Agenda, decisions and minutes

When the continuous alarm sounds you must evacuate the building by the nearest available fire exit. Members and visitors should proceed to the visitors’ car park at the front of the building and await further instructions (during office hours staff should proceed to their usual assembly point; outside of office hours proceed to the visitors’ car park). Please do not re-enter the building unless instructed to do so.

In the event of a fire any person with a disability should be assisted in leaving the building.

81.1           The evacuation procedure, as noted on the Agenda, was advised to those present.  

82.1           The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Tewkesbury Borough Council Code of Conduct which was adopted by the Council on 26 June 2012 and took effect from 1 July 2012.

82.2           There were no declarations of interest made on this occasion.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 3 January 2017.

83.1           The Minutes of the meeting held on 3 January 2018, copies of which had been circulated, were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

To receive any questions, deputations or petitions submitted under Rule of Procedure 12.

(The deadline for public participation submissions for this meeting is 25 January 2018)

84.1           There were no items from members of the public on this occasion.  

To consider the Committee’s Forward Plan.  

That the Committee’s Forward Plan be NOTED.  

85.1           Attention was drawn to the Committee’s Forward Plan, circulated at Pages No. 9-11. Members were asked to consider the Plan.

85.2           Accordingly, it was   

To recommend a budget for 2018/19 to Council for approval.  

That it be RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL that:

1.      a net budget of £8,732,790 be APPROVED.

2.      a Band D Council Tax of £114.36, an increase of £5.00 per annum, be APPROVED. 

3.      the use of New Homes Bonus, as proposed in Paragraph 3.5, be APPROVED.

4.      the Capital Programme, as proposed in Appendix A to the report, be APPROVED.

5.      the Capital Prudential Indicators, as proposed in Appendix B to the report, be APPROVED.

6.      the annual Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) statement, as contained in Appendix B to the report, be APPROVED.

7.      the 2018/19 Treasury Management Strategy, as proposed in Appendix C to the report, be APPROVED.

8.      the 2018/19 Flexible Use of Capital Receipts Strategy, as proposed in Appendix D to the report, be APPROVED.

9.      the Council’s involvement in a 100% Retained Business Rates Pilot in Gloucestershire for 2018/19, as detailed in Appendix E to the report, be NOTED.

86.1           The report of the Head of Finance and Asset Management, circulated separately at Pages No. 1-39, set out the proposed budget for 2018/19. Members were asked to recommend the budget to Council for approval along with a Band D Council Tax of £114.36; the use of New Homes Bonus as proposed in Paragraph 3.5 of the report; the Capital Programme as attached to the report at Appendix A; the Capital Prudential Indicators, as attached to the report at Appendix B; the Annual Minimum Revenue Provision statement at set out at Appendix B to the report; the 2018/19 Treasury Management Strategy, as set out at Appendix C to the report; the 2018/19 Flexible Use of Capital Receipts Strategy, as set out at Appendix D to the report; and to note the Council’s involvement in a 100% Retained Business Rates Pilot in Gloucestershire for 2018/19, as detailed at Appendix E to the report.

86.2           The Head of Finance and Asset Management advised that the Council had considered its financial position, as shown in the Medium Term Financial Strategy, at its meeting on 5 December 2017. That Strategy had outlined the budget pressures facing the Council currently, and in future years, and explained that the deficit over the next five years was estimated to be around £3 million with a gap of £1,100,000 suggested for 2018/19. Since the production of the Medium Term Financial Strategy, the Chancellor had given his autumn statement, the employers had made a pay offer to the Unions and the details of the provisional Local Government Finance Settlement had been received for 2018/19 – the final settlement was expected at the end of January. The headlines from those announcements were set out at Paragraph 1.3 of the report and included: no new monies being available to support local government in the current spending review period with the exception of the Rural Services Delivery Grant; a proposal had been made to move to 75% retained business rates from 2020; Gloucestershire had been confirmed as one of the 10 new 100% retained business rates pilots for 2018/19; no changes would be made to the New Homes Bonus funding; planning fees were to increase by 20% from 17 January 2018; the Council would have increased flexibility in Council Tax setting of an additional 1% resulting in a new referendum threshold for District Councils of £5 or 3% whichever was greater; and a pay offer had been put forward of 2% in both 2018 and 2019 with extra weighting for the lowest paid. The report before Members brought together the general information on the financial climate, the detailed figures associated with the 2018/19 budget, and the work undertaken by the Transform Working Group, and made a proposal for a balanced budget and resultant Council Tax. The Head of Finance and Asset Management explained that, as the Council’s Chief Financial Officer, he was required to make a statement on the robustness of the estimates and adequacy of the financial reserves; that statement was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.

To consider and scrutinise the Council’s financial performance information for the third quarter of 2017/18. 

1.      That the financial performance information for the third quarter of 2017/18 be NOTED.

2.      That £100,000 be set aside from accumulated surpluses to support the development of the A40 infrastructure business case.  

87.1           The report of the Head of Finance and Asset Management, circulated at Pages No. 12-20, highlighted the Council’s financial performance for the third quarter of 2017/18. Members were asked to consider the performance and approve the setting aside of £100,000 from accumulated surpluses to support the development of the A40 infrastructure business case.

87.2           The Head of Finance and Asset Management explained that income had not performed as well as expected, mostly due to planning income and garden waste not meeting their targets; however, it was also noted that the reduction in garden waste income had been expected due to the annual renewals being standardised to renew in April each year. Attention was drawn to the summary position for each Head of Service showing the variance against budget and this was attached to the report at Appendix A. Although that position was underspent, the budget report also recognised the need to achieve savings from the base budget in terms of salaries and procurement savings. Those savings were held on the ledger and no savings were recognised against those plans as they accumulated through the year within service groupings; this had the effect of reducing the underspend on services by £45,000. Also detailed under corporate budgets was the retained income from the business rates scheme; this was showing a surplus of £240,000 and was a prediction of the year-end position, although it was noted that there had been little activity with regards to processing appeals against the 2017 list. The Council had set aside a significant provision to cover appeals which it was hoped would be sufficient therefore allowing the Council to benefit from wider increases in business rates income. Treasury management activity had produced a positive variance of £116,968 against budget and access to low borrowing rates, along with the use of more lucrative funds for cash investments, had resulted in the Council’s treasury management activity providing a much better return than expected. Taking into account the positive position on the corporate accounts, the overall position of the Council at the end of quarter three was a surplus of £590,640.

87.3           Members were advised that the Council had successfully bid for £4.53 million from the growth deal fund via the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) to improve the existing Longford roundabout and to add a new roundabout to the east along the A40 to access the new development site at Innsworth. In order to access the funds, a business case needed to be put forward to the LEP Board for approval. That business case would include modelling, designs, financial justification, risks etc. all of which were revenue activities. This work would be contracted to transport consultants to undertake with a delivery timescale of Autumn 2018. The LEP Board would be presented with the business case in early 2019 which, upon acceptance, would allow the drawdown of grant monies. It was anticipated the production of the business case would cost approximately £100,000. The LEP Board would not finance the development of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 87.

To agree to the appointment of new Trustees in order to release the funds remaining in the Gloucestershire Flood Relief Fund in line with the original intentions of the fund.

1.      That appropriate legal procedures be taken for Trustees to be appointed in respect of the Trust.

2.      That Councillor Phil Awford be nominated to represent Tewkesbury Borough on the Gloucestershire Flood Relief Fund; in the event he is unable to take the position, the Leader of the Council will nominate an alternative.

3.      That the Chief Executive of Tewkesbury Borough Council from time to time be appointed as a permanent Trustee of the Fund.  

88.1           The report of the Head of Finance and Asset Management, circulated at Pages No. 21-23, set out that a balance remained in the Gloucestershire Flood Relief Fund Trust and that Trustees needed to be appointed to the Trust in order that it could be reopened and the full balance of the funds could be deployed in line with the charitable objectives of the Trust. Members were asked to agree the appropriate legal procedures be taken for Trustees to be appointed; that a Member, nominated by the Leader of the Council, be appointed to represent the Council on the Gloucestershire Flood Relief Fund; and that the Chief Executive of the Council be appointed from time to time as a permanent Trustee of the Fund. 

