Agenda and minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 23 January 2013.

The minutes of the meeting held on 23 January 2013 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.

Please see note (b) at the end of the agenda.

A copy of the declarations of interest is attached to the signed copy of the minutes.

Please see the briefing note, which does not accompany this agenda, but will be circulated prior to the meeting.

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.

Up to 30 minutes is allowed for this item.

To answer any written members’ questions.

The closing date for the receipt of questions 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).

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

Thirty seven member questions were received.   A copy of the answers was circulated and is attached to the signed copy of these minutes.

The following supplementary questions were asked:

Question 3 – Cllr Duncan Smith asked whether the Cabinet Member agreed that there was no excuse for any organisation to use the figure of £500 million for the costs of the proposed plant at Javelin Park. He suggested that the Council should be congratulated regarding the savings associated with the plant.

Cllr Theodoulou agreed with the member’s comments.

Question 5 – Cllr Awford asked whether the Cabinet Member agreed that it was hypocrisy for the Liberal Democrats to criticise the Gloucestershire plans for waste, when the Liberal Democrat run London Borough of Sutton was pursuing a larger contract.

Cllr Theodoulou replied that he agreed with the member’s comments.

Question 6 – Cllr Vernon Smith asked whether the Cabinet Member agreed that the changes to the Alderman Knight School had left the school in a better position to develop in the future.

Cllr Hall stated that it had been an excellent achievement and she would urge all members to visit the school and see the positive difference.

Question 9 – Cllr Lunnon asked whether the Joint Municipal Waste Management Strategy had been reviewed after five years. She asked that if a review was still to take place could she chair it.

Cllr Theodoulou responded that he would inquire as to whether it had been reviewed and that chairing such a review would depend on the outcome of the next election.

Question 10 – Cllr Lunnon questioned whether the removal of bio-genic material from the waste arisings would result in 100% of the CO2 emissions of the Javelin Park facility being considered climate changing.

Cllr Theodoulou stated he would seek advice and provide a written response.

Question 11 – Cllr Lunnon asked, given the change in waste arisings, what analysis had been undertaken to understand why the waste reduction strategies were not working. 

Cllr Theodoulou stated that he was not sure that the strategies were not working as suggested. This had yet to be analysed as the figures had only just been announced.

Question 13 – Cllr Oosthuysen asked which part of the Private Eye articles contained the serious inaccuracies suggested in the answer to the original question.

Cllr Hawthorne responded that the member should not believe everything he read in Private Eye and that it was important that the member did his own research into the issues. He hoped that the member would take up the offer to discuss with officers.

Question 15 – Cllr Hilton asked whether the Cabinet Member would apologise for comments in the Gloucestershire Echo regarding families who took out crisis loans.

Cllr McLain stated that his comments had not been reported accurately, but that crisis loans were important for those families who needed them in the short term during an emergency. Despite this there were occasions when the loans were being used multiple times  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

To receive petitions, if any, without discussion.

For debate and decision on the day, unless the Chairman decides otherwise.

The closing date for the receipt of motions was 10am on Monday, 11 February 2013.

The following motion has been received:

This Council notes the report on residual waste capacity published by Eunomia on 30 November 2012. 

The report indicates that the UK now has 7 million tonnes more consented residual waste treatment capacity than there is residual waste requiring treatment.

This Council therefore calls on the Cabinet to cancel the project to build a massive waste incinerator in Gloucestershire. Noting that the proposed incinerator has surplus capacity for the county's own residual household waste treatment requirement.

Proposed by Cllr Jeremy Hilton

Seconded by Cllr Mike Collins

Motion 680

The Monitoring Officer was asked to give advice on the involvement of members of the Planning Committee in the debate on the motion. 

The Monitoring Officer stated that members did not have a disclosable pecuniary interest in the Javelin Park application through their membership of the committee.   It was important, however, that committee members maintained and demonstrated an open mind relating to the application.  She advised committee members and any members who could be involved as substitutes to consider whether they should participate in the debate and vote.

