Agenda and minutes

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

Apologies have been received from Councillors Wall, Holliday and Wheeler.

Apologies were received from Councillors Wall, Holliday, Wheeler, Lansley, Stennett and Seacome.  Councillor Williams would be late and subsequently arrived at 4.20pm.

Councillor Garnham declared a personal and prejudicial interest in agenda item 14 (Joint Core Strategy Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury) due to his private business being engaged by landowners of a site in Brockworth.

Councillors Sudbury, Teakle, Bickerton and Chard declared a personal interest in agenda item 14 (Joint Core Strategy Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury) as members of LEGLAG.

24 September 2012

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

The Leader highlighted an error on page 10 of the minutes at item 10e whereby the consultation document ‘developing a preferred option’ should have been referenced rather than the NLP report. 

Upon a vote it was unanimously

RESOLVED that the minutes, as amended, of the meeting held on the 24 September be agreed and signed as an accurate record.

The Mayor paid tribute to Edward Gillespie who had stepped down as Managing Director at Cheltenham Racecourse after 32 years in the role.  Ed, who was made a Freeman of the Borough in 2008 had transformed the Cheltenham Festival from a well known race meet to the foremost steeple chase festival in the country.  The popularity of the other race meets grew year on year and it was recognised what this added to the Cheltenham economy.  The Mayor was pleased that Ed would not be leaving the County and looked forward to working with him in the future.

The Mayor agreed to a request to write to Edward Gillespie on behalf of this Council and thank him for all that he had done for the town. 

Upcoming events included the Monster Walk on the 27 October, a Halloween-themed fancy dress charity walk and Remembrance Sunday on the 11 November which he urged members to attend as it meant a lot to people in the town and suggested that Councillors attendance was always well received by the public. 

The Leader fully endorsed the comments made by the Mayor regarding Edward Gillespie whose major contribution to the town had been recognised in this chamber when he had been made a Freeman of the Borough. 

He had recently attended the AGM of CBH and took this opportunity to thank Lawrence Boyd and Mike Tyrrell who were standing down as members of the Board at CBH after a fantastic contribution as both Chairs and members of the Board.  He congratulated Stuart Hutton on his appointment as Chair and wished him all the very best in his new role. 

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

Councillor McLain arrived at 2.45pm and Councillors Hibbert and Prince arrived at 2.50pm.

The following responses were given to the 3 public questions received;

The following responses were given to the 5 member questions received;

Report of the Audit Committee (to be presented by Councillor Massey, the Chairman)

The Chair of the Audit Committee, Councillor Massey, introduced the Statement of Accounts 2011/12 which had been discussed by the Audit Committee at their meeting on the 19 September.  He referred members to item 3.1 of the report, the audit did not identify any material issues in the accounts and item 3.3 of the report emphasising that the finance team had prepared the accounts whilst simultaneously implementing and launching GO.  Finance was a small team and deserved recognition for their efforts.

He explained that the second recommendation was a departure from previous years and aimed to align working practices with partner authorities.  The consideration and sign off of the Statement of Accounts had been delegated to Audit Committee but in future a report would only be made back to Council if there were issues arising from the audit.

In response to a question from a member, the Chair of the Audit Committee explained that neither of the two elector challenges had been deemed by KPMG as significant enough to delay the signing of the accounts. 

The Leader endorsed the comments of the Chair regarding the efforts of the finance team and also thanked the Audit Committee. 

Councillor R Hay, as a member of the Audit Committee, highlighted that the Committee had put on record their thanks to KPMG for their hard work and support as they would no longer fulfil the role of external auditor for this authority. 

Upon a vote it was unanimously

RESOLVED that:-

1.      The decision of the Audit Committee to approve the Statement of Accounts for 2011/12 be noted, including the Annual Governance Statement and note that the Chair of the Audit Committee, Councillor Massey, signed the accounts to formally signify their approval by the Council.

2.      As outlined in section 4, the Chair of the Audit Committee will only report to the Council if there are any issues arising from the audit of the Statement of Accounts. 

