53.1           Apologies for absence were received from Councillors R A Bird, Mrs J E Day, Miss H J Healy, B A Jones, A L Mackinnon, Mrs F M Ogden, G K Shurmer, A C Tugwell, M J Williams and P N Workman.

Pursuant to the adoption by the Council on 26 June 2012 of the Tewkesbury Borough Council Code of Conduct, effective from 1 July 2012, as set out in Minute No. CL.34, Members are invited to declare any interest they may have in the business set out on the Agenda to which the approved Code applies.

54.1           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.

54.2           The following declarations were made:

54.3           There were no further declarations made on this occasion.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 31 July 2012 and of the Extraordinary meeting held on 17 September 2012.

55.1           The Minutes of the meeting held on 31 July 2012, and of the Extraordinary meeting held on 17 September 2012, copies of which had been circulated, were approved as a correct record and signed by the Mayor.  

1.   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 (staff should proceed to their usual assembly point). 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.  

2.   To receive any announcements from the Chairman of the Meeting and/or the Chief Executive.

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

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

(The deadline for public participation submissions for this meeting is 25 September 2012)

b)   To receive any petitions submitted under the Council’s Petitions Scheme.

57.1           The Mayor invited Councillor M G Sztymiak to present a petition on behalf ofMr Mark Turner, owner of Attica shop in Barton Street. Councillor Sztymiak indicated that the petition, which contained over 900 signatures, called upon the Council to consider voting against privatisation of the parking wardens for car parks and on-street parking in Tewkesbury and to allow Tewkesbury Town Council to take over the contract allowing the profit of approximately £500,000 to go towards better facilities and amenities in Tewkesbury.

57.2           The Mayor thanked Councillor Sztymiak for the petition.

To receive any questions submitted under Rule of Procedure 13. Any items received will be circulated on 1 October 2012.

(Any questions must be submitted in writing to Democratic Services by, not later than, 10.00am on the working day immediately preceding the date of the meeting.)

58.1           The following questions had been received from Councillor A C Tugwell to the Lead Member for Built Environment. The answers were given by the Lead Member for Built Environment, Councillor D M M Davies, but were taken as read without discussion.

                  Question 1:

                       Was there a legal requirement for Tewkesbury Borough Council to adopt and deliver upon a Joint Core Strategy with Cheltenham Borough and Gloucester City Councils or indeed any other Local Authority?

                  Answer 1:

                  No, there was not a legal requirement for Tewkesbury Borough Council to adopt and deliver upon a Joint Core Strategy with Cheltenham Borough and Gloucester City Councils or any other Local Authority.

                  However, the ‘Duty to Cooperate’ was a legal requirement.  It would be tested through the examination process as Section 33A of the Localism Act required each Authority to demonstrate how they had engaged with other Local Planning Authorities, amongst others, with regard to the use or development of land which would have a significant impact on at least two planning areas.

                  Question 2:

                  Would Tewkesbury Borough Council be able to both consider and accommodate any duty or obligation that it had to collaborate upon areas, or specifically sites of mutual strategic development interest, with Cheltenham Borough and Gloucester City Councils and indeed any neighbouring Local Authorities within a Tewkesbury Borough-based or ‘single-core’ Strategy?

                  Answer 2:

                  Yes, however the mechanisms for delivering these duties/obligations would require careful consideration.

                       Question 3:

                       Was there any legal requirement or obligation for Tewkesbury Borough Council to accept either a specific figure or indeed percentage of the projected development requirements of Cheltenham Borough and Gloucester City Councils or indeed any other Local Authority?

                  Answer 3:

                  There was not a legal requirement to accept a specific figure or percentage of other Authority needs. However, the National Planning Policy Framework required Local Planning Authorities to work together ‘to meet development requirements which cannot wholly be met within their own areas.’

                  Question 4:

                  What were the tangible benefits to Tewkesbury Borough and its residents, both now and within the lifetime of a ‘Joint Core Strategy’ with Cheltenham Borough and Gloucester City Councils, of adopting and implementing any of the ‘Preferred Options’ which have been under consideration and public consultation?

