74.1           Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mrs K J Berry, A S Reece and V D Smith.  

75.1           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.

75.2           The following declaration was made:

75.3           There were no further declarations made on this occasion.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 6 December 2016.

76.1           The Minutes of the meeting held on 6 December 2016, copies of which had been circulated, were approved as a correct record and signed by the Mayor, subject to an amendment to show that Councillor R E Garnham had been present at the meeting.  

77.1           The evacuation procedure, as set out on the Agenda, was advised to those present.

77.2           The Mayor welcomed Mrs Christine Laird to the meeting and advised that she would be presenting the petition at Item 7 on the Agenda. She also introduced Richard Blamey (Chair of the Council’s Independent Remuneration Panel) and the other Panel Members, Hugh Laird, Sue Lambert and Andrew Turner, who were all in attendance for Item 8 on the Agenda, Member Allowances Scheme 2017/18.  

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 18 January 2017).

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

78.1           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 24 January 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).

79.1           There were no Member questions on this occasion.  

To consider whether Officers should raise the issues within the Petition through the Borough Plan process and explore with Tewkesbury Battlefield Society, the Tewkesbury School Trust and landowners the potential for improving the Battlefield as a cultural and heritage asset.

80.1           Members were advised that a petition had been received by the Council which asked that it communicate to the Governors of Tewkesbury School its disagreement with the decision not to sell the Gastons fields to the Tewkesbury Battlefield Society; to make clear any aspiration to sell the Gastons fields for development purposes was wholly inappropriate, given its historical significance, and would be vigorously opposed if attempted by the Trustees; and to consider formally designating the Gastons fields, in the Local Plan, as the intended site for the future creation of a Heritage Park for Tewkesbury and to work with the Society and residents to deliver that objective. The petition had received 2,741 signatures which was in excess of the 100 signatures required to trigger a Council debate and was the reason the current report was before Members. In addition, the Battlefield Society had undertaken its own online petition which contained 386 signatures.The report of the Head of Development Services, circulated at Pages No. 13-25, asked that Officers consider the issues raised within the petition through the Borough Plan process and explore with Tewkesbury Battlefield Society, the Tewkesbury School Trust and landowners the potential for improving the Battlefield as a cultural and heritage asset.

80.2           The Mayor invited Christine Laird, speaking as the petition organiser, to make her presentation to the Council. Mrs Laird explained that she had been asked to speak on behalf of the 3,000 people that had signed the two petitions which had been submitted to the Council. She explained that the Gastons fields were located at the heart of the site of the Battle of Tewkesbury and had been designated a national asset in 1983. The landscape was particularly rare because it remained much as it was in the fifteenth century. The fields were owned by the Tewkesbury School Trust, a charity owned and controlled by the governors of Tewkesbury School, and the endowment deed required the charity to comply with specific conditions to maintain and keep in good repair the barn, fields, boundaries and paths that made up the area.  It was considered by those that had signed the petition that this requirement has not been complied with for more than 10 years as could be seen by the fencing that had fallen down and the hedgerows and pasture that were in very poor condition. In addition, the public footpaths that crossed the site had been impossible to use last year and a small barn located near the Gloucester Road was at real risk of falling down. Mrs Laird explained that the Gastons fields formed an important part of the Town’s Battlefield trail but, sadly, it was not unusual to hear tourists comment adversely on the appearance of the fields when following the trail. For residents it was a source of shame that tourists thought Tewkesbury did not care about its heritage. The Battlefield Society had regularly requested that action was taken to address its concerns but nothing was done and Members were advised  ...  view the full minutes text for item 80.

To determine the Scheme of Allowances to take effect on 1 April 2017 until 31 March 2018 having regard to the recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel.

81.1           The report of the Head of Democratic Services, circulated at Pages No. 26-34, attached the report of the Independent Remuneration Panel following its consideration of the Council’s Member Allowances Scheme. The report set out a number of recommendations made by the Panel which the Council was asked to consider when agreeing its Scheme of Allowances for 2017/18.

81.2           The Mayor invited the Chair of the Panel, Mr Richard Blamey, to address the Council. Mr Blamey explained that the current Panel had been appointed in February 2015 and he had been the Chair for much of that time. He was also a member of Gloucestershire County Council’s Independent Remuneration Panel so he had quite a lot of experience of local authority allowances. This had been his second opportunity to address Tewkesbury Borough Council in relation to the Member Allowances Scheme for which he was grateful. Mr Blamey explained that, since the Panel’s appointment, it had met over 30 Councillors and analysed a huge amount of data. The Panel had found meeting with Councillors extremely helpful as it provided a much better understanding of the role and duties that they undertook and the Panel looked forward to meeting more Members throughout the forthcoming year. In terms of the Basic Allowance, Tewkesbury Borough was still the highest in the country; however, the Panel did not think it appropriate or fair to recommend a cut in that allowance. In terms of Special Responsibility Allowances, the Council’s payments were on the low side so they were recommended for an increase; he felt it should be borne in mind that, even with that increase, they remained low in comparison to others. The Panel was recommending a new Special Responsibility Allowance for Support Members of £175.00 per year which would act as recognition for the additional work that they undertook to support their Lead Members. The cost of the recommendations equated to a 1.3% increase on the overall allowances budget.

81.3           During the discussion which ensued, a Member questioned whether the comparison data that the Panel had looked at had taken account of the fact that Tewkesbury Borough ran a Committee system rather than a Cabinet system. In response, Mr Blamey advised that the Panel had been very thorough so had looked at data across the country and then ‘drilled down’ to look at the like for like authorities. In relation to the Scheme proposed being for a period of one year, a Member questioned whether the Panel would start its deliberations again soon and, in response, Mr Blamey indicated that the Panel would meet as many Councillors as it could and look at the data over the year to enable it to make a recommendation in 2018.

81.4           In proposing the recommendations of the Panel, the Leader of the Council thanked the Panel for the work that it had undertaken and the very thorough way it had conducted its research. He felt that its recommendations would result in a fair and reasonable Allowances Scheme and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 81.

To recommend the appointment of Civic Heads for the Municipal Year 2017/18.

1.    Mayor

It is usual practice that the current Deputy Mayor be appointed Mayor for the ensuing Municipal Year.

2.    Deputy Mayor

To receive nominations for the appointment of Deputy Mayor for the ensuing Municipal Year.

(Potted biographies for the nominations received will be placed in the pigeon-holes prior to the start of the meeting) 

                  Mayor

82.1           Upon being proposed and seconded, it was

                  RESOLVED          That Councillor H A E Turbyfield, be appointed Mayor for the                             ensuing Municipal Year.

                  Deputy Mayor

82.2           Upon being proposed and seconded, it was

                  RESOLVED          That Councillor T A Spencer be appointed as Deputy                                          Mayor for the ensuing Municipal Year.     

To receive a presentation from Councillor Dave Waters – Lead Member for Finance and Asset Management.  

83.1           The Mayor invited the Lead Member for Finance and Asset Management, Councillor D J Waters, to make his presentation to the Council.

83.2           The presentation covered the following main points:  

·           What the Finance and Asset Management Portfolio covered; some of the achievements of the teams; and some of the challenges faced.

·           Finance – the team looked after all of the Council’s accounts, budgets, payroll and finances.

·           Asset Management – in line with S151 Regulations, the team looked after the Council’s physical assets, buildings, trees etc. The team also looked at disposing of, and acquiring, assets.

·           Revenues – this was the team that brought the money into the Council as well as that which was owed to the Parishes, the County Council and the Police and Crime Commissioner’s Office through Council Tax.

·           Benefits – the team managed the Housing and Council Tax Benefits which residents were owed; ensuring that they received the correct payments in a timely manner.

·           Finance Achievements – one of the biggest achievements was the unqualified audit opinion which had been attained; this meant there had been no faults identified with the finances or the processes behind them which was excellent news. The procurement of new insurances and cash collection contracts had saved over £30,000 per year, which was significant, and a new purchase ordering and commitment accounting module had been installed which would mean better purchasing arrangements. Improvements made in financial reporting to both Officers and Members had resulted in financial challenge panels for Service Managers being implemented and it was hoped this would, in turn, result in a better understanding of the finances in different areas. In addition to this, the finance team supported many corporate projects the most intensive this year being the waste fleet and Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) procurement.

·           Asset Achievements – the team had analysed whether the Council could benefit from the building of a crematorium; a lot of work had gone into the options appraisal but, unfortunately, it had been found not to be cost effective at this time. A new tree management system had been put into place which made use of electronic mapping technology. In addition, a Watercourse Management Strategy was now in place which was very important, as was the new Investment Strategy which looked at the procurement of commercial properties to help the Council’s income streams, and a new ‘Property’ helpdesk had been introduced which would log issues around the building so that they could be dealt with more efficiently. One of the main successes over the last year had been the completion of the Leisure Centre on time and on budget and the subsequent demolition of Cascades. In terms of Spring Gardens the plans to develop the site were first class and it was hoped that, in time, this was something that could be picked up again. The Riverside Walk had been delivered after around 60 years following the successful negotiation of the ‘missing link’ piece of land and solar panels had been installed on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.

To agree that the ‘Winchcombe and Sudeley Combined Neighbourhood Plan’ and the ‘Highnam Neighbourhood Plan’ are made part of the Development Plan for Tewkesbury Borough; and to delegate authority to the Head of Development Services, in agreement with the relevant Qualifying Body, to correct any minor errors, such as spelling, grammar, typographical or formatting errors, that do not affect the substantive content of the plans.

