Agenda item

1.

Question from Councillor Sudbury to Cabinet Member Built Environment

I have asked council officers to improve the information on the Council website regarding the proposal to partially close Boots Corner to through traffic. This particularly relates to the need for much more detailed information about how the impact of displaced traffic will affect other residential roads such as St Luke’s Road, College Road, Gloucester Road and St George’s Street. When will this be completed?

Response from Cabinet Member Built Environment

Gloucestershire County Council as the highways authority plan to begin a consultation process on their proposals in the New Year. The Saturn modelling work undertaken includes predictions for the junctions listed. This information will be available for discussion during the public consultation.

In a supplementary question Councillor Sudbury explained that the Integrated Transport Manager at CBC had given verbal agreement that the website would be updated and asked the Cabinet Member to give a commitment that this would happen. 

In response the Cabinet Member Built Environment explained that the matter was being dealt with by the Cheltenham Development Task Force.  This was a joint proposal between CBC and Gloucestershire County Council and therefore the information on both websites would need to match and at this time, to his knowledge there was no information on the GCC website.  He would ensure that this would happen but for the time-being the proposals were still provisional. 

2.

Question from Councillor Sudbury to Cabinet Member Built Environment

On the County Council’s website, information on the Local Sustainable Transport Fund bid says regarding the proposals for Cheltenham town centre that investment will be made for “traffic calming measures in residential roads to ensure traffic does not divert on to inappropriate routes.”

Is this the case and will investment happen in residential roads such as St Luke’s Road and College Road (subject to agreement of course with local residents)?

Response from Cabinet Member Built Environment

A sum is allocated within LSTF funding for traffic calming and alleviation of rat running post Boots corner implementation.

3.

Question from Councillor Sudbury to Cabinet Member Built Environment

Has a date been set for the Traffic Regulation Order consultation for the changes associated with the partial closure of Boots Corner to through traffic?

Response from Cabinet Member Built Environment

The TRO advertisement date will be confirmed once analysis of the public feedback to the consultation has taken place and a final design option approved by members. The advertisement is unlikely to occur prior to the 2013 elections.

4.

Question from Councillor Sudbury to Cabinet Member Built Environment

One of the suggestions put forward in the Local Sustainable Transport Funding bid was to make Imperial Square and Oriel Road two way. Residents in the St Luke’s area are very concerned about this part of the plan particularly as traffic flowing from the  South to North of the town would use this route and add considerably to existing high levels of congestion. Given the sensitive uses on College Road, such as the hospital, Cheltenham College boarding houses, Sandford Park and residential properties will this council instead (whilst supporting plans to make Imperial Square two way to enable better access to the Regent Arcade Car Park which is one of the aims of the plans) keep Oriel Road one way so as to minimise the impact of displaced traffic on St Luke’s Road and College Road?

Response from Cabinet Member Built Environment

Suggestions such as this and others received during the consultation will be examined in due course and influence the final design option for presentation to members.

5.

Question from Councillor Chard to the Leader

The Highways Agency proposals for the “Air Balloon” roundabout could have a profound effect on my ward.  Can the Leader of the Council please advise me what, if any, action, he has taken regarding these proposed changes?

Response from the Leader

The proposals are from the Highways Agency and I have received no representations about them from residents of Leckhampton, the parish council or Cllr Chard himself. If Cllr Chard has concerns I presume he has already raised them with the Highways Agency and if he wishes to raise them with me I will be happy to advise on possible actions to take.

In a supplementary question Councillor Chard queried whether the Cabinet would follow the example of Cotswold District Council and request a public consultation by the Highways Agency.

In response the Leader confirmed that he would be happy to make such a request but at this time he had not yet been provided with any specific details about what was being proposed, reiterating that this was not a CBC proposal.  If members or residents had particular queries he would be happy to raise them on their behalf if they were made known to him. 

6.

Question from Councillor Regan to Cabinet Member Housing & Safety

We urge this Council to be proactive in introducing the Night Time Levy. Will the Cabinet Member explain what steps they have taken, in conjunction with the Police, in planning for the introduction of such a Levy? Will the Cabinet Member also guarantee today that any money that comes to CBC will be targeted at combating the worst effects of the Night Time Economy and not be used to prop up the Council balance sheet.

Response from Cabinet Member Housing & Safety

A number of steps have been taken in preparation of potentially introducing a late night levy in Cheltenham.  There have been ongoing discussions at a senior county level about the introduction of the levy in the county.  Furthermore, officers from public protection, the Wellbeing & Culture Director and the Cabinet Member for Housing and Safety have had a meeting with senior officers from the LPA about the desire for introducing such a levy in Cheltenham. 

Whilst discussions are ongoing, officers are currently waiting for the amended Local Authorities (Functions and Responsibilities) Regulations to be published, these regulations will specify who has the decision making responsibility in respect of adopting the levy.

