Agenda item

Questions at Cabinet Meetings

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 March 2024.


Please submit any questions to


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.


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


Question 1 – David Redgewell asked how the recently secured ZEBRA funding will support the required infrastructure such as, bus shelters.


Cllr Philip Robinson confirmed that discussions were taking place between himself, GCC officers and Cheltenham Borough Council and this remained a priority for investment as part of the wider Interchange Hub programme.


Question 2 – David Redgewell asked whether there had been any discussions with the Directors of Public Health at GCC and Gloucester City Council around any potential clean air zone issues.


Cllr Philip Robinson confirmed that there had certainly been discussions in relation to the Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) in Gloucester, as it was important within the ZEBRA bid to address AQMAs, but these had not gone as far as being able to quantify nitrous oxide reductions on specific routes.


Question 3 – David Redgewell asked whether legal agreements would be put in place to ensure the investment in zero emission vehicles remained a benefit for Gloucestershire and for example, the operator did not relocate the electric buses to other areas.


Cllr Philip Robinson confirmed that when funding arrangements were entered into with operators, these would reflect the necessary legal obligations.


Question 4 – David Redgewell, noting the installation of 16 Electric Vehicle chargers at the Bourton depot, asked whether this would include facilities for coaches visiting the area.


Cllr Philip Robinson reiterated the detail included in the written response and reconfirmed that there was currently no arrangement for coaches at this stage.


Question 5 – David Redgewell queried whether refreshments provision would be made available for coach services travelling out of hours and whether the bus network would be reconfigured to ensure it connected with the national coaches at Arle Court.


Cllr Philip Robinson emphasised that provision at Arle Court was in its infancy and would continue to develop. Officers would explore all options in terms of bringing together connections between national coaches and the local bus network. He recognised the issue raised around refreshment provisions and would pass the idea of a vending machine onto officers to explore.


Question 6 – David Redgewell asked what other bus priorities were being envisaged on this route.


Cllr Philip Robinson expected that there would be some provision along the A4019 which was associated with M5 Junction 10. He added that the bus service from Tewkesbury to Worcester was currently receiving little to no appetite from Worcestershire, but GCC officers were keen to continue to explore this.


Question 7 – David Redgewell queried whether a date would be set for the Bus Passenger Forum to meet prior to 12 June 2024 submission to the Secretary of State for Transport.


Cllr Philip Robinson unfortunately confirmed that this would not be possible due to the incredibly short timescale and the amount of work that would need to be completed prior to that deadline. He recognised the importance of the Forum as part of the new Enhanced Partnership and hoped it would meet as soon as possible. He also confirmed that there will be further consultation with one of the passenger groups prior to the 12 June deadline but not a wider Forum as suggested.


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


Question 9 – Cllr John Bloxsom queried why a ‘blanket approach’ was being taken to disclosing disposal information. He asked whether Cabinet could consider, wherever possible, sharing at least the identity of the asset in the public domain.


Cllr Lynden Stowe confirmed he would explore this suggestion with the legal department.


Question 10 – Cllr John Bloxsom asked how the public became informed of disposal decisions prior to the asset being put up for sale.


Cllr Lynden Stowe confirmed he would also explore this issue with the legal department.


Question 11 – Cllr John Bloxsom asked whether the Cabinet Member would consider pausing the disposal of Council Estate land at this time, considering a response was still being considered to the Rural Estate Task Group recommendations.


Cllr Lynden Stowe advised that there was sufficient time between identification of a disposal and disposal taking place, he was therefore comfortable to continue with the process but subject to the caveat of new additions from the Rural Estate not being disposed of until after the Task Group recommendations had been responded to.


Question 12 and 13 – Cllr Bloxsom, noting that tomorrow was the last day for Stroud Library operating at its current location, asked where the wider public consultation about future use of significant community assets was, as opposed to simply consideration of bids as referenced in the written response.


Cllr Lynden Stowe advised that the Council would always consider a genuine interest/offer from a community in regard to an asset up for disposal and would look to local members to raise these with Cabinet on behalf of their communities.

Supporting documents: