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.  

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

To receive apologies for absence and advise of any substitutions. 

92.1           Apologies for absence were received from Councillors D J Harwood and R J E Vines.  

Pursuant to the adoption by the Council on 24 January 2023 of the Tewkesbury Borough Council Code of Conduct, effective from 1 February 2023, as set out in Minute No. CL.72, Members are invited to declare any interest they may have in the business set out on the Agenda to which the approved Code applies.

93.1           The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Tewkesbury Borough Code of Conduct which was adopted by the Council on 24 January 2023 and took effect on 1 February 2023. 

93.2           There were no declarations of interest made on this occasion.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 1 February 2023.

94.1           The Minutes of the meeting held on 1 February 2023, 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 23 February 2023)

95.1           There were no items from members of the public.  

To consider the Committee’s Forward Plan.  

That the Executive Committee’s Forward Plan be NOTED.  

96.1           Attention was drawn to the Committee’s Forward Plan, circulated at Pages No.6-14. Members were asked to consider the Plan.

96.2           Accordingly, it was

To consider the quarterly budget position. 

That the financial performance information for the third quarter of 2022/23 be NOTED.  

97.1           The report of the Head of Finance and Asset Management, circulated at Pages No. 15-28, set out the third quarterly monitoring report of the Council’s financial performance for 2022/23. Members were asked to consider the information.

97.2           The Head of Finance and Asset Management explained that the report highlighted a projected outturn surplus based on the quarter three position of £1.18m on the revenue budget and detailed the expenditure to date against both the capital programme and the approved reserves – the pay award had now been finalised and paid during quarter 3 which was fully funded from reserves. The significant increase in surplus projection was due to the costs of both the pay line review phase 1 and the excess cost of the national pay award having been taken from the reserves which were set aside to fund those costs – the total cost of those were £353,000; increased business rates retention of £249,000; increase in planning fees – quarter 2 income was greater than expected by £90,000 and the Council forward projected a further £200,000 due to one large application; the receipt of the UK Shared Prosperity Fund grant of £128,000 which was not expected to be spent by year-end; investment interest received was £100,000 more than expected; the Material Recovery Facility (MRF) gate fee had reduced by a further £35,000; and Ubico’s forecast deficit had reduced since Q2 by £100,000 mainly within diesel and employment costs.

97.3           The main element of surplus expenditure was employees and the full-year projection for employees highlighted a potential gross surplus of £640,830 - although it should be noted that within the Council’s corporate expenditure was a target to save £100,000 from employment costs around the Council – the net position was therefore a surplus against target of £540,830. There were employee savings being accrued across most service areas but the majority of the overall surplus was in One Legal – those savings would be shared by all of the partners in One Legal. The national pay award was agreed in November and had resulted in an uplift of £1,925 on every scale point – the Council had budgeted for 2% increase in salaries and, as a result, the excess cost calculated at £215,111 had now been charged to the pay award revenue reserve. Similarly, the first phase of the local pay line review had now been calculated at a cost of £138,503 and this had been charged against the Medium Term Financial Strategy.

97.4           The projected outturn for supplies and services highlighted a potential underspend of £133,418 – computer annual renewals was expected to be £34,000 below budget across many service areas, this was due to a large majority of licenses remaining with current contracts or being renegotiated at current levels. It was anticipated that bank charges would deliver a saving of £29,000; IT equipment would be £52,000 under budget, as some equipment had been purchased at a lower cost than expected and some would not be purchased until the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 97.

To endorse the procurement approach outlined and delegate authority to the Head of Community Services in consultation with the Head of Finance and Asset Management, Director: One Legal and the Lead Member for Clean and Green Environment to proceed with the procurement as outlined within the report.

1.      That the procurement approach outlined in the report be ENDORSED.

2.      That authority be delegated to the Head of Community Services, in consultation with the Head of Finance and Asset Management, the Director: One Legal and the Lead Member for Clean and Green Environment, to proceed with the procurement for fleet replacement as outlined within the report.  

98.1           The report of the Waste Contracts Manager, circulated at Pages No. 29-50, considered the options available to the Council, taking into account budgetary constraints, for the most appropriate way forward for the fleet replacement. The report set out five options and it was proposed that a hybrid of those options be progressed. Members were asked to endorse the procurement approach and to delegate authority to the Head of Community Services, in consultation with the Head of Finance and Asset Management, the Director of One Legal and the Lead Member for Clean and Green Environment to proceed with the procurement for fleet replacement.

98.2           The Head of Community Services explained that the waste vehicle fleet was due to be replaced by April 2024. The government was currently looking to introduce legislation in three areas which would impact local authority waste collections. The official position was that the large scale changes being considered would be mandatory, funded where necessary from national new burdens funding and would need to be in place for 2024; however, timescales were likely to slip as the detailed consultation responses for two of the elements had not yet been published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). In addition, due to changes in government, and a move towards cost saving, it was not clear if the anticipated level of funding would still be available for new burdens or if elements of the proposals would be watered down. The three areas were Extended Producer Responsibility – this looked to move all life cycle costs for handling and reprocessing packaging to the producer of the packaging; Deposit Return Scheme – an additional charge levied on individual drinks cans and bottles to be refunded to the consumer when those containers were returned; and Consistency of Collections – proposed several mandatory changes such as separate food waste collections for all households, source segregated recycling and free garden waste collections for all households. Unfortunately, this meant the Council was not purchasing its fleet at the best time so it was proposed that the purchase of six recycling vehicles be held back until 2025 when there was more clarity. The biggest risk was a mandatory change of service to a source separated collection – if imposed this may require a twin stream system such as keeping paper and card separate from the remaining recycling rather than full separation but this was yet to be decided and was the reason it made sense to delay the purchase of the recycling vehicles for a year.

98.3           The main procurement exercise would be led by Ubico’s fleet team and overseen by the Head of Fleet Operations as they had the detailed expertise on vehicle specifications required. There was a wish to replace like for like with the inclusion of euro six engines; inclusion of bin lifts and use of HV oil which was better for the environment. A full electric fleet was not an option as the technology was not quite ready and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 98.

To agree a response to the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill: Reforms to National Planning Policy December 2022.

1.      That the proposed responses to the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill: Reforms to National Planning Policy December 2022, as set out in Paragraphs 3.4-3.6 and at Appendix 1 to the report, be APPROVED and formally submitted as Tewkesbury Borough Council’s response to the consultation.  

2.      That authority be delegated to the Head of Development Services, in consultation with the Lead Member for Built Environment, to make any necessary minor amendment to the response prior to submission.

99.1           The report of the Interim Planning Policy Manager, circulated at Pages No. 51-69, set out a proposed response to the government consultation on the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill: Reforms to National Planning Policy December 2022 which Members were asked to consider.

99.2           The Interim Planning Policy Manager explained that Member briefings on the subject had been held and there was now a need to confirm the Council’s response to the consultation prior to Thursday 2 March. Unlike the White Paper consultation in 2020, this did not represent a comprehensive view of all changes which might be proposed. There were several things which would be introduced in time but were not within the remit of the current consultation i.e. the levy to replace Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and Section 106, changes to the duty to cooperate and policy around custom and self-build. There were some clear proposals within the consultation in important areas. Overall, the purpose of the consultation was to recognise that the government remained committed to seeing 300,000 dwellings built each year but ensuring they had closer links with existing communities; provided effective infrastructure and achieved beautiful places and development. The consultation was set out over 15 chapters in a prospectus style with 58 specific questions. Officers had concerns about some of the content which seemed to be lengthy, vague and worded in a way which was difficult to understand, although there were some welcome suggestions within the reforms and these were set out in the report - not least the changes to the housing supply calculation and aligning to the needs of an ageing population. The key concerns were included within the proposed response which was attached at Appendix 1 to the report.

99.3           A Member referred to question 13 and the requirement for a 35% uplift in the largest 20 cities and towns and questioned whether any of them were near Tewkesbury. He was advised that the nearest were Bristol and Birmingham. The Member queried whether that uplift would reduce the pressure on places like Tewkesbury Borough Council. In response the Interim Planning Policy Manager advised that this was related to the government formula – at one time changes were proposed which could have resulted in significantly higher numbers for places like Tewkesbury Borough Council but that was withdrawn and, if the new proposal was not implemented, it may mean that other areas would have to take higher growth - the proposed response to the question was framed around the issue that urban uplift may not be possible.

99.4           Members thanked the Officers for their work in putting together the response, taking into account the comments made by Members prior to the meeting.

99.5           Accordingly, it was

To agree the Woodmancote Neighbourhood Development Plan to progress to Community Referendum. 

1.      That the Woodmancote Neighbourhood Development Plan, modified according to the recommended modifications set out within Appendix 2, be formally approved to progress to Community Referendum, prescribed by Regulation 18 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012, as amended.

2.      That authority be delegated to the Head of Development Services, in consultation with the Lead Member for Built Environment, to make any necessary minor amendments prior to referendum.  

100.1         The report of the Interim Planning Policy Manager, circulated at Pages No. 70-197, provided the Committee with the report of the examination into the Woodmancote Neighbourhood Development Plan; the schedule of the examiner’s recommended modifications; and the submission draft of the Woodmancote Neighbourhood Development Plan. Members were asked to consider the information provided and approve the Plan to progress to a community referendum as prescribed by the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012.

100.2         The Interim Planning Policy Manager explained that Neighbourhood Plans formed an important part of the Development Plan Framework and the local planning authority had a legal duty to support Parish Councils and other qualifying bodies. The examination process was a lighter touch for neighbourhood planning than for the Council’s local plan and usually involved written representations for the public examination.  The Neighbourhood Plan had been submitted to Tewkesbury Borough Council in September 2021 and the public examination had taken place from February to August 2022. The Plan covered landscape, the Green Belt, housing and settlement boundaries; flood risk and drainage; and design. The Inspector had found the Plan to be sound subject to certain modifications and the next step was to send it to public referendum and, with a simple majority voting in favour, it would be ‘made’. The examiner’s key findings were summarised within the report and related to 10 key policies the most significant of which was policy one which covered the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The examiner had wanted the policy deleted in its entirety; however, the Parish Council still felt there was merit in retaining some kind of policy and One Legal had agreed that, whilst clauses 1B and C should be deleted, 1A could be amended in order to remove any ambiguity and/or policy conflict. It was within the Council’s discretion to retain a policy if it felt it would not prejudice any other parties.