84.1           The report of the Planning Policy Officer, circulated at Pages No. 35-78, provided details of the next stage in the process regarding the adoption of the Neighbourhood Plans for Winchcombe and Sudeley (Combined) and Highnam. Members were asked to agree that the Neighbourhood Plans be made part of the Development Plan for Tewkesbury Borough; and that authority be delegated to the Head of Development Services, in agreement with the relevant qualifying body, to correct any minor errors, such as spelling, grammar, typographical or formatting errors, that did not affect the substantive content of the Plans.

84.2           The Head of Development Services explained that the report before Members was significant as the Neighbourhood Plans for Winchcombe and Sudeley (Combined) and Highnam were the first to go through the whole process, including referendums, which was a huge achievement. Across the Borough there were 13 Neighbourhood Plans covering 18 Parishes; the procedure was a huge commitment by Parishes both in terms of time and effort. The Neighbourhood Plan process itself was very new and the Council had a duty to support Parishes through it which was a huge learning curve both for the Borough and the Parishes. Attention was drawn to Page No. 35 of the Council papers which set out the question that was asked at the referendum and the results which were recorded. At the referendum stage, Neighbourhood Development Plans were required to gain a simple majority of those voting in favour in order for them to be adopted by the local planning authority and the authority then had a legal duty to bring the plans into force.

84.3           In proposing the recommendation on the paper, a Member indicated that he had been involved in the development of the Winchcombe and Sudeley (Combined) Neighbourhood Plan and had found it to be an extremely difficult process. He thanked Borough Council Officers for their help in getting to this point and understood that, whilst the Plan did not please everyone in the community, it was an opportunity for the community to have some say in its own future. The proposal was seconded and, upon being put to the vote, it was 

                  RESOLVED          1. That the ‘Winchcombe and Sudeley Combined                                                          Neighbourhood Plan’ and the ‘Highnam Neighbourhood                               Plan’ be made part of the Development Plan for Tewkesbury                                       Borough. 

2. That authority be delegated to the Head of Development Services, in agreement with the relevant qualifying body, to correct any minor errors, such as spelling, grammar, typographical or formatting errors, that do not affect the substantive content of the Plans.

To adopt the Housing Strategy 2017-2021.

85.1           The report of the Housing Strategy Review Working Group, circulated at Pages No. 79-250, attached the Housing Strategy 2017-2021 which Members were asked to adopt.

85.2           In proposing the adoption of the Strategy, the Lead Member for Built Environment, and Chair of the Housing Strategy Review Working Group, explained that the five year overarching document took into account the national and local issues that were likely to affect the Borough in the foreseeable future. It also played a key part in delivering the Council Plan and included the statutory requirement for both a Homelessness Strategy and a Tenancy Strategy. The Housing Strategy had been developed by Officers and Members through an Overview and Scrutiny Working Group; the Housing Strategy Review Working Group.  During the process, Members had agreed priorities and objectives that had been presented in an evidence base document for public and stakeholder consultation. A number of areas of concern had been raised within the consultation which had been addressed within the document before the Council and the evidence base had found there to be an extensive number of challenges for the Council which were set out within four key priorities: increasing housing supply; homelessness and homelessness prevention; meeting the needs of specific groups; and improving the health and wellbeing of local people. The detail of those challenges could be found at Page No. 107 of the Council papers where all of the housing challenges, and explanation of how the Council intended to address those issues through the four key priorities, could be found. Under each priority there were objectives which would be focused on over the next five years and those were set out at Page No. 109. The targets and outcomes for delivering those objectives would be included in a detailed action plan and, for year one, an action plan had already been put forward by the Working Group at Page No. 111 of the Council papers. It was proposed that the action plan would be updated annually so the Council could be proactive, as well as reactive, to the challenging needs of the community. It also meant the Council could respond when new government policies were implemented. It was suggested that the action plan would be as flexible as possible so the Council could start new actions when appropriate over the five year period and that it would be approved by the Executive Committee annually with biannual monitoring by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

85.3           In seconding the proposal, the Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee thanked the Working Group and the Officers involved for their quick and effective review of the Housing Strategy. He felt the work undertaken had shown the value of scrutiny work. Accordingly, it was

                  RESOLVED          That the Housing Strategy 2017-2021 be ADOPTED.

At its meeting on 14 December 2016 the Audit Committee considered a report on the appointment of External Auditors for 2018/19 and RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL that it opt-in to the Public Sector Audit Appointments Ltd (PSAA) as the Sector Led Body (SLB) for the appointment of the Council’s External Auditors from 2018/19.

86.1           At its meeting on 14 December 2016, the Audit Committee had considered a report which set out details in respect of the appointment of the Council’s External Auditors from 2018/19. The Audit Committee had recommended to Council that it should opt-in to the Public Sector Audit Appointments Ltd (PSAA) as the Sector Led Body (SLB) for the appointment of the Council’s external auditors from 2018/19.