                  Answer 4:

                       The Strategy, in the most recent consultation, focused development within the urban areas and at the periphery of urban areas as this was considered the most sustainable option. This concentrated development where the need arose, where the infrastructure was best placed and new infrastructure could be integrated readily. The benefit of producing a joint Plan was that the legal requirements for cooperation with regard to these Authorities could be readily demonstrated. In reality the development of areas and the most sustainable development patterns did not necessarily respect Local Authority administrative boundaries and a joined up approach provided a response to this. There were benefits associated with joint working with regard to the pooling of resources and expertise and cost-benefits which arose from commissioning advice and studies.

                  Question 5:

                       Were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.

To consider the progress being made on the evidence base for establishing the objectively assessed need for housing in the JCS area.

59.1           The report of the Interim Planning Policy Manager, circulated at Pages No. 13-338, and separately at Pages No. 1-14, asked Members to consider the progress being made on the evidence base for establishing the objectively assessed need for housing in the Joint Core Strategy area and to agree a number of recommendations thereon. The papers that had been circulated separately provided information about the resolutions from Cheltenham Borough and Gloucester City Councils meetings on the Joint Core Strategy and provided some additional recommendations in respect of those decisions.  In addition a briefing note from the consultants, Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners (NLP), had been circulated and this reviewed the representations made to the Stroud Core Strategy in respect of household size by the ‘Don’t Strangle Stroud’ group.

59.2           Referring to the main report, Members were advised that the Joint Core Strategy “Developing the Preferred Option” document had been published for public consultation between December 2011 and February 2012.  The issue that had generated the most responses was the methodology used to calculate future housing requirements for the area. The consultation had generated over 3,300 responses with approximately one third referring to the housing numbers. In March 2012 the Government had published the National Planning Policy Framework which had included a number of significant implications to be considered as part of the Joint Core Strategy including the need to significantly boost housing supply, the need to increase economic growth and the requirement to address the objectively assessed need for market and affordable housing. Due to the importance of those issues, and in response to the issues raised within the consultation, it had been felt valuable to commission an independent review of the housing work undertaken to date and this had been the role of the consultants. The consultants had assessed the approach previously taken in terms of population projections, household estimates and dwelling requirements; reviewed the consultation issues frequently raised relating to those matters; provided a clear methodology for the distribution of housing numbers across the Joint Core Strategy area and the necessary policy wording/framework to support this; and provided a clear understanding of the impact of the National Planning Policy Framework on housing requirements and recommended a methodological approach that would satisfy the associated evidential and soundness tests. The general conclusions had been that overall the methodology used had been acceptable subject to some minor amendments. However, the consultants had advised that certain elements of the information used to inform the work in 2011 were in need of revision because more up to date and reliable sources were now available. From their work, the consultants had identified a housing need figure of approximately 30,000 dwellings over the Plan period. Officers therefore considered that the 2010 based ONS Sub-National Population projection figure of 28,500 dwellings was most appropriate as this was the most recently available data. Officers were concerned that the two economic forecasts that had been received, Experian and Cambridge Econometrics, were too far apart to be relied on and as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59.

To consider the recommendation of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee in respect of the Notice of Motion referred by Council at its meeting on 31 July 2012.

60.1           The Chairman of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee, Councillor B C Calway, referred Members to the report of his Committee, circulated at Pages 339-347.

60.2           Members were advised that, at its meeting on 31 July 2012, the Council had considered the following Motion which was referred to the Overview & Scrutiny Committee for further investigation and recommendation back to the Council:

                  ‘This Council recognises that Bovine TB is a terrible disease affecting a number of different animal species.

                  This Council recognises that Bovine TB needs to be eradicated and that Government should prioritise vaccination schemes over any badger cull.

                  This Council will therefore not allow badgers to be culled on land which Tewkesbury Borough Council owns, manages or controls’.

60.3           The Overview & Scrutiny Committee had met on 11 September to consider the Motion and had received presentations from two guest speakers who had provided expert information both in favour of, and against, culling. The Chairman indicated that the Committee had considered the matter very carefully, taking account of all of the information provided, and had recommended to the Council that:

                  ‘This Council recognises that Bovine TB is a terrible disease affecting a number of different animal species.

                  This Council agrees that Bovine TB needs to be eradicated but that, until a viable, deployable and effective vaccine for both badgers and cattle is available, a cull should proceed’.

60.4           The Motion from the Overview & Scrutiny Committee was proposed and seconded.

60.5           A Member questioned whether any Members of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee had been made aware that Mr Jan Rowe was the Director of Gloscon which was the company that had been awarded the contract to carry out the cull. In response the Borough Solicitor indicated that the Committee was not aware of this fact at the meeting but in any case Jan Rowe had been invited to the meeting to speak in favour of the cull so the interest was not in conflict with the point of view he provided. There was no effect on the legitimacy of the Committee’s recommendation.

