Agenda item

1.

Question from Councillor Tim Harman to Cabinet Member Corporate Services, Councillor Jon Walklett

Could the Council be advised of the likely savings to the Council Budget if the Whole Council elections were adopted at the next opportunity?

Response from Cabinet Member Corporate Services

The following response has been extracted from a paper presented to Council on 26^th July 2010 :-

“The current cost of a local council election is £130,000 per election or £260,000 over a 4 year period, budgeted at £65,000 per annum.

If the Council was to run a single full election this would increase the costs by £30,000 to £160,000 per election, resulting in a saving over four years of £100,000, or an average saving of £25,000 per annum. This assumes the number of bi-elections do not increase as a result of a four year cycle.

However, under legislation, the timetable for holding local elections is such that, in the first year of changing to a 4 year cycle there would be insufficient funding available, as this would be held 1 year earlier than under the planned 2 year cycle.  One–off additional budget of £95k would therefore be required to support the new arrangement. There would therefore be a payback period of approximately 4 years.

In addition, there will be one-off consultation costs of the proposed changes, as yet undetermined.”

I would also like to make you aware that in the event of any increase in bi-elections resulting from a four year cycle further incremental costs currently estimated at £8000 per ward could also be incurred.

The result of the July 2010 Council’s vote on the matter of four yearly elections was a win (For 25, Against 9) for an amendment which became the substantive motion “Council resolves not to pursue a move to four yearly elections”  For interest a further motion “Council reconsiders the matter during 2013”  was also defeated (For 10, Against 25)

In a supplementary question, Councillor Harman asked whether with greater pressure on council budgets in the year ahead, the Cabinet Member would be looking at every possible saving as ongoing savings would be possible from a change in election arrangements.

In response the Cabinet Member said that the average saving of £25,000 per annum that could be achieved from moving to four yearly elections was relatively small and would amount to only 27.89 p for each member of the electorate. This compared with the benefits of giving the Cheltenham electorate the opportunity to exercise their democratic right every two years which he believed was something that the council should endorse.

2.

Question from Councillor Barbara Driver to Cabinet Member Built Environment, Councillor Andrew McKinlay

As this council quite rightly encourages more cycling could the Cabinet Member responsible tell me why there are not many more bicycle stands across the whole of Cheltenham, and why have some have even be taken away, which as has been pointed out to me by constituents?  You do not need large ones, but one or two every few hundred meters both in the town centre, Montpellier the Suffolk's and Bath Road.   Also, would CBC encourage the bus companies to place bicycle racks on the front of their buses (again as in other towns) so that both can be used to the best advantage?
 

Response from Cabinet Member Built Environment

Currently there are a number of reviews being undertaken on the Cheltenham Cycle Network.

CBC together with Gloucestershire County Council, Gloucestershire Highways and local cycle interests such as Cheltenham Cycling Forum are looking at a number of initiatives to not only improve accessibility to Cheltenham for cyclists but more importantly the provision of adequate cycle parking

The success of the local sustainable transport fund has now enabled a number of cycle projects to be brought forward this includes in particular the provision of and location of adequate cycle parking. A number of recent cycle parking improvements have taken place in areas identified by local residents and community groups these include Church Piece and Charlton kings.

Improvements to cycle parking along the Bath Road Corridor in Leckhampton are also planned as is an extensive review of the cycle parking needs within the town centre where currently there are a number of trials being undertaken to identify the need for and best location for the placement of cycle parking facilities. Historically cycle parking has often been implemented with no overall strategic thought as to the location and or demand for cycle parking.

The current need for and future demand for cycle parking facilities are subject to an ongoing process as we move the town towards smarter accessibility and being sustainable travel town.

Why have some cycle stands been taken away?

With reference to the removal of cycle racks as reported by Councillor Barbara Driver, our officers will meet with and discuss the concerns raised as the removal of cycle stands are only endorsed by CBC where they are removed for maintenance purposes or the location has been deemed no longer functional. Having said this they are not removed without due engagement and consultation being undertaken.

Would CBC encourage the bus companies to place bicycle racks on the front of their busses?

Discussions have taken place with bus operator/s regarding ways in which potential improvements can be achieved to bus access, in particular cycle carriers and the establishment of localised transport nodes at key bus connection points where improved cycle parking provision can be provided.

With regards to cycle carriers being installed on local buses we will again raise this issue with operators and the County’s bus management team. The concept of on bus cycle carriers would assist residents and commuters in considering linking cycle and bus travel as part of their first travel choice.

This can assist in reducing the number of motor vehicle journeys in and around the town.

