Agenda and minutes

Councillors Hibbert and Garnham had given apologies and Councillors Godwin and Seacome were in attendance as their respective substitutes.

Councillor Britter had advised that he would be a little late and subsequently arrived at 5.50pm. 

Councillor Seacome declared a personal interest in agenda item 8 (Imperial and Montpellier Gardens Strategy) as an observer on the Cheltenham Festivals Board.

Minutes of meeting held on the 19 January 2011

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 19 January 2011 be agreed and signed as an accurate record.

To be received no later than 10am on Wednesday 23 February 2011

No public questions were received.

1. By Council
2. By Cabinet

The Chair highlighted the decision by Council for the continuation of the Budget Working Group with existing membership, which included committee members Councillors Britter and Hibbert.  The committee were happy with this proposal.

Cabinet Member Sustainability

Cabinet Member Built Environment

The Cabinet Member Built Environment told that following the marketing of North Place and Portland Street to potential developers at the end of January, over 100 proposals to regenerate the site against the project brief had been received.   This was very encouraging and following the deadline next week, all would be asked to complete a pre-qualification questionnaire.   From 2 finalists the Cabinet agreed matrix would be followed which balanced cost and environment.  He hoped to have a preferred developer by the end of the year, ready to enter into a contract as it would be a great success and step forward.

Gloucestershire County Council (GCC) were continuing with traffic modelling on Boots Corner to assess the feasibility of closing it, which would require diversions elsewhere.

GCC were looking to undertake an experiment with the traffic light system on St. Margarets Road.  This was very delicate and engineers were currently reviewing safety issues.  The Cabinet Member Built Environment did feel that the traffic along the road in question was very slow and congested.  He would keep Members informed given the importance of the issue for the town.

The Council continued to encourage the owners of the Brewery site to link it with the lower high street, which would be a considerable improvement and revitalise the area.  The Council were keen to see this happen but this was a commercial decision and as such he would only be able to keep Members informed of any developments.  Were the proposals to be taken forward there would be a need for statutory consultation. 

He had recently embarked on the commissioning review of ‘Sustainable Communities’ which included Planning, etc.  At present an assessment of the needs of the town and residents was underway and he was keen to involve members.  He suggested that a Cabinet  Working Group including members from the committee as well as members of the Planning Committee and preferably cross party would be useful in guiding the process.

The following responses were given by the Cabinet Member Built Environment to questions from members of the committee;

• The experiment on St. Margarets Road and Boots Corner were in the hands of the traffic engineers at Shire Hall.  Traffic modelling had identified benefits in some areas and the opposite in others and they were now looking at how to address the issues. Modelling and projections had revealed problems as traffic levels increased which would over load a number of junctions.  He personally felt that there were opportunities to make better use of road capacity in Cheltenham and its wide one way roads but no changes would be made at the expense of safety. 
• Phase 2 of the Brewery development was crucial to the town but some issues were commercially sensitive. 
• Potential developers were issued with a development brief which set out various requirements for housing, open space, transport infrastructure, etc, but this was relatively flexible between residential and commercial.  The ultimate aim was to achieve a development which was judged as highly against  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Discussion paper of the Policy and Partnerships Manager

The Policy and Partnerships Manager introduced the report as circulated with the agenda.

The objective and outcomes framework had been retained, though as the council’s budget had reduced by nearly £3m from last year and the scale of activity had reduced with 14 less improvement actions.

Members would not be surprised by the improvement actions as 11 had been retained from the previous year.  Item 3.1 of the report set out the outcomes that were directly applicable to the work of the committee.

Government had lifted the national indicator set which had been welcomed as it presented an opportunity to reflect on indicators used to measure corporate performance and choose new indicators which could be more meaningful. 

To ensure that the formal views of the members were captured the draft strategy would be considered by all three overview and scrutiny committees.  It had been considered by Social and Community O&S and would go to Economy & Business Improvement on Monday (7 March), before going to Cabinet on the 15 March and then to Council on the 28 March for final approval. 

Feedback from the O&S committees would be included in the final report or in a verbal update from the Leader.

