Agenda item

1.    PROPOSED BY COUNCILLOR HAIGH

 

“This Council has a responsibility to house young people leaving the care of the County Council who have a connection to Gloucester. The County Council supports care leavers until the age of 25 recognising that these young people often face extensive challenges for a variety of reasons and sometimes need extra support to assist them to transition to adulthood.

 

This Council recognises that we should also support them through their mistakes and provide guidance to help them make more positive choices in the future. Maintaining a stable home can be particularly difficult for care leavers and being deemed intentionally homeless can mean that they slip through the net of support.

 

This Council resolves to change our housing policy to ensure that no care leaver with a connection to Gloucester is classed as intentionally homeless and that they are always supported back into accommodation and to work with the County Council to help to maintain that tenancy.”

 

2.    PROPOSED BY COUNCILLOR STEPHENS

 

“Council notes that the government has issued the provisional local government finance settlement for 2020/21.

 

Council further notes that the headline change for Gloucester is an increase of 1.4% in Core Spending Power and that without a one-off increase in New Homes Bonus Gloucester City Council would have again seen a negative change.

 

The chart below illustrates how we compare to other authorities and England as a whole.

Council is disappointed to note that we are well below the shire district average of 3.4% and significantly below England as a whole at 6.3%.

 

Historically Gloucester has received a bad deal from the government in terms of funding. The Centre for Cities 2019 outlook report set out the impact of austerity in the past decade; total spending in Gloucester has reduced by 23.4%, meaning the City ranks 9^th in terms of total change. Gloucester is also the worst hit district council in the country.

 

The government produced Indices of Deprivation 2019 show that Gloucester has some of the most impoverished wards in the country. As an example, areas in Matson, Robinswood and White City ranks in the worst 0.1% nationally for some issues.

 

The level of need in the City is clearly not reflected in the provisional local government finance settlement when compared to other similar authorities and Gloucester residents are severely disadvantaged by this.

 

Council resolves to:

 

1.    Make urgent representations to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government for a significant increase in funding for the City.

 

2.    Seek the intervention of the City MP to lobby for a significant increase and fairer funding in the settlement available to Gloucester City Council.”

 

3.    PROPOSED BY COUNCILLOR COOLE

 

“Council notes:

 

·       That 2020 marks 20 years since Overview and Scrutiny was introduced to most councils in England

·       That Gloucester remains at the forefront of innovation in Scrutiny, employing best practice that has been recognised both regionally and nationally through the LGIU and CFPS.

·       That Overview and Scrutiny is a vital part of the decision-making process in Gloucester, and has added value to significant decisions affecting residents across the City.

·       The nature of the decision-making process is changing as councils diversify how they operate and generate income in light of cuts to funding.

 

Council resolves:

 

·       To ensure that Overview and Scrutiny has sufficient resource to carry out its duties effectively

·       To ensure that Overview and Scrutiny maintains parity of esteem with the cabinet

·       To ensure that, as decision making changes and becomes more time sensitive, with an increase in urgent decisions, that measures are put in place to maintain transparent and robust scrutiny of all decisions.”

 

4.    PROPOSED BY COUNCILLOR HILTON

 

“This council notes the large number of empty commercial buildings that there are in or around the city centre and the negative impact these empty properties have on the city council’s regeneration plans.

 

This council agrees that too many land/property owners are failing to progress projects to either sell them, refurbish them or to build new positive buildings as replacements.

 

This council asks the cabinet member to do more to tackle this problem and to provide a written report to this council on what he plans to do to improve the situation.”

 

5.    PROPOSED BY COUNCILLOR WILSON

 

This council notes the report that was presented to the Overview & Scrutiny Committee in relation to the organisational and financial failings of Marketing Gloucester Ltd, a company 100% owned by Gloucester City Council.

 

This council welcomes the recommendations in the report and the resolutions agreed by the OSC.

 

This council calls for a written apology from the former chair of the board and former leader of this council, who was responsible for the financial and organisational crisis that has hit MGL, which forced this council to bailout the company to the tune of £240,000 to help keep the company solvent.”

Notice of Motion from Councillor Haigh

 

66.1    Councillor Haigh moved and Councillor Derbyshire seconded the following motion:

 

“This Council has a responsibility to house young people leaving the care of the County Council who have a connection to Gloucester. The County Council supports care leavers until the age of 25 recognising that these young people often face extensive challenges for a variety of reasons and sometimes need extra support to assist them to transition to adulthood.

