Agenda and minutes

The Mayor will present Honorary Aldermen Robin MacDonald with his scroll

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

At this point the Mayor presented Honorary Alderman Robin MacDonald with his scroll.

Councillors Fletcher, Godwin and Thornton had given their apologies and Councillor Wall had advised he would be late.  He subsequently arrived at 3.10pm.

The Mayor went through some house-keeping.  A signing in and out sheet had been situated at the entrance of the chamber and members were asked to note the time of their arrival, if after the meeting had commenced, and the time of their departure if prior to the conclusion of the meeting in order that there would be a clear indication of which members were present at various stages of the meeting.  This was something that he would look to enforce if required.  He also noted that to allow flexibility no seating plan had been produced and instead the Councillor poster featuring member’s names and faces had been circulated throughout the public gallery and provided to the press, though he would endeavour to introduce members when inviting them to speak. 

Councillor Regan declared a personal interest in agenda item 9 (Petition regarding Weavers Field) as a member of the Warden Hill Parish Council. 

The Mayor highlighted that the budget outturn was today being considered and suggested that as there were issues relating to the HRA, should this be debated, Directors of CBH, of which he was one, should declare an interest.

14 May 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 14 May 2012 be agreed and signed as an accurate record.

The public questions were taken just prior to agenda item 9 (Petition regarding Weavers Field) as all of the questions received related to this matter.

The following responses were given to the 8 public questions received;

The Mayors first few weeks in office had been very busy and had included the unveiling of a plaque for Lillian Faithful which had provided him with an insight into a great legacy.  The Torch Relay event at the racecourse had demonstrated Cheltenham’s ability to organise and execute events so well.  The crowd at the racecourse grew to a magnificent number which was replicated along the route throughout Cheltenham.  He thanked everyone that had been involved for a great job and noted that officials commented that the Cheltenham event had been the best so far.  The Mayor had been honoured to go to Wembley Stadium to support the Cheltenham Robins in the football play-offs, though unfortunately they hadn’t won the match.  Other events included the Mayor’s Charity launch at Oakwood School and he urged anyone that had not yet visited the Civic Award winning School to do so as it was a truly impressive building.  The residents of Rosehill Street had shown real tenacity by going ahead with their Jubilee event as planned despite the 3 missing properties, the result of a gas explosion and he had been impressed by the coming together of trading and social communities across Cheltenham in celebration of the Jubilee.  He had attended an ARRC beating of the retreat event at Imjin Barracks and been involved in some Royal visits.  He hoped that members would be able to join him on some of the events throughout the year, including those in support of his charities. 

The Leader of the Council reminded members that the deadline for applications to the Promoting Cheltenham Fund was this coming Friday (29 June), so there was still time to apply for funding.  Members were also invited to propose any essential environmental improvement schemes for which the deadline was the end of July.  

He advised members that the July Council meeting, which was marked in the diary as ‘if required’ was in fact required and he hoped members would be available to attend.

Finally, he congratulated Councillor Massey on the birth of his second daughter and was pleased to report that mother and baby were doing well.  

The Leader apologised for the delay in circulation of the member questions and responses, explaining that factual information for one of the responses had not been received until just prior to the meeting.  The Mayor suggested that in future the questions and responses should be circulated and any missings be provided verbally at the meeting. 

The following responses were given to the 6 member questions received;

A debate on a petition received on the 26 March 2012

Agenda item 5 (public questions) was taken just prior to this item as all the questions that had been received related to this matter.

The Mayor referred members to the process for dealing with petitions at Council which had been circulated with the agenda.  He invited Mr Rastelli, as petition organiser, to present the petition;

“We the undersigned are very much against the current preliminary proposal which would see up to 88 allotments on part of Weavers Field.  The Council say that only 3.1 acres of the 8.1 acre field would be turned into allotments – however this does not take into account the creation of a large car park area in order to cope with a significant number of vehicles.  This area is the only open green space in this locality and the preliminary proposal is not acceptable”.

Mr Rastelli outlined the scale of objection to the proposal and why. He explained that Weavers Field was a space frequented by hundreds of people each week and highly valued by those that used it for walking, playing and socialising.  The field and hill were also popular with those with an interest in birds and wildlife as it supported a number of wild birds and a variety of other wild life including bats and slow worms.  The proposals would prevent access for the general public to the majority of the field, serving only a comparatively small minority and prevent access for the vast majority. 

Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish Council whose responsibility it was to provide allotments in this area had expressed, in writing, their wish that this area remain a public amenity.  The neighbouring Parish Council, Up Hatherley, had also put in writing this same message.

The Friends of Weaver’s Field had applied to have this space recognised as a Village Green and were urging the Cabinet Member Sustainability to listen to the people of Warden Hill and withdraw the proposal. 

The full statement given by Mr Rastelli is attached at Appendix 1. 

The Mayor invited questions from members regarding the background report produced by officers.

As a point of clarification, Councillor Stennett queried the position of Planning Committee members making statements on this issue given that they may have to consider a future planning application.  The Monitoring Officer reassured Planning Committee members that this was not a prejudicial matter and involvement in the debate would not prejudice them against any future planning application, though any such application should be approached with an open mind.

A number of members requested that the figures relating to the cost of the proposal be made available, questioning the logic behind undertaking consultation on a proposal that hadn’t been properly costed.  When members were told that these figures were not available, Councillor Smith moved a procedural motion calling for a 15 minute adjournment of the meeting in order that these figures could be provided.  This motion was lost (Voting: (FOR) 12, (AGAINST) 18).

The Cabinet Member Sustainability explained that the decision  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Report of the Cabinet Member Corporate Services

The meeting resumed at 4.35pm.  Councillors Coleman, Holliday and Williams were no longer in attendance.

The Cabinet Member Corporate Services introduced the commissioning protocol which set out the principles and practices introduced by the Council as part of the strategic commissioning approach that had been adopted in December 2010.  The short protocol described how commissioning would be approached and monitored.  He felt the content of the report was self explanatory and invited members to accept the recommendations.

A number of members raised concerns about the draft protocol that was being presented for approval.  Concerns included the way in which the council was approaching commissioning.  Some members felt that this was not being undertaken in a cohesive manner and the way in which priorities were established and decisions made did not demonstrate a consistent approach. 

The principal concern of these members was that of accountability.  They considered it nonsensical for officers of Cheltenham Borough Council to respond to concerns or complaints from the public advising them that their concern/complaint would be dealt with by a third party (e.g. UBICO).  This also raised the issue of ward member’s ability to resolve issues.  Ultimately members felt that the Lead Cabinet Member should be accountable to scrutiny and were this reflected in the protocol they would feel able to support the recommendations.  Whilst supportive of the principal of keeping costs down, the worry was that the approach would compromise the council’s ability to deliver the quality of service expected by the public.

Members speaking in support of the recommendations did so as in their view there was no question of the Lead Cabinet Member abdicating their responsibilities or accountability.  They considered that in some circumstance,s UBICO for example, would be better placed to respond to a query or complaint than officers within the Commissioning Division, though admitted that this was a practical issue that should be monitored and Overview and Scrutiny would be crucial in this process.  The formation of any shared service, Local Authority Company, etc, would not be a conclusion but rather a beginning.  

The Cabinet Member Corporate Services was comfortable that his regular attendance at Overview and Scrutiny meetings would provide a degree of accountability and as part of the Joint Management Liaison Group he would maintain an overview of commissioning.  It was his aim to communicate the ongoing gains of commissioning and assured members that seminars, of which there had already been 7 or 8, would continue to be organised to ensure members were informed, engaged and able to raise any concerns. 

The Cabinet Member Corporate Services agreed that the roles and responsibilities of the Lead Cabinet Member as set out on page 4 of the protocol would be amended to state ‘is accountable to scrutiny’ in place of ‘updates scrutiny’. 

Upon a vote it was CARRIED with 1 abstention and 1 against.

RESOLVED that;

1. The commissioning protocol as amended be endorsed by Council;

2. Monitoring and review of the commissioning protocol be delegated to the Overview and Scrutiny  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

Joint report of the Cabinet Member Finance and Director of Resources

Councillor Teakle left the meeting at 5pm.

The Cabinet Member Finance introduced the report and referred members to the amended appendix 11 that had been circulated at the meeting. The report highlighted the Council's financial performance for the previous year which set out the General Fund and Housing Revenue Account revenue and capital outturn position for 2011/12.  The information contained in the report had been used to prepare the Council’s Statement of Accounts for 2011/12.

The Cabinet member was pleased to report that during the year, the potential in year budget deficit had been addressed and as a result a revised balanced-budget had been achieved.  The council's success in achieving this was down to the hard work by officers across the council in reducing costs and boosting incomes. He outlined the intentions for making use of the revenue budget savings are set out in section 3 of the report and the budget carry forward requests in section 4. He referred members to an error in appendix 7 where the carry forward bid for democratic services of £7,000 should have referred to £5,000 for the support and rollout of ICT remote access facilities for members and £2000 to support the new scrutiny arrangements.

