Notice of a meeting of Cabinet
Tuesday, 15 September 2015 6.00 pm Municipal Offices, Promenade, Cheltenham, GL50 9SA
Membership Councillors: Steve Jordan, John Rawson, Rowena Hay, Peter Jeffries, Andrew McKinlay, Jon Walklett and Chris Coleman
Agenda SECTION 1 : PROCEDURAL MATTERS
1. APOLOGIES
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
3. MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING (Pages 3 - 16)
4. PUBLIC AND MEMBER QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS These must be received no later than 12 noon on the fourth working day before the date of the meeting
SECTION 2 :THE COUNCIL There are no matters referred to the Cabinet by the Council on this occasion
SECTION 3 : OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE There are no matters referred to the Cabinet by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on this occasion
SECTION 4 : OTHER COMMITTEES There are no matters referred to the Cabinet by other Committees on this occasion
SECTION 5 : REPORTS FROM CABINET MEMBERS AND/OR OFFICERS
5. GAMBLING ACT 2005 STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES (Pages Report of the Cabinet Member Development and Safety 17 - 54)
1 6. AMENDMENTS TO LICENSING POLICY, GUIDANCE (Pages AND CONDITIONS FOR PRIVATE HIRE AND TAXIS 55 - 76) OPERATING WITHIN THE BOROUGH OF CHELTENHAM Report of the Cabinet Member Development and Safety
7. RECOMMENDED OPTION FOR THE FUTURE (Pages PROVISION OF THE CHELTENHAM CREMATORIUM 77 - SERVICE 122) Report of the Cabinet Member Clean and Green Environment
8. LECKHAMPTON AND WARDEN HILL (Pages NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN AREA APPLICATION 123 - Report of the Leader 154)
9. SHOPMOBILITY-FUTURE DELIVERY (Pages Report of the Cabinet Member Healthy Lifestyles 155 - 176)
SECTION 6 : BRIEFING SESSION Leader and Cabinet Members
10. BRIEFING FROM CABINET MEMBERS
SECTION 7 : DECISIONS OF CABINET MEMBERS Member decisions taken since the last Cabinet meeting
SECTION 8 : ANY OTHER ITEM(S) THAT THE LEADER DETERMINES TO BE URGENT AND REQUIRES A DECISION
Contact Officer: Rosalind Reeves, Democratic Services Manager, 01242 774937 Email: [email protected]
2 Agenda Item 3 Page 3
Cabinet
Tuesday, 14th July, 2015 6.00 - 7.15 pm
Attendees Councillors: Steve Jordan (Leader of the Council), John Rawson (Cabinet Member Finance), Rowena Hay (Cabinet Member Healthy Lifestyles), Peter Jeffries (Cabinet Member Housing), Andrew McKinlay (Cabinet Member Development and Safety), Jon Walklett (Cabinet Member Corporate Services) and Chris Coleman (Cabinet Member Clean and Green Environment)
Also in attendance: Councillor John Payne and Councillor Diggory Seacome
Minutes
1. APOLOGIES None
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Councillor Rawson declared a personal, non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 15- Community Pride Fund as a member of the Friends of Pittville Park and as a personal friend of the chair of trustees of the Christian Arts Festival.
Councillor Jordan declared a personal and prejudicial interest in agenda item 8- Grant Assistance for New Affordable Housing as a member of the YMCA board.
3. MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING The minutes of the meeting held on 16 June 2015 were approved and signed as a correct record.
4. PUBLIC AND MEMBER QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS None.
5. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE SCRUTINY TASK GROUP - SHOPMOBILITY Councillor John Payne, member of the Scrutiny Task Group Shopmobiilty, was invited to address Cabinet. The task group, together with the Cabinet Member Healthy Lifestyles, visited the Shopmobility service and noted the phenomenal enthusiasm among staff. The service had been located in the Beechwood Arcade since 1992 but had been served with a notice to quit in November. Whilst the present location was not ideal it was close to a car park and at ground level. He said that looking forward the service needed to develop as it was currently not sufficiently resourced to fully exploit opportunities with partners or via advertising. One of the recommendations from the group was therefore to consider strategies to enhance the service including partnership options with other local service providers.
- 1 - Draft minutes to be approved at the next meeting on. Tuesday, 15 September 2015 Page 4
The Leader wished to put on record his thanks to the task group. A member asked whether the task group had considered if it would be possible to search for partners and a new premises at the same time. In response the member of the scrutiny task group said that the priority was finding a new location as if the service failed this would be a disaster for the town. Officers should then explore partnership options.
RESOLVED THAT
the report of the Scrutiny Task Group be noted.
6. SHOPMOBILITY -FUTURE DELIVERY The Cabinet Member Healthy Lifestyles introduced the report and thanked the scrutiny task group for its report, particularly in view of the tight timescales involved. She explained that Cabinet could not accept the group’s recommendations in their entirety at this stage and Cabinet’s approval was sought on authorising officers to carry out the consultation with interested and affected parties on the future of Shopmobility provision. She highlighted that a report would be brought back to the September meeting of Cabinet and that scrutiny may well be asked to be involved in the next steps of the delivery project. She emphasised that there were obvious linkages with partners and these needed to be explored further. The scrutiny task group member thanked the Cabinet member and believed that this was a pragmatic approach.
RESOLVED THAT 1. consultation is undertaken with interested and affected parties on the future of the Shopmobility provision, the findings to be reported to Cabinet in September. 2. authority be delegated to the Director of Environmental and Regulatory Services to carry out the consultation. 3. a search for the relocation of Shopmobility premises continues in order to expedite decisions about location if necessary following the September meeting in time for relocation in November, the search in the interim to be in consultation with the Cabinet Member Healthy Lifestyles.
7. PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACT MANAGEMENT STRATEGY The Cabinet Member Corporate Services introduced the report which brought a revised Procurement and Contract Management Strategy for approval. He explained that this GO Shared Services Procurement strategy replaced the CBC corporate procurement strategy 2007-2012 - an overarching common strategy for all four partners that included agreement for UBICO and Cheltenham Borough Homes.
He informed Members that the contents of two specific government bills had contributed and added to the content of this strategy. Firstly the Public Services Social Value Act 2012 and the Public Contracts Regulation 2015. The former act placed a duty on local authorities at the "pre-procurement" phase to
- 2 - Draft minutes to be approved at the next meeting on Tuesday, 15 September 2015 Page 5
consider how and what was being procured might improve the economic, social and environmental well-being in their community.
The Cabinet Member highlighted that the principal priorities of the strategy were as follows: 1) the delivery of efficiencies and quality and 2) the development and embracement of socially responsible and sustainable procurement by engaging with local and regional suppliers to promote the local economy and to take account of the social, economic and environmental impact of spending decisions
The key points to note were 1) collaboration with other bodies such as Gloucestershire Procurement Partnership, Oxfordshire Procurement Hub, Local Enterprise Partnership and Federation of Small Business 2) New public contract regulations-engagement with SME's 3) Strategy code-officers and councils to follow set procedures to comply with regulations 4) Good practice-a template covering Social value, Health & Safety, Equalities plus Transparency and Contract Management.
The Cabinet Member informed the meeting that this strategy was discussed at the June meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and it was agreed to investigate with other districts possibilities to create preferred supplier lists and make every effort to explore possibilities of scaling down very large contracts in order to further increase opportunities for smaller local businesses to bid.
The Cabinet Member concluded by saying that the performance and achievements of the new strategy would be monitored by Internal Audit.
RESOLVED THAT
the revised Procurement and Contract Management Strategy be approved.
8. GRANT ASSISTANCE FOR NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING Having declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item the Leader left the room and did not participate in the debate.
The Cabinet Member Housing introduced the report and explained that Cheltenham YMCA was planning to develop 31 units of new affordable homes within Cheltenham on two sites and in order to do this required financial assistance from the Homes & Communities Agency and Cheltenham Borough Council. He highlighted the good work that the YMCA undertook to accommodate young people and the assistance they gave them to move towards independent living. He believed this would be positive for the town, particularly in the light of benefit cuts.
Members supported the proposal and welcomed the scheme which was aimed at those who required assistance in their move towards independent living.
RESOLVED THAT
- 3 - Draft minutes to be approved at the next meeting on Tuesday, 15 September 2015 Page 6
1. the award of a grant of £496,000 to Cheltenham YMCA from the Housing Enabling capital budget be approved to enable 31 new affordable homes to be provided subject to the following conditions being satisfied:
That relevant planning consents are obtained
The YMCA’s application to the Homes & Communities Agency for grant funding is successful
The total cost of delivering the scheme is financially viable overall
Confirmation is obtained from the original payer of the commuted sums that they consider the grant proposals fall within the intended use of the commuted sums
All documentation securing the use of the grant for affordable housing and the retention of units supported by the grant as affordable housing in perpetuity being entered into; and
The receipt of invoices/evidence as to the actual costs incurred
2. the entering into a grant agreement in respect of the grant and all documentation securing the use of the grant for affordable housing and the retention of units supported by the grant as affordable housing in perpetuity be delegated to the Director of Environmental & Regulatory Services on terms approved by the Borough Solicitor
9. OLDER PEOPLES' HOUSING SUPPORT SERVICE PROVISION UNDER CHELTENHAM BOROUGH HOMES The Cabinet Member Housing introduced the report and explained that Gloucestershire County Council’s Supporting People team commissioned Cheltenham Borough Council to provide housing-related support services to older people living in sheltered housing. This service was delivered by Cheltenham Borough Homes as the Council’s managing agents through a formal management agreement. He explained that in 2014 Cabinet agreed to develop and deliver a Community Asset service model. This meant that CBC (via CBH) would provide a more comprehensive, flexible housing-related support service to older people, both within sheltered housing schemes and in the community at large, whilst also providing a number of community hubs. These hubs would deliver services and activities that benefitted both residents of the sheltered housing scheme, as well as those living within the surrounding neighbourhood. The Cabinet Member referred members to the case study in Appendix 3 which illustrated the benefits of the hub and the use by the wider community.
The Cabinet Member thanked Cheltenham Borough Homes and in particular the Community Services Manager for their valuable work and informed the meeting that a second community hub was likely to be set up in a different part of town in the future.
- 4 - Draft minutes to be approved at the next meeting on Tuesday, 15 September 2015 Page 7
Members welcomed the success of this project and believed it would be extremely valuable to share its success as wide as possible. It provided good evidence of how CBH worked well in the community on behalf of CBC.
RESOLVED THAT
1. the continued development and delivery of the Community Asset Model be agreed
2. the Deputy Chief Executive be authorised to agree to an extension of the current arrangement until October 2016 or enter into either a new or varied contractual arrangement as appropriate with Gloucestershire County Council in consultation with the s151 Officer and on terms approved by the Borough Solicitor.
10. OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IN PITTVILLE PARK AND MONTPELLIER GARDENS The Cabinet Member Finance introduced the report and explained that this concerned the cafes and recreational facilities in Pittville Park and Montpellier Gardens. The leases for these facilities were due to expire on 4 August to enable the council to consider the future of these facilities in view of the lease of the café in leisure@ expiring on the same date. However it had subsequently been decided to keep this separate. He went on further to explain that as the date of expiry of the lease was set at the height of the summer, the busiest time of year for the park cafes, it was hoped to achieve greater interest from prospective contractors at a more convenient time of year and thus the report proposed to retender in February 2016.
Members agreed that the current lease of the facilities had worked extremely well and recognised the achievements of the Cheltenham Coffee Co. Limited. They thanked them for breathing new life into the facilities.
RESOLVED THAT
1. the authority lease the land and buildings edged in red on the plans that accompany this report to the Cheltenham Coffee Co. Limited from 5th August 2015 until 8th February 2016 and authority be delegated to the Head of Asset and Property Management, in consultation with the Borough solicitor, to agree the terms of the lease.
2. the authority lease the land and buildings edged red on the plans that accompany this report to a new contractor, chosen following a tendering procedure, on the terms as referenced in Appendix 3 and authority be delegated to the Head of Asset and Property Management in consultation with the Borough solicitor to agree the terms of the leases.
11. FOOD SAFETY DELIVERY PLAN
- 5 - Draft minutes to be approved at the next meeting on Tuesday, 15 September 2015 Page 8
The Cabinet Member Development and Safety introduced the report and explained that the Food Standards Act 1999 required the Council to produce a Food Safety Service Plan. This was the Council’s expression of commitment to the delivery of an improving cost effective and efficient regulatory food service. He explained that the Food Safety Service Plan was an annual operational plan and gave details of how Cheltenham was going to execute its statutory food safety functions within the Public Protection service under the Director of Environmental & Regulatory Services.
The Cabinet Member referred members to Appendix 2 and the list of current premises inspected with the focus of efforts on those businesses that did not meet the minimum legislative standards. He explained that Category A premises were inspected every 6 months, Category B premises every 12 months and Category C every 18 months. Premises in categories D and E presented a lower risk and in order to focus more resources in categories A-C it was now proposed that D and E would not be inspected in 2015-16 but in 2016- 17. The Cabinet Member confirmed that this would still comply with the statutory requirement.
Members supported this approach.
RESOLVED THAT
the Food Safety Service Plan 2015-16 be approved.
12. HEALTH AND SAFETY DELIVERY PLAN The Cabinet Member introduced the report and explained that the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 required the Council to produce a Health and Safety Service Plan. This represented the Council’s expression of commitment to the delivery of an improving cost effective and efficient regulatory service.
The Cabinet Member explained that the service plan was currently an annual plan detailing how Cheltenham was going to undertake its statutory health and safety regulatory functions. It was proposed that this service plan became a three year plan, with an annual performance and workplan refresh to be communicated to Members and the Senior Leadership Team via a briefing note each year.
Members supported this approach.
RESOLVED THAT
1. the Health and Safety Delivery Plan 2015-18 be approved.
2. the move to a three-yearly service plan, with an annual performance briefing note to Members, be approved.
13. FINANCIAL OUTTURN 2014/15 AND BUDGET MONITORING TO JUNE 2015 The Cabinet Member Finance introduced the report which highlighted the Council’s financial performance for the previous year which set out the General Fund and Housing Revenue Account (HRA) revenue and capital outturn
- 6 - Draft minutes to be approved at the next meeting on Tuesday, 15 September 2015 Page 9
position for 2014/15. The information contained within the report had been used to prepare the Council’s Statement of Accounts for 2014/15.
The Cabinet Member said that 2014/15 had been a particularly difficult year for balancing the books. In January 2015 a possible overspend of £178,000 had been forecasted. There were at that time particular concerns regarding shortfalls in parking income and crematorium income, although both these items had susequently recovered. He reported however, that another problem had hit the council completely from left field and this related to the impact on the Gloucestershire business rates pool of a successful major reevaluation appeal by Virgin Media in Tewkesbury Borough. This had led to a far bigger reduction in rateable value than was expected. He explained that this had hit Tewkesbury the worst but because all the councils in the Pool shared the risk, it had left the Pool in deficit and the council has had to contribute £285,000 as its share of the deficit. The Cabinet Member stressed however that he did not believe that this problem outweighed the benefit of being in the business rates pool. That said councils across the country were being hit by valuation appeals and the LGA were pressing Government to provide them with a degree of protection of sudden losses against such appeals.
The Cabinet Member reported that despite the business rates problem the council finished the financial year within budget, with a very small underspend of just over £9,000. He paid tribute to the very good financial management within the council by officers.
The Cabinet Member then went on to explain that as always a certain amount of revenue expenditure had been carried forward subject to Council approval. This included £23 000 to commission a new tourism and marketing strategy for the town, £40,000 to the planning appeals reserve and £40 000 for costs related to the JCS which would be matched by Tewkesbury and Gloucester councils.
The Cabinet Member Finance thanked the Budget Scrutiny Working Group which had played a valuable role in the process. He also thanked officers for their hard work, in particular the new S151 Officer Paul Jones and the Deputy Section 151 Officers Sarah Didcote and Nina Philippidis.
Finally, the Cabinet Member Finance referred to the Tour of Britain cycle race which was referenced in section 14 of the report. Cheltenham and some other local councils were in discussion with the organisers of the 2016 Tour of Britain Cycle Race about the possibility that one of the eight stages of the event might begin and end in Gloucestershire. He emphasised that this was still at the discussion stage but it would be a huge boost to the economy and would raise Cheltenham's profile nationally and internationally as a festival town and tourist destination. If it went ahead, with a major stage of the race taking place in Cheltenham, the council would be asked to underwrite £75,000 of the cost. Officers were working hard with the Cheltenham Trust to cover that cost through sponsorship by local businesses and other organisations, as other local authorities have done.
The Cabinet Member Healthy Lifestyles reiterated the need for Cheltenham to promote itself and emphasised that the Tour of Britain was the largest free event in the country and would be a great boost for the town.
- 7 - Draft minutes to be approved at the next meeting on Tuesday, 15 September 2015 Page 10
The Leader of the Council thanked officers for their hard work over the last year. He expressed his concern that Government had delegated its historic valuation appeals locally which in the Virgin media case had effectively wiped out 3 years’ worth of surplus for the whole of Gloucestershire. He emphasised that concerns had been expressed to the Secretary of State and there was an ongoing conversation at Gloucestershire level. Despite this issue it was commendable that the council’s finances were still on track.
RESOLVED THAT
Council be recommended to :
1. Receive the financial outturn performance position for the General Fund, summarised at Appendix 2, and note that services have been delivered within the revised budget for 2014/15 resulting in a saving (after carry forward requests) of £9,021 which will be returned to general balances.
2. Approve £380,700 of carry forward requests (requiring member approval) at Appendix 5.
3. Note the annual treasury management report at Appendix 7 and approve the actual 2014/15 prudential and treasury indicators.
4. Approve the additional ICT requirements (section 6) to be funded from capital resources unapplied.
5. Approve the additional capital programme in respect of affordable housing (section 7).
6. Note the capital programme outturn position as detailed in Appendix 8 and approve the carry forward of unspent budgets into 2015/16 (section 8).
7. Note the position in respect of Section 106 agreements and partnership funding agreements at Appendix 9 (section 10).
8. Note the outturn position in respect of collection rates for council tax and non-domestic rates for 2014/15 in Appendix 10 (section 11).
9. Note the outturn position in respect of collection rates for sundry debts for 2014/15 in Appendix 11 (section 12).
10. Receive the financial outturn performance position for the Housing Revenue Account for 2014/15 in Appendices 12 to 13 and approves the carry forward of unspent budgets into 2015/16 (section 13).
11. Agree to guarantee any shortfall in the funding of the Gloucestershire leg of the Tour of Britain up to a value of £75,000, to be funded from General Balances as outlined in section 14.
12. Note the budget monitoring position to the end of June 2015
- 8 - Draft minutes to be approved at the next meeting on Tuesday, 15 September 2015 Page 11
(section 15) and approve the budget virement of £65,000.
14. REVIEW OF THE COUNCIL'S PERFORMANCE AT END OF 2014-15 The Cabinet Member Corporate Services introduced the report which summarised Cheltenham Borough Council's performance Milestones and Measures set out in the 2014/15 action plan.
He reported that a total of 84 milestones were identified and 80 percent of these were completed. Whilst a number were not achieved he confirmed that robust plans had been put in place to achieve a number of these during the first quarter of 2015/16.
The Cabinet Member highlighted the following milestones which had been achieved :
Well Maintained Environment Following the trial on mixed plastics earlier in the year significant progress had been made with the Council taking the decision to make this a permanent service.
Access to decent and affordable housing. Cabinet gave approval in March 2015 for CBC/CBH to go out to tender on the delivery of new affordable housing on a number of owned garage sites. Cheltenham was leading the south west in the completion of affordable housing provision
People able to lead healthy lifestyles. Registration of the Cheltenham Trust was achieved in May 2014 with Cabinet approving the transfer of services to the Trust at its meeting on 26th September.
Cashable savings and increased income Agreement made to continue with the One Legal Service to the end of the current Section 101 agreement to 2019. Gloucester City Council have now also agreed to join the shared service reducing costs to Cheltenham Borough Council by £10 000 annually.
Members welcomed the positive achievements over the last year which should be celebrated such as the recycling campaigns.
The Leader added that the report would be discussed further at the Council meeting on 20 July.
RESOLVED THAT
the review of performance in 2014-15 be endorsed
15. COMMUNITY PRIDE FUND The Leader introduced the report and explained that as part of the 2015-16 budget £50 000 was set aside for the community pride scheme. In addition a
- 9 - Draft minutes to be approved at the next meeting on Tuesday, 15 September 2015 Page 12
further £4 000 was added to the pot from the community development budget to create a community building grant fund. He reported that both funds were made available to support neighbourhood based projects that would build up community pride and enable local groups to be more influential in supporting their communities and improving their neighbourhoods. In total 30 community pride applications had been received for £50 000 of funding. The Leader thanked the Panel who had met on 29 June to assess the applications.
The Leader explained that some applications had been agreed in full, whereas some had been scaled down due to the size of the project. Further clarification was also sought on some projects. Particular mention was given to Bath Road Terrace and car parks and its greening vision. Whilst the bid did not meet the chosen criteria the Leader highlighted that officers were keen to meet with them and look at the project as part of the corporate strategy 2016.
Members welcomed the diversity of requests that had been received from across the borough.
The Leader reminded members that this concerned match funding of projects.
RESOLVED THAT
1. the list of projects to be funded from community pride funds as set out in Appendix 2 be approved.
2. authority be delegated to the Strategy and Engagement Manager, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, how best to award the remaining funds.
(having declared an interest in this agenda item the Cabinet Member Finance abstained from the vote)
16. HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT-NEW BUILD The Cabinet Member Housing introduced the report and explained that in March 2015 Cabinet resolved that the Authority should seek bids from contractors to build new homes across Cheltenham on a number of garage sites. He stated that following a recent procurement exercise this report sought approval to enter into a JCT Design and Build Contract with J Harper and Sons with Total Scheme Costs not to exceed £1,684,800. He reported that the scheme would deliver up to ten new homes on four HRA garage sites, representing the first Council owned stock built since the late 1980’s. The Cabinet Member wished to put on record his thanks to officers both at the council and CBH for their hard work. These were complex redevelopments and Cheltenham was now leading the south west in the provision of affordable homes.
The Cabinet Member drew Members’ attention to section 6 of the report. He explained that the majority of the dwellings CBC proposed to build would be at 80% of market rent; however there was a risk that if the proposed 4 bedroom dwelling was set at the 80% level, then this would be unaffordable for larger households on low incomes. It was therefore proposed that this be set at 70 % of market rent.
- 10 - Draft minutes to be approved at the next meeting on Tuesday, 15 September 2015 Page 13
Members supported the proposals. They recognised that whilst there were above average house prices there was no reduction in the number of people requiring affordable housing. It was important that sites continued to be brought forward for development and that market rents were affordable and fit for purpose.
The Leader reminded members that this report would be submitted to Council for approval.
RESOLVED THAT
1. subject to subsequent Council approval, the Authority be authorised to accept the tender received from J Harper and Sons and enter into a JCT Design and Build Contract for the construction of up to ten new dwellings on the garage sites listed in section 2 of this report with Total Scheme Costs not to exceed £1,684,800.
2. authority be delegated to the Head of Property and Asset Management, in consultation with the Borough Solicitor to:
2.1. Conclude the JCT Design and Build contract with J Harper and Sons including removing the Parkbury Close /Rowanfield Road site if planning permission is not granted;
2.2 Take all necessary steps and undertake all necessary procedures, including entering into any legal agreements or other documentation as may be required to implement or facilitate the developments.
3. the Authority be authorised to charge Affordable Rents to all ten dwellings at 80% of Market Rents with the exception of the four bedroom dwelling proposed at Parkbury Close/Rowanfield Road. At this site authorise the Authority to charge 70% market rent.
that Council be recommended to :
4. Authorise the allocation of up to £1,684,000 for the construction of up to ten new dwellings on the garage sites listed in section 2 of this report.
5. Note that the total scheme costs of £1,684,800 (broken down in further detail in exempt appendix 3) will be funded by circa £500k of RTB receipts with the balance funded by the most appropriate combination of the other funding streams noted within the report – this decision being delegated to the Section 151 Officer in accordance with Financial Rules B7 and B8.
6. Approve the Authority sourcing loan finance of up to £1.0m from the Public Works Loan Board to be used for the construction of up to ten new dwellings on the garage sites listed in section 2 of this report.
- 11 - Draft minutes to be approved at the next meeting on Tuesday, 15 September 2015 Page 14
17. BRIEFING FROM CABINET MEMBERS The Cabinet Member Clean and Green Environment updated members on the Pittville Park Play Area rejuvation project and informed that a briefing note would be circulated shortly. He reported that over 300 responses had been received to the public consultation and officers were currently assessing results. The design brief had been produced and in terms of budget £300k had been allocated from CBC with an additional £40k from the CBC planned maintenance budget. The aim would be to raise additional funding through grants and sponsorship. He reported that 21 companies had expressed an interest and this represented significant work for officers to assess them. In terms of timescale, a contractor would be appointed by September with detailed design work undertaken in October 2015 with the build taking place over the winter with completion scheduled for early summer 2016. The Cabinet Member wished to put on record his thanks to the project team.
The Cabinet Member Clean and Green Environment also updated members on the Cemetery and Crematorium. Five options were now under consideration as follows :
Replace the cremators in the existing facility Build a new crematory and continue to use the existing chapels Extend the existing crematorium Build a new chapel and crematorium
He explained that the public consultation would be launched for a 4 week period from 20 July. There would also be public displays in the Municipal Offices and the Cemetery and Crematorium. A public meeting was also planned and there would be meetings with staff and the cabinet member working group and funeral directors. A briefing note would be circulated to all members in due course.
The Cabinet Member Healthy Lifestyles informed the meeting that a member seminar had taken place recently on the Cheltenham Trust and its first 6 months. It was attended by the Chair and Chief Executive of the Trust and Craig Mortiboys. She remarked that attendance was disappointingly poor but the Trust would be requested to come again as there was a need to engage with all members.
The Cabinet Member Healthy Lifestyles wished to congratulate the Trust for exceeding their targets on ticket sales for the Town Hall and Pittville Pump Room. The Sport and Play and Active Life sessions also exceeded the target engaging over 1500 young people. She reported that the Wilson footfall continued to follow its upward trend. Particularly pleasing was the increased number of volunteer hours with an increase from 142 volunteers in October 2014 to 729 in March 2015. She wished to thank all of these volunteers.
