Agenda item

1.

Question from Councillor Seacome to the Cabinet Member Built Environment, Councillor Andrew McKinlay

Can the Cabinet Member confirm or deny that PCSOs have been instructed by a Council Officer not to apprehend cyclists as they cycle on the pavement, essentially a pedestrian area, in front of Cavendish House?

Response from Cabinet Member Councillor Andrew McKinlay

I am not aware that any CBC officer has instructed PCSO’s not to enforce cycling restrictions in the town centre.

PCSO’s are employed by Gloucestershire Constabulary not CBC. Whilst the Council works in partnership with the police and generally seeks to promote walking and responsible cycling as more sustainable alternatives than using motorised transport, CBC officers are not in a position to instruct PCSO’s.

In a supplementary question, Councillor Seacome advised that the incident had taken place at a cycling event on 9 July 2013 and asked what a council officer was doing exceeding his brief.

The Cabinet Member advised that it was difficult to respond without knowing the full facts of the case.  He was not aware of any officers taking such action and he asked the councillor to supply him with more details.

2.

Question from Councillor Andrew Chard to the Cabinet Member Built Environment

Can the Cabinet Member tell me how many Civil Parking Enforcement Officers we now have, are they able to cope with the workload and would it not have been better to consolidate our parking enforcement services with the new County Council contract to achieve better economies of scale and an improved service?

Response from Cabinet Member Councillor Andrew McKinlay

The Council now has four parking patrol officers providing enforcement, local advice and customer assistance within our car parks.

During the first three months of 2013-14, the service was operating with two patrol officers, but performance was comparable with last year. With four officers in post, we expect to see an improvement in the off-street service.

A review will be undertaken later in 2013-14 to consider whether the county parking contract might offer an effective alternative to the current in-house service. As part of this review, we will have the advantage of being able to look at how the GCC contract has performed so far this year.

Detailed information about the pricing structure of the county contract, which CBC can utilise should it choose to do so, was not available soon enough and prior to the termination of the on-street parking agency arrangement at the end of March 2013, to allow outcomes, risks and value for money to be effectively assessed.

3.

Question from Councillor Rob Garnham to the Leader, Leader Steve Jordan

The Cabinet of this council currently consists of 7 members.  Four of those members are also full or reserve members of the Planning Committee, including the Cabinet Member for Built Environment.  Will the Leader review the duties of his Cabinet Members, and the duties of other members of the Liberal Democrat Group, so as to ensure a more fair distribution of workload of all his members and to avoid the perception, real or otherwise, that there is undue influence of Cabinet at Planning Committee.

Response from Cabinet Member Councillor Steve Jordan

The moment I need Cllr Garnham’s advice on distributing the workload in the Liberal Democrat group he will be the first to know.

The proportion of the Cabinet serving as full members of the Planning Committee is in fact less than the proportion for members of the Council as a whole.

4.

Question from Councillor Rob Garnham to the Cabinet Member Corporate Services, Councillor Jon Walklett

Given the fact that all IT services at Cheltenham Borough Council came close to a complete failure earlier this year, can the Cabinet Member please reassure this council, and the public of the town, that there is now a full IT Disaster Recovery Plan, and Business Continuity Plan, in place?  Can you tell us when this was last tested and has it ever been subject to a peer review to make sure it is fit for purpose?

Response from Cabinet Member Councillor Jon Walklett

Given that a major virus caused certain ICT problems, I regard the assertion that CBC’s IT services came close to a complete failure last year as an exaggeration of the facts.

Until recently, the council had disaster recovery (DR) arrangements in place at the depot site. However, given the additional space requirements of Ubico and CBH, it became clear that this was no longer a practical DR site. I am therefore happy to reassure both the public and council members that one of early benefits of the shared ICT service with Forest of Dean District council means we have during June of this year been able to establish more robust reciprocal DR arrangements in the server rooms at both councils using DR software which was used to support the rollout of the GO Agresso system.

The council has over 60 business applications. A programme to test the full recovery of key business systems and business continuity plans at reciprocal sites will take place within three months of the start up of the new DR arrangements and commences in September 2013.

The DR arrangements were independently reviewed by an employee from Cotswold DC as part of the due diligence work in respect of the establishment of the GO support and hosting centre of excellence and the review of the ICT service ahead of the creation of the shared service with FOD DC.

Internal Audit are also due to validate these arrangements and processes before December 2013.

In a supplementary question, Councillor Garnham, said that it appeared that the council had only sought advice from within local government and he asked whether any advice had been sought from commercial suppliers or external experts.

The Cabinet Member advised that as far as he was aware this was not the case but he would provide Councillor Garnham with a written response.

This was followed up subsequent to the meeting by the Director of Resources who confirmed that no external advice had been sought on this specific issue to date. However, the Business continuity arrangements and testing are to be subject to an audit by the South West Audit Partnership (SWAP) who are the external auditors for Forest of Dean District Council, which will provide members of both councils with assurance that the systems and processes  in place to deal with business continuity are robust. 

5.

Question from Councillor Rob Garnham  to the Cabinet Member Finance, Councillor Jon Rawson

Given that there is currently over £150,000 tied up in the stockpile of unsold and unused brown waste bins at the Depot, and that the ruling group will shortly vote against saving £100,000 over four years by moving to a four year election cycle, can the Cabinet Member for Finance tell this Council whether he feels he enjoys the support of his Cabinet colleagues when it comes to trying to deliver budgets that will even begin to attempt to meet the millions of pounds shortfall expected in the MTFS?

Response from Cabinet Member Councillor Jon Rawson

Cllr Garnham’s question is a strange collection of non-sequiturs, wandering around frantically in search of an argument.  I would give my answer as follows.

First, while it is true that there is a stock of unused garden waste bins, which is slowly diminishing, Cllr Garnham’s suggestion that the garden waste service is a contributor to our revenue budget problems is untrue.  As I told the Council last March, the service is currently earning us around £430,000 a year, and is more than covering its costs.  The garden waste service may be haemorrhaging money in the world of Conservative leaflets, but not in the real world.

Secondly there is absolutely no doubt about the Cabinet’s commitment to meet its budget challenges.  The proof is that we have done so year after year, delivering about £5 million of savings since 2010 and £1.2 million in new savings in this year’s budget alone.  I suppose it is too much to hope that he might find the grace to acknowledge how much has been achieved, but it is a remarkable achievement nonetheless.

Thirdly, going over to all-up elections would undoubtedly deliver a modest financial saving, as the report before the Council today confirms.  However, I understand perfectly well that where the democratic process is concerned, many members may feel that finance is not the only consideration.  Understanding other people’s point of view, and keeping a sense of proportion, are part of what makes a mature approach to politics.

In a supplementary question, Councillor Garnham asked the Cabinet Member again whether he was satisfied that he enjoyed the support of his Cabinet colleagues when making budget cuts as they were not supportive of the four-year election cycle.

The Cabinet Member responded that he was staggered that the member felt he hadn't answered the question in his initial response.

6.

Question from Councillor Barbara Driver to the Cabinet Member  Sustainability, Councillor Roger Whyborn

Can the Cabinet Members responsible for Sport and Culture and Sustainability tell this Council exactly how much money has to be spent restoring Imperial SquareGardens and MontpellierGardens after each Festival or other cultural event.  Can the Cabinet Member responsible break down those costs into costs incurred by Cheltenham Borough Council and costs incurred by the event organisers.  Figures for 2011/12 and for 2012.13 (so far) would be useful.

Response from Cabinet Member Councillor Roger Whyborn

I am currently clarifying details of the costs incurred by event organisers and permission to publish them from those concerned. I will then provide Cllr. Driver with a fuller answer.

In a supplementary question, Councillor Driver requested that when the figures were available they should be sent to all members of Council.

The Leader, speaking on behalf of Councillor Whyborn who had given his apologies for  this meeting, explained that permission needed to be sought from the third party organisers before the figures could be made available but once this was done the information could be circulated to all members.

The following response was provided after the Council meeting:

All the costs for restoring the both Imperial and MontpellierGardens are paid for directly by the event organisers. They are as follows:

2012

Montpellier Jazz Festival  drill seeding - £835           

Imperial Science Festival drill seeding - £473

Montpellier Food Festival turf and drill seeding - £2500

Montpellier Literature Festival turf - £22,704

Imperial Literature Festival turf - £4756

2013

Montpellier Jazz Festival  drill seeding - £600

Imperial Science Festival fertilising -  £340

Montpellier Food / Jazz Festival fertilising – £470

In addition to the above and starting this year event organisers are also required to pay for tree protection works that include specialist soil aeration to the root zone of trees and any tree pruning undertaken in Montpellier Gardens at the beginning of each year. This work is charged at £80 per day and includes setting up and taking down.

7.

Question from Councillor Anne Regan to the Cabinet Member Sport and Culture, Councillor Rowena Hay

Can the Cabinet Member (Rowena Hay) tell me how many staff were employed at the Art Gallery and Museum in 2011/2012 and 2012/2013 and how many staff are envisaged to be employed once the Art Gallery and Museum re-opens( not including the Tourist Information staff transfer)  Have any members of staff been made redundant?

Response from Cabinet Member  Councillor Rowena Hay

The number of staff employed at the AG&M in 2011\12 was 27 which equates to 17.6  full-time equivalent employees (FTE’s) 17.6.

The number of staff employed at the AG&M in 2012\13 was 26, which equates to 17.5 full-time equivalents  (FTE’s)

The number of staff to be employed at the AG&M for the re-opening of the new AG&M will be 37, this equates to 27 (FTE’s)

There have been 1.5 (FTE) redundancies.  (One compulsory, 0.5 voluntary)

The TIC & AG&M merged in 2011 as a result employment records reflect the merged service and do not extrapolate Tourist Information staff numbers as Cllr.Regan requested.

The growth in staffing capacity, will ensure that the new AG&M will be structured and resourced in a manner that meets the needs of our customers, visitors and funding partners.

In a supplementary question, Councillor Regan asked the Cabinet Member to reassure her that there would be sufficient staff to support the implementation of the multi-million pound project and deliver the benefits to customers.

The Cabinet Member referred to her answer at the previous Council meeting and reiterated that the whole restructure was about delivering these benefits.

8.

Question from Councillor Duncan Smith to the Leader, Councillor Steve Jordan

Given that members of Council do not believe that the Cabinet is being held to account, what suggestions does he have for ways that the Cabinet and its decision making can be made more accountable to both council and public? 

Response from Leader Steve Jordan

The reason I gave that answer in the survey was because the O&S Committee seems to spend more time coordinating working groups to review and develop new policy rather than exploring issues from the Cabinet forward plan. While I have no problem with that it does reduce scrutiny of what the Cabinet is actually doing.

I don’t know why other members answered the question as they did but it may be an issue the O&S Committee wishes to look at in more detail. I and the Cabinet will happy to discuss options for improving the process.

In a supplementary question, Councillor Smith, asked the Leader whether he would consider asking scrutiny task groups to develop policy rather than Cabinet Member working groups as currently O&S were frequently told it was too soon for O&S to get involved or that a Cabinet Member working group had already been set up to look at an issue.

The Leader responded that he was happy for some matters to be referred to scrutiny task groups but Cabinet Members needed to be involved in the early stages of development of policies affecting their portfolio and he was aware that some scrutiny task groups had been reluctant to have the Cabinet Member involved at all. He would welcome further discussion and debate on the matter.

9.

Question from Councillor Duncan Smith to the Leader, Councillor Steve Jordan

Would he agree to extend an invitation to the Members of Parliament that represent Cheltenham, to attend a meeting of Council on an annual basis to report back on what they have been doing on behalf of their constituents?

