64.1           The evacuation procedure, as noted on the Agenda, was taken as read.

64.2           The Chair indicated that Rachel Capon, Contracts Team Leader for the Gloucestershire Joint Waste Team, would be attending the meeting in relation to Agenda Item 8 – Gloucestershire Joint Waste Committee Action Plan. 

65.1           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.

65.2           The following declaration was made:

65.3           There were no further declarations made on this occasion.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 1 December 2015.

66.1           The Minutes of the meeting held on 1 December 2015, copies of which had been circulated, were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair. 

To determine whether there are any questions for the relevant Lead Members and what support the Overview and Scrutiny Committee can give to work contained within the Plan.

67.1           Attention was drawn to the Executive Committee Forward Plan, circulated at Pages No. 16-20.  Members were asked to determine whether there were any questions for the relevant Lead Members and what support the Overview and Scrutiny Committee could give to the work contained within the plan.

67.2           A Member drew attention to the request for an increased budget allocation to complete delivery of the Joint Core Strategy examination, which was due to be considered by the Executive Committee at its meeting on 3 February 2016, and he queried how much additional money was required.  The Deputy Chief Executive indicated that the exact amount was currently being reviewed and the full details would be included in the report to the Executive Committee.  A Member noted that a report to accept the surrender of leased land at Canterbury Leys was due to be included as an Agenda Item at the same meeting and he questioned what this related to.  The Deputy Chief Executive undertook to seek a response from the Asset Management Team and to advise Members accordingly.

67.3           It was

RESOLVED          That the Executive Committee Forward Plan be NOTED.

To consider the forthcoming work of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

68.1           Attention was drawn to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Work Programme 2015/16, circulated at Pages No. 21-24, which Members were asked to consider.

68.2           It was

RESOLVED          That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Work Programme 2015/16 be NOTED. 

To recommend to Council whether or not the Motion to work with partners across Gloucestershire to assist displaced Syrian families to settle within the county should be supported.

69.1           The report of the Environmental and Housing Services Group Manager, circulated at Pages No. 25-36, related to the following Notice of Motion which had been referred to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee from the Council meeting on 8 December 2015:  ‘Tewkesbury Borough Council notes that more than six million Syrian people have been displaced by civil war within their homeland and three million have fled to neighbouring countries.  The Prime Minister and the United Kingdom government are keen to support 20,000 refugees seeking sanctuary and have pledged £215M over the next five years to help rebuild their lives within this country.  I would ask Members of this Council to join with other agencies, including Severn Vale Housing Trust and Gloucestershire Action for Refugees and Asylum Seekers (GARAS), to help coordinate and support limited numbers of displaced Syrian families settle within the county of Gloucestershire’.  Members were asked to recommend to Council whether or not the Motion should be supported.

69.2           The Environmental and Housing Services Group Manager explained that many Districts Councils and Registered Housing Providers had offered to house families within Gloucestershire.  Three Syrian refugee families had already come through the rehousing scheme with one going to Gloucester and two to Cheltenham.  Whilst the family in Gloucester had settled in well and the children were attending school, the two in Cheltenham had been more complex as it had emerged that they were actually from the same extended family.  Assurance was provided that all of those initial teething problems had been resolved and the families had been successfully managed through existing links to social care, health etc.  Gloucestershire had agreed to a coordinated countywide approach to Syrian refugees and representatives had access to a ‘move-it’ portal which contained details of the families who needed rehousing.  Gloucester City Council was looking at accommodating 10 families within the first year, not necessarily from its own housing stock; Cheltenham Borough Council had indicated that it would look to rehouse up to 15 families; and Cotswold District Council had housed five families in private rented accommodation.  As a non-stock holding authority, Tewkesbury Borough Council would have a very limited role, however, Officers had held discussions with the principal local social housing provider, Severn Vale Housing Society, which would like to be involved in rehousing, pending the outcome of the motion.  Two Members of the public had offered properties in the Borough to be used by Syrian refugees but this would not be possible without a commitment from Tewkesbury Borough Council.  GARAS had 18 years of experience of working with refugees and would be looked to for support; it was noted that GARAS had helped to rehouse several families in Churchdown as part of a different scheme.  There were already a number of organisations in place to assist refugees with learning and translation etc. and Government funding had been made available for a five year period on a tariff basis to assist local authorities with the costs of resettlement.  There was an expectation from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.

