Priority: Finance and Resources

Page No. 40 – Objective 2 – Action a) Ensure our Council Tax remains in the lowest quartile nationally – A Member questioned whether this should be a target or if it would be better focused on providing good value for money for residents.

The Chair advised that the current Council Plan had been inherited from the previous administration and a plan for the next four years was currently in the process of being produced which would include a new set of objectives and KPIs.  Whilst the Overview and Scrutiny Committee could make the point to the Executive Committee that it was unhappy with this objective, it would stand for the next six months.  The Executive Director: Resources confirmed this was the case and advised that a number of workshops had been carried out regarding the new Council Plan; that work was ongoing with the intention of a new plan being brought to Council for approval in April.  The current Council Plan would remain in place until June.  In terms of Council Tax in general, the limit imposed by the government on raising Council Tax meant that it would remain one of the lowest in the country regardless of what the Council decided to do with its Council Tax. 

Page No. 40-41 – Objective 3 – Action a) Update the Council’s asset management plan – A Member noted there were several target dates for this action which had been crossed out and she asked if that was because it had been delivered or if it was ongoing.

The Executive Director: Resources advised this had been deferred throughout the year due to resourcing issues within the team and other projects taking precedence; however, the Head of Service: Asset Management would be returning to work full-time in the New Year and a draft plan had already been completed.  Once this plan had been approved, there would be a number of further asset management plans for individual assets brought forward over the following three to four months.

Page No. 41 – Objective 4 – Action a) Implement and deliver a project plan for the closure of the trade waste service – A Member asked why this was showing an unhappy face as it appeared the action had almost been delivered with the final collection scheduled for mid-December.

The Director: Communities advised that this was due to the target date being delayed from November 2023 to the end of January 2024 and he confirmed that the last collection day would be this week.

Priority: Economic Growth

Page No. 43 – Objective 2 – Action a) Deliver employment land through allocating land in the Strategic and Local Plan (SLP) – A Member raised concern that an adopted SLP would not be in place until well into 2027 and something needed to be done in the meantime to ensure employment land was delivered between now and 2027. 

The Executive Director: Place shared this concern and agreed that the timescales related to the SLP had some protraction; however, this did not preclude short and medium term economic growth in terms of what was allocated in the previous Joint Core Strategy (JCS) and there were already applications in the system in that respect.  All of this information was available and needed to be consolidated to provide confidence to the Committee in the absence of the SLP.  The Member indicated that the commentary around this action made it appear that the only solution was the long term one and he would like to have an indication of the short and medium term which could be monitored over the next two quarters.  The Executive Director: Place advised that this document was limited by its previous intention with the SLP seen as a key instrument but he would discuss with the Director: Corporate Services how best to incorporate this into future reporting.

Page No. 44 – Objective 2 – Action b) Work with partners to secure transport infrastructure improvements for the all-ways Junction 10 – A Member asked whether the Council could push for inclusion of active travel facilities; from his experience, the County Council was good at intra-settlement active transport but not inter-settlement and felt there would be an opportunity to consider how people could travel between one settlement and the next using active travel modes as part of the junction redesign.

The Executive Director: Place undertook to look into this following the meeting.

Page No. 45 – Objective 4 – Action a) Work with Cotswold Tourism and Visit Gloucestershire to promote the borough – A Member queried whether the list included in the commentary were things that would be happening or a wishlist of things Cotswold Tourism was hoping to develop.

The Director: Communities indicated that his understanding was that the events listed would be happening. 

Key performance indicators for priority: Economic Growth

Page No. 46 – KPI 2 – Claimant unemployment rate – A Member asked if there was a breakdown of the age group and type of employment in the borough.

The Director: Communities undertook to seek a response to this query following the meeting.

Page No. 47 – KPI 6 – Number of visitors to Winchcombe Tourist Information Centre (TIC) – A Member asked what was being done to replace the physical presence at the TIC given that visitor numbers were up and not everyone could access information digitally.

The Director: Communities advised that there was no plan to put in place any physical presence; however, the authority already worked closely with Cotswold Tourism and it may be possible to arrange drop-in events or something similar.  It was clear from the figures that something was needed and he would update Members once a plan was in place.  He indicated that a Tourism Officer was currently being recruited by the Council and would act as a point of liaison going forward.

Page No. 47 – KPI 7 – Number of visitors entering the Growth Hub – A Member noted that figures were lower than the last quarter and questioned whether more events were planned.

The Director: Communities confirmed that was the case and explained that visitor numbers naturally tailed off during the summer.  The Corporate Director: Resources indicated that the Committee had previously requested a list of events being run by the Growth Hub be provided to Members and that was due to come forward imminently. 

A Member asked whether other events and workshops were run in the borough away from the Growth Hub and was advised that until recently that was not the case but Officers were now starting to do more outreach work outside of the Growth Hub, with a recent event in Bishop’s Cleeve, and it was hoped to extend that across the borough.

Priority: Housing and Communities

Page No. 49 – Objective 1 – Action b) Increase the temporary housing accommodation supply – A Member noted that the Severe Weather Emergency Protocol placements had been increased across the county and asked if information could be made available to Members regarding what could be done to support rough sleepers.

The Head of Service: Housing undertook to circulate this following the meeting.

In response to a further query regarding the temporary housing accommodation supply, the Director: Communities advised that there were five houses available for that purpose.  A variety of options were being considered across the county in terms of increasing the supply and Officers continued to work closely with registered providers.

Page No. 50 – Objective 2 – Action a) Ensure adequate land is allocated within the SLP – A Member indicated that he had already raised concern regarding employment land and indicated that the Council was currently unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply so asked what was being done in the short and medium term to reduce that shortfall rather than waiting for allocation of land as part of the SLP.

The Associate Director: Garden Communities advised that the JCS had allocated sufficient employment land up to 2031 and that was being delivered, albeit that information would be updated by the SLP.  In terms of the five year housing land supply issue, land might come forward through the SLP to meet overall need but currently this was down to the planning process.  The Member raised concern that the only action in the tracker regarding the housing land supply position was this one which suggested that land would be found via the SLP, not the JCS, and his concern was what was being done in the short and medium term to reduce the deficit.   The Associate Director: Garden Communities advised that, unfortunately, the allocation of land must be via the local plan process; however, planning applications could help in terms of a five year housing land supply.  The Executive Director: Place indicated that, as with the earlier query on employment land, he would take advice from colleagues as to how the short and medium term could be reflected going forward.

Page No. 51 – Objective 3 – Action a) Work with partners, infrastructure providers and developers to progress the delivery of key sites – A Member questioned why Fiddington was not referenced in the commentary.

The Associate Director: Garden Communities advised that the action related to allocations in the JCS; Fiddington was a speculative development granted via the appeal process.

Page No. 53 – Objective c) Work with the Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS) to access funding to deliver improved community facilities – A Member questioned whether this included the Section 106 payments received by communities.

The Executive Director: Place advised that this action related specifically to various grants; Section 106 was a separate issue.  It was important not to confuse the two and he undertook to take this away to give more thought as to how this could be reported.

It was noted that a Section 106 workshop was planned for Members in the New Year.

Key performance indicators for priority: Housing and Communities

Pages No. 55-56 – KPIs 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 in relation to applications on the housing register, homeless applications/relief/prevention cases, temporary accommodation and affordable housing – A Member indicated that he could not tell from these KPIs what it meant for the Council and how it was performing, for example, how demand  was being met in relation to KPI 15 regarding delivery of new affordable housing.

The Director: Communities indicated he had been discussing this with the Head of Service: Housing and both agreed that the KPIs did not give any indication of performance.  He provided assurance this would be taken into consideration in the formulation of the new housing KPIs.

Pages No. 57-59 – KPIs 17, 18, 19 and 20 in relation to determination of planning applications and applications overturned at appeal – A Member raised concern that it had been published today that Tewkesbury Borough Council was 310^th out of 324 authorities across England in terms of determination of major planning applications and 267^th in determining non-major planning applications.  This was the reason for the Development Management Continuous Improvement Programme; however, he had considerable concerns about its progress. 

The Executive Director: Place acknowledged these concerns and indicated that they could be picked up as part of the Member briefing on the second year of the Development Management Continuous Improvement Programme which was being arranged for January. 

Another Member asked whether Parish Council questions and requests for information was a reason for delay in the determination of applications and the Executive Director: Place undertook to produce an analysis of the reasons for requests for extensions of time.

Pages No. 58-59 - KPI 19 and KPI 20 – Percentage of major and non-major planning applications overturned at appeal – A Member indicated it would have been useful for the percentages to have been included alongside the figures.

The Executive Director: Place undertook to feed this back to the relevant Officers following the meeting.

Another Member indicated that it would be helpful to know the cost of planning appeals given that there could be significant financial implications for the Council if it was seen as being unreasonable in its reasoning for refusing applications.  The Monitoring Officer pointed out that the successful appeals reflected the fact that decisions had been taken at a time when the Planning Committee was under the impression there was a five year housing land supply.  Without a supply, the recommendations to the Planning Committee would be different and the decisions being made should reflect that which should bring the authority back to an appropriate level of success at appeal.

Key performance indicators for priority: Customer First

Page No. 62 – Objective 1 – Action a) Continue to improve the proactive homelessness programme – A Member indicated that it was impossible to know if this action would be achieved by the target date of March without knowing what the programme was and he raised concern that ‘continue to improve’ was very subjective.

The Head of Service: Housing explained that so much had changed over the lifetime of the plan and the Housing team was now involved in so much more than it had anticipated – the fact the team was able to do the day job as well as putting key measures in place was a credit to them.  The aspiration was for continuous improvement but he accepted the point raised and undertook to include more detail regarding the activities being undertaken going forward.

Page No. 63 – Objective 1 – Action c) – In partnership with Ubico deliver the in-cab technology project – A Member questioned what was meant by ‘street cleansing and grounds maintenance work is now underway’.

The Director: Communities advised that the Alloy in-cab technology system was being deployed in phases; waste and recycling was a huge undertaking which was complete and operating well so attention would now move to street cleansing and grounds maintenance which it was hoped would be up and running in the next few weeks.