Councillor Wheeldon was keen for ‘sustainable’ to be included in the outcome relating to access to decent and affordable housing, given that a house may be affordable to buy but not necessarily to run. 

The following responses were given by the Policy and Partnerships Manager to questions from members of the committee;

• The 2005 CO2 emissions baseline could be used if this was what other organisations used, thus making it easier to compare performance.  This would be raised with the Climate Change and Sustainability Officer.
•  The indicators for ‘Cheltenham’s natural and built environment is enhanced and protected’ had previously been satisfaction indicators from the Place Survey.  As this was no longer being undertaken and given that the Council was not in a position to collect the information itself, this would need to be further reviewed as admittedly the indicator was entirely administrative.
• Apprentices were an indicator within the ‘Cheltenham is able to recover quickly and strongly from the recession’. 
• The question marks had been completed since the draft strategy was circulated.  A completed version would be circulated for Council. 
• The indicators relating to cleanliness had been amended and would now focus on waste collection.
• The targets for households living in temporary accommodation and number of homelessness acceptances had been set in anticipation of increases following the changes to housing benefits.

The Chair thanked the Policy and Partnerships Manager for his attendance and commended him for a well analysed response to the workforce challenges within the introduction of the strategy.

He thanked the Chair for her kind words and clarified that this extract of the introduction had been drafted by the Assistant Director – Human Resources and Organisational Development.

Discussion paper of the Cabinet Member Sustainability

The Cabinet Member Sustainability introduced the paper as circulated with the agenda.

The strategy was born of two elements, the first, Cheltenham Festivals (CF) requests for a review of the design and usage of the Gardens to allow expansion due to increased demand and the second, concerns of residents about the increased use of Imperial Gardens and resulting standards of the gardens.

This culminated in a public petition which was debated at Council in December and resulted in a request that Cabinet attempt to resolve the issues, which in turn should be reviewed by the relevant O&S Committees (Environment and Economy & Business Improvement). 

There were no easy answers, simply saying yes to one and no to the other was not an option given how important both CF and the gardens were to the town. 

In consideration of all the issues, as set out in item 3 of the paper, two options were developed.

Option 1 favoured the primary use of the gardens as a public garden and denying CF increased usage of Imperial Gardens.  Restricting CF to the lower tier of Imperial Gardens and reducing tentage would resolve resident concerns but would not address CF’s issues. 

Option 2 provided an opportunity to redesign Imperial Gardens to accommodate CF, achieving a ‘festival within a garden’ feel and allowing use of Montpellier Gardens.  Whilst offering a lower capacity in Imperial Gardens, it would allow expansion into Montpellier Gadens and the positioning of flowerbeds between tents would ensure the retained look and feel of the garden whether the tents were up or down.  This would be beneficial to festival goers too. 

The Cabinet Member Sustainability echoed the comments at Council about the desire to reopen Skillicorne Gardens. 

The Chair explained that she would now allow speakers on behalf of CF, Friends of Imperial Square and Gardens (FoISaG) and Friends of Montpellier Bandstand and Gardens (FoMBaG).  

Adrian Hensley of CF introduced himself to the committee.  He welcomed the paper which he felt, moving forward, opened constructive discussion.

The proposed limit to use of the gardens to 75 days had necessitated in depth discussions with the relevant contractors in an effort to identify opportunities to reduce the time spent building and removing the tents.  Access was key as this had a direct impact on the period CF were in the gardens. 

A larger site would result in a shorter festival, whilst a smaller site would require a longer festival period in order that it were financially viable.

Future decisions about size and duration of various festivals would be greatly affected by the design of the gardens.  If permitted expansion, CF would need to be involved in discussions regarding design in order that CF were not hindered by the design, given that walkways between tents were specific widths, etc.

From CF’s point of view improvements to the infrastructure were required, improved external water and power supplies would make for more efficient festivals and negate the need to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Discussion paper of the Assistant Director – Operations

This item was taken after the Internal Carbon Reduction Working Group update. 

The Assistant Director – Operations, introduced the paper as circulated with the agenda, which in effect was a position statement based on the circumstances at the time that it was drafted.  The issue required a very fluid approach given the complexities of having 4 partners.