He highlighted the favourable outcome regarding the Icelandic Banks and the potential uses of the High Street Innovation Fund grant where Cheltenham had been awarded £100,000 of the £10 million allocated by Government to help revive high street retail. He concluded that overall the report represented a sound piece of work which made sensible use of the council's resources.

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

• He confirmed that businesses had been consulted on the potential uses of the High Street Innovation Fund and a number of their suggestions had been picked up.
• In response to a suggestion that the reinstatement of a planning appeals officer would be preferable to boosting the planning appeals reserve, he said in his view these two issues were not connected.
• Asked how the funding of business rate discounts would be "targeted at the areas where it can have the greatest impact”, he explained that currently there was a focus on the town centre. However it would be necessary to strike a balance between targeting sufficient funds in an area to make a difference and identifying areas of greatest need across the borough.
• A member had suggested that the proposed £9,000 cost for installation of cameras to measure footfall in different parts of the town centre should be supported by big retailers and the money would be better spent on the business rate relief scheme. In response the Cabinet Member said that businesses in the town centre spent a large amount of money on marketing and this scheme was a sensible way to help them target their resources more appropriately. Major businesses would be making a contribution and the Cheltenham Development Task Force would also be involved in reviewing the results.
• Asked whether the Council could  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

Joint report of the Leader and the Cabinet Member Corporate Services

The Cabinet Member Corporate Services introduced the report which summarised how the council had performed in 2011/12 in regard to the published milestones, performance indicators and outcomes set out in the 2011/12 corporate strategy action plan.  The results set out in the report highlighted a good record of achievement particularly given the current difficult circumstances. 93% of milestones had been completed at the end of the year and 83% of targets for performance indicators had been met. The report also recognised the important contribution of Cheltenham Borough Homes in helping the council to meet its targets.

In response to a question he read out the figures of the costs of planning appeals which had been circulated to members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee following their review of this report at their May meeting. These figures demonstrated that there was a downward trend in the number of planning appeals which had reduced by 2% over the last four years. 

Referring to the outcome of a clean and well maintained environment, a member added a note of caution about the focus on waste as members of the public were starting to identify problems with litter and the situation could easily tip the other way. Another member suggested that there should be more information on proposed actions for addressing any areas which had not gone well and gave the reduced numbers at the Tourist Information Centre as an example. In response the Cabinet Member said that visitor numbers to the Centre had increased and £25,000 had been allocated to incorporate the centre into the Art Gallery and Museum when it opened in 2013.

Upon a vote it was unanimously

RESOLVED that the performance review 2011-12 be approved.

Report of the Constitution Working Group

The Cabinet Member Corporate Services introduced the report which set out the proposed arrangements for adoption by the Council in order to comply with the new conduct regime set out in the Localism Act 2011 and the recently approved Regulations. He apologised for the late circulation of the report but the regulations had not been published until 8 June 2012 and therefore officers had been under particular pressure to produce the report in the required timescales.  He highlighted the new obligation to disclose the pecuniary interests of spouses and partners as part of a Member’s Register of Interest declaration. Members were also asked to approve a new Code of Conduct.

Councillor McLain indicated his intention to abstain from any vote as although he had supported the original intention of the Standards regime, he was not happy with how it had turned out. He advised that following a detailed briefing by their Monitoring Officer, the Members at the County Council had achieved cross-party consensus in support of a common approach across all seven local authorities and a common code to include parish councils in Gloucestershire. They would be looking for proposals to come back in the Autumn. Hence he considered that this report was a good piece of work but was premature.

A member asked whether a wife or spouse have the right to refuse to have their interest disclosed and did they have any rights to privacy under the Human Rights Act. The Borough Solicitor acknowledged that this part of the legislation had come as a surprise and that parish councillors had already expressed some concerns. Members could have a defence if they had no knowledge of their spouse’s pecuniary interests but otherwise the obligation was on the Member to make the disclosure and not the spouse.  If they failed to do this they could be liable to criminal proceedings. She emphasised that these were statutory rules and the council could not decide to amend them. She assumed that the rights of spouses would have been taken into account during the construction of the legislation.

It was noted that Step 1 in appendix 3 should refer to CBC and not TBC.

The Leader referred members to recommendation 8 in the report regarding the appointment of Independent Persons. He advised that an Interview Panel consisting of himself, Councillor Garnham and Councillor Godwin, had interviewed three candidates on 20 June 2012. The panel was unanimous in its recommendation to the Council to appoint Mr Duncan Chittenden and Mr Martin Jauch as Independent Persons for Cheltenham Borough Council.

Before the vote, the Mayor highlighted to Members that the regulations came into force on 1 July and therefore the council was obliged to put arrangements in place in accordance with these regulations.  He also reminded Members that the Borough Solicitor had been on hand before the Council meeting to answer any questions members had about the proposals.

Upon the vote the recommendations (excluding 9) were CARRIED with 3 abstentions.

Upon a separate  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

Report of the Leader

The Leader referred to the covering note which had been circulated with the additional agenda papers for this meeting. Following agreement by the Group Leaders, Cabinet approved the majority of appointments to the outside bodies at their meeting on 19 June 2012.  There were three appointments outstanding where consensus has not been achieved between the political groups and therefore these have been referred to Council as set out in the recommendations in the report.

He also advised that Councillor Reid had now been appointed by Cabinet to the Friends of Leckhampton Hill to fill the remaining vacancy. He reminded Members that there was still a vacancy for the Hillview Community Centre should anyone wish to put their name forward.

Upon a vote it was

RESOLVED THAT:

i) Councillor Barnes be appointed as the Council's observer on the Everyman Theatre Board

Voting (For Cllr. Barnes 19, for Cllr. Harman 8)

ii) Councillor McCloskey be appointed as the Council’s representative on the Cotswold Conservation Board

Voting (For Cllr. McCloskey 19, for Cllr. Hall 9)

iii) Councillor Colin Hay be appointed as the Council’s observer on the Board of UBICO

Voting (For Cllr. Colin Hay 19, for Cllr. Harman 8)

Proposed by: Councillor Driver

Seconded by: Councillor Regan

Given recent exposé reports in the press both national and international regarding the sex trade and exploitation of young women because of people smuggling and the sex trade in Cheltenham – this Council resolves to:-

1.    Work collaboratively with the Gloucestershire Safeguarding Childrens Board, Gloucestershire Safeguarding Adults Board and Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre to develop a dedicated council strategy

2.    Investigate potential impact of licensed sex industry and other venues which might impact in four areas (vulnerable adults / young adults / children / people smuggling)

3.    Commit to re-invest funding from Cheltenham's night time economy into the fight against sexual exploitation and the sex trade in Cheltenham.

Councillor Wall left the meeting at 5.50pm.

Councillor Driver proposed the following motion which was seconded by Councillor Regan:

Given recent exposé reports in the press both national and international regarding the sex trade and exploitation of young women because of people smuggling and the sex trade in Cheltenham – this Council resolves to:-

1.    Work collaboratively with the Gloucestershire Safeguarding Childrens Board, Gloucestershire Safeguarding Adults Board and Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre to develop a dedicated council strategy

2.    Investigate potential impact of licensed sex industry and other venues which might impact in four areas (vulnerable adults / young adults / children / people smuggling)

3.    Commit to re-invest funding from Cheltenham's night time economy into the fight against sexual exploitation

In introducing the motion, Councillor Driver suggested that the council needed to give more thought to the night-time economy. There was much said about what it did for Cheltenham but in her view all it did was make a mess on the streets and provide profits to a corporate company elsewhere. She acknowledged that the police and other organisations had done a lot to try and combat the sex trade and exploitation and the council had also done their bit, but there was a necessity for all organisations to work together. They needed to be particularly aware of vulnerable and neglected young people, possibly with learning difficulties, as she felt a lot of them were being missed.

Members were generally supportive of the sentiments behind the motion and that protection of vulnerable young people must be a priority.  If there were issues in Cheltenham then they needed to be addressed and this should be in partnership with other organisations. This kind of activity was an abomination and must be treated very seriously not least because it was hidden under the surface. Some members referred to a recent Channel 4 documentary which had featured a raid in the town on a property were young women were being trafficked. One member did point out that Cheltenham had been featured in the documentary as a typical town to highlight that even a respectable place like Cheltenham could have these problems. Another member highlighted the coverage in the Daily Mail during race week about the sex trade in the town. There may be an opportunity for the Borough Council to take a more proactive stance and there was a need to make members and officers more aware of what was being done and how to report any cases or suspicions.

Although members supported the general thrust of the motion, there were some concerns about the precise wording and resolutions. There were some doubts expressed about whether it would be legitimate to use the revenue from the night-time economy for this purpose as there were strict regulations concerning its use. The night-time economy also employed a lot of people in Cheltenham and therefore did bring benefits to the town. It was also important to distinguish between the licensed sex industry and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

None received.

There was no urgent business.