Report of the Cabinet Member Finance

The Cabinet Member Finance was pleased to introduce the report and move the recommendations on the supplementary paper that had been circulated in advance of the meeting.  The resolutions had been amended as those that Council needed to agree were different to those that Cabinet had passed previously. 

Cabinet strongly supported Friends of Pittville (F.O.P) in their charge to restore the Gates and the surrounding area which had become somewhat neglected.  Both Cabinet and F.O.P saw the restoration of the Gates and surrounding area as marking the Jubilee Year. 

The Council had supported F.O.P in their efforts as much as possible through an initial allocation of £20k from the Environmental Improvement Fund 2011 which had enabled the design, planning consent and procurement to progress and F.O.P had applied for a further £20k from the Environmental Improvement Fund 2012. 

In excess of £134k had been raised by F.O.P so far and these funds would used to appoint a Project Manager and initiate Phase 1 which would include replacement pillars, lamps and some landscaping.  It was important to note that some of the funding that had been secured by F.O.P required works to have commenced by the end of November 2012. 

Finally, the Cabinet Member Finance commended the generosity of the funders, the support of the ward Councillors and Officers and above all the tenacity of the F.O.P. 

Councillor Hibbert, as Ward Councillor for Pittville, echoed the comments of the Cabinet Member.  She informed members that the F.O.P had worked tirelessly to secure funding and had to date secured in region of £155k and already had plans underway for Phases 2 and 3 and she reiterated the importance of work commencing soon.  

Councillor Hibbert proposed an amendment to the resolution, namely the addition of the following wording:-

“and wishes to put on record its thanks for the valuable work that has been done by the Friends of Pittville.”

The Cabinet Member Finance welcomed and accepted the amendment. 

Members commended F.O.P, especially for their planned restoration of the gates. 

Upon a vote it was unanimously

RESOLVED that Council agrees to allocate the funding for this project over the 2 phases as set out in Sections 2.9 and 2.10 of the report be agreed and wishes to put on record its thanks for the valuable work that has been done by the Friends of Pittville. 

Report of the Cabinet Member Finance

The Cabinet Member Finance introduced the report as circulated with the agenda.  He congratulated Cheltenham Festivals (CF) on the 2012 Literature Festival which he believed had been the most successful yet.  Whilst CF were separate to the Council he acknowledged that there was a strong relationship between both organisations with the Council currently providing in kind support to CF for ICT networking and telephony. 

As the festivals grew so did the demands on the ICT team and these increasing needs were becoming more difficult to fulfil.  A review of ICT in 2011 concluded that CF had different ICT requirements to those of the Council given their extensive use of social media and need to hold massive video files and maintain a huge photo library.  Both organisations would benefit from the proposal to make funding available for CF to create an independent ICT structure as this would drive out savings for the Council. 

He hoped that members would be able to support the report and recommendation.

Whilst one member voiced her support for the recommendation, another member was not as supportive, querying why the taxpayers of Cheltenham should pay CF £139k if they were as successful as was being suggested. 

The Leader reiterated that the Councils current agreement cost £73k year on year so the proposal before members today would ultimately result in a saving for Cheltenham taxpayers. 

Upon a vote, with 1 member voting against, it was

RESOLVED that a grant of £139k to Cheltenham Festivals to fund the establishment of independent ICT infrastructure and financing of the first year of independent maintenance support, to be met from the Council’s General Fund Reserve be approved.

Report of the Cabinet Member Housing and Safety

The Cabinet Member Housing and Safety introduced the report.  Cabinet had approved the draft policy statement for consultation on the 19 June 2012 and there had been no changes following the conclusion of that consultation.  It was also noted that the legislation relating to the scope of this policy had remained largely unchanged. 

A member queried how many establishments, including outlets, were currently in the town and whether there was a limit to the total number permitted in the town and if so, what this figure was.  The Cabinet Member Housing and Safety was not able to provide this information at the meeting and as such agreed to provide the answer in writing. 

