Agenda and minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 17 February 2016.

The minutes of the meeting held on 17 February 2016 were confirmed and signed as a correct record subject to noting the following amendment to the penultimate paragraph on page 6:

‘On being put to the vote, the amendment was lost.’

Please see note (a) 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.

a)       Terrorist atrocities in Turkey and Belgium

Members stood in silence as mark of respect to the victims of the terrorist attacks in Turkey and Belgium.

b)       Members’ ICT

Council officers would be in attendance at lunchtime to provide advice and assistance.

c)       Highways

Senior highways officers from Amey, the Council’s highways contractor, would be available immediately following the meeting to answer questions.

d)       Members versus officers cricket match

Cllr Paul McMahon advised that the match would be held at Tuffley Park on 12 July at 6pm.

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.

For information and members’ questions.

Report of the Cabinet Member for Children and Young People and Strategic Commissioning.

Cllr Paul McLain, the Cabinet Member for Children and Young People and Strategic Commissioning, presented the Corporate Parenting report.  He encouraged members to visit the display stands highlighting the Council services associated with children in care.

Responding to members, Cllr McLain stated that on some occasions it was necessary to place children in care outside the county as a result of family arrangements or specialist needs.  He undertook to provide Cllr Hay and Cllr McMahon with a more detailed briefing including information on the distances that children were placed away from their family homes. 

A member expressed concern at the reduction in children centre provision at a time when the number of children in care was rising across the county.  Cllr McLain explained that the Council was using every means possible to reduce the number of children coming into care.  This included providing advice and support to vulnerable families as early as possible. 

RESOLVED to note the report of the Cabinet Member for Children and Young People and Strategic Commissioning.

To receive petitions presented by members without discussion.

Cllr Nigel Moor presented a petition from Upper Rissington Parish Council to Cllr Mark Hawthorne, Leader of the Council, concerning the provision of faster broadband in the village.

Cllr Dorcas Binns presented a petition from Nailsworth Town Council to Cllr Paul McLain, Cabinet Member for Children and Families and Strategic Commissioning, relating to children’s centres.

Cllr Brian Oosthuysen presented a petition to Cllr Vernon Smith, Cabinet Member for Highways and Flood, regarding the condition of highways within his division, Rodborough. 

The following motions had been received by the closing date at 10am on Tuesday, 15 March 2016.

Motion 765 - The Cotswold–Gloucestershire integrity motion

Proposed by Cllr Lesley Williams

Seconded by Cllr Barry Kirby

This Council believes that the Cotswolds is an integral part of Gloucestershire’s heritage and a key part of its future as a County.

This Council believes that the Cotswolds benefits financially and culturally though its historic bond with the County of Gloucestershire. This Council also notes that Gloucestershire benefits with the Cotswolds being a key part of the County.

This Council asks that the Leader of Gloucestershire County Council write to the Secretary of State for the Department of Communities and Local Government to state this Council’s unhappiness with this proposed changes to Cotswold District Council.

This Council asks that the Leader of Cotswold District Council presents their proposals for the Cotswold – West Oxfordshire unitary authority at the June 2016 County Council meeting.

Motion 766 - Improving highway tree maintenance

Proposed by Cllr Klara Sudbury

Seconded by Cllr Bernie Fisher

This Council notes that there are approximately 8,000 trees on highway land in Cheltenham alone, and many more right across the county.

It is understood, that the highways contract with Amey is under review and that Liberal Democrats have already asked the Cabinet Member to consider improving highway tree maintenance.

This Council asks the Cabinet Member to report back to the Highways Advisory Group on measures to improve the County Council's tree maintenance programme, before reporting back to full Council with a positive action plan.

Motion 767 – Sugar and Obesity Strategy

Proposed by Cllr Steve Lydon

Seconded by Cllr Lesley Williams

This Council expresses its dismay that the Government have added a further delay to enacting its childhood obesity report.

This Council is also aware that it does not include recommendations for a ‘sugar tax’, which has been proven to reduce the rates of obesity in children.

This Council is alarmed by the rate of childhood obesity across the County, and will write to the Secretary of State to urge them not to delay releasing the childhood obesity report, and to reconsider the ‘sugar tax’.

