Issue - meetings

Up to 30 minutes is allowed for this item.

To answer any written public questions about matters which are within the powers and duties of the County Council.

The closing date for receipt of questions is 10am on Wednesday, 6 September 2017.  Please send questions to the Chief Executive marked for the attention of Stephen Bace (email stephen.bace@gloucestershire.gov.uk).

To answer any oral questions put by members of the public with the consent of the Chairman.  Depending on the nature of the questions asked it may not be possible to provide a comprehensive answer at the meeting, in which case a written answer will be supplied as soon as reasonably possible after the meeting.

Questions received and proposed responses do not accompany this agenda but will be circulated prior to the meeting.

Three public questions had been received. The following supplementary questions were asked:

Question 1 – Diana Ray asked whether the County Council accepted that despite the policies in place, wildflower on verges was decreasing leading to a lower number of butterflies and other valued species.

Cllr Vernon Smith replied that the Council worked closely with the bio-diversity plan and that he would ask officers to provide her with a written response.

Question 2 – Diana Ray suggested that the work carried out on verges did not match the policy. She asked whether the Council was aware that its own guidance notes were not being followed consistently by contractors. She emphasised the need for performance indicators that could be monitored.

Cllr Vernon Smith stated that he agreed that there was a need to follow the guidance and action plans and thanked the member of the public for raising the issues. He asked that she provide him with details of where she felt there were failings and he would ask officers to look into it.

Question 3 – Diana Ray informed members that Dorset had a more targeted approach around maintaining verges and she asked whether the Council could investigate how Dorset had achieved actual improvement on the ground.

Cllr Vernon Smith stated that he was really interested in how Dorset was working and was keen to see the details. He would ask officers to speak to Dorset.

Three oral questions were received:

Peter Clark stated that the Government had announced a 2% pay rise for the Police and a 1.7% pay rise for prison officers. He stated that the Government was looking to give further advice to pay bodies.  Officer pay squeezed amounting to an effective loss of earnings of over £3,000 from 2010 to 2017.

He asked if Gloucestershire County Council was planning pay rises for its own employees? He believed that social workers, home care and other vital staff in local government had borne the brunt of austerity. 

Cllr Mark Hawthorne explained that there was a motion on the agenda where this would be part of the discussion. He stated that the Government was looking to give further advice to pay bodies.  Officer pay was something that continued to be looked at across the sector by the Council and the Local Government Association.   

Carol Kambites explained that she had been told that the electrical connection to the Javelin Park incinerator would be taken down Stonehouse High Street, causing disruption to residents, traders and motorists, despite an alternative route being available

She asked that, given that the decision had been made on the grounds of a cost calculation by UBB, had the Council seen a breakdown of the calculation and did it include the cost of the contract over-running? Secondly, did councillors believe that the people and traders of Stonehouse should be compensated for the disruption?

Cllr Nigel Moor stated that the decisions had been made by UBB, but that he would take up the issues raised and provide a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58

Up to 30 minutes is allowed for this item.

To answer any written public questions about matters which are within the powers and duties of the County Council.

The closing date for receipt of questions is 10am on Wednesday, 21 June 2017.  Please send questions to the Chief Executive marked for the attention of Stephen Bace (email stephen.bace@gloucestershire.gov.uk).

To answer any oral questions put by members of the public with the consent of the Chairman.  Depending on the nature of the questions asked it may not be possible to provide a comprehensive answer at the meeting, in which case a written answer will be supplied as soon as reasonably possible after the meeting.

Questions received and proposed responses do not accompany this agenda but will be circulated prior to the meeting.

Eleven public questions had been received. The following supplementary questions were asked:

Question 1 – Peter Jeffries referred to the number of children mentioned or referenced within the Ofsted report, he asked whether, of the 16-19 year olds known by the police, there were any other children that the Council did not know operationally.

In response, Cllr Richard Boyles stated that he would provide a written answer to the question.

Question 3 –  Peter Jeffries referred to the Ofsted report, noting the difficulties in retaining staff but expressing concern around the wide spread serious failing and ‘bullying and blame culture’. He asked what would be done to better interact with staff on the ground.

Cllr Richard Boyles explained that visits had been undertaken with frontline staff with assessments carried out internally for new managers. It was important to consider how frontline staff can bring up issues of concern to senior managers. Issues around Human Resources (HR) had been addressed with this being handled within the Council. It was important to ensure that staff had the confidence to come forward.

