Agenda and minutes
PDF 266 KBVenue: Council Chamber - Trinity Road. View directions
Contact: Democratic Services
Media
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
Apologies Additional documents: Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillors Gina Blomefield and Dilys Neill |
|
|
Declarations of Interest To receive any declarations of interest from Members and Officers, relating to items to be considered at the meeting. Additional documents: Minutes: Councillor Coleman declared an interest in Item 9, Changes to the Constitution – Update to the Council Procedure Rules, as the decision that would determine whether (or not) he could continue as Chair of the Audit Committee if proposed and re-elected.
Councillor Andrews declared an interest in Item 9, Changes to the Constitution – Update to the Council Procedure Rules, as the decision that would determine whether (or not) he could continue as Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee if proposed and re-elected.
Councillor Berry declared an interest in Item 10, Options Appraisal of the Leisure and Culture Management Arrangements, as a trustee of The Friends of Corinium Museum.
|
|
|
To confirm the minutes of the meeting of Council held on 16th March 2022 Additional documents: Minutes:
Various amendments to the minutes were discussed as follows:
The report page header was incorrectly showing 16th February 2022. Amended to16th March 2022.
Minute 62 (para 4) “…resigning the Armed Forces Covenant…” amended to “re-signing the Armed Forces Covenant…” Minute 63 (para 6) “…centre of town at Ludd Lane.” amended to “…centre of town at Love Lane.” Minute 66 “Record of Voting ….Absent 4” amended to “Record of Voting…Absent 6” Minute 69, 70 & 71, have no Voting Records. Amended to include Voting Records
It was considered that the Minute to the Member Questions item did not capture sufficient detail. The Minutes would be amended to provide more detail.
Minute 61 Paragraph 1 removed and replaced with “ Cllr Berry stated that he had informed the Leader, prior to the meeting, that the Conservative Group didn't support this motion and in view of this asked that the motion be removed since it would be a purely Liberal Democrat motion not a full Council one. This having been refused, Cllr. Berry stated that the Conservatives would therefore write separately to the Boundaries Commission and separately attend the review.”
Councillor Maclean stated that he had given apologies in advance of the Council meeting. The apologies were therefore amended to include Councillor Maclean
RESOLVED: The minutes of the meeting held on 16th March 2022 were agreed as a true record subject to the amendments being made
Voting Record – For 29, Against 0, Abstentions 3, Absent 2,
|
|
|
Announcements from the Chair, Leader and Chief Executive (if any) Additional documents: Minutes: The Vice-Chair Councillor Nikki Ind welcomed all Members, Officers and members of the public and press, both in person and online, to the Council meeting and thanked Members for accommodating the format of the day’s meetings including the Annual Council meeting at 6.30 PM.
Councillor Joe Harris, Leader of the Council, addressed the Council and started by reflecting on the recent events in Texas where 19 children and their teachers had been killed. Council was also invited to reflect on the ongoing Ukrainian crisis, welcomed refugees that had moved into the District, and thanked Council Officers and Members who had provided support, help and advice.
The Chief Executive, Rob Weaver addressed the Council and reiterated his thanks for all the work that is being done to support the government’s Ukraine support schemes and provide local community support to bridge any gaps.
|
|
|
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: Minutes: Council Borrowing of £76.5M Mr Dunn’s question was directed to The Leader of the Council, Councillor Joe Harris. He asked “Should the £76.5M that the Council is proposing to borrow, be the subject of a local referendum to enable Cotswold residents to understand the benefits and risks involved in borrowing such a large amount”
The Leader of the Council, Councillor Joe Harris stated that a referendum would not be held as the proposal to borrow the sum involved was complex and could not be reduced to a binary ‘yes/no’ decision. The context of the borrowing requirement was provided, along with an assurance that business cases would underpin each initiative that benefitted from the borrowing. There was also a commitment that only initiatives that benefitted the local area and delivered a return on investment would be successful.
Baunton Parish Boundary Change Mr Milner’s question was directed to the Council. He asked “Given that: · both CDC and Baunton Parish had undertaken consultation and shown that the local residents didn’t want the proposed change, · it offered no benefits, · sharing facilities between communities was already routine, · the area was a tourist destination and facilities were already widely shared, · moving the households out of the parish caused an unnecessary existential risk to Baunton parish (as the voters number will reduce to 165 and the minimum is 150) What possible justification is there for this proposal?”
The Leader of The Council, Councillor Joe Harris stated that the Council needed to make an objective view on whether the boundary should change or remain where it is and a debate would be held later in the Council meeting to discuss and vote on this.
