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


- 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


- 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:


- 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


- 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


- 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.


- 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


- 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.


- 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.


- 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.


- 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.


- 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):







tenancies, but can review its policies in relation to future tenancies.

e) Notes the Council’s current policy dates back as far as 1999.


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


- 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


- 15 -

RESOLVED that this Council







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.


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


- 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


- 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.


- 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.


- 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


- 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


- 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

county council · 2017-03-21 · gibbs, mr ismail ginwalla mbe, mr colin greaves obe jp, mrs sue...

Documents