Agenda item

1.

Question from Councillor Jacky Fletcher to the Leader of the Council, Councillor Steve Jordan

In an article to do with Council IT, Councillor Simon Wheeler was quoted recently in the Echo as saying, "But some of the more elderly councillors may struggle with the new technology.  There will be one or two members who won't be able to get their head around it. They struggle with modern technology," In my view this is insulting to senior councillors who have served this council for many years and do try and understand IT.  Does the Leader agree with Councillor Wheeler's offensive remarks and will he apologise on his behalf?

Response from Councillor Jordan

I would caution Cllr Fletcher against believing everything she reads in the press, but assume she feels the comments quoted in the article refer to her. If any other councillors feel the comments apply to them please let me know and I’m sure Cllr Wheeler will be happy to discuss it with them.   

In a supplementary question Cllr Fletcher asked whether the Deputy Mayor would retract his remarks and asked why it had not been rebutted in the press if it was not factually correct.

In response the Leader of the Council said it was not necessarily factually inaccurate but suggested that the Councillor concerned spoke directly to the Deputy Mayor.

2.

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

We have recently had two IT failures caused by equipment in the Server Room switching itself off at night due to overheating when the air conditioning failed.  The system was subsequently not available until staff came into work the following morning.  I understand that there is no overnight or out of hours technical service available.  Could the Cabinet Member for Corporate Services explain why he has allowed this Council to get into such a state that there is no IT out of hours support available?

Response from Cabinet Member

To my knowledge, the council has never had formal out of hours cover for ICT. However, staff have responded to issues out of hours when problems have been identified and contact has been made with one of the ICT team. The need for a more formal out of hours cover was identified by both staff and officers recently, partially as a result of the increasing number of system failures resulting from the lack of investment in ICT over very many years and this is now being addressed.

The terms and conditions for staff employed by Cheltenham Borough Council were such that finding a workable solution which recompensed staff appropriately would have had significant cost implications across the council as a result of single status. The use of a private contractor would also add cost for a very limited service.

However, now that staff have transferred to the Forest of Dean District council and the shared service is undergoing a restructure, we have an opportunity to address this issue without significant cost. In addition, FOD use software which will be applied to upgraded infrastructure at Cheltenham which alerts staff if systems and infrastructure fail. This is about to be applied to the new citrix infrastructure.

In a supplementary question Cllr Garnham asked when councillors could expect a fully compliant, robust IT system in place.

In response the Cabinet Member Corporate Services said there were no specific dates but explained that when Council had approved the Forest of Dean and CBC shared service in February 2013 it had also agreed to a 2-3 year infrastructure investment project. It was acknowledged that there had been some hiccups and hurdles to overcome during the initial implementation period. Staffing remained an issue as did the heavy workload for IT management. The ICT service desk responses were good and improving. The infrastructure issues affecting the delivery of Citrix were now a priority in conjunction with the roll out of wifi and ipads. He reiterated his offer to make a regular statement at Council on progress.

3.

Question from Councillor Barbara Driver to Cabinet Member Corporate Services, Councillor Jon Walklett

Can the Cabinet Member for Corporate Services please tell me what has happened to the scrutiny task group set up to look into Town Centre Deprivation. 

It had to be explained to one Cabinet member at the first meeting this is an O&S working group not a Cabinet Member working group. 

Then the last meeting was hijacked by another Cabinet Member who asked to be there as an observer.

Response from Councillor Walklett

I personally am unaware of any problems or issues connected with the Town Centre Deprivation scrutiny task force and I would suggest to Councillor Driver that she should initially inform her colleague Cllr Duncan Smith in his role as Chairman of Overview and Scrutiny of any such connected concerns.

I have been present at all meetings held by this particular task group as an observer and have been very pleased to note that CBC officers summoned to meetings have been well prepared with relevant data covering the geographical areas covered by the Town Centre remit. I believe officers comprehensive knowledge of the part of St Paul’s ward included is largely due to that wards local councillors efforts in campaigning for increased monitoring of multi occupancy housing. Certainly my observer status allows me to voice an opinion when sought by members and / or officers at the meetings and I believe the published minutes of the Town Centre Deprivation task force reflect that fact.

In a supplementary question Councillor Driver asked why the correct map featuring St Pauls was only passed to officers at the end of the meeting and why the Cabinet Member had held two meetings prior to the task group meeting.

In response the Cabinet Member Corporate Services explained that the correct map did appear at the end of the meeting but he had held no discussions prior to this meeting with the planning department. He maintained observer status at this meeting and had not added to the agenda in any way. He suggested that Councillor Driver take up this issue directly with the officers concerned.

4.

Question from Councillor Chard to Cabinet Member Sustainability, Councillor Roger Whyborn

Can the Cabinet Member for Sustainability tell this Council how much progress he has made regarding each of the 7 recommendations agreed by Ubico Scrutiny Task Group that reported back to Scrutiny in March of this year and to Cabinet in April this year?  

Response from Councillor Whyborn

1. Review decision not to nominate any borough councillors to the [Ubico] Board...

This matter remains under review.

2. Review the customer service arrangements at an appropriate time … and consider whether delivery of this service should return to the depot.

A comprehensive review of customer service arrangements has taken place, including bad weather arrangements.  A systems thinking review has been undertaken looking at the processes within both CBC and Ubico and this is expected to yield improvements.  However no advantage can be demonstrated from moving the call centre back into Ubico at the depot.

3. Review internal and external communication strategies…...

The review referred to above includes communications.  Ubico have also looked at the way in which they communicate with their own teams.

4. Review the emptying frequency timetable for the bring site facilities…..

So far only minor changes have been identified as necessary, pending other work streams which are now complete. I can report on this subject in more detail if required.

