Agenda and draft minutes

To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Brine, Laurie Davies, Davis, Fryer, Gray Green, Hoskin, Hynd, Jockel, Mossman, Oxley, Ryder, Ross and Tucker.

To receive declarations of interest.

There were none.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 22 February 2024.

The Chair advised of an error in the minutes for the appointment of Councillor Brown as the Vice-Chair of Council which should have listed the term as 2023-24 instead of 2024-25 and confirmed that this had been amended.

RESOLVED   That the Minutes of the meeting held on 22 February were approved as a correct record following the amendment above.

To receive announcements from the Chair of Council, Leader of Council or Chief Executive.

The Chair gave thanks to Claire Hughes (Monitoring Officer) and wished her well in her now post at Cheltenham Borough Council.

The Chair thanked Councillors standing down for their service and dedication to the Council and their communities during their time as Stroud District Councillor. She advised that the 20 Councillors who were not seeking re-election had collected over 215 years experience as District Councillors between them. She gave a special mention to the independent Councillors standing down and invited the Leader or Deputy Leader from each political group to express their gratitude and mark the achievements and contributions of those Councillors. The Chief Executive expressed her thanks on behalf of the Officers at Stroud District Council to all Councillors who were standing down for the service they had shown their Communities and the Council. 

The Chair, Chief Executive and Councillor Pearson also gave thanks to the outgoing Monitoring Officer Claire Hughes for the support they had provided and wished her well in her new role.

The Chair of the relevant Committee will answer questions from members of the public submitted in accordance with the Council’s procedures laid out in Section 3, Paragraph 8, of the Constitution.

There were none.

See Agenda Item 5 deadlines for submissions.

Member questions were submitted, they were asked by Councillor Jones and answers were provided by Councillor Natalie Bennett. (Refer to the Council’s recording and Agenda Item 6).

Councillor Jones asked supplementary questions as follows:

• What was the cost to the council of the consultations in both officer time and money.
• As residents living in rural areas would not know where The Blackboy Clock was or where the Blackboy area of Dursley was, did the cost of the consultations represent good value for money.

Responses to the supplementary questions were provided by Councillor Bennett as follows:

• The cost to the council of the consultations was included in the report that was presented to Council in 2022.
• The cost implications were not significant and the Council needed to ensure that they represented all people across the district and responded to the concerns raised within the community therefore it did provide good value for money.

The Council therefore RESOLVES to write to the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Health, and the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to express the Council’s request for the funding and resources necessary for the efficient undertaking of the proposed principles of ‘Zane’s Law’; and to request that these ministers support Baroness Natalie Bennett, by all possible means, in her efforts to advance ‘Zane’s Law’ through the House of Lords.

The Chair advised that there had been amendment to the Motion in the second paragraph ‘Context for the Motion’, a revised version had been circulated and published online as late pages. She also welcomed Zane’s father, Kye Gbangbola, who was in attendance at the meeting.

Councillor Aldam introduced the Motion and highlighted the importance of a motion concerning contaminated land management and the impact on the Stroud District. She drew Members attention to the regional variation caused by insufficient funding and resources allocated to local authorities, resulting in a reduction of contaminated land work and a concerning skills gap. Despite statutory responsibilities, many councils lacked the financial means to address the issues effectively. In Stroud alone, there were 1,700 potentially contaminated sites many of which stemmed from its industrial history and although she was pleased that they were able to hire a contaminated land officer they were only hired part time.

Councillor Aldam provided an example from their ward in Brimscombe which was on the register to be investigated and called for increased funding, resources, and attention to tackle the challenges. Furthermore, she expressed gratitude to Kye Gbangbola for attending the meeting and hoped that Councillors could support the Motion and the campaign for justice for Zane. 

Councillor Davies advised that he had looked on the Stroud District Council website but had only seen 2 sites listed, he asked for clarification where the figure of 1700 had arisen from and whether it was known how much money would be needed to address the sites. Councillor Aldam confirmed that the figure had been provided to her by Officers and advised that the costs were more difficult to assess as it would be site specific and would need to be considered by specialists.

Councillor Turner seconded the Motion and echoed the concerns that Councillor Aldam had outlined about the extent of land contamination across the district and the available resource to deal with it. She confirmed that in her Ward there were both documented and anecdotal accounts of contamination, often from asbestos cement used apparently for the construction of footpaths and chemical contamination at Aston down from the dismantling of military equipment. She stated that it was important to take responsible and adequate action on the risk to human and ecological health across the district. She thanked Zane’s father, Kye Gbangbola for attending the meeting. She drew Members attention to the current national funding for work which was inadequate for an area like Stroud with intensive industrial heritage and hoped all Members would be in support of the Motion.

Councillor Edmunds drew Members attention to the changes to regulations banning toxic chemicals and pesticides in the EU which had not been adopted in the UK since Brexit.

Councillor Watson highlighted a recent issue in her Ward where a developer had disturbed some unrecorded contaminated land which was believed to have brought asbestos to the surface however the site was number 23 on the list of over 1000 suspected contaminated land sites in  ...  view the full minutes text for item CL.078

To consider the proposal to allocate the additional budget required.

Councillor Schoemaker, Vice Chair of Housing Committee, presented the report which followed a decision from Housing Committee in March 2024 to add the sites at The Avenue in Stinchcombe, The Knoll in Uley and Mount Pleasant in Wotton-under-Edge to the new homes and regeneration programme. He confirmed that a further report would be brought back to Housing Committee regarding highways safety and other key infrastructure considerations prior to the submission of the planning applications. The Committee had recommended that the additional budget required be approved by Council to enable the sites to be progressed. The main concerns which had been raised during consultation had been included in Section 5. Councillor Schoemaker highlighted section 4 regarding the funding needed and confirmed that by the Council funding the scheme they would be able to address the major void properties on the sites and enable tenants and residents who wished to move to be supported to do so. There had been considerable concern expressed about the impact of the review and recommendations on tenants and private owners who would need to be removed, he drew Members attention to paragraph 5.9 which summarised the Council policy regarding moving current tenants. He reiterated that the delivery of new Council owned energy efficient, affordable homes remained a council priority.

Councillor Davies expressed concerns raised at Housing Committee and did not wish for the site in Uley to progress without evidence to address the concerns. Councillor Schoemaker advised that actions would be taken as part of the planning process and that at every stage they would update residents and stakeholders. He further confirmed that they would return to Housing Committee about highways and infrastructure issues prior to the submission of planning permission. Councillor Schoemaker reiterated that Council was being asked to make a budget allocation and if the schemes did not progress then the budget would not be used. The Head of Property Services further confirmed that they had appointed highways consultants and confirmed that they needed the budget to undertake surveys and design the scheme. The Strategic Director of Resources confirmed that if Council approved the budget it would be available to be spent however a further report would be taken back to Housing Committee prior to any planning applications being taken forward.

In response to a question from Councillor Studdert-Kennedy the Strategic Director of Resources confirmed that if any of the schemes did not proceed for any reasons then they would not have incurred the money and there would be no cash borrowed for the scheme, this would therefore not result in over borrowing.

In response to a question from Councillor Pearcy regarding the impact on current tenants and residents the Head of Property Services advised that tenants and private owners would not be asked to move immediately and that meeting would take place in first to understand whether their individual circumstances adhere to the decanting policy which could take a number of years.

Councillor Pearcy asked what the difference in timings would be for  ...  view the full minutes text for item CL.079

To consider a proposed change from a visitors only car park at Ebley Mill to a public (charging) car park in response to requests from local residents and businesses to access the car park.

