Agenda and minutes

1.1            Apologies for absence were received from Councillors L A Gerrard, A Hollaway, H C McLain, P W Ockelton, A S Reece, C Reid and P D Surman.

2.1            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.

2.2            The following declarations were made:

2.3            There were no further declarations made on this occasion.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 18 February 2020.

3.1            The Minutes of the meeting held on 18 February 2020, copies of which had been circulated, were approved as a correct record.  

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

 4.1           The Mayor advised that the meeting was being held under the emergency provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020 and, specifically, The Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panel Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020.  The meeting was being broadcast live via the internet, it was not being recorded by the Council but, under the usual transparency rules, it may be being recorded by others. 

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 24 June 2020).

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

5.1            There were no items from members of the public.  

To receive any questions submitted under Rule of Procedure 13. Any items received will be circulated on 30 June 2020.

(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).

6.1            The following questions had been received from Councillor Munro to the Lead Member for Built Environment.  The answers were given by the Lead Member for Built Environment, Councillor Gore, but were taken as read without discussion.

Bishop’s Cleeve to Gotherington Cycleway and Community Buildings

My understanding is that, as part of Bovis Homes Planning Consent granted in 2015 to build new homes in Bishops Cleeve, under the S106 Agreement the developer legally committed to build a cycleway between Bishop’s Cleeve and Gotherington and with a second developer, between them, two community buildings for our village. 

To date we are still waiting.

Question 1:

I was advised that Bovis Homes gave a date of 27 April 2020 for the cycleway to start to be built but this was cancelled due to the COVID-19 emergency. Since then I have been informed that there is an outstanding legal agreement with GCC Highways Legal team, following which Bovis Homes will be in a position to access the site, appoint a contractor and apply for a streetworks application. No mention of this was made before the emergency.

Please can I ask the Council to clarify the current outstanding actions which need to be completed before work can start, why this work apparently could have been completed by 27 April but is still outstanding, the timetable for work to start on the cycleway and what action the Council is taking to ensure that the developer fulfils its legal commitments. 

The Council is further asked to clarify that there will be no impact on funding of the cycleway, which I understand Bovis Homes has implied may be the case. 

Answer 1:

This is a detailed matter between the developer and Gloucestershire County Council Highway Authority under the terms of the s106 agreement. The developer did issue a start date of 27 April which was subject to their detailed agreement with Gloucestershire County Council. The current COVID-19 emergency has altered that start date as Highway Authority resources have been diverted to immediate response measures to support social distancing and immediate measures to achieve implementation of walking and cycling schemes across the county.  We do not currently have any indication of an alternative start date and have sought to follow up with the County Council and the developer in relation to an alternative start date.  We will undertake to prepare a briefing note once we have confirmation on the details from the County Council.         

Question 2:

Local Councillors have been informed of difficulties raised by developers over building the two community buildings in Bishop’s Cleeve. The Council is asked for an update on the current position and an estimate of the timescale for work to start.

Answer 2:

The Council is currently consulting with Bishop’s Cleeve Parish Council on detailed elements of scheme design.  That consultation was sent on 26 June. A response is anticipated this week. Following that we will be able to determine the actions to be taken and timescales moving forward.  It is intended to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

To consider making the Churchdown and Innsworth Neighbourhood Development Plan part of the Development Plan for Tewkesbury Borough; and todelegate to the Head of Development Services, in agreement with the Parish Council acting as the Qualifying Body, the correction of any minor errors such as spelling, grammar, typographical or formatting errors that do not affect the substantive content of the plan. 

7.1            The report of the Planning Policy Manager, circulated at Pages No. 12-118, asked Members to decide whether the Churchdown and Innsworth Neighbourhood Development Plan should be made part of the development plan for Tewkesbury Borough following the positive outcome in the referendum held on Thursday 12 March 2020.

7.2            In introducing the report, the Lead Member for Built Environment explained that the Churchdown and Innsworth Neighbourhood Development Plan had been to community referendum on 12 March 2020 after advancing through an independent examination. In the referendum, 91.20% of those that voted, voted that the Plan should be used to help Tewkesbury Borough Council to decide planning applications in the neighbourhood area, as such, the Borough Council now had to agree that the Neighbourhood Development Plan be ‘made’ part of the development plan for Tewkesbury Borough. The Member therefore proposed that the Churchdown and Innsworth Neighbourhood Development Plan 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 Parish Council acting as the Qualifying Body, to correct any minor errors such as spelling, grammar, typographical or formatting errors that did not affect the substantive content of the plan.

