Agenda and minutes

31.1           Apologies for absence were received from Councillors R A Bird, R D East, J R Mason and P N Workman.

32.1           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.

32.2           The following declaration was made:

32.3           There were no further declarations made on this occasion.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 27 June 2017.

33.1           The Minutes of the meeting held on 27 June 2017, 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 (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.  

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

34.1           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 20 July 2017).

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

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

To receive any questions submitted under Rule of Procedure 13. Any items received will be circulated on 26 July 2017.

(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).

36.1           There were no Member questions on this occasion.  

To receive a presentation from the Lead Member for Community – Councillor Mrs Kay Berry.  

37.1           The Mayor invited Councillor Berry, Lead Member for Community, to make her presentation.  

37.2           The presentation covered the following key points:

·      Community Safety Review – Safer Gloucestershire – there is currently a Community Safety Partnership (CSP) for each District; however that means that each CSP works in isolation. The Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner had commissioned a review to look at how community safety was delivered across the County. A Steering Group had been established to look at how a consistent approach could be taken across Gloucestershire to ensure that intelligence was shared between all partners and that Countywide priorities were considered. It was also intended that good practice should be shared, particularly with regard to Domestic Homicide Reviews, but still recognising that individual Districts and Boroughs were responsible for delivering community safety individually within their areas.

·      Community Safety Review – Safer Gloucestershire – Structure – the idea was that this would not take a hierarchical approach but there had been general agreement that there were too many small thematic groups so some would be merged (there were some which were statutory and as such those would remain in place). Our CSP had been suspended pending the outcome of the review and also due to a lack of strategic representatives to attend the meetings; there was now a need to consider how community safety was undertaken locally and work on that had already commenced. Safer Gloucestershire would feed into all of the other appropriate bodies and they would feedback through the Local Forums.

·      Domestic Homicide Reviews – currently the reviews were overseen by the Borough Council but that caused problems when the crime was in one place, the victim in another and the police in another – it was considered a Countywide approach – led by the County Council – was needed. The Countywide strategic partnership would take over full responsibility for decision-making around establishing a Domestic Homicide Review, appointing a Chair/report author, monitoring the progress of the review and holding agencies to account for their recommendations and actions. Local CSPs would still have considerable input to the process. It would also improve information sharing and learning from Domestic Homicide Reviews in a more timely fashion.

·      Emergency Planning – in the last year, key Officers had undertaken refresher training, or training to a higher level, in emergency planning; a rest centre exercise had been held at Tewkesbury School in February 2017; a flood team leaders meeting chaired by the Chief Executive had been introduced; and the Business Continuity Management Plans had been reviewed, updated and finalised. In the next 12 months the Council would review the emergency response plan; review the Council’s flood plan; carry out a Business Continuity Management exercise; and carry out a review of rest centres to ensure the correct level of capacity was available. There was a problem with finding venues to become rest centres and Officers were working on a plan to try and ensure there were enough available and that they  ...  view the full minutes text for item 37.

At its meeting on 12 July 2017 the Executive Committee considered the Community Infrastructure Levy - Statement of Modifications and RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL that

1.      That the Community Infrastructure Levy Proposed Statement of Modifications, as attached to the report at Appendix 1, be APPROVED for public consultation.

2.      That authority be delegated to the Deputy Chief Executive, in consultation with the Lead Member for Built Environment, to amend the proposed Statement of Modifications and prepare any further statements of modification that may be required following the JCS hearings and/or any further viability assessments undertaken.

3.      That the Deputy Chief Executive be authorised to agree the date of public consultation(s) with Cheltenham Borough and Gloucester City Councils.

4.      That the Deputy Chief Executive, following the conclusion of the public consultation(s), be authorised to compile and submit responses received to the CIL examiner for examination.

At the Executive Committee meeting Members requested that the complete Community Infrastructure Levy charges, as approved by Council on 19 April 2016, be advised to Members and that additional information is provided as an Addendum to the report.

38.1           At its meeting on 12 July 2017, the Executive Committee had considered a report which detailed the need for the Council to undertake public consultation on the proposed Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Statement of Modifications and asked for approval to compile and submit responses received to the CIL examiner. The Executive Committee had recommended to Council that the CIL proposed Statement of Modifications be approved for public consultation; that authority be delegated to the Deputy Chief Executive, in consultation with the Lead Member for Built Environment, to prepare any further statements of modification that may be required following the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) hearings and/or any further viability assessments undertaken; that the Deputy Chief Executive be authorised to agree the date of public consultation(s) with Cheltenham Borough and Gloucester City Councils; and that the Deputy Chief Executive, following the conclusion of the public consultation(s), be authorised to compile and submit responses received to the CIL examiner for examination.

