Agenda item

Up to 30 minutes is allowed for this item.

 

Written questions

 

To answer any written questions from a County Councillor, (or any person living or working in the county, or is affected by the work of the County Council), about any matter which relates to any item on the agenda for this meeting.

 

The closing date for the receipt of written questions is 4.00 pm on Thursday 21 January 2021.

 

Please submit any questions to stephen.bace@gloucestershire.gov.uk

 

A written answer will be provided for each written question received (to be presented to the questioner and to Cabinet (in advance of the meeting). The questions and answers will be taken as read and will not be read out at the meeting. At the discretion of the Leader of Council, each questioner ( in attendance at the meeting) will be allowed to ask one supplementary question (in response to the answer given to the original question).

 

A copy of all written questions and written answers circulated at the meeting will be attached to the signed copy of the minutes of the meeting.

 

Urgent questions

 

An urgent written question may be asked by a member of the public about any item on the Cabinet agenda for that meeting which the Chairperson considers could not have been reasonably submitted by the deadline for the receipt of written questions, provided he or she gives notice of the question to the Chief Executive by 12 noon the day before the meeting.

A total of 8 public questions and 19 member questions were submitted for consideration in advance of the meeting.

 

The following supplementary questions were asked at the meeting.

 

Question 1: Chloe Turner asked if clarification could be given that the target date for carbon neutrality was 2045 as different answers had been given to questions. She asked whether in the week that global ice sheets were seen retreating in line with worst case scenarios this was the appropriate response.

 

Response by: Cllr Nigel Moor (Cabinet Member Environment and Planning)

 

It was clarified that the target should be 2045 and that the member felt that this was an appropriate response, noting the Council’s own commitment to being carbon neutral in 2021.

 

 

Question 3: Max Wilkinson asked if the member could explain the disconnect between the LTP and Gear Change report and why the Cheltenham cycle network was not being taken forward.

 

Response by: Cllr Nigel Moor (Cabinet Member Environment and Planning)

 

It was outlined that the priority was for the Gloucester Cheltenham cycleway,  but that did not exclude further work in future years.

 

 

Question 5: Karl Hobley asked for clarification of  whether the concept of a joined up cycle network for Cheltenham had been taken forward in the LTP.

 

Response by: Cllr Nigel Moor (Cabinet Member Environment and Planning)

 

The member explained that while this was a future priority, the priority for 2021 was related to the cycleways detailed in the report.

 

 

Question 6: Karl Hobley asked whether it was correct that none of the existing infrastructure complied with standards set out in the Government’s Gear Change report.

 

Response by: Cllr Nigel Moor (Cabinet Member Environment and Planning)

The member stated that the first phase of Gloucester to Cheltenham cycleway development did comply with that report. He made a public commitment to start on the next phase over the coming summer.

 

Question 7: Karl Hobley asked would the member commit to work with the districts relating to school street schemes where community and school support could be demonstrated?

 

Response by: Cllr Nigel Moor (Cabinet Member Environment and Planning)

 

The member gave that commitment outlining that trials were currently running and evidence from that would be evaluated. He said that the Council was seeing the value of wide spread consultation with districts and local communities.

 

Question 8: Carol Kambites asked, if Stroudwater was to be considered alongside other options could that be reflected in the Stroud district part of the LTP?

 

Response by: Cllr Nigel Moor (Cabinet Member Environment and Planning)

 

The member understood the strong support but stated that he could not prejudge the work being done. He would not give a view until the conclusion of the robust assessment work being carried out.

 

 

Question 1: Cllr Phil Awford asked whether consideration would be given to working with English Severn and Wye Regional Flood and Coastal Committee to look at future opportunities to alleviate flooding.

 

Response by: Cllr Nigel Moor (Cabinet Member Environment and Planning)

 

The member gave that commitment.

 

 

Question 2: Cllr Iain Dobie asked whether he could conclude that zero trees had been planted against the one million target?

 

Response by: Cllr Nigel Moor (Cabinet Member Environment and Planning)

 

The Cabinet Member would provide Cllr Dobie with a figure and outlined that he had been working with Gloucestershire Nature Partnership and would share the nature of that work in due course.

 

 

Question 6: Cllr Iain Dobie asked if the member could share full feedback from Department for Transport as to why the Council’s bid was unsuccessful.

 

Response by: Cllr Nigel Moor (Cabinet Member Environment and Planning)

 

The Cabinet Member was happy to share the feedback with the member.

 

Question 7: Cllr Iain Dobie asked how much money would the County Council allocate to realise active travel schemes  that had passed the prioritisation process.

 

Response by: Cllr Nigel Moor (Cabinet Member Environment and Planning)

 

Cllr Moor stated that the Council would continue to bid at every opportunity to take forward those schemes.

 

Question 8: Cllr Iain Dobie asked whether there would be any funding for unsuccessful active travel schemes?

 

Response by: Cllr Nigel Moor (Cabinet Member Environment and Planning)

 

The Cabinet Member explained that the priority was to start the next phase of the Gloucester to Cheltenham scheme, which was a commitment of over £10 million. Following that other schemes would be explored as funding opportunities become apparent.

 

Question 9: Cllr Iain Dobie stated that the Council would not fund a ‘shovel ready’ scheme in his division, as well as not committing to priority schemes, or additional active travel schemes. He asked if the member was embarrassed by how little the administration was giving to active travel.

 

Response by: Cllr Nigel Moor (Cabinet Member Environment and Planning)

 

The Cabinet Member reiterated that the Gloucester to Cheltenham scheme amounted to over £10million investment and suggested that the Member’s scheme was not ‘shovel ready;  and still had issues to resolve.

 

Question 10: Cllr Iain Dobie outlined that at the Joint Health and Care Scrutiny  and Adult Social Care and Communities Scrutiny meeting it had been proposed and agreed, that the Council would take the lead on compiling an account of how Gloucestershire had responded to the pandemic.  He asked if the County Council would also include how it had handled the first phase of that including the approach with care homes.

 

Response by: Cllr Tim Harman (Cabinet Member Public Health and Communities)

 

The Cabinet Member stated that the account would be looking at the whole picture. It had been noted at the meeting that there was an audit trail of reports that had come to scrutiny and cabinet throughout the period. He paid tribute to the amazing work carried out by the Council and NHS and stated that alongside that there would be lessons to be learned.

 

Question 11: Cllr Iain Dobie asked whether the Cabinet Member would share the results and conclusions of the latest version of the Containment and Outbreak Management Plan?

 

Response by: Cllr Tim Harman (Cabinet Member Public Health and Communities)

 

The Cabinet Member stated that he would share what he was able to more widely would be and noted the item on the agenda later in the meeting. He explained that the Council worked closely with partners and Districts as well as through the Engagement Board.

 

 

Question 12: Cllr Nigel Robbins asked whether more detailed figures could be provided in relation to adult social care savings. He stated that Annex 1.1 of the report did not provide figures. He asked for them in the new few days.

 

Response by: Cllr Carole Allaway Martin

 

The Cabinet Member stated that she hadn’t appreciated how little was in the document and that the additional breakdown list on the savings that had been provided to scrutiny members had been comparable with other directorates.  Many of the themes were still developing and when more information was available it would be provided.

 

 

Question 17: Cllr Nigel Robbins referred to specific reductions in the research fund in the HealthWatch contract  and asked for figures that would help members judge whether it had been providing good value for money and whether withdrawing funding had been a good decision or not?

 

Response by: Cllr Kathy Williams

 

More details would be provided. It was noted that staff were working in relation to the pandemic and so that was the priority, so the figures would be provided when they had an opportunity to do so.