Skip to main content

Agenda

Contact: Democratic Services 

Media

Items
No. Item

1.

Apologies

Additional documents:

2.

Declarations of Interest

To receive any declarations of interest from Members and Officers, relating to

items to be considered at the meeting.

Additional documents:

3.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 71 KB

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of Council held on 14 July 2021.

Additional documents:

4.

Announcements from the Chair, Leader of Chief Executive (if any)

Additional documents:

5.

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 two minutes each and relate to issues under the Council’s or Committee’s remit. Any member of the public wishing to ask a public question is requested to contact Democratic Services by no later than 5.00pm the working day before the meeting.

Additional documents:

6.

Member Questions

The following questions have been submitted:

 

Question from Councillor Julia Judd to Councillor Andrew Doherty, Cabinet Member for the Environment, Waste and Recycling:

 

This Council notes that an unexpected consequence of Covid-19 has been an escalation in dog ownership. According to the Pet Food Manufacturers Association over 12million of us now own a dog and their Covid-19 Pet Survey confirms a staggering rise in pet acquisition with dogs being the most popular at 57%.

 

Some of the towns and larger Cotswold villages popular with visitors have suffered from an over-supply of dog waste causing the bins to fill up quickly. Images of dog waste bags lying on the ground around overflowing bins have appeared on social media , especially in Tetbury.

 

Could resources be made available to address this situation and ensure that sufficient bins are made available and regularly emptied before they overfill where there have been issues?

 

Questions from Councillor David Cunningham to Councillor Andrew Doherty, Cabinet Member for the Environment, Waste and Recycling:

 

1)    In light of the Council’s Flood Warden Initiative and the new as yet unseen (I believe) Flood Plan, can the Cabinet Member confirm how much of the impending budget will be allocated for those communities hardest hit by last year’s floods.

 

2)    Will villages be expected to ‘bid’ for assistance or will the Council work with the Environment Agency and other entities to ascertain which communities have the greatest need and have already identified to alleviate solutions to alleviate their flooding issues.

 

Given this Councils commitment to fighting the climate emergency , will the Cabinet Member acknowledge that this must include taking tangible action against the current effects of climate change and addressing the immediate needs of residents.

 

Question from Councillor Richard Norris to Councillor Mike Evemy, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance:

 

1)    Visitors to Cirencester’s car parks are experiencing a number of difficulties in paying by APP since the removal of cash payments. Is Councillor Evemy aware of these problems , if so, could he please explain  and advise what action is being taken to resolve all difficulties.

 

2)    With reference to the decision taken by Full Council on the 17 March 2021 to enter into an agreement with SLM:

 

a)    That Council approves a profit sharing mechanism to recover the support offered to SLM as set out at recommendations a) and b). 

 

b)    The Council will be entitled to take a 75% share of profits in excess of the tendered financial submission until the funding is recovered.

 

c)    That authority to sign an agreement with SLM confirming the terms upon which this financial package is based be delegated to the Deputy Chief Executive in consultation with the Deputy Leader of the Council or in his absence with the Cabinet Member for Health and Wellbeing.

 

Has an agreement in fact been entered into and could this agreement be provided along with confirmation that the terms and conditions are being observed by both parties.

 

Also provided in Agenda Item  ...  view the full agenda text for item 6.

Additional documents:

7.

Funding for Essential Maintenance of Council Service Property Asset - Cirencester Leisure Centre pdf icon PDF 94 KB

Purpose

To request funding for essential repairs at the Council property;

Cirencester Leisure Centre

 

Recommendations

That Council, as recommended by Cabinet:

a) approves the funding request of £110,000 for maintenance within the

Cirencester Leisure Centre Pool Hall.

b) that delegated authority is granted to the Deputy Chief Executive to

update the Capital Programme, the Capital Strategy and the Treasury

Management Strategy to include the requested funding.

c) that, if the funding is approved, delegated authority is granted to the

Deputy Chief Executive in consultation with the Deputy Leader and

Cabinet Member for Finance and the Group Manager for Commissioning

to agree the final funding on receipt of the tenders and to award the

contracts for the necessary works set out in the report.

 

Additional documents:

8.

Notice of Motions

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12, the following Motions have been received:-

 

a)   Motion – Scrap the Proposals in the Planning White Paper

 

Proposed by Councillor Rachel Coxcoon, Seconded by Councillor Joe Harris:

 

Council notes:

The significant concerns expressed through the ballot box in Chesham & Amersham over the Conservative Government’s proposed Planning Reforms, including:

 

·         Loss of democratic accountability within the planning system, under a proposed zoning system that would grant presumed consent to development in two of the three zones.

 

·         No commitment to using the planning system to tackle climate change, either through genuinely sustainable placemaking, or through the imposition of a building standards system that will deliver zero-carbon homes.

 

·         The expansion of Permitted Development Rights under this Government, which have already led to the development of ‘modern day slums’.

 

·         Widespread concerns and condemnation of the Planning White Paper proposals across Local Government, The Planning and Architecture Sector, and organisations concerned with protecting green spaces and heritage.

 

Council is concerned that:

 

Government proposals to deregulate planning will remove the rights of residents to influence or object to inappropriate development where they live.

 

The Government's proposals pass the costly burden of design codes from developers to local government, and result in codes that will hold no statutory weight.

 

The proposals in the White Paper, coupled with the weakness of the proposed Future Homes Standard and Design Codes and the ease with which Permitted Development Rights can now be used, means that the planning system is in danger of becoming an active enabler of the climate crisis, rather than part of the solution.

 

And finally,

 

That the proposals in the White Paper, designed principally to speed up the delivery of much needed housing, are doomed to fail on this crucial point, since the slow delivery of housing is demonstrably not a result of delays within the planning decision-making system. Rather, it is the result of land-banking and market manipulation by the development industry. Almost a million homes already have planning permission but have not been built out. Zoning, and thus the allocation of more land for housing, will secure

land value increases for a small number of major development companies, but will not alter the speed at which housing comes to the market.

 

Council believes that:

 

Residents have the right to a say over development that will change the area they live in.

 

Local councils, in consultation with their businesses and residents are best placed to understand the issues in their area and respond with a spatial strategy tailored to that area.

 

The planning system is not fit for purpose if climate change is not the pre-eminent test in decision-making, and local planning authorities are not required to manage emissions through the planning system.

 

International evidence shows that zoning systems, far from producing the simplified system that advocates suggest, can often result in less transparent, less accountable decision-making than a discretionary, plan-led system.

The development industry, not the planning system, is the main cause of slow housing delivery.

 

Council calls for  ...  view the full agenda text for item 8.

Additional documents:

9.

Next meeting

Wednesday 17 November 2021 – 2pm

Additional documents: