Agenda item

Motions

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’.

Minutes:

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 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 area and alternative arrangements would need to put in place. GFRS would not remain viable over a smaller area so would need to merge with a neighbouring area. Currently, GFRS shared back office with other County Council departments and the Chief Fire Officer was responsible for managing a range of other services including ICT, Trading Standards, the Road Safety Partnership, Registration and Emergency Planning.

Cllr Iain Dobie, Chair of the Health and Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee, referred to the potential impact on the health and social care system of Cotswold breaking away from the county. He said that Gloucestershire was one of the best performing areas nationally in terms of delayed transfers of care (commonly referred to as ‘bed blocking’). By comparison, Oxfordshire was one of the worst performing areas and this could have a serious impact on residents of the Cotswold area when they were being discharged from Gloucester Royal Hospital and Cheltenham General Hospital.

Cllr Joe Harris, a member of Cotswold District Council, said that it had been a disgraceful process. The proposal had been put forward by the Leader of Cotswold District Council without any engagement with others, including fellow district councillors. He stated that the people of the Cotswolds did not relate to the West Oxfordshire area and their links were to Gloucestershire.

Cllr Shaun Parsons, also a member of Cotswold District Council, explained that the Cotswolds looked towards Gloucestershire and the Vale. He could see no value in the merger of Cotswold and West Oxfordshire to form a unitary authority. He said that it was apparent that there was a lack of understanding about the services provided by the County Council. He noted that the annual budget for Cotswold District Council amounted to around £11 million compared to a budget of over £400 million for Gloucestershire County Council. He believed that the wider debate on the proposal provided an opportunity to inform the public about the range and complexity of the services provided by the County Council.

Cllr Mark Hawthorne, Leader of the Council, stated that the campaign would be won in the towns and villages of the Cotswolds by allowing local people to have a voice. The key tests for devolution were that it should improve the delivery of services, recognise the interests of local people and secure effective and efficient local government. He believed that the proposal clearly did not meet these tests. Gloucestershire with the benefits of coterminous boundaries for the delivery of public services was well placed to take devolution forward. By working together Gloucestershire could deliver better services for its residents.

Cllr Ray Theodoulou, a member of Cotswold District Council, recognised that joint working at district council level between Cotswold and West Oxfordshire had been effective but that did not mean that county-wide services should be delivered in the same way.

Another member stated that there had been tensions between Oxfordshire County Council and the districts within the county for many years and these had now come to a head. He did not believe, however, that the Cotswold area should form part of the solution to difficulties being encountered in another county.

Cllr Nigel Robbins, a member of Cotswold District Council, spoke strongly against the proposal. He believed that it would in effect create a ‘gated community’ for wealthy and prosperous people.

Cllr Chris Coleman, a Cabinet Member at Cheltenham Borough Council, stated that the Chief Executive of Cotswold and West Oxfordshire had repeatedly told Cheltenham members about the importance of trust in developing the 20:20 Partnership between Cotswold, West Oxfordshire, Forest of Dean and Cheltenham. He was seriously concerned about the way in which the unitary proposal had been put forward and he said that he was calling for a review of the governance of the 20:20 process at Cheltenham Borough Council.

A number of members believed that the Leader of Cotswold District Council should make a presentation to county councillors to explain why he had put forward the proposals.

Cllr Williams and Cllr Kirby accepted the following amendment proposed by Cllr Hawthorne and Cllr Theodoulou (refer to the scored through and shaded text):

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 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.~~

This Council agrees to hold a members’ seminar to discuss the proposals once they are available in detail. This would be open to the public.

In summing up, Cllr Lesley Williams stated that everyone should stand together and unite against the proposal. She hoped that Cllr Lynden Stowe in his role as Leader of Cotswold District Council would attend the seminar, which would be open to members of the public.

On being put to a recorded vote, it was

RESOLVED that

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 agrees to hold a members’ seminar to discuss the proposals once they are available in detail. This would be open to the public.