86.2           The report which was considered by the Audit Committee had been circulated with the Agenda for the current meeting at Pages No. 251-256.

86.3           In proposing the recommendation from the Audit Committee, the Chair of the Committee advised that, following the cessation of the Audit Commission, transitional arrangements had been put into place to provide local authorities and NHS bodies with external audit contracts up to, and including, the audit of the 2017/18 accounts. The Council now had a responsibility to ensure that an auditor was appointed for future years. The relevant legislation allowed local authorities three routes to making the necessary appointment and, having considered the benefits and risks of each approach, the Audit Committee had recommended to Council that the option to opt-in to the Public Sector Audit Appointments Ltd as the Sector Led Body for the appointment of the Council’s external auditors from 2018/18 be approved.

86.4           Accordingly, it was seconded and

                  RESOLVED          That the Council opt-in to the Public Sector Audit Appointments                              Ltd (PSAA) as the Sector Led Body (SLB) for the appointment                                of the Council’s external auditors from 2018/19.

At its meeting on 14 December 2016 the Audit Committee considered a report on the business case for the Counter Fraud Unit and RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL that it approve option 3 of the business case to establish a permanent Counter Fraud Unit, subject to similar approval being made at all partner authorities and that, should all necessary approvals not be forthcoming, option 2 be the Council’s default position.

87.1           At its meeting on 14 December 2016, the Audit Committee had considered a report which set out a business case for the permanent establishment of a Counter Fraud Unit. The Audit Committee had recommended to Council that it approve option 3 of the business case to establish a permanent Counter Fraud Unit, subject to similar approval being made at all partner authorities and that, should all necessary approvals not be forthcoming, option 2 be the Council’s default position.

87.2           The report which was considered by the Audit Committee had been circulated with the Agenda for the current meeting at Pages No. 257-298.

87.3           In proposing the recommendation from the Audit Committee, the Chair of the Committee advised that, at the meeting in December, Members had been presented with a progress report on the work undertaken by the Counter Fraud Unit and he was pleased to report that additional work had now been undertaken with business rate payers which had resulted in increased rateable values totalling £335,000 being added to the valuation list of the Council. The work undertaken was part of a pilot exercise investigating the potential of forming a Countywide Counter Fraud Unit. A business case had been prepared based on initial findings and was being presented to all of the Councils in Gloucestershire as well as West Oxfordshire District Council. To date, four Councils had agreed to become full members of the Unit and another two were to make decisions in the coming weeks. The County Council, Ubico Ltd. and a number of housing providers had also agreed to purchase services from the new Unit. The Audit Committee had considered the work of the Unit, along with the options within the business case, and considered that full membership of the Counter Fraud Unit was appropriate for the Council.

87.4           A Member questioned when the replies of the other partner authorities would be known and, in response, the Head of Finance and Asset Management advised that Stroud District and Gloucester City Councils would be making decisions shortly. All other Gloucestershire authorities and West Oxfordshire District Council had already agreed that they would be full members of the Unit. The Head of Finance and Asset Management undertook to provide an update via email on the status of the remaining partners that were considering becoming members of the Unit.

87.5           Having been seconded, it was

                  RESOLVED          That option three of the business case, to establish a                                           permanent Counter Fraud Unit, be APPROVED, subject to                                     similar approval being made at all partner authorities; should all                            necessary approvals not be forthcoming, option two will be the                                 Council’s default position.

To adopt a Schedule of Meetings for the 2016/17 Municipal Year.  

88.1           The report of the Head of Democratic Services, circulated at Pages No. 297-300, set out the proposed Schedule of Meetings for 2017/18. Members were asked to adopt the Schedule as set out at Appendix 1 to the report.  

88.2           Accordingly, it was

                  RESOLVED          That the Schedule of Meetings for 2017/18, as set out at                                     Appendix 1 to the report, be ADOPTED.  

To agree the nominations for the Council’s representation at the Royal Garden Party in May/June 2017.

The dates provided are Tuesday 16 May, Tuesday 23 May and Thursday 1 June 2017.

89.1           It was

                  RESOLVED          That Councillor Mrs K J Berry and guest accompany the                                    Mayor and Mayoress as the Council’s nominees at the Royal                                  Garden Party in May/June 2017.

89.2           It was agreed that Councillor Mrs J Greening be nominated as a reserve to attend in the event that Councillor Berry should be unable to make the date.   

90.1           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.   

To approve the separate Minutes of the meeting held on 6 December 2016. 

91.1           The Separate Minutes of the meeting held on 6 December 2016, copies of which had been circulated, were approved as a correct record and signed by the Mayor, subject to an amendment to show that Councillor R E Garnham had been present at the meeting.