 

This Council recognises that we should also support them through their mistakes and provide guidance to help them make more positive choices in the future. Maintaining a stable home can be particularly difficult for care leavers and being deemed intentionally homeless can mean that they slip through the net of support.

 

This Council resolves to change our housing policy to ensure that no care leaver with a connection to Gloucester is classed as intentionally homeless and that they are always supported back into accommodation and to work with the County Council to help to maintain that tenancy.”

 

66.2    Councillor Watkins moved and Councillor Gravells seconded the following amendment:

 

“This Council has a responsibility to house young people leaving the care of the County Council who have a connection to Gloucester. The County Council supports care leavers until the age of 25 recognising that these young people often face extensive challenges for a variety of reasons and sometimes often need extra support to assist them to transition to adulthood.

 

This Council recognises that we should also support them through their mistakes and care leavers to provide guidance to help them make more positive choices in the for their future. Maintaining a stable home can be particularly difficult for care leavers and being deemed intentionally homeless can mean that they slip through the net of support.

    

This Council resolves to change our housing policy to ensure that no care leavers with a connection to Gloucester is classed as intentionally homeless and that they are always supported back into accommodation are given a priority where this is appropriate for their circumstances and to work with the County Council to help to maintain that their tenancy.”

 

66.3    The amendment was not accepted.

 

66.4    The amendment was put to the vote and was carried. It therefore became the substantive motion. A proposed amendment by the Liberal Democrat group was withdrawn.

 

66.5    The motion was put to the vote and was carried.

 

66.6    RESOLVED that:-

 

“This Council has a responsibility to house young people leaving the care of the County Council who have a connection to Gloucester. The County Council supports care leavers until the age of 25 recognising that these young people often face extensive challenges for a variety of reasons and often need extra support to assist them to transition to adulthood.

 

This Council should also support care leavers to provide guidance to help them make positive choices for their future. Maintaining a stable home can be particularly difficult for care leavers and being deemed intentionally homeless can mean that they slip through the net of support.

 

This Council resolves to change our housing policy to ensure that care leavers are given a priority where this is appropriate for their circumstances and to work with the County Council to help to maintain their tenancy.”

 

Notice of Motion from Councillor Stephens

 

66.7    Councillor Stephens moved and Councillor Pullen seconded the following motion:

 

          “Council notes that the government has issued the provisional local government finance settlement for 2020/21.

 

Council further notes that the headline change for Gloucester is an increase of 1.4% in Core Spending Power and that without a one-off increase in New Homes Bonus Gloucester City Council would have again seen a negative change.

 

The chart below illustrates how we compare to other authorities and England as a whole.

Council is disappointed to note that we are well below the shire district average of 3.4% and significantly below England as a whole at 6.3%.

 

Historically Gloucester has received a bad deal from the government in terms of funding. The Centre for Cities 2019 outlook report set out the impact of austerity in the past decade; total spending in Gloucester has reduced by 23.4%, meaning the City ranks 9^th in terms of total change. Gloucester is also the worst hit district council in the country.

 

The government produced Indices of Deprivation 2019 show that Gloucester has some of the most impoverished wards in the country. As an example, areas in Matson, Robinswood and White City ranks in the worst 0.1% nationally for some issues.

 

The level of need in the City is clearly not reflected in the provisional local government finance settlement when compared to other similar authorities and Gloucester residents are severely disadvantaged by this.

 

Council resolves to:

 

1.    Make urgent representations to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government for a significant increase in funding for the City.

 

2.    Seek the intervention of the City MP to lobby for a significant increase and fairer funding in the settlement available to Gloucester City Council.”

 

66.8    Councillor H. Norman moved and Councillor Cook seconded the following amendment:

 

“Council notes that the government has issued the provisional local government finance settlement for 2020/21.

 

Council further notes that the headline change for Gloucester is an increase of 1.4% in Core Spending Power and that without a one-off increase in New Homes Bonus Gloucester City Council would have again seen a negative change.

 

The chart below illustrates how we compare to other authorities and England as a whole.

Council is disappointed to note that we are well below the shire district average of 3.4% and significantly below England as a whole at 6.3%.

 

Historically Gloucester has received a bad challenging deal from the government in terms of funding, which has forced us to work innovatively and challenge the status quo. The Centre for Cities 2019 outlook report set out the impact of austerity in the past decade; total spending in Gloucester has reduced by 23.4%, meaning the City ranks 9^th in terms of total change. Gloucester is also the worst hit district council in the country.