Question 5 – Peter Jeffries asked whether there was any merit to retaining the services of the Independent HR Consultant given the seriousness of the complaints.

Cllr Richard Boyles stated that they would be putting in place opportunities for staff to go to someone independent to report any complaints and to have confidence that they can report their concerns.

Question 6 – Peter Jeffries asked what accountability and challenge was being directed at the Chief Executive as he was ultimately responsible for the officer team.

Cllr Richard Boyles stated that the Chief Executive had taken firm actions to make changes and to put in place a competent team of interim managers to start up the work needed to fix the issues. It was important that there was stability and he was confident that the right action was being taken.

Question 9 – Peter Jeffries expressed concern that those at the most senior level including the Chief Executive were unaware of what was going on. He asked what actions were being taken to look into this.

Cllr Richard Boyles expressed his confidence in the Chief Executive and the work that was now being carried out.

Question 10 – Peter Jeffries referred to comments made by a judge in 2015 on a social care case around institutional failings before the independent review by Ofsted. He suggested that there needed to be a public and transparent review into this as opposed to just County Council scrutiny.

Cllr Mark Hawthorne explained that the Extraordinary Meeting being held later that day would give members an opportunity to discuss how best to proceed. The key priority was to pick up the lessons learned and to put in place the necessary processes, embedding them across the organisations. He emphasised that all members were Corporate Parents putting at the heart the thoughts and best interests of the children.

Up to 30 minutes is allowed for this item.

To answer any written public questions about matters which are within the powers and duties of the County Council.

The closing date for receipt of question is 10am on Wednesday, 15 March 2017.  Please send questions to the Chief Executive marked for the attention of Stephen Bace (email stephen.bace@gloucestershire.gov.uk).

To answer any oral questions put by members of the public with the consent of the Chairman.  Depending on the nature of the questions asked it may not be possible to provide a comprehensive answer at the meeting, in which case a written answer will be supplied as soon as reasonably possible after the meeting.

Questions received and proposed responses do not accompany this agenda but will be circulated prior to the meeting.

Twenty-one written public questions had been received. The following supplementary questions were asked:

Question 1 – Martin Large questioned the factual accuracy of the figures provided in 2015 for the costs of cancelling the Javelin Park contract. He asked if the member could specify the financial and environmental benefits of the incinerator over 25 years compared to cheaper and more flexible methods of waste disposal.

In response Cllr Ray Theodoulou stated that the figures had been accurate at the time, but could have been subject to change.  He did not see that there was public interest in a more detailed breakdown.

Question 2 – Jojo Mehta stated that there was a moral and legal responsibility to protect the Council given that the Javelin Park contract was the biggest the Council had ever undertaken. She explained that a complaint had been made to the Competition and Markets Authority, she asked how the leader could justify allowing the contract to be signed knowing these consequences.

Cllr Mark Hawthorne replied that despite the concerns raised by the member of the public, no alternative had been brought forward. The Council had undergone a long procurement route and there had been opportunities throughout that process for concerns to be raised. Planning permission had been gained and the decision had been made in a democratic way.

Question 3 – Rachel Smith asked whether Cabinet would commit to the release of all major contracts to the public as there was a clear public interest in having full access.

Cllr Ray Theodoulou explained that a cross party working group would be responding to that issue.               

Question 4 – Gerald Hartley suggested that the use of the recycling position was misleading as percentages were distorted by tonnage being added to recyclate. He asked whether it was time to use ‘tonnage per capita to landfill’ as the figure to publicise?

Cllr Ray Theodoulou suggested that a member of Stroud Council would be welcome to attend the Joint Waste Committee and make a proposal if they wished to do so.         

Question 5 -  Gerald Hartley asked that if Stroud’s waste to landfill figures were replicated across the County, would the total amount sent to landfill be enough to serve the incinerator?

Cllr Ray Theodoulou stated that figures produced showed that Stroud had some way to catch up with regards to waste performance.

Question 6 – Gerald Hartley asked how the costs of the appeal against the Information Commissioner’s decision would have been funded if there had not been a budget approved by Council.

In response, Cllr Ray Theodoulou stated that this was a hypothetical question with no answer.

Question 7 – Gerald Hartley stated that if the Council and UBB did not accept that schedule 23 was an exhaustive list, could they choose which elements they would alter or ignore in response to FOI?

Cllr Ray Theodoulou replied that enquiries were responded to in good faith and following procedure.             

Question 8 – Gerald Hartley  asked what the County Council’s  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18

Up to 30 minutes is allowed for this item.

