minutes , 23/10/2015 county council · design awards 2015. f) motorcycle racing the vice-chairman...

- 1 -

MINUTES OF FULL COUNCILDATE: Friday 23 October 2015 at 10amVENUE: Council Chamber, Shire Hall, Gloucester

Present:

Cllr Phil AwfordCllr Dorcas BinnsCllr Robert BirdCllr Tony BlackburnCllr David BrownCllr Jason BullinghamCllr Dr John CordwellCllr Iain DobieCllr Bernard FisherCllr Jasminder GillCllr Andrew GravellsCllr Colin GuytonCllr Tim HarmanCllr Joe HarrisCllr Mark HawthorneCllr Colin Hay (Vice-Chairman)Cllr Tony Hicks

Cllr Jeremy HiltonCllr Paul HodgkinsonCllr Barry KirbyCllr Richard LeppingtonCllr Sarah LunnonCllr Steve LydonCllr Steve McHaleCllr Paul McLainCllr Paul McMahonCllr Tracy MillardCllr Patrick MolyneuxCllr Nigel MoorCllr Graham Morgan (Chairman)Cllr Shaun ParsonsCllr Alan PreestCllr David PrinceCllr Nigel Robbins

Cllr Brian RobinsonCllr Vernon SmithCllr Lynden StoweCllr Klara SudburyCllr Mike SztymiakCllr Ray TheodoulouCllr Brian TipperCllr Robert VinesCllr Stan WaddingtonCllr Simon WheelerCllr Bill WhelanCllr Kathy WilliamsCllr Lesley WilliamsCllr Suzanne WilliamsCllr Roger WilsonCllr Will Windsor-Clive

Honorary AldermenBarry Dare Bill Hobman

Apologies: Councillors Chris Coleman, Brian Oosthuysen and Pam Tracey

Honorary Aldermen Liz Boait, Bill Crowther, Paul Drake, Terry Parker, Gordon Shurmer and Mike Williams

58. MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting held on 8 July 2015 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.

Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting

- 2 -

59. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

A copy of the declarations of interest is attached to the signed copy of the minutes.

60. ANNOUNCEMENTS

a) Maureen RutterMembers stood in silence as a mark of respect to former councillor, Maureen Rutter, who had passed away on 10 October 2015. Members from across the chamber paid tribute to Maureen, making special mention of her passion in supporting vulnerable people and her work to protect children. They noted that the Children and Families Scrutiny Committee carried on Maureen’s legacy.

b) Sir Henry ElwesThe Chairman to advise that he had written to Sir Henry Elwes, former Council Chairman and Lord Lieutenant, to express the Council’s best wishes for a speedy recovery following an injury he had suffered at home.

c) Sarah ScottThe Chairman congratulated Sarah Scott on her appointment to the position of Director of Public Health on a permanent basis.

d) Defence Employer Recognition SchemeThe County Council and Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue Service had each received awards to recognise their commitment to the Armed Forces.

e) Gloucester Services Northbound on the M5The Chairman congratulated Gloucester Northbound Services on winning the new buildings category and becoming the overall winner of the Civic Voice Design Awards 2015.

f) Motorcycle racingThe Vice-chairman congratulated Scott Redding from Quedgeley (MotoGP) and Danny Kent from Tetbury (Moto3) on their success at the highest levels of motorcycle racing. Danny Kent had won the Silverstone Moto3 race and was the first winner of a motorcycle GP in Britain since Barry Sheen. He was leading the World Championship and was well placed to take the overall title in coming weeks.

g) Lydney Town CouncilThe Chairman congratulated Lydney Town Council on achieving Quality Gold as part of the new National Quality Council Award Scheme. Lydney was one of just three local councils in the UK to achieve this status.


- 3 -

h) Rugby World CupThe Chairman thanked everyone in the county who had volunteered to help in running the games at Kingsholm and the fan zone at the Quays.

i) One Day CricketThe Chairman congratulated Gloucestershire County Cricket Club on winning the Royal London One Day Cricket Cup.

j) For the Record ProjectThe Chairman advised that a Round 2 Heritage Lottery Fund bid for £1.1million had been submitted to provide a sustainable future for the Archives Service. Members were encouraged to visit the display outside the Council Chamber over the lunch period.

k) New Labour Group Political ResearcherCllr Lesley Williams, Leader of the Labour Group, advised that Tom Carter would shortly be joining the Council as the replacement for Ben Moseley who had taken up a similar position at Bristol City Council.

