Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Barnes, Driver, Harman, Hibbert, Holliday, McLain, Prince, Stennett and Williams.

Councillor Ryder declared a possible future pecuniary interest in a section of the white land in Agenda Item 8 –Petition to Save the Leckhampton Fields.

Councillor Garnham declared a pecuniary interest in Agenda Item 8-Petition to Save the Leckhampton Fields and the Joint Core Strategy.

To approve the minutes of the last meeting held on 14 February 2014

In response to a question from Councillor Hall the Chief Executive explained that the issue raised would be included in next year’s annual Pay Policy Statement.

The minutes of the meeting were approved and signed as a correct record.

The Mayor was pleased to announce that Cheltenham Borough Council had received accreditation for Investors in People, which it had now held for 18 years. She explained that the Managing Director of Investors in People South had said that Cheltenham was a great example of what could be achieved. She then presented the award to the Chief Executive.

The Leader of the Council also congratulated officers for achieving IIP accreditation.

The Leader informed Members that the shadow Gloucestershire Economic Growth Joint Committee had held its first meeting yesterday. A report would be brought to Council on the process for approval of the Gloucestershire Strategic Economic Plan. He reported that a roadshow would be organised in March to provide an update on the strategic plan which would be submitted to the Government at the end of March. The County Council would also be inviting district representatives to their scrutiny meeting as this would be a countywide scrutiny process.

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

There were no public questions.

A debate on a petition received under the Council’s petition scheme

A member asked for guidance on behalf of members of the Planning committee in participating in the debate bearing in mind that a planning application for the Leckhampton site had been submitted.

In response the Head of Legal Services, advised Members that they may be wearing several hats in relation to this matter.  Firstly as a member of Council they were considering this petition, secondly all Members were formally involved in approving the JCS as a member of Council and thirdly some members would be dealing with the planning application for this land as a member of the Planning committee. It was common practice for members of a local authority to wear more than one hat and therefore he saw no impediment which would prevent any member from participating in the debate on this petition. What was important was that members recognised their respective role in each of these processes and kept an open mind as they moved from one process to another. On that basis a member could participate in the debate on the petition and still take part in a future debate at Council on the JCS as well as dealing with a planning application at Planning Committee in respect of this land.

The chair of the Planning Committee, Councillor Coleman, stressed that he was very capable of keeping an open mind. He was concerned that the advice just given appeared to contradict legal advice that the developers for this site could not attend a recent member seminar as this could prejudice future decisions on the application.

The Head of Legal Services explained the difference in status between the petition debate and the recent member presentation (which had been in private) and said that the subject of developer presentations was being taken forward as part of the current review of the Authority’s planning code of conduct. He stressed that it was a personal decision for all members as to whether to participate in the petition debate and he repeated his advice that it would not be necessary for any member of Planning Committee to exclude themselves from this debate simply because of their involvement in the impending decision on the planning application for the land.

Other members of the Planning committee felt the guidance was not clear and on that basis Councillors Coleman, Fisher, Jeffries and Fletcher left the meeting. 

The petitioner, Chris Nelson, introduced the petition.

He stated that the petition had received over a thousand signatures and it had been relatively easy to get people to sign it. He was confident that with a bit more time he could easily have got the support from 80% of residents in the Leckhampton ward, i.e. at least 4 000 people. The most significant concerns of residents were the traffic problems that the developments would cause in Shurdington and Church Road. A 40% increase in housing numbers in the ward would have a significant impact on the local infrastructure and compromise business and local traffic in the area.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

A report of the Cabinet Member Finance

The Mayor to propose that a recorded vote is held on any significant decision relating to this agenda item (including any amendments) as set out in Part 4A – Council Procedures Rule 14.5 as required by the ‘Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014’.

The Cabinet Member Finance introduced the report, the purpose of which was to enable the Council to set the Council Tax for 2014/15. The Council agreed its budget and level of Council Tax for 2014/15 at a meeting on 14 February 2014 and now it was required formally to approve the total Council Tax for residents of Cheltenham, including the Council Tax requirements of the precepting organisations, Gloucestershire County Council (GCC) and Gloucestershire Police.

The Cabinet Member Finance highlighted an error at Table E, Appendix 2 of the report in terms of the Council tax increase for the parish of Swindon Village which should read 7.61 %.

A recorded vote having been requested, upon a vote the recommendation in the report was unanimously CARRIED.

Voting for 24 : Councillors Britter, Chard, Coleman, Fisher, Flynn, Garnham, Hall, C Hay, R Hay, Jeffries, Jordan, Massey, McCloskey, McKinlay, Rawson, Regan, Reid, Seacome, Stewart, Sudbury, Thornton, Walklett, Wheeler, Whyborn

Against : 0

Abstentions: 0

The following motion has been proposed by Councillor Jordan and seconded by Councillor Garnham

This Council supports the campaign to complete the 'Missing Link' by seeking government funding for the A417 Loop which will improve safety, reduce pollution and help the economy

The Leader of the Council introduced the motion as outlined on the agenda and explained that there had never been simultaneously the right solution and the right funding for the A417 “Missing Link”. There was now however the opportunity to seek a single solution which would work for Gloucestershire. He explained that there was a county wide campaign to persuade the Government to fund the A417 Loop to the order of £255 million. This funding could not be achieved locally but it would now appear that there may be a chance that this project could be added to the national scheme of major road improvements to the benefit of all.

The Leader thanked Councillor Garnham and Godwin for their support. Councillor Garnham, as seconder of the motion urged the Cheltenham MP, Martin Horwood, to express his view.

Members supported the motion and highlighted how the accident figures for the stretch of the A417 concerned were significantly higher than the rest of the A417. They were unanimous in their view that safety was of paramount importance. In addition, the delays on this part of the A417 affected not only the economy of Gloucestershire but also of surrounding counties. Whilst other options had previously been suggested, this current option represented the only one which was likely to be taken forward.

Upon a vote the motion outlined was unanimously CARRIED.

RESOLVED THAT :

The campaign to complete the “Missing Link” by seeking government funding for the A417 Loop which will improve safety, reduce pollution and help the economy, be supported.

No petitions were received.

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 and 3, 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)

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 was likely that, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, if members of the public were present there will be disclosed to them exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1 and 3, Part (1) Schedule 12 A 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)

To approve the exempt minutes of the meeting held on 14 February 2014

The exempt minutes of the meeting held on 14 February 2014 were approved and signed as a correct record.