Crowdfund Cotswold Grants Mr Fowles’ first question was directed to the Deputy Leader of the Council, Councillor Evemy. He asked “The Council’s Crowdfunding initiative has been a huge success raising nearly £300,000, however there had been some concern that very small projects that had previously received matched funding were no longer applying. Could the Council publish details of all of the projects including, those that were unsuccessful, the average grant, and how this had compared with the Community Projects Fund?
The Deputy Leader of the Council, Councillor Evemy stated that the Community Project Fund had been complicated, bureaucratic and difficult to administer for relatively small amounts of money and did not have the added benefit of encouraging local engagement across the District. In the first round of Crowdfund Cotswold all 19 applications had received funding and details had already been listed on the website.
Mr Fowles’ second question was directed to The Leader of the Council, Councillor Joe Harris. He asked “Unlike Public Questions that tend to get read out in Council meetings, this no longer happens with Members Questions, and therefore in person attendance of Council meetings is required in order to hear these and read the agenda. In the interest of openness and transparency, could the Council revert to requiring all Members to read their questions and also offer members ... view the full minutes text for item 86. |
|
|
Member Questions The following questions have been submitted:
From Councillor Tom Stowe to Councillor Andrew Doherty, Cabinet Member for the Environment, Waste and Recycling:
I understand that a review into the quantity, location and the emptying of public waste and dog bins across the district is being carried out. Can you please provide an update on the progress of this review and indicate when you expect the process to be completed and the findings available.
From Councillor Tony Berry to Councillor Mike Evemy, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance:
The cash payment option for car parking was due to be finally removed in the latter part of last year, but is still available in a number of car parks in Cirencester. Please could you advise Council if this is the policy change that the Conservative Group have been encouraging, or just a missed target date.
From Councillor Gina Blomefield to Councillor Joe Harris, Leader of the Council:
The Conservative Group would very much like to give our thanks of appreciation to Jenny Poole who is leaving her role as both Chief Financial Officer and Deputy Chief Executive Officer at the end of July to enjoy a sabbatical with her husband. We are sorry to see her go after eighteen years of excellent service to Cotswold District Council. Are we correct in understanding that the candidate being sought to replace Jenny will be offered both roles and the same remuneration package?
From Councillor Stephen Hirst to Councillor Joe Harris, Leader of the Council:
Since the commencement of the Covid- 19 Pandemic CDC Officers have been encouraged to work from home with only occasional contact with the Office. Now that the Pandemic is easing Officers should now be returning to work in the relevant Offices. Could the Leader please advise Council when it is expected that all officers will be returning to work, particularly in those departments such as Planning where direct contact with members of the public is so important to quickly progress applications in the necessary time frames.
Additional documents: Minutes: The following Members’ questions had been submitted and responses provided by Cabinet Members prior to the meeting. Supplementary questions and Cabinet Members responses were made in the Council meeting.
From Councillor Tom Stowe to Councillor Andrew Doherty, Cabinet Member for the Environment, Waste and Recycling
I understand that a review into the quantity, location and the emptying of public waste and dog bins across the district is being carried out. Can you please provide an update on the progress of this review and indicate when you expect the process to be completed and the findings available.
Response from Councillor Andrew Doherty, Cabinet Member for the Environment, Waste and Recycling to Councillor Tom Stowe
Following scoring of the projects identified within the Environmental Services Innovation Programme (ESIP), the litter bin review hasn’t scored that highly because it will be unlikely to generate significant savings or deliver a benefit in the service. The programme resource available is therefore being focussed on higher priority projects and the litter bin review will now be completed in 2023/24. If there are exceptional issues in certain areas of the district, then officers will deal with these on a case by case basis in the meantime Supplementary Question from Councillor Tom Stowe to Councillor Andrew Doherty, Cabinet Member for the Environment, Waste and Recycling
Can you guarantee and reassure the town and parish councils and residents that no public litter or dog waste bins will be removed prior to the completion of the review and that any enquiries or localised issues with new bins will be handled in a swift manner?
Response from Councillor Andrew Doherty, Cabinet Member for the Environment, Waste and Recycling to Councillor Tom Stowe
Although it cannot be guaranteed that no public litter or dog waste bins will be removed, this is usually only done in exceptional cases and in consultation with parish councils. Increasing fuel costs have required Ubico to refocus on reducing the impact on the revenue budget so the overarching policy on where and why bins are placed will take longer, but in the meantime Ubico Officers will continue to work with parish council where there are ongoing issues.
