Agenda item

Public 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 questions is 10am on Wednesday, 30 November 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.

Minutes:

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

 

Question 1 – David Willingham suggested that public money had been wasted and that there had been failures in the Section 106 processes and procedures. He asked whether the Cabinet Member could please advise what measures are in place to ensure that these precious pots of public money are spent on time and not squandered by being allowed to expire?

 

Cllr Nigel Moor explained that the Council was gaining £10m each year from S106. The situation referred to in the original question was regrettable and that it was a one off. Improvements had been identified.  

 

Question 2 – David Willingham suggested that by not providing data in the requested format that there were problems with accountability and transparency in respect of the funds. He asked whether the Cabinet Member could please advise what had been done to ensure that the management of the county’s Section 106 holdings was accountable to all. He suggested publishing a comprehensive Section 106 report on the Council’s website quarterly so that everyone can see what money was available for which schemes and by when it must be spent.

 

Cllr Nigel Moor explained that there were over 500 records. He agreed with the importance of transparency and stated that he would look into it.

 

Question 3 – David Willingham asked: ‘Would you be willing to support the Council looking into trialling ground penetrating radar technology on A and B roads in susceptible parts of Cheltenham and reaching out to academia or other partners to support research into the opportunities that new technologies such as ubiquitous sensors could bring to highways maintenance applications?

 

Cllr Vernon Smith stated that he thought some interesting points had been raised and stated that officers would liaise with him to get some more detail and look at ways that this might be moved forward.

 

Question 6 – David Willingham asked whether, if he provided officers with details of the inaccessible junctions within Arle Road that were currently missing drop-kerbs, work would be funded and carried out at the same time as the already programed resurfacing works?

 

Cllr Vernon Smith explained that each county councillor had a highways local budget. He stated that there was some unallocated funding that councillors had available and that if Mr Willingham worked with his local member and highways manager some of these issues might be able to be resolved.

 

Question 7 –  Owen Adams asked: ‘For the Council's Emerging Minerals Local Plan to be compatible with Paragraph 109 of the NPPF - to prevent development from contributing to soil, air, water or noise pollution, or land instability, plus Paragraphs 143 and 144 of the NPPF - to ensure mineral developments do not have unacceptable diverse impacts on the environment and human health - will the council adopt a precautionary approach in its Strategy for Oil & Gas and Policy MW06 and amend the draft Minerals Local Plan for Gloucestershire, to avoid rather than only minimise unacceptable impacts to prevent harm, before publication of the plan? He suggested that it be debate by full Council.

Cllr Nigel Moor stated that it was his view that this precautionary principle was embedded within the framework and that the Mineral’s Local Plan would go before an independent inspector that would test it against the paragraphs that the individual had referred to. The council had received a huge response to the MLP consultation. Officers were working through the responses and would publish a report in due course.

 

 

 

 

Supporting documents: