered right therefore that CBH should respond to this by providing more information, advice and support to people struggling to cope with changes in their benefits and as such the budget proposed a range of measures to help people understand the new system, manage their money and pay their rent.  It also included more help for tenants in moving to more suitable accommodation if they chose to do so. 

This budget would allow CBH to strengthen their community services.  This would be particularly important in the Moors and the Tewkesbury Road area, where it would reinforce the work being done following the recent Big Local lottery grant.

The HRA budget had been through a consultation process with the Tenant Scrutiny Improvement Group, which was generally supportive.  It was an ambitious and socially responsible programme, but also a prudent and affordable one, leaving a very healthy £2.8 million revenue reserve at the end of the year and he was happy to commend it to council. 

In response to a question from a member, the Cabinet Member Finance advised that he was not aware of the purported £30million from Government to support those impacted by the changes to the welfare and benefit system.

Upon a vote it was unanimously

RESOLVED that

1.      The revised HRA budget and capital programme for 2012/13 be noted.

2.      The HRA budget for 2013/14 as shown at Appendix 2 including a proposed average rent increase of 3.43% (applied in accordance with national rent restructuring guidelines) and increases in other rents and charges as detailed at Appendix 5 be approved.

3.      The 2013/14 HRA capital programme as shown at Appendices 3 and 4 be approved.

4.      The 2013/14 management fees and charges for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

Report of the Cabinet Member Finance

Councillors C. Hay, Smith, Driver and Williams returned to the Chamber and the Mayor resumed the Chair.

The Cabinet Member Finance gave a brief introduction to this item.  The prudential indicators at Appendix 2 continued to reflect the capital expenditure and plans and were designed to assist member’s overview.  The updated lending list at Appendix 3 set out the institutions with whom the council would invest with and these were only institutions with a high/long rating and for a maximum of 12 months.  This was not a static document and would be reviewed alongside changing circumstances. 

There were no questions or comments.

Upon a vote it was unanimously

RESOLVED that the Treasury Management Strategy Statement and Annual Investment Strategy for 2013/14 at Appendix 2 be approved including:

1.      The general policy objective ‘that Council should invest prudently the surplus funds held on behalf of the community giving priority to security and liquidity’.

2.      That the Prudential Indicators for 2013/14 including the authorised limit as the statutory affordable borrowing limit determined under Section 3 (1) Local Government Act 2003 be approved.

3.      Revisions to the Council’s lending list and parameters as shown in Appendix 3 are proposed in order to provide some further capacity. These proposals have been put forward after taking advice from the Council’s treasury management advisers Sector and are prudent enough to ensure the credit quality of the Council’s investment portfolio remains high.

4.      For 2013/14 in calculating the Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP), the Council will apply Option 1 in respect of supported capital expenditure and Option 3 in respect of unsupported capital expenditure as per section 21 in Appendix 3.

Motion A

Proposed by: Councillor McKinlay

Seconded by: Councillor Sudbury

"Council notes with concern the recent proposal from the Highways Agency to alter the junction of the A417 at the Air Ballon roundabout to prevent traffic from Cirencester turning right towards Seven Springs.

Council resolves:-

To make formal representations to the Highways Agency raising amongst others the following concerns:-

a) The potential for a significant increase in traffic on the A46 Shurdington Road caused by traffic being diverted away from  Seven Springs.

b) The increase in time and distance for many drivers in trying to access the A40 and Leckhampton Road.

c) The increase in traffic congestion at Birdlip Hill.

d) The increase in air pollution associated with the increased traffic congestion on Birdlip Hill and the Shurdington Road.

e) The increase in "Rat Running" that will occur on the county lanes between the A417 and the Cirencester Road.

Council further believes that:-

a) The current proposals will do little to improve the widely acknowledged congestion problems that exist on the A417 between Nettleton Bottom and the Air Balloon.

b) That the Highways Agency should withdraw the current proposal, and develop a comprehensive plan to tackle traffic congestion at this location.

c) That no scheme be introduced until full public consultation is undertaken."

Motion B

Proposed by: Councillor Whyborn

Seconded by: Councillor Bickerton

"This Council notes and applauds the stance taken by Stroud District Council concerning Planning application 12/0008/STMAJW to site an Energy from Waste (EfW) facility for residual waste treatment at Javelin Park, Haresfield, Glos. The County Council’s case for the waste incinerator is essentially that its perceived benefits outweigh the Planning objections which have been made, and this case is opposed by Stroud. This Council supports Stroud District Council in its assessment that the rationale for the proposed EfW facility for residual waste treatment is deeply flawed, mainly because of its process capacity, making it surplus to need. Council notes that the process is inflexible, and inferior to alternative technologies.

