Agenda and minutes

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 22 May 2024.

2.1       Subject to the below change, the minutes of the meeting held on 22 May 2024 were confirmed and signed as a correct record.

2.2       The Chair highlighted a correction to the recording of appointments to the Joint Economic Growth Committee reported at the May meeting. The minutes recorded a total membership of 7 members (but with 8 names). This had therefore been amended to remove Cllr Tim Harman’s name from the list.

No declarations of interest were received.

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

4.1       King’s Birthday Honours 2024

The Chair congratulated all those included in the Birthday Honours list and particularly Clare Marchant, University of Gloucestershire Vice-Chancellor, who had received a damehood. The full list had been circulated to all members.

4.2       GCC Achiever Awards

The Chair also congratulated recipients of the Gloucestershire County Council Achiever Awards 2024 which were announced on 19 June 2024.

4.3       Parliamentary Election Candidates

The Chair wished good luck to every member standing in the forthcoming parliamentary election on 4 July.

4.4       Armed Forces Day 2024

The Chair highlighted Armed Forces Day which was on Saturday 29 June 2024.

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 was 10am on Monday, 17 June 2024.

However, questions that relate to reports on the agenda may be submitted up to 10am on Wednesday, 19 June 2024. 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.

Seventeen public questions were submitted prior to the meeting. The following supplementary questions were asked:

Question 5 - David Redgewell sought assurance that officers would raise the issues relating to rail travel between the Forest of Dean and Bristol with rail companies.

Cllr Philip Robinson confirmed he would ask officers to look into this and provide a response to Mr Redgewell.

Question 6 – Mr Redgewell sought assurance that the Council would ensure the design of the new station at Cam and Dursley met the needs of the local community, and that officers would intervene where necessary.

Cllr Robinson advised that the Council did not have a specific statutory function relating to rail travel, however as it was a stakeholder, he would ensure that those representations were made.

Question 7 – Mr Redgewell asked whether the Council was making representations for a lift to be installed at Cheltenham Spa Train Station this year.

Cllr Robinson advised that as a stakeholder, the Council was taking every opportunity to make this point.

Question 9 – Mr Redgewell asked if officers could urgently look at whether a bus shelter could be installed outside Bingham Hall in Cirencester, or whether the bus stop could be moved to an alternative location.

Cllr Robinson explained that the introduction of a bus shelter at this bus stop had been considered in 2017, however it was determined unfeasible as a bus shelter would either need to be attached to a listed building or be installed on the pavement, which would impede pedestrians. He agreed to ask officers to look at the option to move the bus stop and to provide Mr Redgewell with a response.

Question 10 – Mr Redgewell requested an update on progress for proposed changes to the 84/85 bus service.

Cllr Robinson informed that conversations were still ongoing with neighbouring authorities. The next stage was for a meeting between South Gloucestershire and the West of England Combined Authority, which Cllr Robinson would attend to promote the case for maintaining services for Gloucestershire.

Question 12 – Mr Redgewell requested that consideration be given to improving disabled access at bus stops along Priors Road in Prestbury.

Cllr Robinson would ask officers to look into this and would provide a response to Mr Redgewell. 

Question 14 – Mr Redgewell stated that he would welcome a launch event for Arle Court Transport Hub. He also asked whether the Council would be attending the Black and White Coach Station celebration event.

Cllr Robinson confirmed that there would be a launch event for the opening of Arle Court Transport Hub, and invited Mr Redgewell to attend. He advised that the coach celebration was a classic coach gathering and therefore not an event the Council would be involved with.

Question 15 – Mr Redgewell stated that the issue of coach parking at Bourton on the Water had been picked up in international news, and highlighted the impact that this could have on tourism and on the promotion of greener travel. He queried  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.1       Cllr Stephen Davies, Cabinet Member for Children’s Safeguarding and Early Years, presented the Corporate Parenting Report.

6.2       He informed members that a meeting of the Corporate Parenting Group had taken place since the report was published. An update on the ‘Every Story Matters’ programme was received at that meeting, alongside updates on progress from two of the six Corporate Parenting Sub-Groups, and an update from the Ambassadors. It was noted that it had been Becca Rogers’ last meeting in her role as an Ambassador.

6.3       Cllr Davies reminded members of the importance of those involved attending the Corporate Parenting Group and Sub-Group meetings. At the next meeting in September, the Group would be looking at the Corporate Parenting Strategy.

6.4       Members were informed that the second Mockingbird constellation, a mutual support facility for foster carers, had been launched. A third constellation was due to be launched in September 2024. It was noted that the initial feedback on the programme had been positive.

6.5       Members were reminded that they had been provided with ‘fostering packs’ which they could use to promote fostering in their divisions.

6.6       Attention was drawn to the work of the Ambassadors in promoting the importance of ‘language that cares’, as well as contributing to the development of Care Planning practice, Health Career Taster Days, the Hartwood House Guide, and the Corporate Parenting Strategy. 

6.7       It was noted that the presentation of performance data in the report had been reviewed so that it now demonstrated trends and provided commentary. The statistics reflected some steps forward, including the continued reduction in the number of children in care and a continued improvement in medical and dental appointments. However, the number of 16- to 18-year-olds not in Education, Training or Employment remained a challenge.

6.8       A member queried whether there would be special provision for those with neurodiversity in the youth services provision currently being tendered, and asked why youth services were provided for those up to age 18, or 25 in some cases.

6.9       Cllr Davies confirmed that they would be considering this provision as part of the tendering for youth services and that the Government determined that Children’s Services extended up to age 18.

6.10    Several members thanked and paid tribute to Becca Rogers for her work in her role as an Ambassador.

6.11    A member queried the Council’s plans for play facilities for children and young people in Gloucestershire with disabilities and in care, following the closure of the ‘Hop, Skip and Jump’ facility 5 years ago.

6.12    Cllr Davies responded that the Family Hub approach aimed to attract charities and activity provisions in local areas. A more detailed response would be provided following the meeting.

6.13    A member sought clarification as to the reasons why there had been a reduction in the numbers of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in care. Cllr Davies advised that he would look into this and would provide a response following the meeting.

6.14    Another member queried who was responsible for children placed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

No petitions were received.

Motion 940: Water Companies

Proposer Paul Hodgkinson

Seconder Lisa Spivey

Council believes that Thames Water is failing to clean up our rivers and replace creaking infrastructure. It also believes that it is an insult to residents that water companies are planning to increase water bills by up to 90% by 2030, whilst they have paid out billions pounds to shareholders since 2010.

In our area, Thames Water and other water companies have failed to clean up our rivers. In Andoversford, 2000 hours of raw sewage was pumped into the River Coln in 2023.

Council hereby resolves to ask the Chair of Thames Water to come before the Environment Scrutiny committee to explain the reasons for the increase in bills.

It also asks the Leader to write to the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs calling for the Government to put Thames Water into special measures.

Motion 941 – Care Leavers

Proposer: Cllr Stephen Davies

Secondary: Cllr Paul McLain

This council believes

·       That every young child in Gloucestershire should have access to the Education, Employment and Training (EET) that they need to thrive as active and fulfilled members of a vibrant economy.

·       As corporate parents, we have a specific responsibility to ensure that our Care Experienced Young People (CEYP) have equal access to EET opportunities.

This council is proud of

·       Our Care Leavers – Step Forwards programme that provides tailored 1-1 support for care leavers

·       Our Ambassadors who work closely with the corporate recruitment team providing advice and training to ensure that GCC’s recruitment practices are as inclusive as possible for CEYP.

However, noting that only 54% of under 25 care leavers are in employment, education, or training, more needs to be done to make Gloucestershire a county where CEYP have both the skills and opportunities to thrive in the workplace.

Therefore, council requests that:

·       We write to Gloucestershire’s district councils and other public sector organisations to advise them of this council’s ambitions for our care leavers and to request that they champion recruiting practices that are inclusive for care leavers within their organisations, especially with regard to apprenticeships and work experience opportunities.
 

·       A communications plan is developed to reach out to private sector employers across the county to advise them of the training available to support them in recruiting CEYP.

·       An information session is held for all elected members to provide information on how councillors can champion apprenticeship and employment opportunities for care leavers in their divisions as corporate parents.

Motion 942: Voting Rights for 16 and 17 year olds in Gloucestershire

Proposed: Cllr John Bloxsom

Seconded: Cllr Wendy Thomas 

Council regrets that on the 4 July 2024, 16 and 17 year olds who can work, pay taxes and serve in the armed forces will not be able to vote in the general election. 