5. Consider the adoption of waste and recycling literature (bin tags) which include information including collection dates, bin information and key messages …..

This was reviewed but it was considered that this was a not a cost effective means of getting messages to the public.  Instead there will be more targeted communications for those who are not recycling.

6. At the end of the season (April 2013) assess the overall impact of the decision by the senior football league to cease coordination of their sports pitch bookings and if this has had a largely negative impact on resources within the customer services team ask the senior football league to reconsider their decision……

The problem which had been highlighted during the review has now been addressed and the processes for pitch bookings has been improved.

7. Consider providing additional marketing resource on an invest to save basis for the promotion of the trade waste service……..

An evaluation has been completed, with a recommendation based on modest growth to the service, with appropriate marketing investment. This was brought to the Cabinet member working group on Waste on 28^th Sept. and will be further evaluated by cabinet.

In a supplementary question Councillor Chard asked whether the Cabinet Member intended to publish the review and whether all members would receive it. In response the Cabinet Member said that some of the work was ongoing but a report could be produced.

5.

Question from Councillor Chard to the Leader, Councillor Steve Jordan

Can the Leader of the Council please reassure me that members of his group do not discuss as a group planning applications prior to meetings of the Planning Committee and, like the Conservative members of that committee, that there is no 'agreed' line on any applications of any nature at Planning Committee.

Response from Councillor Steve Jordan

Yes I can.

6.

Question from Councillor Ryder  to Cabinet Member Corporate Services Councillor Jon Walklett

As a councillor it is important that not only do we serve the public but we can be seen to be serving the public.  Previously when I was here as a councillor, residents could see the questions and comments I was making on their behalf, as my name would be mentioned in the minutes of Council and the various committees I served on.  Now that I have returned, I note that is no longer happening, especially during debates and the time at Council set aside for questions.

Can I ask the Cabinet Member if they will review the current practice of minute taking so that, as happens with Planning Committee, all councillors are named in the minutes.

Response from Councillor Walklett 

Currently I believe the minutes to be in accordance with best practice, in that the purpose of the minutes is to provide context for the decisions that are taken and which enable the reader to understand the discussion which was related to that decision.

The published  guidance on this matter confirms:- 

a) to establish an accurate record of the decisions taken;
b) to comply with legal requirements; and where minutes are used as the vehicle to bring committee proposals before the full assembly, the need also:
c1) to ensure that the record is sufficiently self-explanatory to enable the council to make a decision in full possession of the relevant facts;
c2) to provide adequate information about the authority’s business for press and public.”

The same guidance Law & Practice of Local Authority Meetings by Raymond Knowles also suggests that the “minutes should record the tenor of the discussion on a particular item of business but not attribute views to individual members.” Instead it is suggested to use words like “the following points were raised in discussion” and then list them.

In a supplementary question Councillor Ryder asked whether OneLegal could look into this further and she looked forward to a valid reply in due course.

In response the Cabinet Member Corporate Services clarified that there had been legal input into the written answer. He suggested that the way Planning Committee was minuted was very different to Cabinet and Council. He would however ask OneLegal to provide a fuller explanation to his response.

7.

Question from Councillor Regan to the Leader Councillor Steve Jordan

What is this administration doing now to prevent 795 homes being built on Greenbelt land on the Up Hatherley Way" ?

Response from Cabinet Member

We are encouraging everyone to take part in the planned consultation of the proposals in the Joint Core Strategy starting on 15^th October. The site mentioned by Cllr Regan is currently included as a potential development site in order to meet the assessed need for housing across the JCS area. We will ensure that the method of calculating the assessed need is reviewed to make it is as accurate as possible and that the data used is kept up to date. By the final version of the JCS we will work to ensure that the housing numbers allocated for Cheltenham match the need rather than exceed it as in the current version.

In a supplementary question Councillor Regan asked whether the Leader had held any meetings with Tewkesbury Borough Council since the last Council meeting in order to remove the proposed development on Greenbelt Land on Up Hatherley Way.

In response the Leader of the Council clarified that he was not aware of any meetings taking place. He clarified that it was only when the consultation had finished that changes would be made to the proposals, not at this point.

8.

Question from Councillor Seacome to the Leader, Councillor Steve Jordan

Recently we have had meetings of Overview and Scrutiny cancelled.  Earlier this year there was a proposal to cancel a full Council meeting, and it was only held after the Conservative Group demanded its reinstatement.  The agenda for the meeting today has now had a major item removed which leaves us with nothing to discuss but one confidential item.   How can the Leader of the Council be confident that the citizens of Cheltenham, who pay for this council, are being properly served, given the complete lack of accountability and transparency that is a reflection of the way his Party is trying to run the Council, and by extension, the town?

Response from Councillor Jordan

Councillor Seacome should talk to Councillor Smith if he is concerned about scheduling of Overview & Scrutiny meetings, as it not something I have any control over. However, my understanding is that the 3^rd October Overview & Scrutiny meeting was only scheduled if required and turned out not to be.

Since there was a special council meeting to discuss the JCS last month and another special council meeting to discuss the Cheltenham Transport Plan next month, Cllr Seacome’s claim that there is a lack of items to discuss would appear ludicrous.

The Conservative group is of course free to use the ‘Notice of Motion’ item on the council agenda to discuss any issue they feel necessary. It is instructive to note that they have not put forward a single motion in the last year.

In a supplementary question Councillor Seacome made reference to the fact that there were only 2 items on the agenda of this meeting and asked whether other decisions were being taken behind closed doors.

In response the Leader of the Council said he failed to understand what Councillor Seacome was referring to and suggested that if he had issues then these should be raised as a notice of motion at Council.