- 12 - Draft minutes to be approved at the next meeting on Tuesday, 15 September 2015 Page 15
The Leader referred to the continuing work on the High Street, centred around the Brewery. Whilst the 14 week period had now concluded there would be a further 6 week closure to work on the stretch between Primark and Bennington Street. He reported that Stagecoach and the Brewery would be undertaking a remarketing exercise at the end of August.
18. CABINET MEMBER DECISIONS The following decisions were reported by Cabinet Members :
1)Cabinet Member Finance- New Lease of Premises at Beechwood Arcade to Shopmobility
That the Head of Property & Asset Management is instructed to agree final terms for the premises upon the most favourable basis achievable for the council. That the Borough Solicitor is authorised to conclude a lease upon the terms finally agreed by the Head of Property & Asset Management.
2 ) Cabinet Member Clean and Green Environment- Materials recycling and facilities equipment evaluation exercise
That the Authority purchases the plan and equipment owned by Printwaste Ltd which is currently used at the recycling materials bulking facility at Swindon Road (with the exception of the weighbridge and software) at a total cost not exceeding £273,465 SUBJECT TO the Head of Property and Asset Management being satisfied following a second condition assessment to be conducted in October 2015 prior to purchase.
That the Director Resources will purchase a new weighbridge and ramps with a value (including delivery and installation) of no more than £20 000.
Chairman
- 13 - Draft minutes to be approved at the next meeting on Tuesday, 15 September 2015 This page is intentionally left blank Page 16 Agenda Item 5 Page 17
Cheltenham Borough Council Cabinet – 15 September 2015 Gambling Act 2005 Statement of Principles
Accountable member Councillor Andy McKinlay, Cabinet Member Development and Safety
Accountable officer Mike Redman, Director of Environment and Regulatory Services
Ward(s) affected All
Key/Significant No Decision
Executive summary The Gambling Act 2005 requires that the council produce, consult on and publish a statement of the principles that they propose to apply when exercising their functions under the Act.
The Act also requires that the Statement of Principles should be kept under review and must be re-published at least every three years.
Cheltenham Borough Council published its existing Statement of Principles in October 2012.
The Statement is now due to be reviewed and a new Statement of Principles will need to be published to take effect no later than January 2016.
Recommendations Cabinet is recommended to:
1. Note the proposed changes to the Statement of Principles; and
2. Approve the attached revised draft of the three year Statement of Principles for the purpose of consultation with all relevant parties; and
3. Subject to no substantive amendments being made following consultation, recommend to Council adoption of the revised Statement of Principles.
Financial implications There are no financial implications arising from this report.
Contact officer: Sarah Didcote, [email protected], 01242 264125
Legal implications As mentioned in the report.
Contact officer: [email protected], 01684 272015
$zh13ldq4.docx Page 1 of 6 Last updated 03 September 2015 Page 18
HR implications No specific HR implications as a result of this report. (including learning and organisational Contact officer: Richard Hall – HR Business Partner, development) [email protected], 01242 77 4972
Key risks As identified in Appendix 1
Corporate and Cheltenham has a strong and sustainable economy community plan Implications Communities feel safe and are safe.
Environmental and None climate change implications
Property/Asset None Implications Contact officer: David [email protected]
$zh13ldq4.docx Page 2 of 6 Last updated 03 September 2015 Page 19 1. Background
1.1 Cheltenham Borough Council is required under section 349 of the Gambling Act 2005 to review and republish its Statement of Principles every three years.
1.2 The council must also ensure that they comply with the Gambling Act 2005 (Licensing Authority Policy Statement) (England and Wales) Regulations 2006 (S.I 636 of 2006). These regulations govern the form statements must take, the procedure to be followed in relation to the preparation, review or revision of statements and the publication of statements.
1.3 These regulations require that a Statement is published by being made available for a period of at least 4 weeks before the date on which it will come into effect:
on the Authority’s website, and
for public inspection in one or more public libraries or other premises in the Borough such as the Council Offices.
1.4 The Commission has published guidance to licensing authorities and the council has a statutory obligation to have regard to this guidance.
1.5 The revised draft Statement of Principles attached at Appendix 2 takes account of changes made to the Commission’s guidance since the council’s last Statement of Principles was published.
Proposed Changes
1.6 Proposed changes to the policy are (apart from a general reorganisation):
Reference to the revised “Probity in Licensing Guide” (page 5)
Inclusion of the new code provision of 10.1.2 under the revised Licence Condition Codes of Practice (page 13)
Updated list of consultees (Appendix A)
Removal of “Glossary of Terms”. Due to regular legislative and guidance changes, technical terms change over the life of the statement or become redundant which has caused difficulty.
Inclusion of a list of organisation officer help and advice to problem gamblers (Appendix D)
Updated list of responsible authorities (Appendix B)
Updated table of “Maximum Stake and Maximum Prize by Category of Machine” (Appendix E)
1.7 Members will note that the changes that have been made are minimal mainly due to the fact that, locally, gambling premises and their regulation do not cause many issues (compared for example to other licensed premises) and the growth of gambling locally has been very slow.
1.8 Put into context, in 2009 there was 1 track licence, 2 licensed adult gaming centres, 1 licensed bingo hall and 16 licensed betting premises. In 2015, there is 1 track licence, 1 licensed adult gaming centre, no bingo halls and a slight increase in licensed betting premises to 18.
$zh13ldq4.docx Page 3 of 6 Last updated 03 September 2015 Page 20 Publication Requirements
1.9 Due to the publication and advertising requirements, Council will need to approve and publish a revised Statement of Principles no later than December 2015 and therefore will need to agree the revised Statement of Principles at the Council meeting on 14th December 2015.
1.10 The council should carry out the consultation with regard to the Government’s Code of Practice on Consultation which recommends that consultations should last at least 12 weeks. Therefore it is important that consultation on the revised Statement of Principles begins this summer to allow sufficient time for a full and effective exercise to be carried out.
2. Reasons for recommendations
2.1 To ensure Cheltenham Borough Council can effectively meet their obligations under the Gambling Act 2005 in relation to reviewing the Statement of Principles.
3. Alternative options considered
3.1 The council can readopt its existing policy without making any changes but this is not advisable due to the changes in law and practice since the Statement’s last adoption.
3.2 The council can also resolve not to approve the policy for consultation. This too is not recommended due to the fact that the policy review was properly undertaken by officers and in doing so the council will miss the statutory deadline for publication.
4. Consultation and feedback
4.1 When reviewing its Statement of Principles, the council is required to consult with:
the chief officer of police for the authority’s area,
one or more persons who appear to the authority to represent the interests of persons carrying on gambling businesses in the authority’s area, and
one or more persons who appear to the authority to represent the interests of persons who are likely to be affected by the exercise of the authority’s functions under this Act.
4.2 The Council must also advertise the publication of the reviewed Statement of Principles by publishing a notice on its website and in one or more of the following places:
a local newspaper circulating in the area covered by the statement,
a local newsletter, circular, or similar document circulating in the area covered by the statement,
a public notice board in or near the principal office of the authority,
a public notice board on the premises of public libraries in the area covered by the statement.
Report author Contact officer: Louis Krog, [email protected],
01242 26 4217
$zh13ldq4.docx Page 4 of 6 Last updated 03 September 2015 Page 21
Appendices 1. Risk Assessment
2. Draft Statement of Principles
3. Breakdown of proposed changes
Background information 1. Draft Statement of Principles – Adopted 2012
2. Gambling Act 2005
3. Gambling Act 2005 (Licensing Authority Policy Statement) (England and Wales) Regulations 2006 (S.I 636 of 2006)
4. Guidance to Licensing Authorities 4th Edition (October 2012)
$zh13ldq4.docx Page 5 of 6 Last updated 03 September 2015 Risk Assessment Appendix 1
The risk Original risk score Managing risk (impact x likelihood) Risk Risk description Risk Date Impact Likeli- Score Control Action Deadline Responsible Transferred to ref. Owner raised 1-5 hood officer risk register 1-6 Failure to publish a revised Licensing Sept. 2 4 8 Accept Approve statement for Sept. Statement of Principles Team 15 consultation. 15 within the required Leader timescale would leave Cheltenham Borough Council in breach of its statutory obligations.
This could lead to legal challenges, costs to the council and adversely affect the council’s reputation. Page 22
Explanatory notes Impact – an assessment of the impact if the risk occurs on a scale of 1-5 (1 being least impact and 5 being major or critical) Likelihood – how likely is it that the risk will occur on a scale of 1-6 (1 being almost impossible, 2 is very low, 3 is low, 4 significant, 5 high and 6 a very high probability) Control - Either: Reduce / Accept / Transfer to 3rd party / Close
$zh13ldq4.docx Page 6 of 6 Last updated 03 September 2015 Page 23
STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES GAMBLING ACT 2005
All enquiries should be directed to:
Licensing Section Municipal Offices Promenade CHELTENHAM GL50 9SA Tel: 01242 775200 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.cheltenham.gov.uk
This Policy was approved on xx.
All enquiries should be directed to:
Licensing Section Municipal Offices Promenade CHELTENHAM GL50 9SA Tel: 01242 775200 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.cheltenham.gov.uk
This Policy was approved on xx. Page 24
CONTENTS Page PART A
1. The Licensing Objectives 1 2. Introduction 1-2 3. Area Profile 3 4. Declaration 4 5. Responsible Authorities 4 6. Interested Parties 4-5 7. Exchange of Information 6 8. Enforcement 6-7 9. Council Functions 7-8
PART B PREMISES LICENCES: CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATIONS
1. General Principles 9-15 2. Adult Gaming Centres 15 3. (Licensed) Family Entertainment Centres 15-16 4. Casinos 16 5. Bingo Premises 17 6. Betting Premises 17 7. Tracks 17-18 8. Travelling Fairs 19 9. Provisional Statements 19 10. Reviews 20-21
PART C PERMITS/TEMPORARY AND OCCASIONAL USE NOTICES
1. Unlicensed Family Entertainment Centre Gaming Machine Permits 22 2. (Alcohol) Licensed Premises Gaming Machine Permits 23 3. Prize Gaming Permits 24 4. Club Gaming and Club Machines Permits 24-25 5. Temporary Use Notices 25-26 6. Occasional Use Notices 26
APPENDIX A - Consultees 27 APPENDIX B - Contact Details for Responsible Authorities 28-30 APPENDIX C - Table of Delegations of Licensing Functions 31 APPENDIX D - List of Organisations that give help and advice about 32-33 problem gambling APPENDIX E - Maximum Stake and Maximum Prize by Category of Machine 34
Draft Statement of Principles - Gambling Act 2005 (JUNE 2015) Page 25 PART A
1. The Licensing Objectives
In exercising most of their functions under the Act 2005 (“the Act”), licensing authorities must have regard to the licensing objectives as set out in Section 1 of the Act. The licensing objectives are:-
Preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime. Ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way. Protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling.
It should be noted that the Commission (“Commission”) has stated: “The requirement in relation to children is explicitly to protect them from being harmed or exploited by gambling”.
Cheltenham Borough Council (“the council”) is aware that, as per Section 153, in making decisions about premises licences and temporary use notices it should aim to permit the use of premises for gambling in so far as it thinks it is:
in accordance with any relevant code of practice issued by the Commission; in accordance with any relevant guidance issued by the Commission; reasonably consistent with the licensing objectives, and in accordance with the Authority’s Statement of Licensing Policy
2. Introduction
The council is required by the Act to publish a Statement of Principles (“Statement”) which they propose to apply when exercising their functions. This Statement must be published at least every three years. The Statement must also be reviewed from “time to time” and any amended parts re-consulted upon. The Statement must be then republished.
The council will consult widely upon this Statement before finalising and publishing. A list of those persons who will be consulted is provided in Appendix A. The Act requires that the following parties are consulted by licensing authorities:
The Chief Officer of Police; One or more persons who appear to the Authority to represent the interests of persons carrying on gambling businesses in the Authority’s area; One or more persons who appear to the Authority to represent the interests of persons who are likely to be affected by the exercise of the Authority’s functions under the Act.
The council recognises that the best means of promoting the licensing objectives is through the co-operation and partnership of all the responsible authorities, local businesses and residents.
In developing a Statement that will deliver the licensing objectives locally, consultation has taken place in accordance with the revised Code of Practice and the Cabinet Office Guidance on consultations by the public sector.
Consultation took place between x and x.
Statement of Principles - Gambling Act 2005 (JUNE 2015) 1 Page 26
The Statement was considered for approval at a meeting of the Full Council on x and will be published via our website www.cheltenham.gov.uk/licensing on or by 1st January 2016. Copies will be placed in the public libraries of the area as well as being available in the Council Offices.
Should you have any comments as regards this Statement please send them via email or in writing to the Licensing Section:
Address: Licensing Section, Municipal Offices, Promenade, Cheltenham, GL50 9SA
Email: [email protected]
It should be noted that this Statement will not override the right of any person to make an application, make representations about an application, or apply for a review of a licence, as each will be considered on its own merits and according to the statutory requirements of the Act.
Statement of Principles - Gambling Act 2005 (JUNE 2015) 2 Page 27 3. Area Profile
The Area Until the late 1700s, Cheltenham was a small market town that became a fashionable resort after spa waters were discovered. Over the years it has attracted major employers and has gained a reputation for being an international festival town. This, together with its architectural heritage, educational facilities and quality environment, makes Cheltenham an attractive place to live, work and play.
The borough, which includes 5 parishes, has a population of approximately 114,000 who live in 20 wards. The borough is mainly urban with some areas of surrounding countryside. It covers an area of approximately 4,680 hectares of which 17 % is designated as green belt and 22 % as an area of outstanding natural beauty.
Demography The population is approximately 114,000, and these figures will continue to rise over the next 20 years.
At the time of writing in 2015, the borough had 18 licensed betting premises, 1 track licence and 1 licensed Adult Gaming Centre.
Statement of Principles - Gambling Act 2005 (JUNE 2015) 3 Page 28 4. Declaration
In producing this Statement, the council declares that it has had regard to the licensing objectives of the Act, the guidance issued by the Commission, and any responses from those consulted on the Statement.
5. Responsible Authorities
Responsible Authorities are public bodies that must be notified of applications and who are entitled to make representations to the council if they are relevant to the licensing objectives.
The council is required by regulations to state the principles it will apply in exercising its powers under Section 157(h) of the Act to designate, in writing, a body which is competent to advise it about the protection of children from harm. The principles are:
the need for the body to be responsible for an area covering the whole of the council’s area; and
the need for the body to be answerable to democratically elected persons, rather than any particular vested interest group.
In accordance with the suggestion in the Commission’s guidance for local authorities they designated the Gloucestershire Safeguarding Children Board for this purpose.
The contact details of all Responsible Authorities are attached as Appendix B.
6. Interested Parties
Interested parties can make representations about licence applications, or apply for a review of an existing licence. These parties are defined in the Act as follows:
“For the purposes of this Part a person is an interested party in relation to an application for or in respect of a premises licence if, in the opinion of the Council which issues the licence or to which the application is made, the person -
(a) lives sufficiently close to the premises to be likely to be affected by the authorised activities; (b) has business interests that might be affected by the authorised activities; or (c) represents persons who satisfy paragraph (a) or (b).”
The council is required by regulations to state the principles it will apply in exercising its powers under the Act to determine whether a person is an interested party. The principles are:
Each case will be decided upon its merits. The council will not apply a rigid rule to its decision making. It will consider the examples of considerations provided in the Commission’s guidance for local authorities.
It will also consider the Commission’s guidance that “business interests” should be given the widest possible interpretation and include partnerships, charities, faith groups and medical practices.
Interested parties can be persons who are democratically elected such as councillors and MPs. No specific evidence of being asked to represent an interested person will be required as long as the councillor/MP represents the ward likely to be affected.
Statement of Principles - Gambling Act 2005 (JUNE 2015) 4 Page 29
Likewise, parish councils likely to be affected, will be considered to be interested parties.
Other than these however, the council will generally require written evidence that a person/body (e.g. an advocate/relative) ‘represents’ someone who either lives sufficiently close to the premises to be likely to be affected by the authorised activities and/or has business interests that might be affected by the authorised activities. A letter from one of these persons, requesting the representation is sufficient.
If individuals wish to approach councillors to ask them to represent their views then care should be taken that the councillors are not part of the Licensing Committee dealing with the licence application. For more information, please refer to the adopted Licensing Committee’s adopted “Probity in licensing”.
7. Exchange of Information
Licensing authorities are required to include in their Statements the principles to be applied by the authority in exercising the functions under sections 29 and 30 of the Act with respect to the exchange of information between it and the Commission, and the functions under section 350 of the Act with respect to the exchange of information between it and the other persons listed in schedule 6 to the Act.
The principle that the council applies is that it will act in accordance with the provisions of the Act in its exchange of information which includes the provision that the Data Protection Act 1998 will not be contravened. The council will also have regard to any guidance issued by the Commission to local authorities on this matter when it is published, as well as any relevant regulations issued by the Secretary of State under the powers provided in the Act.
Should any protocols be established as regards information exchange with other bodies then they will be made available.
8. Enforcement
Licensing authorities are also required to state the principles to be applied by the authority in exercising the functions under Part 15 of the Act with respect to the inspection of premises; and the powers under section 346 of the Act to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the offences specified
This council’s principles are that:
It will be guided by the Commission’s guidance for local authorities and will endeavour to be:
Proportionate: regulators should only intervene when necessary: remedies should be appropriate to the risk posed, and costs identified and minimised;
Accountable: regulators must be able to justify decisions, and be subject to public scrutiny;
Consistent: rules and standards must be joined up and implemented fairly;
Transparent: regulators should be open and keep regulations simple and user friendly; and
Statement of Principles - Gambling Act 2005 (JUNE 2015) 5 Page 30 Targeted: regulation should be focused on the problem, and minimise side effects.
As per the Commission’s guidance for local authorities, the council will endeavour to avoid duplication with other regulatory regimes so far as possible.
The council has adopted and implemented an inspection programme based on:
The Licensing Objectives Relevant Codes of Practice Guidance issued by the Commission, in particular at Part 36 The principles set out in this Statement of Principles
The main enforcement and compliance role for the council in terms of the Act will be to ensure compliance with the premises licences and other permissions which it authorises. The Commission will be the enforcement body for operating and personal licences. It is also worth noting that concerns about manufacture, supply or repair of gaming machines will not be dealt with by the council but should be notified to the Commission.
Bearing in mind the principle of transparency, the council’s enforcement/compliance protocols/written agreements are available upon request to the Licensing Section.
9. Council Functions
The council has a duty under the Act to licence premises where gambling is to take place and to licence certain other activities.
‘Gambling’ is defined in the Act as either gaming, betting or taking part in a lottery. In particular the council will be responsible for:
The licensing of premises where Activities are to take place by issuing Premises Licences.
Issue Provisional Statements.
Regulate Members’ Clubs and Miners’ Welfare Institutes who wish to undertake certain gaming activities via issuing Club Gaming Permits and/or Club Machine Permits.
Issue Club Machine Permits to Commercial Clubs.
Grant permits for the use of certain lower stake gaming machines at unlicensed Family Entertainment Centres.
Receive notifications from alcohol licensed premises (under the Licensing Act 2003) for the use of two or fewer gaming machines.
Issue Licensed Premises Gaming Machine Permits for premises licensed to sell/supply alcohol for consumption on the licensed premises, under the Licensing Act 2003, where there are more than two machines.
Register small society lotteries below prescribed thresholds.
Issue Prize Gaming Permits.
Statement of Principles - Gambling Act 2005 (JUNE 2015) 6 Page 31
Receive and endorse Temporary Use Notices.
Receive Occasional Use Notices.
Provide information to the Commission regarding details of licences issued (see section above on ‘Information Exchange’).
Maintain registers of the permits and licences that are issued under these functions.
It should be noted that local licensing authorities will not be involved in licensing remote gambling at all. This will fall to the Commission via operating licences.
A table outlining how the council will delegate its functions under this Act is attached at Appendix C.
Statement of Principles - Gambling Act 2005 (JUNE 2015) 7 Page 32 PART B
PREMISES LICENCES : CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATIONS
1. General Principles
Premises licences will be subject to the requirements set out in the Act and regulations, as well as specific mandatory and default conditions which will be detailed in regulations issued by the Secretary of State. Licensing authorities are able to exclude default conditions and also attach others, where it is believed to be appropriate.
The council is aware that in making decisions about premises licences it should aim to permit the use of premises for gambling in so far as it thinks it is:
in accordance with any relevant code of practice issued by the Commission; in accordance with any relevant guidance issued by the Commission; reasonably consistent with the licensing objectives, and in accordance with the Authority’s Statement of Licensing Policy
It is appreciated that as per the Commission’s guidance “moral objections to gambling are not a valid reason to reject applications for premises licences” (except as regards any ‘no casino resolution’ - see section on Casinos below) and also that unmet demand is not a criterion.
Meaning of “premises” – In the Act, “premises” is defined as including “any place”.
Section 152 therefore prevents more than one premises licence applying to any place. But a single building could be subject to more than one premises licence, provided they are for different parts of the building and the different parts of the building can be reasonably regarded as being different premises. This approach has been taken to allow large, multiple unit premises such as a pleasure park, pier, track or shopping mall to obtain discrete premises licences, where appropriate safeguards are in place.
The council will however pay particular attention if there are issues about sub-divisions of a single building or plot and will ensure that mandatory conditions relating to access between premises are observed.
The council takes particular note of the Commission’s guidance which states that:
“Licensing authorities should take particular care in considering applications for multiple licences for a building and those relating to a discrete part of a building used for other (non-gambling) purposes. In particular they should be aware of the following:
The third licensing objective seeks to protect children from being harmed by gambling. In practice that means not only preventing them from taking part in gambling, but also preventing them from being in close proximity to gambling. Therefore premises should be configured so that children are not invited to participate in, have accidental access to or closely observe gambling where they are prohibited from participating.
Entrances to and exits from parts of a building covered by one or more premises licences should be separate and identifiable so that the separation of different premises is not compromised and people do not “drift” into a gambling area. In this context it should normally be possible to access the premises without going through another licensed premises or premises with a permit.
Statement of Principles - Gambling Act 2005 (JUNE 2015) 8 Page 33
Customers should be able to participate in the activity named on the premises licence.
The Commission’s relevant access provisions for each premises type are reproduced below:
Casinos
The principal access entrance to the premises must be from a ‘street’ (defined as including any bridge, road, lane, footway, subway, square, court, alley or passage whether a thoroughfare or not) No entrance to a casino must be from premises that are used wholly or mainly by children and/or young persons. No customer must be able to enter a casino directly from any other premises which hold a gambling premises licence.
Adult Gaming Centre
No customer must be able to access the premises directly from any other licensed gambling premises.
Betting Shops
Access must be from a street or from another premises with a betting premises licence. No direct access from a betting shop to another premises used for the retail sale of merchandise or services. In effect there cannot be an entrance to a betting shop from a shop of any kind and you could not have a betting shop at the back of a café – the whole area would have to be licensed.
Tracks
No customer should be able to access the premises directly from: - a casino - an adult gaming centre
Bingo Premises
No customer must be able to access the premises directly from: - a casino - an adult gaming centre - a betting premises, other than a track
Family Entertainment Centre
No customer must be able to access the premises directly from: - a casino - an adult gaming centre - a betting premises, other than a track
Part 7 of the Commission’s guidance contains further guidance on this issue, which this authority will also take into account in its decision-making.
Statement of Principles - Gambling Act 2005 (JUNE 2015) 9 Page 34
Premises “ready for gambling” - The guidance states that a licence to use premises for gambling should only be issued in relation to premises that the council can be satisfied are going to be ready to be used for gambling in the reasonably near future, consistent with the scale of building or alterations required before the premises are brought into use.
If the construction of a premises is not yet complete, or if they need alteration, or if the applicant does not yet have a right to occupy them, an application for a provisional statement should be made instead.
In deciding whether a premises licence can be granted where there is outstanding construction or alteration works at a premises, the council will determine applications on their merits, applying a two stage consideration process:
First, whether the premises ought to be permitted to be used for gambling.
Second, whether appropriate conditions can be put in place to cater for the situation that the premises are not yet in the state in which they ought to be before gambling takes place.
Applicants should note that the council is entitled to decide that it is appropriate to grant a licence subject to conditions, but it is not obliged to grant such a licence.
Location – Demand related objections and issues cannot be considered with regard to the location of premises but that considerations in terms of the licensing objectives can.
As per the Commission’s guidance, the council will pay particular attention to the protection of children and vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling, as well as issues of crime and disorder. Should any specific policy be decided upon as regards areas where gambling premises should not be located, this Statement will be updated. It should be noted that any such policy does not preclude any application being made and each application will be decided on its merits, with the onus upon the applicant showing how potential concerns can be overcome.
Planning – The council has a duty to only take into consideration relevant matters, i.e. those related to gambling and the licensing objectives. An example of an irrelevant matter would be the likelihood of the applicant obtaining planning permission or building regulations approval for their proposal.
It notes in particular from the Commission’s guidance:
When dealing with a premises licence application for finished buildings, the council should not take into account whether those buildings have or comply with the necessary planning or building consents. Those matters should be dealt with under relevant planning control and building regulation powers, and not form part of the consideration for the premises licence. Section 210 of the 2005 Act prevents licensing authorities taking into account the likelihood of the proposal by the applicant obtaining planning or building consent when considering a premises licence application. Equally the grant of a gambling premises licence does not prejudice or prevent any action that may be appropriate under the law relating to planning or building.
Duplication with other regulatory regimes – The council will seek to avoid any duplication with other statutory / regulatory systems where possible.
Statement of Principles - Gambling Act 2005 (JUNE 2015) 10 Page 35 Licensing Objectives - Premises licences granted must be reasonably consistent with the licensing objectives. With regard to these objectives, the council has considered the Commission’s guidance and some comments are made below:
Preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime - The council is aware that the Commission will be taking a leading role in preventing gambling from being a source of crime. The Commission’s guidance does however envisage that licensing authorities should pay attention to the proposed location of gambling premises in terms of this licensing objective. Thus, where an area has known high levels of organised crime the council will consider carefully whether gambling premises are suitable to be located there and whether conditions may be suitable such as the provision of door supervisors. The council is aware of the distinction between disorder and nuisance and will consider factors such as whether police assistance was required and how threatening the behaviour was to those who could see it, so as to make that distinction.
Ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way - The council has noted that the Commission has stated that it would generally not expect licensing authorities to become concerned with ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way as this will be addressed via operating and personal licences. There is however, more of a role with regards to tracks which is explained in more detail in the ‘tracks’ section below - page 15.
Protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling - The council has noted the Commission’s guidance that states this objective means preventing children from taking part in gambling (as well as restriction of advertising so that gambling products are not aimed at or are, particularly attractive to children). The council will therefore consider, as suggested in the guidance, whether specific measures are required at particular premises, with regard to this licensing objective. Appropriate measures may include supervision of entrance/machines, segregation of areas etc.
The council will also make itself aware of the Codes of Practice which the Commission issues as regards this licensing objective.
As regards the term “vulnerable persons” it is noted that the Commission is not seeking to offer a definition but states that “it will for regulatory purposes assume that this group includes people who gamble more than they want to; people who gamble beyond their means; and people who may not be able to make informed or balanced decisions about gambling due to a mental impairment, alcohol or drugs”.
The council will consider this licensing objective on a case by case basis. A list of organisations set up to give help and advice about problem gambling is attached as Appendix D.
Conditions - Any conditions attached to licences will be proportionate and will be:
relevant to the need to make the proposed building suitable as a gambling facility; directly related to the premises and the type of licence applied for; fairly and reasonably related to the scale and type of premises; and reasonable in all other respects.
Decisions upon individual conditions will be made on a case by case basis, although there will be a number of measures the council will consider utilising should there be a perceived need, such as the use of supervisors, appropriate signage for adult only areas etc. There are specific comments made in this regard under some of the licence
Statement of Principles - Gambling Act 2005 (JUNE 2015) 11 Page 36 types below. The council will also expect the licence applicant to offer his/her own suggestions as to the way in which the licensing objectives can be met effectively.
The council will consider specific measures which may be required for buildings which are subject to multiple premises licences. Such measures may include the supervision of entrances; segregation of gambling from non-gambling areas frequented by children; and the supervision of gaming machines in non-adult gambling specific premises in order to pursue the licensing objectives. These matters are in accordance with the Commission’s guidance.
The council will also ensure that where category C or above machines are on offer in premises to which children are admitted:
all such machines are located in an area of the premises which is separated from the remainder of the premises by a physical barrier which is effective to prevent access other than through a designated entrance;
only adults are admitted to the area where these machines are located;
access to the area where the machines are located is supervised;
the area where these machines are located is arranged so that it can be observed by the staff of the licence holder; and
at the entrance to and inside any such areas there are prominently displayed notices indicating that access to the area is prohibited to persons under 18.
These considerations will apply to premises including buildings where multiple premises licences are applicable.
The council is aware that tracks may be subject to one or more than one premises licence, provided each licence relates to a specified area of the track. As per the Commission’s guidance, the council will consider the impact upon the third licensing objective and the need to ensure that entrances to each type of premises are distinct and that children are excluded from gambling areas where they are not permitted to enter.
It is noted that there are conditions which the council cannot attach to premises licences which are:
any condition on the premises licence which makes it impossible to comply with an operating licence condition;
conditions relating to gaming machine categories, numbers, or method of operation;
conditions which provide that membership of a club or body be required (the Act specifically removes the membership requirement for casino and bingo clubs and this provision prevents it being reinstated); and
conditions in relation to stakes, fees, winning or prizes.
Door Supervisors - The Commission advises in its guidance that if a council is concerned that a premises may attract disorder or be subject to attempts at unauthorised access (for example by children and young persons), it may require that
Statement of Principles - Gambling Act 2005 (JUNE 2015) 12 Page 37 the entrances to the premises are controlled by a door supervisor, and is entitled to impose a premises licence condition to this effect.
Where it is decided that supervision of entrances/machines is appropriate for particular cases, a consideration of whether these need to be SIA licensed or not will be necessary. It will not be automatically assumed that they need to be licensed, as the statutory requirements for different types of premises vary.
Sharing local Risk Assessments
The new code provision of 10.1.2 under the revised Licence Condition Codes of Practice from the Commission will come into force in April 2016. Under this provision it states:
Licensees should share their risk assessment with licensing authorities when applying for a premises licence or applying for a variation to existing licenced premises, or otherwise on request.
In accordance with the new LCCP requirement, the council will expect licensees to submit their local risk assessment when making an application in accordance with the code of practice’s requirements.
2. Adult Gaming Centres
The council will specifically have regard to the need to protect children and vulnerable persons from harm or being exploited by gambling and will expect the applicant to satisfy the council that there will be sufficient measures to, for example, ensure that under 18 year olds do not have access to the premises.
The council may consider measures to meet the licensing objectives such as:
Proof of age schemes CCTV Supervision of entrances/machine areas Physical separation of areas Location of entry Notices/signage Specific opening hours Self-exclusion schemes Provision of information leaflets/helpline numbers for organisations such as GamCare
This list is not mandatory, nor exhaustive, and is merely indicative of example measures.
3. (Licensed) Family Entertainment Centres
The council will specifically have regard to the need to protect children and vulnerable persons from harm or being exploited by gambling and will expect the applicant to satisfy the council, for example, that there will be sufficient measures to ensure that under 18 year olds do not have access to the adult only gaming machine areas.
The council may consider measures to meet the licensing objectives such as:
CCTV
Statement of Principles - Gambling Act 2005 (JUNE 2015) 13 Page 38 Supervision of entrances/machine areas Physical separation of areas Location of entry Notices/signage Specific opening hours Self-exclusion schemes Provision of information leaflets/helpline numbers for organisations such as GamCare Measures/training for staff on how to deal with suspected truant school children on the premises
This list is not mandatory, nor exhaustive, and is merely indicative of example measures.
The council will, as per the Commission’s guidance, refer to the Commission’s website to see any conditions that apply to operating licences covering the way in which the area containing the category C machines should be delineated.
4. Casinos
No Casinos resolution - The council has not passed a ‘no casino’ resolution under Section 166 of the Act 2005, but is aware that it has the power to do so. Should the council decide in the future to pass such a resolution, it will update this Statement with details of that resolution. Any such decision will be made by the Full Council.
5. Bingo Premises
The council notes that the Commission’s guidance states:
“Licensing authorities will need to satisfy themselves that bingo can be played in any bingo premises for which they issue a premises licence. This will be a relevant consideration where the operator of an existing bingo premises applies to vary their licence to exclude an area of the existing premises from its ambit and then applies for a new premises licence, or multiple licences, for that or those excluded areas. “
A holder of a Bingo Premises Licence may make available for use, a number of Category B machines not exceeding 20% of the total number of gaming machines which are available for use.
Children and young people are allowed into bingo premises; however they are not permitted to participate in the bingo and if category B or C machines are made available for use these must be separated from areas where children and young people are allowed.
6. Betting Premises
Betting machines - The council will, in accordance with the Commission’s guidance take into account the size of the premises, the number of counter positions available for person-to-person transactions, and the ability of staff to monitor the use of the machines by children and young persons (it is an offence for those under 18 to bet) or by vulnerable people when considering the number/nature/circumstances of betting machines an operator wants to offer.
Statement of Principles - Gambling Act 2005 (JUNE 2015) 14 Page 39 7. Tracks
The council is aware that tracks may be subject to one or more than one premises licence, provided each licence relates to a specified area of the track. As per the Commission’s guidance, the council will especially consider the impact upon the third licensing objective (i.e. the protection of children and vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling) and the need to ensure that entrances to each type of premises are distinct and that children are excluded from gambling areas where they are not permitted to enter.
The council will therefore expect the premises licence applicant to demonstrate suitable measures to ensure that children do not have access to adult only gaming facilities. It is noted that children and young persons will be permitted to enter track areas where facilities for betting are provided on days when dog-racing and/or horse racing takes place, but that they are still prevented from entering areas where gaming machines (other than category D machines) are provided.
The council may consider measures to meet the licensing objectives such as:
Proof of age schemes CCTV Supervision of entrances/machine areas Physical separation of areas Location of entry Notices/signage Specific opening hours Self-exclusion schemes Provision of information leaflets/helpline numbers for organisations such as GamCare
This list is not mandatory, nor exhaustive, and is merely indicative of example measures.
Gaming machines – Where the applicant holds a pool betting operating licence and is going to use the entitlement to four gaming machines, machines (other than category D machines) should be located in areas from which children are excluded.
Betting machines – The council will, take into account the size of the premises and the ability of staff to monitor the use of the machines by children and young persons (it is an offence for those under 18 to bet) or by vulnerable people, when considering the number/nature/circumstances of betting machines an operator proposes to offer.
Applications and plans
The Act requires applicants to submit plans of the premises with their application, in order to ensure that the council has the necessary information to make an informed judgement about whether the premises are fit for gambling. The plan will also be used for the council to plan future premises inspection activity.
Plans for tracks do not need to be in a particular scale, but should be drawn to scale and should be sufficiently detailed to include the information required by regulations.
Some tracks may be situated on agricultural land where the perimeter is not defined by virtue of an outer wall or fence, such as point-to-point racetracks. In such instances,
Statement of Principles - Gambling Act 2005 (JUNE 2015) 15 Page 40 where an entry fee is levied, track premises licence holders may erect temporary structures to restrict access to premises.
In the rare cases where the outer perimeter cannot be defined, it is likely that the track in question will not be specifically designed for the frequent holding of sporting events or races. In such cases betting facilities may be better provided through occasional use notices where the boundary premises do not need to be defined.
This council appreciates that it is sometimes difficult to define the precise location of betting areas on tracks. The precise location of where betting facilities are provided is not required to be shown on track plans, both by virtue of the fact that betting is permitted anywhere on the premises and because of difficulties associated with pinpointing exact locations for some types of track. Applicants should provide sufficient information that this authority can satisfy itself that the plan indicates the main areas where betting might take place. For racecourses in particular, any betting areas subject to the “five times rule” (commonly known as betting rings) must be indicated on the plan.
8. Travelling Fairs
The council is responsible for deciding whether, where category D machines and/or equal chance prize gaming without a permit is to be made available for use at travelling fairs, the statutory requirement that the facilities for gambling amount to no more than an ancillary amusement at the fair is met.
This council will also consider whether the applicant falls within the statutory definition of a travelling fair.
It has been noted that the 27-day statutory maximum for the land being used as a fair, is per calendar year, and that it applies to the piece of land on which the fairs are held, regardless of whether it is the same or different travelling fairs occupying the land. The council will work with its neighbouring authorities to ensure that land which crosses our boundaries is monitored so that the statutory limits are not exceeded.
9. Provisional Statements
Developers may wish to apply to the council for provisional statements before entering into a contract to buy or lease property or land to judge whether a development is worth taking forward in light of the need to obtain a premises licence. There is no need for the applicant to hold an operating licence in order to apply for a provisional statement.
Section 204 of the Act provides for a person to make an application to the council for a provisional statement in respect of premises that they:
- expect to be constructed; - expect to be altered; or - expect to acquire a right to occupy.
The process for considering an application for a provisional statement is the same as that for a premises licence application. The applicant is obliged to give notice of the application in the same way as applying for a premises licence. Responsible authorities and interested parties may make representations and there are rights of appeal.
In contrast to the premises licence application, the applicant does not have to hold or have applied for an operating licence from the Commission (except in the case of a
Statement of Principles - Gambling Act 2005 (JUNE 2015) 16 Page 41 track) and they do not have to have a right to occupy the premises in respect of which their provisional application is made.
The holder of a provisional statement may then apply for a premises licence once the premises are constructed, altered or acquired. The council will be constrained in the matters it can consider when determining the premises licence application, and in terms of representations about premises licence applications that follow the grant of a provisional statement, no further representations from relevant authorities or interested parties can be taken into account unless:
they concern matters which could not have been addressed at the provisional statement stage, or they reflect a change in the applicant’s circumstances.
In addition, the council may refuse the premises licence (or grant it on terms different to those attached to the provisional statement) only by reference to matters:
which could not have been raised by objectors at the provisional statement stage; which in the authority’s opinion reflect a change in the operator’s circumstances; or where the premises has not been constructed in accordance with the plan submitted with the application. This must be a substantial change to the plan and this council notes that it can discuss any concerns it has with the applicant before making a decision.
10. Reviews
Requests for a review of a premises licence can be made by interested parties or responsible authorities, however, it is for the council to decide whether the review is to be carried out. This will be on the basis of whether the request for the review is relevant to the matters listed below:
in accordance with any relevant Code of Practice issued by the Commission; in accordance with any relevant guidance issued by the Commission; reasonably consistent with the licensing objectives; and in accordance with the Authority’s Statement of Principles.
The request for the review will also be subject to the consideration by the council as to whether the request is frivolous, vexatious, or whether it is substantially the same as previous representations or requests for review.
The council can also initiate a review of a particular premises licence, or a particular class of premises licence on the basis of any reason which it thinks is appropriate.
Once a valid application for a review has been received by the council, representations can be made by responsible authorities and interested parties during a 28 day period. This period begins 7 days after the application was received by the Council, who will publish notice of the application within 7 days of receipt.
The council must carry out the review as soon as possible after the 28 day period for making representations has passed.
The purpose of the review will be to determine whether the council should take any action in relation to the licence. If action is justified, the options available to the council are:
Statement of Principles - Gambling Act 2005 (JUNE 2015) 17 Page 42 (a) add, remove or amend a licence condition imposed by the Council; (b) exclude a default condition imposed by the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers (e.g. opening hours) or remove or amend such an exclusion; (c) suspend the premises licence for a period not exceeding three months; and (d) revoke the premises licence.
In determining what action, if any, should be taken following a review, the council must have regard to the principles set out in section 153 of the Act, as well as any relevant representations.
In particular the council may also initiate a review of a premises licence on the grounds that a premises licence holder has not provided facilities for gambling at the premises. This is to prevent people from applying for licences in a speculative manner without intending to use them.
Once the review has been completed, the council must, as soon as possible, notify its decision to:
the licence holder; the applicant for review (if any); the Commission; any person who made representations; the chief officer of police or chief constable; and Her Majesty’s Commissioners for Review and Customs.
Statement of Principles - Gambling Act 2005 (JUNE 2015) 18 Page 43 PART C
PERMITS/TEMPORARY AND OCCASIONAL USE NOTICE
1. Unlicensed Family Entertainment Centre Gaming Machine Permits
Where a premises does not hold a premises licence but wishes to provide gaming machines, it may apply to the council for this permit. It should be noted that the applicant must show that the premises will be wholly or mainly used for making gaming machines available for use.
It should be noted that a council cannot attach conditions to this type of permit.
The council will expect the applicant to show that there are policies and procedures in place to protect children from harm.
Harm in this context is not limited to harm from gambling but includes wider child protection considerations. The efficiency of such policies and procedures will each be considered on their merits, however, they may include appropriate measures/training for staff as regards suspected truant school children on the premises, measures/training covering how staff would deal with unsupervised very young children being on the premises, or children causing perceived problems on/around the premises. The council will also expect, as per Commission guidance, that applicants demonstrate:
a full understanding of the maximum stakes and prizes of the gambling that is permissible in unlicensed FECs; that the applicant has no relevant convictions (those that are set out in Schedule 7 of the Act); and that staff are trained to have a full understanding of the maximum stakes and prizes.
2. (Alcohol) Licensed Premises Gaming Machine Permits (Schedule 13 paragraph 4(1))
Automatic entitlement: 2 machines
There is provision in the Act for premises licensed to sell alcohol for consumption on the premises, to automatically have 2 gaming machines, of categories C and/or D. The premises merely need to notify the council. The council can remove the automatic authorisation in respect of any particular premises if:
provision of the machines is not reasonably consistent with the pursuit of the licensing objectives; gaming has taken place on the premises that breaches a condition of Section 282 of the Act (i.e. that written notice has been provided to the council, that a fee has been provided and that any relevant code of practice issued by the Commission about the location and operation of the machine has been complied with); the premises are mainly used for gaming; or an offence under the Act has been committed on the premises.
Permit: 3 or more machines
If a premises wishes to have more than 2 machines, it needs to apply for a permit and the council must consider that application based upon the licensing objectives, any
Statement of Principles - Gambling Act 2005 (JUNE 2015) 19 Page 44 guidance issued by the Commission issued under Section 25 of the Act 2005, and “such matters as they think relevant”.
The council considers that “such matters” will be decided on a case by case basis but generally there will be regard to the need to protect children and vulnerable persons from being harmed or being exploited by gambling and will expect the applicant to satisfy the council that there will be sufficient measures to ensure that under 18 year olds do not have access to the adult only gaming machines. Measures which will satisfy the council that there will be no access may include the adult machines being in sight of the bar, or in the sight of staff who will monitor that the machines are not being used by those under 18. Notices and signage may also be of help. As regards the protection of vulnerable persons applicants may wish to consider the provision of information leaflets/helpline numbers for organisations such as GamCare.
It is recognised that some alcohol licensed premises may apply for a premises licence for their non-alcohol licensed areas. Any such application would most likely need to be applied for, and dealt with as an Adult Gaming Centre premises licence.
It should be noted that the council can decide to grant the application with a smaller number of machines and/or a different category of machines than that applied for. Conditions (other than these) cannot be attached.
It should also be noted that the holder of a permit must comply with any Code of Practice issued by the Commission about the location and operation of the machine.
3. Prize Gaming Permits
The Act states that a council may “prepare a Statement of Principles that they propose to apply in exercising their functions under this Schedule” and “may, in particular, specify matters that the council propose to consider in determining the suitability of the applicant for a permit”.
This council expects that an applicant should set out the types of gaming that he or she is intending to offer and that the applicant should be able to demonstrate:
that they understand the limits to stakes and prizes that are set out in Regulations; that the gaming offered is within the law; clear policies that outline the steps to be taken to protect children from harm.
In making its decision on an application for this permit the council does not need to have regard to the licensing objectives but must have regard to any Commission guidance.
It should be noted that there are conditions in the Act by which the permit holder must comply, but that the council cannot attach conditions. The conditions in the Act are:
the limits on participation fees, as set out in regulations, must be complied with; all chances to participate in the gaming must be allocated on the premises on which the gaming is taking place and on one day; the game must be played and completed on the day the chances are allocated; and the result of the game must be made public in the premises on the day that it is played; the prize for which the game is played must not exceed the amount set out in regulations (if a money prize), or the prescribed value (if non-monetary prize); and participation in the gaming must not entitle the player to take part in any other gambling.
Statement of Principles - Gambling Act 2005 (JUNE 2015) 20 Page 45 4. Club Gaming and Club Machines permits
Members Clubs and Miners’ welfare institutes (but not Commercial Clubs) may apply for a Club Gaming Permit or a Club Gaming Machines Permit. The Club Gaming Permit will enable the premises to provide gaming machines (3 machines of categories B, C or D), equal chance gaming and games of chance as set out in forthcoming regulations. A Club Gaming Machine Permit will enable the premises to provide gaming machines (3 machines of categories B, C or D).
Commission guidance states: “Members clubs must have at least 25 members and be established and conducted “wholly or mainly” for purposes other than gaming, unless the gaming is permitted by separate regulations. It is anticipated that this will cover bridge and whist clubs, which will replicate the position under the Gaming Act 1968. A members’ club must be permanent in nature, not established to make commercial profit, and controlled by its members equally. Examples include working men’s clubs, branches of Royal British Legion and clubs with political affiliations”.
The Commission guidance also notes that “licensing authorities may only refuse an application on the grounds that:
(a) the applicant does not fulfil the requirements for a members’ or commercial club or miners’ welfare institute and therefore is not entitled to receive the type of permit for which it has applied; (b) the applicant’s premises are used wholly or mainly by children and/or young persons; (c) an offence under the Act or a breach of a permit has been committed by the applicant while providing gaming facilities; (d) a permit held by the applicant has been cancelled in the previous ten years; or (e) an objection has been lodged by the Commission or the police.
There is also a ‘fast-track’ procedure available under the Act for premises which hold a Club Premises Certificate under the Licensing Act 2003 (Schedule 12 paragraph 10). As the Commission’s guidance for local authorities states: “Under the fast-track procedure there is no opportunity for objections to be made by the Commission or the police, and the grounds upon which an authority can refuse a permit are reduced” and “The grounds on which an application under the process may be refused are:
(a) that the club is established primarily for gaming, other than gaming prescribed under Schedule 12; (b) that in addition to the prescribed gaming, the applicant provides facilities for other gaming; or (c) that a club gaming permit or club machine permit issued to the applicant in the last ten years has been cancelled.”
There are statutory conditions on club gaming permits that no child uses a category B or C machine on the premises and that the holder complies with any relevant provision of a Code of Practice about the location and operation of gaming machines.
5. Temporary Use Notices
Temporary Use Notices (“TUN”) allow the use of premises for gambling where there is no premises licence but where a gambling operator wishes to use the premises temporarily for providing facilities for gambling. Premises that might be suitable for a TUN, according to the Commission, would include hotels, conference centres and sporting venues.
Statement of Principles - Gambling Act 2005 (JUNE 2015) 21 Page 46 The council can only grant a TUN to a person or company holding a relevant operating licence, i.e. a non-remote casino operating licence.
The Secretary of State has the power to determine what form of gambling can be authorised by TUN, and at the time of writing this Statement the relevant regulations (SI no.3157: The Act 2005 (Temporary Use Notices) Regulations 2007) state that TUNs can only be used to permit the provision of facilities or equal chance gaming, where the gaming is intended to produce a single winner, which in practice means poker tournaments.
There are a number of statutory limits as regards TUNs. The meaning of “premises” in Part 8 of the Act is discussed in Part 7 of the Commission guidance to Licensing Authorities. As with “premises”, the definition of “a set of premises” will be a question of fact in the particular circumstances of each notice that is given. In the Act “premises” is defined as including “any place”.
In considering whether a place falls within the definition of “a set of premises”, the council needs to look at, amongst other things, the ownership/occupation and control of the premises.
This council expects to object to notices where it appears that their effect would be to permit regular gambling in a place that could be described as one set of premises, as recommended in the Commission’s guidance.
6. Occasional Use Notices
The council has very little discretion as regards these notices aside from ensuring that the statutory limit of 8 days in a calendar year is not exceeded. The council will though consider the definition of a ‘track’ and whether the applicant is permitted to avail him/herself of the notice.
The council will notify the Commission of any notices made under this provision and share with them any relevant information.
Statement of Principles - Gambling Act 2005 (JUNE 2015) 22 Page 47 APPENDIX A
CONSULTEES
Trade Organisations & Licence Holders
Current Licence Holders Association of British Bookmakers Ltd (ABB) British Amusement Catering Trade Association (BACTA) The British Association of Leisure Parks, Piers & Attractions Limited (BALPA) British Beer and Pub Association British Casino Association (BCA) Business in Sport and Leisure Casino Operators’ Association The Bingo Association Specialist Licensing Solicitors (National and Local)
Blake Lapthorn Bond Pearce Gosschalks Kuit Stewart Levy Poppleston Allen Woods Whur Other Consultees
Cheltenham Borough Council Members Cheltenham Borough Council Licensing Committee Parish Councils Responsible Authorities The People of Cheltenham Cheltenham Business Partnership Organisations offering help and advice to problem gambling
Statement of Principles - Gambling Act 2005 (JUNE 2015) 23 Page 48 APPENDIX B
CONTACT DETAILS FOR RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITIES
COUNCIL LICENSING Licensing Section Cheltenham Borough Council Promenade Cheltenham GL50 9SA
Telephone: 01242775200 Email: [email protected]
LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY Planning Enforcement Built Environment Division Cheltenham Borough Council Municipal Offices Promenade Cheltenham GL50 1PP
Telephone: 01242 264138 Email: [email protected]
THE COMMISSION Victoria Square House Victoria Square BIRMINGHAM B2 4BP
Telephone: 0121 230 6500 Fax: 0121 233 1096 Email: [email protected]
GLOUCESTERSHIRE CONSTABULARY Licensing Unit Community Engagement Dept. Police HQ No1 Waterwells Quedgeley Gloucester GL2 2AN
Telephone: 01452 754482 Email: [email protected]
The main Police switchboard number is 0845 090 1234.
Statement of Principles - Gambling Act 2005 (JUNE 2015) 24 Page 49 GLOUCESTERSHIRE FIRE AND RESCUE Chief Fire Officer Fire Service Headquarters Waterwells Drive Quedgeley Gloucester GL2 2AX
Telephone: 01452 753333 Fax: 01452 753304 Email: [email protected]
GLOUCESTERSHIRE ACPC Gloucestershire Safeguarding Children Board Room 128 1st Floor, Block 4 Gloucestershire County Council Shire Hall Westgate Street Gloucester GL1 2TG
Email: [email protected]
HM REVENUE & CUSTOMS Betting and Gaming National Registration Unit Portcullis House 21 India Street Glasgow G2 4PZ Telephone 0141 555 3339 Email [email protected]
For relevant premises e.g. vessels, the following may also be Responsible Authorities:
SOUTH WALES AND BRITISH WATERWAYS Canal & River Trust The Dock Office Commercial Road Gloucester GL1 2EB
E-mail enquiries.southwalessevern @canalrivertrust.org.uk
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY Riversmeet House Newtown Industrial Estate Northway Lane Tewkesbury Gloucestershire GL20 8JG
Statement of Principles - Gambling Act 2005 (JUNE 2015) 25 Page 50 SECRETARY OF STATE (Note in practice, the Secretary of State for Transport who DCMS acts through the Maritime and Coastguard Agency) 2-4 Cockspur Street London SW1Y 5DH Telephone: 020 7211 6200 email: [email protected]
Statement of Principles - Gambling Act 2005 (JUNE 2015) 26 Page 51 APPENDIX C
TABLE OF DELEGATIONS OF LICENSING FUNCTIONS
FULL MATTER TO BE DEALT WITH SUB-COMMITTEE OFFICERS COUNCIL Three year licensing policy X
Policy not to permit casinos X
Fee Setting - when appropriate X (to be approved by Executive Councillor)
Application for premises licences Where representations Where no representations have been received and received/representations not withdrawn have been withdrawn
Application for a variation to a Where representations Where no representations licence have been received and received/representations not withdrawn have been withdrawn
Application for a transfer of a Where representations Where no representations licence have been received from received from the the Commission Commission
Application for a provisional Where representations Where no representations statement have been received and received/representations not withdrawn have been withdrawn
Review of a premises licence X
Application for club gaming/club Where representations Where no representations machine permits have been received and received/representations not withdrawn have been withdrawn
Cancellation of club gaming/club X machine permits
Applications for other permits X
Cancellation of licensed premises X gaming machine permits
Consideration of temporary use X notice
Decision to give a counter notice X to a temporary use notice
Statement of Principles - Gambling Act 2005 (JUNE 2015) 27 Page 52 APPENDIX D
LIST OF ORGANISATIONS THAT GIVE HELP AND ADVICE ABOUT PROBLEM GAMBLING
The following organisations are working to tackle problem gambling and may be able to help individuals and/or organisations.
Responsibility in Gambling Trust (RIGT) 10 Brick Street London W1J 7HQ Tel: 207 518 0023 Fax: 207 518 0174 Email: [email protected]
Citizens Advice Gloucester and District Citizens Advice Bureau 75 - 81 Eastgate Street Gloucester GL1 1PN Tel: 01452 527202
Gam Anon PO Box 5382 London W1A 6SA National Help Line: 08700 50 88 80 Midlands 0121 233 1335
Gamblers Anonymous (UK) Birmingham 0121 233 1335
Gam Care 2nd Floor 7-11 St John’s Hill London SW11 1TR Tel: 020 7801 7000 Fax: 020 7801 7033 Email: [email protected]
Gordon House Association 43-47 Maughan Street Dudley West Midlands DY1 2BA Tel: 01384 241 292 Email: [email protected]
Statement of Principles - Gambling Act 2005 (JUNE 2015) 28 Page 53 NCH Children's Charity 85 Highbury Park London N5 1UD Tel: 020 7704 9037 Fax: 020 7704 7134
NHC South West Horner Court 637 Gloucester Road Horfield Bristol BA7 0BJ Tel: 01179 354 440 Fax: 01179 512 470
National Debt Line Tel: 0808 808 4000
Statement of Principles - Gambling Act 2005 (JUNE 2015) 29 Page 54 APPENDIX E
Machine category Maximum Maximum prize (from Allowed premises stake (from January 2014) January 2014)
A Unlimited Unlimited Regional Casino
B1 £5 £10,000 (with the Large Casino, Small Casino, Pre-2005 Act option of a maximum casino and Regional Casinos £20,000 linked progressive jackpot on a premises basis only)
B2 £100 £500 Betting premises and tracks occupied by pool betting and all of the above
B3 £2 £500 Bingo premises, Adult gaming centre and all of the above
B3A £2 £500 Members’ club or Miners’ welfare institute only
B4 £2 £400 Members' club or Miners’ welfare club, commercial club and all of the above.
C £1 £100 Family entertainment centre (with Commission operating licence), Qualifying alcohol licensed premises (without additional gaming machine permit), Qualifying alcohol licensed premises (with additional LA gaming machine permit) and all of the above.
D money prize 10p £5 Travelling fairs, unlicensed (permit) Family entertainment centre and all of the above
D non-money prize 30p £8 All of the above. (other than crane grab machine)
D non-money prize £1 £50 All of the above. (crane grab machine)
D combined money 10p £8 (of which no more All of the above. and non-money prize than £5 may be a (other than coin money prize) pusher or penny falls machines)
D combined money 20p £20 (of which no more All of the above. and non-money prize than £10 may be a (coin pusher or money prize) penny falls machine)
Statement of Principles - Gambling Act 2005 (JUNE 2015) 30 Agenda Item 6 Page 55
Cheltenham Borough Council Cabinet – 15 September 2015 Amendments to Licensing Policy, Guidance and Conditions for Private Hire and Taxis Operating within the Borough of Cheltenham
Accountable member Cabinet Member Development and Safety, Cllr Andrew McKinlay
Accountable officer Director of Environmental & Regulatory Services, Mike Redman
Ward(s) affected All
Key/Significant No Decision
Executive summary The council has a statutory duty to ensure all of its licensed drivers are, and remain, fit and proper people.
The council is committed to keeping its policies under review to ensure they continue to be effective and comply with the latest guidance and national best practice.
This report is seeking permission from Cabinet to approve minor changes to the council’s taxi and private hire licensing policy for consultation.
Recommendations Cabinet is recommended to:
1. Note the proposed changes to the current taxi and private hire licensing policy; and
2. Approve the proposed changes for consultation.
Financial implications There are no financial implications arising from this report.
Contact officer: Sarah Didcote, [email protected], 01242 264125
Legal implications As set out in the report.
Contact officer: Vikki Fennell, [email protected], 01684 272015
HR implications There are no HR implications as a result of this report. It may be useful to (including learning and ensure that officers and committee members have training to ensure that organisational the policy changes are fully understood. development) Contact officer: Richard Hall, [email protected], 01242 77 4972
Key risks As identified in Appendix 1
Page 1 of 6 Last updated 03 September 2015 Page 56
Corporate and Communities feel safe and are safe. community plan Implications
Environmental and None climate change implications
Property/Asset None Implications Contact officer: David [email protected]
Page 2 of 6 Last updated 03 September 2015 Page 57 1. Background
1.1 The council has a statutory duty to ensure all of its licensed drivers are, and remain, fit and proper people.
1.2 The council’s policy sets out assessment criteria for assessing applicants’ fitness. These include, amongst others:
Enhanced criminal records checks;
Enhanced medical checks; and
Mandatory training.
1.3 The council is committed to keep its policies under review to ensure they continue to be effective and comply with the latest guidance and national best practice.
1.4 Recently, a lot of national licensing focus has been on the Louise Casey report into Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) in Rotherham that identified, amongst others, a variety of licence holders as key culprits in the scandal.
1.5 As a result of the report and the recommendations made in it, officers have taken the opportunity to review local policy and practice to ensure that these continue to be sufficiently robust to maintain a high standard of public safety.
1.6 On the whole officers are satisfied that Cheltenham continues to set a high standard of fitness for all its licensed drivers compared to acceptable national standards and best practice guidance.
1.7 It has however been identified that the council’s conviction policy can be strengthened.
1.8 Furthermore, officers consider it appropriate that all licence holders receive mandatory safeguarding training.
1.9 This report therefore seeks approval from Members to consult on changes to the council’s current convictions policy and a new policy requirement that all licence holders undergo mandatory safeguarding training.
2. Amendments to Convictions Policy
2.1 The council’s current “Relevance of Convictions, Cautions and Fixed Penalty Notices in Relation to the Licensing of Drivers and Operators” policy sets out the council’s assessment of the suitability of an applicant to be licensed, in terms of their criminal and driving records. Specifically, it is to be applied where an applicant for a driver or operator’s licence has received a relevant conviction, caution or fixed penalty.
2.2 Additionally, it is also relevant and referred to where a relevant conviction, caution or fixed penalty has been received during the period of a driver or operator’s licence, and used to help inform any decision as to the licensed drivers’ continuing fitness to hold a licence.
2.3 The current policy is largely based on DfT Circular 2/92 which gives advice to local authorities on the procedures to adopt for checking criminal convictions for private hire and hackney carriage drivers.
2.4 This is an important policy for the council to safeguard the public against unfit licence holders and therefore it is important that it is sufficiently robust to properly vet applicants and licensed drivers. The above mentioned DfT circular has not been updated since 1992 when it was first published.
Page 3 of 6 Last updated 03 September 2015 Page 58 2.5 The proposed changes to the policy that officers consider appropriate to maintain high standards of fitness are set out in Appendix 2.
3. Safeguarding Training
3.1 The council does not currently require licensed drivers to undertake any form of training relating to their safeguarding responsibilities and conduct when conveying passengers.
3.2 It is proposed that the council introduce a new policy requirement for all licensed drivers to undertake safeguarding training.
3.3 The introduction of the training will form part of the council’s fitness assurance for licence holders.
3.4 Officers have been in discussion with neighbouring licensing authorities to draw up a countywide training program. The discussions have included Gloucestershire Safeguarding Children Board and Gloucestershire Constabulary who have agreed to do the training.
3.5 The proposed training will be free of charge to licence holders and they will only have to do it once. A number of morning and afternoon sessions will be offered around the county to ensure everybody has sufficient access to the training.
3.6 The proposed mandatory training will generally deal with the signs of CSE, trafficking and other safeguarding issues and how licensed drivers can identify these activities and the means of reporting this to the appropriate authorities.
3.7 It is also intended to ensure licensed drivers are themselves equipped to guard against false and misleading safeguarding related allegations.
3.8 There will be an exemption clause for licensed drivers who have already undertaken comparable training by a recognised training provider.
3.9 It is intended that the training be rolled out to other licence holders in the future.
4. Reasons for recommendations
4.1 To ensure they council’s policies remain effective and sufficiently robust to maintain a high standard of public safety and protection.
5. Alternative options considered
5.1 Members can resolve not to approve the proposed changes to the policy for consultation and leave the policy unchanged. Officers would not recommend this as an appropriate course of action for the reasons set out in this report.
6. Consultation and feedback
6.1 A 4 week consultation with the trade and other relevant persons, the Licensing Committee and organisations will be undertaken.
6.2 A further Cabinet report will be submitted to give Members an opportunity to consider any feedback submitted and to make a decision with regards to the adoption of the amended policy.
Page 4 of 6 Last updated 03 September 2015 Page 59
Report author Contact officer: Louis Krog, [email protected],
01242 264217
Appendices 1. Risk Assessment
2. Proposed changes to “Appendix J - Relevance of Convictions, Cautions and Fixed Penalty Notices in Relation to the Licensing of Drivers and Operators”
Background information 1. Licensing Policy, Guidance and Conditions for Private Hire and Taxis Operating within the Borough of Cheltenham
2. DfT Circular 2/92
Page 5 of 6 Last updated 03 September 2015 Risk Assessment Appendix 1
The risk Original risk score Managing risk (impact x likelihood) Risk Risk description Risk Date Impact Likeli- Score Control Action Deadline Responsible Transferred to ref. Owner raised 1-5 hood officer risk register 1-6 If the proposed amendments to the Licensing 15/09/15 3 2 6 Accept Approve amendments for 15/09/15 policy is not approved the council Team consultation runs the risk of not being able to Leader maintain its high standards for fitness of its licensed drivers.
Any incidents that may occur could potentially be very damaging for the council’s reputation and could have financial implications if it were found that the council had failed in its statutory duty. Explanatory notes Page 60 Impact – an assessment of the impact if the risk occurs on a scale of 1-5 (1 being least impact and 5 being major or critical) Likelihood – how likely is it that the risk will occur on a scale of 1-6 (1 being almost impossible, 2 is very low, 3 is low, 4 significant, 5 high and 6 a very high probability) Control - Either: Reduce / Accept / Transfer to 3rd party / Close
$wkxti3qs.docx Page 6 of 6 Last updated 03 September 2015 Page 61
Appendix 2 – Proposed changes to “Appendix J - Relevance of Convictions, Cautions and Fixed Penalty Notices in Relation to the Licensing of Drivers and Operators”
Including the consideration of the grant, suspension or revocation of hackney carriage and private hire driver’s and operator’s licences
The licensing authority must be satisfied that all those who are licensed to drive hackney carriages and / or private hire vehicles, and those who are licensed to operate under a private hire operator’s licence, are fit and proper persons. This general policy relates to the Council’s assessment of the suitability of an applicant to be licensed, in terms of their criminal and driving records. Specifically, it is to be applied where an applicant for a driver or operator’s licence has received a relevant conviction, caution or fixed penalty.
Additionally, it will be referred to where a relevant conviction, caution or fixed penalty has been received during the period of a driver or operator’s licence and used to help inform any decision as to the licence-holder’s continuing fitness to hold a licence.
These guidelines shall apply to all new applicants for, and all existing holders of, hackney carriage / private hire drivers licences and private hire operators licences.
General Policy
Each case will be decided on its own merits. Although an applicant may have convictions that would fall under the guidelines in this policy, the Council will always consider the full facts of the case and any mitigating or other circumstances before reaching a decision.
The overriding consideration is the safety of the public. The Council has a duty to ensure so far as possible that those licensed to drive hackney carriage and private hire vehicles are suitable persons to do so, that they are safe drivers with good driving records and adequate experience, sober, courteous, mentally and physically fit, honest and not persons who would take advantage of their employment.
Hackney carriage and private hire drivers are listed occupations under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. This means that an applicant must disclose ALL convictions when applying for the grant of a licence. The Council may take into account anything they consider relevant to the determination of the application.
When the relevant required informaiton has been returned, the application will be considered in the light of the information provided. The information will be used to ascertain whether the information given on the original application form was correctly and truthfully provided. It is therefore necessary to ensure that details of ALL convictions and cautions are provided at the initial stage.
A serious view will be taken of any application which seeks to conceal any caution or conviction in order to obtain a Licence. This is a criminal offence and, as such, may lead, not only to consideration of the applicant as not being a “fit and proper person”, but criminal proceedings.
In the event that there are no relevant convictions, cautions or fixed penalties held, the applicant will be considered to be a “fit and proper person” and the matter will be determined by the issue of the licence [subject to the successful completion of all other assessments].
1 Page 62 Applications where convictions, cautions or fixed penalties are held will be considered by a Licensing Officer who, having regard to this policy may refer the application to a Licensing Committee for determination. This will result in either the determination of the applicant as a “fit and proper person”, indicated by the issue of a licence, or the application being refused. In these circumstances, the applicant has the right of appeal to the Magistrates’ Court, such appeal to be lodged within 21 days of the decision being notified.
The Council will only consider spent convictions if it appears to be relevant for deciding whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a licence and that justice cannot be done in the case, except by admitting or requiring evidence relating to that spent conviction.
For the purpose of these guidelines formal cautions and endorsable fixed penalties shall be treated as though they were convictions.
Fit and Proper Person
There is no absolute definition as to what constitutes a “fit and proper person”. However, considering the range of passengers that a driver may carry, for example, elderly people, unaccompanied children, people with disabilities, those who have had too much to drink, lone women and foreign visitors, the Council will want to have confidence that such people would be able to rely on the driver.
Some important areas that will be considered by the Council are:
a) Honesty and trustworthiness – licensed drivers and operators often have knowledge that a customer is leaving a house empty; they have opportunities to defraud drunken, vulnerable or foreign people or to steal property left in cars. For example, any passenger would expect to be charged the correct fare for a journey and then given the correct change, they would also expect a driver to hand in any article left by a passenger in a vehicle, and also to maintain confidentiality between driver and fare.
b) Courtesy - taxi drivers are often subject to unpleasant or dishonest behaviour. The Council does not consider that this excuses any aggressive or abusive conduct on the part of the driver. A driver will not be expected to have any convictions or cautions for offences of a violent or threatening nature.
c) Consistently good and safe driving - those paying for a transport service rely on their driver to get them to their destination safely. They are professional drivers and should be fully aware of all Road Traffic legislation and conditions attached to the licence.
d) Good knowledge of the area that they are working in.
e) Good physical and mental health.
f) Ability to read, speak and understand English, together with a working knowledge of arithmetic in giving the correct change, etc.
Outstanding Charges or Summonses
New applicants
2 Page 63
If the individual is the subject of an outstanding charge or summons their application Comment [KL]: Clarify the policy should be suspended until the matter is resolved. position to better guide Members and applicants/licence holders. Existing Licence Holders Comment [KL]: Clarify the policy position to better guide Members and If an existing licence holder is the subject of an outstanding charge or summons, applicants/licence holders. consideration will be given whether to suspend or revoke their licence until the matter is resolved. Condsideration will be given to the:
Seriousness and relevance of the offence; When the alledged offence(s) were committed; Compliance and complaints history of the licence holder; Circumstances of the individual concerned; Any other relevant matters.
Non-conviction information
The Council will also take into account situations and circumstances that have not led to a conviction. This will include acquittals, circumstances in which convictions were quashed due to misdirection to the jury, circumstances where the decision was taken not to prosecute, situations where the person has been arrested and bailed but not yet charged, and complaints from the public. In considering the most appropriate action to take in relation to non-conviction information (or a complaint), the credibility of both the witness / complainant and the licence holder will be taken into account.
If an applicant has been arrested or charged, but not convicted, for a serious offence which suggests he could be a danger to the public, consideration should be given to refusing the application or, in the case of an existing licence holder, a suspension or revocation of their licence. Such offences would include violent and / or sexual offences.
In assessing the action to take, the safety of the travelling public must be the paramount concern.
1. Offences of Dishonesty
New applicants
1.1 Drivers of hackney carriage and private hire vehicles are expected to be persons of trust. It is comparatively easy for a dishonest driver to defraud the public by demanding more than the legal fare and in other ways.
1.2 Passengers may include especially vulnerable people.
1.3 Members of the public entrust themselves to the care of drivers both for their own safety and for fair dealing. In certain situations drivers will know that a property is empty whilst the occupants are away on holiday for a set period of time after taking them to the airport or railway station.
1.4 The widespread practice of delivering unaccompanied property is indicative of the trust that businesses put into drivers.
1.5 For these reasons a serious view is taken of any convictions involving dishonesty. In general an applicant with convictions for dishonesty, as listed
3 Page 64
below, which are less than 4 years old, is unlikely to be considered favourably Comment [KL]: Strengthen the policy granted a licence: position.
Comment [KL]: References to a. Theft specific legislation has been removed b. Burglary to avoide instances where changes in c. Fraud legislation affect the policy. d. Benefit fraud (including offences under ss.111A and 112 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992) Comment [KL]: Avoid statutory e. Handling or receiving stolen goods duplication. f. Forgery Comment [KL]: Not currently included g. Conspiracy to defraud in the policy. h. Obtaining money or property by deception i. Other deception
Existing Licence Holders
1.6 An existing licence holder who is convicted of one or more of the above offences, is likely to have their licence revoked. In these circumstances, the applicant has the right of appeal to the Magistrates’ Court, such appeal to be lodged within 21 days of the decision being notified.
2. Violence
New applicants
2.1 Drivers of hackney carriage and private hire vehicle are often entrusted with the care of vulnerable persons.
2.2 It is comparatively easy for an unscrupulous driver to take advantage of such vulnerable persons.
2.3 The Council seeks to minimise risks associated with children and young persons and for that reason a more serious view will be taken where offences of violence involve children or young persons.
2.4 Where the commission of an offence involved loss of life a licence will normally be refused.
2.5 In particular an application will normally be refused where the applicant has a conviction for violence such as those listed below, or similar offence(s):
a. Murder b. Manslaughter c. Manslaughter or culpable homicide while driving d. Terrorism offences e. Any offences (including attempted or conspiracy to commit offences) that are similar to those above.
2.6 In general an applicant with convictions for violence, as listed below (or similar offences), which are less than 10 years old, is unlikely to be considered favourably.
a. Arson b. Malicious wounding or grievous bodily harm (s.20 Offences Against the Person Act 1861) which is racially aggravated (s.29(1)(a) Crime and Disorder Act 1998) 4 Page 65
c. Actual bodily harm (s.47 Offences Against the Person Act 1861) which is Comment [KL]: Strengthen the policy racially aggravated (s.29(1)(b) Crime and Disorder Act 1998) position. d. Grievous bodily harm with intent (s.18 Offences Against the Person Act) e. Grievous bodily harm with intent (s.20 Offences Against the Person Act) f. Robbery g. Possession of firearm h. Riot i. Assault Police j. Common assault with racially aggravated (s.29(1)(c) Crime and Disorder Act 1998) k. Violent disorder l. Resisting arrest
2.7 In general an applicant with convictions for violence, as listed below (or similar offences), which are less than 8 years old, is unlikely to be considered favourably granted a licence:
a. Any Public Order Act offence (harassment, alarm or distress, intentional harassment or fear of provocation of violence) b. Any racially-aggravated offence against a person or property. c. Any offences (including attempted or conspiracy to commit offences) that are similar to those above.
a. Racially-aggravated criminal damage (s.30 Crime and Disorder Act 1998) b. Racially-aggravated s.4 Public Order Act 1986 offence (fear of provocation of violence) (s.31(1)(a) Crime and Disorder Act 1998) c. Racially-aggravated s.4A Public Order Act 1986 offence (intentional harassment, alarm or distress (s.31(1)(b) Crime and Disorder Act 1998) d. Racially-aggravated s.2 Protection from Harassment Act 1997 offence (harassment) (s.32(1)(a) Crime and Disorder Act 1998) e. Racially-aggravated s.4 Protection from Harassment Act 1997 offence (putting people in fear of violence) (s.32(1)(b) Crime and Disorder Act 1998) f. Racially-aggravated s.5 Public Order Act 1986 offence (harassment, alarm or distress) (s.31(1)(c) Crime and Disorder Act 1998) g. Assault occasioning actual bodily harm (s.47 Offences Against the Person Act)
2.8 In general an applicant with convictions for violence, as listed below (or similar offences), which are less than 5 years old, is unlikely to be considered favourably granted a licence:
a. Common assault b. Affray c. S5 Public Order Act 1986 offence (harassment, alarm or distress) d. S.4 Public Order Act 1986 offence (fear of provocation of violence) e. S4A Public Order Act 1986 offence (intentional harassment, alarm or distress) f. Obstruction g. Possession of offensive weapon h. Criminal damage
Existing Licence Holders
2.9 An existing licence holder who is convicted of one or more of the below offences, is likely to have his or her licence revoked. In these circumstances,
5 Page 66
the applicant has the right of appeal to the Magistrates’ Court, such appeal to Comment [KL]: The list of offences be lodged within 21 days of the decision being notified. below will form part of the list at paragraph 2.9. a. Murder b. Manslaughter c. Causing death by reckless, dangerous or careless driving, including: d. Causing death by reckless driving when unfit through drugs: e. Causing death by careless driving when unfit though drink f. Causing death by careless driving with alcohol level above the limit g. Causing death by careless driving then failing to supply a specimen for analysis h. Manslaughter or culpable homicide while driving a vehicle i. Causing death by dangerous driving j. Arson k. Malicious wounding or grievous bodily harm which is racially aggravated l. Actual bodily harm which is racially aggravated m. Grievous bodily harm with intent n. Robbery o. Racially-aggravated criminal damage p. Racially-aggravated s.4 Public Order Act 1986 offence (fear or provocation of violence) q. Racially-aggravated s.4A Public Order Act 1986 offence (intentional harassment, alarm or distress) r. Racially-aggravated harassment s. Racially-aggravated fear of violence
Any Public Order Act offence (harassment, alarm or distress, intentional harassment or fear of provocation of violence) Any racially-aggravated offence against a person or property. Any offences (including attempted or conspiracy to commit offences) that are similar to those above.
2.10 An existing licence holder who is convicted of one or more of the below offences, is likely to have his or her licence revoked.
a. Common assault b. Common assault which is racially-aggravated c. Assault occasioning actual bodily harm d. Assault on the police e. Affray f. Riot g. Obstruction h. Possession of offensive weapon i. Possession of firearm j. Criminal damage k. Violent disorder l. Resisting arrest
3. Drugs
New applicants
3.1 If any applicant has previous convictions related to drugs and was an addict at the time of the offences, then they will normally be required to show evidence of 5 years free from drug taking after detoxification treatment before a licence will 6 Page 67
be granted. If detoxification treatment was not undertaken the applicant will Comment [KL]: Strengthen the policy need to provide other medical evidence to demonstrate that they are no longer position. dependant on drugs. Comment [KL]: Strengthen the policy position. Supply of drugs Comment [KL]: Strengthen the policy 3.2 An application will normally be refused where the applicant has a conviction for position. an offence related to the supply of drugs and the conviction is less than 5 years Comment [KL]: Strengthen the policy prior to the date of application. position.
3.3 If an applicant has a conviction for an offence related to the supply of drugs which is more than 5 years old, but less than 10 years old, consideration will be given to the circumstances of the offence and any evidence demonstrating that the person is now a fit and proper person to hold a licence.
Possession of drugs
3.4 An application will normally be refused where the applicant has more than one conviction for offences related to the possession of drugs and the convictions are less than 5 10 years prior to the date of the application.
3.5 An application from an applicant who has an isolated conviction for an offence related to the possession of drugs within the last 3 5 years will require careful consideration of the facts.
Existing Licence Holders
3.6 A hackney carriage/private hire driver or operator An existing licence holder found guilty of driving whilst under the influence of drugs, or convicted of any other drug-related offence should expect to have their licence revoked immediately by the Licensing Services Manager in consultation with head of Legal Services under delegated powers. This decision may be appealed directly to the Magistrates’ Court
3.7 At least 5 10 years should elapse from conviction before a new application by that person will be considered and a specialist medical examination will be required with negative urine screen for drugs or abuse (if applicable).
4. Sexual/Indecency Offences
New applicants
4.1 As hackney carriage and private hire drivers often carry unaccompanied passengers, any new applicants with convictions or cautions for any sexual offence, should expect their application to be rejected until they can show a substantial period (usually between 7 and 12 years, depending on the nature of the offence – see below) free from any such conviction.
As licensed drivers often carry unaccompanied and vulnerable passengers, the council will take a strong line in relation to applicants or existing licence holders with convictions for sexual offences. All sexual and indecency offences should be considered as serious. Applicants with convictions for sexual or indecency offences that involve a third party will be refused a licence. Such offences include:
Rape Assault by penetration 7 Page 68
Offences involving children or vulnerable adults Comment [KL]: Strengthen the policy Trafficking, sexual abuse against children and / or vulnerable adults and position. preparatory offences (as defined within the Sexual Offences Act 2003). Comment [KL]: Strengthen the policy Making or distributing obscene material position. Possession of indecent photographs depicting child pornography. Sexual assault Indecent assault Exploitation of prostitution Soliciting (kerb crawling) Making obscene / indecent telephone calls Indecent exposure Any similar offences (including attempted or conspiracy to commit) offences which replace the above
In addition to the above the council will not grant a licence to any applicant who is currently on the Sex Offenders Register or any other similar register.
