Winning through Co-Creation of Innovation Dr Mark Wareing Date: Dec 2012.
COUNTY COUNCIL · 2017-03-21 · Gibbs, Mr Ismail Ginwalla MBE, Mr Colin Greaves OBE JP, Mrs Sue...
Transcript of COUNTY COUNCIL · 2017-03-21 · Gibbs, Mr Ismail Ginwalla MBE, Mr Colin Greaves OBE JP, Mrs Sue...
- 1 -
COUNTY COUNCIL
DATE: Wednesday, 21 November 2012 TIME: 10.00am
VENUE: Council Chamber - Shire Hall, Gloucester
Present
Cllr Ron Allen
Cllr Dennis Andrewartha
Cllr Phil Awford
Cllr Basil Booth
Cllr John Burgess
Cllr Mike Collins
Cllr David Cooksley
Cllr John Cordwell
Cllr Bill Crowther
Cllr Barry Dare
Cllr Gerald Dee
Cllr Chas Fellows
Cllr Sonia Friend
Cllr Rob Garnham
Cllr Andrew Gravells
Cllr Terry Hale
Cllr Jackie Hall
Cllr Mark Hawthorne
Cllr Tony Hicks (Chairman)
Cllr Jeremy Hilton
Cllr Ceri Jones
Cllr Sarah Lunnon
Cllr Steve McHale
Cllr Fiona McKenzie
Cllr Paul McLain
Cllr Philip McLellan
Cllr Stephen McMillan
Cllr Graham Morgan
Cllr Joan Nash (Vice-Chair)
Cllr Brian Oosthuysen
Cllr Christopher Pallet
Cllr Shaun Parsons
Cllr Martin Quaile
Cllr Vic Rice
Cllr Brian Robinson
Cllr Charmian Sheppard
Cllr Mike Skinner
Cllr Duncan Smith
Cllr Vernon Smith
Cllr Lynden Stowe
Cllr Klara Sudbury
Cllr Mike Sztymiak
Cllr Ray Theodoulou
Cllr Brian Thornton
Cllr David Thorpe
Cllr Brian Tipper
Cllr Pam Tracey
Cllr Stan Waddington
Cllr Simon Wheeler
Cllr Kathy Williams
Cllr Lesley Williams
Cllr Mike Williams
Cllr Suzanne Williams
Cllr Will Windsor-Clive
Honorary Aldermen
Bill Hobman
Apologies: Cllr Tony Blackburn, Honorary Alderman Liz Boait, Cllr Peter Braidwood,
Honorary Alderman Albert Cook, Honorary Alderman Mavis Lady Dunrossil,
Cllr Terry Glastonbury, Cllr Diane Hibbert, Cllr Antonia Noble, Honorary
Alderman Terry Parker, Cllr David Prince, Honorary Alderman Maureen
Rutter, Cllr Gordon Shurmer, Cllr Robert Vines and Cllr Bill Whelan.
Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
- 2 -
81. MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting held on 5 September 2012 were confirmed and signed
as a correct record.
82. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
A copy of the declarations of interest is attached to the signed copy of the minutes.
83. ANNOUNCEMENTS
a) Gloucestershire Police Authority
The Chairman of the Council thanked the councillors and independent
members who had served on the Police Authority. Current serving councillors
were Ron Allen, Phil Awford, Bill Crowther, Barry Dare, Rob Garnham,
Stephen McMillan, Stan Waddington, Bill Whelan and Lesley Williams. The
independent members were Mrs Vera Clouston, Ms Ruth Fitzjohn, Dr Melanie
Gibbs, Mr Ismail Ginwalla MBE, Mr Colin Greaves OBE JP, Mrs Sue Naydorf
and Mr Guy Wareing.
Councillor Garnham, the outgoing Chairman of the Police Authority, thanked
the staff at Gloucestershire Constabulary and the Police Authority for their
efforts. He noted that there had been a significant reduction in crime over the
years with 45,000 reported crimes in 2007 compared to 35,000 this year. The
Police Authority had been particularly effective in engaging with the public and
had led the way nationally in a number of areas. There had been many
achievements and these included the sexual assault referral centre, the
Section 136 mental health suite, the Tri-Service Centre, the new Waterwells
Police Headquarters and being the first Police Authority to employ a youth
worker.
b) Gloucestershire Police and Crime Commissioner
The Chairman of the Council welcomed Martin Surl, the new Police and Crime
Commissioner, who would officially take up office on 22 November 2012.
Councillor Garnham, the outgoing Chairman of the Police Authority, wished
the new Commissioner and the new Police and Crime Panel all the best in
their new roles.
c) Olympic and Paralympics
The Chairman of the Council advised that he had attended two events to
celebrate the achievements of Gloucestershire Olympians and Paralympians.
