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.

37.1          Attention was drawn to the Executive Committee Forward Plan, circulated at Pages No.20-27.  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. 

37.2          The Corporate Services Manager advised that, following engagement with services across the Council, the Executive Committee Forward Pan was now looking more healthy with a number of items having been added.  A Member noted that a report on the Licensing Services Review and Restructure was due to be considered at the meeting on 5 October 2022; however, in the Council Plan Performance Tracker Quarter One 2022/23 report, due to be considered at Agenda Item 7 of today’s meeting, it mentioned this had been delayed and could not be completed until January 2023 due to an IT issue.  The Member also asked if the costs of GDPR administration for CCTV in taxis was being taken into account as he understood that consultation was currently underway.  In response, the Head of Community Services confirmed this item had been delayed and would be taken to the Executive Committee later in the year, although he did not have a confirmed date for that as yet.  In terms of CCTV in taxis, he advised that no decision would be made until consultation with the trade had finished.  The outcomes of the consultation would be reported to the Licensing Committee in due course.

37.3          A Member noted that a report on the new draft Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging Schedule was due to be taken to the Executive Committee in November and he asked if that would address situations whereby other local authorities benefited from CIL monies for properties built within Tewkesbury Borough on allocated sites within the Joint Core Strategy.  The Head of Development Services explained there was an agreement in place that 70% of strategic CIL money was collectively pooled by the three Joint Core Strategy authorities.  It was noted that the CIL was a strategic money pot and was not spent on individual sites.  All of the projects on the Infrastructure Funding Statement currently related to transport; these were all expensive projects with the majority costing around the £10m mark whereas the CIL pot was around £1-2m so no bids had been made to date.  The Member raised concern there was a lot of outstanding infrastructure which was desperately needed in parts of the borough including schools, roads, flood defences etc. and he asked who decided where money from the CIL pot was actually spent as he was seeing more infrastructure within other authority areas than in Tewkesbury Borough which was the one with the most development.  In response, the Head of Development Services advised that the Infrastructure Delivery Plan was part of the Joint Core Strategy; the total infrastructure for all transport required totalled £90m so the authorities were working with the County Council to establish key priorities and identify additional funding streams.  She provided assurance that it would be a collective decision as to where money was spent, although the governance arrangements for how to make that decision had not yet been formally established.  On the basis that CIL money was primarily for transport infrastructure, the Member asked if things like schools would ultimately be paid for by the CIL at some point.  The Head of Development Services explained that one of the reasons for the review was the need to establish and see what could be added to the Infrastructure Funding Statement; she felt the next Infrastructure Funding Statement was likely to remain focused on transport but discussions were taking place with stakeholders such as the NHS to establish their requirements.  She accepted it was a massive issue that the infrastructure needed to take the Joint Core Strategy forward cost so much and the money being recouped was not enough to facilitate all that was required.  The Member went on to indicate that it had been identified via the County Council that, by 2023, there would be a seven form entry shortage at secondary school level in the Gloucestershire catchment area - particularly from development in Innsworth, Churchdown and Brockworth - which was a long way behind where it should be.  With that in mind, he asked what the timescales were for schools to be included in the Infrastructure Funding Statement.  The Head of Development Services advised that education provision did not have to be paid for by CIL; Gloucestershire County Council could request Section 106 contributions for primary and secondary school provision provided there was an evidence base for that.  The CIL review would look at schemes across Tewkesbury Borough, Cheltenham Borough and Gloucester City; this was very much at the evidence stage and there would be engagement with Members prior to consultation with the public.  The Member asked for an update to be provided on what was happening with schooling and the Head of Development Services undertook to find out the school places strategy and advise Members accordingly.

37.4          A Member noted that the Parking Strategy Review was due to be considered by the Executive Committee at its meeting on 16 November; however, as set out in the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Work Programme, this had been deferred several times since June 2022 so he asked if this would be coming forward soon and whether any meetings of the Parking Strategy Review Working Group would be required.  The Head of Finance and Asset Management confirmed that responsibility for this lay with him.  There had  been a lot of changes since the Working Group had last met to agree the draft revised strategy in principle so he may need to reconvene the Group in order to consider the various factors in play.   In response to a query regarding timescales, the Head of Finance and Asset Management indicated that he would need to find a solution over the next few weeks and hoped to be in a position to provide an update to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee in November. 

37.5          A Member noted that Spring Gardens Regeneration Phase 1a was included within the pending items of the Executive Committee Forward Plan but he had understood this was not being progressed.  The Head of Finance and Asset Management clarified it had been put on hold in 2020 due to budget considerations and the impact of COVID etc. but Officers were currently looking at scoping how the project could be progressed, bearing in mind the changes since the last discussion.  It was an ambition of the Council and Officers to take this forward which was why it had remained in the Forward Plan; he expected it would be brought back into the Member arena by 2023.

37.6          A Member drew attention to Page No. 20 of the report which showed that the Homelessness Prevention Grant Funding Spending Plan was due to be taken to the Executive Committee in October.  She noted this item had been deferred from August and, in view of the current situation, she assumed it would be a fairly high priority so she asked what progress had been made and whether the number of homeless people was expected to increase.  In response, the Head of Community Services confirmed it was a very high priority and, in all likelihood he anticipated homelessness figures to rise.  He explained that the report had been due to go to the Executive Committee in August but there had been a query from the Finance team regarding some of the figures and, unfortunately, the Officer who had written the report had been on leave at the time which was why it had been deferred.  He provided assurance that it would be going to the Executive Committee meeting in October.

37.7          It was

RESOLVED           That the Executive Committee Forward Plan be NOTED.