CBC will be able to retain a maximum of 30% of the net amount from the levy.  The Late Night Levy (Application and Administration) Regulations 2012 specify that the Council must spend its portion on “…arrangements for—

(a) the reduction or prevention of crime and disorder, .

(b) the promotion of public safety, .

(c) the reduction or prevention of public nuisance, .

(d) the cleaning of any relevant highway or relevant land in its area.”

CBC’s portion of the levy income must therefore be ring fenced for the purposes specified above.

7.

Question from Councillor Regan to Cabinet Member Finance

The proposed changes to the benefit system next April will mean the public will have many questions. What steps have this Council taken to ensure that those affected by the changes will be informed at the earliest opportunity and in a format that is easy to understand? I understand that some information will be "on-line" but many people do not have this facility or are not computer literate.

Therefore can the relevant Cabinet Member guarantee that the public will still be able to come into reception and talk to a member of staff in the Municipal Offices as happens at the moment?

Response from Cabinet Member Finance

April 2013 sees the start of a number of welfare benefit changes. The Members’ Briefing sent on 19th October explained in detail the two main Housing Benefit changes from April 2013, the number of tenants likely to be affected in Cheltenham and how the Council's benefit service was going to contact tenants.

The 60 potential tenants likely to be affected by the overall benefit cap are having one to one meetings or home visits with the Council’s welfare benefits officers to explain the options open to them and they should be completed by the end of this week.

The 800 working age tenants likely to be affected by the spare bedroom restrictions in social housing have all had personal letters sent to them asking them to check the information we hold and explaining as clearly as possible how the bedroom calculation works, how much benefit they will lose in April, and contact numbers if they need further advice. In addition we are sharing this information with social landlords who are also contacting tenants by home visit, telephone or letter.

The national Council Tax Benefit scheme is also being abolished on 31^st March 2013 and replaced by a local Council Tax Support scheme. Item 9 on today’s agenda is proposing to adopt the DCLG’s default scheme for next year with one modification, to make it as identical as possible to the old national scheme, while we review all the welfare benefit changes taking place. 

Existing Council Tax Benefit customers will be transferred over to the new scheme automatically and should see no difference in awards if the Council adopts the default scheme. If a customer has a Housing Benefit or Council Tax Support enquiry then they will still be able to visit the Council Offices and be seen by a dedicated officer from the benefits service.

In addition to all of the above changes Incapacity Benefit is being replaced with Employment & Support Allowance, Disability Living Allowance is being replaced with Personal Independence Payments and six means tested benefits (including Housing Benefit) are being replaced with Universal Credit, which starts in October 2013 for new claims and will be phased in over the following four years.

The Government intends that these working age benefits, which will be administered by the Department for Work and Pensions, will be mainly claimed on-line from June 2013.  However they are running various pilots from April 2013 to review “face to face” options for customers who cannot claim in this way, and one pilot is for local councils to administer the system.

In a supplementary question Councillor Regan sought further assurance from the Cabinet Member that front line advisors would be available at the Municipal Offices, as they were at present, to deal with those that were concerned by the changes or were not computer literate. 

In response the Cabinet Member Finance confirmed that this would continue to be the case until 2013.  With the introduction of Universal Credit, which would be the responsibility of Department of Work and Pensions rather than the Council, the council’s role would be to signpost to other benefit advice services including officers in Cheltenham Borough Homes.  

8.

Question from Councillor Driver to Cabinet Member Sustainability

Many parts of the town, particularly Lansdown, suffer from irregular recycling collection mainly due to the fact that the larger lorries cannot access the narrow streets and lanes.  They are also restricted at times by inconsiderate parking.  The alternative is to use a smaller vehicle but there are insufficient vehicles of the size to maintain a regular service.  Therefore could the Cabinet Member tell me exactly how many smaller recycling lorries we have, how often are they used and what plans are in place to ensure a regular collection of recycle materials from all parts of Cheltenham?

Response from Cabinet Member Sustainability

Ubico Ltd operate 2 smaller 7.5 tonne vehicles to collect recycling in Cheltenham and one of them has been specifically designed with a chassis/ narrow body which allows it to gain access to the most restricted areas of the town. The number of vehicles available has been calculated based on the requirement and their capacity is more than adequate to service the amount of restricted access areas in Cheltenham. However, occasionally even these vehicles cannot gain access to certain streets/lanes because of parked cars and in such instances the collection crew will report the issue to Ubico’s management team, then continue with their round and revisit the area later in the day/week to try and make the collection.

If Cllr Driver could specify which streets/lanes she feels are suffering from an irregular recycling collection, then Ubico’s Management Team would be happy to investigate further.