From Councillor Tony Berry to Councillor the Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Finance, Councillor Mike Evemy
The cash payment option for car parking was due to be finally removed in the latter part of last year, but is still available in a number of car parks in Cirencester. Please could you advise Council if this is the policy change that the Conservative Group have been encouraging, or just a missed target date.
Response from the Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Finance Councillor Mike Evemy to Councillor Tony Berry Due to data connectivity concerns within parts of the District the phased approach to roll out cashless in all our car parks has been delayed. A trial of upgraded software will be undertaken in Rissington Road and Old Station car parks. The aim of the ... view the full minutes text for item 87. |
|
|
Update to the Council's Corporate Plan (2020-2024) Purpose To introduce the update of the Council’s Corporate Plan, which was adopted by the Council on 23 September 2020
Recommendation(s) That Council considers the Corporate Plan Update, and agrees to its adoption
Additional documents: Minutes: The purpose of this item was to introduce the update of the Council’s Corporate Plan, which was adopted by the Council on 23 September 2020.
Councillor Joe Harris, Leader of the Council, introduced the report and summarised the 3 priorities included in the Liberal Democrat manifesto (Providing Genuinely Affordable Housing, Take Real Action on Climate Change and Deliver a Sustainable Local Economy), and how these now informed the updated Corporate Plan.
The Council commented that none of the problems facing the Council had been included and many of the successful Council’s initiatives had originally been developed by the Government, the County Council or other organisations or are not due to be delivered until 2024.
The Council commented that the difficulties recruiting Planning Officers is a nationwide issue and any criticism of the Council’s Planning Service was demoralising for hard working Planning staff.
The Council commented that the Corporate Plan was easy to read and understand, and that it was encouraging to see vacancy of retail premises in the centre of Cirencester had fallen from 11% to 5%, significantly below the national average of 14%.
The Council commented that Planning Officers are not currently required to include planning conditions that specifically respond to the climate change crisis and advised the Council that there had never been a better time to introduce these requirements.
The Council commented on the easy accessibility of the Corporate Plan and that specific details of each initiative would be considered and defined by Committees and Working Groups when appropriate.
The Council agreed that the recruitment of Planning Officers was very difficult across the country, leading to some Councils choosing not to accept any future planning applications, but this was not the case at Cotswold District Council. The vibrancy of the Cotswolds as a great place to live, work, and shop was also celebrated.
The Council commented that although the planning regulations encourage consideration of measures that contribute to reducing climate change they do not specifically require them to be included. Comments were also made challenging the importance of car-friendly, town-centre initiatives in other towns and cities.
The Council commented that the issue with the high number of planning applications being handled by a reduced number of Planning Officers would inevitably create backlogs and delay decision making and this needed to be resolved. Support was also given for adequate parking for residents with mobility issues and those living in rural areas.
The Council welcomed the improved design of the Corporate Plan but noted that some of the successful initiatives being delivered were put in place by the previous administration and newer initiatives appeared to be aspirational without clear timescales for their completion.
The Council commented that it was important that the Corporate Plan was both clear and accessible, and this had been achieved, and noted that Planning and Parking appeared to be the only issues that concerned opposition Members. It was also stated that a referendum on the Recovery Investment Strategy was not needed, as the election that ... view the full minutes text for item 88. |
|
|
Community Governance Review Purpose At its meeting in February, Council approved a Community Governance Review for six areas within the District and consultations have now taken place. The purpose of this report is for Council to consider the responses and approve the final recommendations for each area. In addition, Bourton-on-the-Water Parish Council has asked the Council to consider a change in their governance arrangements.
Recommendation(s) That Council: a) approve the final recommendations in relation to the Parish boundary changes for the six areas under consideration b) authorise the Electoral Services Manager to request the Local Government Boundary Commission to change District Wards and County Divisions to reflect the changes made to Parish boundaries c) authorise the Head of Legal Services to make a Reorganisation of Community Governance order to implement the changes agreed by Council d) considers the recommendation to increase the number of Parish Councillors on Bourton-on-the-Water Parish Council from 11 to 13.
Additional documents:
Minutes: The purpose of this report was for Council to consider the consultation responses and approve the final recommendations of the Community Governance Review for each of 6 areas across the District.
In addition, to consider a request from Bourton-on-the-Water Parish Council to change in their governance arrangements
Councillor Joe Harris, Leader of the Council presented the report and recommended that each of the 6 proposals should be considered individually with the Electoral Services Manager providing context, background and expert advice.
