Agenda and draft minutes

Councillor Stewart had given his apologies.

No interests were declared.

18 January 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 18 January 2012 be agreed and signed as an accurate record.

None received

No public questions had been received.

1. By Council
2. By Cabinet

Council had referred a motion to the committee;

This council is fully committed to reduce its output of greenhouse gases and therefore resolves that;

Our current target of a 30% reduction by 2015 should be brought in line with other public bodies and changed to a 40% reduction target by 2020 subject to consideration by scrutiny.

The Chair proposed that this matter should be discussed as part of Agenda Item 10 (Climate Change Working Group).  Members agreed.

Cabinet Member Built Environment

Cabinet Member Sustainability

The Cabinet Member Built Environment was not in a position to be able to update Members regarding the financial discussions that were currently ongoing in relation to the North Place and Portland Street development, but was able to provide information relating to the pre-application process.  He assured Members that the feedback received during the public consultation had given rise to further consideration to aspects of the planned development, including the number of parking spaces and the style of buildings.  The aim being to improve the plans before a formal plan emerged.  The Cabinet Member Built Environment acknowledged the concern raised in regard to parking during the development works at North Place and Portland Street and agreed to meet with Councillor Wheeldon, ward Councillor for St. Paul’s and a representative from the University of Gloucestershire to discuss the possibility of using the Prince of Wales Stadium. 

An upshot of the Portas report into the future of the High Street was that Government were making monies available through the Local Economic Partnerships for local high streets.  Consideration was currently being given to whether there were any schemes within the report that could be pioneered in Cheltenham, though he was not entirely convinced that any funding application for Cheltenham would be unproblematic in comparison to applications by other towns and/or cities.

The Managing Director of Cheltenham Development Task Force would be asked to circulate a detailed summary of information to Members regarding the part time bus routes at Boots Corner.  The Cabinet Member was aware of the concerns raised by the Chamber of Commerce in relation to this issue.

The road markings identifying the area opposite RBS as disabled parking had been removed when the road had been resurfaced and were yet to be reinstated and whilst he was confident that they would be, he would need to check this with Highways before providing misinformation.  He would email Members following a discussion with Highways. 

In relation to the event submissions item which featured later on the agenda, the aim was to improve an existing process.  Expo 2012 threw up limited problems compared to the street racing planned until 2013-14, which would require an Act of Parliament.  Events such as these involved a number of authorities, all of which had to work together and be clear about Councillor and public views.  It was only after these views had been captured through consultation that any problems could be mitigated or a proposal deemed impractical. 

He considered the incident in which a pedestrian was injured by a rising bollard to be an isolated one, though admittedly when they were first installed there were cases where vehicles tailgating buses had been damaged.  He would monitor the issue and clearly, were there any similar occurrences the bollards would need to be reconsidered. 

The Cabinet Member Built Environment was aware that there had been discussions between the Mayor Elect, Councillor C. Hay and the Lord Lieutenant regarding an event for the Jubilee but was not privy to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Discussion paper of the Policy and Partnerships Manager

The Strategy and Engagement Manager introduced the draft Corporate Strategy action plan 2012-13 which was the second annual update of the Corporate Strategy. 

He offered some context to how the document had been prepared.  The Senior Leadership Team had introduced a change to last year’s strategy with the addition of value for money as a core objective running across all outcomes.  Given the intensity of work centred on commissioning reviews the strategy recognised that commissioning should help define outcomes and the strategy reflected the commissioner/provider split.  The final piece of context was partnership working.  The new partnership structure was now in place and partners had identified 6 areas for collaborative work towards improvement actions.  He acknowledged that these actions mostly related to the remit of the Social and Community overview and scrutiny committee.

This had led to proposed improvement actions and whilst there were a number of these improvement actions, this reflected where the Council was as an organisation.  Many were longer term commitments and he hoped that Members would be familiar with them.  He was acutely aware of the resource implications associated with the delivery of these actions and had identified services where this would pose a particular strain (HR, Built Environment and Commissioning) and this identification had put the relevant Directors at ease.

This was an ambitious agenda and he did not propose to go through it in detail, Social and Community had considered an initial draft in January, EBI would consider it next week and Cabinet the week after, with final sign off by Council in March.  Members were assured that there was still an opportunity for them to have influence.

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

• The action plan reflected a prioritised list of activities and the resource checks had offered a degree of confidence that it was deliverable. 
• He welcomed and accepted the comments regarding older people and confirmed that the partnership acknowledged that this should be an area of focus, especially given the number of old people that live in the borough and the challenges of enabling older people to lead independent lives.  There was also some work to do in relation to inclusion and he would feed this back to the partnership.
• The issue of affordable housing provision was something that would need to be looked at in detail and it may be something that the new scrutiny committee would wish to take forward.
• The point about missing references to links with the Police Commissioner was welcomed as it was appreciated that this could offer a commissioning opportunity that Cheltenham should not miss.
• Support and advice for local business had proved very popular and he was keen that something be provided but having a contract in place by 2012 could be overly ambitious and the timescale could change before the draft plan was approved. 
• The new partnership structures are looking to align partnership resources to support the new partnership priorities.  .  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Discussion paper of the Head of Integrated Transport & Sustainability

The Chair advised the Committee and members of the public, that this item had been added to the agenda at her request and in response to the level of public concern regarding events in the town, specifically, Expo 2012 and proposals for motor racing events in the town centre in 2013 and 2014.  These events however, were not open to discussion, the paper aimed to explain the ‘Event Submission’ Framework so that Members could glean a greater understanding of the process, no specifics would be discussed.  She proposed that Members may like to suggest amendments or add to it. 

The Cheltenham Business Partnership Manager introduced the paper in the absence of the author of the paper, the Head of Integrated Transport & Sustainability and echoed the comments of the Chair that he was unable to formally comment on any matters relating to specific events.  The paper focussed on the process event organisers should follow if an event will impact the environment of the town, wherever that may be.

He had himself, considered the paper and identified some omissions.  There were no timescales, which should be an important part of any submission, nor was there any criteria by which a ‘major’ event was identifiable.  He felt that it was equally important that event organisers were aware of what was expected of them.  The process that was being proposed, suggested that;

• Organisers of major events collate a detailed proposal which is submitted to an Officer (it was yet to be determined who this would/should be). 
• The Officer then circulates the proposal to relevant departments and stakeholders inviting their input.  The Officer responsible for circulating the proposal would collate all responses.
• The proposal, including any responses would be passed back to the event organiser, who would be asked to answer any questions and address any concerns before submitting a formal proposal.
• Relevant departments, agencies and stakeholders would then meet to consider the final proposal, having satisfied them selves that all interested parties had been involved in discussions.

The following comments were made by Members of the Committee;

• An issue regarding events had arisen in the last 6 months at Pittville Park and Councillor Hibbert, as Ward Councillor, was not convinced that the outline process being proposed would have resolved the issue.  She felt that it was for the Council to undertake consultation in relation to such events, in order that it be thorough, given that event organisers could be selective, whether this was intentional or not.  She proposed that the event organiser should pay a fee for the Council to undertake such work and most importantly, the Ward Councillors must be made aware of any such consultations. 
• Whilst it was not for scrutiny to micromanage, it must ensure that any process is working effectively and the suggestion was that at present, it was not.  The document must contain criteria and timescales and a question was raised about the broader issue of whether decisions to fund events should be made before permissions were sought.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Discussion paper of the Principal Engineer - Land Drainage

The need for Councillor Wheeldon to depart by 8pm necessitated this item being taken after Agenda Item 10 (Climate Change Working Group).

The Principal Engineer (Land Drainage) introduced the discussion paper which offered Members an update on flood risk activities since the matter was last reviewed by the Committee in September 2011.

He highlighted some of the schemes which had been completed since the last update, detailing the number of properties that had benefited and explaining how.  He also talked through some of the schemes which were in progress, how many properties were at risk and what options were being considered to alleviate the risk of flooding. 

The Chair thought back to the floods in 2007 and took comfort from the knowledge that such works were being undertaken. 

The Principal Engineer provided the following responses to questions from Members of the committee;

• The rainfall in Cheltenham in June 2007 was not a 100 year event, but the July 2007 was, only just and this was not an exact science.
• He imagined the water that pooled around Neptune’s fountain and at the rear of the Municipal Offices was due to inefficient road gulleys and he would raise this with Gloucestershire Highways.
• The issue of Hatherley Brook had already been highlighted and though it was suggested that the consequences of any issue in this area would be very small, the matter would be addressed.