Councillor Driver explained that she had already met with Officers at the depot to discuss issues within specific streets and in a supplementary question asked whether Ubico’s Management Team could speak to the Officers she had been discussing the issue with.

In response the Cabinet Member Sustainability agreed that it would be beneficial for Ubico and CBC staff to discuss issues of this nature.  Whilst he was unable to control inconsiderate parking he would be happy to convene a meeting between Ubico, CBC staff and residents to help resolve issue.  This option was always available. 

9.

Question from Councillor Fletcher to Cabinet Member Corporate Services

Due to the very severe IT problems which have plagued the Council over the past month, and that for some still continue, can you please explain why certain vital elements of the IT system have not been upgraded for 8 years?

Response from Cabinet Member Corporate Services

The IT department supports and maintains a wide number of products and services. Each product has different manufacture support timescales, some products are typically 3 years others significantly longer. The particular items identified have now reached their end of life support agreement by the manufactures hence the need to replace.

In a supplementary question Councillor Fletcher asked why essential elements had not been upgraded sooner and asked for assurances from the Cabinet Member that they had since been upgraded. 

The Cabinet Member Corporate Services reiterated the variance in support timescales associated with various elements and that some had been identified as having reached the end of life support agreement.  At this time the exact cause of the problem was still unknown and as such it was not possible for him to confirm whether these elements had been updated.  Internal Audit were in the process of reviewing the matter and would be reporting back in due course and there was now a strategy in place which would enable expenditure where required.

10.

Question from Councillor Fletcher to Cabinet Member Corporate Services

As access to the Citrix system is sometimes 'hit and miss” can you tell me why there are only 10 licences available for councillors and only 20 for staff.

Response from Cabinet Member Corporate Services

There are currently 10 licences for councillors and 30 for staff. These are monitored on a regular basis to review how many concurrent sessions are in use. There has been an issue whereby sessions were not disconnected properly and using up resources, this has been addressed by some training. Reviewing the current usage, there is on average only 3-4 councillors logged on at any one time. There is currently enough capacity to meet demand. Moving forwards, the ICT Infrastructure Upgrade strategy for 2013 to 2017 will add additional resilience and capacity to accommodate future council needs. 

11.

Question from Councillor Garnham to Cabinet Member Housing & Safety

Given the new Police and Crime Commissioner is responsible for policing and the wider criminal justice remit e.g. working with Community Safety Partnerships and Councils, can the relevant Cabinet Member inform the council  how many meetings they have had with the Commissioner’s office to ensure Cheltenham benefits from any money, commissioning or activities arising from the PCC’s office?

Response from Cabinet Member Housing & Safety

Various meetings have taken place between the commissioner’s representatives and CBC officers. These are listed below:

Andrew North has had the following meetings with representatives from the Commissioner's office:

Andy Champness - various informal discussions 
Richard Bradley - specific meeting on 3 December 2012
Andrew North attended GSSJC at which Martin Surl, Andy Champness & Richard Bradley were in attendance - 27 November 2012

Planned meeting with Andrew North and Cllr Jordan with Martin Surl on 10 January 2013

In addition, officers have had the following meetings:

• Jane Griffiths attended an evidence based practice commissioning/police and crime commissioner
• Richard Bradley (PCCs commissioning development manager)  met with Jane Griffiths reference commissioning
• Richard Bradley attended Exec Board on 23 August with Andrew North, Pat Pratley, Grahame Lewis, Jane Griffiths and Mark Sheldon
• Jane Griffiths and Helen Down attended an evaluation workshop at Waterwells facilitated by Richard Bradley on 24 September
• Richard Gibson attended a needs workshop at Waterwells facilitated by Richard Bradley on 9 October
• Richard Bradley attended the Positive Lives Partnership on 20 September
• Richard Bradley attended the Positive Lives Partnership on 22 November
• Sam Gibbs (deputising for Richard Bradley) attended our neighbourhood management meeting 4 December
• Richard Bradley and Richard Gibson attended the Barnwood Trust Commissioners Circle 18 October and 21 November.

The Public Protection team have met with the Commissioning Development Manager for the PCC to discuss existing synergies between priority areas of work.

They identified many areas where strength-based partnership working already exists to support PCC priorities.. Examples include:

The Public Protection team will continue to strengthen partnership links and will also support the priorities of the incoming Chief Constable.

In a supplementary question Councillor Garnham asked for assurances from the Cabinet Member Housing & Safety that he would encourage the PCC to consider the wider issues of crime rather than simply policing.  

The Cabinet Member Housing & Safety assured Councillor Garnham that he would indeed do this, as would the Chief Executive. 

12.