The paper offered a direction of travel and things were moving forward but at present there was not enough clarity for an informed debate.  Reports were scheduled to go to Cabinet in July and September which this committee were invited to consider.

In response to a question from a member of the committee the Assistant Director – Operations confirmed that the costs of accommodation were subject to separate agreements and a plan was in place to establish a fair market value in the future.   

The Chair thanked the Assistant Director for his attendance and what she felt was a very well written paper which she had enjoyed reading.  The risk assessment gave cause for concern but on a positive note she was relieved to see that they had been identified.

Verbal update from ICRWG members

This item was taken before the Joint Waste Governance Arrangement item as Councillor Wheeldon, a member of the Internal Waste Working Group had to leave.

The Chair introduced the item and explained that the verbal update came in anticipation of the formal report back to the committee from the working group.

Councillors Wheeldon, Bickerton and McCloskey introduced themselves as members of the Internal Carbon Reduction Working Group (ICRWG).

Councillor Wheeldon confirmed that the first activity of the ICRWG was to establish the baseline CO2 emissions against which progress would be measured and the group chose the 2005 figure that many other organisations used.  This covered emissions from energy use in buildings, the vehicle fleet and business travel and excluded figures from Cheltenham Borough Homes. 

The Council had undertaken various energy saving initiatives over the last few years, switching to low energy lighting, installing time switches, etc and each of these relatively small things had equated to a reduction of almost 500 tonnes of carbon emissions since 2005, which was a substantial cut.

The comment by the Cabinet Member Sustainability earlier in the meeting about setting a target reduction of 30% by 2015 had come as a pleasant surprise.  Friends of the Earth had made a presentation to the working group on their ‘Get Serious’ campaign and challenged the Council to set a target reduction of 40% across the Borough by 2020.  The working group felt that they were unable to commit to a borough-wide reduction but did feel that such a reduction by the Council was feasible.

Invest to save had been another area of work for the group and the need to consider initiatives with a longer term payback period would form one of the recommendations of the working group back to the committee.  Whilst aware of the budget constraints, saving energy equated to saving money. 

In October 2011 the Councils electricity contract was due for renewal.  Were the Council to switch to a wholly green source it could reduce its carbon emissions by up to 25%, but the increased cost would need to be offset against this. 

Councillor Bickerton explained that the current initiatives were similar to those being undertaken by people in their homes, investing in LED light, etc.  However, making the change to a greener electricity supplier would provide a much larger scale impact. 

Other options could include using solar panels to create electricity which would require a big investment and a payback period of around 10 years.  Perhaps in the future the Council could consider replacing its fleet with electric vehicles when prices were more reasonable. 

Councillor Wheeldon interjected, there was an urgency to the solar panel decision because the financial viability of any project depended on the national feed-in tariff scheme.  Prices were fixed for applicants entering the scheme before April 2012 and applied for 25 years thereafter, but the Government and could change the tariff levels and rules for applications after that date.  This could mean that any project planned  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

The Chair referred members to the work plan and explained that two items formerly schedule for discussion at this meeting had been deferred.  Members had received a briefing note for Street Scene Enforcing which explained the reason for the delay.  The Supplementary Planning Document 2011-12 Work Plan had been deferred as the relevant Officer was ill.  Both items would be scheduled for discussion at a later date.

Members were reminded that this was the last meeting of the 2010-11 year.  Prior to the next meeting, the first of 2011-12, a draft work plan would be developed.  This would be presented to the next meeting of the committee as the first item on the agenda for discussion and approval.

The Chair felt the committee had, had a good year of robust overview and scrutiny and thanked all Members and Officers for their involvement, specifically those working groups which had achieved some excellent results.

She thanked Pat Pratley the Lead Officer and Saira Malin the Democracy Officer for their hard work and support over the last year and Councillor Britter in his role as Vice-Chair of the committee.

All members repaid thanks to the Chair.

There were no urgent items for discussion.

11 May 2011

The next meeting was scheduled for the 11 May 2011.