After a short adjournment, the members of the Planning Committee and members who could be involved as substitutes left the council chamber.  The members who left the chamber were:

Cllrs Andrewartha, Awford, Booth, Burgess, Cooksley, Dr Cordwell, Glastonbury, Hale, Jones, Lunnon, Morgan, Oostuysen, Parsons, Quaile, Shurmer, Vernon Smith, Sudbury, Tipper, Thornton, Tracey, Vines and Wheeler

Cllr Hilton moved and Cllr Collins seconded the following motion:

This Council notes the report on residual waste capacity published by Eunomia on 30 November 2012. 

The report indicates that the UK now has 7 million tonnes more consented residual waste treatment capacity than there is residual waste requiring treatment.

This Council therefore calls on the Cabinet to cancel the project to build a massive waste incinerator in Gloucestershire. Noting that the proposed incinerator has surplus capacity for the county's own residual household waste treatment requirement.

Cllr Hilton stated that it was clear that there was over-capacity in the UK and he questioned the sense in committing £0.5 billion to an incinerator in Gloucestershire.  The plant proposed for Gloucestershire would have capacity for 190,000 tonnes when it was clear that the actual level of waste would be around 125,000 tonnes.  He also believed that over the 25 years of the contract it would become possible to recycle a wider range of products thereby allowing recycling rates to be significantly increased.  He noted that the mechanical biological treatment facility at Avonmouth already had capacity for 200 tonnes of waste and with planning permission could treat up to 300 tonnes.  This might provide an opportunity for the treatment of the residual waste from Gloucestershire.  The contract at Avonmouth was over 9 years and was costing £25 million.

In seconding the motion, Cllr Collins expressed concern at the way that the Council had responded to a recent report from GlosVAIN.  He said that the people of Gloucestershire did not want a huge incinerator to dispose of their waste.  He noted that there was clear over capacity in the market and new technologies were being developed to treat waste in a cheaper and more environmentally friendly way. 

The Cabinet Project Champion for Waste, Cllr Waddington, stated that the Eunomia report was based on outdated figures.  Comparisons had been made between the growth of waste and the increase in the number of waste treatment facilities and the information had been used in a way that the report author had expressly warned against.  He noted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

The Leader of the Council, Cllr Mark Hawthorne, presented the recommendation from the Cabinet meeting on 6 February 2013.  He said that 2013-14 was the third budget of the ‘Meeting the Challenge’ Programme.  The programme would achieve £114 million in savings to reflect reductions in funding from central government and increasing demand for services, particularly from the most vulnerable people.  Adult social care spending to meet the needs of vulnerable people represented around half of the Council’s budget.  Whilst other local authorities had been reducing spending in this area, the Council had invested an additional £4 million over the last three years.

He stated that the Council was continuing to invest in jobs and growth.  He referred to the Grow Gloucestershire campaign to kick start the local economy and help young people back to work, support for the doubling of the Kemble to Swindon railway line, the first time buyers’ scheme, the rural broadband project and the ‘Yes to Jobs’ website to encourage young people to take up apprenticeships.  He said that the 2013-14 budget would provide a further £1 million for the first time buyers’ scheme and investment in a new business loan scheme through the government backed ‘Full Circle’ scheme which would result in around £1.4 million being made available to local businesses. 

He reported that £29 million had been invested in flooding since 2007 and he noted that this had paid dividends in recent months by protecting 500 homes that would have otherwise been flooded. He confirmed that the Council would continue to invest in flood prevention in 2013-14.

Cllr Hawthorne declared that for the third year running the council tax was being frozen.  He noted that £100 million in savings had already been achieved, many ahead of target. The headcount had been reduced by 1,500, 80 offices had been closed across the county and the number of councillors would be reduced from 63 to 53 from May 2013.

He presented the following additions to the Cabinet recommendation on pages 25 and 26 of the agenda pack:

a)        To move £3 million from forecast underspends to pay for additional road repairs.  This was in addition to the £2.1 million announced in November and December 2012.

b)        To move £1 million from the Transformation Reserve to fund a package of measures to promote adoption.