100.3         A Member expressed the view that it was fantastic that Woodmancote had a Neighbourhood Development Plan and that it was lovely to read the history of Woodmancote. The Interim Planning Policy Manager advised that the Plan did include an allocation for residential development. Paragraph 14 of the NPPF related to the Plan setting out to meet housing requirements which this Plan did not do so, in his view, in the case of tilted balance Paragraph 14 would not be relevant.

100.4         Upon being proposed and seconded, it was

To adopt the amended Hackney Carriage (Taxi) and Private Hire Licensing Policy following vehicle criteria amendment. 

1.      That the amendment to the Hackney Carriage (Taxi) and Private Hire Licensing Policy, as set out at Paragraph 2.3 of the report, in relation to vehicle requirements be ADOPTED.

2.      That the revised Hackney Carriage (Taxi) and Private Hire Licensing Policy, attached at Appendix C to the report, incorporating the revised wording which the Licensing Committee agreed at its meeting on 16 February 2023, be ADOPTED.  

101.1         The report of the Licensing Operations and Development Team Leader, circulated at Pages No. 198-257, asked Members to consider an amendment to the current Hackney Carriage (Taxi) and Private Hire Licensing Policy in relation to vehicle requirements to specify that all converted vehicles which had not been re-categorised on the V5 (vehicle logbook) provided documentation to demonstrate the vehicle was safe and to adopt the updated vehicle requirements for Hackney Carriage (Taxi) and Private Hire Vehicle Policy agreed by the Licensing Committee at its meeting on 16 February 2023.

101.2         The Licensing Operations and Development Team Leader explained that in 2021, 53 vehicles had been identified as being category N on the logbook (goods vehicle converted to passenger vehicle) and those should have gone through the relevant tests – those owners had been written to and advised to get their logbooks updated; however, the DVLA would not update the logbooks so the Council had indicated it would be satisfied if those vehicles were taken to a DVLA test station and declared to be safe for the use of carrying passengers. This had been undertaken and the Council was satisfied that all historic vehicles were safe.

101.3         During the 12 week consultation with all licence holders, one representation had been received, which was contained within the appendices to the report along with the response from the Licensing Operations and Development Team Leader. Further to the consultation, and approval by the Licensing Committee, it was proposed to include a requirement in the Hackney Carriage (Taxi) and Private Hire Licensing Policy regarding accessible vehicle conversions and this was set out at Paragraph 2.3 of the report.

101.4         Accordingly, it was

To approve the Council Tax Support Fund Policy.

1.      That the Council Tax Support Fund 2023/24 Policy, as attached to the report at Appendix A, be APPROVED.

2.      That authority be delegated to the Revenues and Benefits Manager to make minor and non-consequential adjustments to the Scheme, in consultation with the Head of Corporate Services and the Lead Member for Finance and Asset Management.

3.      That any remaining balance be used in line with the Council Tax Discretionary Hardship Fund in accordance with the guidance that stated Councils could use their remaining allocation as they saw fit to support vulnerable households with their Council Tax bills.

102.1         The report of the Revenues and Benefits Manager, circulated at Pages No. 258-269, attached a Council Tax Support Fund 2023/24 policy which Members were asked to approve. It was also recommended that a delegation be given to the Revenues and Benefits Manager, in consultation with the Head of Corporate Services and Lead Member for Finance and Asset Management, to make minor and non-consequential adjustments to the scheme and to approve that any remaining balance be used in line with the Council Tax Discretionary Hardship Fund.

102.2         The Revenues and Benefits Manager explained that funding had been allocated to each local authority and there was a proposal to award all eligible local Council Tax Support claimants a one-off amount of £25 against their Council Tax liability for 2023/24 to be shown on their annual Council tax bills. The number of households in the Borough in receipt of Council Tax support as at 1 February 2023 was approximately 4,787. 3,500 claimants were in receipt of maximum Council Tax Reduction and would not be eligible for Council Tax support payments – figures showed an approximate spend of £42,000. The government’s guidance stated that a local authority could use the government funding as it saw fit to support vulnerable households with Council Tax bills and it was therefore proposed that the remaining balance of approximately £83,000 be used for Council Tax Hardship during 2023/24.

102.3         Accordingly, it was proposed, seconded and

103.1         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 approve a reduced Tewkesbury Leisure Centre management fee.

(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))

104.1         The Committee considered a request from Tewkesbury Leisure Centre and approved a reduced management fee. 

(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 way forward for the Trade Waste service.

(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))

105.1         The Committee considered and agreed the way forward for the Trade Waste service.