Councillor Braun, the Chair of Strategy and Resources Committee, introduced the report which set out a proposal to open up the main visitor car park at Ebley Mill to allow members of the local community to use the car park. The Council had been contacted by residents a number of years ago with a request to use the car park however the urgency had increased as the County Council had confirmed a traffic regulation order which would mean that waiting restrictions would be implemented on Greenaways, Ebley Wharf and Westward Road. It was therefore proposed that the car park would become a charging car park so that time limits could be enforced but would enable residents to park overnight and at weekends for a small charge, the charges were set out in Appendix B. Visitors to Ebley Mill would still be able to use the car park but would need to provide their number plate registration to reception to avoid paying to park. Councillor Braun confirmed that estimated costs were set out in Section 3 of the report with a substantial part of the capital costs due to the provision of EV chargers which had been requested by both visitors and staff.

In response to a question from Councillor Studdert-Kennedy, Councillor Braun provided assurance that parking enforcement would be in place.

Councillor Davies asked whether they should be looking at the future of Ebley Mill with a reduction in visitors and increasing numbers of staff working from home. Councillor Braun confirmed that all options would be considered but the report being discussed was about the car park, not office accommodation.

Councillor Pearson asked for clarification as to who would be carrying out parking enforcement. The Chief Executive confirmed that on street enforcement was a matter for the County Council but they would be working with the County Council to make sure the yellow lines were enforced. She further clarified that enforcement of the car park would be a matter for the District Council.

In response to question about EV charging Councillor Braun confirmed that residents would need to pay for EV charging and that it was hoped that people who needed to charge their vehicle fully would charge overnight or on weekends.

Councillor Braun proposed and Councillor Bennett seconded.

Councillor Bennett stated that it was great way to help local residents.

Councillor Davies stated that it was a good idea and the sensible use of an asset but had further questions regarding how it would work and what the long term use of the building would be.

Councillor Layfield advised that he was pleased to see E-Bike charging and would be providing a service that residents wanted.

Councillor Miles highlighted that many of the residents in the vicinity only had 1 parking space and that the EV chargers would allow residents in the flats who wouldn’t have had the opportunity to put in an EV charger to purchase an electric vehicle.

Councillor Braun stated that it was a good use  ...  view the full minutes text for item CL.080

To update the Committee on the revised approach to the delivery of the Cotswold Canals Connected project.

Councillor Braun, Chair of Strategy and Resources Committee, introduced the report which had been considered by the Strategy and Resources Committee on the 7 March 2024. The revised approach had been based on the Cotswold Canals Connected Project Board and was approved by the National Lottery Heritage Fund Project Board. The five key areas of the revised approach were highlighted as below:

• Completing the community engagement and environment programmes by the end of 2025.
• Completing section 3 of the canal from Stonehouse to Eastington by the end of 2025.
• Submitting a monitoring and evaluation report in December 2025.
• Commencing works on the ‘Missing Mile’ now the planning application has been secured and within available budgets.
• Securing additional funding required to complete the project.

Councillor Braun confirmed that the working would be done within the original National Lottery Heritage Fund budget and the funding which had been secured however this would only allow the council to complete the restoration of the canal between Stonehouse and Eastington and additional funds would be required to complete the ‘Missing Mile’ and connection to the canal network at Saul Junction. She was grateful that they had secured support for the phased programme of work which would allow the project to continue and thanked the many volunteers who were helping to deliver the project.

Proposed by Councillor Braun and seconded by Councillor Turner.

Councillor Turner paid tribute to the Environmental Officer from the Wildlife Trust who was leaving the Trust and had put so much effort into the project.

Councillor Davies gave thanks to the Officers involved and the huge team of volunteers who had carried out much of the work. He highlighted the Councillors who were stepping down who had been heavily involved with the project since its conception and shared his enthusiasm for the innovative and exciting project.

Councillor Studdert-Kennedy who had been involved with the project since its start wanted to congratulate the teams involved and stated that he looked forward to its completion.

Councillor Layfield echoed comments from Councillor Davies and stated that the canal had been a huge engineering project but there had been a shift towards nature and engagement. He advised that he was proud of the work that had been achieved by all partners involved.

Councillor Hurst reminded Members that there was still a small section called Iron Mills which would be critical to complete for the success of Brimscombe Port.