88.2           The Head of Finance and Asset Management explained that the Gloucestershire Flood Relief Fund had been formed following the 2007 floods to provide financial help to those residents whose homes had been affected by the floods. The Trust had been responsible for the coordination of donations and the allocation of funds in line with the objectives and had allocated around £1.9 million of funding during the time it was in operation. It had recently come to light that not all of the accumulated donations had been fully spent and a balance remained in the Trust’s bank account which needed to be distributed. The Trust had last met in 2007 and, as such, the membership of the Trust had effectively expired which meant it had no Trustees and could not therefore appoint new Trustees to act on its behalf. In order to appoint new Trustees, an application had to be made to the Court under Section 41 of the Trustee Act 1925. It was suggested that the minimum number of Trustees required be appointed in order to expedite the necessary business. Within the Trust documentation, it was clear that the minimum number was three and it was therefore recommended that two elected Members be appointed, along with a senior Officer; the Officer would act as a permanent Trustee in order to avoid similar problems in the future. In view of Tewkesbury Borough and Gloucester City Councils’ involvement in the last fund, it was suggested that the Member appointments be made from those two Councils. Once the arrangements for the Trustees had been made it was anticipated that the funds should be distributed before the end of the financial year.

88.3           A Member suggested that, as Councillor Awford had been a Trustee originally, it may be sensible for him to be asked to do it again. The Committee was happy with that suggestion and felt that, as long as Councillor Awford agreed, he should be the Council’s nominee. In the event that he did not wish to take the position, the Leader of the Council would be asked to nominate an alternative Member.

88.4           Accordingly, it was

To make a recommendation to Council that a Council Tax Empty Homes Premium of 50% is implemented from 1 April 2018 in respect of properties that have been unoccupied and substantially unfurnished for more than two years.

That it be RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL that, from 1 April 2018, a Council Tax Empty Premium of 50% be implemented in respect of properties that have been unoccupied and substantially unfurnished for more than two years; and that the detailed governance arrangements be implemented in consultation with the Lead Member.

89.1           The report of the Head of Corporate Services, circulated at Pages No. 24-27, recommended the introduction of a Council Tax Empty Homes premium of 50% to be effective from 1 April 2018. Members were asked to consider the introduction of the premium, which would apply to homes that had been unoccupied and substantially unfurnished for more than two years, and make a recommendation to Council thereon.

89.2           The Committee was advised that the report brought forward a proposal to introduce a 50% premium in respect of empty homes Council Tax from 1 April 2018. The legislation to enable this had first been introduced in 2013 along with discretion for the Council to implement discounts etc. If the premium was introduced, it would apply to properties that had been unoccupied, or substantially unfurnished, for two years or more. Prior to implementing the legislation, the government had consulted on the circumstances in which the 50% premium would not be applicable; those three circumstances were: a dwelling which was the sole, or main, residence of a member of the armed forces who was absent from the property as a result of such service; an annexe deemed unoccupied because it was being treated by the occupier of the main dwelling as part of that main dwelling; and a dwelling which was genuinely on the market for sale or letting. Subsequently, the government had legislated for the first two circumstances but had decided not to do so in the case of a dwelling which was genuinely for sale or letting. However, it was still believed that dwellings in such circumstances should not be subject to a premium and the government had issued guidance to assist authorities in their decision-making. The benefits to the Council of implementing this scheme were more in regard to bringing empty homes back into use rather than for financial gain. There were currently 88 properties which would fall within the criteria for empty homes premium and, if they were charged accordingly, this would bring in additional income of £66,255.59 of which the Council would keep approximately 7% which equated to £4,637.89. The reminder would go to the County Council and the Police Crime Commissioner in the same way that Council Tax income was usually distributed; however, it would also be expected that the Council’s New Homes Bonus position would be improved through long term empty properties being brought back into use; this was based on an approximate figure of £1,591 per property.

89.3           In response to a query regarding ownership of a property, Members were advised that it was intended that the premium would be applied when a property had been empty for two years irrespective of the length of current ownership. It would therefore be possible that a person could buy a property that had already been empty for two years and then be liable for the premium immediately; however, occupancy of a long term empty property for more than six weeks would ‘reset’ the clock and there were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 89.

To endorse the comments of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and to approve the draft Planning Enforcement Plan for public consultation.

That the comments of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee be ENDORSED and that the draft Planning Enforcement Plan, as attached at Appendix 2 to the report, be APPROVED, for public consultation, subject to the following amendments:

·            The addition of clarification and some examples under the heading ‘expediency’ to explain the meaning of the phrase ‘not expedient to pursue’.

·            The amendment of the first bullet point under the heading ‘Fairness and Equality’ to read ‘All persons are treated equally regardless of their ‘status’.’

·            An amendment to the flowchart at Annex 1 to add a link from the box ‘Is it expedient to take enforcement action’ to show that if the answer was ‘no’ there would be no further action taken and the case would be closed.

90.1           The report of the Head of Development Services, circulated at Pages No. 28-56, set out a proposed Planning Enforcement Plan which the Committee was asked to approve for the purposes of public consultation. 

90.2           Members were advised that the Plan, which was part of a wider planning services review, had been considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the comments of that Committee were attached at Appendix 1 to the report. The Planning Enforcement Plan set out the Council’s approach to delivery of the service and provided clear information to customers about the level of service they could expect to receive. During the past six months, a full review of the service had been undertaken and a number of operational changes had been identified which included: the need for a structured framework within which all decisions were made; greater use of accessible IT to enable interested parties to find out more about the service or individual cases; a need for greater reporting and publicity for the work (and achievements) of the service; better record keeping; better and more use of the formal and legal powers available; and additional support for Enforcement Officers to achieve all of these items.

90.3           The Head of Development Services explained that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had considered the Plan and recommended it to the Executive Committee for approval, for the purposes of consultation, subject to changes which included: it being made clear that the Council, as the enforcing body, assisted, but did not give advice, to those that were the subject of an investigation - independent support should be sought in those cases; and that the breach of condition, and failure to build the approved plans, was not acceptable so the Planning Enforcement Plan needed to identify how such matters were brought to the Council’s attention, dealt with and followed up. The Committee also felt the Plan may not have been easy for members of the public to follow so a flowchart had been created to explain how enforcement cases were handled and what formal action was taken. In terms of general comments about the Planning Enforcement Team, Overview and Scrutiny Committee Members had raised concerns about performance, including response times and communication, and the possibility of introducing performance indicators. Members had been advised that the Planning Enforcement Plan and Officer Protocol should address such issues by introducing changes to working practices that included a requirement to respond and update within set time periods. In addition, monthly performance reporting to Planning Committee would take place and the Overview and Scrutiny Committee would scrutinise the effectiveness of the Plan once it had been in place for a 12 month period. If the Executive Committee approved the Plan for consultation, it would be subject to a six week consultation period before a final draft was submitted to the Executive Committee for consideration and recommendation to Council.

90.4           Referring to Paragraph 12.0 of the Plan, Fairness and Equality, a Member questioned what was meant by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 90.

To recommend the Flood and Water Management Supplementary Planning Document to Council for adoption. 

1.      That it be RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL that the Flood and Water Management Supplementary Planning Document, as attached at Appendix 1 to the report, be ADOPTED.

2.      That authority be delegated to the Head of Development Services to make any necessary minor amendments to the Supplementary Planning Document, as considered appropriate, prior to it being published.

91.1           The report of the Head of Development Services, circulated at Pages No. 57-134, attached the final version of the Flood and Water Management Supplementary Planning Document, which had been the subject of public consultation from September to November 2017, and asked that it be recommended to Council for adoption. The Committee was also asked that authority be delegated to the Head of Development Services to make any necessary minor amendments to the Document as considered necessary prior to publication.

91.2           The Head of Development Services explained that, in November 2014, the Council had approved the adoption of a Flood and Water Management Supplementary Planning Document. Since that time there had been significant updates to national guidance surrounding flood and water management and, in particular, climate change projections. A review of the document had therefore been undertaken to take into account the latest guidance and an updated Supplementary Planning Document had been prepared. Public consultation had been undertaken from September to November 2017 and a final version of the document was attached to the report at Appendix 1 for consideration. Once adopted by the Council the document would be a material consideration in the determination of planning applications.

91.3           Accordingly, it was