 

The government produced Indices of Deprivation 2019 show that Gloucester has some of the most impoverished wards in the country. As an example, areas in Matson, Robinswood and White City ranks in the worst 0.1% nationally for some issues.

 

The level of need in the City is clearly not reflected in the provisional local government finance settlement when compared to other similar authorities and Gloucester residents are severely disadvantaged by this.

 

Council however welcomes that this authority has received £1.847 million in grant funding from government and organisations such as the Arts Council in the years 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 alone, in addition to £1.474 million in capital grant funding.

 

Additionally, this council has implemented a Property Investment Strategy which not only assists this Council in achieving its council plan objective, but also provides an income to this council in order to safeguard services.

 

Council resolves to:

 

3.    Make urgent representations to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government for a significant increase in funding for the City.

 

Seek the intervention of the City MP to lobby for a significant increase and fairer funding in the settlement available to Gloucester City Council.”

 

66.9    The amendment was accepted and, as such, became the substantive motion.

 

66.10  The motion was put to the vote and was carried.

 

66.11  RESOLVED that: -

 

          “Council notes that the government has issued the provisional local government finance settlement for 2020/21.

 

Council further notes that the headline change for Gloucester is an increase of 1.4% in Core Spending Power and that without a one-off increase in New Homes Bonus Gloucester City Council would have again seen a negative change.

 

The chart below illustrates how we compare to other authorities and England as a whole.

Council is disappointed to note that we are well below the shire district average of 3.4% and significantly below England as a whole at 6.3%.

 

Historically Gloucester has received a bad challenging deal from the government in terms of funding, which has forced us to work innovatively and challenge the status quo. The Centre for Cities 2019 outlook report set out the impact of austerity in the past decade; total spending in Gloucester has reduced by 23.4%, meaning the City ranks 9^th in terms of total change. Gloucester is also the worst hit district council in the country.

 

The government produced Indices of Deprivation 2019 show that Gloucester has some of the most impoverished wards in the country. As an example, areas in Matson, Robinswood and White City ranks in the worst 0.1% nationally for some issues.

 

The level of need in the City is clearly not reflected in the provisional local government finance settlement when compared to other similar authorities and Gloucester residents are severely disadvantaged by this.

 

Council however welcomes that this authority has received £1.847 million in grant funding from government and organisations such as the Arts Council in the years 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 alone, in addition to £1.474 million in capital grant funding.

 

Additionally, this council has implemented a Property Investment Strategy which not only assists this Council in achieving its council plan objective, but also provides an income to this council in order to safeguard services.

 

Council resolves to:

 

4.    Make urgent representations to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government for a significant increase in funding for the City.

 

Seek the intervention of the City MP to lobby for a significant increase and fairer funding in the settlement available to Gloucester City Council.”

 

Notice of Motion from Councillor Coole

 

66.12  Councillor Coole moved and Councillor Ryall seconded the following motion:

 

“Council notes:

 

·       That 2020 marks 20 years since Overview and Scrutiny was introduced to most councils in England

·       That Gloucester remains at the forefront of innovation in Scrutiny, employing best practice that has been recognised both regionally and nationally through the LGIU and CFPS.

·       That Overview and Scrutiny is a vital part of the decision-making process in Gloucester, and has added value to significant decisions affecting residents across the City.

·       The nature of the decision-making process is changing as councils diversify how they operate and generate income in light of cuts to funding.

 

Council resolves:

 

·       To ensure that Overview and Scrutiny has sufficient resource to carry out its duties effectively

·       To ensure that Overview and Scrutiny maintains parity of esteem with the cabinet

·       To ensure that, as decision making changes and becomes more time sensitive, with an increase in urgent decisions, that measures are put in place to maintain transparent and robust scrutiny of all decisions.”

 

66.13  Councillor H. Norman moved and Councillor Cook seconded the following amendment:

 

          “Council notes:

 

·       That 2020 marks 20 years since Overview and Scrutiny was introduced to most councils in England

·       That Gloucester remains at the forefront of innovation in Scrutiny, employing best practice that has been recognised both regionally and nationally through the LGIU and CFPS.

·       That Overview and Scrutiny is a vital part of the decision-making process in Gloucester, and has added value to significant decisions affecting residents across the City.

·       The nature of the decision-making process is changing as councils diversify how they operate and generate income in light of cuts to funding.

