Agenda, decisions and minutes
PDF 115 KBVenue: the Council Chamber - Council Offices, Trinity Road, Cirencester, GL7 1PX. View directions
Contact: Democratic Services
Media
| No. | Item | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Apologies To receive any apologies for absence. The quorum for Cabinet is 3 members.
Additional documents: Decision: Apologies were received from Councillors Claire Bloomer, Joe Harris and Tony Dale. Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillors Claire Bloomer, Joe Harris, and Tony Dale. |
|||||||||
|
Declarations of Interest To receive any declarations of interest from Members and Officers, relating to items to be considered at the meeting. Additional documents: Decision: There were no declarations of interest from Members. Minutes: There were no declarations of interest from Members present. |
|||||||||
|
To approve the minutes of the previous meeting of Cabinet on 25 July 2024.
The exempt minutes at item 16 can be taken as read unless Cabinet wishes to discuss the content (in private session). Additional documents: Decision: The minutes of the Cabinet meeting on 25 July 2024 were considered as part of the document pack.
There were no amendments to the minutes.
Cabinet took the exempt minutes as read.
RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 25 July 2024 be approved as a correct record.
Voting Record
4 For, 0 Against, 1 Abstention, 3 Absent/Did not vote Minutes: The minutes of the Cabinet meeting on 25 July 2024 were considered as part of the document pack.
There were no amendments to the minutes.
Cabinet took the exempt minutes included at item 16 as read.
|
|||||||||
|
Leader's Announcements To receive any announcements from the Leader of the Council. Additional documents: Decision: The Deputy Leader made the following announcements:
· The shocking outcome of the Grenfell Tower inquiry was noted and the failures through the various public bodies. It was noted that public institutions should always seek to serve the public. · The Deputy Leader wished to congratulate all of those residents participating in the Olympics and Paralympics.
Minutes: The Deputy Leader made the following announcements: · The shocking outcome of the Grenfell Tower inquiry was noted and the failures through the various public bodies as outlined in the published report. It was noted that public institutions should always seek to serve the public. · The Deputy Leader wished to congratulate all of those residents participating in the Olympics and Paralympics. |
|||||||||
|
Public Questions To deal with questions from the public within the open forum question and answer session of fifteen minutes in total. Questions from each member of the public should be no longer than one minute each and relate to issues under the Cabinet’s remit. At any one meeting no person may submit more than two questions and no more than two such questions may be asked on behalf of one organisation.
The Leader will ask whether any members of the public present at the meeting wish to ask a question and will decide on the order of questioners.
The response may take the form of: a) a direct oral answer; b) where the desired information is in a publication of the Council or other published work, a reference to that publication; or c) where the reply cannot conveniently be given orally, a written answer circulated later to the questioner. Additional documents: Decision: There were no public questions. Minutes: There were no public questions. |
|||||||||
|
Member Questions No Member Questions have been submitted prior to the publication of the agenda.
A Member of the Council may ask the Leader or a Cabinet Member a question on any matter in relation to which the Council has powers or duties or which affects the Cotswold District. A maximum period of fifteen minutes shall be allowed at any such meeting for Member questions.
A Member may only ask a question if: a) the question has been delivered in writing or by electronic mail to the Chief Executive no later than 5.00 p.m. on the working day before the day of the meeting; or b) the question relates to an urgent matter, they have the consent of the Leader to whom the question is to be put and the content of the question is given to the Chief Executive by 9.30 a.m. on the day of the meeting.
An answer may take the form of: a) a direct oral answer; b) where the desired information is in a publication of the Council or other published work, a reference to that publication; or c) where the reply cannot conveniently be given orally, a written answer circulated later to the questioner. Additional documents: Decision: There were no Member Questions. Minutes: There were no Member Questions. |
|||||||||
|
Issue(s) Arising from Overview and Scrutiny and/or Audit and Governance To receive any recommendations from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee or to consider any matters raised by the Audit and Governance Committee. Additional documents: Decision: There were no recommendations from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and no issues arising from the Audit and Governance Committee. Minutes: There were no recommendations from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and no issues arising from the Audit and Governance Committee. |
|||||||||
|
Purpose To advise Cabinet of the current NPPF consultation and agree proposals for submission of a consultation response on behalf of the Council.