60.6           The seconder of the original Motion indicated that this was an extremely emotive issue and she had sympathy with any farmers that were affected by Bovine TB, however she did not believe that a cull was the answer. She indicated that the intention was to cull 75% of badgers to have a, hopeful, 16% reduction in transmission. She was particularly concerned about the information that was coming forward from Ireland which indicated that a cull had resulted in an effective extermination of badgers in a large part of the Country. In addition, whilst there had been an initial reduction in cases of Bovine TB in some areas, there were now more cases than had been seen previously. She was of the view that the money going towards a cull would be better spent working on an effective vaccination.

60.7           A number of Members spoke against the culling and felt that on balance, and taking into account the evidence provided,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.

The Council is asked to consider and determine recommendations of a policy nature arising from the Executive Committee as follows:- 

At its meeting on 5 September 2012 the Executive Committee considered a report detailing a review of Off-Street Parking Services and it was RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL:

1. That the objectives, as outlined in Paragraph 3.1 of the report, be APPROVED.
2. That Options 1 and 2 be investigated further and that a report be brought back to the Executive Committee and Council to approve the most appropriate delivery model for the Council’s off-street parking service.

61.1           At its meeting on 5 September 2012 the Executive Committee considered a report which set out a range of options for the future delivery of the off-street parking service. The Committee considered the report and recommended to Council 1) that the objectives, as outlined in Paragraph 3.1 of the report, be approved and 2) that options 1 and 2 be investigated further and a report be brought back to the Executive Committee and Council to approve the most appropriate delivery model for the Council’s off-street parking service.

61.2           The report that had been considered by the Executive Committee had been circulated with the Agenda for the current meeting at Pages No. 348-353.

61.3           A Member indicated that the petition which had been handed in earlier in the meeting supported keeping the car parking in-house. The organiser of the petition had deep reservations about outsourcing car parking particularly in relation to the level of flexibility that was required in terms of local events and festivals.  

61.4           The recommendation of the Executive Committee was proposed by the Vice-Chairman and upon being seconded it was

                  RESOLVED          1.   That the objectives, as outlined in Paragraph 3.1 of the                                report, be APPROVED.

2.      That Options 1 and 2 be investigated further and that a report be brought back to the Executive Committee and Council to approve the most appropriate delivery model for the Council’s off-street parking service.

At its meeting on 5 September 2012 the Executive Committee considered the Housing & Homelessness Strategy 2012-2016 and RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL  that the draft Housing & Homelessness Strategy 2012-2016 and its core documents be ADOPTED as a replacement for the Interim Housing Strategy 2010-2012; the Homelessness Strategy 2008-2013; the Housing Renewal Policy 2010-2015; and the Empty Homes Strategy 2008-2013.  

61.5           At its meeting on 5 September 2012 the Executive Committee considered the Housing & Homelessness Strategy 2012-2016 and recommended to Councilthat the draft Housing & Homelessness Strategy 2012-2016 and its core documents be adoptedas a replacement for the Interim Housing Strategy 2010-2012; the Homelessness Strategy 2008-2013; the Housing Renewal Policy 2010-2015; and the Empty Homes Strategy 2008-2013.  

61.6           The report that had been considered by the Executive Committee had been circulated with the Agenda for the current meeting at Pages No. 354-428.

61.7           The Chairman of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee indicated that the Strategy had been the subject of a Scrutiny review and he felt that the Working Group had produced an extremely thorough document.

61.8           The recommendation of the Executive Committee was proposed by the Vice-Chairman and upon being seconded it was

                  RESOLVED          That the draft Housing & Homelessness Strategy 2012-2016                                   and its core documents be ADOPTED as a replacement for the                               Interim Housing Strategy 2010-2012; the Homelessness                                         Strategy 2008-2013; the Housing Renewal Policy 2010-2015;                                    and the Empty Homes Strategy 2008-2013.

At its meeting on 5 September 2012 the Executive Committee considered the purchase of a new tractor for grounds maintenance use and RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL that capital expenditure of £19,500, for the outright purchase of the tractor currently in use for grounds maintenance activities, be APPROVED.

