Agenda and minutes

Councillors Fletcher, Flynn, Harman, Holliday, Murch and Sudbury had given their apologies.

No interests were declared. 

To approve the minutes of meeting held on 13 October 2014

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 13 October 2014 be agreed and signed as an accurate record.  

The Mayor expressed his sadness at the recent passing away of Chic Webb and the Reverend Jeremy Whales. He was pleased that he had been able to present Chic Webb with an award at his Mayoral Inauguration ceremony. The Reverend Jeremy Whales had served the town as a Councillor, as Mayor, as an Alderman and as Chaplain to many previous Mayors and he had been a really nice gentleman. The Mayor asked Members to stand for a minutes silence in their remembrance.

The Leader advised that an Extraordinary Council Meeting had been arranged for 26 January 2015 following the county council meeting on 15 January to consider the Traffic Regulation Order for Cheltenham. The County Council had asked for an opinion from this Council to feed back into their final process.

The Leader advised that the report on the St Paul’s Transformation Project had been withdrawn from this meeting following concerns raised about the tenders going over budget. The matter would be reviewed and would come back to Cabinet/Council at a later date.

These must be received no later than 12 noon on Tuesday 9 December.

No public questions had been received.

Same deadline as public questions.

Fifteen Member questions had been received and the following response were given.

Report of the Chief Executive. The chair of the Independent Remuneration Panel, Paul Johnstone will be in attendance.

The Chief Executive introduced the report as circulated with the agenda.  The report explained that the Independent Remuneration Panel (IRP) had completed the statutory four yearly review of the Members Allowance Scheme and their recommendations for implementation from April 2015 were set out in paragraph 5 of the report. The full report of the IRP was attached as an appendix to the main report. He indicated that the chair of the IRP, Paul Johnstone, was in attendance to answer any questions that Members had on their report.

A Member was puzzled that the basic allowance seemed to be in line with other councils in the same family as Cheltenham whereas the Cabinet Member’s Special Responsibility Allowance (SRA) seemed much higher by comparison.

The chair of the IRP explained that the panel had set out to provide a matrix scheme for calculating all allowances which was transparent and could be open to change by Council. The factors in the scheme, which determined the SRAs, had been set by the panel after many different consultations with Members over several years and the scheme had been in place in its current form since 2006.  There had been no objections to the methodology adopted and Council had the option to revise any factors they felt needed adjustment.

A Member queried the £100 that was being recommended to be included in the basic allowance.

The chair of the IRP referred Members to the panel’s report where the panel explained that the additional sum was an allowance to Members for the use of their own home ICT, Wi-Fi and communication facilities. 

In response to a question from a Member, it was confirmed that the current scheme did provide provision for a Dependent Carer's Allowance.

A Member expressed a view that Members with a poor attendance record should not continue to receive their allowance.

Another Member challenged this view, saying that Members could often achieve more through their casework in their ward than they could in attending a council or committee meeting. In their view the Council should acknowledge the financial hardship that many of their residents were experiencing and take no increases in their allowances which he considered were adequate.

The Leader proposed an amendment to the recommendations set out in section 5 of the covering report in that 2) and 5) should be deleted. This would mean that no SRAs would receive the recommended 1% inflationary increase. In proposing the recommendation he thanked the panel for their work. He acknowledged that the Council could not freeze allowances indefinitely as they must be mindful of the need to attract new Councillors. On this basis he considered it was appropriate that the basic allowance was increased by 1% but not the SRAs.

Councillor Clucas seconded the amendment and this became the substantive motion.

Regarding the additional ICT component, she highlighted that Members with a council iPad still needed access to WiFi at home which did have a cost. She also stressed the importance of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Report of Cabinet Member Finance

The Cabinet Member Finance introduced the report and explained that this report was in accordance with the CIPFA Code of Practice on Treasury Management which recommended that Members were informed of Treasury Management activity at least twice a year. The report therefore ensured that the authority had adopted the code and complied with its requirements.

The Cabinet Member explained that the main ratings agencies may remove some of the institutions’ sovereign support following evolving regulatory changes and that this process may commence during this financial year. Therefore immediate changes to the credit methodology were required with the credit element of Capita’s future methodology in future focusing solely on the Short and Long Term ratings of each institution.