Recommendations That Cabinet resolves to: 1. Delegate the submission of the Council response to the Interim Forward Planning Lead in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning and Regulatory Services. Additional documents: Decision: The purpose of the report was to advise Cabinet of the current NPPF consultation and agree proposals for submission of a consultation response on behalf of the Council.
The Chair noted the revised recommendation for this item which read as follows:
Agree to delegate the submission of the Council’s response to the Cabinet Member for Planning and Regulatory Services (a delegated decision meeting has been scheduled for 12 September 2024 at 4pm).
The Cabinet Member for Planning and Regulatory Services, Councillor Juliet Layton proposed the recommendations to Cabinet.
The Interim Forward Planning Lead addressed Cabinet and answered questions on the content of the report.
The recommendation was proposed by Councillor Juliet Layton and seconded by Councillor Lisa Spivey.
RESOLVED: That Cabinet, AGREED as amended 1. To delegate the submission of the Council’s response to the Cabinet Member for Planning and Regulatory Services (a delegated decision meeting has been scheduled for 12 September 2024 at 4pm.
Voting Record
5 For, 0 Against, 0 Abstention, 3 Absent/Did not vote Minutes: The purpose of the report was to advise Cabinet of the current NPPF consultation and agree proposals for submission of a consultation response on behalf of the Council.
Before Cabinet heard the introduction to the report, the Chair noted the revised recommendation for this item which read as follows:
Agree to delegate the submission of the Council’s response to the Cabinet Member for Planning and Regulatory Services (a delegated decision meeting has been scheduled for 12 September 2024 at 4pm).
The Cabinet Member for Planning and Regulatory Services, Councillor Juliet Layton, proposed the revised recommendation to Cabinet. · The response to the UK Government’s NPPF consultation was being prepared by officers from the Forward Planning Team, and the recommendation would then allow for a public individual Cabinet Member decision-meeting to approve the final consultation response. · The short timeframe for officers to deliver a final draft response required the delegation to be made in order to ensure there was enough time to consider all of the consultation questions carefully. · The report outlined the challenges facing the District from the current proposed changes to the NPPF. · Whilst the Council was supportive of the need to build more affordable housing, it was noted that the updates to housing requirements would present challenges for the District where restricted areas like National Landscapes were prominent. · It was highlighted that the Council should be in receipt of a response to the consultation from the UK Government by December 2024.
Cabinet asked whether the Cabinet could confirm that this was national consultation to all local authorities as opposed to the Council’s consultation on the Local Plan update. The Interim Forward Planning Lead highlighted that anyone was able to respond to the consultation with their views on the changes to the framework for determining planning applications.
Following a question regarding the separation of development management policies from the NPPF, it was highlighted that it was likely that National Development Management Policies would be created to standardise many of the development management policies currently within Local Plans.
The protection of National Landscapes was an important principle which needed to be maintained within the NPPF.
Cabinet welcomed the UK Government’s desire to increase in the number of social rented houses which was needed across the District, and the weighting on the expansion of infrastructure.
It was noted that the level of increase in the housing supply was significant and would require tough decisions in order to meet those requirements. It was also highlighted that the requirement of 70% of new housing to be in rural areas would be unsustainable, especially for communities where infrastructure was not as developed.
It was noted that the Council would need to work at pace in order to update its Local Plan to meet the requirements.
Cabinet thanked the Interim Forward Planning Lead for his hard work in the drafting of the responses for the Cotswolds.
The recommendation was proposed by Councillor Juliet Layton and seconded by Councillor Lisa Spivey.
|
|||||||||
|
Community Infrastructure Levy and Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace Spending 2024 Purpose For Cabinet to review officer recommendations on external bids for funding from the Community Infrastructure Levy and Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (Cotswold Beechwoods SAC) funds held by the Council.
Recommendations That Cabinet resolves to: 1. Agree to fund the following bids: · Bid 1 – Kemble to Steadings Greenway (Sustrans) · Bid 2 – Cirencester to Kemble Cycle Link (GCC) · Bid 3 – Bourton-on-the-Water Interchange Hub (GCC) · Bid 4 – Footpath in Moreton-in-Marsh (GCC) · Bid 5 – The Forum Interchange Hub (GCC) · Bid 7 – Sherborne Big Nature, Better Access (National Trust) 2. Note bid 6 – Moreton-in-Marsh Transport Hub / Interchange and Station Improvement Works (MiM TC/GWR) and encourage resubmission once the issues raised at paragraph 8.3 have been resolved.
Additional documents: Decision: The purpose of the report was to review officer recommendations on external bids for funding from the Community Infrastructure Levy and Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (Cotswold Beechwoods SAC) funds held by the Council.
The Cabinet Member for Planning and Regulatory Services, Councillor Juliet Layton proposed the recommendations with an additional recommendation which read:
Agree to fund bid 3 – Bourton-on-the-Water Interchange Hub (GCC) on the understanding that the funds for the bus stop ‘opposite the War Memorial’ will not be released until an agreement is reached between GCC and Bourton-on-the-Water PC on the final design and layout.
Councillor Jon Wareing was invited to address Cabinet regarding Bid 3 as a District Councillor and a Bourton-on-the-Water Parish Councillor.
The recommendations were proposed by Councillor Juliet Layton and seconded by Councillor Mike McKeown.
RESOLVED: That Cabinet 1. AGREED to fund the following bids: · Bid 1 – Kemble to Steadings Greenway (Sustrans) · Bid 2 – Cirencester to Kemble Cycle Link (GCC) · Bid 3 – Bourton-on-the-Water Interchange Hub (GCC) · Bid 4 – Footpath in Moreton-in-Marsh (GCC) · Bid 5 – The Forum Interchange Hub (GCC) · Bid 7 – Sherborne Big Nature, Better Access (National Trust) 2. AGREED to fund bid 3 – Bourton-on-the-Water Interchange Hub (GCC) on the understanding that the funds for the bus stop ‘opposite the War Memorial’ will not be released until an agreement is reached between GCC and Bourton-on-the-Water PC on the final design and layout. 3. NOTED bid 6 – Moreton-in-Marsh Transport Hub / Interchange and Station Improvement Works (MiM TC/GWR) and encourage resubmission once the issues raised at paragraph 8.3 have been resolved.
Voting Record
5 For, 0 Against, 0 Abstention, 3 Absent/Did not vote
Minutes: The purpose of the report was to review officer recommendations on external bids for funding from the Community Infrastructure Levy and Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (Cotswold Beechwoods SAC) funds held by the Council.
The Cabinet Member for Planning and Regulatory Services, Councillor Juliet Layton, proposed the recommendations with an additional recommendation which read:
Agree to fund bid 3 – Bourton-on-the-Water Interchange Hub (GCC) on the understanding that the funds for the bus stop ‘opposite the War Memorial’ will not be released until an agreement is reached between GCC and Bourton-on-the-Water PC on the final design and layout.
During the presentation of the items, the following points were outlined: · The 7 bids were considered using the scoring matrix at Annex A. · The bids were then outlined in turn: - Bid 1 – Kemble to Steadings Greenway (submitted by Sustrans) was for £181,301, to develop outline designs for a greenway between Kemble and The Steadings near Cirencester which was recommended for approval. - Bid 2 – Cirencester to Kemble Cycle Link (submitted by Gloucestershire County Council) was linked to Bid 1 for a design for a cycle path from Cirencester which would link the path recommended for approval in Bid 1. The assessment of the application showed the requirement for a further cost breakdown to be provided. Therefore, conditional approval was recommended. - Bid 3 – Bourton-on-the-Water Interchange Hub (submitted by Gloucestershire County Council) was for £137,700 to deliver 3 new bus stops in Bourton to service local bus services. Whilst this was recommended for approval, this was done subject to the new recommendation being considered for the third bus stop. - Bid 4 – Footpath in Moreton-in-Marsh (submitted by Gloucestershire County Council) was for £146,030.17 which was recommended for approval. - Bid 5 – The Forum Interchange Hub (submitted by Gloucestershire County Council) was for £66,300 for upgrades to the bus shelters in Cirencester which was recommended for approval. - Bid 6 – Moreton-in-Marsh Transport Hub/Interchange and Station Improvement Works (submitted by Moreton-in-Marsh Town Council/Great Western Railway) was for £2,216,000 to create a new transport interchange and provide upgrades to the current station facilities. Due to the lack of planning permission, this was recommended for refusal although the Council noted its support for the project. The report also encourages a resubmission of the application in the future. - Bid 7 – Sherborne Big Nature, Better Access (submitted by National Trust) was for £30,000 for improvements to the current footpaths and facilities to support the Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation. The project was recommended for approval.