Existing Licence Holders
4.2 Any existing licence holder charged with, convicted or issued with a formal caution for any of the offences mentioned above should expect to have their licence revoked immediately. will have their licences reviewed by officers under delegated authority. Officers may depending on the nature of the conviction:
a. Refer the licence holder to the Licensing Committee b. Revoke the licence c. Issue a written warning
4.3 If a licence holder is referred to the Licensing Committee it could, depending on the nature of the conviction:
a. Take no further action b. Issue a written warning c. Suspend the Licence d. Revoke the licence e. Refuse to renew the licence (if such an application is being considered)
New Applicants and Existing Drivers (Both)
4.4 The following guidelines illustrate the council’s stance on rehabilitation periods after an applicant or existing driver has been convicted of a sexual/indecency offence. An applicant or existing licence holder should presume that for:
a. Rape - Licence will be revoked / refused until a minimum period of 12 years conviction free after conviction has elapsed. b. Indecent Assault - Licence will be revoked / refused until a period of 10 years conviction free after conviction has elapsed. c. Gross Indecency with a Female - Licence will be revoked / refused until a period 8 years conviction free after conviction has elapsed. d. Gross Indecency with a Male - Licence will be revoked / refuse until a period of 8 years conviction free after conviction has elapsed. e. Indecent Assault on a Child - Licence should be revoked / refused. (Where a conviction contained within schedule 4 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (Offences against children or where the individual
8 Page 69
appears on the Protection of Vulnerable Adults list, the licence will also be Comment [KL]: Strengthen the policy revoked / refused). position. f. Buggery – Licence should be revoked/until a period of 8 years conviction free after conviction has elapsed.
5. Drunkenness
New applicants
5.1 If any applicant has previous convictions related to drunkenness and was an alcoholic at the time of the offences, then they will normally be required to show evidence that 5 years has elapsed after completion of detoxification treatment. If detoxification treatment was not undertaken the applicant will need to provide other medical evidence to demonstrate that they are no longer dependant on alcohol.
With a motor vehicle (no disqualification)
5.2 A serious view will be taken of convictions of driving or being in charge of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.
5.3 An application will normally be refused where the applicant has a conviction for such an offence, which did not result in a driving disqualification, within 2 years of the date of the application.
5.2 More than one conviction for this type of offence within the last 5 years of the date of conviction, is likely to result in refusal.
With a motor vehicle (disqualification)
5.3 Where a disqualification has occurred as a result of a drink-driving offence, at least 5 years free from conviction should normally elapse from the date of the restoration of the DVLA licence before an applicant is considered for a licence.
Not with a motor vehicle
5.4 An isolated conviction for drunkenness need not exclude an applicant from gaining a licence. In some cases, a warning may be appropriate.
5.5 More than one conviction for drunkenness could indicate a medical problem necessitating critical examination and refusal of a licence.
Existing Licence Holders
With a motor vehicle
5.6 Any existing licence holder found guilty of driving passengers for hire and reward whilst under the influence of drink or of refusing to provide a specimen of breath or blood for analysis should expect to have their licence revoked immediately. will be required to hand in his hackney carriage/private hire licence immediately. The Licensing services Manager in consultation with head of Legal Services has delegated powers to revoke the licence with immediate effect. This decision may be appealed directly to the magistrates Court. A new 9 Page 70
application will not normally be considered until a period of 5 years after the Comment [KL]: Strengthen the policy restoration of the driving licence following a drink drive conviction has elapsed position. after restoration of the DVLA licence.
5.7 A licensed driver found guilty of offences relating to drink driving, but not when driving for hire or reward should expect to have their licence revoked immediately. will be required to hand in their hackney carriage/private hire licence immediately. The Licensing services Manager in consultation with head of Legal Services has delegated powers to revoke the licence with immediate effect. This decision may be appealed directly to the magistrates Court. A new application will not normally be considered until a period of 2 years has elapsed after the restoration of the driving licence following a drink drive conviction. after restoration of the DVLA licence.
Existing Licence Holders
Not with a motor vehicle
5.8 An isolated conviction for drunkenness not associated with a motor vehicle by a licensed driver will not necessarily result in any action being taken. An existing licence holder who committed one of these offences will have their licence reviewed by the Licensing Committee who may:-
a. Take no further action b. Issue a written warning c. Suspend the Licence d. Revoke the licence e. Refuse to renew the licence (if such an application is being considered)
5.12 More than one conviction for drunkenness could indicate a medical problem necessitating critical examination and revocation or suspension of a licence.
5.13 Where there has been more than one conviction for drunkenss, the Council may require a medical report prior to determining any review of an existing licence.
6. Motoring Convictions
New applicants
Major Traffic Offences (see annex A for list of offences)
6.1 An isolated conviction, without disqualification, for an offence such as dangerous driving or driving without due care and attention, will require careful consideration of the facts and will at the very least merit a warning as to future driving and advice on the standard expected of hackney carriage and private hire vehicle drivers. However, where the conviction is within 6 months prior to the date of the application the application will normally be refused.
6.2 More than one conviction for this type of offence within the last 5 years is likely to merit refusal.
Minor Traffic Offences (see annex A for list of offences)
6.3 Isolated convictions for minor traffic offences should not prevent a person from proceeding with an application. However, the number, type and frequency of 10 Page 71 this type of offence will be taken into account and if there are several offences of this nature the applicant will normally be expected to show a period free of conviction of at least 6 months.
6.4 In particular, an application will normally be refused where the applicant has received 12 or more penalty points on his DVLA licence in the five years prior to the application being made (whether or not the applicant was convicted by a court for the offences for which the points were imposed) or where the applicant has more than one conviction for this type of offence within the last 6 months.
Hybrid Traffic Offences (see annex A for list of offences)
6.5 Hybrid offences will be treated as major traffic offences if the court awarded 4 or more penalty points for the offence and as minor traffic offences if the court awarded 3 or fewer penalty points for the offence.
Disqualification
6.6 Where an applicant has been disqualified from driving because of a major traffic offence the application will generally be refused unless a period of 2 years free from conviction has elapsed from the restoration of the DVLA licence.
6.7 Where several minor traffic offences have resulted in the applicant being disqualified from driving for a period of time this will normally be taken as reflecting seriously on the applicant's driving standard. Generally, a period of 2 years free from conviction must have elapsed from the restoration of the DVLA licence.
6.8 In "totting-up" cases where disqualification is considered by the court, even if the court does not disqualify (e.g. because of exceptional circumstances) a driver, the Council is likely to refuse a hackney carriage or private hire driver's licence because different criteria apply. An applicant will normally be expected to show a period of 12 months free from conviction from the date the court made its finding of exceptional circumstances justifying the non-disqualification.
Existing Licence Holders
6.9 Private hire and hackney carriage drivers are professional drivers and must be aware of the safety of their passengers and the safety of their vehicles at all times. Any traffic offences could show a lack of responsibility whilst driving either due to the maintenance and safety of their vehicles or in the manner of their driving.
6.10 Convictions for traffic offences may not automatically prevent a person from proceeding with a renewal of their licence, or from keeping their licence.
6.11 An existing licence holder who has 7 penalty points or more on his or her driving licence due to multiple offences, or 6 penalty points or more for one isolated offence, will be required to appear before the Licensing Committee to explain their convictions. The Committee then have the option to:
a. Take no further action b. Give a written warning c. Require the driver to pass a DSA private hire/hackney drivers test, at the driver’s own expense, within 2 months of their decision d. Suspend the Licence upon conditions or for a period of time 11 Page 72 e. Revoke the licence. f. Refuse to renew the licence (if such an application is being considered)
7. Offences under the Town Police Clauses Acts and Part II of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976
New applicants
7.1 One of the main purposes of the licensing regime set out in the Town Police Clauses Acts and Part II of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 ("the Acts") is to ensure the protection of the public. For this reason a serious view is taken of convictions for offences under the Acts (including illegally plying for hire) when deciding whether an applicant is to be treated as a fit and proper person to hold a licence.
7.2 In particular, an applicant will normally be refused a licence where (s)he has been convicted of an offence under the Acts at any time during the 6 months preceding the application or has more than one conviction within the last 2 years preceding the date of the application.
Existing Licence Holders
7.3 Where an existing licence holder is convicted of an offence under, or has failed to comply with, the provisions of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 or Part II of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, a application for review of their licence will normally be referred to a Licensing Committee who will consider whether to take any steps in relation to the licence.
7.4 The Committee will then have regard to all the circumstances including:-
a. The seriousness of the offence (including the sentence imposed) b. Whether the offence was committed whilst acting as a hackney carriage or private hire driver c. Any previous convictions, cautions or fixed penalties received d. The licence holder’s previous compliance record e. Evidence of previous good character f. Any mitigating factors involved in the commission of the offence
7.5 The Committee will then take such of the following steps as they feel are necessary, reasonable and proportionate, having regard to the need to protect the public and ensure that licences are only held by fit and proper persons:-
a. Take no further action b. Issue a written warning c. Suspend the Licence d. Revoke the licence e. Refuse to renew the licence (if such an application is being considered)
ANNEX A
MAJOR TRAFFIC OFFENCES
AC10 Failing to stop after an accident AC20 Failing to give particulars or report an accident within 24 hours AC30 Undefined accident offences 12 Page 73 BA10 Driving while disqualified by order of court BA20 Attempting to drive while disqualified by order of court CD10 Driving without due care and attention CD20 Driving without reasonable consideration for other road users CD30 Driving without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other road users CD40 Causing death through careless driving when unfit through drink CD50 Causing death by careless driving when unfit through drugs CD60 Causing death by careless driving with alcohol level above the limit CD70 Causing death by careless driving then failing to supply a specimen for alcohol analysis CD80 Causing death by careless, or inconsiderate, driving CD90 Causing death by driving: unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured drivers DD10 Causing serious injury by dangerous driving DD40 Dangerous driving DD60 Manslaughter or culpable homicide while driving a vehicle DD80 Causing death by dangerous driving DD90 Furious driving DR10 Driving or attempting to drive with alcohol level above limit DR20 Driving or attempting to drive while unfit through drink DR30 Driving or attempting to drive then failing to supply a specimen for analysis DR31 Driving or attempting to drive then refusing to give permission for analysis of a blood sample that was taken without consent due to incapacity DR61 Refusing to give permission for analysis of a blood sample that was taken without consent due to incapacity in circumstances other than driving or attempting to drive DR40 In charge of a vehicle while alcohol level above limit DR50 In charge of a vehicle while unfit through drink DR60 Failure to provide a specimen for analysis in circumstances other than driving or attempting to drive DR70 Failing to provide specimen for breath test DR80 Driving or attempting to drive when unfit through drugs DR90 In charge of a vehicle when unfit through drugs IN 10 Using a vehicle uninsured against third party risks LC20 Driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence LC30 Driving after making a false declaration about fitness when applying for a licence LC40 Driving a vehicle having failed to notify a disability LC50 Driving after a licence has been revoked or refused on medical grounds MS50 Motor racing on the highway MS60 Offences not covered by other codes (including offences relating to breach of requirements as to control of vehicle) MS70 Driving with uncorrected defective eyesight MS80 Refusing to submit to an eyesight test MS90 Failure to give information as to identity of driver etc UT50 Aggravated taking of a vehicle
Aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring offences as coded above, but with 0 changed to 2 (e.g. IN10 becomes IN12)
Causing or permitting offences as coded above, but with 0 changed to 4 (e.g. IN10 becomes IN14)
Inciting offences as coded above, but with 0 changed to 6 (e.g. IN16 becomes IN16)
MINOR TRAFFIC OFFENCES 13 Page 74
MS10 Leaving a vehicle in a dangerous position MS20 Unlawful pillion riding MS30 Play street Offences MW10 Contravention of special roads regulations (excluding speed limits) PC10 Undefined contravention of Pedestrian Crossing Regulations PC20 Contravention of Pedestrian Crossing Regulations with moving vehicle PC30 Contravention of Pedestrian Crossing Regulations with stationary vehicle TS10 Failing to comply with traffic light signals TS20 Failing to comply with double white lines TS30 Failing to comply with a "Stop" sign TS40 Failing to comply with direction of a constable/warden TS50 Failing to comply with traffic sign (excluding ‘stop’ signs, traffic lights or double white lines) TS60 Failing to comply with school crossing patrol sign TS70 Undefined failure to comply with a traffic direction sign
Aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring offences as coded above, but with 0 changed to 2 (e.g. PC10 becomes PC12)
Causing or permitting offences as coded above, but with 0 changed to 4 (e.g. PC10 becomes PC14)
Inciting offences as coded above, but with 0 changed to 6 (e.g. PC16 becomes PC16)
HYBRID TRAFFIC OFFENCES
CU10 Using a vehicle with defective brakes CU20 Causing or likely to cause danger by reason of use of unsuitable vehicle or using a vehicle with parts or accessories (excluding brakes, steering or tyres) in a dangerous condition CU30 Using a vehicle with defective tyre(s) CU40 Using a vehicle with defective steering CU50 Causing or likely to cause danger by reason of load or passengers CU80 Breach of requirements as to control of the vehicle, mobile telephone etc SP10 Exceeding goods vehicle speed limit SP20 Exceeding speed limit for type of vehicle (excluding goods or passenger vehicles) SP30 Exceeding statutory speed limit on a public road SP40 Exceeding passenger vehicle speed limit SP50 Exceeding speed limit on a motorway
Aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring offences as coded above, but with 0 changed to 2 (e.g. CU10 becomes CU12)
Causing or permitting offences as coded above, but with 0 changed to 4 (e.g. CU10 becomes CU14)
Inciting offences as coded above, but with 0 changed to 6 (e.g. CU10 becomes CU16)
14 Page 75
15 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 7 Page 77
Cheltenham Borough Council Cabinet – 15th September, 2015 Council – 19th October, 2015
Recommended option for the future provision of the Cheltenham Crematorium service
Accountable member Councillor Chris Coleman, Cabinet Member Clean and Green Environment
Accountable officer Mike Redman, Director of Environmental and Regulatory Services
Ward(s) affected All, but Oakley and Prestbury in particular
Key Decision Yes
Executive summary Investment is needed to improve public facilities and in particular, the reliability of the cremators at Cheltenham’s cemetery and crematorium. This follows the poor quality cremator installation which took place in 2011, during which the main contractor went into liquidation, leaving a number of authorities with sub-standard equipment issues.
To ensure that the best solution is secured, architects Robert Potter and Partners were commissioned to look at a number of options ranging from installing new cremators in the current building, to building a new chapel and crematorium.
The options identified are diverse and have different operational, customer service and financial implications. This report covers the results of the public consultation process and seeks Cabinet endorsement of the recommended preferred option for implementation, subject to Council agreement to the financial implications of the project.
Recommendations That Cabinet:-
1. Agrees to progress Option E - a new build facility on Council- owned land to the east of the current cemetery site - as the preferred option for the future provision of its crematorium service;
2. Delegates authority to the Director of Environmental and Regulatory Services, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Clean and Green Environment and the Head of Property Services to prepare and submit the necessary planning application for the new building, cremator plant and associated
$oro5ircj.docx Page 1 of 14 Last updated 03 September
2015 Page 78 works;
3. Notes that, subject to Council approving the project budget;
3.1 the Head of Property Services will undertake the procurement for the design and construction of the new crematorium, cremators and associated works, in consultation with the Director of Environmental and Regulatory Services, the Cabinet Member for Clean and Green Environment, the Section 151 officer and the Borough Solicitor;
3.2 following the procurements referred to in recommendation 3.1 a report will be presented to the Cabinet Member for Clean and Green Environment requesting approval to award the contracts to the successful contractors;
4. Delegates authority to the Head of Property Services in consultation with the Director of Environmental and Regulatory Services to take all necessary steps and undertake all necessary procedures, including the entering into of legal or other documentation, as may be required to implement or facilitate the project;
5. Asks the cross-party Cabinet Member Working Group which has been helpfully acting as a sounding board for the project to continue its role in relation to the new build project, with updated terms of reference as appropriate;
6. Agrees in principle to an increase in the cremation fee by 2017/18 to sufficiently cover additional revenue costs.
Cabinet recommends that Council:
7. Allocates the budgets for financing Option E as detailed in Appendix 4 (exempt).
Financial implications As set out within section 6 below.
Contact officer: Nina Philippidis - Accountant, [email protected] (01242) 264121
$oro5ircj.docx Page 2 of 14 Last updated 03 September
2015 Page 79
Legal implications The Council owns the land on which it is proposed to build the new crematorium and associated car parking. The land on which the crematorium would be constructed lies within the administrative area of Tewkesbury Borough Council.
By virtue of section 214(1) and (2) of the Local Government Act 1972 and Section 4 of the Cremation Act 1902, the Authority has the power to build and operate a crematorium outside of its own administrative area.
The Authority has power to charge fees for cremations under Section 9 of the 1902 Act.
The Authority will need to comply with its contract procedure rules in procuring a contractor or contractors to build the new crematorium and provide the new cremators. A full EU procurement will likely be necessary for the acquisition of the cremators and advice from GOSS Procurement and One Legal should be sought.
Additional legal implications are contained in appendix 5.
Contact officer: Donna Ruck - Solicitor (OneLegal), [email protected] 01684 272696 and 01242 774929
HR implications It will be important to ensure that sufficient staffing resources are made (including learning and available both for the successful implementation of this significant organisational corporate project and for backfilling capacity, in particular within the development) Bereavement Services and Property teams, which will face additional demands during the duration of the build project.
The project team will also need to keep HR involved as the project progresses, as further employment issues may arise, including any potential closedown period, ensuring staff affected are temporarily redeployed. There may be contractual changes required as a result of changes implemented by the project which would require effective consultation and negotiation with individual staff members and trade union colleagues. Clear thought to training and development will also need to be considered should new equipment be purchased, or new processes / new sites go live.
Contact officer: Richard Hall – HR Business Partner GOSS (West), [email protected] 01242 774972
Key risks The key risks relating to the proposed project and recommendations are attached at Appendix 1
$oro5ircj.docx Page 3 of 14 Last updated 03 September
2015 Page 80
Corporate and Cheltenham’s environmental quality and heritage is protected, community plan maintained and enhanced – as part of the current cemetery is a listed Implications park, it will be important that this is taken into account in addition to wider issues around the environment set out below.
Transform our council so it can continue to enable delivery of our outcomes for Cheltenham and its residents- the crematorium facility is not currently fit for purpose and requires investment, whilst the chapels and parking arrangements have insufficient capacity to meet customer expectations.
Environmental and The efficiency of the cremation plant and the fact that the facility is not climate change currently subject to mercury abatement are both directly relevant implications environmental issues which the options project seeks to address.
Replacement of the cremation plant will lead to a reduction in gas consumption and associated carbon emissions from the burning of a fossil fuel.
The emission of mercury does not have a direct environmental impact on the immediate locality, but is relevant to national targets for meeting European target commitments for this neurotoxin, which has a cumulative effect within the food chain.
The preferred option of a new build facility also provides the opportunity to incorporate further efficiencies and features to reduce energy consumption, future-proof the building against longer term climate change and reduce its environmental impact. This is likely to include areas such as heat recovery from the combustion process, photovoltaic/solar water heating panels and ground source heat pump technology.
Property/Asset The preferred option recommended for implementation will involve the Implications creation of a significant new Council asset, with appropriate revenue costs associated with running and maintaining an operational building. This will be in addition to costs relating to the existing Grade II listed chapels, part of which may be adapted for use as office accommodation and/or an appropriate alternative use such as a catering / wake facility.
Parts of the existing site may be subject to future asset disposal, providing the authority with the option of utilising any receipt to help offset the cost of investment arising from this options report.
Members should note that the new build facility may have some marginal land value impact on adjoining CBC-owned land at Priors, due to the proximity of the proposed new crematorium facility. It is difficult to assess what this may be, as this adjoining land has not been allocated for development within the Cheltenham Plan and may be suitable for a variety of uses, not all of which would be impacted by this project.
Contact officer: [email protected]
$oro5ircj.docx Page 4 of 14 Last updated 03 September
2015 Page 81 1. Historic background
1.1 The cemetery and crematorium are situated in Bouncers Lane with Cleeve Hill as an impressive backdrop. The grounds encompass 65 acres which incorporate the gardens of remembrance. Cheltenham Cemetery opened with its first burial in 1864, with the crematorium being the 39th to be opened in the British Isles in 1938.
1.2 Historic England is responsible for maintaining and compiling the national register of parks and gardens of special historic interest in England. There are two in Cheltenham included on the register, Pittville Park and the Bouncers Lane Cemetery. These are both Grade II listed sites because their historic layout, features and architectural ornaments are considered to be of special interest.
1.3 No additional statutory controls follow as a result of being on the register, but local planning authorities are required to take into account the landscape's special interest when preparing local plans and in deciding planning applications that could affect the preservation of a registered park or garden and its setting.
1.4 Local plan policy GE4 refers specifically to Bouncers Lane Cemetery and states ‘Development which would adversely affect the setting or appearance of…Bouncers Lane Cemetery will not be permitted’. There is also a note which states ‘The Borough Council will consult English Heritage, the Garden History Society, and the Gloucestershire Gardens and Landscape Trust on all applications affecting….Bouncers Lane Cemetery’.
1.5 In January 2015, Justin Ayton, an Architectural Historian was commissioned to produce a Heritage Statement of Significance to inform the long term plans for the evolution of the cemetery and crematorium, including the option appraisal process and any future planning application. The report has been used to inform the recommendations within this report and will be a useful reference for any future proposals.
2. Recent background
2.1 In 2010-11, works were undertaken to replace the cremators at the crematorium with new equipment including mercury abatement which was supplied by a company called Crawford Environmental Ltd. Unfortunately, the company went into liquidation prior to completion of the contract, leaving the Council and 11 other local authorities with sub-standard equipment which is not fit for purpose.
2.2 At one local authority in south Wales, this led to a fire which completely destroyed the crematorium and there was a fire at another crematorium in south-east England. All the authorities concerned have experienced overheating and maintenance problems with their Crawford equipment.
2.3 The Council has had independent technical reports carried out in relation to the Cheltenham installation and in addition to spending in excess of £160k on stabilisation works, was advised that the plant has a limited lifespan of circa 5 years (now closer to 4 years).
2.4 In recent months, further works have been undertaken to Cremator 2, including renewal of the hearth and refractory (brick) lining and repairs to the metal casing. Further issues with the burners and associated air supply have also been carried out, but concerns about the quality of the plant remain.
2.5 Given the continuing issues with the reliability of the plant, both the crematorium service and associated income stream are considered to be at an unacceptably high risk, necessitating urgent action by the Council to address the long term future of the facility.
$oro5ircj.docx Page 5 of 14 Last updated 03 September
2015 Page 82 3. Option summary
3.1 Robert Potter and Partners were appointed to both advise on and develop options for the future of the Council’s crematorium service - their report is available as a background document (available on the website and a hard copy will be available in the Members Room).
3.2 A total of 18 alternatives have been considered by the Council’s architectural consultant and the project team, with 5 shortlisted options proceeding to public consultation.
3.3 Excluding the ‘do nothing’ option referred to as ‘Option A’ which does not address the shortcomings of the existing facility, these options were judged to offer the best balance between addressing current and future customer service requirements and the financial challenges, within relevant identified constraints. Analysis was undertaken to identify how the more expensive options could be funded, in particular, C, D and E, with the new build Option E being the highest cost, but also considered by the project team to offer the most comprehensive long term solution.
3.4 It quickly became clear that the options providing the greatest degree of future-proofing of the service were likely to be the most costly. Cabinet was therefore consulted informally on the preferred basis for funding costs in excess of the £1 million identified for the project by budget- setting in 2015-16. Cabinet advised that its preference was that any additional capital investment requirement should be met from the service, so the project team focused its attention on the potential for additional income generation and potentially, capital receipts from the sale of land and building assets within the cemetery boundary.
3.5 In order to keep the assessment process manageable, the potential use of capital receipts from disposals has not been factored into the financial appraisal of options. Instead, we have looked at the potential for increased charges in relation to two areas:
1. Cremation charges;
2. A new ‘environmental charge’ – to reflect the cost the authority incurs of around £50,000 per annum for paying into the mercury abatement ‘offsetting’ scheme known as CAMEO (see further details at Appendix 6). This nationally-run scheme allows operators to offset their mercury emissions by paying credits to operators that have introduced mercury abatement technology. A charge relating to this cost is commonplace within the industry, but not currently levied in Cheltenham.
3.6 A comparison of locally benchmarked Cremation charges is shown in Table 1 below. This demonstrates that Cheltenham’s cremation charges are currently competitive, notwithstanding the fact that services are scheduled for 45 minutes, compared to the standard 30 minutes at other venues.
$oro5ircj.docx Page 6 of 14 Last updated 03 September
2015 Page 83 3.7 Table 1 – Adult cremation fees 2015-16
Venue Cheltenham Swindon Worcester Gloucester
Standard £629 £720 £750 £756 adult 14.4% higher charge 19.2% higher charge 20.2% higher charge cremation fee Chapel time 45 minutes (50% 30 minutes 30 minutes 30 minutes longer)
Extras Medical reference Medical reference Medical reference Medical reference included Use of organ / supply Use of organ Chapel music system Organ & organist, CDs & equipment Plastic urn Abatement Fee Ashes box Abatement surcharge (where applicable) Optional £775 23.2% higher charge (40 minute chapel time)
3.8 Consultation with funeral directors suggests that there is unlikely to be an impact on service demand from a reasonable increase in cremation fees to bring Cheltenham into line with, or even slightly above the charges at other local crematoria. Indeed, if this was linked with the planned improvements offered by Option E, this is likely to welcomed by service users, if the alternative was that the more ambitious new build scheme could not proceed.
3.9 Environmental charge - as all the solutions being proposed for the Cheltenham crematorium service other than the ‘do nothing’ option will introduce mercury abatement, the time is considered right to introduce a charge for this, as part of the business case for investment in the long term improvement in the service.
3.10 Detailed in Table 2 below are the five options which were shortlisted for consultation on the future of the crematorium service, from a total of 18 options assessed by our consultants. The project team scored the options against the project aims set out in Table 4 below. A similar exercise was undertaken independently by our consultants. Reassuringly, this resulted in a comparable hierarchy of scores and therefore also identified Option E as the preferred option.
3.11 Table 2
Option Scope Project team score against project aims (excluding finance) – high is good
A. Do nothing Continue to operate facility as currently, 20.1% without mercury abatement and accepting the likelihood of increasing maintenance and reliability issues. B. Minimal solution Replace existing cremator plant (2 no.), install 40.5% mercury abatement plant, provide new floral tribute area, improved vehicular and pedestrian circulation and new car park to accommodate an extra 120 vehicles.