Councillor Pearson stated that he was in full support of the report and highlighted the changes that had been made since he walked along the route in 2009 with the previous Canal Manager and paid tribute to Councillor Studdert-Kennedy who had put a large amount of work into the project.

Councillor Braun advised that the next phase of the project was really exciting and encouraged Councillors to support it.

On being put to the vote the Motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED To approve the revised approach as set out in this report as recommended by the Strategy and  ...  view the full minutes text for item CL.081

This report sets out :

•  The background to the pause in the examination of the draft Local Plan

•  The Inspectors’ concerns over M5 Junction 14

• The work that needs to be undertaken to progress the draft Local Plan (design and costing)

• The funding required to deliver the design and costing as set out in the Joint Action Plan

Councillor Turner, the Chair of Environment Committee, introduced the report which set out; the background to the agreed pause in the examination of the draft local plan, the inspector's concerns in relation to Junction 14 of the M5, the work that needed to be undertaken to progress the draft local plan, the design and costings in relation to junction 14 and the funding required to deliver as also set out in the Joint Action Plan. She confirmed that they were seeking the approval for a budget up to £100k for the M5 Junction 14 design and costings to allow the draft local plan examination to continue. Councillor Turner highlighted the following key points:

• During the examination in public of the draft local plan, National Highways had advised that the exiting junction arrangement at Junction 14 was operating at capacity at peak times therefore improvement was required in order to accommodate the forecast growth in the area.
• The inspectors requested that the concerns around the M5 junction were addressed and therefore the joint action plan had been drafted and agreed by Stroud District Council and partners; Gloucestershire County Council and South Gloucestershire Council.
• The Joint Action Plan was published on the examination library.
• South Gloucestershire Council was both the Highways Agency and Local Planning Authority for where Junction 14 was situated.
• South Gloucestershire Council did not have an interest in taking forward the design and costings itself because their local plan was at a much earlier stage than Stroud District Council’s.
• As South Gloucestershire Council and National Highways were not in a position to take the lead on the required works Stroud District Council would need to take a proactive lead in order to meet the deadlines that the inspectors have set and that are laid out in the Joint Action Plan.
• Section 2.8 of the report set out the risks of not proceeding.
• Any funding not spent from the requested £100k would be returned to the equalisation reserve.
• If South Gloucestershire Council was asked at a later stage by the inspector to do work around Junction 14 then the Council would look to recoup proportional costs.

In response to questions the following answers were provided by Councillor Turner, the Interim Planning Strategy Manager and the Chief Executive:

• National Highways was a partner involved with the Joint Action Plan and had not flagged any concerns around it not being viable to develop Junction 14.
• There had been no direct discussion with the inspectors about modifying the draft local plan, all of the correspondence had been published in the examination library.
• There was no agreement in place to recoup any costs from South Gloucestershire Council however if they did utilise the junction improvement plans and designs the Council would look to recoup proportional costs.
• South Gloucestershire’s Draft Local Plan was at a much earlier stage and their plan would need to evolve further before comparisons could be drawn.
• The £100k requested was based on a quote from AECOM the engineering consultants.
• Section  ...  view the full minutes text for item CL.082

This report brings forward to council recommended amendments to sections 2 (meeting of the council) and 4 (scheme of delegation) of the constitution, As approved by the Constitution Working Group at its meeting on 22 February 2024.

Councillor Pearson, Chair of the Constitution Working Group, introduced the report and advised that he believed that the Working Group had now managed to look over and update the whole constitution. He reminded Members that the Constitution was a working document and therefore the Working Group would continue to review it. The changes recommended to Council were largely cosmetic and were to ensure that information was brought up to date. He highlighted the following key points:

• The terms of reference for committees have been updated by Heads of Services, they were high level and not intended to be a comprehensive list of everything a committee might deal with.
• Since the publication of the papers the reference to the appointment of a member of the Strategy Resources Committee as chair of the Strategic Planning Advisory Board was incorrect. This would be updated to reflect that the appointment was made by the Environment Committee.
• The first bullet point in the Environment Committee Terms of Reference had also been updated to read strategic planning as opposed to strategic planning of the local plan to reflect the wider role of the committee in this area.