 

Council resolves:

 

·       To ensure that Overview and Scrutiny has sufficient resource to carry out its duties effectively

·       To ensure that Overview and Scrutiny maintains parity of esteem with the cabinet

·       To ensure that, as decision making changes and becomes more time sensitive, with an increase in urgent decisions, that measures are put in place to maintain transparent and robust scrutiny of all decisions transparency.”

 

66.14  The amendment was accepted and as such became the substantive motion.

 

66.15  The motion was put to the vote and was carried:

 

66.16  RESOLVED that:-

 

“Council notes:

 

·       That 2020 marks 20 years since Overview and Scrutiny was introduced to most councils in England

·       That Gloucester remains at the forefront of innovation in Scrutiny, employing best practice that has been recognised both regionally and nationally through the LGIU and CFPS.

·       That Overview and Scrutiny is a vital part of the decision-making process in Gloucester, and has added value to significant decisions affecting residents across the City.

·       The nature of the decision-making process is changing as councils diversify how they operate and generate income in light of cuts to funding.

 

Council resolves:

 

·       To ensure that Overview and Scrutiny has sufficient resource to carry out its duties effectively

·       To ensure that Overview and Scrutiny maintains parity of esteem with the cabinet

·       To ensure that, as decision making changes and becomes more time sensitive, with an increase in urgent decisions, that measures are put in place to maintain transparency.”

 

Notice of Motion from Councillor Hilton

 

66.17  Councillor Hilton moved and Councillor Field seconded the following motion:

 

“This council notes the large number of empty commercial buildings that there are in or around the city centre and the negative impact these empty properties have on the city council’s regeneration plans.

 

This council agrees that too many land/property owners are failing to progress projects to either sell them, refurbish them or to build new positive buildings as replacements.

 

This council asks the cabinet member to do more to tackle this problem and to provide a written report to this council on what he plans to do to improve the situation.”

 

66.18  The motion was put to the vote and was carried.

 

66.19  RESOLVED that:-

 

“This council notes the large number of empty commercial buildings that there are in or around the city centre and the negative impact these empty properties have on the city council’s regeneration plans.

 

This council agrees that too many land/property owners are failing to progress projects to either sell them, refurbish them or to build new positive buildings as replacements.

 

This council asks the cabinet member to do more to tackle this problem and to provide a written report to this council on what he plans to do to improve the situation.”

 

Notice of Motion from Councillor Wilson

 

66.20  Councillor Wilson moved and Councillor Hilton seconded the following motion:

 

This council notes the report that was presented to the Overview & Scrutiny Committee in relation to the organisational and financial failings of Marketing Gloucester Ltd, a company 100% owned by Gloucester City Council.

 

This council welcomes the recommendations in the report and the resolutions agreed by the OSC.

 

This council calls for a written apology from the former chair of the board and former leader of this council, who was responsible for the financial and organisational crisis that has hit MGL, which forced this council to bailout the company to the tune of £240,000 to help keep the company solvent.”

 

66.21  Councillor Haigh moved and Councillor Stephens seconded the following amendment:

 

“This council notes the report that was presented to the Overview & Scrutiny Committee in relation to the organisational and financial failings of Marketing Gloucester Ltd, a company 100% owned by Gloucester City Council.

 

This council welcomes the recommendations in the report and the resolutions agreed by the OSC, but notes that the report does not address the role of the Cabinet or senior officers in the Marketing Gloucester crisis, and resolves to commission an independent report into these matters, to be presented to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee as a matter of urgency.

 

This council calls for a written apology from the former chair of the board and former leader of this council, who was responsible for the financial and organisational crisis that has hit MGL, which forced this council to bailout the company to the tune of £240,000 to help keep the company solvent.”

 

66.22  The amendment was not accepted. The amendment was put to the vote and was lost.

 

66.23  The original motion was voted on and was carried.

 

66.24  “This council notes the report that was presented to the Overview & Scrutiny Committee in relation to the organisational and financial failings of Marketing Gloucester Ltd, a company 100% owned by Gloucester City Council.

 

This council welcomes the recommendations in the report and the resolutions agreed by the OSC, but notes that the report does not address the role of the Cabinet or senior officers in the Marketing Gloucester crisis, and resolves to commission an independent report into these matters, to be presented to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee as a matter of urgency.

 

This council calls for a written apology from the former chair of the board and former leader of this council, who was responsible for the financial and organisational crisis that has hit MGL, which forced this council to bailout the company to the tune of £240,000 to help keep the company solvent.”