Upon a vote it was unanimously

RESOLVED that:-

1.      The consultee comments received be noted; and

2.      The draft policy statement be approved and adopted.

Report of the Cabinet Member Finance

The Cabinet Member Finance accepted that this was a complicated issue and attempted to explain it as clearly as possible.  The good news for local councils was that next year they could retain 50% of the business rates collected.  The bad news being that any council that collected above its baseline funding level may have to pay a levy and those councils that did not achieve their baseline funding level could be eligible for top-up funding from central government to protect them against significant reductions on their income.

The coming together of local authorities to pool business rates could put member authorities in a beneficial collective financial position and could also allow for the off-setting of tariffs against top-ups and reduction in levy.  Importantly no Council would be worse off as a result of business rate pooling but this matter would need to be considered further when the Local Government Financial Settlement was announced in November/December 2012.

Given the timescales it would not be possible to bring the matter back to Council but as per the new Executive arrangements the decision by Officers would be published. 

The Cabinet Member Finance gave the following responses to member questions;

• The monies would continue to form part of the Council’s income streams as they did at present and the surplus could be used for economic development but this would be a matter for consideration and determination by Council.
• The Business Rate Retention scheme would start in April 2013 but the submission deadline for proposals to the Government for a Gloucestershire Pool was the 19 October 2012.  Given that the exact impact of the business rate pooling would not be fully understood until the draft Local Government Finance Settlement was announced, a cooling-off period had been built into the Government’s timetable which offered an element of flexibility for councils to change their mind.  It was stressed however that such a decision would impact other authorities. 

The Mayor welcomed the principle of the Council being in control of monies collected locally. 

In closing, the Cabinet Member Finance acknowledged the huge amount of work undertaken thus far by Officers at this Council and across the County. 

Upon a vote it was unanimously

RESOLVED that

a)     The proposal to be part of a Gloucestershire Business Rates Pool, subject to a thorough assessment of risks/rewards and agreement on satisfactory governance arrangements be agreed in principle

b)     Subject to a) above, the submission of a proposal to the Government for a Gloucestershire Pool by the 19th October deadline be approved

c)     Authority to assess the risks/rewards and agree the business case for joining a Gloucestershire Business Rates Pool be delegated to the Section 151 Officer and Chief Executive

d)     Authority to agree the governance arrangements for the operation of a Gloucestershire Business Rates Pool be delegated to the Section 151 Officer and Chief Executive, in consultation with the Borough Solicitor, Leader of the Council and the Cabinet Member for Finance.

Report of the Chief Executive

(please note the Mayor intends to take item 14 after Member questions due to public interest in this matter)   

The Mayor explained that the Leader would introduce the report and there would then be the opportunity for members to ask questions. In response to a question from a member, the Head of Legal Services confirmed that members had the right to ask the Chief Executive any questions as the author of the report.

In his introduction, the Leader referred to the long and useful debate that had taken place at Council on 24 September.  Council had agreed the seven resolutions previously agreed by representatives of all three councils at the JCS joint member steering group and in addition had agreed three other resolutions which highlighted issues for Cheltenham.  At the time he had been satisfied that these three resolutions clarified but did not contradict the seven. He agreed that there had been some confusion since the joint member steering group had met. Going away from that meeting, he had not envisaged that these seven resolutions couldn’t be added to and he apologised for any confusion with regard to Tewkesbury and Gloucester City if they had not gone away with this same understanding.

He reported that he had had a useful meeting last week with the three leaders of the councils to understand their respective positions and as a result they had all reaffirmed their commitment to making the JCS work. In addition they had all signed up to the important piece of work regarding economic growth. His aim would be to follow this with an early meeting of the Chief Executives, the Leaders and the officers leading the JCS process across the three councils.

He felt that it was important that certain issues such as household size were referred to the Council’s JCS and Planning Liaison Overview and Scrutiny Working Group to examine the facts and opinions and give their views. 

In conclusion, he emphasised that the most important thing was for the JCS to continue working across the three councils and the report before members set out how the JCS would be progressed to the Preferred Options stage.  