Proposed by Councillor Pearson, seconded by Councillor Studdert-Kennedy.

Councillor Davies thanked the Councillors on the Constitution Working Group and expressed his gratitude to Councillor Pearson and the Monitoring Officer for their hard work.

Councillor Robinson echoed comments from Councillor Davies and offered thanks to the Members on the Working Group and the Monitoring Officer.

Councillor Studdert-Kennedy recommended that the new incoming Councillors read the Constitution before attending meetings in the Council Chamber. He also commended Councillor Pearson for his hard work and infinite patience as Chair of the Constitution Working Group.

Councillor Pearson thanked those members who had been part of the Constitution Working Group and the current and previous Monitoring Officers for their contributions.

On being put to the vote, the Motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED To approve the revised section 2 (Meetings of the Council) and section 4 (Scheme of Delegation) of the Constitution.

To consider the emerging form and function of the Gloucestershire City Region Board (GCRB), the nature of its authority, terms of reference, membership and joint scrutiny arrangements.

Councillor Braun introduced the report and advised that the Local Authorities in Gloucestershire had been working together to coordinate economic development activity across the County since the establishment of the Gloucestershire Economic Growth Joint Committee in 2014. The inter-authority agreement had been extended several times but had now ended. She reminded Members that Leadership Gloucestershire had also been developing a vision to replace the Joint Committee. She drew Members attention to Section 2 of the report which set out the purpose of the board and section 3 which set out the principles. Appendix 1 set out the Terms of Reference and included details about the powers and administrative arrangements. The report proposed that the elected member representative for Stroud District Council was the Leader of the Council.

In response to a question from Councillor Studdert-Kennedy, Councillor Braun advised that the Gloucestershire First Local Enterprise Partnership would cease to exist at the end of the previous financial year. She confirmed that they had been wrapped up in the County Council where the Chief Executive of the Local Enterprise Partnership became a Director of the County Council.

Proposed by Councillor Braun and seconded by Councillor Bennett.

Councillor Bennett advised that it had taken a long time to get to this stage and hoped the new proposal would work well.

Councillor Davies welcomed the proposal but highlighted the name of the Board mentioned Cities when Stroud District didn’t have any.

Councillor Braun confirmed that there had been discussion about the name but the leader of the County Council had insisted on City Region Board. She encouraged Councillors to support the proposal.

On being put to the vote, the Motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED To:

a)    Agree to the establishment of the Gloucestershire City Region Board (GCRB; the Board)

b)    Delegate authority to the Chief Executive and Monitoring Officer, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, to finalise and complete the Inter-Authority Agreement and other key documentation and to take all necessary steps to create the GCRB, including finalising the terms of reference for the GCRB

c)    Agree that the above resolutions will not be effective until all Gloucestershire councils pass equivalent resolutions.

d)    Upon the establishment of the GCRB:

i)     delegate this Council's functions to the GCRB as are necessary for the delivery of the functions identified in the Terms of Reference at Appendix 1 to this report;

ii)    confirm the appointment of Gloucestershire County Council as the Administering Authority;

iii)   agree to appoint the Leader of the Council to the GCRB as the nominated member of the Board. If the Leader is unable to attend a meeting of the GCRB the Leader will nominate an alternative member of the administration to attend the Board as a substitute.

To note the emerging County Deal for Gloucestershire and to agree to the Leader of the Council signing the Devolution Memorandum of Understanding with Gloucestershire County Council on behalf of Stroud District Council.

Councillor Braun advised that the report was asking for support from Gloucestershire County Council to pursue a County Deal for Gloucestershire. She confirmed that the Autumn Statement in November 2022 announced the intention of the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to offer Level 2 devolution deals to 7 County areas including Gloucestershire. The proposed benefits of a County Deal for Gloucestershire were limited and were highlighted in Section 2 of the report.

Proposed by Councillor Braun, seconded by Councillor Bennett

On being put to the vote the Motion was carried with 31 votes in favour, 0 against and 2 abstentions.

RESOLVED To agree to the Leader of the Council, on behalf of the Council, signing the Devolution Memorandum of Understanding at Appendix 1 to this report with Gloucestershire County Council in respect of the proposed County Deal for Gloucestershire.

To appoint a Monitoring Officer.

The Chief Executive introduced the report and advised Members that when the One Legal Partnership had begun in 2020 there had been an ambition for One Legal to provide the Council with Monitoring Officer services. In 2020 One Legal were unable to resource the request however now the current Monitoring Officer was leaving they had been able to take the opportunity to reassess the offering from One Legal. The Chief Executive confirmed that the proposal was to contract with Onel Legal to purchase Monitoring Officer services. The report sought permission to appoint Hayley Sims as the designated Monitoring Officer and to enter into a secondment agreement arrangement with One Legal.

Councillor Studdert-Kennedy asked for confirmation as to when the new Monitoring Officer would start at Stroud District Council. The Chief Executive confirmed that if Council agreed the appointment the new Monitoring Officer would begin on the 1 May 2024.

Proposed by Councillor Braun and seconded by Councillor Turner.

Councillor Studdert-Kennedy offered his thanks to Claire Hughes the outgoing Monitoring Officer for her help during her time as Monitoring Officer.

Councillor Braun echoed thanks to Claire Hughes for all her support and advice and was pleased that Hayley would now be able to join the Council as Monitoring Officer.

On being put to the vote the Motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED That:

a)    Hayley Sims be designated Monitoring Officer for the Council in accordance with section 5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 with effect from 1 May 2024 for an initial period of one year

b)    The Chief Executive be authorised to enter into a secondment agreement with One Legal (via Tewkesbury Borough Council) to second the above-mentioned One Legal officer to Stroud District Council

To advise Members on the arrangements for the redistribution of the responsibilities of the current Corporate Director and Monitoring Officer and to seek support for a process to identify and appoint one Strategic Director as Deputy Chief Executive.

The Strategic Directors were asked to leave the room before the start of the item.

The Chief Executive introduced the report which addressed some consequential changes as a result of the departure of the Corporate Director and Monitoring Officer. Section 2 set out the proposal for the Data Protection Officer, section 3 set out other responsibilities which would be delegated to other Officers of the Council, principally the Head of Corporate Policy and Governance. The Chief Executive advised that they were also asking for support to create a role of Deputy Chief Executive, the role would be a good developmental opportunity for the Directors and would allow for succession planning.

Proposed by Councillor Braun and seconded by Councillor Layfield.

Councillor Layfield stated that it made pragmatic sense to develop the workforce and a sensible direction for the Council to take.

Councillor Braun encouraged Councillors to support the proposal.

On being put to the vote the Motion was carried with 31 votes in favour, 0 votes against and 2 abstentions.

RESOLVED To:

a)    Note the arrangements for the redistribution of the responsibilities of the Corporate Director and Monitoring Officer not covered by report to appoint a new Monitoring Officer

b)    Support the process outlined in this report to identify and appoint one Strategic Director as Deputy Chief Executive, including the involvement of all Group Leaders or their nominated representatives and the Chief Executive in the Final Selection Panel

c)    Add £16k to the budget from 2024/25 to support the arrangements set out in this report.

To provide an update on the Ubico Five Year Vision and Business Plan 2024/2025.

The Chief Executive introduced the report and advised that as the Councils shareholder representative she could agree the business plan but for transparency purposes has brought it Council for consideration. The Chief Executive confirmed that the themes for the business plan had been considered by Environment Committee in December 2023 and the draft business plan had been circulated so that all Group Leaders had had the chance to review it.

Proposed by Councillor Turner and seconded by Councillor Layfield.

Councillor Layfield and Turner offered their support for the business plan.

On being put to the vote, the Motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED To note the Ubico Business Plan for 2024/2025.