Agenda, decisions and minutes

There were none.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 16 October 2012.

The minutes of the meeting held on 16 October were approved and signed as a correct record.

There were none.

Report of the Cabinet Member Sustainability

The Cabinet Member Sustainability introduced the report which was circulated with the agenda. He explained that a motion had been laid before Council in February 2012 to change the existing 30 % reduction in carbon emissions target to a 40 % reduction target by 2020. Council had referred the matter to Environment Overview & Scrutiny Committee which, at its meeting on 29 February 2012, recommended that a case be established for achieving the target prior to a decision being made.

In terms of progress towards achieving 30 % reduction by 2015 the Cabinet Member Sustainability explained that 25 % had already been committed and he was confident that the full 30 % could be reached. With regard to achieving a further 10 % by 2020 there were ways for this to be achieved but the routes towards this would require a lot more work and more imaginative thinking. If zero carbon electricity did become available to purchase it would deliver a major carbon saving but it would be at a cost and an organisation the size of CBC cannot currently buy that quantity of zero carbon energy.

Gill Morris, Climate Change and Sustainability Officer, was invited to address Cabinet. She referred to the detail laid down in Appendix 2 Section 2 in terms of projects planned, underway or recently completed which assuming they were delivered as anticipated would give 11.1 % of savings. Section 3 outlined potential future options.

Members welcomed the report and the commitment to reducing the Council’s carbon footprint. Officers were commended for their hard work in what they had achieved to date.

The Leader said that despite the recession this was still the right time to be looking at investing in the future and to keep focussing on reducing CO2 emissions.

RESOLVED that :

1.   Cabinet agrees to keep the current carbon reduction target of 30% by 2015, and approves further work to:

·     explore the potential for Smart metering to help in Bridging the Gap

·     continue to explore other initiatives to deliver financial and carbon savings

2.   Cabinet aspires to a target of 40% by 2020 and approves further work to:

·     look in more detail at the case for installing a biomass boiler at Leisure@ as a potential replacement for the combined heat and power (CHP) unit on expiry of the lease in 2015

·     explore additional projects which reduce the council’s carbon footprint

3.   Cabinet requires consideration of carbon emissions as a key criterion in developing the accommodation strategy

4.   Cabinet requests that cabinet reports relating to all future council projects identify the likely impact on the council’s carbon emissions

Report of the Cabinet Member Housing and Safety

The Cabinet Member Housing and Safety introduced the report and invited Acting Inspector Tim Hutchinson to address Cabinet.

Acting Inspector Tim Hutchinson explained that four hotspots of antisocial behaviour had been identified in the centre of town i.e. St Mary’s Churchyard, Outside McDonalds, High Street and Jenner Gardens. Consultation has been undertaken in the area with community groups, businesses, councillors and residents in order to get a better understanding of the problem. Anti-social behaviour (asb) was having a negative effect on the quality of life for individuals and communities alike within the area. Those consulted were therefore supportive of a dispersal order in order to reduce asb incidents. In terms of publicity, posters had been displayed in shop windows around the border of the proposed dispersal order zone inviting comments on the proposal. No negative responses had been received.

Acting Inspector Tim Hutchinson stated that the Dispersal Order would give the Police an additional tool to tackle anti-social behaviour in a preventative and proactive rather than a reactive way. It would also empower the Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) to deal with antisocial behaviour. He explained that if issued the Dispersal Order would require 2 or more individuals to leave the designated area for up to 24 hours. There were special provisions created under the 2003 Anti-Social Behaviour Act empowering the police to remove to their home any young person under 16 who is out on the streets in a dispersal zone between 9pm and 6aman not accompanied by an adult. He emphasised that by implementing the order there would not be an increase in policing as PCSOs were present in the town centre every day. He referred to the updated Dispersal Order Protocol which had been tabled and which is attached to these minutes for information. The Protocol sets out how the Order is put into practice.  He also explained that once the period of authorisation for the dispersal order had expired the Police would report back to the Anti Social Behaviour Steering Group and Cabinet.

When asked by a member whether this was a heavy handed tool, the Acting Inspector clarified that the aim was to engage with those people who were involved in antisocial behaviour before issuing the order. It was hoped that the majority would respond to this. A person does not commit an offence because an officer had chosen to use the power to disperse, but failure to follow the officer’s directions constituted an offence. The Police would also work in partnership with other agencies so the underlying causes of antisocial behaviour could be addressed.

Members recognised that the town centre was perceived as a troubled place but highlighted the fact that the police had been very successful in driving down antisocial behaviour and other types of crime and its work was supported by the borough council and other organisations. Members felt that if the Police were of the view that issuing a dispersal order would assist in addressing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

There were no updates from Members.

The Leader of the Council referred to a decision he had made in awarding the final allocation from the Promoting Cheltenham Fund.

The Cabinet Member Corporate Services referred to a decision he had made that day on the community right to challenge which aims to give community and voluntary sector groups, charities, parish and town councils and groups of council staff the opportunity to bid for the running of council services.

At the Leader’s discretion Mr Chris Meehan, who had indicated he wished to ask a question, was invited to address Cabinet. He asked what implications there were for union members should a bid be accepted. In response the Leader clarified that as implications could be significant this would certainly form part of the negotiations.

The Cabinet Member Sport & Culture informed Cabinet she had recently taken a decision on allocating £50k to building youth resilience which had been match funded by the County Council. This fund had generated huge interest and included input from the Positive Participation partnership, the Positive Lives partnership and a council member group. There was a good spread of funds across the town.