To answer any written public questions about matters which are within the powers and duties of the County Council.

The closing date for receipt of question is 10am on Wednesday, 8 February 2017.  Please send questions to the Chief Executive marked for the attention of Stephen Bace (email stephen.bace@gloucestershire.gov.uk).

To answer any oral questions put by members of the public with the consent of the Chairman.  Depending on the nature of the questions asked it may not be possible to provide a comprehensive answer at the meeting, in which case a written answer will be supplied as soon as reasonably possible after the meeting.

Questions received and proposed responses do not accompany this agenda but will be circulated prior to the meeting.

Thirty three public questions had been received. The following supplementary questions were asked:

Question 1 -Anna Mozol asked what the member was doing to protect the Clearwater open space site and asked whether he was ‘giving up’ on the residents of Quedgeley by not protecting the site.

Cllr Mark Hawthorne explained that he felt strongly about Clearwater Drive and that he had been campaigning for a number of years to keep this vital open space open to residents. He had written to residents in the area and many people had signed a petition and questioned what had happened. He had  received written confirmation from the parish council that the bid for a Village Green application was never submitted to the county council and therefore was never considered.

Question 2 - Anna Mozol – asked what was really happening with the space.  She explained that the planning application for the school had been delayed until after May 2017. She asked whether the delay was due to the County Council elections and asked whether the member would be supporting the application after the election.

Cllr Mark Hawthorne explained that he had written to over 300 residents on a regular basis about the issue. The decision regarding when the application would be put forward was down to the diocese. He had asked them to state their plans for the site and his understanding was that it had been delayed until the completion of their consultation. 

Question 6 - Gerald Hartley asked whether a one tonne increase in waste collection authority recycling cost Gloucestershire County Council more in credits than it would to have UBB  burn that tonne?   

Cllr Ray Theodoulou stated that it would not cost more and he assured members that there was a commitment from Gloucestershire County Council to recycling.

Question 7 - Gerald Hartley asked whether the Councillor would commit to fully supporting the waste collection authorities to convert residual waste to recyclate. He also asked whether the member would list the initiatives being taken by the Council to improve the range and quantity of materials collected as recyclate rather than black bag waste.

Cllr Ray Theodoulou stated that the Council was dedicated to reducing waste that could not be composted. He stated there were many opportunities to recycle and that the County Council encouraged collection agencies to do more through discussions within the Joint Waste Committee.

Question 8 - Dennis Parsons emphasised that, given the September intake of nearly 800 students, the work on a TRO for Albert Drive, Pitville  was time critical. He asked if the member would give priority to the proposal.

Cllr Vernon Smith thanked Mr Parsons for coming to the meeting. He replied that once the consultation was completed and the responses worked through, this work would be progressed appropriately.

Question 9 – Dennis Parsons asked what the Cabinet Member’s ‘Plan B’ was with regards to the Road Safety Partnership given the withdrawal of funding from the Police and Crime Commissioner.

Cllr Vernon Smith  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4

Up to 30 minutes is allowed for this item.

To answer any written public questions about matters which are within the powers and duties of the County Council.

The closing date for receipt of question is 10am on Wednesday, 16 March 2016.  Please send questions to the Chief Executive marked for the attention of Stephen Bace (email stephen.bace@gloucestershire.gov.uk).

To answer any oral questions put by members of the public with the consent of the Chairman.  Depending on the nature of the questions asked it may not be possible to provide a comprehensive answer at the meeting, in which case a written answer will be supplied as soon as reasonably possible after the meeting.

Questions received and proposed responses do not accompany this agenda but will be circulated prior to the meeting.

One public question had been received.  A copy of the questions and answers was circulated and is attached to the signed copy of the minutes.

No supplementary questions were asked.

Up to 30 minutes is allowed for this item.

To answer any written public questions about matters which are within the powers and duties of the County Council.

The closing date for receipt of question is 10am on Wednesday, 10 February 2016.  Please send questions to the Chief Executive marked for the attention of Stephen Bace (email stephen.bace@gloucestershire.gov.uk).

To answer any oral questions put by members of the public with the consent of the Chairman.  Depending on the nature of the questions asked it may not be possible to provide a comprehensive answer at the meeting, in which case a written answer will be supplied as soon as reasonably possible after the meeting.

Questions received and proposed responses do not accompany this agenda but will be circulated prior to the meeting.

Thirteen public question had been received.  A copy of the questions and answers was circulated and is attached to the signed copy of the minutes.