38.2           The report which was considered by the Executive Committee had been circulated with the Agenda for the current meeting at Pages No. 6-21. Members had also asked for the CIL charges which had already been agreed to be circulated for information and those were attached to the Agenda at Pages No. 22-34. 

38.3           The recommendation was proposed by the Chair of the Executive Committee and subsequently seconded. During the discussion which ensued, a Member referred to the resource implications section of the report and queried whether the past consultancy costs could be recovered. In response, the Deputy Chief Executive indicated that the Council should be able to clawback the costs of the administration and collection of CIL as was set out within the report. In addition, the Head of Development Services advised that the original consultancy work which had been undertaken by Peter Brett Associates helped the Council to set up the charging schedule and, as such, could not be recovered. The Council was not being asked to approve those rates at this meeting as that had already been done in April 2016. The Head of Development Services explained that the rates would be examined through the CIL process but that was not the purpose of the current report. Members were being asked to look at the modifications which needed to be made and agree that they be the subject of public consultation.

38.4           A Member referred to the resource implications at Page No. 7 of the report and Paragraph 5.1 at Page No. 10. She was of the view that the two paragraphs contradicted each other regarding the funding of the post as the first paragraph indicated that Tewkesbury’s contribution would be £30,000 for staffing costs and £30,000 for the IT System; whereas the second paragraph stated that two officers would be required at an estimated cost of £60,000 for each of the JCS authorities. She questioned whether this meant there were two Officers costing £60,000 with ICT costs on top of that. In response, the Head of Development  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38a

To consider the Council’s response to the recommendations made by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England on the Borough Ward Boundaries.   

39.1           The report of the Boundary Review Working Group, circulated at Pages No. 35-42, asked Members to agree the Council’s response to the draft recommendations of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England on a revised pattern of warding for Tewkesbury Borough.

39.2           The Chair of the Boundary Review Working Group explained that, several months ago, the Boundary Review Working Group had commenced its review of the Borough Ward Boundaries so that the Council could submit a warding pattern for consideration by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England as part of its consultation. The Council’s proposals had been submitted and, with the exception of four minor variations, the Commission’s draft recommendations reflected that initial submission made by the Council.  The Boundary Review Working Group had met to consider the recommendations - specifically the proposed variations to the Council’s Scheme - and had commented that it supported the Commission’s recommendation that the Ward to include the Parishes of Uckington, Norton, Sandhurst, Boddington and Down Hatherley be named ‘Severn Vale South’; that the boundary between Tewkesbury North and South Wards be amended to take account of an existing polling district boundary adjacent to the High Street, behind the houses and roads along Oldbury Road, and that the Tewkesbury North Ward be renamed ‘Tewkesbury North and Twyning’. In addition, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England had suggested a change to the boundary of the Cleeve St Michael’s and Cleeve West Wards of Bishop’s Cleeve so that Huntsmans Close was included within the Cleeve St Michael’s Ward to allow for better access. The Working Group was in support of the revised boundary but felt it created an anomaly by leaving six properties in Pecked Lane in the Cleeve West Ward whilst the remaining 65 properties were in the Cleeve St Michael’s Ward already, or within the area that the Local Government Boundary Commission for England was proposing to move into Cleeve St Michael’s – with this in mind the Working Group had proposed to Council that, in respect of Cleeve St Michael’s and Cleeve West Wards, the proposed boundary be further amended to include all of the properties in Pecked Lane in the Cleeve St Michael’s Ward.

39.3           On behalf of the Boundary Review Working Group, the Chair thanked the Officers who had supported the Working Group for the enormous amount of work they had put in to help the Group formulate its proposals. He felt the fact that the Local Government Boundary Commission for England had proposed only a few changes to the Council’s submission was testament to the hard work put in. He proposed, and it was seconded, that the Council support the Local Government Boundary Commission for England’s proposals on the revised Borough Wards but that, in respect of the Cleeve St Michael’s and Cleeve West Wards, the proposed boundary be further amended to include all of the properties in Pecked Lane in the Cleeve St Michael’s Ward.

39.4           During the discussion which ensued, a Member questioned whether the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.