61. PUBLIC QUESTIONS

Two public questions had been received ahead of the meeting.

Question 1 - Mr Gerald Hartley asked:

“This response leaves a substantial deficit when measured against the claim of evidence of risks the contractor would face due to disruption from campaigners. Would the councillor care to own up now to any other exaggerations, distortions or fictions in the case made to the Information Commissioner’s Office.”

In response Cllr Ray Theodoulou stated that he did not believe there was any such distortion and that he had nothing further to add.

Mr Robert Irving was in attendance at the meeting and asked the following oral question:

He referred to new regulations and expressed the importance of being well prepared for shale gas extraction or ‘fracking’ applications. If the Council under-performed in this regard decisions could be taken by the Secretary of State and this would limit the impact of local people.


- 4 -

He asked whether Gloucestershire County Council would therefore ensure that it was thoroughly appraised of technical, legal, environment and socio-economic implications of fracking. He also asked that Gloucestershire County Council ensure that any investigations were transparent and that the residents had the opportunity to contribute.

Cllr Will Windsor-Clive explained that all due processes would be undertaken and that there was some way to go before this potentially became an issue in Gloucestershire.

62. PETITIONS

The A40 bus lane petition had received more than 5,000 signatories and therefore qualified for a debate at full Council.

The Chairman advised that the Council had no power to make a decision in relation to the content of the petition but it could choose to refer the comments made by members to the Local Transport Board and the Local Enterprise Board.

Martin Morley presented the petition on behalf of the lead petitioner, Alison Hume, to Cllr Vernon Smith, Chair of the Gloucestershire Local Transport Board (LTB).

‘We, the undersigned, petition members of Gloucestershire County Council to scrap the scheme to build a bus lane on the westbound carriageway of the A40 parallel to Campden Road and Miserden Road in Benhall, Cheltenham.

The scheme will reportedly require around £1.5 million of public money, which we believe could be better spent elsewhere. The work will cause vast disruption for about a year and another bus lane will do nothing to alleviate the ever worsening traffic congestion in the area for the great majority of people. It will require the wholesale removal of trees and green spaces which will adversely affect the ecology as well as the appearance of a major thoroughfare. Despite the opposition of the incumbent MP and his main rival, as well as local councillors, we note with alarm the lack of transparency surrounding this scheme and the failure to communicate formally with the public.

Mr Morley stated that local people were seriously concerned about the proposed scheme. They believed that it represented poor use of public money, they were worried about the loss of green space and they were concerned by the failure of officers to provide information. The overall cost of the scheme had increased from £1.5 million to close to £4 million. In simple terms, £1 million was being spent to save 1 minute of journey time on the A40 going westbound from Benhall.


- 5 -

Cllr Vernon Smith explained that the Local Enterprise Partnership through the Gloucestershire LTB was the decision maker for the scheme. The scheme itself had been put forward by Stagecoach and had been subject to widespread consultation. The views expressed in the consultation and the petition would be considered by the LTB and would inform its decision. He was concerned, however, that Cheltenham Borough Council had failed to respond to the consultation. As Chair of the LTB he would be requesting Cheltenham Borough Council to make a formal response.

Cllr Simon Wheeler, the member representing the Division of Benhall and Up Hatherley, recognised the concerns of local residents. He said that the scheme had been revised and he noted that very few trees, if any, would now be removed. He stated that the scheme would need to be monitored carefully and he questioned its benefits in terms of value for money.

Another member commented that Cllr Vernon Smith would need to balance his roles as the Cabinet Member for Highways and Flood and Chair of the Gloucestershire LTB.

Some members expressed concern that significant funds were being spent by an unelected body that lacked public control or oversight. They noted the importance of proper public engagement.

A member recognised that local transport boards did not sit comfortably within the democratic process and he was pleased that moves were being made to change the current arrangements. He regretted that Cheltenham Borough Council had failed to respond to the consultation on the scheme.

RESOLVED that the petition be noted and the comments made by members be referred to the GFirst Local Enterprise Board and the Gloucestershire Local Transport Board.

63. CORPORATE PARENTING

Cllr Paul McLain, the Cabinet Member for Children and Young People and Strategic Commissioning, presented a report updating members on the latest position. Answering questions, he recognised concerns regarding the figures published of children that might be at risk of sexual exploitation. He said that a scrutiny task group had been looking in detail at issues around the recruitment and retention of children’s social workers. He was hopeful that the group’s recommendations would help in addressing capacity issues.