To consider the progress made to date in relation to the Gloucestershire Joint Waste Committee Action Plan.

70.1           Attention was drawn to the report on the Gloucestershire Joint Waste Committee Action Plan, circulated at Pages No. 37-46.  Members were asked to consider the progress made in relation to the Action Plan during 2015/16. 

70.2           The Environmental and Housing Services Group Manager explained that Tewkesbury Borough Council had joined the Gloucestershire Joint Waste Committee (GJWC) at the end of 2014.  The GJWC Action Plan replaced the individual plans of each of the member authorities and therefore superseded the Tewkesbury Borough Annual Waste and Recycling Plan which had been monitored by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee since June 2012.  Rachel Capon, the Contracts Team Leader for the Gloucestershire Joint Waste Team explained that the GJWC had been monitoring the Council’s contract with Ubico since the transfer of its waste services in April 2015.  Monthly meetings were held to discuss service delivery, problem areas, communications etc. and health and safety of the contract was also monitored with different crews followed on a monthly basis to ensure that they were following the procedures set out by Ubico.  In terms of the monitoring of the Grundon Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) contract, new sampling laws had been introduced during 2015 and consideration had also been given to health and safety procedures; Members would be aware of the recent problems with needles being found in recyclate and GJWC was working with various agencies in order to address this e.g. Turning Point, doctor’s surgeries, pharmacies etc. 

70.3           There were a few projects in relation to communications which were specific to Tewkesbury Borough, for instance, production of recycling calendars and promotion of waste mitigation measures in Tewkesbury Borough News.  It was noted that initial results indicated that food waste collection volumes had increased by 20% following the delivery of a bin stickering campaign.  Food waste caddies had been issued for free during the campaign which had helped to increase participation.  Once the final figures had been received at the end of the month, it would be beneficial to get a message out to the public to show how much waste had been diverted from landfill. 

70.4           In terms of other work, a TEEP (Technically, Environmentally and Economically Practicable) review had been carried out at all authorities to ensure that the way material was collected fitted with the new waste regulations.  The regulations suggested that comingling did not always achieve the best recycling results with recyclate not always being made into pure materials e.g. glass being made into aggregate as opposed to a glass bottle.  The GJWC had undertaken the review and had found Tewkesbury Borough Council to be compliant with the exception of glass.  A follow-up assessment had demonstrated that it was not economically feasible to have a separate glass collection and therefore the Council’s approach was acceptable.  The waste vehicle fleet contract was due for renewal in 2017 and a service review had been carried out looking at the way the service was currently delivered and how it might be delivered in the future.  A  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

To consider progress against the Flood Risk Management Group Action Plan.  

71.1           The report of the Environmental and Housing Services Group Manager, circulated at Pages No. 47-57, provided an update on the progress of the Flood Risk Management Group Action Plan.  Members were asked to consider the progress which had been made.

71.2           Members were advised that the Flood Risk Management Group Action Plan, attached at Appendix 1 to the report, was monitored by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on a quarterly basis and this update was based on the Flood Risk Management Group meeting held on 14 December 2015.  It was noted that the Action Plan now included a table detailing potential future maintenance issues outside of the general maintenance on Council-owned watercourses i.e. collapsing banks, substantial erosion etc.  The Environmental Health Manager made particular reference to the fantastic work which had been done at Tirley where a suite of flood protection measures were being implemented in partnership with the Parish Council.  With regard to Tewkesbury, he indicated that work had been carried out with Tewkesbury Nature Reserve and people had commented that this had had an impact on areas which normally accepted water during the recent seasonal flooding.  It was hoped to undertake joint work with Gloucestershire County Council and the Environment Agency, once the water had subsided, to ensure watercourses around Tewkesbury Town were cleared and water could move quickly.  More detailed information regarding watercourse maintenance was set out within the report.