MOTION 765 - The Cotswold–Gloucestershire integrity motion

Proposed by Cllr Lesley Williams

Seconded by Cllr Barry Kirby

This Council believes that the Cotswolds is an integral part of Gloucestershire’s heritage and a key part of its future as a county.

This Council believes that the Cotswolds benefits financially and culturally though its historic bond with the County of Gloucestershire. This Council also notes that Gloucestershire benefits with the Cotswolds being a key part of the county.

This Council asks that the Leader of Gloucestershire County Council write to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to state this Council’s unhappiness with this proposed change to Cotswold District Council.

This Council asks that the Leader of Cotswold District Council presents their proposals for the Cotswold–West Oxfordshire unitary authority at the June 2016 County Council meeting.

In moving the motion, Cllr Lesley Williams expressed serious concern at the proposal by fellow county councillor and Leader of Cotswold District Council, Cllr Lynden Stowe, to tear the county apart.  She said that regardless of what changes were placed upon local government in the future, Gloucestershire was greater than the sum of its parts and it needed to stay together. 

In seconding the motion, Cllr Barry Kirby was anxious that the county was not broken-up.  He questioned the logic of the proposal and believed that it was driven by politics and revenge as a result of the Prime Minister falling out with a senior politician in Oxfordshire. It was apparent that members of Cotswold District Council had been kept as much in the dark about the proposal as the public. He expressed serious concern that significant sums of public money were being used to draw up the proposals.  He noted that the Leader of Cotswold District Council had not attended the meetings of Leadership Gloucestershire when the devolution proposals had been drawn up, and he called upon him to resign immediately. 

Members spoke strongly against the break-up of Gloucestershire.  They referred to the damage to the county’s devolution bid and the serious impact on public services.  These did not just relate to the County Council but to other public bodies including the NHS, Police and the Local Enterprise Partnership.  There would be a major impact on the A417 loop which was not seen as a priority in Oxfordshire.  There was no mandate from the public for breaking up the county and members called for no more public money to be wasted on the proposal.

Members believed that the proposal did not stack-up.  It would create a unitary authority with a population of only 200,000 and that was acknowledged as being too small to run services efficiently.  There were 106 county-wide contracts of more than £1 million which would need to be reviewed or renegotiated if the county was broken-up.

A member referred to the impact on the Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue Service (GFRS) which was part of the county council.  If Cotswold broke away a fire service could not be run for that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

Up to 30 minutes is allowed for this item.

To answer any written member 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, 16 March 2016. 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.

Question 1 – Cllr Iain Dobie noted the response which outlined that there were currently no or very few viable alternatives to diesel. He asked whether advantage could be taken of new technology which provided electric vans at competitive prices. He commended the Police and Crime Commissioner’s Office for committing to buy electric alternatives for the Police vehicle fleet..

Cllr Vernon Smith responded by stating that as alternative technologies developed he would be keen to listen to proposals, but that he did not feel that there were suitable alternatives currently available for heavy duty vehicles.

Question 8 – Cllr Barry Kirby noted that the responses to his previous questions around how Gloucestershire County Council services could be delivered to the Cotswold had explained that the Council had not seen detailed proposals. He questioned how the Cabinet Member had been able to provide the information for his answer on highways in the Cotswold.

Cllr Vernon Smith explained that his answer had come from past highways information. Cllr Mark Hawthorne outlined that the answers to the previous questions were due to the Council having not received the detail from Cotswold District Council.

Question 15 – Cllr Iain Dobie asked for  the Cabinet Member’s views on the direction from Government  to form academies and expressed his concerns around the availability of local secondary school places and the local authority not having oversight of school improvement and catchment areas.

In response, Cllr Paul McLain explained that the local authority did not currently have many of the controls outlined by Cllr Dobie and that there would still be oversight of school based planning. In relation to concerns around secondary school places, he stated that the extra demand for places from the Leckhampton development could be met from the expansion of existing schools in the area.

Question 16 – Cllr Iain Dobie asked whether, if parents in the area of the Leckhampton development wished to set up a free school, would the Council make some of its land available if approached?

Cllr Paul McLain replied that if parents wished to set up a free school, this was a conversation with central government.  For any secondary school to be successful a five form entry was needed and he suggested that realistically there was not the demand in the area to meet that.