The events had been held at the National Star College on 12 October 2012
Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
- 3 -
and at Cheltenham Race Course on 9 November 2012. He hoped that the
examples of high achievement and commitment could be taken forward in the
county as part of the Olympic and Paralympic legacy.
d) Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue Service (GFRS)
The GFRS Celebration of Achievements Ceremony would be held on
Thursday, 29 November 2012 at the new Gloucester South Community Fire
Station. The event was due to start at 7.20pm and guests would be given the
opportunity to see the innovative SkillZONE Life Skills Centre. All members
were welcome to attend. The programme included presentations for
particularly heroic acts, exceptional performance and long and dedicated
service. There would also be community awards presented to
Gloucestershire citizens for acts of exceptional bravery.
84. PUBLIC QUESTIONS
Twelve public questions were received. A copy of the questions and answers were
circulated and are attached to the signed copy of these minutes.
The following supplementary questions were asked:
Question 1 – Mary Newton asked:
If the County Council are to bring forward the planning application for the entire line
of the road as stated in reply to my written question, why are there 5 separate
planning applications lodged with Forest of Dean District Council instead of the
Gloucestershire County Council which includes the two junctions and each end of
the spine road one of which is an important junction with the A4136?
In response, Cllr Fellows stated that Forest of Dean is the planning authority that
would determine the application. Gloucestershire County Council was supporting
the Forest of Dean District Council with written reports and officer support.
Question 3 – Nick Berry asked:
Given that the leader recognises public benefits in avoiding a badger cull, I am
concerned that potential costs to the council arising from any cull have not been
fully factored into this debate by officers. DEFRA guidance sets out in section 6.2
annex F of their land management guidance that:
‘For the avoidance of doubt the Licence Holder and the Land Holders will jointly and
severally liable for any costs incurred as a result of an Event of Default.’
This clearly sets out that the County Council could become liable for additional
costs if any of their tenants went ahead with culling and then withdrew for some
Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
- 4 -
reason over the planned 4 year cull period. Given this potential liability why would
the council wish to consider exposing taxpayers to additional risks?
Cllr Hawthorne responded that legal advice had been taken and the advice was
that the Council would not be the land holder, as defined in the agreement;
therefore tax payers would not be exposed to additional risk.
Question 4 – Jeanne Berry asked:
Would the leader co-operate with a vaccination programme established by a
national animal welfare charity?
Cllr Hawthorne explained that there had previously been co-operation with
vaccination related studies in 2009 and that the Council would continue to
cooperate with such studies as was appropriate.
Question 6 – Alexa Forbes asked:
Cllr Hawthorne recognises the cull is a contentious issue. Would you agree that the
real possibility of fatal accidents involving members of the public makes the cull
against the public interest?
In response Cllr Hawthorne stated that this was for farmers, the police and national
government to consider.
Question 8 – David Priddis asked:
I am pleased that GCC will take full cognisance of the relevant wildlife legislation,
including the Habitats Directive. The Habitats Directive requires an objective
assessment that no alternative site exists.
In doing so, ‘economic criteria cannot be seen as overruling ecological criteria’ (Ref:
Habitats Directive Article 6(3)). In addition this article also says ‘It is member state’s
responsibility to consider alternative solutions, which could be located even in
different regions/countries’.
Clearly, there must be alternative development sites to the Northern Quarter at
Cinderford, either within Gloucestershire, or elsewhere, indeed alternative Spine
road routes were proposed for previous schemes, but the Forest of Dean District
Council has stated that for the current AAP these routes were no longer under
consideration as they were not commercially viable.
In view of the above, please confirm that the full habitats Directive Protocols,
including stages three and four, will be fully and properly re-assessed since the
Forest of Dean District Council has not, as required, demonstrated:
Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
- 5 -
That no alternative development site exists (Ref: Article 6(3))
That there are no imperative reasons of overriding public interest (Ref: Article 6(4))
Cllr Fellows reiterated that the County Council would act in accordance with the
rules and regulations appertaining to any work that was carried out on that site and
that it had been well documented and researched in the past.
Question 9 – Ian Richens asked:
What is the relevant threshold for a direct approach to contractors such as BPP and
does it not matter that they have knowledge of each other from a ‘previous life’? Is
this not cronyism and should we not have safeguards about giving jobs to ‘old
pals’?
Cllr Fellows responded that he did not think it was cronyism, that the consultants
were skilled and knowledgeable, and that he had every confidence that they would
perform highly and provide an unbiased approach assisting officers in compiling a
final report. A written response would be provided regarding the relevant threshold.
Question 10 – Gerald Hartley asked whether consideration could be given to
emailing out the answers to the public questions to questioners in advance of the
meeting. He then asked:
Given that Cllr Quaile is Chair of the Planning Committee, is it appropriate for him to
be telling me that the public can have confidence in changes in staffing of the
section that has to make recommendations to his committee? Should he not be
independent of events in this section?
Cllr Quaile stated that as Chair of the Planning Committee his job was to reassure
the community of the planning process.
Question 11 – Sue Oppenheimer asked:
There are clear guidelines for undertaking a reptile study and these have not been
followed. It appears that all the surveys were carried out in September and October
while guidelines require them to be done two weeks apart throughout the summer
months. Will the Council insist, therefore, on a proper study before considering the
Javelin Park planning application?
Cllr Quaile responded that he would pass on the detail to those handling the
application.
Question 12 – Sue Oppenheimer asked
Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
- 6 -
As Cllr Waddington clearly implies, around half of Gloucestershire’s population is
not in the Cheltenham and Gloucester corridor. For instance, Chipping Camden is
30 miles from a plant operating in Warwickshire which is operating under capacity,
and 40 miles from Javelin Park. I won’t bore you with a whole list, however, my
question relates to value for money. Is Cllr Waddington aware that residual waste
facilities already built or being built in Avonmouth, Cornwall and Birmingham have
or will cost around £25m to build and will charge between £50 and £70 a tonne to
process waste. I believe, though Cllr Waddington will probably say this information
is commercially confidential, that Javelin Park will cost many times more than this to
build and average gate fees for this kind of facility is £90 per tonne. Why is
Gloucestershire County Council going ahead with a project which is very bad value
for Gloucestershire tax payers?
Cllr Waddington responded that it was best value for Gloucestershire taxpayers.
The facility referred to at Avonmouth was a mechanical biological treatment facility
and it treated residual waste and did not dispose of it. When the additional cost of
shipping waste abroad and to landfill was taken into account the figure would be
higher.
Five oral questions were received:
Mary Newton asked:
There is a planning application for an incinerator at Javelin Park for over 100,000
tpa. For the examination in public into the waste core strategy, the consultant
modelled Javelin Park using the air model with the result that the incinerator is likely
to conflict with the Habitats directive. Bearing in mind the precautionary principle,
would Gloucestershire County Council require the applicant to undertake an air
modelling exercise for the proposed incinerator?
Cllr Hawthorne responded that a written response would be provided.
Charles Mann asked:
The proposed pilot badger control areas are not looking to establish where the
culling would reduce TB in cattle that is already proven, they are looking at the
effectiveness, safety and humaneness of free shooting. It must be born in mind that
free shooting, using similar high velocity rifles with night vision scopes and
moderators, is already being carried out on a nightly basis across the country, with
no public safety concerns, nor causing any animal welfare problems to the wildlife
and also licensed by the Police. As this policy of licensing to pilot cull areas is
government policy supported by government chief scientist and chief vet, is it right
Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
- 7 -
that this council should seek to deny its farming tenants the right to decide whether
or not to permit any proposed badger control to take place on their tenanted land?
Cllr Hawthorne responded that a number of valid points had been made that would
add to the debate the Council would be having further on in the agenda.
Nick Berry asked
The leader is refusing to openly agree to protect local farmers adjoining its non-
tenanted conservation land. The council could consider vaccinating its badgers in
the same way that Gloucestershire Wildlife trust and the National Trust are doing. Is
he not concerned that the potential impact on Gloucestershire’s rural economy
arising from this lack of a pro-active community leadership stance will damage his
personal reputation?
Cllr Hawthorne replied that he did not believe that was the case.
Jeanne Berry asked:
The leader has said, consistently, that culling badgers on County Council land has
nothing to do with the County Council, yet the Government’s policy on Bovine TB
and badger control in England section 5.25 states that ‘where land is tenanted, the
freeholders, owners, or landlords, must generally also sign an undertaking agreeing
to permit access to the land for culling including the government. The main report
and the queens counsel submission make no reference to this DEFRA requirement
nor its implications for the Council. Why has this requirement on the Council, not
been identified in the report or in the QC evidence given that it may influence
members in their decision making on this issue.
Cllr Hawthorne responded that advice had been sought from Natural England and
had been advised that it is not a requirement for the landlord to be involved in any
culling agreement.
Alexa Forbes asked:
Given the clear scientific evidence of eminent scientists against the effectiveness of
the cull, and the risks of increasing the spread of Bovine TB, does the leader
therefore agree that a no cull policy and a recommendation supporting vaccination
would have a much move positive impact of controlling Bovine TB in
Gloucestershire cattle and wildlife?
Cllr Hawthorne replied that this was a matter best taken up by DEFRA and national
government.
Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
- 8 -
85. MEMBERS' QUESTIONS ON POLICE AUTHORITY MATTERS
No questions were received. The Police and Crime Commissioner officially took up
office on 22 November 2012 and in future questions would need to be addressed to
the commissioner’s office.