$oro5ircj.docx Page 7 of 14 Last updated 03 September
2015 Page 84 C. Remote Remote crematory to accommodate two 67.4% crematory cremators, with potential for third cremator, together with abatement plant, expansion of South Chapel into vacated crematory to accommodate 152 seated mourners, new floral tribute area, improved vehicular and pedestrian circulation, and new car park to accommodate 120 cars. D. Extension of Remodelling of existing crematory and 65.9% existing facility extension to accommodate two cremators, with potential for third cremator, together with abatement plant, extension of North Chapel to accommodate 133 seated mourners plus overspill for large funerals, enhanced waiting areas, enhanced staff facilities, general improvements to functionality, new floral tribute area, improved vehicular and pedestrian circulation, and new car park to accommodate 120 cars. E. New build New-build option on land to the east of the site, 98.5% providing a new chapel which can accommodate at least 150 seated mourners plus standing areas and overspill areas for large funerals, clear pedestrian flows and separation between services, retention of the North Chapel for small ceremonies, improved vehicular and pedestrian circulation, and new car park to accommodate 120 cars (including 20 spaces adjacent to the building for disabled parking), with scope for future expansion in the medium to long term.
3.12 This table shows the extent to which options meet the Council’s objectives for the future of the cremation service against a range of criteria, including desired outcomes and constraints. The summary tables below show the Pass/Fail criteria applied to options, together with weighted scores that were assessed by the project team against individual objectives for the project. A similar exercise was also undertaken independently by our consultants, with broadly comparable results (i.e. the same scheme preference order).
3.13 Table 3 – Summary of Pass/Fail criteria
Option Option Option Option Category Option A B C D E
Service Quality P P P P P Environmental F P P P P Planning P P P P P Land Use P P P P P
TOTAL Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass
3.14 Table 4 – Summary of weighted scores against project aims
$oro5ircj.docx Page 8 of 14 Last updated 03 September
2015 Page 85
Option Option Option Option Category Option A B C D E
Resilience 0.0 6.6 22.0 11.0 22.0 Service Quality 6.2 10.3 11.4 13.2 20.5 Operational 7.7 7.7 8.8 15.4 22.0 Environmental 0.0 8.0 12.0 12.0 16.0 Implementation 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.4 4.0 Equalities 4.2 4.9 5.6 7.0 7.0 Future Proofing 0.0 1.1 5.6 4.9 7.0
TOTAL (out of 100) 20.1 40.5 67.4 65.9 98.5
3.15 This analysis clearly demonstrates that the ‘best fit’ option (excluding financial considerations) by some considerable margin is Option E, with the pass/fail criteria effectively ruling out Option A (do nothing) as an acceptable position moving forwards. This is because it would expose the Council to an unacceptable environmental impact at some future point.
4. Other options considered
4.1 The project team also looked briefly at ‘promession’ an alternative method of body disposal which involves the use of liquid nitrogen. However, apart from the obvious concerns about its potential acceptability to bereaved families, this was discounted on the basis that the process is not currently licensed in the UK and there is no evidence that such licensing is likely to occur in the near future.
4.2 Outsourcing was considered, but specifically excluded as an option for consideration at an early stage in the process, due to concerns about the reliability of the cremator plant and the impact which this is likely to have on any offer from a would-be private operator. There is also a high degree of public sensitivity around the service, which has been successfully operated by the Council since the 1930’s and informal soundings with Cabinet indicated that it would not be politically acceptable. The Cabinet Member Working Group was broadly of a similar view, having regard to the likely complexities of negotiating with a private sector operator when the current operation isn’t resilient. Another obstacle was considered to be the close link between the crematorium operation and the cemetery service, which is operated from a very sensitive site with listed status.
5. Consultation and feedback
5.1 The project team, lead Cabinet member and the Cabinet Member Working Group were of the opinion that five identified options should be consulted upon, notwithstanding the likely funding challenges posed by options C, D and E.
5.2 Consultation up to this point has now included the public, Historic England, Bereavement Services staff, the project team, funeral directors, ministers & religious groups, organists, celebrants and the Cabinet Member Working Group, which has acted as a sounding-board throughout the project to date.
5.3 A summary of the results of the detailed public consultation exercise is attached at Appendix 2.
5.4 The consultation provided the opportunity for respondents to comment on the five options, with details of the schemes, indicative layout plans and comparative financial information. To gauge preferences, a ‘star rating system’ was used, allowing respondents to score each of the schemes
$oro5ircj.docx Page 9 of 14 Last updated 03 September
2015 Page 86 on a one to five star basis.
5.5 Headline results from the consultation were as follows:-
225 responses in total – 149 on-line, 11 via the display at the Municipal Offices and 65 via the display and events at the Cemetery & Crematorium.
203 respondents said had visited the site, 34 saying they were part of a connected business
86.4% of all respondents indicating a preferred option preferred Option E
Option D was the next highest preference at 5.5%
49.6% of all rating stars were awarded to Option E
Option D was the next highest with 19.2%
People who had visited the site were slightly more favourable towards Option E than those who had not visited
Those who declared a related ‘business interest’ were even more strongly in favour of Option E, awarding it 61.1% of all available stars to it.
5.6 In addition to the public consultation, a member seminar took place on the evening of 18th August and was attended by 15 councillors. Members were broadly supportive of Option E as the preferred way forward, whilst understandably seeking reassurance around the financial investment required. This included questions around the commerciality of the Council’s approach and the opportunity which the new facility would provide to grow the service in line with expectations about future population growth. There was a clear recognition of the need for the authority to invest to ensure that the facility remains competitive in terms of its offer and able to attract business from the wide catchment that is currently serviced.
5.7 In this regard, members were concerned that the design and quality of the new building would be of critical importance and fundamental to attracting and retaining business.
5.8 As the Council’s land to the east of the existing cemetery site is within Tewkesbury borough, approaches have been made to both Southam Parish Council and Tewkesbury members for the Cleeve Hill ward to ask for their views on how they would like to be consulted in advance of any formal planning submission, should the recommended option be agreed by Cabinet.
6. Financial implications
6.1 Scheme Costs and Funding
6.1.1 For each option a detailed financial model has been prepared based on estimated construction costs provided by Robert Potter and Partners. As part of the business case preparation process the project team have considered the likely total project cost, the detail of which can be seen at Appendix 5.
6.1.2 The Council initially approved a £1,000,000 capital contribution to improvements at the Cemetery & Crematorium based on the anticipated cost of two new cremators in their current location. It was understood it was unlikely that this alone would cover the full costs of any proposal and the project team was tasked with looking at wider options, considering how borrowing via the Public Works Loan Board (PWLB) could be used to support capital expenditure over and above that provided.
$oro5ircj.docx Page 10 of 14 Last updated 03 September
2015 Page 87 6.1.3 By taking a full project costing approach, revenue as well as capital scheme costs have been identified. Under Options B, C and D, the anticipated loss of income arising from service disruption would need to be underwritten by the General Reserve in 2016/17. In agreeing to any of the options appropriate funding must be allocated from the Programme Maintenance Reserve to cover refitting and internal refurbishment costs.
6.1.4 Table 5 below, details the total scheme costs of each option and the various levels of borrowing and one-off funding required.
Table 5
OPTION B OPTION C OPTION D OPTION E
RPP Construction Cost Estimate £2,483,000 £5,119,000 £5,446,000 £6,565,000 Other Capital Project Costs £541,651 £1,036,843 £1,413,955 £878,100 Total Estimated Scheme Cost £3,024,651 £6,155,843 £6,859,955 £7,443,100
Required Funding Capital Receipt £1,000,000 £1,000,000 £1,000,000 £1,000,000 PWLB Borrowing - across 15 to 35 year terms £1,651,245 £4,542,810 £4,867,555 £5,968,600 Programme Maintenance Reserve - to fund refitting and internal refurbishment costs £301,700 £411,800 £418,700 £474,500 General Reserve - to cover loss of income from service disruption £71,706 £201,233 £573,700 £0
£3,024,651 £6,155,843 £6,859,955 £7,443,100
6.2 Revenue Implications
6.2.1 Full consideration of the annual revenue implications of each scheme has been given, with any likely changes being captured within the models e.g. changes in operational requirements and building running costs. The estimated costs of repaying both the interest and principal on the loans required to cover the scheme costs have also been included.
6.2.2 The schemes all include the replacement of the crematory with mercury abating equipment. This will allow the Council to cease paying into the CAMEO scheme (current cost of around £50k per annum) and instead receive abating “credits”. An estimate of this income, based on a future forecast on current rates, has been included in all models.
6.2.3 The savings from becoming an abating authority are not sufficient on their own to cover the full increase in costs arising for these options and therefore it is assumed the additional cost will be covered by increases in income, facilitated by an increase in the price per cremation.
6.2.4 A baseline of 1,900 cremations per annum has been assumed and the required fee increase calculated to ensure the schemes “break even” and do not have a detrimental impact on the Council’s Medium Term Financial Strategy. Note: Inflationary increases are already assumed within the medium term financial strategy, so the fee increases to support the options are additional.
6.2.5 Table 6 below, indicates the fee increase per cremation required (over and above annual inflationary increases) to support the additional net revenue costs of each option.
Table 6
$oro5ircj.docx Page 11 of 14 Last updated 03 September
2015 Page 88
OPTION B OPTION C OPTION D OPTION E
Required increase in cremation fee to meet costs of borrowing & additional £29.60 £150.62 £135.70 £168.71 annual revenue costs arising
6.2.6 The financial models assume works commence and complete by the end of 2016/17 with loan drawdown post completion at the beginning of 2017/18. This assumption requires the fee increase to be in place for 1st April 2017.
6.3 Assumptions
6.3.1 The financial models are built on a number of assumptions, the first of which is referred to in 6.2.6. The construction costs have been estimated based on forecasts for Quarter 3 2016 prices. Although a contingency has been included within each model for project delays, further budgetary provision could be required to cover estimated inflationary increases should the project timings change. Currently consideration is being given to the procurement route, the outcome of which could alter the project timelines resulting in the current Quarter 3 2016 prices being pushed back to Quarter 1 2017.
6.3.2 The estimated cost of this shift and the equivalent fee increase is shown in Table 7 below:
Table 7
OPTION B OPTION C OPTION D OPTION E
Cost of moving from Quarter 3 2016 to Quarter 1 2017 prices £90,000 £185,000 £200,000 £240,000
Fee increase equivalent to additional required borrowing £4.09 £7.14 £7.62 £8.86
6.3.3 Assumptions on PWLB interest rates have been based on indicative forecasts using available information taking into account both current project timings and indicative loan periods. However, as all are well aware, interest rates are sensitive to a range of pressures so the risk of interest rates rising and the corresponding impact on necessary cremation fee increases should be noted.
6.3.4 Other important assumptions are:
Benchmark rates for new buildings are based upon a crematorium designed by our consultants (Roucan Loch) which won an architectural design award with a modest specification and simple architectural form but a high quality build
Two cremators will be installed with space for a third (except options A and B)
No further ecological mitigation actions are required
Any costs resulting from issues identified by site surveys of ground conditions can be met within contingency funds
6.3.5 The financial models are based on consultants and officers’ best estimates of likely costs and benefits and have been rigorously challenged throughout the process. Advice on contingencies has been provided by our consultants and amounts are included within the costings presented
$oro5ircj.docx Page 12 of 14 Last updated 03 September
2015 Page 89 here. However, as the costings are based on a feasibility study, it is worth noting that although funding is requested based on the models as presented, they are caveated on the basis that further work will be done as part of the next stage to firm up cost estimates. Should significant variations be established, a report will be made to Council as appropriate.
7. Reasons for recommendations
7.1 At this stage in the options process, there is clearly a significant difference between the costs of the different options, but equally, there are very different benefits in terms of the scope for an improved service offer to bereaved families.
7.2 As the project envisages future-proofing the service to provide flexibility, ideally for the next 50+ years, officers considered that it would have been wrong to rule out options too soon on cost grounds alone.
7.3 Further work has been carried out to look at how the cost of the new build option could be achieved without undue impact on the Council’s medium term financial strategy and officers are confident that this can be achieved. Whilst not included within the cost analysis at this stage, this position could be further improved by the disposal of assets such as the Cemetery Lodge building which has been long term vacant and could be worth up to £350k. In addition, there is an underused area of land within the cemetery boundary known as ‘The Nursery’ which could potentially be developed, subject to access arrangements and planning consent being secured. This avenue is currently being explored by the property team in consultation with the cross-party Asset Management Working Group.
7.4 In terms of the next stage of implementation, the project requires funding certainty and this will require a firm commitment by the Council about which option it wishes to pursue. Officers are confident that the indicative costs of Option E can be accommodated with reasonable fee income increases that would not put Cheltenham at risk of losing market share.
7.5 Option E also offers the best scope for a more commercial approach which could potentially win business that does not currently come to Cheltenham, for example, as a result of the limited size of the current chapels.
8. Conclusions
8.1 The most expensive of the five options considered, Option E, is considered to offer the best long term solution for the future of Cheltenham’s crematorium service and this conclusion is overwhelmingly supported by the results of the public consultation exercise.
8.2 In selecting any preferred project option there are two key considerations, firstly, the extent to which the option addresses and delivers against the Council’s required outcomes having due regard to relevant risks and secondly, whether it can be afforded. The RPP report, which has been informed by officer analysis of the options against a range of assessment criteria, clearly demonstrates that Option E offers the most comprehensive solution, within the project constraints identified.
8.3 The Council’s bereavement service typically delivers a revenue surplus of between £600k and £800k per annum, but this level of income is already assumed within the medium term financial strategy and investment in a new facility has not been planned or budgeted for. Thus, the additional cost of any long term investment in the service needs to be contained and funded from additional income. Having assessed and benchmarked Cheltenham’s charges and level of service against other local providers, there is scope for increasing fees to cover the cost of the borrowing required to invest in a new facility on land currently identified for expansion of the cemetery site.
$oro5ircj.docx Page 13 of 14 Last updated 03 September
2015 Page 90 8.4 Whilst the investment required has been carefully estimated during the assessment process based on RPP’s experience of crematoria development elsewhere, there is always some element of cost risk with a project of this scale, notwithstanding the contingencies that have been allowed for. Further costing work will be needed as the project progresses to the planning stage and the detailed design and specification is drawn up and this will need to be carefully managed to ensure that costs are kept under control, whilst ensuring a quality facility is achieved. This will need to pay due regard to both the external appearance of the building in its sensitive landscape setting and to the interior design and layout.
8.5 Investing in a new building, incorporating a larger chapel facility and new cremator plant, with the space to extend in the future, is considered to be the best approach to secure the long term success and viability of the service.
Report author Contact officer: Mike Redman, Director of Environmental and Regulatory Services e-mail: [email protected],
01242 264160
Appendices 1. Risk assessment
2. Consultation plan and results summary
3. Community impact assessment
4. Financial models - exempt
5. Legal advice – exempt
6. Background to CAMEO scheme
Exemptions are in accordance with Paragraphs 3 and 5, Part (1) Schedule (12A) Local Government Act 1972
Background Document Feasibility report – Robert Potter Partnership – August 2015
$oro5ircj.docx Page 14 of 14 Last updated 03 September
2015 Recommended option for the future provision of the Cheltenham Crematorium service Appendix 1 – Risk Assessment
The following risk assessment includes significant risks for all options under consideration. Certain risks have varying impacts and likelihoods for different options as set out in the ‘Option’ and ‘Original Risk Score’ columns below.
The risk Original risk score Managing risk (impact x likelihood) Risk Risk description Risk Date raised Option I L Score Control Action Deadline Responsible Transferred ref. Owner officer to risk register Bereavement Services Operation and Business Plan 1.1 If Option A is chosen Mike 12/08/15 A 5 2 10 Avoid Option A is effectively ruled October Mike then there will be a Redman out as a viable option, as it 2015 Redman significant delay simply delays the need for before the long-term the Council to address the future of the long term future needs of Cemetery and the service and would give
Crematorium is rise to an escalating risk of Page 91 decided, with business continuity failure adverse health and safety, service quality, financial and reputational impacts 1.2 If the impacts of the Mike 12/08/15 B 4 3 12 Reduce Steps are being taken to December Rob scheme on the Redman C 4 4 16 ensure that the project is 2015 Hainsworth existing service are D 4 4 16 adequately resourced, with not successfully E 4 4 16 an allowance for backfilling managed, business capacity within the service continuity, quality of during project service and implementation reputation of the Council could be adversely affected. 1.3 If fee increases lead Mike 12/08/15 B 1 3 3 Accept Agree appropriate phasing October Rob to a drop in the Redman C 2 3 6 and amounts for fee 2015 Hainsworth number of D 2 3 6 increases, taking into cremations or burials E 2 3 6 account fees charged by then there may be a others in the region drop in income and an adverse impact on Monitor the impact on Rob Page 1 of 9 Recommended option for the future provision of the Cheltenham Crematorium service Appendix 1 – Risk Assessment
The risk Original risk score Managing risk (impact x likelihood) Risk Risk description Risk Date raised Option I L Score Control Action Deadline Responsible Transferred ref. Owner officer to risk register the Council’s Medium numbers of cremations and Hainsworth Term Financial burials Strategy 1.4 If a competitor Mike 12/08/15 A 3 3 9 This risk to the service March Mike crematorium facility Redman B 3 3 9 exists with the current 2016 Redman was constructed C 3 2 6 operation within the current D 3 2 6 service catchment E 3 1 3 Developing a new and area, it could have an improved Council facility adverse impact on would mitigate this risk to fee income some extent, but the Page 92 service will continue to have a natural geographic advantage in relation to Cheltenham-based demand
Failing to improve the current service increases the risk of competition from other facilities Engagement 2.1 If engagement and Mike 12/08/15 A 3 2 6 Reduce Put an engagement plan in December Ken Dale communication with Redman B 3 2 6 place 2015 the public and other C 3 2 6 major stakeholders D 3 2 6 during the E 3 2 6 implementation of the chosen option is inadequate then there is a risk of reputational damage to the Council Page 2 of 9 Recommended option for the future provision of the Cheltenham Crematorium service Appendix 1 – Risk Assessment
The risk Original risk score Managing risk (impact x likelihood) Risk Risk description Risk Date raised Option I L Score Control Action Deadline Responsible Transferred ref. Owner officer to risk register Project Management 3.1 If the lessons learned Mike 12/08/15 B 4 2 8 Reduce Ensure lessons learnt are December Ken Dale from the recent Redman C 4 2 8 incorporated into project 2015 projects (notably the D 4 2 8 design previous cremator E 4 2 8 replacement project Engage with Cabinet Ongoing Mike and the Wilson Member Working Group throughout Redman redevelopment and scrutinize project project project) are not against recommendations successfully applied of previous reviews. the implementation of the chosen options Page 93 may suffer delays, increased costs and reduced quality and further reputational damage may ensue 3.2 If the programme Mike 12/08/15 B 2 3 6 Reduce Ensure programme plan is December Ken Dale plan for the chosen Redman C 3 4 12 informed by relevant 2015 option is not D 3 4 12 experts and includes delivered in a timely E 3 4 12 appropriate contingency fashion then there may be increased Ensure risks of delay are Ongoing Garrie costs shared contractually throughout Dowling project Monitor execution of plan Ongoing Ken Dale throughout project 3.3 If the programme Mike 12/08/15 B 2 3 6 Reduce Effective control of Ongoing Ken Dale plan for the chosen Redman C 3 4 12 programme plan throughout option is not D 3 4 12 project delivered in a timely E 3 4 12 fashion then there Page 3 of 9 Recommended option for the future provision of the Cheltenham Crematorium service Appendix 1 – Risk Assessment
The risk Original risk score Managing risk (impact x likelihood) Risk Risk description Risk Date raised Option I L Score Control Action Deadline Responsible Transferred ref. Owner officer to risk register are increased risks of the current cremators failing Business Case 4.1 If the financial plan Mike 12/08/15 B 3 2 6 Reduce Ensure financial plan is Complete Nina for the chosen option Redman C 4 2 8 informed by relevant Philippidis is not delivered, there D 4 2 8 experts and includes will be an adverse E 4 2 8 appropriate contingency impact on the Council’s Medium Monitor execution of plan Ongoing Various (to Term Financial throughout be Page 94 Strategy project determined during project initiation) 4.2 If the interest rate Mike 12/08/15 B 1 4 4 Accept Monitor rates - develop a Ongoing Nina applicable to our Redman C 2 4 8 contingency plan if throughout Philippidis Public Works Loan D 2 4 8 necessary project Board loan rises E 2 4 8 beyond its predicted level before the loan is finalised on completion of construction then the financial plan for implementation of the chosen option will be adversely impacted and Cabinet will have to consider funding options. 4.3 If construction Mike 12/08/2015 B 2 3 6 Reduce Check, as early as June 2016 Ken Dale / tenders are delayed Redman C 2 3 6 possible, that key Dave Page 4 of 9 Recommended option for the future provision of the Cheltenham Crematorium service Appendix 1 – Risk Assessment
The risk Original risk score Managing risk (impact x likelihood) Risk Risk description Risk Date raised Option I L Score Control Action Deadline Responsible Transferred ref. Owner officer to risk register then the allowance in D 3 3 9 assumptions, notably the Baker the current financial E 3 3 9 use of procurement plan for construction frameworks to expedite the inflation may be process, are justified. inadequate leading to increased costs and Ensure that the project Ken Dale Cabinet will have to proceeds to plan. consider funding options. 4.4 If HMRC are Paul Jones 12/08/2015 B 5 1 5 Accept Based on current forecasts Ongoing Nina unwilling to accept C 5 1 5 it is likely that a significant throughout Philippidis that the Council’s D 5 1 5 level of capital investment project Page 95 breach of its Partial E 5 1 5 in the cremation service Exemption de which generates exempt minimis limit is income will result in the “occasional and one- Council breaching its off”, it will be required Partial Exemption de to repay all input tax minimis limit for VAT recovered in the year recovery purposes. of the breach. However, at the time of the breach (2016/17 to 2017/18) the Council will demonstrate to HMRC that the breach is “occasional and on-off” and present a 7 year rolling average showing that across the period it has remained within the required limits. Forecasts have been prepared to demonstrate this requirement based on current estimated project
Page 5 of 9 Recommended option for the future provision of the Cheltenham Crematorium service Appendix 1 – Risk Assessment
The risk Original risk score Managing risk (impact x likelihood) Risk Risk description Risk Date raised Option I L Score Control Action Deadline Responsible Transferred ref. Owner officer to risk register costs. Current external advice indicates that this is a suitable approach and that disagreement from HMRC would be unprecedented. Regular forecasting and monitoring will be undertaken throughout project. Procurement Page 96 5.1 If procurements are Mike 12/08/15 B 2 3 6 Reduce Ensure the most December Dave delayed then there Redman C 2 4 8 appropriate procurement 2015 Baker may be increased D 2 4 8 option is chosen taking construction costs E 3 4 12 account of timescales due to the effects of inflation and Cabinet Ensure chosen Ongoing Ken Dale will have to consider procurement option is throughout funding options. executed efficiently project 5.2 If there are Mike 12/08/15 B 2 3 6 Reduce Use a procurement December Dave insufficient numbers Redman C 3 3 9 framework if appropriate 2016 Baker of bids for our D 3 3 9 construction tender E 3 3 9 then the programme may be delayed and/or costs may increase Planning 6.1 If a planning Mike 12/08/15 B 4 2 8 Reduce Ensure designers work Summer Ken Dale application is not Redman C 4 3 12 closely with planning 2016 approved then the D 4 3 12 authorities pre-application programme will be E 4 3 12 delayed and costs Page 6 of 9 Recommended option for the future provision of the Cheltenham Crematorium service Appendix 1 – Risk Assessment
The risk Original risk score Managing risk (impact x likelihood) Risk Risk description Risk Date raised Option I L Score Control Action Deadline Responsible Transferred ref. Owner officer to risk register will increase
Construction 7.1 If the council’s Mike 12/08/15 B 3 3 9 Reduce Create a project structure December Ken Dale contractors do not Redman C 3 3 9 which enables adequate 2015 provide an adequate D 3 3 9 management of contracts service then the E 3 3 9 implementation of the Ensure ‘quality’ is given Ongoing Dave chosen option may adequate weighting during throughout Baker suffer delays, contractor procurement project increased costs and reduced quality. Page 97 7.2 If contractors or sub- Mike 12/08/15 B 4 2 8 Reduce Undertake pre-contractual December Dave contractors fail during Redman C 4 3 12 / Accept checks 2016 Baker the programme or D 4 3 12 subsequent E 4 3 12 Put bonds in place with December Dave maintenance periods appropriate release timing 2016 Baker then the programme may be delayed, Include adequate Complete Ken Dale quality may decrease contingency and costs may increase 7.3 If ground or Mike 12/08/15 B 2 1 2 Reduce Commission site Complete archaeological Redman C 2 2 4 / Accept investigations alongside investigations identify D 2 2 4 feasibility study issues before or E 2 2 4 during construction Include adequate then costs and contingency Complete timescales may increase. Monitor progress of works Ongoing Ken Dale throughout project 7.4 If the planned access Mike 12/08/15 B 3 3 9 Reduce Detailed site analysis September Ken Dale Page 7 of 9 Recommended option for the future provision of the Cheltenham Crematorium service Appendix 1 – Risk Assessment
The risk Original risk score Managing risk (impact x likelihood) Risk Risk description Risk Date raised Option I L Score Control Action Deadline Responsible Transferred ref. Owner officer to risk register road running Redman C 3 3 9 underway 2015 alongside the Garden D 3 3 9 of Remembrance is E 3 3 9 Tree impacts assessed by Ongoing Chris not feasible due to its CBC trees officer throughout Chavasse impact on graves, project areas in which ashes Planning process will have been scattered, involve consultation on September Mike or trees then an detailed scheme 2016 Redman alternative route will be needed leading to possible increased Page 98 cost and/or timescales. 7.5 If access to the site Mike 12/08/15 B 3 2 6 Reduce Agree the most appropriate September Garrie and construction Redman C 4 3 12 access route into the 2016 Dowling activity are not D 4 3 12 proposed development managed in a way E 3 3 9 site. that is sympathetic to the services being Schedule work out of hours Ongoing Garrie provided, there is a when appropriate throughout Dowling risk that there could project be an increase in complaints and the Shutdown services if / Ongoing Rob Councils reputation when appropriate with throughout Hainsworth could be adversely contingency plans project effected. Legal 8.1 If option C or E is Mike 12/08/15 C 4 2 8 Reduce Ensure landscaping design September Rob agreed then the Redman E 4 2 8 minimises visual impact of 2016 Hainsworth value and viability of crematorium and acts as a adjacent land for ‘use separation’ buffer future housing development may be Page 8 of 9 Recommended option for the future provision of the Cheltenham Crematorium service Appendix 1 – Risk Assessment
The risk Original risk score Managing risk (impact x likelihood) Risk Risk description Risk Date raised Option I L Score Control Action Deadline Responsible Transferred ref. Owner officer to risk register impacted. 8.2 If housing is Mike 12/08/15 C 4 1 4 Reduce Monitor potential Ongoing Martin developed on nearby Redman E 4 1 4 / Accept developments and create throughout Chandler land before the contingency plans if project crematorium is appropriate constructed then there is a risk that the Ensure programme Ongoing Ken Dale programme could be proceeds at an optimum throughout delayed or curtailed. pace project Capacity 9.1 If there is inadequate Mike 12/08/15 B 2 3 6 Reduce Create and maintain an Ongoing Ken Dale Page 99 internal resource to Redman C 3 4 12 internal resource plan throughout support the D 3 4 12 project implementation of the E 3 4 12 chosen option Ensure funding exists to September Ken Dale / (including the support backfill 2015 - Nina resulting effect on the maintain Philippidis ongoing throughout Bereavement project Services operation) there will be adverse impacts upon timescales, costs, service quality and the reputation of the Council.