This council considers that numerous matters of controversy which are in the public domain will make it difficult for Gloucestershire County Council to be confidently perceived by the public as an independent arbiter of the said Planning application.

Cheltenham Borough Council therefore calls upon the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to call in Planning application 12/0008/STMAJW, Residual Waste Treatment Facility, for all of the reasons detailed by Stroud District Council in their letter dated 19th December 2012."

Motion C

Proposed by: Councillor Garnham

Seconded by: Councillor Driver

“This year, as in all recent years, there is tremendous pressure upon our budget and we must look at every penny of tax payers money that we spend.  We should examine every single opportunity to save money, protect services and make the council as efficient as possible. 

The Government is reducing the costs of democracy and the County Council is cutting back on the number of Councillors and it is  ...  view the full agenda text for item 13.

Motion A

Proposed by: Councillor McKinlay

Seconded by: Councillor Sudbury

"Council notes with concern the recent proposal from the Highways Agency to alter the junction of the A417 at the Air Ballon roundabout to prevent traffic from Cirencester turning right towards Seven Springs.

Council resolves:-

To make formal representations to the Highways Agency raising amongst others the following concerns:-

a) The potential for a significant increase in traffic on the A46 Shurdington Road caused by traffic being diverted away from  Seven Springs.

b) The increase in time and distance for many drivers in trying to access the A40 and Leckhampton Road.

c) The increase in traffic congestion at Birdlip Hill.

d) The increase in air pollution associated with the increased traffic congestion on Birdlip Hill and the Shurdington Road.

e) The increase in "Rat Running" that will occur on the county lanes between the A417 and the Cirencester Road.

Council further believes that:-

a) The current proposals will do little to improve the widely acknowledged congestion problems that exist on the A417 between Nettleton Bottom and the Air Balloon.

b) That the Highways Agency should withdraw the current proposal, and develop a comprehensive plan to tackle traffic congestion at this location.

c) That no scheme be introduced until full public consultation is undertaken."

In proposing the motion, Councillor McKinlay talked through his concerns set out in the motion and questioned whether the solution offered by the Highways Agency would actually work in practice. He considered it would only make a marginal difference to the traffic flow at the roundabout but once it had been put in place this junction would go to the bottom of the priority list because the Highways Agency would be able to say that they had taken some action.

All members who spoke supported the motion and endorsed Councillor McKinlay's concerns. Members indicated that parish councils were extremely dismayed by the plans and did not believe that the Highways Agency had considered the views of local residents. There was a need to do a proper consultation and to look at all alternative designs for the roundabout. There were concerns that residents across Cheltenham would be affected by the resulting traffic flows.

A member wished to place on record, members thanks to the county council and their officers for the robust and speedy way they had reacted to the proposals and insisted on proper consultation.

An amendment was proposed by Councillor Chard and seconded by Councillor Harman that Council should amend the resolve and add a further resolve as below (in Italics):

To make formal representations to the relevant Government Minister and Highways Agency raising amongst others the following concerns:-

d) the Leader arranges a cross-party delegation to lobby the relevant Government Minister, Norman Baker, when he visits Cheltenham on the 20th of February 2013 and encourage him to intervene to halt the Highways Agency’s proposals.  

This was accepted by the proposer and upon a vote the motion as amended was agreed unanimously.

Motion  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

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

There were no urgent items to be discussed.

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 proceedings

Upon a vote 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 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 Cabinet Member Housing and Safety

Members still present in the chamber:

Councillors Barnes, Britter, Chard, Fletcher, Flynn (Chair), Hall, Harman, Jeffries, Massey, McCloskey, Rawson, Regan, Reid, Stewart, Walklett, Wheeler.

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

Upon a vote the recommendations were agreed unanimously.

To approve the exempt minutes of the meeting held on the 17 December 2012 (hard copies have only been circulated to those members who participated in the debate)

Members still present in the chamber:

Councillors Barnes, Britter, Chard, Fletcher, Flynn (Chair), Hall, Harman, Jeffries, Massey, McCloskey, Rawson, Regan, Reid, Stewart, Sudbury, Walklett, Wheeler.

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

Upon a vote it was unanimously

RESOLVED that the exempt minutes of the meeting held on the 17 December 2012 be agreed and signed as an accurate record.