- 6 -

Cllr Joe Harris stated that he had recently attended a Corporate Parenting Group for the first time and he had been impressed by what he had heard. He said that updates had been provided on the work being undertaken by the under 11 and over 11 groups.

RESOLVED to note the report of the Cabinet Member for Children & Young People and Strategic Commissioning.

64. MOTIONS

At the Council briefing, indicative times for each motion had been agreed taking account of the overall time limit of 2 hours for motions allowed in the Constitution.

Motion 751 - EU Referendum Task Group Proposed by Cllr Lesley Williams Seconded by Cllr Paul McMahon

This Council notes that the United Kingdom (UK) has been a member of the European Union (EU) since 1973. This Council recognises that the UK’s continued membership of the EU is now in question and will be subject to a national referendum.

This Council believes that the people of Gloucestershire have a right to take part in the forthcoming referendum. This Council further believes that it has a responsibility to ensure that local residents have the facts regarding the socio-economic impact that the UK’s membership of the EU has on Gloucestershire before the referendum takes place.

To establish and identify the social, economic and cultural benefits and disadvantages that the UK’s membership of the EU has on Gloucestershire, this Council resolves to create a cross party EU task group that will invite evidence from local business leaders, the LEP, trade unions, local universities, the police, the NHS, agricultural representatives, charities, district and parish councils and other partner agencies in order to compile a comprehensive report that will be presented to full Council, all partner agencies, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and be made available to the residents of Gloucestershire prior to the referendum.

In moving and seconding the motion, Cllr Williams and Cllr McMahon believed that the Council owed it to the residents of Gloucestershire to present an unbiased report that set out the pros and cons for the local community of staying in the EU.


- 7 -

They noted the value of the scrutiny work on the social and economic impact of the badger cull and the impact of the recommendations.

Cllr Jeremy Hilton moved and Cllr Paul Hodgkinson seconded an amendment to add the following words to the second paragraph of the motion (see shaded text):

This Council believes that the people of Gloucestershire have a right to take part in the forthcoming referendum. In particular, we note that the outcome will affect the lives of our young people the most; and we therefore call on the Government to give 16 and 17 year olds a vote in the EU referendum. This Council further believes that it has a responsibility to ensure that local residents have the facts regarding the socio-economic impact that the UK’s membership of the EU has on Gloucestershire before the referendum takes place.

Cllr Hilton and Cllr Hodgkinson believed that it was a once in a generation opportunity for young people to voice their opinion on an issue that would fundamentally affect their lives.

Some members spoke against the amendment as it brought in an issue that was entirely separate from the debate on the EU.

On being put to a recorded vote, the amendment was lost. The voting was as follows:

For (15): Cllrs David Brown, Dr John Cordwell, Iain Dobie, Bernard Fisher, Joe Harris, Colin Hay, Jeremy Hilton, Paul Hodgkinson, Sarah Lunnon, Nigel Robbins, Klara Sudbury, Mike Sztymiak, Simon Wheeler, Bill Whelan and Suzanne Williams.

Against (34): Cllrs Phil Awford, Dorcas Binns, Rob Bird, Tony Blackburn, Jason Bullingham, Jasminder Gill, Andrew Gravells, Colin Guyton, Tim Harman, Mark Hawthorne, Tony Hicks, Barry Kirby, Richard Leppington, Steve Lydon, Paul McLain, Paul McMahon, Tracy Millard, Patrick Molyneux, Nigel Moor, Graham Morgan, Shaun Parsons, Alan Preest, David Prince, Brian Robinson, Vernon Smith, Lynden Stowe, Ray Theodoulou, Brian Tipper, Robert Vines, Stan Waddington, Kathy Williams, Lesley Williams, Roger Wilson and Will Windsor-Clive.

A number of members spoke in support of the original motion although they recognised that it would be a challenging piece of work. They noted that the Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee would develop the detailed terms of reference for the review.


- 8 -

One member questioned the benefits of undertaking a scrutiny review locally when no one seemed to be able to agree on the issue nationally. She did not believe that it would add any value to the debate.

The original motion was put to the vote and it was

RESOLVED

That this Council notes that the United Kingdom (UK) has been a member of the European Union (EU) since 1973. This Council recognises that the UK’s continued membership of the EU is now in question and will be subject to a national referendum.