Council believes that this should be the last general election that excludes 16 and 17 year olds.

This change would bring UK elections in line with  ...  view the full agenda text for item 8.

8.1       Cllr Paul Hodgkinson proposed, and Cllr Lisa Spivey seconded the following motion. This included a friendly amendment from the Conservative Group which was accepted prior to the meeting:

Council believes that Thames Water is failing to clean up our rivers and replace creaking infrastructure. It also believes that it is an insult to residents that water companies are planning to increase water bills by up to 90% by 2030, whilst they have paid out billions of pounds to shareholders since 2010.

In our area, Thames Water and other water companies have failed to clean up our rivers. In Andoversford, 2000 hours of raw sewage was pumped into the River Coln in 2023.

Council hereby resolves to ask the Chair of Thames Water to come before the Environment Scrutiny committee to explain the reasons for the increase in bills.

It also asks the Leader to write to the incoming Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs calling for the Government to put Thames Water into special measures.

8.2       In proposing the motion, Cllr Hodgkinson referred to the UK as the ‘sewage capital of Europe’ where there had been an extensive increase of raw sewage being pumped directly into our rivers, lakes, and surrounding seas. At the same time, water company bosses and shareholders were being paid billions worth in bonuses and residents were the ones baring the cost through increased water bills. He expressed the view that this was unethical and a disgrace.

8.3       He stressed that in Andoversford, 2000 hours of raw sewage was pumped into the River Coln in 2023, Cotswold rivers alone experienced 3 times as many hours of pollution spilling in 2023 compared to 2022. In addition, he stressed that this action by water companies remained technically legal, although some recent law changes have tightened the rules, these did not go far enough and still allowed water companies to pump excessive amounts of sewage into our rivers.

8.4       Cllr Hodgkinson felt that the Water Services Regulation Authority, Ofwat, was not robust enough to tackle the challenge, and they were now being asked by Thames Water, for example, to increase residents’ bills in order to continue to pay billions in shareholder payouts. In the current cost of living crisis, this was an unacceptable situation for service users, and he hoped all members would support this motion today.

8.5       Cllr Spivey as seconder reserved her right to speak.

8.6       Several members spoke in favour of the motion. They referenced the current behaviour of the local water companies as ‘disgraceful’ and a ‘scandal’. They reiterated comments around the lack of funding for the Environment Agency and Natural England who were no longer able to carry out effective monitoring of pollutants. Members spoke of their concerns around water company profits being paid out in their billions since the companies were privatised, whilst residents were left to ‘shoulder’ the investment and maintenance costs through increased bills.

8.7       A member referenced the recent Great UK  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Up to 45 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 was 10am on Monday, 17 June 2024.

However, questions that relate to reports on the agenda may be submitted up to 10am on Wednesday, 19 June 2024.

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.

As background information, the Cabinet Member Decision Statements over the period 14 May 2024 to 17 June 2024 are available on the GCC website:

, 14 May 2024 - 17 June 2024 (gloucestershire.gov.uk)

Twenty-two member questions were submitted prior to the meeting. The following supplementary questions were asked:

Question 1 – Cllr Andrew Miller asked whether the Cabinet Member would work with district councils and the Police to minimise distress amongst residents in the future.

Cllr Mark Hawthorne advised that he had met with the relevant Council department to discuss how they could work more collaboratively with the Police and district councils. They would be working over the coming months to act as ‘one system’ across Gloucestershire.

Question 2 – Cllr Jeremy Hilton asked how the Cabinet Member could claim that substantial parking enforcement was taking place in Kingsholm, when just 10 hours a day were being enforced in an area close to the city centre. He suggested that the number of enforcement hours should be increased to ensure people did not flout parking regulations, given that a large number of households in the area were now paying for parking permits.

Cllr Dom Morris responded that he took a different view of the resources being allocated to enforcement in the area, however he would be happy to have a conversation with the member on the results following this meeting.

Question 4 – Cllr Hilton stated that according to his calculations, the Council was making a profit from the Kingsholm resident parking permit scheme and queried whether this was correct.

Cllr Morris claimed that Cllr Hilton’s calculations were incorrect and explained that any additional income was funded back into Highways.