The Cabinet Member then explained that the report noted the Council’s portfolio position. He reported that external and short term borrowing were at a low level as the council was using internal borrowing to reduce costs. Long term borrowing in terms of the £1.4 m loan taken out in May 2014 on behalf of CBH was cost neutral for the council as CBH were repaying the Council in line with the repayment schedule. Investment growth had increased from £18m to £20.4 m due to increased short term lending. The Cabinet Member reported that the Council had operated within the treasury limits and Prudential Indicators set out in the Council’s Treasury Policy Statement and Annual Treasury Strategy Statement. He also reported that the average interest rate for temporary borrowing had been 0.33 % with lending at 0.63 %. He then took the opportunity to thank finance officers for their valued work.

A Member asked when the authority could expect to have recovered all the outstanding amounts from the Icelandic banks and how would Members be kept informed of progress.

The Cabinet Member referred Members to paragraph 4.6 in the report which indicated that the next dividend was expected to be paid out in early December 2014 and was estimated to be a 1p in the pound. The progress in recovering the debt would continue to be reported to the Treasury Management Panel. Some of the distribution from Glitnir’s Winding up was being held in an escrow account and although it could not be immediately realised, it was earning a good rate of interest. In response to a question from a Member, the Director of Resources indicated that the council was likely to receive around      £5,700 as a result of an imminent distribution of 1p in £. He would be reporting back to Council in February as part of his budget report. 

A Member asked whether any sensitivity analysis had been done on the projections for bank rates set out in the table in 6.1.

The Cabinet Member advised that it was a constantly moving picture and the council would be continuing to review the latest advice from their Treasury Management advisers.

In response to a question from a Member on the risk assessment in Appendix 1, the Director of Resources explained that a LOBO  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Report of Cabinet Member Finance

The Cabinet Member Finance introduced the report and explained that in December 2012 Council used its new discretionary powers to set the level of council tax discount awarded in respect of certain categories of empty properties which had previously been fully exempt. These new powers provided an opportunity to reduce the level of discounts as a measure to help bring empty properties back in to use and to increase council tax income. The policy had now been in place for a period of two financial years.

He explained that officers had been working with other districts to review the current levels in place and it was now being proposed to change the level of class C properties to 25 % for the first 6 month period after a property becomes unoccupied and substantially unfurnished, instead of 100 % for the first month and 25 % for the following 5 months.  It was hoped that this proposal would reduce the potential for dispute between landlord and tenant and generate additional income.

He indicated that the recommendations had been supported by the Budget Scrutiny Working Group.

A Member asked whether the Cabinet Member had considered giving no discount for Class D properties.

The Cabinet Member explained the rationale behind the 25% discount for up to 12 months which acknowledged the fact that landlords were not necessarily able to fill empty properties immediately. It also made sense for this council's policy to be broadly in line with other authorities in Gloucestershire.

Having declared an interest as a landlord, Councillor Seacome echoed this view and said in his experience a landlord could expect to rent a property on average for 10 months out of the year every year.

A Member suggested that there may be special cases where people may have been left an empty property by a family Member and they are not in the same position as a social landlord. In response the Cabinet Member said there were a number of concessions and exemptions which would cover this situation.

Upon a vote it was

RESOLVED (with 1 abstention from Councillor Seacome) that;

1.    The level of discount for class C empty properties be set at 25% for the first months.

2.    6 weeks as the minimum required period of re-occupation before further empty property discounts apply, be confirmed. 

Report of the Chief Executive

The Chief Executive introduced the report as circulated with the agenda. Following the resignation of Councillor Andrew Lansley, from the Liberal Democrats Group, there had been a change to the political balance of the Council, from 25 Lib Dems, 11 Conservatives and 4 PABs to 24,11,4 and 1 Independent Member.  As a result of this there were some minor adjustments to some committees in order that they could maintain political balance.  This matter had been discussed with the Group Leaders, who agreed the provisional options set out in the report, though the final decision was one for Council.  Councillor Lansley had also resigned as one of the two Councillors on the Public Art Panel and as the Group Leaders had not been able to reach agreement on the matter of which of the two nominations should be appointed, this was being referred to Council also. 