That this Council believes that the people of Gloucestershire have a right to take part in the forthcoming referendum. This Council further believes that it has a responsibility to ensure that local residents have the facts regarding the socio-economic impact that the UK’s membership of the EU has on Gloucestershire before the referendum takes place.

To establish and identify the social, economic and cultural benefits and disadvantages that the UK’s membership of the EU has on Gloucestershire, this Council resolves to create a cross party EU task group that will invite evidence from local business leaders, the LEP, trade unions, local universities, the police, the NHS, agricultural representatives, charities, district and parish councils and other partner agencies in order to compile a comprehensive report that will be presented to full Council, all partner agencies, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and be made available to the residents of Gloucestershire prior to the referendum.

Motion 752 - The closure of Gloucester and Stroud Magistrates’ Courts Proposed by Cllr Barry Kirby Seconded by Cllr Jasminder Gill

Cllrs Kirby and Gill requested that the motion be amended as indicated below:

This Council notes that the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice have identified 70 courts around the country which the Government is looking to close following a public consultation. This Council is profoundly concerned that the Ministry of Justice has earmarked Stroud and Gloucester Magistrates’ Courts for closure.

This Council notes that should the Ministry of Justice proceed with its plan, it would leave Cheltenham as the sole Magistrates’ Court in Gloucestershire.


- 9 -

This Council believes that the closure of Gloucester and Stroud Magistrates’ Courts will may undermine the delivery of justice in the county. Furthermore this Council believes plans to close Gloucester Magistrates’ Court will severely undermine existing proposals to create a justice centre and redevelop the Blackfriars quarter in Gloucester. Equally, this Council believes that the proposal to close Stroud Magistrates' Court will mean that some Gloucestershire residents will have to travel at least an hour to get to Cheltenham to receive justice.

This Council resolves to:

a) Instruct Request both the Leader and Chief Executive of the County Council to write to the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice to demand that plans to close Gloucester and Stroud Magistrates’ Courts are abandoned.

b) Write to all local Members of Parliament, judiciary leaders, Gloucestershire’s Police and Crime Commissioner, the Chief Constable, district council leaders, the Probation Service and members of the Police and Crime Panel inviting them to publically oppose the closures.

c) Invite local Members of Parliament, judiciary leaders, Gloucestershire’s Police and Crime Commissioner, the Chief Constable, district council leaders, the Probation Service and members of the Police and Crime Panel to a summit to review criminal justice across the county and to identify the long term effects of court closures that will report back to Government.

c) Review the impact Magistrates’ Court closures will have upon the planned redevelopment of the Blackfriars quarter in Gloucester and to provide a report to all councillors at the next meeting of Council in December.

Members from across the chamber supported the amended motion. They were seriously concerned about the proposal for just one Magistrates’ Court in Gloucestershire, located in Cheltenham. Access to justice was a cornerstone of democracy and in a rural county it was essential that Magistrates’ Courts were retained across the area. Public transport was simply not available to allow people from across Gloucestershire to reach Cheltenham for early morning hearings. The value of magistrates’ local knowledge was also recognised and this was likely to be lost through the proposals. Members called for further investment in the Magistrates’ Courts in Gloucester and Stroud to make them fit for purpose.

RESOLVED


- 10 -

That this Council notes that the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice have identified 70 courts around the country which the Government is looking to close following a public consultation. This Council is profoundly concerned that the Ministry of Justice has earmarked Stroud and Gloucester Magistrates’ Courts for closure.

That this Council notes that should the Ministry of Justice proceed with its plan, it would leave Cheltenham as the sole Magistrates’ Court in Gloucestershire.

That this Council believes that the closure of Gloucester and Stroud Magistrates’ Courts may undermine the delivery of justice in the county. Furthermore this Council believes plans to close Gloucester Magistrates’ Court will severely undermine existing proposals to create a justice centre and redevelop the Blackfriars quarter in Gloucester. Equally, this Council believes that the proposal to close Stroud Magistrates' Court will mean that some Gloucestershire residents will have to travel at least an hour to get to Cheltenham to receive justice.

This Council:

a) Requests both the Leader and Chief Executive of the County Council to write to the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice to demand that plans to close Gloucester and Stroud Magistrates’ Courts are abandoned.

b) Writes to all local Members of Parliament, judiciary leaders, Gloucestershire’s Police and Crime Commissioner, the Chief Constable, district council leaders, the Probation Service and members of the Police and Crime Panel inviting them to publically oppose the closures.

c) Reviews the impact magistrate court closures will have upon the planned redevelopment of the Blackfriars quarter in Gloucester and to provide a report to all councillors at the next meeting of Council in December.