The Mayor invited questions on the report which are set out below together with the responses:

• Could the Chief Executive give his assurance that the additional piece of work set out in recommendation 4 could be completed in the timescales set out for the JCS which were already extremely tight? Would the newly formed working group be sufficiently qualified to deal with the complex situation they were being asked to investigate?

§         The Chief Executive responded that the officers’ view was that yes they could be achieved in the timescales but they would need the willingness on the part of members to support the process. He suggested that there should be an early review of the terms of reference, the membership and the mode of operation of the working group to ensure the matter could be progressed as quickly as possible.

• It appeared from the Planning Inspector’s website that many councils had submitted JCS documents for periods of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

Proposed by: Councillor McKinlay

Seconded by: Councillor McCloskey  

Motion on proposed changes to the planning system by the Secretary of State

This Council wishes the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to note the following:

That Cheltenham Borough Council believes that local people, through their democratically elected local authorities, are the most suitable judges of what development is acceptable in an area and the suitable level of contributions that developers need to make;

This Council opposes:

·         The Secretary of State's proposals for the Planning Inspectorate to have powers to override agreements between Councils and developers over the number of affordable housing units allocated to planning applications.

·         The Secretary of State’s proposals for planning permission – currently required for extensions of more than three or four metres from the rear wall of any home – to only be needed for those reaching beyond 8m for detached homes and 6m for others

·         The Secretary of State's intention to override Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act of 1990 which will allow developers to immediately appeal to the Planning Inspectorate over the allocation of affordable housing units in any scheme they maybe concerned with.

·         The Secretary of State's proposals for the Planning Inspectorate to take planning powers away from local authorities which he deems to be slow or of making poor quality planning decisions in determining applications.

This Council notes that the current Coalition government did listen earlier in the year over concerns regarding the National Planning Policy Framework and revised its plans accordingly, so urges the Government to listen to the concerns being expressed by the cross-party LGA.

Councillor McKinlay proposed the following motion which was seconded by Councillor McCloskey:

This Council wishes the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to note the following:

That Cheltenham Borough Council believes that local people, through their democratically elected local authorities, are the most suitable judges of what development is acceptable in an area and the suitable level of contributions that developers need to make;

This Council opposes:

·         The Secretary of State's proposals for the Planning Inspectorate to have powers to override agreements between Councils and developers over the number of affordable housing units allocated to planning applications.

·         The Secretary of State’s proposals for planning permission – currently required for extensions of more than three or four metres from the rear wall of any home – to only be needed for those reaching beyond 8m for detached homes and 6m for others

·         The Secretary of State's intention to override Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act of 1990 which will allow developers to immediately appeal to the Planning Inspectorate over the allocation of affordable housing units in any scheme they maybe concerned with.

·         The Secretary of State's proposals for the Planning Inspectorate to take planning powers away from local authorities which he deems to be slow or of making poor quality planning decisions in determining applications.

This Council notes that the current Coalition government did listen earlier in the year over concerns regarding the National Planning Policy Framework and revised its plans accordingly, so urges the Government to listen to the concerns being expressed by the cross-party LGA.

In proposing the motion Councillor McKinlay had done so as he felt that the proposals posed issues regarding potential loss of control at a local level.  Members had debated the pros and cons of the JCS at great length but if these proposals were to become a reality this Council would have very little influence on what happened in Cheltenham.  This was a concern for many councils and to the LGA as a whole rather than being a political concern and the motion sought for this Council to form part of a national campaign to get Mr Pickles, the Secretary of State to change his mind.  Particular concerns with the Secretary of State’s proposals were;

·        The Planning Inspectorate would have the power to overturn the figure of 40% affordable housing set by this authority. 

·        Extensions for which planning process needed to be followed and for which there had been 300-400 applications over the last x years, would no longer be required for extensions under 8 meters. 

·        Given the drive from Central Government to build as many houses as possible, singularly the most serious threat was the proposal to take powers away from local authorities.

Governments aim may be to boost the economy through these proposals but they had serious implications for local authorities. 

Members who supported the motion did so as they shared concerns about the loss of decision making powers at a local level.  These members felt  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

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

There were no urgent items for discussion.