71.3           A Member queried whether the Flood Risk Management Group was able to ensure that houses were not built below the road level and the Environmental Health Manager clarified that the Action Plan looked at specific actions relating to watercourses which were being carried out jointly with other agencies, or by Tewkesbury Borough Council itself, however, this was an issue which had been discussed.  A Member of the Flood Risk Management Group advised that the Group had been particularly concerned about the amount of watercourses which the Council would have to maintain with the new development which was expected as a result of the Joint Core Strategy.  In response, the Environmental Health Manager advised that the Council did own many pieces of land which it had a responsibility to maintain and the Council had agreed to increase the budget for watercourse maintenance some three to four years earlier in order to ensure that the statutory responsibility as a riparian owner was fulfilled.  In the future there would be issues with ensuring that the Council received appropriate payment for the maintenance of any watercourses it would be expected to maintain via the planning process, however, it was noted that developers were increasingly looking towards Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) which were based on the idea of replicating natural drainage and working with the land.  A Member indicated that another flooding issue relating to planning was the use of permeable paving, which only had a 15 year lifespan, and he questioned whether the local authority would become responsible for its replacement.  The Environmental Health Manager confirmed that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 71.

To consider progress against the recommendations arising from the Enviro-Crimes Review and to approve closure of the review.

72.1           The report of the Environmental and Housing Services Group Manager, circulated at Pages No. 58-61, provided an update on the progress against the recommendations arising from the Overview and Scrutiny Review of Enviro-Crimes.  Members were asked to consider the report and to approve closure of the review. 

72.2           Members were advised that an Overview and Scrutiny Committee Working Group had been established to review the Council’s approach to tackling environmental crimes such as dog fouling and fly-tipping.  The Working Group had been very productive and its report had been adopted by the Executive Committee at its meeting on 16 July 2014.  The report contained a series of recommendations, progress against which was set out at Appendix 1 to the report.  In the report which had been presented to the Committee in July 2015, all but two of the review recommendations had been completed: organise a training session tailored to the Police, explaining how they can help in tackling dog fouling; and carry out an educational campaign at local schools to make them aware of the dangers of dog fouling, and explore partnership working with other agencies.  Both of these actions had now been completed.  Members were advised that, in November, Tewkesbury Borough Council had arranged a multi-agency ‘Day of Action’ in Churchdown which put Officers in the community to highlight and tackle issues relating to dog fouling, littering and fly-tipping.  The day had also promoted volunteer litter picking and the Council’s Paws on Patrol scheme which encouraged dog walkers to observe and report any crimes they may witness.  A ‘drop-in’ information stand had been set up in the GL3 Churchdown Community Centre where Officers had been on hand to give advice and information.  The Police had been heavily involved in the event; they had brought a mobile vehicle to the GL3 car park to inform the community about burglaries, and had accompanied Tewkesbury Borough Council Officers on early morning and evening dog walking patrols, giving information to dog walkers about the consequences of allowing dogs to foul, as well as information on how to report incidents of dog fouling they may witness.  The exercise had also served to educate those in the Police most likely to get involved in such issues in what to do if they witnessed dog fouling.  Another ‘Day of Action’ was planned for the spring in a different Parish with the intention of holding the events on a regular basis in future.  Members suggested Longford and Winchcombe as areas which would benefit from an event and the Environmental and Housing Services Group Manager explained that the information which was received via the Achieve system regarding dog fouling, fly-tipping etc. would be reviewed initially in order to identify hotspots.

72.3           A Member noted from the Officer report that the Police had played an educational role in terms of the work which had been carried out in Churchdown and he sought further information as to the information they had been given and what their role would be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.

To consider the progress of the Disabled Facilities Grants Review. 

73.1           Attention was drawn to the report of the Environmental and Housing Services Group Manager, circulated at Pages No. 62-65, which set out the progress which had been made in respect of the Disabled Facilities Grants Review.  Members were asked to consider the report.

73.2           Members were informed that, at the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 21 July 2015, it was agreed to establish a Working Group to review the Council’s approach to Disabled Facilities Grants.  The Terms of Reference for the review were attached at Appendix 1 to the report and Members were advised that Councillor T A Spencer had been elected as Chair of the Working Group.  Councillor Spencer indicated that he was pleased with the progress that had been made over the course of the two meetings which had been held to date.  The first meeting had been an opportunity to give an overview of the existing process and financial arrangements, including how Tewkesbury Borough Council compared with other local authorities in the area.  The second meeting had continued discussion on the improvements being carried out with specific consideration being given to better and earlier information being provided to those with a disability regarding their options; streamlining of the application process; and potential improvements in the procurement of contractors and equipment, including the benefit of using schedules of rates.  It was anticipated that the final meeting of the Working Group would be held at the end of the month with a draft report and action plan to be presented at the next meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. 

73.3           It was

RESOLVED          That the progress of the Disabled Facilities Grants Review be NOTED.