The Chair then invited Councillor Jon Wareing was invited to address Cabinet regarding Bid 3 as a District Councillor for Bourton Village and a Bourton-on-the-Water Parish Councillor. Councillor Wareing was delighted by the new arrangement brokered by Councillor Hodgkinson as a Gloucestershire County Councillor for Bourton-on-the-Water following the lack of consultation before. It was noted that for subsequent projects needed local consultation at the beginning which would help avoid future aggravation.
Cabinet welcomed the support ... view the full minutes text for item 30.
|
|||||||||
|
Infrastructure Funding Statement 2023/24 Purpose To notify Cabinet of the Infrastructure Funding which provides an overview of all Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and Section106 monies collected, held and spent. As well as setting out the Council’s recovery policy in regards to unpaid CIL debts.
Recommendations That Cabinet resolves to: 1. Note publication of the Infrastructure Funding Statement 2. Agree to the CIL Recovery Policy.
Additional documents:
Decision: The purpose of the report was to notify Cabinet of the Infrastructure Funding which provides an overview of all Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and Section106 monies collected, held and spent. As well as setting out the Council’s recovery policy in regards to unpaid CIL debts.
The Cabinet Member for Planning and Regulatory Services introduced the report and outlined the reports contents.
The Infrastructure Delivery Lead answered questions from Cabinet Members.
The recommendations were proposed by Councillor Juliet Layton and seconded by Councillor Mike Evemy.
RESOLVED: That Cabinet 1. NOTED publication of the Infrastructure Funding Statement.
2. AGREED to the CIL Recovery Policy.
Voting Record
5 For, 0 Against, 0 Abstention, 3 Absent/Did not vote
Minutes: The purpose of the report was to notify Cabinet of the Infrastructure Funding which provides an overview of all Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and Section 106 monies collected, held and spent. As well as setting out the Council’s recovery policy in regards to unpaid CIL debts.
The Cabinet Member for Planning and Regulatory Services introduced the report and outlined the reports contents: · The funding statement at Annex A was an annual report, which showed a collection of £1.7 million, £3.4 million worth in demand notices, £280,000 collected for Town and Parish Councils, and £2.3 million in CIL relief granted. · The Council’s CIL Strategic Fund held £3.3 million as of 31 March 2024. · The Council secured £144,000 and 52 affordable housing units in Section 106 agreements signed in 2023/24. · In 2023/24, the Council collected a total of £861,000 and spent £998,000 of the Section 106 funds it held. · CIL was collected at £95.88 for residential development and £71.89 for retail development per square metre. · A new Infrastructure delivery plan was expected to be formulated by Spring 2025 which would be much more environmentally friendly.
The Chair seconded the proposals and noted the CIL Recovery Policy which was needed in order to enforce against those not paying the required amounts. It was also noted that the report set out in broad detail the money being allocated from the Council’s CIL and S 106 reserves.
Cabinet noted the infrastructure improvements particularly for key road networks which were much needed.
The recommendations were proposed by Councillor Juliet Layton and seconded by Councillor Mike Evemy.
|
|||||||||
|
Service Performance Report 2024-25 Quarter One Purpose To provide an update on progress on the Council’s priorities and service performance.
