Agenda item

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.

57.1          Attention was drawn to the Executive Committee Forward Plan, circulated at Pages No. 13-18.  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. 

57.2          The Head of Corporate Services advised that the Review of Capability Policy would now be taken to the meeting on 4 January 2023 having been considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee at two workshops and included later on the Agenda for today’s meeting.  A report on the first floor refurbishment project would also be taken to that meeting following consideration at Transform Working Group last week where it had been well-received.  A Member sought clarification as to what the first floor refurbishment project involved and the Head of Finance and Asset Management advised that this was building upon the work which was started in 2013 and was about updating the working environment and providing the facilities required to reflect modern working practices.  The Member queried how much this was likely to cost in view of the current economic climate and the Head of Finance and Asset Management explained that there were a whole host of aspects to the project.  The amount of desk space had been rationalised prior to COVID and it was now necessary to put measures in place to meet the requirements of hybrid working; a lot of Teams calls currently took place in the open office area which meant it could be difficult to hear and could cause confidentiality issues.  It was intended to make provision for collaborative and innovative working spaces which could be used flexibly by services at different times of the year.  Part of the project would also be about providing better staff facilities as the current staff lounge and kitchen areas were very dated and not well-used.  Furthermore, there would be an opportunity to add some colour to what was currently a fairly blank canvass and to promote the Council’s vision and values as well as using display screens to communicate information to staff.  He stressed it was not intended to do a major re-fit, rather it would be a number of smaller elements coming together as a project.  It was a matter of balancing the needs of Officers, in terms of an improved working environment, against the background of the rising cost of living; however, Officers were satisfied that the proposals would provide the changes needed and would be value for money in terms of the expenditure incurred.

57.3          A Member noted that the Parking Strategy Review had been moved to the pending items section of the Forward Plan – he had asked on several occasions for an update on how and when this would be progressed and was concerned that his questions remained unanswered.  The Head of Finance and Asset Management advised that he was in a position to be able to write the draft strategy in December.  There was a question outstanding in relation to whether parking fees needed to be reconsidered and it may be necessary to reform the Working Group to discuss this further.  If the Working Group was comfortable that fees did not need to be changed it would be a fairly straightforward process which did not require full consultation due to the relatively minor changes proposed which would not constitute changing the Parking Order.  On that basis, he intended to bring the draft Parking Strategy to Overview and Scrutiny Committee in January with a view to implementing on 1 April 2023; however, if Members did wish to change the parking charges, that would increase the amount of work that would need to be done and those timescales were likely to change.  A Member asked how feedback would be sought from the Working Group and the Head of Finance and Asset Management undertook to send an email to gauge opinion and, depending on the results, it may be necessary to call a further meeting of the Working Group.

57.4          A Member indicated that approval of the new licensing structure and associated use of funds was also in the pending items section of the Forward Plan and he asked when that was likely to come forward.  The Environmental Health Manager confirmed that a report had been submitted to the Corporate Leadership Team and would be discussed with the Chief Executive on Thursday; providing there was agreement from the Corporate Leadership Team, he assumed a report would be taken to the next available Executive Committee with a view to implementing the structure by early next year.

57.5          A Member drew attention to the report on joining Project Solace which was due to be taken to the Executive Committee meeting in January and she raised concern that the mark had previously been missed in terms of who the Police were targeting so she sought assurance that youth would be taken into consideration.  She indicated that this was an area of interest for her, particularly as antisocial behaviour was increasing in her Ward, partially due to the situation with new housing.  The Environmental Health Manager advised that it would cover the full range of antisocial behaviour components the Council was currently dealing with.  He pointed out that there had been significant changes to the community safety service over the last couple of years and there was now an active Community Safety Partnership with the Police and the local authorities in the county which worked with voluntary groups such as Young Gloucestershire and housing associations etc. - this would all feed into Project Solace in terms of priorities and intelligence gathering within key areas.  He confirmed that, if approved, the project would provide a dedicated Police Community Support Officer for Tewkesbury Borough and full details would be included in the Executive Committee report.  Another Member explained that he had previously raised the point that the Community Safety Partnership had historically included Members which he felt was necessary moving forward.  The Environmental Health Manager explained that the Terms of Reference of the Community Safety Partnership were being reviewed so he would raise this with the Head of Community Services following the meeting. The Head of Corporate Services indicated that there was a pending item in relation to Community Safety Partnership within the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Work Programme which was around evaluating whether it was delivering against its Terms of Reference so he would speak to the Head of Community Services to establish when this could be brought forward.

57.6          Following the autumn statement, a Member queried whether the Executive Committee had requested to look at the options around a Referendum regarding increasing Council Tax up to 5%.  In response, the Head of Finance and Asset Management advised that no request had been made by Executive Committee but part of the issue was the lack of clarity around the Chancellor’s announcement last week.  There had been a lot of discussion around the core principles for raising Council Tax by 3% - and those which also had social care responsibilities increasing it by a further two percent (a total increase of 5% for upper tier authorities) – but it had been silent in terms of what that meant for district authorities.  Officers were working on the assumption that it would be £5 or 3% and, if that was the case, there would be no change for Tewkesbury Borough Council.  If there was a will amongst Members to go above the Referendum limit, it would be necessary to look at the approach and gauge if it was likely to gain traction with the public.  In response to a query regarding how much a Referendum would cost, the Head of Democratic Services indicated that a Parliamentary Election cost, as a minimum, in the region of £80-90,000.

57.7          It was

RESOLVED           That the Executive Committee Forward Plan be NOTED.