Page No. 63 – Objective 1 – Action d) Review the Section 106 process – A Member noted that an audit was mentioned in the commentary and asked when this had commenced and the progress made to date.

The Director: Corporate Services advised that the audit had only started a few weeks ago and was at the draft report stage.  Another Member asked whether the Member training session which had been due to be delivered as part of the Member Induction Programme in the summer but had been postponed would be provided as part of this and the Executive Director: Place provided assurance that would be the case.

Page No. 64 – Objective 2 – Action b) Deliver an improved planning validation experience for customers – A Member raised concern that the target date had changed from March 2024 to November 2024 and asked for an explanation in relation to this.

The Associate Director: Transformation explained that the internal project plan was aligned to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) milestones which was the reason for the change and she stressed there was no internal issue.  In response to a query, she confirmed there had been a successful bid for additional funding of £300,000 to deliver this so no resources had been lost. 

Key performance indicators for priority: Customer First

Page No. 68 – KPI 36 – Food establishment hygiene ratings – A Member queried whether anything was being done about the 2.21% of establishments with a food hygiene rating score of two or below.

The Director: Communities advised that the Council’s role was to inspect premises and provide advice, particularly to those with lower ratings.  It could, and did, take enforcement action against premises which fell below standards.  He pointed out there was no legal requirement for establishments to display the rating in their window.

A Member asked if it would be appropriate to approach the Police and Crime Commissioner to enlist the Special Constabulary team to assist with operations and the Director: Communities advised that the Council’s Environmental Health Officers and Food Safety Officers were more qualified than Police Officers who would not be permitted to carry out inspections in terms of food standards. 

In response to a query as to what rating would require an establishment to close, the Director: Communities explained that the ratings were indicative – a premises with a score of five could still be closed if there were found to be improper practices when inspected.

Priority: Garden Communities

Page No. 70 - Objective 1 – Delivery of the Tewkesbury Garden Town – A Member asked how active travel had been considered in respect of the Garden Town, and the Junction 9 and A46 improvements which were part of that.

The Executive Director: Place advised that he would produce a response in consultation with County Highways following the meeting.

Page No. 72 – Objective 1 – Action d) Produce an integrated stakeholder and community engagement strategy for the delivery of the Garden Town – A Member questioned what was being done in terms of youth engagement.

The Executive Director: Place advised that there was a commitment to a specific youth engagement exercise, not just in terms of the Garden Town but in development of the Council Plan as well.  Homes England funding had been secured until the end of the financial year and Officers had been waiting until it received that confirmation to initiate a response on that front which could now be provided outside of the meeting.

Priority: Sustainable Environment

Page No. 74 – Objective 1 – Action a) In conjunction with the Climate Change and Ecology Management Group, develop and deliver the year four carbon reduction plan – A Member asked whether the carbon reduction plan had been circulated to Members.

The Executive Director: Resources confirmed that the plan was on the Council’s website both within the Executive Committee Agenda pages and the climate change page.

Page No. 75 – Objective 1 – Action e) Install publicly accessible Electric Vehicle (EV) charging points in our car parks – A Member noted this had been discussed for some time and asked if it would actually be achieved by the target date of March 2024.

The Executive Director: Resources confirmed Officers were very hopeful it would be in place by that deadline.  The tender had gone out and there were a number of interested parties so an appointment would be made shortly.

A Member raised concern there was no indication as to which car parks the EV points would be installed in or how many there would be.  In response, the Executive Director: Resources advised that this could not be established until the contractor had been appointed as not all car parks would be suitable for EV points.  This was the first phase of the roll out of EV points and was supported by UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) funding; the second phase would involve wider roll-out across the borough.

Page No. 77 – Objective 2 – Action c) Carry out a review of our litter pickers scheme – A Member asked if June 2024 was an achievable target date given that this action had been delayed a number of times.

The Director: Communities recognised this was taking a long time and had not been the highest priority; however, Officers were working alongside the Business Transformation Team on this issue and he was hopeful the June 2024 target date could be achieved.  When work had started, it had become clear that the backlog of data was vast in terms of the number of volunteer litter pickers.  This information was currently contained within a spreadsheet and Officers had needed to determine which people were current volunteers and cleanse the data accordingly; this had taken up a lot of time with Officers completing this task alongside their other commitments. 

Page No. 77 – Objective 2 – Action d) Work with the Integrated Locality Partnership (ILP) to build community resilience within the borough and reduce health inequalities – A Member questioned what Tewkesbury Borough Council’s part was and whether it had played it fully.

The Director: Communities advised that the ILP had a number of partners, including health services and the Community Development team, and was chaired by the Chief Executive.  His feeling was there would be a theme around health and wellbeing in the new Council Plan which would enable Members to see the work of the ILP more clearly.  He indicated that there had been presentations from the ILP in the past and that was something which could be arranged for the Committee, if Members so wished. The Chair welcomed this suggestion and asked that the presentation set out whether the Council was meeting its commitment in terms of its role on the partnership.