Agenda and minutes

To receive from Members, declarations of the existence of any disclosable pecuniary, or non-pecuniary, interests and the nature of those interests in relation to any agenda item. Please see agenda notes.

1.1      Councillor Walker declared an interest in agenda item 9 (Community Asset Transfer of the Social Club at Tuffley Park) owing to her employment by Gloucester Trussell Trust.

To declare if any issues to be covered in the Agenda are under party whip.

2.1      There were no declarations of party whipping.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 26^th February 2024.

3.1      RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting held on Monday 26^th February 2024 were approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record.

The opportunity is given to members of the public to put questions the Chair provided that questions do not contravene the provisions set out Council Procedure Rule 10.01.

To ask a question at this meeting, please submit it to democratic.services@gloucester.gov.uk by 12 noon on Wednesday 26^th June 2024 or telephone 01452 396203 for support.

Questions and responses will be published at least 24 hours before the meeting. Supplementary questions may be put and answered during the meeting, subject to the relevant time limit.

4.1      There were no public questions.

The opportunity is given to members of the public to present a petition or deputation provided that any such petition or deputation does not contravene the provisions set out Council Procedure Rule 11.01.

To present a petition or deputation at this meeting, please provide the subject matter to democratic.services@gloucester.gov.uk by 12 noon on Wednesday 26^th June 2024 or telephone 01452 396203 for support.

5.1      There were no petitions nor deputations.

To consider the report of the Cabinet Member for Resources seeking to select a community group to become the tenant of the Social Club at Tuffley Park.

6.1      Representatives from One Church, the proposed bidder to take on the lease of the social club at Tuffley Park, introduced themselves and provided an overview of their plans for the club. It was noted that it was a priority of One Church to serve the needs of the community and further information around their ideas was included in their application.

6.2      The representative from One Church advised that the organisation was keen to continue to offer help around food poverty in the community, exploring ideas such as a foodbank or social supermarket. She also provided an overview of services which the organisation would look to offer at the premises, including resource bank initiatives, programmes for children, parent and toddler events, debt counselling services, upskilling workshops, youth programmes, community events and initiatives to tackle loneliness. She stated that One Church would also look to encourage partner organisations and local people to form groups and would help them facilitate their ideas.

6.3      The Chair expressed the view that the ambitions of One Church for the building were impressive.

6.4      Councillor Castle asked how the organisation purported to raise funds to deliver their activities. The representative noted that details around this were outlined in the application document. She explained that One Church was part of a network of churches which had a generous community and volunteers forming part of that network, and that the organisation would be looking at ways to supplement that support through funding applications for targeted projects. It was noted that One Church already delivered similar projects on a smaller scale.

6.5      Councillor S. Chambers noted that One Church were a Christian organisation and asked for further information around governance. The representative from One Church explained that the organisation was part of the Assemblies of God network and also worked with the Charity Commission. She further noted that the organisation had a board of directors which included safeguarding and finance leads.

6.6      Councillor S. Chambers asked how One Church would ensure that communities from other faiths would be welcome in accessing the services at the Club. The One Church representative noted her belief that the organisation had a good record of this already, noting that people of all cultures, faiths and backgrounds currently enjoyed the pop-up café currently operated by the organisation.

6.7      Councillor Bell queried whether the premises would continue to be used as a social club which served alcohol. The One Church representative advised that the intention was for the space to be a social space, however it would be a social club of a different standing. It was further confirmed by the Investment Manager that the club needed to be for community use, however the supply of alcohol was not a prerequisite of the tender process.

6.8      In response to a question from Councillor Radley as to whether One Church planned to continue the work they were undertaking in Podsmead should they be granted the lease of the Social Club, the One Church representative explained that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

To consider the report of the Cabinet Member for Resources seeking to update Members on progress to date on the digital inclusivity motion passed at Council in November 2023.

7.1      Councillor Wilson introduced the report which updated Members on progress made to date on the digital inclusivity motion passed at Council in November 2023. He summarised the context of the report which was set out in paragraph 3.

7.2      Councillor Wilson advised that the Council had entered an exploratory partnership with the DAISI (Digital Accessibility, Inclusion, Support and Innovation) project run by the GRCC (Gloucestershire Rural Community Council). He noted that work was underway to review the Council’s website and that the Council was exploring a project with DAISI on supporting digital skills and inclusion in the future.

7.3      Councillor Wilson informed Members that a campaign had recently been run on social media highlighting the social tariffs available for mobile and broadband. He noted that a link to this support had been provided on the Cost of Living section of the Council’s website, and further advised that the Council had written to residents in receipt of Universal Credit by email and had sent letters to residents without email addresses on record to highlight the social tariff support. Members were also advised that the Council had invested in automated scanning tools to review the website content and highlight where accessibility changes were needed. It was noted that following various upgrades, the scanning tools indicated that the website was now achieving 99% compliance compared to 68% before the tools were in place.

7.4      Referring to 14.1 in the report, Councillor Hyman asked whether risk would be alleviated provided that the Council complied with the Accessibility Regulations. The Head of Transformation and Commissioning confirmed this was the case. He explained that primary legislation was passed in 2018 which stipulated that all websites published after 2018 needed to be compliant with accessibility standards. He further advised that random spot checks were undertaken on websites to ensure compliance and that the Council aimed to be proactive in this respect.

7.5      Councillor Radley noted that she was pleased to see the progress outlined in the report and asked whether any user testing had been undertaken on the website. The Head of Transformation and Commissioning explained that DAISI had access to community groups which would form part of the testing.