Question 19 -  Cllr Paul Hodgkinson asked whether the Council had provided oversight of the school’s Supply Mutual Scheme. He questioned when officers had been informed of the deficit in the scheme and what action had been taken.

Cllr Paul McLain explained that the scheme was run by schools for schools and that the Council provided an administration role. The Schools Forum had been informed of the likely deficit in the previous year and individual schools had been notified in February 2016. He acknowledged that individual schools could have been notified earlier.

Question 21 – Cllr Paul Hodgkinson suggested that some schools had lost confidence in the Council due to the issue of the schools  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

For information and members’ questions.

Cllr Brian Oosthuysen, Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, presented the report.  He said that scrutiny chairs had attended a chairing skills session run at Shire Hall by John Cade from the Institute of Local Government Studies at Birmingham University. He was pleased that scrutiny at the Council was recognised nationally as best practice.  There had been an opportunity at the session to start exploring the shape of scrutiny for devolution. This would be taken forward through discussion at Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee lead members and take on board the views of the districts and partner organisations.

Cllr Lesley Williams, Chair of the EU Referendum Scrutiny Task Group, advised that, although the group had been unable to complete its work in light of the earlier than anticipated referendum, useful information had been provided at the two evidence gathering sessions held.  She hoped that there would be an opportunity to share this information wider with members.

Answering a question, Cllr Oosthuysen confirmed that scrutiny chairs were expected to present recommendations from their committee irrespective of their personal views. 

Some concern was expressed that the information in the scrutiny report relating to the Forest of Dean scrutiny review did not reflect the recommendations in the task group report.  Cllr Rob Bird, explained that the report before members only summarised discussion at the Environment and Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee and did not in any way change the recommendations of the task group.  The recommendations would be presented to the Cabinet in due course.  

RESOLVED to note the scrutiny report.

For information and members’ questions.

RESOLVED to note the Statement of Individual Cabinet Member Decisions for the period 1 to 29 February 2016.  

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

Cllr Mark Hawthorne, Chair of the Appointments Committee, presented the recommendation from the meeting held on 7 March 2016 relating to the Pay Policy Statement for 2016-17.

Some members expressed concern that there were a number of outstanding issues as a result of national negotiations regarding pay and related matters.  Cllr Hawthorne explained that the Council was legally required to publish its pay policy statement by 31 March each year.  He said that the outstanding matters were the subject of ongoing negotiations and the Council could not influence that process.  The changes would be reflected in the pay policy statement in due course.

RESOLVED to adopt the Pay Policy Statement for 2016-17. 

For information and members’ questions.

To note that senior highways officers from Amey, the Council’s highways contractor, will be available immediately following the meeting to answer questions.

A number of members expressed concern at the failure of Amey, the Council’s highways contractor, to meet performance targets.  They specifically referred to low levels of public, parish and member satisfaction, failure to complete winter salting routes on time, poor performance in resolving three month defects, lack of communication with members and delays in Highways Local projects.

Cllr Vernon Smith, Cabinet Member for Highways and Flood, responded to the issues raised.  He invited members to accompany him for a day so that he could show them the steps that were being taken to maintain and improve the network.  He said that new technology and equipment would improve the way in which potholes were filled and provide a mechanism for larger areas to be resurfaced where there were a number of potholes in close proximity.  Referring to winter salting routes, he explained that the failure to complete all the runs on time reflected changing weather conditions and the particular requirements of individual localities.

At the end of the debate, there was an exchange between Cllr Smith and Cllr Chris Coleman over attendance at the Cheltenham area highways meetings.  Cllr Coleman asked Cllr Smith to withdraw a comment he had made about Cllr Coleman’s non-attendance at the meetings.  Cllr Smith refused to withdraw the comment. 

The Vice-chairman noted that the Cheltenham area highways meetings were held at Shire Hall and he called on officers to arrange them in Cheltenham to make it easier for local members to attend.  He believed that this principle should be extended for other service areas at the Council too.

The Chairman noted that senior highways officers from the Council and Amey would be available after the meeting to answer detailed questions from members.

RESOLVED to note the highways performance report.