Motion 754 – Ground-mounted solar photovoltaic (PV) renewable energy generation on the Council’s estate Proposed by Cllr Jeremy HiltonSeconded by Cllr Bernard Fisher

This Council welcomes the decision taken by Cabinet on 22 July 2015 approving the award of contract(s) for the design, build and maintenance of ground-mounted photovoltaic (PV) renewable energy generation facilities on the Council’s estate.

This Council notes that in light of the Council’s revenue budget pressures such a project would help increase the revenue income from the Council’s land assets,


- 11 -

converting capital into revenue and thus reducing pressure on frontline Council services whilst at the same time reducing both energy costs and the carbon footprint of the Council.

This Council is however deeply concerned with the Government’s proposals for a fundamental review of the Renewables Obligation and Feed-in Tariff Scheme (FITs), which could put at jeopardy this Council’s and other local authorities solar PV projects.

This Council therefore resolves that the Leader of this Council writes to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, the Rt Hon Amber Rudd MP requesting that any intended changes do not put at risk those public sector/community-led schemes such as this project and any similar future projects, which require much longer to develop, but yet have a much greater social return.

In moving and seconding the motion, Cllr Hilton and Cllr Fisher expressed concern that changes to the feed-in tariff were jeopardising public sector renewable energy projects and they called for steps to be taken to protect such schemes. The UK still relied on coal-fired power stations and was increasingly buying power from abroad. They believed that the opportunity to develop green energy was being lost.

A member said that more than 1,000 jobs had already been lost in the solar industry and a further 20,000 jobs would be put at risk by the latest changes. She stated that in the South West there was an opportunity to generate 100% of the region’s energy through renewables. She called for this to be taken forward by local authorities and local enterprise partnerships.

Another member regretted that it now looked unlikely that the renewable project recently approved by the Cabinet would go ahead. He noted, however, that feed-in tariffs at their current levels were unsustainable and contributed to fuel poverty. A more sustainable approach was needed but opportunities for public sector and community-led renewable energy schemes should continue to be encouraged.

RESOLVED

That this Council welcomes the decision taken by Cabinet on 22 July 2015 approving the award of contract(s) for the design, build and maintenance of ground-mounted photovoltaic (PV) renewable energy generation facilities on the Council’s estate.

That this Council notes that in light of the Council’s revenue budget pressures such a project would help increase the revenue income from the Council’s land assets, converting capital into revenue and thus reducing pressure on frontline Council


- 12 -

services whilst at the same time reducing both energy costs and the carbon footprint of the Council.

That this Council is however deeply concerned with the Government’s proposals for a fundamental review of the Renewables Obligation and Feed-in Tariff Scheme (FITs), which could put at jeopardy this Council’s and other local authorities solar PV projects.

That this Council therefore resolves that the Leader of this Council writes to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, the Rt Hon Amber Rudd MP requesting that any intended changes do not put at risk those public sector/community-led schemes such as this project and any similar future projects, which require much longer to develop, but yet have a much greater social return.

Motion 755 – Free school meals Proposed by Cllr Joe HarrisSeconded by Cllr Paul Hodgkinson

On 28 May 2014, it was resolved that this Council welcomed the initiative from the coalition government to introduce (from September 2014) the new universal infant free school meal programme giving every five, six and seven year old in England a free school meal everyday.

This Council notes that early evidence shows that free school meals are making a real difference to pupils in the classroom.

This Council is however concerned that the current Government may plan to scrap the programme as part of the Chancellor’s autumn spending review.

This Council therefore resolves that a survey be undertaken in all primary schools across the county using existing resources to examine the benefits of the new universal infant free school meal programme and for findings to be then reported back to the Children & Families Committee in January.

This Council also resolves for the Leader of this Council to write to the Secretary of State for Education, the Rt Hon Nicky Morgan MP insisting that the new universal infant free school meal programme not be scrapped, but instead that its budget be ring-fenced for future years.

In moving and seconding the motion, Cllr Harris and Cllr Hodgkinson noted the positive impact on achievement and behaviour when children receive a hot meal at school each day. They said that there was clear evidence that the school results of children from the poorest backgrounds significantly improved. They were


- 13 -

concerned that as many as 19,000 children in the county might lose their right to free school meals under potential changes and they were anxious that a strong message was sent to the Government that the Council valued children’s welfare and no change should be made. They called for a survey to be undertaken by the Council at the earliest opportunity to assess the benefits of universal infant free school meals.