Upon a vote it was

RESOLVED that;

1.    The amendments to the size and Membership of the Planning Committee and the Appointments and Remuneration Committee remaining unchanged, as set out in paragraph 1.9 of the report, be approved.
Voting: unanimous

2.    Councillor Sudbury be appointed to sit on the Public Art Panel.
Voting; For 19, Against 9, Abstain 4

The following motion has been proposed by Councillor Roger Whyborn and seconded by Councillor Payne.

"Cheltenham Borough Council is pleased to note the proposals for an enhanced train service from Cheltenham to (especially) London within the Western Route Study Consultation, being conducted by Network Rail. However, this Council is very concerned that these much needed improvements are not projected to take place until 2019 at the earliest, rather than taking advantage of the recent doubling of tracks on the line between Kemble and Swindon, and also supporting the LEP growth strategy.

This Council also notes with approval that Cheltenham Spa Station features in the report as a candidate for improvement under NSIP (National Station Improvement Plan) and AfA (Access for All); this is in addition to funding offered by Gloucestershire Local Transport Board and other bids funded by this Council and partners at GCC for an improved Cycle-Rail link. However, the Council is concerned that station facilities are already under enormous strain from greatly increased levels of use in recent years, now expected to increase to 2 million journeys per annum; this Council is concerned that the limitations of access and parking, including disabled access, together with the London train service, are already restricting its use and hampering modal shift by passengers to rail.

Cheltenham Borough Council therefore urges Network Rail and First Great Western to do all in their power to expedite improvements to both the rail station and the train service and the authority is willing and keen to engage with all stakeholders in order to facilitate further improvements (e.g. car parking capacity and terminating train constraints), and to help secure the associated funding."

Councillor Whyborn, seconded by Councillor Payne, proposed the following motion which had been circulated with the agenda together with a proposed draft letter to be sent by the Leader in response to the consultation referred to in the motion.

 
"Cheltenham Borough Council is pleased to note the proposals for an enhanced train service from Cheltenham to (especially) London within the Western Route Study Consultation, being conducted by Network Rail. However, this Council is very concerned that these much needed improvements are not projected to take place until 2019 at the earliest, rather than taking advantage of the recent doubling of tracks on the line between Kemble and Swindon, and also supporting the LEP growth strategy.

This Council also notes with approval that Cheltenham Spa Station features in the report as a candidate for improvement under NSIP (National Station Improvement Plan) and AfA (Access for All); this is in addition to funding offered by Gloucestershire Local Transport Board and other bids funded by this Council and partners at GCC for an improved Cycle-Rail link. However, the Council is concerned that station facilities are already under enormous strain from greatly increased levels of use in recent years, now expected to increase to 2 million journeys per annum; this Council is concerned that the limitations of access and parking, including disabled access, together with the London train service, are already restricting its use and hampering modal shift by passengers to rail.

Cheltenham Borough Council therefore urges Network Rail and First Great Western to do all in their power to expedite improvements to both the rail station and the train service and the authority is willing and keen to engage with all stakeholders in order to facilitate further improvements (e.g. car parking capacity and terminating train constraints), and to help secure the associated funding."

In proposing the motion, Councillor Whyborn explained that he was proposing it on the behalf of the Rail scrutiny task group which he chaired. The task group was bringing this motion to Council in order to meet the consultation deadline for responding to the Western Route Study Consultation. He acknowledged the work that had already been done, Ied by the Cheltenham development task force managing director, Jeremy Williamson, to put together bids for funding to improve Cheltenham Station.

He highlighted the inadequate facilities and indicated that there was evidence that people were using other modes of transport to reach intermediate stations to London rather than use Cheltenham Station with its parking and access difficulties. He acknowledged that some people were keen to keep the station unchanged but he highlighted that it was expected that the façade would be maintained whilst the much-needed improvements were made.

Councillor Payne was pleased to be able to support the motion. He highlighted that the rail study covered the next 30 years with 2019 to 2024 being the central period. Although the need to upgrade the station had been recognized there was no guarantee that it would be completed in that central period. It was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

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 paragraph ?, Part (1) Schedule (12A) Local Government Act 1972, namely:

Paragraph 3; Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular

person (including the authority holding that information)

The requirement to move into exempt session was no longer necessary given that the report, to which the exemption applied, had been withdrawn.

Report of the Cabinet Member Housing (this item has been withdrawn from this meeting and will be tabled at a later date)

This item had been withdrawn and would be tabled at a later date.