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.  

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

86.1           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.

86.2           There were no declarations on interest made on this occasion.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 2 February 2022.

87.1           The Minutes of the meeting held on 2 February 2022, 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 24 February 2022)

88.1           There were no items from members of the public.

To consider the Committee’s Forward Plan.  

That the Committee’s Forward Plan be NOTED.  

89.1           Attention was drawn to the Committee’s Forward Plan, circulated at Pages No. 5-7. Members were asked to consider the Plan.

89.2           Accordingly, it was

To consider the quarterly budget position. 

That the financial performance information for the third quarter of 2021/22 be NOTED.  

90.1           The report of the Head of Finance and Asset Management, circulated at Pages No. 8-21, set out the financial performance information for the third quarter of 2021/22 which Members were asked to consider. 

90.2           The Head of Finance and Asset Management was pleased to report a healthy projected outturn surplus of £3,609,348 on the revenue budget. A large percentage of the surplus was funded from grant income which was to be used for specific purposes in the coming financial year; however, overall, the Council was on track to enjoy a healthy surplus at year-end and careful consideration would need to be made on the best use of the one-off money to support its ambitions as well as deal with risk.

90.3           Attention was drawn to the table at Paragraph 2.1 of the report which highlighted the forecast outturn position for service provision, the net position on corporate income and expenditure and the resulting surplus. The quarter three full year projection showed a full year cost of service provision totalling £10,349million which resulted in a surplus against the approved budget of £2.068million of which over £1.5million would be carried over at year end for specific purposes either as a result of grant determination or previous decisions of the Council. The reasons for the projected surplus were set out within the report and included savings on employees across a majority of the service areas including One-Legal, Development, Democratic and Corporate Services but also within senior management following the decision in June 2021 to delete the post of Deputy Chief Executive. That saving was offset to some degree by the cost of recruitment to the new Director of One Legal. The Head of Finance and Asset Management also indicated that the report did not include the pay award as it had not been agreed at the time of writing the report; however, it was now likely a settlement of 1.75% would be made which was within the funding boundary of 2% that had been included within the budget. There had also been savings in transport costs, mainly attributable to the reduction in business travel across the Council; savings in supplies and services; and payments to third parties. In terms of payments to third parties, the large majority of the surplus was due to some growth items being postponed until next year – in-cab technology, digital growth within the Business Transformation Team and additional Joint Core Strategy (JCS) support - those sums would be carried over at year-end to fund future expenditure within those areas. In addition, £112,000 had been budgeted for an additional food waste crew which had been postponed until next year due to delays in acquiring a new food waste vehicle and there had also been a significant saving in the Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) gate contract since changing the provider which it was expected would continue for the foreseeable future. The savings had been reduced slightly by additional expenditure on the domestic abuse review – which was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 90.

To approve the proposed Digital Approach.

That the proposed Digital Approach Strategy be APPROVED.  

91.1           The report of the Head of Corporate Services, circulated at Pages No. 22-31, set out a digital approach strategy which Members were asked to approve.

91.2           The Corporate Services Manager explained that the previous digital strategy had helped the Council identify what was needed from its digital platform and had set a direction for the Business Transformation team. The new approach considered the way the Business Transformation team would work over the coming two years, with a particular focus on embracing a user-centred and agile way of working. In addition, it highlighted what principles the Council would adopt as part of its online services as well as setting out a dynamic programme of works for the next two years. It was felt that the nature of the digital landscape meant it made more sense to adopt a short-term approach and regularly review it rather than it taking the format of a traditional three/four year strategy. Since it went live in 2020, the Business Transformation team had made it its mission to reshape local government’s reputation for online services by putting the customer at the centre of its service design and making sure the ‘added extras’ were prioritised as fundamentals. It also understood that it must not leave anyone behind and the move towards great digital engagement meant officers were freed up to help those that could not/did not engage online.

91.3           At its meeting on 8 February, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had considered the digital approach and it was recognised that the Business Transformation team was doing a fantastic job of raising the Council’s reputation in respect of digital transformation. The Overview and Scrutiny Committee had a lengthy discussion around the impact of the work delivered by the team so far and assurance was given that case studies which highlighted the digital improvements would be available for staff, Members and the public. The team continued to be recognised nationally for its work which was great news.

91.4           The Lead Member for Customer Focus thanked the team for the strategy and felt it made sense to review it regularly given the pace of digital change. Another Member referred to the Councillors portal and questioned whether consideration had been given to offering a similar portal for the Parish/Town Councils. The Corporate Services Manager indicated this was not something which had been under consideration but the suggestion would be borne in mind as the portal project moved forward. Referring to the Anti-Social Behaviour database which was being established, the Corporate Services Manager explained that the current system was very manual so the new system would make the logging of anti-social behaviour much easier – there was a piece of software which could be bought in but it came at a considerable cost so an in-house solution would offer a significant saving.

91.5           Accordingly, it was

To recommend the Housing and Homelessness Strategy 2022-26 to Council for approval. 

That it be RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL that the Housing and Homelessness Strategy 2022-26 be APPROVED, subject to the wording around Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople being reviewed for consistency.