Recommendations That Cabinet resolves to: 1. Note overall progress on the Council priorities and service performance for 2024-25 Q1. Additional documents:
Decision: The purpose of the report was to provide an update on progress on the Council’s priorities and service performance.
RESOLVED: Cabinet NOTED overall progress on the Council priorities and service performance for 2024-25 Q1.
Minutes: The purpose of the report was to provide an update on progress on the Council’s priorities and service performance.
The Chair asked the Chief Executive to introduce the report: · The report was introduced to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 2 September 2024. · The report was noted to be in arrears in terms of service performance reporting, but that an advice note was provided within the report to provide an indication of any current changes to service performance. · The key positive performance areas were noted above target: - Percentage of Council Tax collected was on track to meet the end of year target and current progress in quarter 1 was 34%. - Percentage of Non-Domestic rates were on target around 30%. - Council Tax support change of events was at 4 days compared a target at 5. - Customer satisfaction was at 99% compared to a target of 90%. - Planning applications were all above the current target. - Affordable housing delivered was 29 against a target of 25. - Gym memberships were up at 3,823 against an expectation of 3700. - Leisure visits were at 113,340 above target to attract more into the facilities. · The following areas were noted as being below target: - Processing times for Council Tax Support (new claims) was at 22 days against a target of 20. - Housing benefits (change of circumstances) was at 6 days against a target of 4. - High risk food premises inspected was just under 70% against a target of 95% within the timescales. This was noted as being dealt with through further resources and monitoring. - Missed Bins per 100,000 was 141 against a target of 80 which was largely down to challenges from garden waste collections and the reorganisation of routes.
The Deputy Leader then spoke regarding the missed bin collections as the portfolio holder for waste and recycling. It was highlighted that recent issues have been due to staff shortages at Ubico due to staff sickness combined with the changes. The Deputy Leader apologised to residents for any inconveniences caused by these issues with collections. It was noted that a more formal review would be done once the service had returned to standards expected. It was highlighted that the changes to rounds would help to engender a new culture change to support other crews where needed.
Cabinet noted that whilst there were areas for improvements, and there were many positive markers in performance. It was highlighted that this was a credit to the staff who worked at the Council to provide these services.
Cabinet asked about customer satisfaction by email being lower than expected and wished to know the background to this. There was also a question around call waiting times which had gone up, and what flexibility there was in the system. The Deputy Leader noted that email satisfaction was where it had been historically, which was more in regard to the contents of the email as opposed to the service provided. The Senior Performance ... view the full minutes text for item 32. |
|||||||||
|
Financial Performance Report 2024-25 Quarter One Purpose This report sets of the initial budget monitoring position for the 2024/25 financial year.
Recommendations That Cabinet resolves to: 1. Review and notes the financial position set out in this report. 2. Agree to the recommendation in paragraph 8.3 that Cabinet continue to review in-year opportunities with Publica and Ubico to mitigate the forecast financial position. Additional documents: Decision: The purpose of the report was to set out the initial budget monitoring position for the 2024/25 financial year.
The Chair as Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance, Councillor Evemy introduced the report.
The Deputy Chief Executive and S.151 Officer also addressed the details of the report.
The recommendations were proposed by Councillor Mike Evemy.and seconded by Councillor Paul Hodgkinson.
RESOLVED: That Cabinet:
1. Review and NOTED the financial position set out in this report.
2. AGREED to the recommendation in paragraph 8.3 that Cabinet continue to review in-year opportunities with Publica and Ubico to mitigate the forecast financial position.
Voting Record
5 For, 0 Against, 0 Abstention, 3 Absent/Did not vote
Minutes: The purpose of the report was to set out the initial budget monitoring position for the 2024/25 financial year.
The Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance, Councillor Mike Evemy, introduced the report: · Table ES2 in Para 2.3 showed the current variances to the budget where areas like garden waste and bulky waste income were up against the budget and cemeteries and land charges were below the expected budget. · There were some additional adverse variances for Elections which included the cost of tablets trialled in polling stations. · The waste rezoning was noted as having some additional costs around communications and providing an extra Saturday collection. · A provision of £148,000 was to be used for any additional costs arising from the Publica Review. · The Capital Programme outturn forecast showed a forecasted spend of £8.7m. · Whilst inflation had fallen, the economic environment was still quite fragile. · The Pay Award for 2024/25 had still not been settled with the trade unions following an offer through Local Government Employers of 2.5%. However there was provision for an award up to 5% for Council and Publica staff and 6% for Ubico staff. · Car park fee income was ahead of budget other than one week in June 2024.
The Deputy Chief Executive and S.151 Officer also addressed the details of the report: · There was a drafting error in 8.1 which referenced a £73,000 overspend rather than £145,000 overspend which was the actual amount. · Publica was reporting to its board a £69,000 underspend for the Council specifically which was not factored into the Council’s budget. · On the Capital Programme, the overspend forecast for Disabled Facilities Grants would be updated through the drawdown of money from the Better Care Fund provided by Gloucestershire County Council.
Cabinet noted that the position was positive despite the many challenges that existed with local government funding especially when upper tier authorities required further funding for areas like special needs education.
The Deputy Leader referred to the commitment for a multi-year settlement for Local Government in the future which would provide stability for the sector.
The recommendations were proposed by Councillor Mike Evemy and seconded by Councillor Paul Hodgkinson.
|
|||||||||
|
Decision taken under Urgency Powers - Productivity Plan Purpose To report to Cabinet on a decision taken by the Chief Executive under urgency powers.
Recommendation That Cabinet resolves to: 1. Note the decision taken as set out in Annex A. Additional documents:
Decision: The purpose of the report was to notify Cabinet on a decision taken by the Chief Executive Officer under urgency powers.
The Chair, Councillor Evemy introduced the report on behalf of the Leader of the Council in his absence.
There were no comments on this item from Cabinet.
RESOLVED: Cabinet NOTED the decision taken. Minutes: The purpose of the report was to notify Cabinet of a decision taken by the Chief Executive Officer under urgency powers.
The Deputy Leader introduced the report on behalf of the Leader of the Council in his absence.
The following points were made: · The decision taken was outlined in Paragraph 2.2 as one which would have come to a Cabinet meeting in early July 2024, but this was moved to 25 July 2024 because of the election. · Councils were required to submit their Productivity Plans by 19July 2024 and this would therefore have not been possible to have been done within the timeframe. · Whilst an extension was granted for 29 July 2024, the decision-making processes could not be done in time. · The Productivity Plans were submitted as part of the 2024 Local Government Finance settlement.
There were no comments on this item from Cabinet.
RESOLVED: Cabinet NOTED the decision taken. |
|||||||||
|
Schedule of Decisions taken by the Leader of the Council and/or Individual Cabinet Members To note the decisions taken by the Leader and/or Individual Cabinet Members. Additional documents: Decision: The purpose of the report was to receive the decisions taken by the Leader of the Council and/or individual Cabinet Members.
RESOLVED: Cabinet NOTED the schedule of decisions. Minutes: The purpose of the report was to receive the decisions taken by the Leader of the Council and/or individual Cabinet Members.
RESOLVED: Cabinet NOTED the schedule of decisions. |
|||||||||
|
Matters exempt from publication If Cabinet wishes to exclude the press and the public from the meeting during consideration of any of the items on the exempt from publication part of the agenda, it will be necessary for Cabinet to pass a resolution in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 4(2)(b) of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012 on the grounds that their presence could involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as described in specific paragraphs of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
Cabinet may maintain the exemption if and so long as, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
Additional documents: Decision: Cabinet did not enter private session. Minutes: Cabinet did not enter private session. |
|||||||||
|
Exempt minutes from the meeting of Cabinet on 25 July 2024 Decision: Cabinet agreed the exempt minutes as part of agenda item 3 and therefore did not discuss them in private session. Minutes: Cabinet agreed the exempt minutes as part of agenda item 3 and therefore did not discuss them in private session. |
Carried