86. MEMBERS' QUESTIONS
Thirty seven questions from members had been received. A copy of the answers
was circulated and is attached to the signed copy of the minutes.
The following supplementary questions were asked:
Question 1 – Cllr Lunnon asked whether the cabinet member would ask officers to
pull together a report regarding the public health benefit and costs of providing a
free nutritious breakfast, including fresh fruit, at all of the County’s schools to help
tackle the public health issue of food poverty.
Cllr Hall replied that 41% of schools offered a breakfast club and that there was a
‘Healthy Schools Partnership’ that went to schools and looked to influence them
regarding better nutrition and dietary controls. While a report could be asked for, it
was unclear what the benefits of this would be and she would discuss this further
with Cllr Lunnon after the meeting.
Question 2 – Cllr Lunnon stated that the cabinet member’s answer suggested that
waste from outside of Gloucestershire boundaries was seen as the answer to fill in
the capacity gap at Javelin Park. Waste industry experts predicted over capacity in
the South West region by 2016. She asked, what was the Cabinet Member’s
response to the decision relating to the energy from waste decision at Middlewich in
Cheshire, at which the secretary of state agreed with inspectors’ comments that
‘granting too many permissions and relying on the market to manage the outcome
of an oversupply of residual waste facilities was the antiphrasis of sustainable
waste planning’? She suggested that those regional planning issues could not be
dealt with at County level where there was no evidence of discussion taking place
regarding potentially available capacity at a regional level.
Cllr Fellows responded that a written response would be provided to the question.
Question 3 – Cllr Lunnon asked that, given the Global warming impact of the
Javelin Park facility was greater than the use of any cleaning technology, and the
huge concern around the likely emissions, would the waste champion provide
Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
- 9 -
assurance that the technology used would be the one which provided the cleanest
flue gas emissions?
Cllr Waddington replied that the best technology has been chosen following
analysis.
Question 4 – Cllr Hilton asked how many days work had been allocated for the
Javelin Park planning application as part of the contract with BPP and how much
was the contingency sum.
Cllr Fellows responded that a written response would be provided to the question.
Question 5 – Cllr Hilton asked why Gloucester had £6 million of capital highways
expenditure less than Cheltenham over 5 years?
In response, Cllr Fellows explained that the capital spend was appropriately spread
across the whole County and divided in accordance with the need.
Question 7 – Cllr Hilton referred to the value of the Kingsholm Community
Archaeological Dig and asked how much in cash terms the pension liability and
redundancy liability mentioned in the answer would be and how many staff would it
impact upon?
Cllr Fellows responded that the majority of the staff reductions would be through
natural wastage and that a full run down of those costs would be provided. With
regards to the work that had been carried out, there was more than enough
expertise in the private sector to carry out this work.
Question 11 – Cllr Hilton asked for the overall basic salary budget for 128
Gloucestershire County Council staff paid below that the Living Wage salary for the
year.
Cllr Theodoulou replied that the figures would be provided
Question 20 – Cllr Collins asked whether it would be better to provide a bigger
budget in the region of £5m for highways priorities as opposed to the £10,000
allocated to each County Councillor which only dealt with the ‘tip of the iceberg’.
Cllr Will Windsor-Clive stated the money that had been provided could be used to
great benefit.
Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
- 10 -
Question 22 – Cllr Collins expressed concern around poor project management
around member ICT and asked why he was without the use of ICT for a long period
of time.
In response, Cllr Theodoulou stated that great efforts had been made to provide Cllr
Collins with the service. The importance of members having ICT access was
recognised and continued efforts would be made within limited financial resources.
Question 23 – Cllr Collins questioned why the Chair of Planning Committee was
answering the question and asked why an additional £40,000 plus VAT was spent
and if that was good used of public money?
Cllr Quaile responded that it was a cabinet decision.
Question 24 – Cllr Collins asked whether there should have been a wait for better
qualified experts to provide better value for money.
Cllr Fellows responded that experts used were independent, had the expertise and
would add value to the evidence in the report when received by the Planning
Committee.
Question 26 – Cllr Collins asked whether planning experts appointed by the council
should have a longer track record.
Cllr Fellows responded that the members of the organisation had been involved in
Planning for many years collectively.
Question 27 – Cllr Collins asked for a list of individuals’ names of the people who
would be working for BPP Consulting in case he had heard of them.
Cllr Fellows suggested that Cllr Collins research the names himself.
Question 28 – Cllr Collins asked a question regarding the planning application of
Javelin Park. The Chief executive reminded members not to prejudge any planning
issue to be considered by the Planning Committee.