Page 9 of 9 This page is intentionally left blank Page 101 Recommended option for the future provision of the Cheltenham Crematorium service Appendix 2 – Summary of public consultation
1. Introduction
1.1 The feasibility study into future options for the provision of Cheltenham’s crematorium service included a period of consultation with the public and relevant community and stakeholder groups from 20th July to 16th August 2015.
1.2 This report describes the consultation process and details its outcome.
2. Approach to consultation
2.1 The consultation was undertaken by Cheltenham Borough Council with support from its consultants Robert Potter and Partners.
2.2 It was based on five options for future provision which were put forward by the project team and agreed by the Cabinet:
2.2.1 Option A – Do Nothing; Continue to operate the facility as currently, without mercury abatement and accepting the likelihood of increasing maintenance and reliability issues.
2.2.2 Option B – Minimal solution. Replace existing cremator plant (2 no.), install mercury abatement plant, provide new floral tribute area, improved vehicular and pedestrian circulation and new car park to accommodate an extra 120 vehicles.
2.2.3 Option C – Remote crematory. Remote crematory to accommodate two cremators, with potential for third cremator, together with abatement plant, expansion of South Chapel into vacated crematory to accommodate 152 seated mourners, new floral tribute area, improved vehicular and pedestrian circulation, and new car park to accommodate 120 cars.
2.2.4 Option D – Extension of existing facility. Remodelling of existing crematory and extension to accommodate two cremators, with potential for third cremator, together with abatement plant, extension of North Chapel to accommodate 133 seated mourners plus overspill for large funerals, enhanced waiting areas, enhanced staff facilities, general improvements to functionality, new floral tribute area, improved vehicular and pedestrian circulation, and new car park to accommodate 120 cars.
2.2.5 Option E - New-build. New-build option on land to the east of the site, providing a new chapel which can accommodate at least 150 seated mourners plus standing areas and overspill areas for large funerals, clear pedestrian flows and separation between services, retention of the North Chapel for small ceremonies, improved vehicular and pedestrian circulation, and new car park to accommodate 120 cars (including 20 spaces adjacent to the building for disabled parking), with scope for future expansion in the medium to long term
2.3 Conceptual plans and a list of ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ for each option were:
Page 1 of 6 Page 102 Recommended option for the future provision of the Cheltenham Crematorium service Appendix 2 – Summary of public consultation
2.3.1 displayed at the Cemetery and Crematorium and at the Municipal Offices
2.3.2 made available on the council’s website
2.4 A public drop-in session was held at the Cemetery and Crematorium on 13th August 2015. 39 people attended and discussed the options with members of the project team including a representative from the consultants.
2.5 The public consultation was promoted through:
2.5.1 Press releases (20th July and 5th August) and briefings to press and radio
2.5.2 Frequent social media prompts
2.5.3 Leaflets delivered to around 300 of the households closest to the Cemetery and Crematorium
2.6 Groups with official roles at the Cemetery and Crematorium were invited to a meeting on 14th August 2015. 16 attended including funeral directors, representatives from Christian churches, the Jewish community, the Muslim community, humanist celebrants and organists. The options were presented by a representative from the consultants and discussed with those present.
2.7 Funeral directors were also involved in earlier discussions throughout the feasibility study and have contributed greatly to understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the current facilities and how they might best be improved.
2.8 The Cabinet Member – Clean and Green Environment attended a meeting of Prestbury Parish Council and discussed the options.
2.9 All those consulted were invited to complete a questionnaire, available in paper form at the meetings and the places at which plans were displayed and also available electronically on the council’s website. On the questionnaire, respondents were invited to award between zero and five stars to each option; and to comment on each option and on the current facilities. They were also asked whether they had visited the site, whether they were part of a business connected to the site and were asked to supply their postcode.
3. Consultation Results
3.1 A summary of headlines is shown below
There were 225 responses to the questionnaire in total, 149 on-line, 11 from the Municipal Offices, 65 from the Cemetery and Crematorium 203 respondents said they had visited the site 34 said they were part of a connected business Three people made additional comments by e-mail A long letter was printed in the Echo by the Minister of Highbury Congregational Church
Page 2 of 6 Page 103 Recommended option for the future provision of the Cheltenham Crematorium service Appendix 2 – Summary of public consultation
Of all responses with a preferred option, 86.4% preferred option E Next highest first preference was option D with 5.5% 49.6% of all stars were awarded to option E Next most popular was option D with 19.2% People who had visited the site were slightly more favourable towards option E than those who had not visited. Those who declared a ‘business’ interest were even more strongly in favour of option E, awarding 61.1% of all stars to it Comments made on the questionnaire and in the consultation meetings focussed overwhelmingly on the difficulties with chapel size and configuration, waiting room and parking. They were strongly supportive of option E as providing the most cost- effective and long-term solution.
3.2 Responses came from a wide geographic area. Of those who included their postcodes, 155 were from Cheltenham with a significant bias towards the localities closest to the site of the Cemetery and Crematorium. There were a small number of responses from each of Gloucester, Stroud and surrounds, Cirencester and surrounds, Hartpury and surrounds, Tewkesbury, the Cotswolds, Oxford, Witney, Pershore and surrounds and Dorset.
3.3 Here is a summary of the stars awarded to each option.
Option
A B C D E Number of stars awarded 70 220 309 367 949 % of all stars awarded 3.7 11.5 16.1 19.2 49.6 Number of outright first preferences 2 8 6 11 172 % of outright first preferences 1.0 4.0 3.0 5.5 86.4
3.4 The views expressed at both the public drop-in session and the meeting for those with official roles were overwhelmingly in support of option E. Many, if not all, of the attendees will have completed questionnaires and therefore their opinions will be incorporated in the figures above.
3.5 Reasons given for supporting option E were typically:
3.5.1 It will provide a long-term solution which addresses all the difficulties with the current facilities – some (but not all) local residents referenced the noise and dust emitted at present.
Page 3 of 6 Page 104 Recommended option for the future provision of the Cheltenham Crematorium service Appendix 2 – Summary of public consultation
3.5.2 Its estimated costs of option E are not very much more than other options and demonstrate that E is much more cost-effective, a frequent view being that an increase in fees would be an acceptable consequence
3.5.3 The disruption to ongoing services will be much less than for other options
3.5.4 The opportunities it generates to re-purpose the existing building
3.6 Here are some representative quotes in support of option E:
“An exciting proposal which with careful planning would meet the needs of Cheltenham in a way the current facility simply does not. The only option.” “Spending only £1m more provides a lot more value” “If Cheltenham Borough Council don't do this now, someone else will, and you will lose all your revenue” “The lack of disruption to existing services is a big bonus” “Current parking is totally inadequate” “The sight lines in the present South Chapel are awful” “Over the next 40-50 years I believe people will increasingly feel out of place in the Victorian architecture and atmosphere of the current chapels” “The old facility could be revised internally to cater for a number of uses (refreshments for wakes etc, or office accommodation) but the decision must be in keeping with its surroundings”.
3.7 Some respondents, whilst supporting option E, raised topics which will need to be addressed if this option is pursued:
3.7.1 The design of a new crematorium requires to be carefully considered. High quality is essential. The design should reflect the setting, the existing chapel building and local architectural features and materials. The chimney should be designed to be discreet.
3.7.2 Access of construction traffic to the site should be carefully considered and avoid routes through the cemetery.
3.7.3 The direction of car travel around the cemetery should be reversed.
3.8 Those not supportive of option E voiced some concerns:
“There is no supplied evidence as to why facilities other than the cremators need to be extended.” “I would rather see the council manage their revenue better, spending when the funds are available” “Separate new building must surely raise operational issues in terms of staffing deployment and risk of increased revenue costs” “Where will the focal point be of the whole facility” “This option extends into green space which is not something I would support” “New build chapels, in my experience, never capture the gravitas and sense of calm
Page 4 of 6 Page 105 Recommended option for the future provision of the Cheltenham Crematorium service Appendix 2 – Summary of public consultation
that is perceived in a chapel”
3.9 Some (13.5% of the total response) were supportive of other options – here are some typical reasons:
(preferring option A) “We used Cheltenham for my father's cremation. I received a number of positive comments about how nice the crematorium was, I would therefore be very reluctant to see any changes to the existing chapel” “I think option B is the most realistic because the council must practice economy as well as everyone else. The three million pound difference in the plans would go a long way towards safe, smooth roads” (preferring option C) “We suffer greatly from current pollution associated with the latest cremators and siting them further from the Chapel in a new screened area would certainly help” (preferring option D) “Everything still in one area. There will be disruption but much long term gain” (preferring option D) “More likely to preserve character and heritage of existing buildings in a way that a separate new build cannot”
3.10 Very many respondents were critical of the current facilities:
3.10.1 Two members of clergy stated that in their experience of many crematoria in different parts of the country, the facilities at Cheltenham are the poorest.
3.10.2 Typical views expressed included:
“Insufficient seating. Around 40 people stood at my father's funeral. At my daughter's funeral, we chose to hold the service at a different church as neither chapel could accommodate the numbers expected.” “The entire set up is in need of refurbishment as facilities are outdated and somewhat 'seedy'. The interior environment is not particularly pleasant.” “Often the car park is not only chaotic but also dangerous” “Toilets in very poor state of repair” “The staff who work at our Crematorium are among the finest in the country and deserve the heartfelt appreciation of all in our community. When it comes to the building they work in, however, they are forced to make the best of a bad job.”
4. Summary
4.1 An extensive and wide-ranging consultation on available options has taken place at an early stage of the project.
4.2 On the evidence of the consultation, there is a clear preference, expressed by both those who take official roles at the crematorium and also by the broader general public, that they support the building of a new crematorium and the growth of the current site.
Page 5 of 6 Page 106 Recommended option for the future provision of the Cheltenham Crematorium service Appendix 2 – Summary of public consultation
4.3 Whilst those surveyed are a small proportion of the residents of Cheltenham, let alone the wider geographical area which uses the crematorium, the consistency of opinions expressed is marked.
4.4 Nonetheless, there is a minority who expressed different views. These views should be taken into account and, even if the new build option is taken forward, can influence later stages and how future public communication is approached.
4.5 Should the project proceed, there will be further consultation when a more detailed design is available.
4.6 Based on the outcome of the public consultation, further consultation has begun with Tewkesbury Borough Council and Southam Parish Council, within whose domain the new–build land lies.
Page 6 of 6 Recommended option for the future provision of the Cheltenham Crematorium service – Appendix 3
Community impact assessments – for services, policies and projects
What is a community impact assessment? A community impact assessment is an important part of our commitment to delivering better services for our communities. The form will help us find out what impact or consequences our functions, policies, procedures and projects have on our communities, as well as employees and potential employees.
By undertaking an impact assessment, we are able to: Take into account the needs, experiences and circumstances of those groups of people who use (or don’t / can’t use) our services. Identify any inequalities people may experience. Think about the other ways in which we can deliver our services which will not lead to inequalities. Develop better policy-making, procedures and services. Page 107
Background Name of service / policy / project Cemetery and Crematorium Feasibility Study and date
Lead officer Mike Redman – Director of Environment & Regulatory Services
Other people involved in Rob Hainsworth - Bereavement Services Manager completing this form Ken Dale – Project Manager, Cemetery and Crematorium Feasibility Study
Page 1 of 8 Recommended option for the future provision of the Cheltenham Crematorium service – Appendix 3
Step 1 - About the service / policy / project
What is the aim of the service / The purpose of the feasibility study is to agree the strategy for the future of Cheltenham’s Cemetery and policy / project and what outcomes Crematorium. is it contributing to It contributes to our corporate transformation outcome and to the enhancement of Cheltenham’s environmental quality. Who are the primary customers of The primary customers of the Cemetery and Crematorium are the bereaved attending cremation and burial the service / policy / project and services, and friends and families visiting graves and memorials. how do they / will they benefit Other important customers are funeral directors and those involved in burial and cremation services – ministers of religion, other celebrants and organists. Page 108
If the recommendations of the feasibility study are accepted and implemented they will see improved facilities and a more reliable service. How and where is the service / Implementation of recommendations resulting from the project will be managed by a future project sponsored at policy / project implemented director level within CBC.
It will most likely include a period of construction at the current site. What potential barriers might Currently the ability to improve the service is constrained by unreliable equipment, space restrictions affecting the already exist to achieving these existing chapel, difficulties accessing the cemetery and limited parking. outcomes Additionally the equipment currently in place cannot abate mercury emission leading to poor environmental and financial impacts.
Step 2 – What do you know already about your existing / potential customers Direct feedback from customers consists of ad-hoc compliments and complaints. What existing information and data do you have about your existing / Information available includes name / address of those cremated and buried and their next of kin. The service potential customers e.g. Statistics, maintains statistics on the numbers of cremations and burials. customer feedback, performance information Funeral Directors feedback on the quality of the service when they meet as a group with the Bereavement Services Manager or directly to the Manager if the matter is of a more urgent nature. Page 2 of 8 Recommended option for the future provision of the Cheltenham Crematorium service – Appendix 3
Service users come from Cheltenham and, in significant numbers, from beyond Cheltenham, out to Evesham, Cotswolds, Tewkesbury, Stroud.
Funeral directors tell us that people like the feel of the service provided at Cheltenham. The cemetery, having What does it tell you about who been open since the mid-19th century, is very much part of Cheltenham and several generations of local families uses your service / policy and may have been buried or cremated there. People feel that it’s their space and are those arranging burials and those that don’t? cremations are often prepared to wait several weeks for the service to take place at Cheltenham because of the attachment they feel to the place.
The cemetery is multi-denominational, including a Muslim and Jewish sections. As far as we know we have never had a major problem in catering for the needs of different community groups. What have you learnt about real Chapels may appear to be ‘Christian’ to some. However overt Christian symbols (e.g. crosses) are removed on barriers to your service from any request. Very occasionally we have requests which cannot practically be met – e.g. removal of hymnbooks. consultation with customers and Page 109 any stakeholder groups? Hindus like to witness the actual cremation (and we currently facilitate this) – a new facility should allow for reasonable numbers of people to do this. The project has created and maintained a stakeholder engagement plan. It can be obtained from the project manager.
We have conducted a public consultation during July and August 2015 including:: - Opportunity for the public to view and feedback on plans on display at the Municipal Offices and the Cemetery and Crematorium - A further opportunity to view and feedback on plans on the council’s website If not, who do you have plans to - Publicity through the Echo and radio consult with about the service / - Leaflets delivered to residents in the vicinity of the current site. policy / project? - A drop-in session for the public to view plans and discuss them with the project team and architect
Specific consultation is taking place with - the Cabinet Member Working Group which advises the Cabinet Member on the project - Funeral Directors and other ‘officials’ involved in services (ministers of religion, other celebrants and organists) who were invited to a meeting to discuss plans with the project team and architect
We need to clarify our plans for consulting with specific groups impacted – for example disability groups and
Page 3 of 8 Recommended option for the future provision of the Cheltenham Crematorium service – Appendix 3
religious groups. Page 110
Page 4 of 8 Recommended option for the future provision of the Cheltenham Crematorium service – Appendix 3
Step 3 - Assessing community impact How does your service / policy / project impact on different groups in the community?
Group What are you already What are you doing that What could you do No impact on this doing to benefit this might disadvantage this differently to benefit this group group group group People from black and minority The Bereavement Service ethnic groups has adopted a flexible approach to meeting the funeral arrangements of people from different ethnic or religious
backgrounds. Page 111
Gender √ Gender Reassignment √ Older people / children and young The recommended option people includes an approach to creating an intimate chapel space in order to cater for smaller services, e.g. children or very elderly people People with disabilities and mental The buildings allow level Difficulties with finding a Look to provide a ‘natural’ health challenges access for wheelchair position for wheelchairs in location for wheelchairs or users and include toilets the south Chapel may those with restricted for disabled visitors and make this group feel movement / agility. the provision of hearing excluded from involvement loops for those hard of in services in some cases. Increase the size and hearing seating capacity of There are sometimes chapels. Page 5 of 8 Recommended option for the future provision of the Cheltenham Crematorium service – Appendix 3
difficulties with the availability of seating when Provide fully compliant attendances are large. disabled parking.
Disabled parking slots are available but do not meet all modern standards. Religion or belief The Bereavement Service There are some practical Ensure any new buildings has adopted a flexible restrictions to the are capable of being non- approach to meeting the adaptation (see above), denominational in funeral arrangements of the facilities were originally character. people from different designed to be Christian in Page 112 ethnic or religious nature. backgrounds.
Lesbian, Gay and Bi-sexual people √ Marriage and Civil Partnership √ Pregnancy & Maternity There are sometimes Seating needs to be more difficulties with the comfortable than at availability of seating when present. attendances are large. Other groups or communities Not meeting the needs of Could consider allowing dog owners - dogs not some access for dogs. allowed on the site (other than guide dogs)
Page 6 of 8 Recommended option for the future provision of the Cheltenham Crematorium service – Appendix 3
Step 4 - what are the differences Are any groups affected in different Need to consider the needs of those who currently recreationally use the land to the east of the current site if we ways to others as a result of the decide to extend the site in that direction. service / policy / project? It may be possible to create a new path through the extended site. Does your service / policy / project See above either directly or indirectly discriminate?
The recommended option will enable the differential impacts to be lessened.
Improve parking, seating and access for disabled customers. If yes, what can be done to improve this? Page 113 Looking for ways of making the chapel more intimate in order to cater for smaller services, e.g. children or very elderly people
Look for ways to make the facilities more child-friendly Are there any other ways in which We may be able to provide web-based links to funeral services for those unable to attend. the service / project can help support priority communities in Cheltenham?
Step 5 – taking things forward What are the key actions to be As part of the project, the team will continue to consult with: carried out and how will they be - Disability groups resourced and monitored? - Local residents - Religious groups (e.g. Hindu, Muslim and Jewish groups)
Identified factors will be taken account of in an implementation project. Who will play a role in the decision- Cabinet will be asked to approve the recommendations of the feasibility study making process?
Page 7 of 8 Recommended option for the future provision of the Cheltenham Crematorium service – Appendix 3
Council will then be asked to approve any additional expenditure which is required.
The results of our public consultation are included in the reports to Cabinet and Council. What are your / the project’s How best to deliver large capital projects. learning and development needs?
How will you capture these actions Plan for the next stage using advice from consultants leading the feasibility study, advice from the county council in your service / project planning? and the learning from our own recent capital projects. Page 114
Page 8 of 8 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. Page 115
Document is Restricted This page is intentionally left blank By virtue of paragraph(s) 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. Page 115
Document is Restricted This page is intentionally left blank Page 115
Appendix 6
Background to CAMEO scheme
1.1 A requirement to remove mercury from all cremations highlighted the difficulties some Operators would have installing the abatement equipment and processes. Sector wide surveys confirmed that some Operators could not install abatement equipment. In order to enable these important community facilities to continue operating, whilst contributing to the abatement of mercury, a solution involving the entire sector was necessary.
1.2 In 2005, Defra introduced a requirement for the cremation industry to remove mercury from 50% of cremations. The national target, based on the available science, achieves a proportionate response for removing mercury from cremations, whilst not burdening the bereaved with excessive cost and the possibility of closing of local crematoria.
1.3 Along with the 50% target the principle of “burden sharing” was introduced, a process whereby Operators who could install abatement plant do so, and the cost is shared with those could not install such abatement equipment. Defra recognised this as the most equitable way of achieving the target, whilst the cost, or “burden” was shared by the entire sector. All Operators are therefore required to abate and/or burden share a minimum of 50% of the qualifying cremations they carry out.
1.4 Industry representatives recognised the need for a national scheme to enable the sharing of the financial cost or “burden” between Operators abating and those not doing so. As a result CAMEO has been created as the lead organisation to introduce a framework for providing and managing a national burden sharing scheme. In order for an Operator to obtain the necessary operating permit from the relevant Regulator, it must obtain a compliance certificate from CAMEO or by other appropriate evidence from a comparable audited burden sharing arrangement or scheme.
1.5 The CAMEO Burden Sharing Scheme is based upon identifying the additional cost incurred by Operators which have abated. Having identified the cost on a per cremation basis, Operators which have not abated are charged for the number of mercury abated cremations necessary to meet the requirements of their operating permit. The resulting income, less an administrative fee to fund the scheme, is shared amongst the Operators that have abated and are participating in the CAMEO Burden Sharing Scheme.
1.6 In Cheltenham’s case, the cost of participation in the CAMEO scheme is currently around £50,000 per annum. Once the Council has new cremators with working mercury abatement equipment installed, the current cost of paying into the CAMEO scheme will no longer be incurred and the Council will instead receive a payment from the scheme based on the number of abated cremations. The level of payment is not guaranteed into the future, as it depends on the number of operators continuing to operate with unabated cremation plant. This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 8 Page 117 Cheltenham Borough Council
Cabinet 15th September 2015
Leckhampton and Warden Hill Neighbourhood Plan Area Application
Accountable member Councillor Jordan – Leader
Accountable officer Tracey Crews – Head of Planning
Ward(s) affected Potentially several
Executive summary Cheltenham Borough Council has a statutory duty to advise or assist communities in the preparation of Neighbourhood Development Plans (NDP). The Localism Act 2011 set out the Local Planning Authority’s (LPA) responsibilities including designating Neighbourhood Plan Areas by inserting provisions into the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (as amended).
An application to designate a Neighbourhood Plan Area has been received from Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish Council. This application has been assessed against the requirements set out in the legislation and is considered to meet the requirements to enable designation of the Neighbourhood Area.
Approval of this application enables Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish Council to prepare a Neighbourhood Development Plan for the area covered by the designation.
Recommendations 1. To APPROVE the designation of a Neighbourhood Area covering Leckhampton with Warden Hill parish.
Application for designation of a Page 1 of 32 Last updated 14/7/2015 neighbourhood area. Council report 20/7/15 Page 118
Financial implications Additional financial contributions are available from DCLG to support Neighbourhood Planning. This is in recognition of the legal obligations placed upon the Council to provide advice and support to those seeking to introduce an N.D.P. This advice and support also includes arranging for the examination of the N.D.P. and the referendum on the N.D.P. The Council may submit claims to the D.C.L.G.to cover the expenditure within the set limits. At present a local authority may submit claims of up to £30,000 for each completed N.D.P. for consideration by the D.C.L.G. It should be noted that those promoting the N.D.P. may also apply for funding of up to £7,000 for the costs of preparing an N.D.P. The financial support is subject to general limits whereby a Council may only claim up to £100,000 per annum for up to 20 area designations and up to £25,000 per annum for up to 5 forum designations.
There will be resource implications for Officers due to the requirement to provide some assistance and advise communities in the preparation of a Neighbourhood Plan; checking a submitted Plan meets legal requirements, arranging for the independent examination of the Plan; determining whether the Neighbourhood Plan meets the basic conditions and other legal requirements, arranging a referendum, and, subject to the results of the referendum, bringing the Plan into force.
The resource implications are corporate-wide including Environment and Regulatory Services, Commissioning, Financial Services, Democratic Services and One Legal.
Appropriate claims to the DCLG will need to be made to ensure the additional cost burden to the Council is mitigated.
Contact officer: Nina Philippidis, Business Partner Accountant [email protected], 01242 264121
Application for designation of a Page 2 of 32 Last updated 14/7/2015 neighbourhood area. Council report 20/7/15 Page 119
Legal implications This work is pursuant to Sections 61G and 61H of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as inserted by the Localism Act 2011 and applied by Section 38C of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 as amended by the Neighbourhood Planning (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2015.
A Parish Council is authorised to act in relation to a Neighbourhood Area if that area consists of or includes the whole or any part of the area of the Parish Council. If that Neighbourhood Area also includes the whole or any part of the area of another Parish Council, the Parish Council is authorised to act in relation to that Neighbourhood Area only if the other Parish Council has given their consent.
A Neighbourhood Area means an area that has been designated by a Local Planning Authority as a Neighbourhood Area, but the power to designate a Neighbourhood Area is exercisable only where a Parish Council has applied for the designation of an area that consists of or includes the whole or any part of the area of the Council.
In determining an application the Local Planning Authority must have regard to: a) the desirability of designating the whole of the area of a Parish Council as a Neighbourhood Area; and b) the desirability of maintaining the existing boundaries of areas already designated as Neighbourhood Areas.
Contact officer: Michael Jones, [email protected], 01684 272013
HR implications There are no staffing or Trade Union implications. (including learning and organisational Contact officer: Julie McCarthy, [email protected], development) 01242 777249
Key risks As a statutory process failure to determine a neighbourhood plan area application runs the risk of the parish councils being unable to proceed with the neighbourhood plans. It is possible for a local authority not to approve the neighbourhood area, but it must show why the proposed area does not support the aim and objectives of the any eventual neighbourhood plan. Environmental/Social/ There are no known implications at this stage; however a neighbourhood Equality Implications development plan may require a strategic environmental assessment (SEA) under the EU Regulations and/or a Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA). This will depend on the content of the neighbourhood plan.
Preparation of Neighbourhood Development Plans could have implications for biodiversity, habitats, energy usage, waste and recycling and/or protected species. These would need to be considered by the body preparing the Plan as appropriate.
The responsibility resides with the Parish Council however the Council may wish to support the Parish Council to undertake a SEA/HRA screening of draft plans to determine whether a SEA and/or HRA will be required.