92.1           The report of the Housing Services Manager, circulated at Pages No. 32-62, set out the Housing and Homelessness Strategy 2022-26 and Members were asked to recommend it to the Council for approval.

92.2           The Head of Community Services advised that the current interim Housing Strategy 2021/22 had been put in place as an extension to the previous Housing Strategy 2017-2021 as preparation for a new full Housing Strategy was deferred as a result of COVID-19. Following workshops with key stakeholders, including Members, internal colleagues and external partners, a draft strategy document had been produced and made available for public consultation. The responses to that process had been considered and had helped to inform the Housing and Homelessness Strategy 2022-26 document which was attached to the report at Appendix 1. The Overview and Scrutiny Committee had considered and endorsed the Strategy at its meeting on 8 February 2022. The consultation responses had been attached to the report at Appendix 3 for transparency purposes – some of the feedback had not been included as it was not relevant but, where necessary, those comments had been passed onto the correct Council team. The Housing Services Manager was working on an action plan for Overview and Scrutiny Committee to consider later in the year and that would be reviewed regularly. The Housing Services Manager thanked Members for being part of the process and advised they had been key in the creation of the strategy.

92.3           A Member was of the view that the large number of properties which were being bought to rent out as holiday accommodation meaning they were not available as the first step on the ladder for many young homebuyers was a tragedy. In response, the Head of Community Services advised that the Welsh government had just announced it was implementing a 300% increase in Council Tax for holiday homes, but he was unsure if this was a step the English government would take. Referring to Page No. 43, a Member questioned which land was referred to in the bullet point “utilise land in Tewkesbury Borough Council’s ownership to support the delivery of affordable housing and encourage other public bodies to do likewise”. In response, the Housing Services Manager advised that different options were being explored such as garage sites across the Borough, land owned by Homes England and the Church. In terms of the Spring Gardens and MAFF sites, the Head of Finance and Asset Management explained that the Council was starting to re-engage with the consultants about how to take the sites forward and how they might fit together to meet the needs of Tewkesbury Town. A Member expressed the view that the MAFF site could be pushed forward for a modular housing site; she understood it was constricted but it was fairly central and would be ideal for social housing. Other Members supported that idea. One Member expressed her frustration that the term affordable housing was used when it was not affordable for most; she had thought  ...  view the full minutes text for item 92.

To consider and approve the updated Household Waste and Recycling Collection Service Policy and Procedures.

That the updated Domestic Waste and Recycling Collection Services Policy and Procedures be APPROVED.  

93.1           The report of the Head of Community Services, circulated at Pages No. 63-80, attached a revised Domestic Waste and Recycling Collection Services Policy and Procedures document which Members were asked to approve.

93.2           The Head of Community Services explained that the previous Waste and Recycling Collections Policy had been agreed in 2017 and set out the expectations for domestic collections including the sizes of bins used and frequency of collections; a regular review of the policy was required to ensure it was still appropriate for the current collection service. A litter bin installation and replacement protocol had been added to reflect the need for greater Council control of the number and location of new litter bins being installed in Tewkesbury Borough - other than the addition of that protocol, there were no significant changes proposed.

93.3           In offering clarification, the Head of Community Services explained that litter bins could currently be installed by Parish Councils or property developers with no oversight of the numbers or types of bins being installed. This had led to an unchecked burden of 1,400 litter bins being placed on the street cleansing service which was well above the national average. There were health and safety issues in specific locations with bins being a long distance from access roads or positioned at a height which meant it was dangerous for crews to lift out heavy bags; dog waste bins could often weigh over 20kg and the Council had a duty to reduce health and safety risks where possible.

93.4           A Member felt it would be helpful to make Parish Councils aware of the need to ensure litter bins could be easily emptied and the Head of Community Services advised that it was intended the policy would be sent out to Parishes and he would ensure some additional information was contained within the covering letter. The Lead Member for Clean and Green Environment indicated that there were good dual use bins available (litter and dog waste) and he would encourage Parishes to use those. He also asked Councillors to speak to their Parishes and to consider dual use when they were reviewing litter bin provision. The Borough Council had recently pinpointed all its bins so monitoring would be the next step. The Member queried whether the Council was looking at collecting recyclables from public bins as well as litter. In response, the Head of Community Services indicated that this was a brilliant aspiration but, in reality, it resulted in contaminated recycling so there would need to be a lot of work with the community ahead of any such introduction.

93.5           Accordingly, it was

To consider and approve recommendations from the Licensing Committee in respect of revisions to the Hackney Carriage (Taxi) and Private Hire Licensing Policy, incorporating the Gloucestershire Common Standards, and a revision to the Mobile Homes and Caravan Sites Licensing Policy.

1.         That the amendment to the medical criteria, as set out at Paragraph 2.9 of the report, which would be incorporated in the revised draft policy attached at Appendix A to the report, be APPROVED.  

2.         That the revised Hackney Carriage (Taxi) and Private Hire Licensing Policy, attached to the report at Appendix A, incorporating the Gloucestershire Common Standards which the Licensing Committee agreed at its meeting on 17 February 2022, be ADOPTED.