Question 29 – Cllr Oosthuysen asked whether, if serious about moving
Gloucestershire out of the recession, the Council should use the increase to a living
wage to increase economic growth and show the Council to be a good employer.
Cllr Theodoulou stated that this was a matter that was being looked at but any
increase in costs would have to taken from reductions elsewhere.
Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
- 11 -
Question 33 – Cllr Jones asked whether enough was being done to capture the
views of non-union staff.
Cllr Theodoulou replied that he believed mechanisms were in place to allow non-
union staff to be consulted.
Question 34 – Cllr Jones asked for the timescale for the completion of the section
106 review.
Cllr Fellows responded that he could not give a timescale and that the officers had
a heavy workload. The review was ongoing and would come back to scrutiny before
the final decision was made.
Question 35 – Cllr Jones asked to be told precisely which divisions the ‘best
practice’ mentioned in the answer had been delivered in.
Cllr Will Windsor-Clive stated that it had been delivered in many divisions although
he did not have the specific details to hand. The endeavour of the County was Fix
First Time.
Question 36 – Cllr Jones asked whether, with regards to Section 106 provisions,
County Councillors would be involved in discussions relating to any distributions in
their divisions.
Cllr Theodoulou replied that the review would cover that matter as well as other
complex matters. It was hoped that at the end of the review that individual
councillors felt that their views had been taken into account.
Question 37 – Cllr Lunnon asked whether members would get to see the
Gloucestershire County Council response to the Parliamentary Select Committee
regarding the investigation of the current proposal for a Severn Barrage from Cardiff
to Weston.
In response Cllr Fellows confirmed it would be sent to all members.
87. PETITIONS
The following petitions were presented:
a) Councillor Garnham - to reconsider installing residents’ parking around the
Ashford Road area in Cheltenham.
b) Councillor Stowe – concern regarding the speed of traffic in Park Road,
Blockley.
Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
- 12 -
c) Councillor Sztymiak - parking enforcement issues in Tewkesbury.
88. RECOMMENDATION FROM THE BUDGET AND PERFORMANCE OVERVIEW
AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
At the meeting of the Budget and Performance Overview and Scrutiny Committee
held on 26 September 2012, it was resolved:
To recommend that the Council reviews its policy regarding Rural Practices and
Procedures.
At the start of the debate, the Chairman of the Council invited the Chief Executive to
provide some guidance on the actions that full Council could take in relation to the
Rural Practices and Procedures Policy. The Chief Executive explained that Council
could debate the issues and make recommendations to the Cabinet, but within the
terms of the existing policy framework, only Cabinet had the authority to make
changes to the policy. The Council could therefore not itself agree to review the
policy.
Councillor Andrewartha, the Chairman of the Budget and Performance Overview
and Scrutiny Committee, provided details of the petition signed by 779 people that
had been presented to the committee. He said that evidence had been given by
the lead petitioner and a senior Council officer. He recognised that there were a
broad range of opinions on the issue and he felt that it was right and proper for a
debate to be held by full Council.
The Chairman of the Council then invited the Leader of the Council to make
proposal that could be debated by members. The Leader of the Council proposed
and Cllr McMillan seconded the following proposal:
This Council
a) Recognises the devastating impact that Bovine Tuberculosis can have on
farmers, livestock and communities.
b) Acknowledges that there are strong views on either side of the debate about
the appropriateness of the Government’s proposed trial badger cull.
c) Neither supports, nor opposes the Government’s policy.
d) Notes the clear legal advice that the Council cannot modify existing
tenancies and, therefore, can have no effect on the proposed trial cull.
e) Notes the Council’s current policy, proposed by Councillor Crowther in 1999,
which gives discretion to tenant farmers to choose whether or not to
participate in any cull.
f) Upholds that policy.
Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
- 13 -
The Leader of the Council stated that the matter under consideration related to the
terms of the tenancy agreement with tenant farmers under the Rural Practices and
Procedures Policy. He said that the Council did not have the expertise to make a
judgement on the badger cull. He noted that nationally the Liberal Democrat Party
had previously indicated that they were supportive of the badger culling. He
believed that it was wrong for the Council to remove the rights of tenant farmers to
decide what was best for their land. In any event, he noted that the Council could
not impose a culling ban on current tenancy agreements.
Councillor Sudbury proposed and Cllr Hilton seconded the following amendment to
the motion (deleted sections highlighted and changes shown in italics):
a) Recognises the devastating impact that Bovine Tuberculosis can have on
farmers, livestock and communities.
b) Acknowledges that there are strong views on either side of the debate about
the appropriateness of the Government’s proposed trial badger cull.
c) Neither supports, nor opposes the Government’s policy.
d) Notes the clear legal advice that the Council cannot modify existing
tenancies, but can review its policies in relation to future tenancies.
e) Notes the Council’s current policy dates back as far as 1999.
f) Upholds that policy.
g) Recommends that Cabinet follows appropriate procedures and reviews its
policy, particularly in respect to where the County Council owned land is not
currently let.
h) Asks Cabinet to include a break clause within all future individual
agreements of such land and a stipulation to prohibit future tenants from
participating in any forms of badger culling on their holding.