Question 6 – Cllr Roger Whyborn sought clarification as to how the funds for the scheme had only just become available. He also requested that work due to be completed outside the school as part of the scheme be completed during the school summer holidays.

Cllr Dave Norman agreed that this would be a sensible approach if feasible and that he would discuss this with officers. With regards to the funding for the scheme, Cllr Norman clarified that S106 money had been allocated for the development of the Hatherley Safer Streets Scheme. Once that funding had been received, they could progress with the works.

Question 7 – Cllr David Willingham queried how officers managed to overstate these figures in a formal representation, and asked what checks and balances were now in place to ensure that accurate data would be presented to planning authorities in the future.

Cllr Morris apologised on behalf of the Highways Team for the incorrect figures and advised that he would be seeking assurances from the team regarding checks and balances going forward.

Question 8 – Cllr Willingham asked why there had been no intervention until such a serious arson happened. He requested that a suitably redacted version of the report which would be presented at the Gloucestershire Safeguarding Adults Board in September be made publicly available.

Cllr Stephan Fifield agreed to look into whether this would be possible.

Questions 10 and 11 – Cllr Willingham sought assurance that there would be improved dialogue between the County Council and district councils,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

10.1    The report was noted.

10.2    Cllr Jeremy Hilton, Chair of the Fire and Rescue Scrutiny Committee, highlighted the report at Annex 1 which gave a summary of the Committee’s discussion in relation to the recent HMICFRS Inspection report.

10.3    Cllr Colin Hay highlighted to members that the Corporate Scrutiny Committee had received a cabinet response to the Rural Estate Task Group at its meeting in May. He reiterated his disappointment that Cabinet were unable to support recommendations around increasing the Estate’s acreage.

11.1    Cllr Mark Hawthorne, Chair of the Constitution Committee, presented the report to Council.

11.2    In addition to the proposed amendments to the Scrutiny Terms of Reference in Item 1, Cllr Jeremy Hilton, Chair of the Fire and Rescue Scrutiny Committee, proposed that the responsibility for scrutinising trading standards and coroners moved from Adult Social Care and Communities Scrutiny Committee (ASCCSC). This proposal was also supported by the Chair of the ASCCSC and would remove the requirement for the Chief Fire Officer to attend two different scrutiny meetings.

11.3    The Leader confirmed that this proposal was originally raised at the Constitution Committee meeting, where members agreed to support the proposal should both Chairs be comfortable with the change.

11.4    This proposal was accepted to form part of the recommendations for Item 1 of the report.

11.5    In reference to Item 2, a member noted that the Gloucestershire Economic Strategy was supported by an Action Plan and queried where the responsibility to scrutinise this would lie. It was advised that the newly formed Gloucestershire Economic Strategy Scrutiny Committee (GESSC) was responsible for scrutinising the joint, partnership work of the City Region Board.

11.6    It remained the right of each individual authority to also act independently of the Strategy, and therefore any economic growth issues/actions arising which were specifically for Gloucestershire County Council would be scrutinised by the Environment Scrutiny Committee. The Leader agreed with a suggestion that the Terms of Reference of the new GESSC were reviewed, following a suitable period of embedding, to ensure items were being considered at the correct committee.

11.7    On being put to the vote it was

RESOLVED that the recommendations as set out in the Constitution Committee report, in addition to the proposal agreed at 11.2 above, be approved.

11.8    Post meeting note: The membership of the ASCCSC in Annex 1 of the report was detailed as 11, this was incorrect and has been corrected to 9.

12.1    Cllr Mark Hawthorne proposed Cllr Matt Babbage as Chair of the Gloucestershire Economic Strategy Scrutiny Committee. This was seconded by Cllr Lynden Stowe.

12.2    Cllr Lisa Spivey proposed Cllr Paul Baker as Vice-Chair of the Gloucestershire Economic Strategy Scrutiny Committee. This was seconded by Cllr Ben Evans.

RESOLVED

a)    To appoint Cllr Matt Babbage as Chair and Cllr Paul Baker as Vice-Chair of the Gloucestershire Economic Strategy Scrutiny Committee.

b)    To appoint the following membership to the Gloucestershire Economic Strategy Scrutiny Committee: