Agenda item

1.

Question from Councillor Tim Harman to Cabinet Member Finance, Councillor John Rawson

During the debate on the Council’s budget earlier this year the cabinet member agreed to look at the issues raised by my group in relation to the employment of additional apprentices and the need to enhance enforcement in the fields of planning and Public Safety. Can he please update the Council on progress?

Response from Cabinet Member

In respect of apprenticeships, the Council has been employing apprentices for 6 years. We currently employ 7 apprentices in CBC and our partner organisations working in Democratic Services, GOSS and Ubico.

In line with the People & Organisational Deverlopment strategy, managers are encouraged to consider apprenticeships as part of a process of sucession planning and talent management.

Since the budget meeting, GOSS have prepared guidance to be issued to managers to reinvigorate the use of apprenticeships across the Council.Managers will be asked to identify if there are any administration or customer service elements in the professional roles that could be undertaken by an apprentice. Ubico and GOSS are currently actively looking to make appointments.

In respect of regulatory and enforcement work, the REST programme is designed among its other objectives to create a more seamless, efficient and joined-up enforcement service for the Council. Systems Thinking is being used to reshape the way the service is provided and a number of reforms identified by this process are now being trialled, under the supervision of a member working group. The increased use of technology to increase the efficiency and mobility of staff is also part of a process of making better use of the resources we have. 

In a supplementary question, Councillor Harman asked the Cabinet Member whether he would agree to taking back these important issues to Cabinet so members could have a full report on both apprentices and enforcement resources. He had raised this at the budget meeting in February and the response appeared to be an obviscation of responsibilities.

In response the Cabinet Member reminded members that the recommendations in the budget had been supported by members across the chamber.  Considerable progress had been made in the resources now available and it was certainly not a case of obviscation. The issues would be looked at again as part of the budget process for the coming financial year which had already started.

2.

Question from Councillor Louis Savage to Cabinet Member Finance, Councillor John Rawson

Flying the Union flag allows the Council to show its support for patriotism, civic pride and community cohesion. It also provides the opportunity to officially recognise worthy causes, recently demonstrated by flying the Armed Forces Day flag. Can members be assured that this important aspect of our town's civic tradition will continue in our new premises?

Response from Cabinet Member

I do not believe that Delta Place has a flagpole but it would be well within the Council's capabilities to erect one in time for the relocation of the council offices.  

I would also anticipate that arrangements could be made to continue to fly the flag from the Municipal Offices building to mark special occasions, subject to the agreement of any future head lessee.

3.

Question from Councillor Louis Savage to Cabinet Member Corporate Services, Councillor Jon Walklett

Does the now-abandoned Social Media Policy represent a good use of officers' time and taxpayers' money?

Response from Cabinet Member

The draft Social Media Policy arose from a meeting of a cross-party Working Group and was put forward to the Standards Committee for consideration.   The Standards Committee decided that such a Protocol was not necessary but that the draft document should be used for Member training purposes.   I do not consider the relatively small amount of resource expended to have been wasted.  It is entirely appropriate for cross-party working groups to develop protocols for consideration through the democratic process.

In a supplementary question, Councillor Savage suggested that inappropriate use of social media was reasonably low on the priorities for his constituents and asked the Cabinet Member whether he considered the time, energy and council resources could have been better directed elsewhere.

In response, the Cabinet Member advised that the officer in One Legal had spent approximately 1 day in creating the draft protocol for consideration by the Standards Committee. He considered this was an appropriate investment of resources by the council which could prevent officers having to invest time in the future investigating issues which may arise if members did not receive some guidance in the use of social media.

4.

Question from Councillor Adam Lillywhite to Cabinet Member Development & Safety, Councillor Andrew McKinlay

Cheltenham Transport Plan 

Given the absence of a model or trial of the traffic restrictions intended to be imposed on Oriel Rd in its current form, and the failure of the Bath Rd scheme which had to be terminated early due to public outrage, even though,

·                                 the reduction in flow capacity was considerably less;

·                                 it had lower traffic volumes;  

·                                 not responsible for the flow of the A46 Northbound;

under what conditions would it be considered the traffic restrictions in Oriel Rd to have failed and be backed out rather than just tweaked?

Response from Cabinet Member

GCC is the highways authority responsible for determining the final shape and implementation of the Cheltenham Transport Plan and I suggest that the question is posed to County colleagues.

5.

Question from Councillor Adam Lillywhite to Cabinet Member Development & Safety, Councillor Andrew McKinlay

Brewery Scheme

Can you please outline how the Brewery development has been allowed to narrow the lower High Street?  Has a transfer of property rights occurred?  If so, by whom, and who has sanctioned this encroachment?

Response from Cabinet Member

GCC as the highways authority approved the proposed scheme to which they were formally consulted as statutory consultee. I am not aware that any transfer of property rights has occurred. The public highway remains in the ownership of GCC and my understanding is that GCC were extremely grateful that this development funded such a major uplift in the public realm.