Agenda item

1.

Question from Councillor Regan to the Leader, Councillor Steve Jordan

Will the Leader say if any consideration is being given to reducing the salaries of Cabinet Members owing to the reduction in responsibility of duties with the amount of arm’s length and commissioning etc? Does the Leader recognise the savings to Cheltenham taxpayers if Cabinet Member’s salaries were reduced from the £16k + per annum they are allowed at this time? Will this be reflected in the next budget round?

Response from the Leader, Councillor Steve Jordan

Cabinet Members have not had a reduction in duties as their responsibilities exist regardless of how council services are provided. If anything the workload of Cabinet Members has been increasing as a result of the different means of providing services and the reduction in senior management posts at Cheltenham Borough Council.

As Councillor Regan will recall Cabinet Members did take a voluntary 5% cut in their Special Responsibility Allowance in 2011 reducing it to £12,930 and it has been frozen at that level ever since. Any general issues relating to the level of Special Responsibility Allowances should be dealt with by the independent panel set up for that purpose. 

In a supplementary question, Councillor Regan asked how the Leader monitored how effective Cabinet members were at holding outsourced activity to account and whether he would be introducing a performance pay system? 

In response to the supplementary question, the Leader said that he had regular discussions with Cabinet Members about areas they are responsible for but there was also a role for scrutiny in monitoring performance of council services.

2.

Question from Councillor Regan to Cabinet Member Clean and Green Environment, Councillor Chris Coleman

Due to the increase in fly tipping (this has been recently reported in the local news) will the member for Environmental issues consider giving the brown garden waste bins to those on a lower income at a considerably reduced rate? This will use up the many hundreds of bins standing idle at the depot and thus increase the recycling momentum.

Response from Cabinet Member Clean and Green Environment, Councillor Chris Coleman

Contrary to what has been reported about fly-tipping across Gloucestershire, Cheltenham Borough Council actually saw a drop in the number of reported incidents from 407 in 2012/13 to 400 in 2013/14.

Officers from the public protection team, customer relations, private sector housing, Ubico and the Joint Waste Team have been working closely to target areas across the town, and particularly within St. Pauls, which are experiencing environmental problems, which includes fly-tipping. It is hoped that this initiative will further decrease the numbers of fly-tipping incidents going forwards.

In respect of the Brown Bins scheme, we have seen a further increase in take up by local residents and we hope that that trend will continue. As of 30th June 2012, there were 11,867 customers. As of 30th June 2013, there were 13,199 customers. As of 30th June 2014, there were 14,209 customers.

There are no current plans to introduce a reduced fee based on the financial position of customers. There is however a reduced fee available for those customers renewing early.

There was no supplementary question.

3.

Question from Councillor Harman to Cabinet Member Corporate Services, Councillor Jon Walklet.

Can the Cabinet Member update Council on the continuing problems with the Municipal Offices Door Entry System and the steps that are being taken to resolve the situation?

Response from Cabinet Member Corporate Services, Councillor Jon Walklett

Earlier this year there was a failure of an electronic switch that controls entry depending on access rights programmed into swipe cards. This Issue was resolved with the purchase of a new switch. These cannot be held in stock as the supplier only provides replacements on an exchange basis, the exchange took 2 weeks and then the IT program controlling access to areas of the building had to be reprogrammed.

In addition the PSN security risk assessment identified the need to replace the existing swipe cards to enable a new approach to controlling access. A phased approach for the issuing of new cards to CBC members and  employees, Police, Partner organisations is underway but the process was delayed/disrupted because of the failure of the electronic switch. It is anticipated that all new cards will be issued and old cards cancelled by August.

In the event of further failures of the system a series of manual digital locks have been fitted to key doors which would be utilised should the problem continue over a lengthy period.

There was no supplementary question.

4.

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

Individual Electoral Registration makes fundamental changes to the way in which Voters can register. Noting the Guide for Members and the other steps being taken by the Council and the Government to make people aware of the changes can he inform Council of any specific steps he is taking to inform existing Postal or Proxy voters that in some circumstances they may have to provide additional information to retain their Postal or Proxy vote?

Response from Cabinet Member Corporate Services, Councillor Jon Walklett

Existing postal or proxy voters who could not be confirmed when checked against government records will receive a letter along with an invitation to register.  The letter will inform them that they currently have a postal or proxy vote and in order to retain the postal or proxy vote they will need to provide the requested information.  Any electors who do not respond to the invitation will lose their postal or proxy vote on publication of the register on 1 December 2014.  These electors will be written to notifying them that they no longer have a postal or proxy vote because they have not registered individually.  At the same time they will be encouraged to register individually by providing them with an invitation to register and a new application for a postal or proxy vote.  The Electoral Registration webpage will also contain this information. 

In a supplementary question, Councillor Harman asked that in light of next year’s general election, what local campaign would back national campaigns, if any?

The Cabinet Member Corporate Services assured members that additional measures were being considered, including specifically targeting those living in student and residential accommodation.  

5.

Question from Councillor Babbage to Cabinet Member Clean and Green Environment, Councillor Chris Coleman

Given that recycling bank 'bring sites' are an efficient and low cost route for recycling, would the Cabinet Member reconsider the decision to close some of the town's recycling bank sites, including QEII playing fields in Battledown, and instead investigate expanding the range of materials accepted at these limited facilities to cover a similar range to other sites across town, including paper, cardboard and plastics where not available, to help boost the level of recycling."

Response from Cabinet Member Clean and Green Environment, Councillor Chris Coleman

The recommendation to close down the QEII recycling bring site, along with those at the St. Marks and Hesters Way Community Centre, the Sandford Lido and the Prince of Wales stadium (which was temporarily removed last year following safety concerns), was made because these sites were underperforming and offering little contribution to the overall recycling performance.

In addition, there was continually wasted time in having the skip vehicles and drivers check the locations periodically and not have anything to collect.

As part of the planning process for the mixed plastics trial, it was concluded that because of the finite working time available for the 2 skip crews, this wasted capacity could be better used to empty the mixed plastics banks at the larger sites more frequently, based on the assumption that the likely uptake would increase.

If mixed plastic recycling at the larger sites remains as a permanent service enhancement following completion of the trial, then this gained time from not visiting these four smaller sites will continue to be needed for that purpose.

The Joint Waste Team has an action within the 2014/15 action plan to review the recycling bring site provisions in Cheltenham following the completion of the mixed plastics trial, with a view to maximising the numbers of materials available at the most popular sites.

Even taking away these four small sites, Cheltenham has a very good spread of recycling bring site facilities available to residents living across the Borough. Twelve sites across the town will remain together with the Recycling Centre at Swindon Road. The full list, together with a link to a map showing the locations, is available on the Borough Council website. 

In his supplementary question, Councillor Babbage queried how performance of the sites was measured and how this was quantifiable.

Cabinet Member Clean and Green reiterated that the four sites that had been closed were considered to be underperforming as they were often next to empty.  It was considered sensible to close these sites and introduce more frequent emptying of larger sites, offering mixed plastics recycling.  The mixed plastics trial would be under continued review and it was important to note that there were many alternatives for residents where the local bring sites had been closed, including the Swindon Road site.

6.

Question from Councillor Smith to the Leader, Councillor Steve Jordan

4 years ago, KPMG produced a public interest report following the conclusion of the Laird case.

Can the Leader confirm that all of the recommendations were implemented and are still in place today?

Response from the Leader, Councillor Steve Jordan

As you will recall the council considered the 26 recommendations at an Extraordinary Meeting of Council on 23 March 2010, and approved a list of 49 actions to be taken forward.  Monitoring the implementation of the recommendations was given to the Audit Committee and they considered progress reports at their meetings in June 2010, September 2010, January 2011 and March 2011.  At their meeting on 21 September 2011 they concluded that they were satisfied that all specified actions had been fully addressed.

It is inevitable that four years later, processes put in place at the time will have been updated and amended, as governance and risk arrangements have been improved.  I think it would be appropriate for the audit committee to review the current situation and I have asked officers to prepare a report for consideration by the committee.