The Council agreed to consider and vote on each application individually and once completed, consider and vote collectively to make the required electoral and legal changes.
1. Ampney Crucis – Driffield
The Electoral Services Manager introduced the proposal to ‘draft a recommendation to move the current parish boundary line’ that cuts through a property and its land that leaves part in Ampney Crucis and part in Driffield.
Recommendation Following consultation, and In light of the lack of consensus and additional proposals from Ampney St Mary, it was recommended that further consultation is carried out with the parish councils/meeting and local residents to understand their views more fully with final recommendations brought to Council on 20th July 2022.
The Council noted that there was currently a lack of consensus and additional consultation was required.
RESOLVED: The Council agreed with the Officer’s recommendation that further consultation should be carried out and final considerations should be brought to Council in July
Voting Record: For 32, Against 0, Abstentions 0, Absent 2,
2. Coberley – Withington
The Electoral Services Manager introduced the proposal that Coberley Parish Council had submitted to move the property known as Needlehole from Withington into Coberley. This request was originally made a few years ago, and this was the first opportunity for it to be considered
Recommendations It was recommended that the boundary between Coberley Parish and Withington Parish is amended to bring the property known as Needlehole into the parish of Coberley. If agreed details of the recommendation would be submitted to the Boundary Commission for England for their consideration in amending the Ward boundary between Ermin and Sandywell.
The Council noted that although 4 buildings would be included in the move, only one of these was a dwelling.
The Council noted that the roads on the associated map could give the impression that the property was part of Withington, but that the topography of the land made it part of Coberley.
RESOLVED: The Council agreed with the Officer’s recommendation that the boundary between Coberley Parish and Withington Parish should be amended to bring the property known as Needlehole into the parish of Coberley, and details of the recommendation should be submitted to the Boundary Commission for England for their consideration in amending the Ward boundary between Ermin and Sandywell.
Voting Record: For 32, Against 0, Abstentions 0, Absent 2,
3. Birdlip, Brimpsfield and Cowley Boundaries
The Electoral Services Manager introduced the proposal following a request from Cowley Parish Council that draft recommendations were drawn up to split ... view the full minutes text for item 89. |
|
|
Changes to the Constitution - Update to the Council Procedure Rules Purpose To seek agreement to make two changes to the Council Procedure Rules, Part D, of the Constitution - removing the requirement that no member of the Council holds the office of Chair of the Council, or Chair of a Committee, for a continuous period of more than three years. Additionally, introducing a new requirement that the Chair of Overview & Scrutiny Committee must always be a member from an opposition party.
Recommendation(s) The Council Procedure Rules, Part D of the Constitution are amended with immediate effect to: a) remove the requirement that no member of the Council holds the office of Chair of the Council, or Chair of a Committee, for a continuous period of more than three years; b) introduce a requirement that the Chair of Overview & Scrutiny Committee must always be a member from an opposition party. Additional documents: Minutes: The purpose of this report was to seek agreement to make two changes to the Council Procedure Rules, Part D, of the Constitution that would remove the requirement that no member of the Council holds the office of Chair of the Council, or Chair of a Committee, for a continuous period of more than three years. Additionally, that Council introduces a new requirement that the Chair of Overview & Scrutiny Committee must always be a member from an opposition.
Councillor Joe Harris, Leader of the Council introduced the report and commented that the rules were an anomaly and it was not usual for Councils to limit the term that Members held the office of Chairs of Committees. It was also not considered best practice to have a Member from an incumbent administration’s party serving as Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
RESOLVED: That the Council Procedure Rules, Part D of the Constitution are amended with immediate effect to remove the requirement that no member of the Council holds the office of Chair of the Council, or Chair of a Committee, for a continuous period of more than three years, and introduce a requirement that the Chair of Overview & Scrutiny Committee must always be a Member from the opposition.
Voting Record: For 24, Against 0, Abstentions 6, Absent 4,
|
|
|
Options Appraisal of Leisure and Culture Management Arrangements Purpose The purpose of this Report is to inform Council of the Leisure and Culture Management Options Appraisal outcomes and to seek authority to commence the procurement process for the appointment of Leisure and Cultural Contractors.
