Agenda item

Questions must be received no later than 12 noon on the seventh working day before the date of the meeting

There were no Member questions or petitions.  Two public questions had been received, the responses to which were taken as read.  One questioner was present to ask a supplementary question.

1.     Question from Richard Lawler to Cabinet Member for Housing and Customer Services, Councillor Flo Clucas 

Cobham Road Flats Parking 

At the Cobham Road flats, residents face ongoing parking stress due to a lack of dedicated spaces, leading to informal verge parking and damage to footpaths and grassed areas. 

Would the Cabinet consider commissioning a small-scale feasibility study to explore creating additional residents’ parking bays — for example by re-purposing a limited section of unused green space — as part of a broader estate-improvement approach? 

If the Cabinet agrees this should be pursued, would it also consider appointing a named senior officer to lead the design and consultation process with residents, so the scheme can be progressed without adding excessive workload to existing operational teams? 

Cabinet Member response 

Thank you for the question.  

Council Officers are undertaking a high-level review of properties that have been identified as having redevelopment potential and this is one of the sites on the list. They are just at the start of the process, and any development would?likely be?some time into the future.?The block is already on the neighbourhood works list for next year to lay a concrete pad for bins and is also due for fencing renewal along the right-hand side of the block which will improve the general amenity of the area.?However, any?additional?parking configuration would be best left until the high-level analysis is completed early in the New Year. A further update can be provided at this time.? 

?

No supplementary question

2.  Question from Emma Nelson to the Leader, Councillor Rowena Hay 

The Government has just announced that the elections scheduled for May 2026, for four regional mayors in England, have been postponed to 2028. Can the Cabinet please advise whether the Cheltenham Borough Council Elections for 20 of the 40 current Councillors, due to take place in May 2026, will definitely be going ahead? Please also provide details of circumstances that might impact and influence their decision, given the cost of running the Election, the amount of work already underway on the whole LGR model etc. and the fact that elected Councillors will have a very short term prior to the Unitary Elections in 2027.? 

Cabinet Member response 

Thank you for the question. It is the government’s decision as to whether elections in 2026 will go ahead. CBC is working on the assumption that elections will take place as scheduled.  

As you know, Cheltenham Council is in an unusual position in that we held all-out elections following a boundary review in 2024 with those members topping the poll serving for four years. Therefore, members retain a strong electoral mandate until 2028, which on the current timescales will coincide with the vesting day of the new unitary authority.  

We are currently engaging with the Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) to remind them of our boundary review and our all-out elections in 2024 and to ask for clarity on whether they wish for us to proceed with elections in 2026 which may not represent a good use of taxpayer money when we face the prospect of further elections in 2027 to the new shadow authority.  

As you were a member of the previous Conservative Group in opposition on the council, I am sure you will recall that a budget amendment was proposed every year by your group to move to four-yearly elections. I assume on this basis that if MHCLG decided to postpone elections for Cheltenham in 2026, this would be something that would be entirely supported by the Cheltenham Conservatives.

Supplementary question

Thank you for your response and for recognising the constant call from Cheltenham Conservatives to move to four-yearly elections to save Cheltenham residents thousands of pounds. 

What is the council’s preferred outcome from engagement with MHCLG?  The first paragraph says you are assuming elections will take place as scheduled.   In third paragraph states you are asking MHCLG if it wishes CBC to proceed with 2026 elections, given the all-out elections last year and more elections in 2027.  This implies you would rather not spend taxpayers’ money for one year in office, and the second paragraph reinforces this underlying preference, justifying that those elections in 2024 continue for a further two years.

When did you last hear from MHCLG, when are you expecting to hear their decision, and what do you make of MHCLG Secretary Steve Reed’s response today in the House of Commons  on this subject?

Cabinet Member response

I cannot comment on Steve Reed’s response as I haven’t yet heard it.

This question has arisen because after the boundary review and all-out election in 2024, it was CBC’s intention to go back to two-yearly elections, as has been the custom and practice for many years.  At that point, we didn’t know the Local Government Reorganisation was coming forward. If elections to shadow authorities will be required in 2027, a lot of councils are now wondering if there is any point in having local elections in 2026, not least from a financial perspective,  as the whole LGR process is costing a huge amount of money with no additional government funding to pay for it.  We are waiting for government clarification as to whether or not the May 2026 elections should go ahead – the decision has to be made by the second week in February – but in the meantime, we will continue on the assumption that next May’s local elections will take place.