Cllr Paul McLain, the Cabinet Member for Children and Young People and Strategic Commissioning, recognised the value of free school meals. School meals for those from the poorest background was not under debate. He questioned, however, why the Council was debating the issue as the Prime Minister had made a commitment to retaining free school meals and the Department of Education funding for this purpose would be protected. He noted that additional funding had been given to schools to allow them to serve hot meals. He believed that it would be a waste of valuable officer time in asking them to undertake a local survey.

A member said that she was concerned that the Prime Minister had not made an explicit commitment to retain universal free school meals. She stated that there were real benefits of children at school sitting down and eating together. When eligibility for free school meals needed to be assessed there was a stigma on those children receiving them.

On being put to the vote, the motion was lost.

Motion 756 – Fracking Proposed by Cllr Barry Kirby Seconded by Cllr Lesley Williams This Council believes that climate change is real and that it is a serious problem that affects our communities. We note fracking (hydraulic fracturing for shale gas) adds to climate change.

This Council further notes the recent protests against shale gas drilling outside Shire Hall.

This Council notes there are areas now available in Gloucestershire particularly the Forest of Dean for fracking. This Council also recognises the instability of the geology in the Forest of Dean. Furthermore this Council acknowledges that the process poses a significant risk to the local environment due to the unknown and commercially hidden information about the extraction process.

This Council resolves to write to the Secretary of State to remove the licensing areas within Gloucestershire with immediate effect.


- 14 -

In moving the motion, Cllr Kirby referred to the serious impact of numerous pollution incidents in the United States where fracking had taken place. He noted that the Forest of Dean had a history of mining activity but mining had ended as a result of unstable geology. He believed that a clear message should be sent to the Government that the area was wholly unsuitable for fracking.

Cllr Nigel Moor, the Chair of the Planning Committee, stated that no licence for shale gas extraction or fracking had been applied for in the Forest of Dean. He said that the Forest of Dean had only been included as an area for appropriate assessment. Gloucestershire County Council was the statutory authority for determining any applications put forward in the future. Individual applications would be considered on their merits and local people would have the opportunity to express their views as part of the decision making process. A procedural motion without notice was proposed by Cllr Jeremy Hilton and seconded by Cllr Iain Dobie that the motion be referred to the Environment and Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

On being put to the vote, motion 756 was referred to the Environment and Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

65. MEMBER QUESTIONS

Forty two questions had been received. A copy of the answers was circulated and is attached to the signed copy of the minutes.

The following supplementary questions were asked:

Question 1 – Cllr Iain Dobie noted the income generated from parking income in Cheltenham and asked whether the member agreed that it was correct to dedicate the revenue to improving the state of the roads.

Cllr Vernon Smith explained that this had been covered in the recent highways seminar and that spending in Cheltenham to improve the state of the roads exceeded the parking income.

Question 2 – Cllr Iain Dobie stated that there would be further cuts in public health from Central Government this year and asked why the member would not inform members and the public as to where cuts would be made in the coming year.


- 15 -

Cllr Andrew Gravells stated that until the outcome of consultations was known he was not prepared to speculate. He was happy to share information once available with Shadows and that further debate could be had at that stage.

Question 5 – Cllr Bernard Fisher emphasised the need to see the un-redacted Amey Highways contract to ensure members could see what was spent and to ensure value for money.

Cllr Vernon Smith replied that he was happy for the member to look at the contract on a consolidated basis. With regards to the schedule of rates, no contractor could work with their prices being put out in the public domain.

Question 6 – Cllr Jeremy Hilton asked why in particular the Leader and Chief Executive needed to visit China.

Cllr Mark Hawthorne explained that the member had been party discussions with other Group Leaders over the twelve months planning for this meeting which was to help develop the relationship with China as a pathway to business success.

Question 7 – Cllr Jeremy Hilton asked why, if the trip to China was for the benefit of local businesses, the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) was not ‘carrying’ the cost of the Leader and Chief Executive.

Cllr Mark Hawthorne emphasised the importance of taking this opportunity to ‘build a bridge’ and open up opportunities for businesses’ export potential. He expressed his disappointment at the question and explained that this was something all members’ should be supporting.

Question 8 – Cllr Jeremy Hilton asked for clarification as to the cost to the Council for the trip to China, given that he had heard an alternative figure of £15,000.

Cllr Mark Hawthorne confirmed that figure was approximately £12,000.

Question 9 – Cllr Jeremy Hilton asked what the itinerary of the visit was and how the three day visit to China could be scrutinised to ensure it achieved the intended outcomes.

Cllr Mark Hawthorne reiterated the importance of the visit and explained that he was happy to share the details with the member.

Question 11 – Cllr Simon Wheeler commented on scenarios where the County was both the planning authority and applicant and asked whether it was right that


- 16 -

decisions such as these should be made as a delegated decision and not go to committee.

Cllr Will Windsor-Clive understood the scenario the member referred to and explained that this was why the planning protocol was in place to clearly separate the two roles.

Question 12 – Cllr Jeremy Hilton asked for a breakdown of the estimated £5-6 million costs associated with the delay of the Javelin Park incinerator as indicated in the financial monitoring report in July and still yet to be seen. Cllr Ray Theodoulou explained that these figures were estimates based on the best knowledge available and that there was no reason to think this would be exceeded.

Question 15 – Cllr Jeremy Hilton asked how successful the Council had been regarding stabilising gate fees as opposed to seeing them rise further.

In response Cllr Ray Theodoulou reiterated that gate fees were considered confidential as outlined in the response to the original question.

Question 17 – Cllr Jeremy Hilton expressed concerns around trying to get traffic regulation orders made in Kingsholm.

Cllr Vernon Smith explained the complexity of Traffic Regulation Orders and suggested that members could use Highways Local funds to help move some of these initiatives forward.

Question 21 - Cllr David Brown emphasised the important issue of encouraging care homes in the county to get residents to register for their right to vote. He asked to be kept updated on progress.

Cllr Dorcas Binns informed members that a letter was going to each District and Borough Council Chief Executive on this issue and that she would keep the member updated.

Question 22 – Cllr Paul Hodgkinson asked why all the information previously withheld in terms of both the un-redacted contract with Urbaser Balfour Beatty and the business case for the planned incinerator had still not been released. He suggested that this demonstrated a lack of transparency.

Cllr Mark Hawthorne explained that pricing was kept commercially confidential and that this was important to ensure that a competitive tender process was undertaken


- 17 -

and that value for money could be provided on behalf of tax payers. The Information Commissioner’s decision notice was being appealed.

Question 23 – Cllr Paul Hodgkinson asked when and how members could see the un-redacted contract.

In response Cllr Mark Hawthorne explained that everything that could legally be provided to members had been. He suggested that members consider the 95% of the contract publically available first before seeking to look at the redacted parts.

66. SCRUTINY REPORT

Referring to the Environment and Communities Scrutiny Committee report, a member advised that the parish representatives attending the meeting for the Canal and River Trust presentation were from Longney & Epney, Elmore and Arlingham and not as stated in the report.

RESOLVED to note the scrutiny report.

67. CABINET DECISION STATEMENT

A member asked if the Cabinet Member for Fire, Planning and Infrastructure could give an update on the Cinderford Northern Quarter Spine Road Project.

Cllr Will Windsor-Clive stated that he was hoping for work to start early in the new year and that everyone was working well together. He particularly noted the work of the Cinderford Regeneration Board.

Another member queried what the cost was of providing the automatic discretionary financial assistance towards providing travel support for post 16 students accessing mainstream education.

Cllr Paul McLain, the Cabinet Member for Children and Young People and Strategic Commissioning, explained that this was set out in the report and that only 3% (389) of post 16 students received discretionary subsidised transport assistance through the Council’s policy at a cost of £126,000.

RESOLVED to note the Cabinet Decision Statements for the meetings held on 22 July 2015 and 30 September 2015.


- 18 -

68. INDIVIDUAL CABINET MEMBER DECISION STATEMENTS

RESOLVED to note the Individual Cabinet Member Decision Statements for the period 1 July to 30 September 2015.

69. HIGHWAYS PERFORMANCE REPORT

Cllr Vernon Smith, Cabinet Member for Highways and Flood introduced the report and took questions from members.

Concerns were expressed that highways local schemes from the previous year that had not been completed. In response, Cllr Smith explained that sometimes there were complex Traffic Regulation Orders to complete before schemes could be delivered and they would be completed in the coming year.

A member thanked the Cabinet Member for providing the report and asked that future reports include a commentary on what was being done to resolve any issues and the time period. He also believed that the report should reflect the highways work carried out in-house and the performance of those officers.