Recommendation(s) That Council: a) Considers the outcomes of the Leisure and Culture Management Option Appraisal; b) Grants authority for the commencement of a procurement process for the appointment of Leisure and Culture Management Contractors, for the operation of the Council’s Leisure and Culture facilities, as outlined in this report. Additional documents:
Minutes: The purpose of this Report was to inform Council of the Leisure and Culture Management Options Appraisal outcomes and to seek authority to commence the procurement process for the appointment of Leisure and Cultural Services Contractors.
Councillor Forde presented the report and provided context for the requirement for the Leisure and Culture Management Options Appraisal to ensure leisure and cultural services continue to be available across the District. The current Leisure and Cultural management contracts were due to end on 31st July 2023, and the Council was now required to discuss and agree how these services would be managed thereafter.
RESOLVED: That Council considered the outcomes of the Leisure and Culture Management Option Appraisal, and granted authority for the commencement of a procurement process for the appointment of Leisure and Culture Management Contractors, for the operation of the Council’s Leisure and Culture facilities, as outlined in this report.
Voting Record – For 31, Against 0, Abstentions 0, Absent 3, |
|
|
Approval of the Cabinet Decision For Use Of Funds From The Capital Programme Purpose To approve the use of funds in the Capital Programme for the delivery of a Capital Investment project, as detailed in this report and supporting documentation, by SLM Everyone Active (SLM).
Recommendation That Council approves the use of funds from the Capital Programme and the following recommendation(s), following Cabinet Approval of the proposal.
a) That SLM is given approval to complete the Capital Investment project. b) That SLM’s proposed Option (1) as set out in Annex A is approved with the remainder of the Capital budget being retained for investment in Leisure Equipment. c) That the authority approve expenditure of the retained balance of the Capital budget, if Option (1) is supported, and final approval is delegated to the Cabinet Member for Health and Wellbeing once the procurement has been completed. Additional documents: Minutes: The purpose of this report was to seek approval for the use of funds in the Capital Programme for the delivery of a capital investment project, as detailed in this report and supporting documentation, by SLM Everyone Active (SLM).
Councillor Forde presented the report that essentially enabled the Council to provide (already committed) capital funding for the procurement of leisure equipment at leisure facilities that are managed for the Council by partner organisations. The Council would retain ownership of the assets (equipment) when the contract ended.
The Council commented that the investment in the Council’s existing leisure facilities was welcomed however the strategic options paper had revealed that leisure facilities were lacking in Fairford and Tetbury, and it was important that similar investment and support should be provided to these areas.
The Council asked if leasing of equipment had been considered. The Leisure Contract Specialist Officer stated that leasing had not been considered as part of this procurement.
The Council notes that there was a gym in Fairford.
The Council agreed that Tetbury and Fairford should not be forgotten and support and funding should be provided across the District and not just focussed in Cirencester. As there were no longer any Council owned leisure facilities in Tetbury, it was requested that consideration was given to Council/NHS/CCG funded subsidised membership of either or both of the 2 privately owned gyms in Tetbury for residents whose health and wellbeing would be improved by access to these facilities.
The Council noted that all areas of the District would receive support and the leisure centre in Cirencester helped to subsidise other leisure services in Bourton-on-the-Water and Chipping Campden.
The Council noted that subsidised access to leisure facilities (through the NHS and other organisations) could be effective, and the increase in social prescribing may be a way of achieving this and, considering the growth of the competitive leisure market, it was unlikely that Council’s would be providing all leisure services in the future.
The Council requested details of how Cirencester Leisure Centre benefits other centres, and it was agreed these details would be provided to all Members
The Council noted that although leisure services were provided by other organisations, these services were still widely associated with the Council and for reputational reasons the Council would end up having to step in if things go wrong.
RESOLVED: That Council approved the use of funds from the Capital Programme and the following recommendation(s): a) That SLM is given approval to complete the Capital Investment project. b) That SLM’s proposed Option (1) as set out in Annex A is approved with the remainder of the Capital budget being retained for investment in Leisure Equipment. c) That the authority approve expenditure of the retained balance of the Capital budget, if Option (1) was supported, and final approval would be delegated to the Cabinet Member for Health and Wellbeing once the procurement has been completed.
Voting Record – For 30, Against 0, Abstentions 0, Absent 4, |
|
|
Notice of Motions No motions have been received for Council to consider. Additional documents: Minutes: No notices of motion were received for the Council to consider. |
|
|
Next meeting The next meeting of Council will be held on Wednesday 20th July 2022 Additional documents: Minutes: The Annual Council Meeting would take place later on 25th May 2022 at 6.30 PM. The next meeting of the Council would be held on Wednesday 20th July 2022 |