In a supplementary question, Councillor Driver referred to a recent survey which indicated that 8% of the population rode bicycles and she asked the Cabinet Member if this figure was going up or down in Cheltenham.

In response the Cabinet Member said he was unaware of this survey.  His assumption was that it was going up but he had no figures to verify this.  He added that the Cabinet was committed to sustainable transport in the town and this would include encouraging more people to take up cycling. 

3.

Question from Councillor Andrew Chard to Cabinet Member Built Environment, Councillor Andrew McKinlay

Interruption of power affects both businesses and homes alike.  In recent months Cheltenham appears to have suffered from more and more power cuts.  Please would the relevant Cabinet Member tell this council what steps they have taken to find out why this happening and what the power supply companies have said?

Response from Cabinet Member Built Environment

The Council has not undertaken any specific investigations into the recent power losses as clearly the appropriate delivery of electrical supplies is not a Council responsibility.

Officers have however reviewed the Council's Corporate Business Continuity Plan and introduced additional measures to ensure that our ICT provisions are appropriately protected. The plan has also been revised to provide a more efficient communication cascade to staff and Members.

A new officer team will be set up which will include staff from Property, Front line services, and ICT whose primary role will be to assess the known facts and implement appropriate action. Terms of reference for this group are currently being developed by the Executive Director.

4.

Question from Councillor Rob Garnham to the Leader

As I have declared a conflict of interest on all matters relating to the JCS I will not be in the council chamber for the debate under agenda item 14.  However my question is to the Leader of the Council and is more concerned with who is running the Council and how it is being run.  The Press has quoted the Leader of the Council as saying "the additional resolutions by Cheltenham Borough Council on the 24th September wouldn't ‘blow the whole thing apart’ and that the "18600 figure would not be a 'showstopper'" Given the responses from our JCS partners in Tewkesbury and Gloucester, that would indicate because of his actions the JCS is on the brink of disaster, does he still stand by those quotes?

Response from the Leader

Cheltenham Council has already agreed the same 7 clauses agreed by both Gloucester and Tewkesbury Councils. It is equally true that the additional resolves agreed by this Council on 24^th September do not contradict anything in those 7 clauses.

The response of the Gloucester and Tewkesbury Council does indicate a level of confusion over what this Council was actually saying. Last week I had a very useful meeting with Paul James and Rob Vines where we were able to clarify our positions and confirm that we are all committed to making the JCS work so it clearly doesn’t ‘stand on the brink of disaster’.

The report before Council today indicates how the concerns expressed by this council can be taken forward although I do appreciate Cllr Garnham has a conflict of interest in these matters. 

In a supplementary question, Councillor Garnham asked the Leader to explain why there was a widespread public belief that the amendments proposed by the Leader at the last Council meeting were because Councillor Bickerton had threatened to resign his seat unless the amendments were put. 

The Leader responded that this was completely untrue and explained the sequence of events.  Members of the joint steering group had met on Wednesday after receiving the NLP report on the Monday. The seven resolutions which the Leader himself had drafted were put to the steering group and agreed.  The Leader had considered that a useful starting point but he had always intended to take on board people’s comments as they arose in further discussions with members of his group and other councillors.  He felt this was a very appropriate way for council to approach this issue. He apologised for any confusion with the other councils who may have had a different interpretation of what would happen after the meeting.

5.

Question from Councillor Anne Regan to Cabinet Member Sustainability, Councillor Roger Whyborn

Can the appropriate portfolio holder tell us since the withdrawal of the free dog bags, has the recorded number of complaints of dog fouling increased particularly in our parks, gardens, and recreational areas.

As the danger to children of disease from this issue may increase, will this council consider reintroducng the green bag scheme?

Response from Cabinet Member Sustainability

Complaints to the Council’s Public Protection Team about dog fouling in the twelve months prior to 01.04.11 (when free dog foul bags were withdrawn) were 134. In the twelve months subsequent to 01.04.12 there were 159 complaints.

The Council’s Public Protection Team respond to any exceptional dog fouling problems by targeting resources at specific problem areas as they arise and this normally resolves things.

Free bags were introduced at the time in order to raise public awareness when dog bags were less widely used and available. Now that they are widely used and available in shops, and expected to be used, continued provision by CBC is not considered the best use of council money.

In a supplementary question, Councillor Regan asked what steps would be taken to tackle this problem as she was receiving an increasing number of complaints in her ward.

In response the Cabinet Member said that the figures available did not show a significant increase in complaints and it was certainly not the case in his ward. He didn’t believe that the free supply of dog bags significantly affected the number of dog fouling problems.