3.         That the revised Mobile Homes and Caravan Sites Licensing Policy, attached at Appendix C to the report, agreed by the Licensing Committee at its meeting on 16 October 2021, be ADOPTED.

94.1           The report of the Licensing Operations and Development Team Leader, circulated at Pages No. 81-215, asked Members to consider an amendment to the current medical criteria for drivers in the Hackney Carriage (Taxi) and Private Hire Licensing Policy; to adopt the draft Hackney Carriage (Taxi) and Private Hire Licensing Policy, incorporating the Gloucestershire Common Standards; and to adopt the Mobile Homes and Caravan Sites Licensing Policy.

94.2           A Member expressed her thanks to the Licensing Operations and Development Team Leader for the very thorough report provided and it was

To consider and approve the Consultation Statement and amended SPD for consultation; to approve that the amended SPD be put forward to Council for adoption, at the end of the consultation period, subject to no substantive comments being made during the consultation; and to delegate authority to the Head of Development Services, to make any necessary minor amendments to the draft document as considered appropriate prior to adoption.

1.         That the Consultation Statement and amended Supplementary Planning Document: Local Heritage List Selection Criteria for Tewkesbury Borough be APPROVED for consultation purposes.  

2.         That the amended Supplementary Planning Document be RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL for ADOPTION at the end of the consultation period, subject to no substantive comments being made during the consultation.

3.         That authority be delegated to the Head of Development Services to make any necessary minor amendments to the draft document as considered appropriate prior to adoption.

95.1           The report of the Planning Policy Manager, circulated at Pages No. 216-234, recommended that the amended Local Heritage List Selection Criteria Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and consultation statement be consulted on for four weeks between March and April 2022 and asked Members to agree that, if no substantive comments were received, the SPD would be submitted to Council for adoption.

95.2           The Head of Development Services explained that the purpose of the Local Heritage List Selection Criteria for Tewkesbury Borough Supplementary Planning Document was to identify and utilise a robust and standardised procedure for nominating assets onto a local heritage list. The SPD therefore included guidance on identifying the historic, archaeological or architectural value of a non-designated heritage asset. The SPD had been put before Executive Committee on 17 November 2021 to be approved for consultation purposes and that consultation was undertaken for six and a half weeks from 1 December 2021 to 14 January 2022 – only minor comments were received; however, in accordance with Regulation 12 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 (as amended), a consultation statement was required to be produced to show how the Council had responded to representations from the consultation. That was then required to be consulted on for a period of four weeks prior to adoption. As set out in the report recommendation, subject to no substantive comments being made, it was hoped Members would agree that the SPD would go straight to Council for approval.

95.3           Members were concerned at the lack of responses to the SPD, especially when the Borough had such a historic background. In response, the Heritage Engagement Officer confirmed that, whilst there had been a limited number of responses to the SPD consultation, there had been 60 nominations from across the Borough for the heritage list. That list was an ongoing process so items could still be added using the agreed selection process criteria. In terms of raising awareness of the heritage list, the Head of Development Services advised that all Parish and Town Councils would be contacted directly about the process and could be visited if that would be helpful – they could also be provided with a copy of the current list so they could see what was already included. She also agreed that the Communications team would be asked for its view on the best way to publicise the heritage list. The Lead Member for Built Environment suggested that the next Parish and Town Council seminar and the next edition of the Borough News should both include information about the heritage list.

95.4           Accordingly, it was

To agree that, subject to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee representative’s continued monitoring and regular reporting to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, the specific consideration of the payment of the Council’s contribution to the running costs on an annual basis no longer be required. 

That, subject to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee representative’s continued monitoring and regular reporting to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, the specific consideration of the payment of the Council’s contribution to the Gloucestershire Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee on an annual basis no longer be required. 

96.1           The Borough Solicitor explained that at its meeting in February, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had considered the value of the Council’s annual contribution to the Gloucestershire Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee and questioned whether the continued consideration of whether to make the payment was required.

96.2           The Gloucestershire Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee had been set up by the County Council in 2003 and each district paid £2,500 per year to be part of it. This amount was in the Council’s base budget but, when it had initially been agreed to contribute, the Executive Committee had asked that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee consider on an annual basis whether it continued to be best value. The Council’s representative on the Gloucestershire Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee reported regularly to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, as well as disseminating information to the wider membership as necessary, and the Overview and Scrutiny Committee felt that if there were any issues with the way the County Committee was operating they would be picked up through that process rather than needing to be considered annually.

96.3           During the brief discussion which ensued, the Borough Solicitor made it clear that the Executive Committee was being asked whether the annual requirement to review the effectiveness of the Gloucestershire Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee was still required as opposed to whether the payment should be made. The Council’s representative reported back after each meeting so it would be possible to assess quickly if the Council felt it was no longer getting value for money that way rather than reviewing the position on an annual basis.

96.4           Accordingly, it was

97.1           The Chair 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 discussion of                                    exempt information as defined in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the                          Act.  

(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))

To consider the write-off of irrecoverable debts.

(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))

98.1           The Committee considered and approved the write-off of irrecoverable debts.