Response from Leader Steve Jordan 

I’m happy to look at that option and suggest it is discussed at the next group leaders meeting.

10.

Question from Councillor Duncan Smith to the Cabinet Member Housing and Safety, Councillor Peter Jeffries

How much does the council spend on protecting the public against noisy neighbours?

Response from Cabinet Member Councillor Peter Jeffries

The council does not have a specific budget for statutory noise nuisance work which includes noisy neighbours. The 2013-14 budget for Pollution Control is £114,100 and this covers a range of statutory functions such as:

• Statutory nuisances (noise is one of 12 categories of statutory nuisance)
• Quality responses to planning and licensing consultations (statutory consultees) to protect against future nuisances
• Environmental Permitting
• Public Health Act work

The budget is modest compared to the level of work so the team also try to deliver preventative or partnered interventions such as:

·        restorative practice is the default approach for noise complaints

·        advice given to event organisers via ECGs and SAGs

·        compliance monitoring for noise conditions in LUA for Montpellier & ImperialGardens

·        spot monitoring for compliance with noise conditions at other large scale events eg Greenbelt, Wychwood or at potentially contentious events

·        multi-agency case conferences

·        task specific eg student noise in conjunction with the uni

·        joint operations with the police

·        education and awareness campaigns at specific noise sources

The cost of this work is also met from the same £114,100 budget.

There are two officers dealing with statutory noise nuisance amongst other priorities.

In a supplementary question, Councillor Smith asked whether the Cabinet felt it was providing staff with the necessary funding to deal with the issue.

The Leader responded on behalf of the Cabinet Member who had given his apologies to this meeting. He considered that there was adequate funding but he would ask the Cabinet Member to provide a written response to the member if this was not the case.

11.

Question from Councillor Duncan Smith to the Cabinet Member Built Environment, Councillor Andrew McKinlay

At the Cabinet meeting last July, under the approval of the Advertising & Sponsorship policy it was intended to" to appoint a specialist marketing company to assist the council in maximising its revenue which could result in the council generating extra funds to provide a better service and contribute to its overall financial position."

Can he update Council as to the appointment process and how much additional revenue has been raised since that decision was taken?

Response from Cabinet Member Councillor Andrew McKinlay

The Advertising and Sponsorship policy is now in a formal part of the Council’s policy framework following the Cabinet's decision in July 2012.  As members will be aware the policy envisaged the introduction of commercial sponsorship and advertising for various council owned assets.  The implementation of this policy has taken longer than originally expected.  The current financial and economic downturn means that the time has not been right to undertake a marketing exercise that would allow the council to maximise the financial return from any arrangements that it enters into.

In a supplementary question, Councillor Smith asked when would be the right time to enter into such arrangements.

In response the Cabinet Member indicated that a review was planned in the next six months. In the current recession it was important not to sell the council short by entering into arrangements for the sake of it. It would be better to wait for the economic fortunes of companies to be raised who would then have more money to spend and there would be a better potential range of partners for the council to negotiate with.

12.

Question from Councillor Duncan Smith to the Cabinet Member Sustainability, Roger Whyborn

Can he confirm how many Garden Waste Bins are in stock currently, and how many residents did not renew their £36 subscription in April and how many additional residents have signed up for the scheme since April?

Response from Cabinet Member, Councillor Roger Whyborn

The garden waste scheme year commences on 1st February each year with a total of 13,317 households currently signed up. 76% of the total number of customers have renewal dates between 1st February and 1st May, so in order to provide an accurate assessment of renewals it is therefore more informative to provide the figures for this period than solely for April.

9,600 or 96% of the garden bin subscriptions due between 1st February and 1st May have renewed with a total of 400 bin subscriptions having not been renewed for this period. Since 1st April 2013 there have been 870 new bin subscriptions.

The total bin subscriptions as at 30 June 2012 was 11,867 while the figure as at 30 June 2013 was 13,199 giving a net annual increase of 1,332

There are currently 7,806 brown bins in stock at the Swindon Road depot.