Councillor Garnham advised Members of his upcoming visit to Oxford University, where he had been invited to speak on education of Councillors about flooding. 

The Chair thanked the Principal Engineer (Land Drainage) for his patience and for all of the work that had been done. 

Discussion paper of the Climate Change Working Group (to be presented by the Chair of the working group, Councillor Wheeldon)

The need for Councillor Wheeldon to depart by 8pm necessitated this item being taken before Agenda Item 9 (Flood Protection Update).

Councillor Wheeldon, Chair of the Climate Change Working Group, introduced the discussion paper, which summarised the work undertaken by the working group.  Council had agreed a motion that recommended the purchase of zero carbon electricity from a green energy provider be a major consideration when choosing the new supplier and this contract was due to be awarded tomorrow (1 March).  Members of the working group had been invited to attend and based on evidence from Bristol City Council who had undertaken a similar exercise, prices were shown to be more comparable with current costs.  The voltage optimisation device that had been fitted at Leisure@ was incompatible with the combined heat and power unit and had therefore been removed and installed at the Town Hall.  Two replacement cremators had been installed, these were far more efficient than the last and given that the crematorium used such a large quantity of gas, this would achieve a substantial impact.   A late addition to the working group agenda had been the issue of air quality after Cheltenham was declared an Air Quality Management Area, which directly related to Climate Change as it was a result of car emissions.  Climate change and the resulting extreme weather events had affected Cheltenham and were likely to again and he was therefore pleased that climate change adaptation would be considered by Officers as part of the commissioning process.

In addition to this he had proposed a motion to Council, who had in turn, referred the matter to scrutiny for consideration;

This council is fully committed to reduce its output of greenhouse gases and therefore resolves that;

Our current target of a 30% reduction by 2015 should be brought in line with other public bodies and changed to a 40% reduction target by 2020 subject to consideration by scrutiny.

Other authorities had adopted the target that was being proposed and this would allow for comparisons to be more easily drawn.  It would also be inextricably linked with long term revenue savings as any reduction in energy consumption would result in lower energy bills.  There was a question about what return was sought for initiatives which required capital funding.  Other authorities aimed to achieve an 8-10% return but no such figure had been set for this Council and he felt this needed to be done as a priority.

Councillor Wheeldon offered the following responses to questions from Members of the Committee;

• Capacity issues with regard to the Smarter Travel Plan related specifically to the ability of Officers to undertake and complete the work involved in its development.
• Just as the working group had decided to go ahead with solar panels, Government had cut the scheme, but the cost of solar panels had since come down by approximately 30%.  It was likely that costs would fall further over the next 12 months and, once an acceptable payback period could  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

The Chair explained that whilst this was the last meeting of the committee before the new scrutiny arrangements were put in place, the existing committees would remain and have all the functions as set out in the constitution until May, when the new scrutiny committee was appointed.  Until that time, should there be a need to call-in any decision or any urgent matter, existing committees would deal with them and the current chairs should be the first point of contact.

A discussion paper had been circulated last week, which invited members to give their thoughts on the regular and outstanding items from the Environment work plan and how they should be dealt with in the future.  The options would be for them to be considered by the new overview and scrutiny committee, to be the subject of a scrutiny task group or a potential item for a member seminar or briefing. 

Members talked through each of the regular and outstanding items listed on the work plan that had been circulated and the issues raised throughout the meeting and agreed the recommendations to the new scrutiny committee (see attached). 

The Chair took the opportunity to say how much she had enjoyed her role as Chair and thanked each and every Member for their commitment and hard work and the Vice-Chair for his valued support.  Thanks were also given to the Lead Officer, the Executive Director and the Democracy Officer for their outstanding efforts which had played such an important part in the successes over the last few years.  She felt the Committee had undertaken some truly valuable work, but events over the last week had crystallized in her mind, the need for the new scrutiny arrangements. 

Councillor Fletcher led Members in thanking the Chair for the way in which she had undertaken her role with such dedication; welcoming issues, encouraging debate and effectively overseeing meetings.

There were no urgent items for discussion.