The following supplementary questions were asked:

Question 1 -  Nigel Wise asked:

As the Council has failed outright to answer five of the formal parking enforcement questions I have presented, has failed to discover and report any legislation which provides lawful authority for APCOA to be involved in any consideration of motorist’s representations against penalty charge notices, and has intimated that Council staff appointed to consider motorists’ representations are not required to have had formal training or have any relevant qualifications, will the Council now undertake an independent review of its enforcement operations so as to bring all of the identified irregularities into lawful good order and cease purporting irrationally that everything complies with statutory requirements?

In response, Cllr Vernon Smith thanked Mr Wise for bringing this to his attention, but stated that the Council was implementing its car parking policy lawfully and followed national best practice. He asked that if Mr Wise had any additional information then would he share it with senior officers.

Question 2 – Nigel Wise asked:

The confidence of officers is irrelevant.  Where does the legislation allow officers to review prepared decisions of APCOA employees instead of considering motorists’ representations afresh and impartially?

Cllr Vernon Smith responded by explaining that best practice was being followed and emphasised the professionalism of officers and the support and training available to them.

Question 3 – Nigel Wise asked

As the Council chooses to argue that they don't need to comply with findings of tribunal adjudicators, why does the Council rely on one adjudication to do nothing to correct their errors, and why didn't the Council apply for judicial review of the 2014 judgment which found the involvement of APCOA was illegal and give the reasons why?

Cllr Vernon Smith reiterated his previous answer.  He was happy for officers to look at any new information, but stated that officers were complying with the law.

Question 4 – Nigel Wise asked:

Is it correct that some, at least, of the officers involved in considering motorists' representations have had no formal training and have no relevant qualification in relation to parking enforcement?

Cllr Vernon Smith stated that he disagreed with the statement and that officers had the training and support they needed to carry out their roles.

Question 5 – Nigel Wise asked:

Why did council officers not wish to disturb the status quo, and why had they repeatedly not provided the information he had requested. He stated that there had been an embargo on council officers responding to him including from councillors.

Cllr Vernon Smith explained that this was not factual and that officers carried out a professional, open and transparent job.

Question 6 – Nigel Wise asked

Will the Council now arrange for a face-to-face meeting with me and the Cabinet Member responsible Cllr Vernon Smith including council officers so that these matters can  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4

Up to 30 minutes is allowed for this item.

To answer any written public questions about matters which are within the powers and duties of the County Council.

The closing date for receipt of question is 10am on Wednesday, 11 February 2015.  Please send questions to the Chief Executive marked for the attention of Stephen Bace (email stephen.bace@gloucestershire.gov.uk).

To answer any oral questions put by members of the public with the consent of the Chairman.  Depending on the nature of the questions asked it may not be possible to provide a comprehensive answer at the meeting, in which case a written answer will be supplied as soon as reasonably possible after the meeting.

Questions received and proposed responses do not accompany this agenda but will be circulated prior to the meeting.

One public question had been received.  A copy of the question and answer was circulated and is attached to the signed copy of these minutes.

There were no supplementary or oral questions.

Up to 30 minutes is allowed for this item.

To answer any written public questions about matters which are within the powers and duties of the County Council.

The closing date for receipt of question is 10am on Wednesday, 12 March 2014.  Please send questions to the Chief Executive marked for the attention of Stephen Bace (email stephen.bace@gloucestershire.gov.uk).

To answer any oral questions put by members of the public with the consent of the Chairman.  Depending on the nature of the questions asked it may not be possible to provide a comprehensive answer at the meeting, in which case a written answer will be supplied as soon as reasonably possible after the meeting.

Questions received and proposed responses do not accompany this agenda but will be circulated prior to the meeting.

Three public questions were received.  A copy of the questions and answers were circulated and are attached to the signed copy of these minutes.

No supplementary questions were asked.

Up to 30 minutes is allowed for this item.

To answer any written public questions about matters which are within the powers and duties of the County Council.

The closing date for receipt of question is 10am on Wednesday, 19 February 2014.  Please send questions to the Chief Executive marked for the attention of Stephen Bace (email stephen.bace@gloucestershire.gov.uk).

To answer any oral questions put by members of the public with the consent of the Chairman.  Depending on the nature of the questions asked it may not be possible to provide a comprehensive answer at the meeting, in which case a written answer will be supplied as soon as reasonably possible after the meeting.

Questions received and proposed responses do not accompany this agenda but will be circulated prior to the meeting.

Two public questions were received.  A copy of the questions and answers were circulated and are attached to the signed copy of these minutes.

The following supplementary questions were asked:

Question 1 – Diana Shirley asked whether Gloucestershire County Council could now start to negotiate with Urbaser Balfour Beatty for an alternative technology.

In response Cllr Ray Theodoulou stated that this would not be appropriate.

Question 2 – Diana Shirley stated that in addition to some councillors, there were officers who had championed incineration. She asked whether the officers advising on this issue should be the ones who had already promoted incineration as being the correct solution.

Cllr Ray Theodoulou stated that officers did the best job they could and would continue to be independent.  He said that it was important to select the best technology.

The following oral questions were asked:

Oral Question 1 – Diana Shirley asked whether Gloucestershire County Council had made any effort to discover whether fracking would increase the likelihood of the release of radon gas.

Cllr Will Windsor-Clive stated that each application would be looked at in accordance with the Council’s planning policy. National research would be used and, at the moment, no planning applications had been received.

Oral Question 2 – Diana Shirley stated that as British industry was at last catching up with the US and EU lead that incineration was not the correct way to deal with our waste and bearing in mind that Conservatives were not, or should not, be in control of this Council now. Would it be possible for the councillor answering the public questions about incineration not to be one who was simply repeating the policy of the old Conservative controlled council?’

Cllr Ray Theodoulou responded that all things were possible.

Up to 30 minutes is allowed for this item.

To answer any written public questions about matters which are within the powers and duties of the County Council.

The closing date for receipt of question is 10am on Wednesday, 13 February 2013.  Please send questions to the Chief Executive marked for the attention of Stephen Bace (email stephen.bace@gloucestershire.gov.uk).

To answer any oral questions put by members of the public with the consent of the Chairman.  Depending on the nature of the questions asked it may not be possible to provide a comprehensive answer at the meeting, in which case a written answer will be supplied as soon as reasonably possible after the meeting.

Questions received and proposed responses do not accompany this agenda but will be circulated prior to the meeting.

Seven public questions were received.  A copy of the questions and answers were circulated and are attached to the signed copy of these minutes.

The following supplementary questions were asked:

Question 2 – Sue Oppenheimer drew members’ attention to the BBC Radio 4 Coasting the Earth programme.  She provided information regarding Mechanical Biological Treatment plants and questioned the information provided by Cllr Theodoulou. She asked:

How can the Council justify such a high capital spend when there are alternative cheaper options available that dispose of the waste more efficiently and effectively?

In response, Cllr Theodoulou stated that only residual waste left over after as much as possible had been composted or recycled would be put into the incinerator.  Other methods still left waste that needed to be incinerated elsewhere and he gave the example of waste being shipped to Holland.

Question 3 – Sue Oppenheimer questioned the answer provided by the Cabinet Member providing members with information around fees charged by Mechanical Biological Treatment plants. She suggested the incinerator would charge more. She then asked:

How does the incinerator meet the proximity principle when it will be exporting 6 tonnes an hour, or 48,000 tonnes a year of bottom ash around the country as aggregate for roads, and a tonne an hour or 8,000 tonnes per year of hazardous air pollution control residues which will be taken all the way to be dumped in landfill in Peterborough 130 miles away? In the light of this, isn’t his quoting of the proximity principle hypocritical?

In response, Cllr Waddington stated that the bottom ash was recovered material and was not subject to this principle. The transport to a land disposal site was a temporary measure and his aspiration for the future was for there to be zero waste to landfill.

Question 4 – Gerald Hartley asked

Would the Cabinet member explain how his answer:

a)    makes Gloucestershire County Council compliant with DEFRA’s advice that the proximity principle should not exclude the duty to cooperate with other local authorities to make best use of extant or planned residual waste facilities, and

b)    squares with Urbaser Balfour Beatty sending circa 8,000 tonnes per annum of hazardous waste to Peterborough and the fact that Gloucestershire’s recyclates are all sent out of county.

Councillor Theodoulou replied that the answer had been given to the previous question and that the DEFRA principles were adhered to and consultation with DEFRA had been undertaken throughout.

Gerald Hartley asked an oral question regarding whether answers to public questions could be made available to the public before the morning of the Council meeting. The Chairman indicated that he would give a written response.

Question 5 – Diana Shirley asked:

Can district councils, or the public, have any confidence in the Planning Committee determining the application with integrity and without political considerations when you are trying to rush this decision through a few days before Purdah.  If the decision was purely based on the planning regulations and made by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15