7.6      Councillor Walker asked whether the Council was signposting the social tariff support to residents going through the process of applying for Universal Credit. Councillor Wilson confirmed that the Council had signposted the support to residents already on the system, however he confirmed that he would take up this idea with DAISI. 

7.7      Councillor S. Chambers asked whether any work was being undertaken to improve accessibility around the online Planning Portal. The Head of Transformation and Commissioning noted that the online portal was a service purchased by the Council as part of the overall the Planning software and therefore short-term improvements to the service could be limited. He confirmed that the Council was looking into how language on the facility could be made more accessible.

7.8      Councillor James asked for further information on the accessibility regulations.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To consider the report of the Cabinet Member of Resources updating Members on the Financial Outturn Report 2023-24.

TO FOLLOW.

8.1      Councillor Wilson introduced the report and advised Members that the outturn position had improved since the previous quarter. He highlighted that the year-end position for the financial year 2023-24 was a decrease to the General Fund balance of £288k against a budgeted decrease of £104k, noting that this was an improvement on the previous quarter’s prediction and £60k better than the 50-year money plan approved by Council in February.

8.2      Councillor Wilson noted that the Council continued to see key pressures which were outlined in the report at 4.4. He confirmed that the Council would continue to monitor the pressures carefully.

8.3      Councillor S. Chambers reminded Members that if they wanted to scrutinise portfolio areas outside of the Resources portfolio, they needed to ensure that the relevant Cabinet Members were invited to Overview and Scrutiny Committee meetings.

8.4      Councillor Castle asked whether the delay in moving the library into the former Debenhams building was likely to have any impact on the Council’s financial situation. The Head of Finance and Resources confirmed that this should not have an impact as the library was a County Council owned asset, and the Debenhams site was in the ownership of the University of Gloucestershire.

8.5      Councillor Conder asked how many properties had been purchased by the Council for the purpose of providing temporary accommodation. The Financial Services Manager responded that the Council had purchased 6 properties.

8.6      Councillor Conder asked for clarification as to what SWRDA (South West of England Regional Development Agency) related to. The Financial Services Manager advised that SWRDA was a historic agency, and properties formally owned by the agency had been handed into the Council’s ownership. He informed Members that net income from those properties was ringfenced into a regeneration reserve.

8.7      In response to a question from Councillor Conder as to whether the Council faced financial pressure in circumstances where residents did not have assets to fund funerals, the Financial Services Manager confirmed that this was not a common occurrence however there was a national assistance programme to help cover funeral costs in these circumstances.

8.8      In response to an additional query from Councillor Conder as to what was meant by the EPOS system acronym, the Financial Services Manager advised that this referred to the Electronic Point of Sale.

8.9      Councillor Conder asked how the Council distinguished income from Planning Policy from other Planning income streams. The Financial Services Manager explained that Planning Policy was linked to the overarching City Plans and Joint Core Strategy as part of broader county working. He noted that Development Planning included income from planning applications.

8.10    Councillor Radley asked whether the Council had considered offering any alternatives to traditional cremations. The Financial Services Manager confirmed that the Council were considering other options.

8.11    The Chair noted that the deficit had reduced since earlier financial monitoring reports and paid tribute to Officers in their Finance Team for their work in reducing this deficit. He highlighted that an important role of the Overview  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

To receive a verbal update on Gloucestershire Airport to inform future work planning of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

9.1      The Leader of the Council, Councillor Hilton, advised Members that Gloucester City Council shared 50% ownership of Gloucestershire Airport alongside Cheltenham Borough Council. He noted that the Liberal Democrat manifesto had promised to support Gloucestershire Airport to remain an aviation facility and high-tech business hub which provided skilled employment locally.

9.2      Councillor Hilton informed Members that discussions had taken place towards the end of the year regarding parties who may have been interested in purchasing the airport, however a decision was taken not to sell Gloucestershire Airport before the 2024 local elections. Following the local elections, Councillor Hilton advised that Councillor Bowkett had been appointed to the board of Gloucestershire Airport, and that he along with Councillor Hilton and Councillor Wilson had met with the senior management team at Gloucestershire Airport, as well as the other shareholders, the leader of Cheltenham Borough Council.

9.3      Councillor Hilton advised that he was gathering and assessing as much information as possible before making a decision on the future of the airport.

9.4      The Chair reiterated that the airport continued to be an issue of interest for the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. A discussion ensued around anonymous correspondence received by Councillors and it was agreed that the Committee would proceed with plans for a Gloucestershire Airport Scrutiny Session. The Chair noted that he would also be keen to involve Councillors from Cheltenham Borough Council in this review.

9.5      Councillor S. Chambers noted her support for the Committee to undertake work around Gloucestershire Airport.

9.6      The Chair advised that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Group Leads would scope the Gloucestershire Airport Scrutiny session and feed back to Members.

9.7      Councillor Hilton noted that he would encourage any tenants with concerns to contact him directly. He advised that the Work Programme was a matter for the Overview and Scrutiny Committee however he would treat any contact from tenants in evidence, noting that it would be useful to see evidence of any concerns raised.

9.8      In response to a point raised by Councillor S. Chambers regarding potential retributions, Councillor Hilton advised that he would not sanction any retributions in respect of tenants who raised concerns.

9.9      RESOLVED – That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee NOTE the update.

To receive the latest version of the Committee’s work programme and the Council’s Forward Plan.

10.1    RESOLVED – That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee NOTE the Work Programme.

Monday 2^nd September 2024 at 6.30pm in Civic Suite, North Warehouse.

Monday 2^nd September 2024 at Civic Suite, North Warehouse.