7.3            In seconding the proposal, a Member noted the considerable amount of work that had gone into the Plan and offered his thanks to the steering group and, in particular, the Clerks that had administered the group. He indicated that his opinions on the plan were well known in respect of it not offering sufficient protection in areas such as transport and flooding, but that design, environment and parking were good and, overall, he would encourage Members to vote for the adoption of the Plan. Another Member echoed those comments about supporting what was, on balance, an excellent Plan and in recognising the hard work, effort and expense that went into producing a local Neighbourhood Development Plan. He expressed the view that there was an issue for all Neighbourhood Development Plans which had been created by the revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) last year and the Council needed to address that as an authority. The assessment of the five-year housing land supply and Paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which stated that, “in situations where the presumption (at Paragraph 11d) applies to applications involving the provision of housing, the adverse impact of allowing development that conflicts with the neighbourhood plan is likely to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, provided all of the following applies: a) the neighbourhood plan became part of the development plan two years or less before the date on which the decision is made; b) the neighbourhood plan contains policies and allocations to meet its identified housing requirement; c) the local planning authority has at least a three year supply of deliverable housing sites (against its five year housing supply requirement, including the appropriate buffer as set out in Paragraph 73); and d) the local planning authority’s  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To consider the urgent decisions taken during the COVID-19 pandemic.  

8.1            The report of the Chief Executive, circulated at Pages No. 119-157, set out a number of decisions that had been taken by the Chief Executive, in consultation with the appropriate Lead Members, under the urgency powers set out in Part 3 of the Constitution as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The report advised Members of the decisions taken to comply with the requirements of the Constitution and the Council was asked to note those decisions.

8.2            The Chief Executive explained that, in recent weeks, the Council had responded superbly to the unprecedented challenges it had faced and he paid tribute to the Members and Officers who had worked so hard to respond successfully through those challenges. The Council was now slowly moving into recovery mode and the Chief Executive was confident the authority would respond to those issues equally well.

8.3            In terms of the emergency grant funding for charitable and community groups, Members were advised that the scheme provided financial support for the invaluable work those groups had carried out in their communities and would ensure they could continue to do so for the coming weeks. In respect of the discretionary business grants scheme, this had needed to be operational on a particular date and Tewkesbury Borough Council had given businesses fantastic support in terms of grants, help and advice. The scheme was caveated by government requirements meaning there was not a huge amount of discretion but it had given the opportunity to help a number of businesses which had not received funding initially through the mandatory business grant scheme. A Member indicated that she knew of some businesses that had wanted to say thank you to the Borough Council for its help as without that they would have lost everything.

8.4            During the discussion which ensued, a Member welcomed the emergency grant funding for charitable and community groups; he indicated that the communities in the Borough had got together to provide valuable support to vulnerable people and he thanked all of those involved. Another Member questioned whether it would be possible to receive a list of the grants made and sums of money involved. In response, the Chief Executive advised that he would consider that request in line with the General Data Protection Regulation. Currently, over £40,000 of grant money had been paid out in 42 grants and there were eight more being considered.

8.5            Accordingly, it was

                 RESOLVED           That the decisions taken by Chief Executive, in consultation                                   with appropriate Lead Members, as set out in the Appendices                               attached to the report, be NOTED.

In accordance with Rule of Procedure 2.1 the Borough Solicitor has exercised her delegated authority to approve the following changes to Committee Membership:  

Councillor Gerrard has resigned from the Executive Committee (Lead Member for Organisational Development) and been replaced by Councillor Harwood.

9.1            The Mayor drew attention to the Agenda for the current meeting and, accordingly, it was  

                 RESOLVED:          That, in accordance with Rule of Procedure 2.1, it was NOTED                              that the Borough Solicitor had exercised her delegated                                       authority to approve the following change to Committee                                            Membership:

                                                Councillor L A Gerrard had resigned as Lead Member for                                      Organisational Development (and therefore from the Executive                                 Committee) and been replaced by Councillor D J Harwood.