The voting was as follows:

For (49): Cllrs Phil Awford, Dorcas Binns, Rob Bird, Tony Blackburn, David Brown, Jason Bullingham, Chris Coleman, Dr John Cordwell, Iain Dobie, Bernard Fisher, Jasminder Gill, Andrew Gravells, Colin Guyton, Tim Harman, Joe Harris, Mark Hawthorne, Colin Hay, Tony Hicks, Jeremy Hilton, Paul Hodgkinson, Barry Kirby, Sarah Lunnon, Steve Lydon, Steve McHale, Paul McLain, Paul McMahon, Tracy Millard, Patrick Molyneux, Nigel Moor, Graham Morgan, Brian Oosthuysen, Shaun Parsons, Alan Preest, Nigel Robbins, Brian Robinson, Vernon Smith, Klara Sudbury, Mike Sztymiak, Ray Theodoulou, Brian Tipper, Pam Tracey, Robert Vines, Stan Waddington, Simon Wheeler, Kathy Williams, Lesley Williams, Suzanne Williams, Roger Wilson and Will Windsor-Clive.

Against (0)

Abstentions (1): Cllr Richard Leppington

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.

In moving the motion, Cllr Klara Sudbury noted the value of urban trees in towns such as Cheltenham. Trees benefited the local environment but it was important that they were maintained properly and stumps were removed as necessary. Residents expected trees to be cut back when necessary and removed and replaced if they became too big. She said that through lack of maintenance trees were causing damage to houses and roots were breaking through pavements. Although she had encountered difficulties in getting work on trees undertaken, she was pleased that officers had responded promptly to a request for a tree to be planted in a green area in her division.

It was noted that there were 8,000 trees in Cheltenham and 3,000 trees in Gloucester. Members were concerned that they were not being kept informed of tree maintenance activities within their divisions. Work was often undertaken with no reference to the local member. The problems were compounded by confusion over who was responsible for tree maintenance in some localities.

Cllr Joe Harris referred to the problems that had been caused in Cirencester with tree stumps left that were not only unsightly but also dangerous. He was particularly concerned about a particular stump outside a school in Victoria Road in Cirencester which had still not been taken out a year after the tree had been removed. He placed on record his thanks to two residents of the town, David Ryan-Ainslie and Monika Benz, who had campaigned for trees to be replaced in the town.

A member noted that trees were an important part of sustainable urban drainage schemes (SUDS) and said that their role should not be overlooked in flood management.

Cllr Vernon Smith, Cabinet Member for Highways and Flood, stated that the main responsibility of the highways authority was safety of the road network. He believed that there might be opportunities through the devolution process to work with the district councils on tree maintenance. He said that members could use their Highways Local funding for tree maintenance. He noted that tree stumps were a particular problem and extensive work was often required to remove larger stumps as there was a danger of damage to underground cables and pipes.

In seconding the motion, Cllr Bernard Fisher stated that some of the trees in Cheltenham were more than 200 years old. He said that they were of great value to urban environments: cleaning the air, purifying water and providing shelter for roads. He believed that if the trees in the town were maintained better their life could be extended. He was concerned that some highway officers did not seem to recognise their value and opposed the planting of new trees.

After a short adjournment, Cllr Sudbury and Cllr Fisher accepted the following amendment to the final paragraph of the motion:

In summing up, Cllr Sudbury said that she had tried to use some of her Highways Local funding to get work undertaken on trees in her division but had been advised that she could not use it for that purpose. She was anxious that this was looked into further. She believed that the Highways Advisory Group was well placed to undertake a review of highway trees maintenance. She stated that she had reluctantly accepted the amendment for the action plan to go back to the Environment and Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee. She requested that members representing divisions in Cheltenham be invited to go along to the meeting when the action plan was presented.

On being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED

That 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.

That 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 the Environment and Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee with a positive action plan.

MOTION 767 – Sugar and Obesity Strategy

The following motion was withdrawn by the proposer and seconder, Cllr Steve Lydon and 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.