Answering a question, the Chief Executive explained that Natural England had
advised that the landlord was not required to sign the culling agreement where a
tenant had the right to occupy the land for five years or more, or four years in
exceptional circumstances and where proof of tenancy agreement was available.
The Council had 117 tenancies and on average just over 5 per cent of the land (460
acres) came up for renewal each year.
Speaking to the amendment, Councillor Sudbury reminded members that the
current policy dated back to 1999 and a great deal of new information had come to
light since then. She believed that it was right and proper that the Council should
ask the Cabinet to review its Rural Practices and Procedures Policy. She said that
independent scientific studies indicated that culling badgers would not be effective
and might even result in an increase in the incidence of Bovine Tuberculosis as
badgers were inclined to range over wider areas. She noted that there were much
more effective means of controlling Bovine Tuberculosis such as vaccination. She
Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
- 14 -
explained that she had received information from Defra that indicated that the cull
should continue on land where tenant farmers gave up their tenancies within the
five year agreement.
A number of members spoke strongly against the amendment. They noted that
Defra employed experts to protect the food chain and it was wrong for the Council
to get involved in the debate on the badger cull. They believed that the Council
would be discriminating against tenant farmers if it imposed a condition on them not
to participate in the badger cull. This might leave the Council open to a legal
challenge. They suggested that the Council would be better served looking at the
issues where it could make a difference to local people – fixing local roads, looking
after vulnerable adults and children and keeping the cost of council tax down.
Other members spoke strongly in support of the amendment. They noted that it
had been 13 years since the policy regarding badger culling had been adopted. A
great deal of new information was now available which indicated that a cull was not
the best approach. There were real concerns regarding public safety with high
velocity rifles being used at night. They did not believe that a ban on culling would
discriminate against tenant farmers and referred to the ban already in place on
growing GM modified crops.
In seconding the amendment, Councillor Hilton believed that it was right and proper
for the Council to send a clear message to the Government that badger culling was
unacceptable by including an appropriate clause in future tenancy agreements. He
said that Liberal Democrats in Gloucestershire had already indicated that they did
not support the cull and the policy was shortly due to be considered by Liberal
Democrats in the South West.
On being put to a recorded vote, the amendment was lost. The voting was as
follows:
For (16) – Councillors Collins, Crowther, Hilton, Jones, Lunnon, McHale, McLellan,
Morgan, Oosthuysen, Sheppard, Skinner, Sudbury, Sztymiak, Wheeler, Lesley
Williams and Suzanne Williams
Against (32) – Councillors Allen, Awford, Booth, Burgess, Cooksley, Dee, Fellows,
Garnham, Gravells, Hale, Hall, Hawthorne, Hicks, McKenzie, McLain, McMillan,
Nash, Parsons, Quaile, Rice, Robinson, Duncan Smith, Vernon Smith, Stowe,
Theodoulou, Thornton, Thorpe, Tipper, Tracey, Waddington, Mike Williams and
Windsor Clive
Abstentions (3) – Councillors Andrewartha, Cordwell and Pallett
Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
- 15 -
RESOLVED that this Council
a) Recognises the devastating impact that Bovine Tuberculosis can have on
farmers, livestock and communities.
b) Acknowledges that there are strong views on either side of the debate about
the appropriateness of the Government’s proposed trial badger cull.
c) Neither supports, nor opposes the Government’s policy.
d) Notes the clear legal advice that the Council cannot modify existing
tenancies and, therefore, can have no effect on the proposed trial cull.
e) Notes the Council’s current policy, proposed by Councillor Crowther in 1999,
which gives discretion to tenant farmers to choose whether or not to
participate in any cull.
f) Upholds that policy.
89. RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CABINET
Councillor Fellows, the Cabinet Member for Planning, Economy and Environment
presented the recommendation from the Cabinet meeting held on 24 October 2012:
To recommend that Council adopts the Gloucestershire Waste Core Strategy for
2012–2027, incorporating the main and additional modifications.
The Cabinet member outlined the process that had been followed since 2005.
During that time there had been a number of opportunities for all stakeholders,
including councillors and members of the public, to express their views. The
strategy had more recently been subject to an Examination in Public and the
independent inspector concluded that the strategy met its legal requirements and
was sound subject to the main modifications. He drew members’ attention to the
sustainability checklist and the equality impact assessment in the Cabinet report.
