Issue - meetings

To consider the report of the Leader of the Council seeking to update Members on the delivery of the activities as outlined in the Council Plan 2022-2024 to build a greener, fairer, better Gloucester.

RESOLVED that progress on delivery of the Council Plan 2022-2024 is noted.

Cabinet considered the report of the Leader of the Council that sought to update Members on the delivery of the activities as outlined in the Council Plan 2022-2024 to build a greener, fairer, better Gloucester.

The Leader of the Council highlighted the key features of the report including the 35 actions completed (Appendix 1).  He detailed some of the most significant achievements such as the progress made with the Forum and successful bids to the Arts Council England (3.6).

The Cabinet Member for Performance and Resources noted that the period for completion of actions had been shorter due to the COVID-19 pandemic.  She stated that all officers were to be commended and that she was proud of what had been achieved, including long-term ambitions, such as Podsmead regeneration, to bring real change to people’s lives.  The Cabinet Member for Culture and Leisure underlined the important contribution of Arts Council England awards (3.6) to making the City a happy and wonderful place to live which demonstrated their trust in Gloucester.

RESOLVED that progress on delivery of the Council Plan 2022-2024 is noted.

To consider the report of the Leader of the Council seeking to update Members on the delivery of the activities as outlined in the Council Plan 2022-2024 to build a greener, fairer, better Gloucester.

110.1  Councillor Cook introduced the report and explained that it sought to provide an update on the delivery of the activities as outlined in the Council Plan 2022-24. He reminded Members that the Council plan included 45 actions split across the three priorities set out in 3.3. He advised that of the 45 actions, 35 were currently complete or expected to complete on time, 9 were delayed and 1 was not expected to be completed. He further outlined some of the notable achievements set out at 3.6 in the report.

110.2  The Chair referred to the narrative around the successful funding bids to Arts Council England and the increase in cultural organisations which had been awarded National Portfolio Organisation (NPO) status. He asked what the NPOs were in the city. Councillor Cook confirmed that these organisations included Gloucester Guildhall, Strike a Light and Gloucester Culture Trust.

110.3  In response to a further query from the Chair regarding the benefits of NPO status, Councillor Cook advised that NPOs were granted significant investment from the Arts Council.

110.4  Councillor Wilson noted that the action around supporting the recommendations of the Commission to Review Race Relations had been delayed and requested further information as to why, The Managing Director confirmed that the legacy organisation which emerged from the Race Commission’s work was newly formed and were still establishing their objectives. He advised that Officers had met with the organisation and they had confirmed that they no longer operated under the ‘GREAG’ name, however they were working to establish a business plan.

110.5  In response to concerns raised by Councillor Pullen regarding the re-branding of the organisation, the Managing Director noted that the Council needed to be guided by them as it was inappropriate for the authority to drive the agenda on such a sensitive issue. He further noted that the organisation was also being supported by the VCS alliance. Councillor Pullen suggested that the new Overview and Scrutiny Committee, following the local elections, may wish to invite the legacy organisation to a future meeting to provide an update on their vision going forward.

110.6  Councillor A. Chambers referred to the narrative in the report regarding the regeneration of Matson and Podsmead, noting that the action relating to Matson regeneration was delayed. He asked for an update on the current situation and whether the Council was putting any pressure on the provider to progress energy improvements. The Managing Director noted that Gloucester City Homes (GCH) was responsible for leading on the action, and that they had not been able to take forward their original proposal for regeneration. He understood that GCH were formulating plans to deliver improvements to the existing housing stock throughout Matson with a view of improving the Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) ratings in homes. Councillor S. Chambers further confirmed that she had received assurances from one of the GCH directors that he would provide her with the timescale of the EPC work within the next few days.

110.7  In response to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 110