Cllr Joe Harris asked for the Cabinet Member’s view on progress over the past year. Cllr Smith explained that Amey managers were in attendance and happy to speak to members following the meeting about any concerns they had.

RESOLVED to note the report.

70. DEVOLUTION

Consideration was given to the report of the Chief Executive which provided an update on the devolution process.

The Chief Executive advised that the ‘We Are Gloucestershire’ devolution bid had been developed by the seven councils, the Local Enterprise Partnership, the Clinical Commissioning Group and the Police and Crime Commissioner. Gloucestershire offered a unique proposition with coterminous boundaries for public sector bodies. The bid was a 50/50 package that promoted accelerated UK growth and public sector reform. There was no appetite amongst the seven councils to have an elected mayor and the preferred model was a combined authority.

A total of £2.7 billion was spent by the public sector in Gloucestershire and currently only 20% was in the hands of local politicians. Local government was facing a


- 19 -

choice of inheriting cuts from central government or being given an opportunity to manage reductions in funding locally through the devolution process.

It was apparent that the Gloucestershire bid was one of the most advanced in the country. A challenge session would be held with the Rt Hon Greg Clark MP, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, on 11 November 2015. After this session, the position would be clearer in terms of how the bid would be taken forward.

Members thanked the officers involved in developing the bid for all their hard work over the last three months. They recognised that it was a delicate process and it was a challenge to bring 10 organisations together.

Cllr Jeremy Hilton proposed and Cllr Iain Dobie seconded the following amendment to the recommendation in the report:

To add:

e) The Council further notes the ‘Statement of Principles’ which are as follows:

i) This Council believes that devolution needs to be created by locally led processes and is mindful that devolution as it currently stands to a model set out by Government is not real devolution at all.

ii) The Council will only support devolution if Government is genuinely interested in giving power back to local communities, but not if the intention of Government is simply to pass cost-cutting measures onto local authorities under the façade of devolution.

iii) The new responsibilities handed down from Government to Gloucestershire must come with full powers to decide, manage and innovate at a local level.

iv) The Government must ensure that adequate funding is guaranteed now and in the future to support good quality services for residents of the county.

v) The Government must ensure that the new arrangements allow for additional funds to be raised locally or through other legitimate means to support enhanced service provision if that is decided by locally elected members.

vi) The governance arrangements must be cross-party and fully reflect the political proportionality that exists on the councils that make up the new governing board that will oversee the new devolved services.

vii) We will not support the establishment of a metro mayor. Governance of the new additional arrangements must not be handed over to a single


- 20 -

person as we believe collective responsibility across all political parties, provides for better service.

viii) If we want democracy alongside devolution, then we ultimately need a fairer voting system for local government in the form of the single transferable vote (STV).

In moving the amendment, Cllr Hilton expressed concern that a combined authority might simply create another layer of bureaucracy on top of the existing arrangements. He was anxious that a combined authority had real powers devolved from Central Government. He questioned the benefits of the current proposals for the six district councils. He said that it was important that the combined authority reflected the political make-up of the seven councils.

Some members were concerned about the speed of the process. They were anxious that members from across the seven councils had confidence in how the new arrangements would work. They hoped that the devolution process would help empower local communities.

A member stated she was not well informed and had real concerns around the governance arrangements for the combined authority. She said that it was important that answers were given to the issues raised in the amendment around fund raising powers to support vital local services such as health and social care.

Some members spoke strongly against the amendment and noted that Gloucestershire was well placed nationally to take devolution forward. They believed that the devolution bid ‘We Are Gloucestershire’ had passion and vision and set the foundation for powers and funding to be devolved from Central Government. They recognised that the devolution process was a journey rather than a destination and, once the initial steps had been taken, more opportunities for local decision making were likely to follow. Moving forward, it was important that members from across the seven councils were engaged in the process and that members of the public were asked for their views. Parish and town councils would also need to be part of the wider engagement exercise.

On being put to the vote, the amendment was defeated and it was

RESOLVED

a) To welcome the progress made with the ‘We are Gloucestershire’ bid for devolution and endorse the broad content of the document.

b) To note the processes and timescale for undertaking the required governance review.


- 21 -

c) To recognise that a devolution deal announcement was likely to be work in progress.

d) To agree that a further report is presented when firm details are known.

CHAIRMAN

The meeting ended at 3.20pm

minutes , 23/10/2015 county council · design awards 2015. f) motorcycle racing the vice-chairman...

Documents