Agenda item

Executive Director's Report

The attached report is to be taken as read and members have 30 minutes allocated at the meeting to ask questions. Members are encouraged to pre-submit questions beforehand if they are able via Will Wheatley in Democratic Services.




7.1 Members had been encouraged to submit written questions in advance to assist officers with having the right information to hand. Written questions and written answers are attached as an appendix.

7.2 There was some discussion about Cabinet member attendance at scrutiny meetings.

ACTION – DSU to share clarification with the Committee membership.

7.3 In response to a question about section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funding, it was explained that there had been discussions between Local Authority Chief Executives and the conclusion was that all Local Authorities should work proactively and positively together. Simon Excell, Assistant Director of Planning and Economic Development GCC, was in the process of appointing two new officers in his section 106 team and they would be working to enhance engagement with all Districts to overcome future section 106 related difficulties. Cotswold District Council had set up a new bidding system for infrastructure providers to bid into the CIL pot and that was welcomed by the County Council. Similar systems were being explored and set up for the other Districts. It was highlighted that it was down to each District to decide what system they wanted.

7.4 There was further discussion over whether the CIL processes were being set up adequately and it was explained that the spirit of discussions was much better than it had been last year, and they would continue to work to improve relations.

7.5 in response to a question about Ash Die Back, it was explained that references to ‘treatment’ to Ash Die Back trees meant that the trees were felled.

7.6 In response to a question about waste management of tyres now they could no longer be brought to Household Recycling Centres, it was explained that tyres could be disposed of at garages or tyre dealerships.

7.7 In response to a question about the timescale for the rollout of the extension to the Honeybourne cycle path, it was explained that that was a Great Western Railway project and not operated by the County Council. However, officers’ understanding was that GWR were aiming for a late summer or early autumn completion. That said, it was their understanding that Department for Transport (DfT) approval was yet to be secured and contractors had not yet been appointed.

7.8 In response to a question about E-scooter trial evaluation, it was explained that there was ongoing evaluation from the DfT, and the e-scooter company Zwings were sending the DfT monthly reports on adherence to the DfT’s safety conditions.

ACTION – DSU to circulate data from the December DfT national evaluation of E-scooters and the Zwings customer evaluation survey with the published minutes.

7.9 In response to a question about the ‘Mini Holland’ scheme it was explained that feasibility work had been completed and a funding bid had been submitted to Active Travel England for funding for the whole project. There would be a further public engagement exercise once that funding had been secured.

7.10 There was also some discussion about the nature of the GEGSC meetings that were held at District and Borough Councils. There was uncertainty whether non-Committee Councillors of the hosting Authority were to be included in those meetings. Concern was also raised whether the location of this meeting had been sufficiently broadcast.

ACTION – DSU to clarify and update members about the involvement of non-Committee Councillors and to improve dissemination of information about meetings, particularly for the meetings held at District and Borough Councils.


Supporting documents: