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 25 January 2024.

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.

9 Public Questions were received. Supplementary questions were asked on the following:

Question 1 – David Redgewell asked what progress could be made between the County and City council to try to sort out the issues at Gloucester Transport Hub and improving the real time information provided.

Cllr Philip Robinson replied that the difficulties were ongoing and that he would speak to officers to ask for further communication from the City Council.

Question 4 – David Redgewell asked what work was being carried out with the real time information displays and whether there were plans to put those displays in place at Gloucester Railway and Bus Station and maintain the information displays at Cheltenham Spa.

Cllr Philip Robinson stated that there was a wider budget for the real time information system and that it was very much a part of the BSIP plan. The Cabinet Member would provide a more detailed response on the points raised. He noted that in some areas the Council was not responsible for the real time information, for example at the Railway Station. In regards to a possible sale of the Gloucester Transport Hub, he stated that he was not aware of anything relating to that.

Question 5 – David Redgewell stated that he was pleased to see money for bus shelters and asked what discussion had taken place with district councils to renovate and restore the rest of the County’s bus stations.

Cllr Philip Robinson referred to the Bus Improvement Scrutiny Task Group and outlined the wider discussion of all the interested bodies to make improvements. The Enhanced Partnership Board had met in the last week.

Question 6 – David Redgewell asked what meetings would take place with passenger groups.

Cllr Philip Robinson replied that there was a real emphasis on partnership and there had been a discussion at the Enhanced Partnership around how to engage with passenger groups and further discussion would be had on that.

Question 8 – David Redgewell asked what progress was being made on the projects outlined in his question on Cheltenham Spa with Western Gateway Transport Board, Stonehouse, Bristol Road and Charfield station. In addition, he highlighted that the 84/85 was an important bus service and asked what progress had been made on retendering that route?

Cllr Philip Robinson referred him to the written answer that had been provided to his initial question. Cllr Robinson added some additional specific details, stating that the business case had been submitted by Stroud District Council in conjunction with Stonehouse Town Council and the Council was awaiting on a decision. In relation to the Charfield site, he stated that the Council was being lobbied on that point and did contribute to that route, but was a relatively junior partner.  As discussions continued more information would be made available.

24 Member Questions were received. Supplementary questions were asked on the following:

Question 9 – Cllr Colin Hay suggested that the average cost for an authority to come out of a rating of ‘inadequate’ was over £100m which was more than the Council had budgeted for. He asked whether this explained why it had taken longer than it should have done to make improvements in Childrens Services?

Cllr Stephen Davies replied that £100m was an approximation and that they believed they had the right budget to do the job.

Question 10 - Cllr Colin Hay asked if the cabinet member agreed that the figure from Government was woefully inadequate and demonstrated the Government’s contempt for local government.

Cllr Lynden Stowe disagreed and replied that the Government had to manage its budget and that the Council had previously received generous settlements.

Question 11 – Cllr Colin Hay identified wages of council workers not increasing in line with inflation and asked whether the cabinet member would agree that they would be looking to be recompensated for that in the future.

Cllr Lynden Stowe replied that this was the Member’s personal view but reminded him that pay agreements were negotiated nationally.

Question 12 –  Cllr Colin Hay asked whether the Cabinet member agreed on the importance of equalities and diversity training and would he distance himself from the comments made by Secretary of State regarding ‘expenditure on discredited equalities training’.

Cllr Lynden Stowe replied that training on equalities and diversity was important but also needed to be kept in proportion. He suggested that in other authorities where a distorted emphasis on one area could lead to a lack of funding on service delivery.

Question 13 – Cllr Colin Hay asked  about the £45m deficit on the DSG and the increased deficit hidden by statutory override in the next two years.

Cllr Philip Robinson replied that the override was extended for another 3 years up to April 2026. He referred to the budget document that identified this as a risk and suggested that if the override was not extended then any deficit would need to be met. The deficit was much larger now and he highlighted that any removal of the override would have a significant impact across all Councils.

Question 15 – Cllr Jeremy Hilton referred to exit interviews carried out with staff and their concerns about IT equipment. He asked whether the information would be better collated in a format that allowed the data to be presented in a way that would show how many people might have concerns in an area such as IT.

Cllr Lynden Stowe replied that it was important that officers read each comment and built up a picture to act from.

Question 22 – Cllr Roger Whyborn asked would the cabinet member note that his question on the scrutiny task group recommendation covered a much wider area than the response he had been given. He hoped that the response to the report consider that.

Cllr Philip Robinson replied that the task group had taken time to put the report together and form recommendations and that it needed a well considered response and not a rushed one. Project Coral was well underway and the County Council had supported it. In relation to the Bus Services Improvement Plan, the progress would be monitored against the aims of the BSIP and not the recommendations of the task group.

Question 24 – Cllr Jeremy Hilton asked if it would be good to freeze parking fees for the next year.

Cllr Lynden Stowe replied that the member’s remarks were noted and outlined that the budget papers outlined the current thinking.