Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors McLain and Surgenor.

None.

The minutes of the last meeting of 23 May 2011 were approved subject to Councillor Walklett being recorded as in attendance.

None

1. By Council - None
2. By Cabinet - None

None.

Report of the Cabinet Member (40 mins)

The chair reminded members that the committee should focus on the financial aspects of the strategy and not the environmental aspects which were the remit of another committee. He expressed his disappointment that the information provided to EBI was so much lighter than what had now been published for the Cabinet meeting on 26 July 2011.  Despite the austere times, the council was about to commit £140K of public money into the redesign of Imperial and Montpellier Gardens primarily to meet the expansion needs of Cheltenham Festivals(CF). Before committing this amount of public money the committee needed to understand the value added by the investment to residents in the area and to local residents and visitors to the town who enjoy the Gardens but may have no interest in the festivals.

Another member questioned why an expectation had not been set at the start that in order to obtain funding from the council, CF would need to provide a business case. CF was an independent organisation and should be no different to any other organisation seeking funding from the council. This committee had only been given high-level figures and as such it was impossible to make a judgement and left many questions unanswered.

In response the Cabinet Member Sustainability said that he understood members wanted more information and he had done his best to provide it. He advised that the economic information supplied to the committee was no different to that in the Cabinet report. The economic business case was backed up by research carried out by the consultants on behalf of CF who had concluded that the festivals brought £5.2 million to the local economy, a large sum of money. He suggested that the committee was not trying to evaluate the value of CF but where the festivals were best accommodated. In his view it did not require a great deal of study to conclude that the best option for the economy of Cheltenham was the town centre.

The chair responded that clearly the festivals were important to the economy of the town but there was no way of verifying the figures provided by CF. It was equally important to ensure the Gardens were not compromised as they provided a year-round recreational area for local residents and enhanced the visitor experience which in itself must reflect on the local economy. The important question was the added value from the proposed £140k spend.

The Cabinet Member Sustainability responded that the majority of the £140K spend was for improving the gardens regardless of CF but he acknowledged that some of the infrastructure work would not be required. In relation to the benefits being quoted, the sum of £140K was not huge. He did not consider it was a good use of officer time or council resources to spend money on consultants to verify the figures.

The chair said that the committee had not mentioned consultants and in his view officers within the Council should have been able to provide the information.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Report of the Leader (20 mins)

The Policy and Partnerships Manager introduced the report and invited questions.

Members welcomed the improved format of the report and felt it was now pitched at the right level. Generally it demonstrated a very positive performance and gave reasons for why performance had gone up as well as down.

There was some discussion regarding visitor numbers to the Tourist Information Centre (TIC) going down and why the number of accommodation bookings made through the TIC had also decreased. A member suggested that this could be explained by more people accessing the web site for information which did not currently have an accommodation booking facility.

The Leader advised that the TIC did receive a commission from any bookings they made so this would be an issue to monitor, particularly when the TIC moved to the Art Gallery and Museum.

In response to a question regarding the delay to the St Paul’s regeneration project reported in paragraph 3.1, the Leader advised that Gloucestershire Highways were notified of the need for road closures but subsequently couldn’t do the work in the timescales they had previously agreed with the council.

A member asked whether the Leader could confirm that the take-up of the green waste scheme would enable the 40% target for household waste recycling to be achieved. The Leader advised that the Q1 figures were still awaited but he expected that target to be achieved.

A member commented that the absolute figures quoted for reduction in carbon emissions did not give members a view on their significance. The Policy and Partnership Manager agreed to supply more information on the figures.

A question was asked about the absence level in the Operations area and the main reason being musculoskeletal, whether the workforce profile (age) might be an issue. The Director People, Organisational Development and Change advised there were a number of factors, including the demanding physical nature of work. Around 50% of workers in that area were over 45years of age.  The absence issue was being addressed through a specific action plan currently under development. 

Members requested more information on the targets for the number of apprentices on placement with the council.

The Director Organisational Development and Change advised that the council had a very positive approach to placing apprentices and this was an ongoing process as vacancies occurred. Two apprentices had decided to leave for other opportunities and for personal reasons. The “recruitment challenge” referred to a process whereby the Executive Board had challenged the need for any recruitment and this was now being operated by Directors.       

In response to a question about how the number of incidents of domestic violence were collated and how the council could have an impact, the Policy and Partnership Manager advised that the police collated the figures. He acknowledged that it was not related to the core business of the council however the council were part of the Crime and Disorder partnership which focused on interventions. The indicator for repeat incidents was considered to be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Report of the Leader (20 mins)

The Leader introduced the report and concluded that it was his personal view that investment in events was critical to Cheltenham as a festivals town. He envisaged two rounds of bids, the first in September followed by a second in the Spring. Referring to the application guidance, he said in his view there should be flexibility on the maximum grant of £20K and queried whether one of the criteria should be to increase the number of new residents.   He welcomed comments from the committee on any proposals for scrutiny of the process and membership of the panel.

The Director Built Environment advised that the application guidance had been taken from another authority and may need some amendment.

A member commented on the level of detail in the application criteria for council funding of £20K and compared this with the £140K investment in the gardens where this level of challenge had not been applied.

The Leader responded that a lot of the bids would come through council departments and therefore it was important that they went through a rigorous process.

A member asked whether the council could come under any criticism for its use of the New Homes Bonus given the government’s reasons for introducing the funding set out in paragraph 3.2.

The Director Built Environment responded that the government viewed the initiative as an incentive to growth and as Cheltenham was a compact urban area any improvements were likely to benefit the whole town.

In response to a question as to whether there were any proposals to pool the New Homes Bonus across councils participating in the Joint Core Strategy, the Leader advised that the three councils would be looking at the consequences of any large developments where the infrastructure in an adjoining council could be impacted. 

In response to a question about the additional amount for affordable homes under the New Homes Bonus as referred to in paragraph 3.3, officers confirmed that the amount was £350 per dwelling. This figure is in addition to the standard New Homes Bonus payment which matches Council tax for each of the six years following completion of the dwelling. There was a definition for an affordable home set out in Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS 3) and the government was in the process of reviewing this.

Resolved that Councillors Stennett and Cooper be nominated for the Promoting Cheltenham fund panel.

Report of the Cabinet Member Corporate Services (20 mins)

In his introduction the Cabinet Member Corporate Services, advised that members had seen most of the information in the report before. The report was going to Cabinet for some important decisions and therefore this was opportunity for members to raise any questions.

A member asked whether shared services and a single framework would still enable differences in policy to be maintained across authorities and were their cost implications of maintaining those differences.

The Cabinet Member Corporate Services explained that that it was the intention for individual authorities to retain their individuality but it made sense to standardise some policies. These included financial regulations. Officers commented on the high degree of commonality already achieved across the system but there would be differences which would be accommodated. These would ensure that each authority remained distinct employers.

The chair welcomed the programme and wished it every success.

None

Date of next meeting :  19 September 2011

The date of the next meeting was 19 September 2011 and the workplan was noted.