Question from Councillor Garnham to the Leader

At the County Council elections in May 2013 there will be elections for 53 Councillors – ten less than at present.  This is an excellent example of how a Conservative led Council have saved money and, at the same time as staff have lost jobs, have led by example and actually cut the cost of democracy and taken steps themselves to reduce the burden on the tax payer.  Given that the Leader has already said he refuses to move to four yearly elections can he explain what steps he is actually taking to reduce the cost of governing the town?

Response from the Leader

In Cheltenham we have concentrated on reducing bureaucracy rather than democracy. As the recently published draft budget for 2013/14 shows the cabinet is proposing a further freeze on Council Tax and no major cuts to front line services despite at 32% reduction in central government grant funding over 3 years.      

13.

Question from Councillor Seacome to Cabinet Member Sustainability

Given that the Cheltenham Motor Sport has a banner on its web page that says “2013 Moto Expo 28-29 September” and that Cheltenham Festivals have confirmed the Literature Festival as taking place from 4^th to 13^th October (with set up happening in the week before) can the relevant portfolio holder confirm what actions they have taken to ensure the protection of Imperial Gardens, whether or not the Council has agreed to two large events happening at the same time and what discussions the Cabinet Member has had with either Cheltenham Festivals or Cheltenham Motorsport? If any discussions have taken place can the Cabinet Member tell the Council if they have sanctioned these two events happening at the same time?

Response from Cabinet Member Sustainability

The question of a clash of dates does not arise:-  I can confirm that Cheltenham Motor Sports have no plans to use Imperial (or Montpellier) gardens for their Expo event in 2013. Expo are in negotiation with CBC for use of an area in front of the Municipal offices during the weekend of 28th and 29th September with construction taking place on the Friday before and dismantling on the Monday. Also, the provisional booking made by Expo at the Town Hall was cancelled. Event planning is the subject of a report on today’s agenda, and the expo event would be large enough to fall within its ambit.

In a supplementary question Councillor Seacome questioned the claim that no clash arose when in fact the set-up and take-down of the events did coincide and asked the Cabinet Member Sustainability to clarify who it was that accepted event applications and at what point potential pitfalls (i.e. barriers, bus times, etc) were given due consideration.

The Cabinet Member stressed that there was no clash between the Expo and Cheltenham Festivals as the two events were geographically separated with the Expo set-up outside of the Municipal Offices rather than the gardens.  At the moment event applications were dealt with on a first come first served basis and in this particular case by the Parks department.  He explained that he intended to raise this very issue as part of the Event Submission discussion scheduled later on the agenda. 

14.

Question from Councillor Harman to Cabinet Member Housing & Safety

With the cold winter months now upon us could the Cabinet Member please reassure the Council that measures are in place to help homeless people in the Town; what actions are the Council taking in conjunction with other statutory and voluntary organisations to help homeless people and in particular rough sleepers in Cheltenham?

Response from Cabinet Member Housing & Safety

CBC's Housing Options Team has signed up to a county-wide protocol to ensure that rough sleepers are accommodated in an emergency during sub-zero temperatures. This is financed out of separate funding from the Department of Communities and Local Government.

The Housing Options Team has also recently commissioned Cheltenham Housing Aid Centre (CHAC) to deliver Assertive Outreach services in Cheltenham for rough sleepers and for those at risk of rough sleeping/homelessness as a result of having highly complex needs. CHAC were specifically commissioned to carry out this work because of their contacts with other agencies, such as the church, who are already working closely with rough sleepers. The aim of the service is to get rough sleepers to begin engaging with mainstream support and/or health services and to get them back on the pathway to independent living. Not every rough sleeper is willing to engage with support services or indeed is willing to live off the streets. The challenge for the Assertive Outreach service is to build roughsleepers' trust in support services again and for them to want to improve their own lives.

In addition, Gloucestershire Emergency Accommodation Resource ( GEAR ) Projects has also recently secured funding from Homeless Link to deliver county-wide outreach services for roughsleepers. Both GEAR and CHAC are therefore looking to work together to avoid duplication in effort and to maximise the resources available for Cheltenham.

Cheltenham also has supported housing specifically for individuals with high needs and who cannot manage to live independently just yet. These supported housing providers offer accommodation and work with individuals to improve their skills so that they can live independently in the medium term - with support attached. Access into supported housing is done via multi-agency groups who meet to discuss individual cases on a weekly basis.

Whilst there is supported housing in Cheltenham, what is lacking is Direct Access accommodation for those whose support needs are unclear/very high - and who need further assessment before being placed into alternative accommodation. Supporting People, which is a commissioning department within the County Council, has recently commissioned P3 to set up and deliver Direct Access accommodation (6 units) and Drop-in Services in Cheltenham from February next year. These services will provide accommodation, assessment, support and advice for rough sleepers and other households with complex needs. These new facilities will provide a key additional resource for Cheltenham, and for those agencies working with rough sleepers.