61.9           At its meeting on 5 September 2012 the Executive Committee considered the purchase of a new tractor for grounds maintenance use and recommended to Council that capital expenditure of £19,500, for the outright purchase of the tractor currently in use for grounds maintenance activities, be approved.

61.10         The report that had been considered by the Executive Committee had been circulated with the Agenda for the current meeting at Pages No. 429-432.

61.11         A Member questioned whether the equipment to go with the tractor would also be purchased and in response he was advised that the Council already owned the equipment. The purchase of the tractor would generate revenue savings and as such was seen as an excellent investment.

61.12         The recommendation of the Executive Committee was proposed by the Vice-Chairman and upon being seconded it was

                  RESOLVED          That capital expenditure of £19,500, for the outright purchase                                  of the tractor currently in use for grounds maintenance                                           activities, be APPROVED.

To consider entering into a Pooling Agreement with all Gloucestershire District Councils and the County Council subject to agreement on satisfactory governance arrangements and a full assessment of the risks and rewards.

62.1           The report of the Director of Resources, circulated at Pages No. 433-444, set out the proposals for business rates pooling from April 2013 and Members were asked to approve, in principal, that the Council enter into a Pooling Agreement with all Gloucestershire District Councils and the County Council subject to agreement on satisfactory governance arrangements and a full assessment of the risks and rewards.

62.2           The Director of Resources explained that the Council currently collected the business rates for the Borough which was then pooled by the Government and redistributed. The Government’s proposal was that a baseline be set against which each Authority would collect. If the Council performed better than the target then it would share the benefits but if the Council performed below target it would share in the deficit. The Billing Authority business rates baseline would be split between the Billing Authority and Major Precepting Authorities with the District share being set at 80%, the County share at 18% and the Fire and Rescue Service share at 2%. The Business Rates Retention Scheme would protect Local Authorities from significant reductions in their income through a safety net payment. This would be funded by a levy on disproportionate growth that some Authorities would achieve due to being able to grow business rates income easily in relation to others. The levy would be proportional at a 1:1 level.

62.3           In terms of pooling, the proposals meant that Local Authorities would be able to come together voluntarily to pool their business rates. There were a number of potential benefits to be gained as it would provide Local Authorities with a mechanism to deliver and promote jobs and growth and to allow for investment decisions to support economic priorities; it would encourage collaborative working across Local Authorities, rather than being constrained by administrative boundaries; and it would allow the benefit from investment in economic growth to be shared across the wider area and help Local Authorities to manage volatility in income by sharing fluctuations across budgets. Where Local Authorities came together to form a pool there would be a single tariff or top-up figure which would be the sum of all the tariffs and top-ups of the individual Authorities within the pool. There would also be a single levy rate for the pool, calculated on the aggregate income and growth across the pool. Pooling also meant that eligibility for safety net payments would be calculated at the pool-wide level. The actual benefit would depend on the actual amount of business rates collected by each Authority and how that compared to each Authority’s business rates baseline. Whilst it was too early to know the exact financial benefit that would be gained it was understood that pooling would mean that each Authority would retain significantly more of the income collected in the area. In terms of risks, Members were advised that the safety net payment would be calculated at pool-wide level which meant that individual Authorities that suffered a large reduction in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62.

The Chairman will move the adoption of the following resolution:

That under Section 100(A)(4) Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded for the following items on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.

63.1           The Chairman proposed and it was

                  RESOLVED         That, under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act                                1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following                               items on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of                          exempt information as defined in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the                              Act.  

The Council is asked to consider and determine the separate recommendations of a policy nature arising from the Executive Committee as follows:-  

(Exempt –Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 –Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information))

At its meeting on 5 September 2012 the Executive Committee considered a report regarding systems review projects for Planning, Licensing & Environmental Health services and made a recommendation to Council.

                  (Exempt –Paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 –Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information))

64.1           At its meeting on 5 September 2012 the Executive Committee considered a report regarding systems review projects for Planning, Licensing & Environmental Health services and made a recommendation to Council. The Council considered the recommendation and resolved accordingly.

(Exempt –Paragraph 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 –Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings)

To consider the report of the Borough Solicitor in relation to proceedings commenced in the High Court.

                  (Exempt –Paragraph 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 –Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings)

65.1           The Council considered the report of the Borough Solicitor in relation to proceedings commenced in the High Court and resolved to continue with those proceedings.