Agenda item

Cabinet Member Sustainability

Cabinet Member Built Environment

The Cabinet Member Built Environment updated members on the proposed redevelopment process of North Place and Portland Street which remained on target.  Five bidders had been short listed to develop proposals in line with the development brief.  They were selected on the basis of their previous experience of developing mixed use schemes in town centres and their financial strength to deliver such projects.

The five consortia had met with Officers and Members last Tuesday (3 May) and this had been a positive meeting.  They would draw-up their initial proposals and costing by July, at which point all members would be updated and from this, two short listed schemes would be open for public comments from 22 August to 9 September 2011. 

He had hoped to be in a position to offer more details about the Midwinter site but at this time was not able to. 

There were a number of developments in which CBC was not involved, the Brewery Phase 2 and Jessops Avenue, this gave a good indication that there was an appetite to invest in Cheltenham. 

Gloucestershire County Council (GCC) had only today confirmed that a consultation evening would take place tomorrow (12 May) in the Cambray Room of the Municipal offices for stage 2 of the parking review; South Cheltenham.  This had been considered inadequate notice and these concerns had been expressed to GCC.

In stark contrast GCC had offered sufficient notice of the upcoming consultation regarding the ‘surface water management plan’, full details of which he would forward to all members.

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

• Unfortunately timescales for the Midwinter site had slipped due to technical issues, but it was anticipated that a planning submission could be renewed in two weeks time.
• Neptune’s fountain would be switched on at some point this month (May) however, the pumps were not fully functioning and did require work, but this would be done at a later stage.  There were costs associated with such repairs and consideration was being given to funding these repairs. 

There was general consensus that the committee were eager to see Neptune’s fountain repaired and fully functioning as soon as possible.  The Chair suggested that in the interim public notices could be displayed advising of any issues and that this should apply in similar circumstances across Cheltenham.  The Executive Director committed to having Officers email members to confirm the approach to Neptune’s fountain. 

The Cabinet Member Sustainability confirmed that the consultation on the revised layout design of Imperial Gardens would start on Monday (16 May). It would be based at the Municipal offices and would run through the rest of May and into June.  He noted the agreement that it would then be debated at Council rather than the overview and scrutiny committees.  Members supported this approach. 

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

• The decision to hold the Imperial Gardens consultation at the Municipal offices rather than Regent Arcade (for example) was based on officer resource rather than budget.  A press release would be circulated, it was hoped there would be radio coverage and members were asked to communicate it to their constituents. 
• The box office at Imperial Gardens was a late addition to the Jazz Festival and admittedly he too had been surprised at the level of food outlets within the large tented village this year, which was not in-keeping with Jazz Festivals of the past.  However, the ambiance was an issue for Cheltenham Festivals and in future the level of tentage would be limited and spread across a larger area.  He would confirm that the appropriate licensing permissions had been obtained.

Members were concerned that a matter as important as consultation on Imperial Gardens based solely at the Municipal offices would not attract as large of a response as there was interest in the subject and queried whether Officers were not available to carry out consultation at other venues at any point during the consultation period.  The Executive Director emphasized how resources at the Council had reduced and the level of resource required in organising and supporting public consultation at alternative venues could not be sustained.  The Cabinet Member would investigate whether alternative arrangements were possible but could make no commitment.

In relation to the new waste and recycling service the Cabinet Member Sustainability, based on his own observations and feedback from officers, considered the implementation to have been successful.  Admittedly there had been some issues in areas consisting of non-conventional housing (park homes), though the issues highlighted had been addressed.  An ongoing issue was flats, especially those with communal waste bins or storage, this was proving a difficult issue to overcome and Officers were meeting on Friday (13 May) to discuss a way forward.

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

• At this time there were no plans to provide larger food waste bins to larger families, however, residents were free to put out the large and small bin that had already been issued.
• There were a number of bedsits in the town centre which offered little or no storage for waste and to tackle any issues, a number of town centre streets benefited from weekly or twice weekly collections.
• Officers were aware of the issues in St. Pauls with students leaving bins on the highway when vacating properties outside of term time and additional collections were made. 
• Garden waste collections did not include the collection of black bags and at this time there was no solution for residents who were unable to transfer their brown bin to the front of the property for collection. 

The Chair thanked both Cabinet Members for their attendance and summarised the matters arising from this item;

• The Executive Director would draft a letter to GCC on behalf of the committee expressing members concerns in relation to what was considered inadequate notice of the parking consultation event.
• Details of the repairs required at Neptune’s fountain and plans to address them would be sent to all members and officers would consider if a notice advising the public could be displayed at this site and others across the town. 
• The Cabinet Member Sustainability would investigate whether there were any resources for undertaking the Imperial Gardens consultation in other venues.