Agenda item

Any Member of the Council may ask the Leader of the Council or any Cabinet Member any question upon:

·       Any matter relating to the Council’s administration

·       Any matter relating to any report of the Cabinet appearing on the summons

·       A matter coming within their portfolio of responsibilities

Only one supplementary question is allowed per question.

Questions must be submitted to democratic.services@gloucester.gov.uk by 12 noon on Thursday 27^th April 2023. Responses to questions will be published in an addendum to the agenda by 12 noon on the day of the Cabinet Meeting.

In respect of question 2 Councillor Hilton stated that the £86,000 business rates liability probably arose because the intended conversion of the warehouses to a hotel had not materialised. He queried whether the cost could be recovered from the developer.  The Cabinet Member for Performance and Resources confirmed that there was no legal route to do so.

In respect of question 3 Councillor Hilton asked if the Cabinet Member was confident that bids would be received that could deliver the quality hotel as originally planned for the site.  The Cabinet Member for Performance and Resources noted that the wider climate had changed since the original proposals.  She advised that she was confident bids would be received for a range of uses and that nothing would be ruled in or out.

In respect of question 4 Councillor Hilton enquired whether it was thought right that zero business rates allow a company to hold onto a decaying building in a conservation area.  The Cabinet Member for Performance and Resources advised that the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) had deemed the building `beyond economic repair’ with zero rateable value.  She commented that if central government could be lobbied to change the regulations, then it would right to do so.

In respect of question 5 Councillor Hilton asked what the income from business rates would be if Spread Eagle Court and 67/69 London Road were fully occupied.  The Cabinet Member for Performance and Resources noted that officers were doing what they could to encourage those premises to reopen.  She gave assurance that the Revenues and Benefits Team would provide a response as best they can without spending an onerous amount of time on the matter as Spread Eagle Court had been divided into 37 units of varied rateable value.

In respect of question 6 Councillor Field sought further clarification on when the issues referred to would be resolved.  The Cabinet Member for Performance and Resources reiterated that they were in the hands of the developer.  She recommended that additional pressure on the developer from the Ward Member would be beneficial to expediting the process.

In respect of question 7 Councillor Field advised that he believed the success of the Blackbridge project would be part dependent on the new houses in the northern portion of the site and enquired whether the Cabinet Member was disappointed that the County Council had objected to the proposal.  The Cabinet Member for Culture and Leisure stated that it was a live planning matter and that he could comment no further.

In respect of question 8 Councillor Radley asked how many residents would need to contact officers, and in what format, for action to be taken.  The Cabinet Member for Performance and Resources invited the Managing Director to respond.  The Managing Director gave assurance that a written answer would be provided and stated that he believed, subject to confirmation, that the determining factor was the risk assessment rather than the number of residents raising concern.  He informed Members that there was already a plan to install air quality monitors for an initial survey period and that the officer responsible is the Community Wellbeing Manager.