Agenda item

1.

Question from Councillor Tim Harman to the Cabinet Member Waste & Recycling & Street Services, Councillor Iain Dobie

My understanding is that the Recycling Skips at Morrisons Supermarket were removed at the request of the Shop.

My observation is that other sites such as Bath Road have come under greater pressure particularly with regard to Cardboard .

Has the Cabinet Member assessed the impact of the closure of the facility formerly at Morrisons both on door set collections and alternative sites such as Bath Road ?

Response from Cabinet Member

As Cabinet Member for Waste, Recycling and Street Services I am committed to providing residents in Cheltenham with the best waste and recycling service we can within available resources and it is very unfortunate that the work at Morrisons in Hatherley has necessitated the removal of the recycling bring banks.

Officers are still seeking an alternative site where the bring banks could be safely relocated, however, in the meantime to ensure the other bring bank sites nearby have sufficient capacity to cope with any extra recycling, one additional cardboard recycling bank was already installed some weeks ago at each of the following sites: Sainsbury’s in Oakley; Sainsbury’s on the Tewkesbury Road and at Bath Terrace car park.  This is three extra cardboard bring banks that have already been deployed some weeks ago.

I am pleased to say that Cheltenham offers a really good kerbside recycling service to residents.  Every fortnight cardboard; paper; glass; plastic bottles, pots, tubs and trays; aluminium cans; steel cans; clean foil; dry textiles and shoes; small electrical items and batteries can all be sorted and put in the kerbside boxes for collection from homes.  We are also the first local authority to sign up to collecting coffee pods at the kerbside and are the best performing authority out of those delivering this service.

Residents don’t need to use the bring banks for all the items I have listed, these items can be collected at kerbside although I do understand sometimes we all have an extra quantity or certain items that it is easier to dispose of in the bring banks.

I would like to remind everyone that the bring banks are for domestic household recycling items and are not for businesses to use, businesses should have separate arrangements in place for disposal of their waste and recycling.  Equally, on the odd occasion where bring banks are full, I am sure my colleagues would support me in urging residents NOT to leave recycling or refuse bags of waste, old doors or other items on the floor.

In response to a supplementary question the Cabinet Member confirmed that he would ensure that consideration would be given to supplementary collections at Christmas

2.

Question from Councillor Flo Clucas to the Cabinet Member Customer and Regulatory Services, Councillor Martin Horwood

Tewkesbury Road/Elm Street

As the Cabinet Member may be aware, over the last 18 months or so, a number of road traffic accidents have occurred at the above location, requiring both police and ambulances to attend. In addition, emergency service vehicles have not been able to drive down the road and have had to reverse out of it. 

Recognising that this is a Gloucestershire County Council matter, rather than a Borough Council matter, would the Cabinet member write formally to the County Council Cabinet member responsible,to request an urgent response to residents’ requests. 

Requests are: for warning/advisory signs to be placed at this location; for a 20mph limit to be input in place by means of a temporary TRO.

Further that a survey of residents be done to look at a one way system being introduced in the area from Elm Street and Sun Street. 

Response from Cabinet Member

Thank you for raising this concerning matter with us. A letter to GCC highlighting this can indeed be written, as well as raised through officer channels to investigate the incidents and GCC’s review process after an incident occurs. This will complement the letter written in response to the 20 mph motion raised this summer, which asked GCC to consider implementation of 20 mph zones across Cheltenham as a matter of urgency.

In response to a supplementary question the Cabinet Member stated that he would incorporate issues relating to traffic flow down Hyde Lane in to the letter to GCC in light of the crash in to the railway bridge earlier that day.

3.

Question from Councillor Stephan Fifield to the Cabinet Member Culture, Wellbeing and Business, Councillor Victoria Atherstone

The Pump Room is widely advertised as the last place in Cheltenham where it is still possible to "take the waters". The mineral water has however been unavailable since the building re-opened to the public, and prior to that there have been concerns for several years about the absence of its distinctive taste. The mineral water is an important part of the Pump Room's heritage and of Cheltenham's history as a spa town. Could the cabinet member confirm when will it be available again?”

Response from Cabinet Member

I agree with Cllr Fifield how important the spa water is to Cheltenham’s heritage and that it is unfortunate that tasting the water has not been possible since the pump room reopened as a visitor attraction following its closure due to covid. I am, therefore, really pleased to report that we now have a timescale for making the water available again as part of this popular destination.

The council working in partnership with The Cheltenham Trust has recently cleaned the water tank and system and replaced the UV filters. However, the pump required replacement and contractors will therefore be installing a new pump at the bottom of the well on the 29 October.

To ensure public safety, the water will need testing to check bacteria levels over the course of two months immediately prior to being available for tasting by the public. It is hoped that the water will be available again for visitors to sample by January 2022.

In response to a supplementary question, the Cabinet Member would seek to ensure that the quality of the spa water was considered recognising the concern that it had disappeared over time.

4.

Question from Councillor Chris Mason to the Cabinet Member Finance, Councillor Peter Jeffries

Whilst recognising that the COVID pandemic has meant a number of companies and organisations have not been able to keep up with their rental payments.  Could the Cabinet Member for Finance please confirm the amount of rent with more than 3-months arrears owed to the Council?  Could the Cabinet Member also provide an indication on how confident they are of recovering the rent arrears?

Response from Cabinet Member

The Finance and Property team have been working closely with our tenants over the last six months to ensure we receive rent owed in a timely manner.

I am pleased to report that only £7k of rent arrears are overdue by more than three months.

5.

Question from Councillor Emma Nelson to the Cabinet Member Finance and Assets, Councillor Peter Jeffries

Council owned properties

What is the current status on the sale of Council owned properties: 30 St Georges Place (formally Shopmobility since 2016, offers in region of £275k) and land at White Hart Street (guide price £20k).  

With regards to rental properties, I appreciate several properties are currently rented out (Question from Councillor Chris Mason refers) but what is the current situation please regarding vacant properties as advertised on the CBC website as available: First floor office at 53-57 Rodney Road (rental £36k), the remainder of Ellenborough House, and available rental space in Municipal Offices. 

Finally, what are the plans for Delta Place when it becomes available for rent in April 2023 vis a vis possible re-location of Council from the Municipal Offices? 

Response from Cabinet Member

The sale of the Horse & Groom is continuing and we are working to secure a buyer for the land at White Hart Street.

For the rental properties which are currently vacant, we are pursuing a number of strategies to secure tenants. Our properties are advertised on Rightmove, we are working with local agents and conversations are ongoing.

No decisions have been made in relation to the re-location of staff and the future of the Municipal Offices. At present, the focus is on understanding the space required for staff as they start to transition into a post COVID work environment.

In a supplementary question, Councillor Nelson asked whether there was currently an interested party in the Horse and Groom and asked what the timeline was for completion. In response, the Cabinet Member explained that negotiations were ongoing but he was aware one purchase was close to completion. Responding to a further question on rent free periods for rental properties he explained that this was part of an ongoing conversation with any potential tenant. He would provide Cllr Nelson with a further response once he had consulted with officers.

6.

Question from Councillor Nelson to the Cabinet Member Customer and Regulatory Services, Councillor Martin Horwood

For clarity for the public and voters please would you explain in simple terms, the process for planning applications with regards to Outline Planning Permission vs Full Planning Permission. Furthermore, when the Planning Officer is considering the application, do they attach a different weighting to objections/ comments from the various Statutory Consultees in deciding whether it should go to Planning Committee or not.  

I am aware of the 21 day “call in” rule for the local member, please confirm whether this also applies to Applications for Outline Planning Permission and explain why it does not apply when previously approved plans are subsequently fundamentally changed and re-submitted by an applicant? A situation that seems to be occurring more frequently as homeowners seek to potentially overdevelop their properties.

Response from Cabinet Member

Applications for outline planning permission seek to establish whether the scale and nature of a proposed development would be acceptable to the local planning authority, before a fully detailed proposal is put forward. This type of planning application allows fewer details about the proposal to be submitted. Once outline permission has been granted, the details will be subject to a further application known as “reserved matters”. By submitting a Full Application however you are seeking complete approval for the design of your proposal (including the amount, scale, layout and appearance of the development, as well as any landscaping) and the approved access arrangements.

The procedure for dealing with planning applications and in particular the appropriate level at which a decision is made is set out in the Council’s constitution.

I can confirm that the 21 day “call in” rule does apply to outline applications.  To allow a further call in period relating to amendments would present a considerable challenge in terms of planning  applications being dealt with in the statutory period and would increase the chances of applicants appealing against non-determination, thereby taking the decision completely out of the Council’s hands.  Applicants can only make limited changes to a planning application and these are usually in response to officer comments. Extending the call-in deadline not only runs the risk of non-determination but might attract sanctions from government who demand that applications are determined in what they regard as a timely manner.

Where a proposal is “fundamentally” changed it would require submission of a new application which would be subject to the usual call-in procedure. I recognise that the call-in procedure could be more transparent and thus I would like the new digital platform the council is developing to make the council’s call-in deadline clearer for both councillors and the public. 

In a supplementary question Councillor Nelson questioned the user friendly format of the detailed online planning procedures. She asked whether an application was only presented to Committee if "Called In" by the local member or whether the Planning Officer, initially with "Delegated Decision" authority, subsequently recommend an application go to Full Committee as a result of their detailed examination of the plans, and after taking account of comments and objections from Statutory Consultees? She also sought an answer to her initial question on whether the Officer attaches different weighting to responses from the various Statutory Consultees, for example what weighting is given to objections or comments from the Parish Council, Highways etc? 

In response the Cabinet Member recognised that there was a need for a clearer and more transparent presentation of planning processes online which would be addressed via the implementation of the new digital software platform, although this may take some time.

In terms of the criteria for applications coming to committee, he stated that major applications would come before committee without the need for call-in but undertook to provide her the precise legal and constitutional requirements outside of the meeting.

With regard to weighting given to objections, the Cabinet Member stated that all officers have to reach a balanced judgement based on planning law and planning policies.He would provide Cllr Nelson with a technical response in liaison with planning officers.