Councillor Lunnon proposed and Councillor Andrewartha seconded the following
amendment:
That predictions on future waste arisings are based on 0.5 per cent growth each
year and the achievement of a 70 per cent recycling rate by 2020.
Councillor Lunnon stated that the aim of the strategy was to reduce waste and she
questioned why the residual waste project provided for a 2.2 per cent increase each
year in waste arisings. She did not believe that reductions in the level of waste
were related to the state of the economy. In any event, she noted that Sir Mervyn
King, Governor of the Bank England, predicted no forseeable economic growth in
coming years. She questioned how the Cabinet member would know when the
strategic aims of the strategy were being met.
The Leader of the Council said that an independent inspector had concluded that
the strategy was sound and he commended officers for their work over the last
Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
- 16 -
seven years. He noted that if the Council had to start the process again then there
would be an additional 18 months’ work costing upwards of £200,000.
In seconding the amendment, Councillor Andrewartha stated that levels of waste
had been reducing for a number of years and he believed that the recession was
having little or no effect on waste arisings.
On being put to the vote, the amendment was lost.
RESOLVED that the Council adopts the Gloucestershire Waste Core Strategy for
2012–2027, incorporating the main and additional modifications.
90. MOTIONS
Motion 678
Cllr Jones proposed and Cllr Hilton seconded the following motion:
This Council is aware of the Health Protection Agency’s (HPA) current position that
‘well run and regulated modern municipal waste incinerators (MWIs) are not a
significant risk to public health’.
This Council however recognises that the proposed Energy from Waste (EfW)
facility at the Javelin Park site has attracted a lot of public interest so much so that
this Council has employed independent planning experts to help with the planning
application.
This Council is also aware that the HPA prompted by public concern have at the
beginning of this year confirmed a new study researching whether there is a
potential link between the emissions from MWIs and health outcomes, including:
low birth weight, still births and infant deaths.
This Council therefore believes that the precautionary principle should be applied in
postponing the project and delaying the planning application until the preliminary
results expected in March 2014 from this new study have been published.
In proposing the motion, Councillor Jones stated that the decision about the MWI
was one of the most important one that the Council would ever make. He felt that
irrespective of members’ views, surely it was right to wait until the findings of the
HPA’s study were published in March 2014. He believed that all members were
concerned about the health and wellbeing of their communities. The HPA
considered the issue to be of such importance that they were using public money to
extend their evidence base on health concerns regarding MWIs. He said that he
Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
- 17 -
was not seeking to scaremonger but to seek reassurance and he called on
members to show wisdom and wait for the answers.
Councillor Waddington, the Cabinet Project Champion for Waste, advised that the
HPA had not changed its position regarding MWIs. The HPA had made it clear that
its position regarding well run and regulated modern waste incinerators had not
changed and they did not pose a significant risk to human health. The work was
not to discover some flaw in the extensive evidence base regarding MWIs but to
provide reassurance to the public. He noted that it was the technology of choice in
mainland Europe with 350 incinerators operating there. He said that emissions
from MWIs were a fraction of the percentage emitted from other sources. The
garden bonfires on a Sunday afternoon in Gloucestershire would acount for more
than five years’ worth of emissions from a MWI in Gloucestershire.
A number of members spoke strongly in support of the motion and believed that the
Council should wait until the findings of the HPA study were known. This would
allow a decision to be made in light of the full evidence.
Other members spoke strongly against the motion and noted that well run and
regulated MWIs did not pose a significant risk to health. They believed that, even if
the Council delayed making its decision until March 2014 when the findings of study
were published, there would still be people who were strongly opposed to a MWI in
Gloucestershire.
On being put to a recorded vote, the motion was lost. The voting was as follows:
For (16) – Councillors Andrewartha, Collins, Crowther, Hilton, Jones, Lunnon,
McHale, McLellan, Oosthuysen, Sheppard, Skinner, Sudbury, Sztymiak, Wheeler,
Lesley Williams and Suzanne Williams
Against (27) – Councillors Allen, Awford, Burgess, Cooksley, Dee, Fellows,
Garnham, Gravells, Hale, Hall, Hawthorne, Hicks, McKenzie, McLain, Nash,
Parsons, Quaile, Rice, Robinson, Vernon Smith, Theodoulou, Thornton, Thorpe,
Tipper, Tracey, Waddington and Windsor Clive
Abstentions (2) – Councillors Cordwell and Morgan
91. CONSTITUTION COMMITTEE
Councillor Mark Hawthorne, Chairman of the Constitution Committee, presented the
report from the meetings held on 17 October and 7 November 2012.
Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
- 18 -
a) The role of the Chief Financial Officer
RESOLVED that the revised wording of Financial Regulation E as set out
below be adopted:
E1 “The Chief Financial Officer must ensure that accounting
arrangements adopted relating to partnerships and joint ventures are
satisfactory and that the overall corporate governance arrangements are
satisfactory when contracts are arranged with external bodies. The Chief
Financial Officer must ensure that the risks have been fully appraised
before agreements are entered into with external bodies.”
The review also concluded that the role of the Monitoring Officer in this
area should then include
E2 “The Monitoring Officer must also consider the overall corporate
governance arrangements and legal issues when arranging contracts with
external bodies”.
Finally as a result of the review it is recommended that the accountabilities of
Directors are made clearer in relation to joint arrangements and partnerships.
E3 “Directors are responsible for ensuring that appropriate risk
assessments are undertaken and approvals are obtained before any
negotiations are concluded in relation to work with external bodies and
that all agreements and arrangements are properly documented, including
details of the County Council’s financial and physical commitment to the
arrangements which are to be in accordance with the Council’s procedures.”
The wording of Regulation E4(formerly E3) is unchanged
External Funding
E4 “The Chief Financial Officer is responsible for ensuring that all
funding notified by external bodies is received and properly recorded in the
Authority’s accounts.”
b) The role of the Monitoring Officer
RESOLVED that a separate officer post for the Monitoring Officer role is so
designated as soon as practicable.
Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
- 19 -
c) Ratification of changes to the constitution
RESOLVED that the changes to the Constitution as set out in Annex A and B
to the report be ratified.
d) New Standards Regime for members
RESOLVED
i) That the council adopts the draft Code of Conduct based on the Department for
Communities and Local Government model, attached at Annex C to the report.
ii) That the Council adopts the draft procedure for investigating and
determining allegations of member misconduct attached at Annex D to
the report.
iii) That the Council agrees that the existing Standards and Audit
Committees be abolished, with their functions and responsibilities being
discharged by the establishment of a new Audit and Governance
Committee, the draft terms of reference of which are attached at Annex
E to the report.
iv) That the investigation and determination of allegations of member
misconduct be the remit of a newly established Hearings Panel sub-
committee of the new Audit and Governance Committee, with a politically
balanced membership of five county councillors.
v) To appoint nine members and the Chairman of the Audit and
Governance Committee at the meeting of County Council on 21
November 2012.
vi) That the Council agrees the principle of appointing a pool of three
Independent Persons to consult on allegations of member misconduct.
e) Access to Information Regulations
RESOLVED that the amendments to the Constitution as set out in Annex F to
the report be approved.
f) Changes to contract standing orders
RESOLVED that the amendments to the Constitution as set out in Annex G to
the report be approved.
92. APPOINTMENT OF THE AUDIT AND GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE
RESOLVED
Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
- 20 -
a) To appoint Councillors Ron Allen, Phil Awford, John Burgess, Gerald Dee,
Sonia Friend, Phil McLellan, Mike Sztymiak, Brian Tipper and Suzanne
Williams to the Audit and Governance Committee.
b) To appoint Councillor Phil McLellan as the Chairman of the Audit and
Governance Committee.
93. CABINET DECISION STATEMENTS
A member commended the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet for the steps
they were taking to deliver an improved broadband infrastructure in the county.
Another member said that the pooling arrangements that had been agreed for the
business rates retention scheme was an excellent example of joint working
between the County Council and the six districts.
RESOLVED that the Cabinet decision statements for the meetings held on 12
September 2012 and 24 October 2012 be noted.
94. SCRUTINY REPORT
Councillor Garnham, Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Management
Committee, presented the report. He paid tribute to Severn Trent for their efforts to
improve the resilience of water supplies and prevent flooding in the county. He
noted that members had recently had an opportunity to visit a number of sites
around Gloucester where work was currently being carried out.
Referring to the new scrutiny structure, a member said that there was not
unanimous support for the proposals. The Constitution Committee would be
considering this issue again before a recommendation was made to full Council.
Councillor Andrewartha, Chairman of the Budget and Performance Overview and
Scrutiny Committee, paid tribute to staff for the reduction in the number of days lost
to sickness. He noted that the Council’s figures were amongst the lowest in the
country.
RESOLVED that the scrutiny report be noted.
95. GLOUCESTERSHIRE LOCAL GOVERNMENT PENSION FUND ANNUAL
REPORT 2011-12
Councillor Theodoulou, Cabinet Member for Finance and Change, presented the
2011-12 annual report for the Gloucestershire Local Government Pension Fund.
He thanked the members of the Pension Committee for their contributions during
Minutes subject to their acceptance as a correct record at the next meeting
- 21 -
the year. Answering a question regarding performance, he reassured members
that the committee kept a close eye on the returns achieved by the fund managers.
Adjustments were made from time to time although it was often difficult to judge the
best time to make changes.
RESOLVED that the annual report be noted.
CHAIRPERSON
The meeting ended at 1.55pm