Cllr Theodoulou, the Cabinet Member for Finance and Change, seconded the amended recommendation from the Cabinet and spoke in support of the proposals.

A member said that he supported a freeze in council tax and the amendments proposed to the Cabinet recommendation.  He noted that the freeze to council tax had been made possible as a result of the Coalition Government providing a specific grant to local authorities across the country.  He expressed concern, however, that funds were being wasted because of bad decisions.  He referred to the costs of £200,000 incurred on the libraries judicial review which could have been avoided and the £0.5 billion committed to the residual waste facility over 25  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

For information and members’ questions.

For information and members’ questions.

For debate and decision.

The Government is proposing that future funding for local major transport schemes is devolved to new Local Transport Bodies (LTB), based on the current Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) areas. The LTB will become responsible for prioritising major scheme funding, based on a set of eligibility and value for money criteria.  The LTBs will be responsible for establishing a programme of local major scheme priorities for delivery beyond 2015.  The advent of this body requires the Council to consider its effect on the Gloucestershire Local Transport Plan (LTP).

The current LTP3, published in 2011, proposes full reviews in 2013/14 and 2018/19. This would mean a full review taking place after just 3 years, while local authorities were previously only required to review their LTPs every 5 years. While local transport authorities have a statutory obligation to produce and review LTPs and policies under the Local Transport Act 2008, there is currently no statutory requirement about the timing of these reviews. The Department for Transport Guidance on Local Transport Plans states that “(…) local transport authorities may replace their plans as they see fit”. Reviewing the LTP3 in 2014/15 will allow the Council to consider the evidence collected as part of the local major transport scheme prioritisation process and therefore make the review of the LTP3 more effective and efficient.

Council is therefore recommended to delay the review of LTP3 by one year to 2014/15.

(Background information on this matter can be found at http://glostext.gloucestershire.gov.uk/mgDelegatedDecisions.aspx?bcr=1&DM=3)

For debate and decision.

The Chairman of the Constitution Committee, Cllr Hawthorne, presented the recommendations from the Constitution Committee held on 5 February 2013.

a)      Independent Remuneration Panel

Members thanked William Alexander, Chairman of the Independent Remuneration Panel, and fellow members of the panel for their work in assessing allowances on behalf of the Council.

A member said that it was privilege to represent the people of Gloucestershire but he questioned whether a basic allowance of £8,800 reflected the complexity and demanding nature of the role.  He believed that such an allowance was unlikely to be adequate for younger people to consider becoming a councillor.  He recognised the time commitment and responsibility for Cabinet members and the Leader of the Council.  He felt that the special responsibility allowances for these positions should be reviewed in the new Council.

A number of members noted the distance that members representing rural divisions needed to travel to attend parish and town council meetings.  With a reduced number of members from May 2013 and larger divisions, the distances travelled by some members would increase significantly.  There was agreement across the council chamber that the Independent Remuneration Panel should look at this area in more detail with a view to making a recommendation early in the new Council.

RESOLVED

i)     That no change be made to the basic allowance for 2013-14.

ii)    That the level of special responsibility allowances in the scheme remain unchanged for 2013-14.

iii)   That the Council revert to the Inland Revenue’s authorised mileage allowance rate current at the time with effect from 1 April 2013.

iv)   To request the Independent Remuneration Panel to provide more information on the payment of travelling allowances for journeys to and from parish and town council meetings within their division. This should include comparative information from other local authorities and an estimate of the potential costs.

v)    That councillors should not be given the opportunity to join the Local Government Pension Scheme based on the basic allowance.  

b)     Employee Code of Conduct

RESOLVED that the Council adopts the revised Employee Code of Conduct attached at Annex B to the report.

c)      Changes to the Constitution

RESOLVED that the amendments to Procedural Standing Order 27.1 as set out in Annex C to the report be approved.

For information and members’ questions.