Application for designation of a Page 3 of 32 Last updated 14/7/2015 neighbourhood area. Council report 20/7/15 Page 120 1. Background
1.1 The planning system helps decide what gets built, where and when. It is essential for supporting economic growth, improving people’s quality of life, and protecting the natural environment. The Government’s intention is to give local communities a greater say in planning decisions by providing the opportunity to prepare a ‘Neighbourhood Development Plan’, also known as a Neighbourhood Plan (NP).
1.2 Neighbourhood planning was introduced through the Localism Act 2011 with specific legislation the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 and subsequently amended by the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2015 came into force in April 2012 and February 2015 respectively. The report will refer to these as “the 2012 Regulations”.
1.3 NPs are a statutory community-led framework for guiding the future development and growth of an area. NPs relate to the use and development of land and associated social, economic and environmental issues. NPs can establish general planning policies for the development and use of land in a neighbourhood, for example where new homes and offices should be built and what they should look like. The NP can be detailed or general, depending what local people want. However, NPs still need to meet the needs of the wider area, which will be set out through the Joint Core Strategy and the Cheltenham Plan.
1.4 NPs will be subject to full public engagement, examination and a public referendum. Once adopted a NP will form part of the statutory development plan (along with the Joint Core Strategy and Cheltenham Plan), which is used for guiding decisions on planning applications. Cheltenham Borough is not a fully parished borough so it is not reasonable to state the qualifying body must be a Parish Council.
1.5 The presumption is that local authorities will designate neighbourhood areas on existing parish boundaries unless there is a valid planning reason not to do so. In non-parished areas, community and business groups can still apply but they must be able to demonstrate that they qualify as a relevant body and that its neighbourhood area/boundaries can be justified. They will be classified as a neighbourhood forum. There are specific rules associated with running a forum.
1.6 This is the first application the Council has received to designate Neighbourhood Area and the applicant is a Parish Council.
1.7 There are five key stages to neighbourhood planning.
1.8 Stage 1: defining the neighbourhood (current stage). Parish Council, community groups or business groups apply to the Local Planning Authority for their area to be designated. The Local Authority determines the application using criteria established in the Localism Act and the 2012 Regulations.
1.9 Stage 2: preparing the Plan. The Parish Council (or community group) will need to prioritise their early ideas, and draw up their Plans according to the following rules:
a) they must be in conformity with local and national strategic planning policies;
b) they must be in conformity with the law;
c) neighbourhood planning cannot be used to block the building of new homes and businesses identified in the Council’s development plans. They can, however, use Neighbourhood Planning to influence the type, design, location and mix of new development;
d) NPs must contribute to achieving sustainable development; and
e) the NP must also be subject to public consultation.
Application for designation of a Page 4 of 32 Last updated 14/7/2015 neighbourhood area. Council report 20/7/15 Page 121 1.10 Stage 3: independent check. Once a NP has been prepared, an independent examiner will check that it meets the right basic standards. If the Plan does not meet the right standards the examiner will recommend changes. The Local Planning Authority will then need to consider the examiner’s views and decide whether to make those changes. If the examiner recommends significant changes, then the Parish Council or neighbourhood forum may decide to consult the local community again before proceeding.
1.11 Stage 4: community referendum. The Council will organise a referendum on any Plan that meets the basic standards. This ensures that the community has the final say on whether a NP comes into force. People living in the neighbourhood who are registered to vote in local elections will be entitled to vote in the referendum. If more than 50% of people voting in the referendum support the plan, then the Local Planning Authority must bring it into force.
1.12 Stage 5: legal force. Once a NP is ‘made’ (i.e. it is in force), it carries real legal weight. Decision makers are obliged to consider proposals for development in the neighbourhood against the NP.
1.13 Local Planning Authorities have a statutory duty to advise or assist communities in the preparation of NPs and to take Plans through a process of independent examination. The Council’s responsibilities include:
Designating the area of the NP;
Advising or assisting communities in the preparation of a Neighbourhood Plan;
Checking a submitted Plan meets legal requirements;
Arranging for the independent examination of the Plan;
Determining whether the NP meets the basic conditions and other legal requirements;
Arranging a referendum to ensure that the local community has the final say on whether a NP comes into force in their area; and
Subject to the results of the referendum, bringing the Plan into force.
2. Process for designation of a Neighbourhood Area
2.1 The 2012 Regulations specify that the following must be submitted by the relevant body:
A map identifying the proposed Neighbourhood Area (Regulation 5(1)(a));
A statement explaining why the area is appropriate to be designated as a Neighbourhood Area (Regulation 5(1)(b)); and
A statement explaining that the body making the area application is capable of being a relevant body (Regulation 5(1)(c)).
2.2 Prior to the Council determining the application the Council is required to publicise the application for a period of not less than four weeks to invite representations on the proposal. The application is required to be publicised on the Borough Council’s website and in any other such manner as is considered likely to bring the application to the attention of people who live, work or carry out business in the area to which the application relates.
2.3 The Local Authority is required to determine the application within eight weeks of first being publicised having regard to the following matters set out in Sections 61G and 61H of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the 2012 Regulations:
Application for designation of a Page 5 of 32 Last updated 14/7/2015 neighbourhood area. Council report 20/7/15 Page 122 1) Is the organisation making the application a relevant body?
2) Is the area identified for designation as a Neighbourhood Area considered appropriate?
3) Would the area more appropriately be designated as a business area i.e. the area is wholly or predominantly in business use?
4) Does the area overlap with another designated area?
5) Any comments received during the public consultation.
3. Leckhampton with Warden Hill Application
3.1 An application to designate Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Area was approved by Council on 20 July 2015 to begin a four week consultation period. The consultation ran from 11th August and closed 2nd September 2015. The application was published on the Council’s website (www.cheltenham.gov.uk/info/1004/planning_policy/1155/neighbourhood_plans) and was made available in the following locations:
On all notice boards managed by the parish council across Leckhampton and Warden Hill area; Municipal Offices; Charlton Kings Library; Cheltenham Library; Hesters Way Library and Community Resource Centre; Prestbury Library; Up Hatherley Library; Bishop’s Cleve Library; Springbank Community Resource Centre, Cheltenham West End Partnership Community Resource Centre; and Oakley Community Resource Centre.
3.2 The application has been considered and assessed against the matters set out in section two:
1) Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish Council qualifies as a relevant body to make an application;
2) The area proposed to be designated consists of a ‘Parished’ area, the whole of the Parish is covered, which is recognised as a distinct area and understood locally;
3) The area proposed for designation cannot be described as being wholly or predominantly in business use and, therefore, it would be inappropriate to designate the area as a business area;
4) There are no other designated areas that overlap with the proposed area; and
5) Over 350 representations have been received in respect of this designation; Approximately 350 in support and 1 left no comment (see appendix 4).
3.3 The large number of responses received demonstrates a good level of public support for the designation. On the basis of these points raised above and public support, officers can see no planning reason to object to this application. Officers recommend the designation should be approved and the parish council should be enabled to continue to produce their neighbourhood plan.
4. Relevant Council Policies and Strategies
4.1 The following plans are considered relevant:
Cheltenham Borough Council Local Plan, Second Review (adopted July 2006)
Joint Core Strategy: Submission version (November 2014).
Application for designation of a Page 6 of 32 Last updated 14/7/2015 neighbourhood area. Council report 20/7/15 Page 123 Emerging Cheltenham Plan (part one). Issues and Options consultation: June to August 2015.
5. Alternative options Considered
5.1 The neighbourhood area application process is a statutory requirement, so for this reason there is no suitable alternative to its production. Sign off has been delegated to Cabinet as per the Council’s recommendation on 20th July 2015.
6. Consultation and feedback
6.1 The prescribed date for determining an area application is ‘eight weeks from the date immediately following that on which the application is first publicised’.
7. Performance management –monitoring and review
7.1 The main consideration for the Council is to ensure it carries out its duty to determine the application within eight weeks of the application first being publicised. This has been achieved.
Report author Contact officer: James Brain, Senior Planning Policy Officer [email protected], 01242 774988 Appendices 1. Risk Assessment 2. Application for designation of a Neighbourhood Area 3. National Planning Practice Guidance: Neighbourhood Planning 4. Consultation Representations Background information All background information regarding the application will be made available on the Council’s website.
Application for designation of a Page 7 of 32 Last updated 14/7/2015 neighbourhood area. Council report 20/7/15 Risk Assessment Appendix 1
The risk Original risk score Managing risk (impact x likelihood) Risk Risk description Risk Date Impact Likeli- Score Control Action Deadline Responsible Transferred to ref. Owner raised 1-5 hood officer risk register 1-6 There are no equality impact risks related to the document There are no environmental risks related to the document There is a legal issue in that Tracey 14.7.15 2 2 4 Accept None N/A Tracey N/A if the Neighbourhood area Crews Crews application is not published Page 124 and publicised by the Council now that it has been received, the Council could be acting unlawfully There are potential legal risks including a possible legal challenge.
Explanatory notes Impact – an assessment of the impact if the risk occurs on a scale of 1-5 (1 being least impact and 5 being major or critical) Likelihood – how likely is it that the risk will occur on a scale of 1-6 (1 being almost impossible, 2 is very low, 3 is low, 4 significant, 5 high and 6 a very high probability) Control - Either: Reduce / Accept / Transfer to 3rd party / Close
Application for designation of a Page 8 of 32 Last updated 14/7/2015 neighbourhood area. Council report 20/7/15 Page 125 Application for Designation of a Neighbourhood Plan Appendix 2 The Parish Council of Leckhampton with Warden Hill
Cheltenham, Gloucestershire
Clerk: Mrs A.J.Winstone, 7, Aldershaw Close, Up Hatherley, Cheltenham, GL51 3TP tel. 01242 518008 – email [email protected]
Ms Tracey Crews Planning Manager Cheltenham Borough Council Municipal Offices Promenade Cheltenham GL50 9SA
11th June 2015
Dear Tracey,
Application for Designation of a Neighbourhood Area
Please find enclosed, as previously mentioned, the Council’s application for Designation of a Neighbourhood Area, which you will see covers the entire parish area of Leckhampton with Warden Hill.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely,
Amanda Winstone Clerk to the Council
Application for designation of a Page 9 of 32 Last updated 14/7/2015 neighbourhood area. Council report 20/7/15 Page 126
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 Localism Act 2011
NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING (GENERAL) REGULATIONS 2012 DESIGNATION OF LECKHAMPTON WITH WARDEN HILL AS A NEIGHBOURHOOD AREA
Application This Application for Designation of a Neighbourhood Area is made under Section 61G of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Regulation 5 (1), Part 2 SI. 2012 No. 637
Purpose The purpose of the application is to enable Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish Council to undertake neighbourhood planning, and in particular to prepare a Neighbourhood Plan further to the Local Green Space Application and Neighbourhood Plan Concept submitted to Cheltenham Borough Council in August 2013.
Area The Neighbourhood Area defined by the Parish Council for the purposes of neighbourhood planning is the whole of the parish of Leckhampton with Warden Hill. The Neighbourhood Area will sit comfortably with the electorate
Shown on the Designation Map (NP1) - attached.
Statement of suitability of defined area The entirety of the parish of Leckhampton with Warden Hill is the area most appropriate to be designated as a neighbourhood area for planning purposes, as it is a recognised and clearly defined area. The parish area has clear physical and social identity as well as community focus. It has residential areas, community facilities, open spaces, and abuts the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The parish area includes, and is surrounded by, semi-rural countryside areas of open spaces and other areas including areas of special landscape value.
The area is consistent with the concept of a neighbourhood area as intended by the Act and all of the area can be included in the Neighbourhood Plan despite the inclusion of part of the area as a strategic allocation in the Cheltenham, Tewkesbury and Gloucester Joint Core Strategy Submission Document.
Statement of suitability of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish Council Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish Council is a ‘relevant body’ for the purposes of Section 61G of the 1990 Act, and is therefore qualified to undertake neighbourhood planning. It is a democratically elected body incorporated under statute and representing the whole community within Leckhampton with Warden Hill.
Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish Council has long standing experience in working with and representing the local community including dealing with planning matters under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and has a well established relationship with the Local Planning Authority and indeed submitted a Local Green Space Application and Neighbourhood Plan Concept Plan to Cheltenham Borough Council in August 2013.
Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish Council is committed to ensuring that future planning within this area reflects the community’s wishes and as such wants to work co-operatively with Cheltenham Borough Council and other statutory bodies and to fully engage with other organisations and interests.
Annex. SI. 2012 No. 637 in force 6th April 2012. & Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 Extract. PART 2 Neighbourhood Areas
Application for designation of a Page 10 of 32 Last updated 14/7/2015 neighbourhood area. Council report 20/7/15 Page 127 Application for designation of a neighbourhood area
5.(1) Where a relevant body(12) submits an area application to the local planning authority it must include—
(a) a map which identifies the area to which the area application relates;
(b) a statement explaining why this area is considered appropriate to be designated as a neighbourhood area; and
(c) a statement that the organisation or body making the area application is a relevant body for the purposes of section 61G of the 1990 Act.
(2) A local planning authority may decline to consider an area application if the relevant body has already made an area application and a decision has not yet been made on that application.
Publicising an area application
6. As soon as possible after receiving an area application from a relevant body, a local planning authority must publicise the following on their website and in such other manner as they consider is likely to bring the area application to the attention of people who live, work or carry on business in the area to which the area application relates— (a) a copy of the area application; (b) details of how to make representations; and (c) the date by which those representations must be received, being not less than 6 weeks from the date on which the area application is first publicised.
Publicising a designation of a neighbourhood area etc
7.—(1) As soon as possible after designating a neighbourhood area, a local planning authority must publish the following on their website and in such other manner as they consider is likely to bring the designation to the attention of people who live, work or carry on business in the neighbourhood area— (a) the name of the neighbourhood area; (b) a map which identifies the area; and (c) the name of the relevant body who applied for the designation.
(2) As soon as possible after deciding to refuse to designate a neighbourhood area, a local planning authority must publish the following on their website and in such other manner as they consider is likely to bring the refusal to the attention of people who live, work or carry on business in the neighbourhood area — (a) a document setting out the decision and a statement of their reasons for making that decision (“the decision document”); and (b) details of where and when the decision document may be inspected. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/637/pdfs/uksi_20120637_en.pdf ©Crown Copywrite
Memorandum
Application for designation of a Page 11 of 32 Last updated 14/7/2015 neighbourhood area. Council report 20/7/15 Page 128
THE NEIGHBOURHOOD PLANNING (GENERAL) REGULATIONS 2012 No. 637 1. This explanatory memorandum has been prepared by the Department for Communities and Local Government and is laid before Parliament by Command of Her Majesty.
2. Purpose of the instrument 2.1 The Regulations set out the procedure for the designation of neighbourhood areas and neighbourhood forums and for the preparation of neighbourhood development plans and neighbourhood development orders (including community right to build orders). A separate instrument will be brought forward in relation to neighbourhood planning referendums.
3. Matters of special interest to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments 3.1 The Regulations are the first exercise of the powers in sections 61E to G, 61L and 61M of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“the 1990 Act”) and sections 38A and B of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (“the 2004 Act”).
3.2 As the Regulations make amendments to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011, we have taken this opportunity to correct a number of typographical errors in that instrument, including four points which the JCSI reported on in its 30th Report (2010-12 session).
4. Legislative Context
4.1 Chapter 3 of Part 6 of the Localism Act 2011 creates a new neighbourhood planning regime in England mainly by inserting new provisions into the 1990 Act and the 2004 Act (see Part 1 of Schedule 9, and Schedules 10 and 11, for the provisions inserted into the 1990 Act, and Part 2 of Schedule 9 for the provisions inserted into the 2004 Act).
4.2 The 1990 Act provides that within a designated neighbourhood area a parish council or a designated neighbourhood forum may propose a neighbourhood development order and Schedule 4B (as read with the modifications in Schedule 4C for community right to build orders) sets out the framework for making such orders.
4.3 The 2004 Act provides that within a designated neighbourhood area a parish council or a designated neighbourhood forum may propose a neighbourhood development plan and Schedule 4B to the 1990 Act (as applied, with modifications, by section 38A of the 2004 Act) sets out the framework for making such plans.
4.4 The Regulations build on the statutory frameworks in the 1990 Act and the 2004 Act in relation to the process for designating neighbourhood areas and neighbourhood forums and the preparation of neighbourhood development plans and neighbourhood development orders.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/637/pdfs/uksiem_20120637_en.pdf ©Crown Copywrite
Application for designation of a Page 12 of 32 Last updated 14/7/2015 neighbourhood area. Council report 20/7/15 Page 129
Application for designation of a Page 13 of 32 Last updated 14/7/2015 neighbourhood area. Council report 20/7/15 Page 130 National Planning Practice Guidance: Neighbourhood Planning Appendix 3 http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/neighbourhood- planning/?print=true
Application for designation of a Page 14 of 32 Last updated 14/7/2015 neighbourhood area. Council report 20/7/15 Consultation Representations Appendix 4
Name Comment Julian Cox we strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Shelagh Cox we strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Nicola dyer we strongly support the proposal for the designation of leckhampton with Warden hill parish as a neighbourhood plan area. Tim Bradshaw we strongly support the proposal for the designation of leckhampton with Warden hill parish as a neighbourhood plan area. Elizabeth Daglish I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Jo Stock I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Gareth Parry We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Lucy Parry We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Gillian Kelly We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan Area. Richard Kelly We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan Area. Mark Stewart We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Alexa Stewart We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Page 131 For the record, I strongly support the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill parish as a neighbourhood plan area. It is a shame that awareness of this consultation has been pretty low and that the consultation has taken place over the summer holidays. I am confident that Martin Horwood local people would have expressed overwhelming support for the parish's neighbourhood planning approach if they had been more widely aware of the implications. Vivienne Matthews I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan Area. Margaret White. We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. We are writing to express our strong support for the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. We also support the application to protect part of land in Leckhampton through the Local Green Space allocation. The plans have had a great deal of work put into them & reflect the value local residents as well as the wider Leckhampton community place Klara Sudbury on the fields in Leckhampton. We are writing to express our strong support for the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. We also support the application to protect part of land in Leckhampton through the Local Green Space allocation. The plans have had a great deal of work put into them & reflect the value local residents as well as the wider Leckhampton community place Dave Sudbury on the fields in Leckhampton. Graham Holder I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. This area needs to be protected from development as it is so important to protect the marvellous view of the Cotswold escarpment on the Caroline Holder entry into Cheltenham, plus it's use for recreation by so many people in the area without using a car.
Application for designation of a Page 15 of 32 Last updated 14/7/2015 neighbourhood area. Council report 20/7/15 Name Comment Chris Bird We strongly support the proposal for the designation of the Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan Sue Bird We strongly support the proposal for the designation of the Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan Valerie Beddow I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Wrden Hill as a Neighbourhood Plan Area. Mark McCarthy strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Andrea McCarthy strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Pearl Smith We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area Regarding the consultation about the proposal for designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area, I am Heather Smith writing to express my strong support for the proposal. Regarding the consultation about the proposal for designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area, I am Timothy A H Smith writing to express my strong support for the proposal. Jo Teakle We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area.
Mike Teakle We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Page 132 Christina Turner We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan Area. Mike Turner We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan Area. G Ratcliffe We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. A Ratcliffe We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Peter Sands I am emailing to express support for the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. We are writing to inform you that we strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a C J Agombar Neighbourhood Plan area. We are writing to inform you that we strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a S S Anderson Neighbourhood Plan area. Michael j Robins We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a neighbourhood plan area Margaret A Robins We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a neighbourhood plan area Mark Hopper We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Nicola Hopper We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Alison Harris We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Dave Harris We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Margaret Crompton We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Neville Crompton We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Alan Brown We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area.
Application for designation of a Page 16 of 32 Last updated 14/7/2015 neighbourhood area. Council report 20/7/15 Name Comment Ann Brown We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Simon Brown We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Laila lewis I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Rajive Sharma I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Iain Stewart I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Amanda Stewart We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Donald Biddle We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Mrs Biddle We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Tony Croucher I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area Is it any wonder there have been no responses to the so called Neighbourhood Plan? I am fairly in touch with what is going on locally but had no idea this existed and that I needed to respond to it. Having responded several times to the JCS, and more recently the Local Plan, which I only found out about by chance, you are expecting people to respond to yet another document which 99% of the population have no idea exists! I guess this is a way of wearing us all down and making the whole process so complicated that you can state that no one cares about it
because of the lack of responses! I believe the Leckhampton Neighbourhood Plan supports the Local Green Space application for Leckhampton Page 133 which had over 1500 resident responses in support of. Is this not enough to convince the council that this is a much loved area which people do not want to see under concrete. I repeat why do we have to keep responding to different documents all about the same thing. We strongly Jo Furley support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Is it any wonder there have been no responses to the so called Neighbourhood Plan? I am fairly in touch with what is going on locally but had no idea this existed and that I needed to respond to it. Having responded several times to the JCS, and more recently the Local Plan, which I only found out about by chance, you are expecting people to respond to yet another document which 99% of the population have no idea exists! I guess this is a way of wearing us all down and making the whole process so complicated that you can state that no one cares about it because of the lack of responses! I believe the Leckhampton Neighbourhood Plan supports the Local Green Space application for Leckhampton which had over 1500 resident responses in support of. Is this not enough to convince the council that this is a much loved area which people do not want to see under concrete. I repeat why do we have to keep responding to different documents all about the same thing. We strongly Chris Furley support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill as a Neighbourhood Plan area. I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. I find it hard to understand why Leglag are being told " that not one single person has responded to the Consultation for the Leckhampton Neighbourhood Sonia Esplen Plan, which strongly supports the Local Green Spaces in Leckhampton" so below is a copy of the response I sent for the previous consultation. Wendy Woodward We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Steve Woodward We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Aaron Woodward We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area.
Application for designation of a Page 17 of 32 Last updated 14/7/2015 neighbourhood area. Council report 20/7/15 Name Comment
We are extremely angry that this appears to have been poorly organised. Just a few weeks ago we filled in and returned to the LwWHPC a Anne McIntosh lengthy questionnaire sent out by them, included in which was questions about Local Green Spaces. Further to that on 3rd Aug I responded to the Cheltenham Plan Consultation, in which I focused on Leckhampton. And now we have this, which I am told is in addition to the JCS. This is our response: We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Ian White We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Sarah Shaw We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Our family regularly uses the field to the south of farm land which is currently threatened with housing development and would welcome any addition Tim Bradshaw green space. I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Our family Nicola Dyer regularly uses the field to the south of farm land which is currently threatened with housing development and would welcome any addition green space.
I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Our family Page 134 Maisie Dyer Bradshaw regularly uses the field to the south of farm land which is currently threatened with housing development and would welcome any addition green space. I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Our family Jacob Dyer Bradshaw regularly uses the field to the south of farm land which is currently threatened with housing development and would welcome any addition green space. Mr Menzies We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Mrs Menzies We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Michael J. Mackenzie I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Gillian Barrett I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. David Phillips We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan Area. Diane Phillips We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan Area. J C Hedworth I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Philip Lee We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill as a Neighboroughhood Plan area. Jennifer Lee We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill as a Neighboroughhood Plan area. David Catlow We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Sandra Catlow We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Elizabeth Yearsley We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan Area. Roger Yearsley We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan Area.
Application for designation of a Page 18 of 32 Last updated 14/7/2015 neighbourhood area. Council report 20/7/15 Name Comment
Martin Howman We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. We must preserve as much of our precious green fields as we can for current and future generations.
Rosemary Howman We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. We must preserve as much of our precious green fields as we can for current and future generations. Mark Savage I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Margaret Martin We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton and Warden Hill Parish as a Neighboughhood Plan Area. Colin Martin We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton and Warden Hill Parish as a Neighboughhood Plan Area. Elwyn Rosser-Smith We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Helen Rosser-Smith We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. We are writing to register our support for the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan Louise Gilchrist area. We are writing to register our support for the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan Boyd Gilchrist area.
Cllr Duncan Smith We write in support of the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as Neighbourhood Plan area. Page 135 Mrs Helen Smith We write in support of the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as Neighbourhood Plan area. Mrs Y Jowett We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Mr C Jowett We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Anna Oxbury I am writing to express my strong support for the proposal to designate Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Philip Winch We strongly support the proposal of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Ann Winch We strongly support the proposal of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Jenny Hopkins We strongly support the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Graham Hopkins We strongly support the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. David Miles We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Jill Miles We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area.
Mary Lewis As a local resident of Leckhampton I would like to have my view taken into account and therefore please note that I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton and warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan Area. Mr J Millson We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan Area. Mrs C Millson We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan Area. Brian Tarling We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Jenny Tarling We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area.
Application for designation of a Page 19 of 32 Last updated 14/7/2015 neighbourhood area. Council report 20/7/15 Name Comment Peter Crabtree We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan Area Susan Crabtree We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan Area James Parker I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Frank Barnfather I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan Area Andrew Thompson We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Carol Thompson We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Imogen Thompson We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area.
I'm writing in response to the Consultation to the Leckhampton Neighbourhood Plan and to support the Local Green Spaces in Leckhampton. I live off the Shurdington Road and I know the area very well. I know that in all the consultations they have done when looking at building on their green fields they have missed a number of points. They have missed the fact that Shurdington Road flash floods when we have a downpour, at the point where the stream crosses under the road near Kenelm Gardens and Highwood Avenue. More than twenty thousand
cars use that road every day, the smallest disruption can cause very long tail backs, even in quiet traffic hours. They also wouldn't know that Page 136 during periods of heavy rain that water rises through a storm drain very near where Woodlands Road joins Shurdington Road and runs down the slope. The water board assures me that it's not a burst pipe, it's ground water. I know those things because I live here. I didn't walk around on a sunny day and think that it looks like it'll be fine. Any building on those fields will lead to flooding in the area if we lose that soak away Louise Parker space. Something else I know because I live here is that the traffic at where Church Road meets Leckhampton Road and around around Moorend Road where Leckhampton Junior School is found, is at critical mass between 3 and 4pm when the school turns out. This is dangerous. I was told when I enquired at the last meeting that any traffic surveys are carried out between 5 and 6pm and any other results will be ignored. It's very difficult to ignore hundreds more cars travelling down a road that is parked up on both sides so cars have to wait and dart into any spaces, which is dangerous when little children are crossing the road. Lots of people are going to tell you about traffic on Shurdington road, pollution at above EU maximum recommended levels as a result, and ridiculous pressure on secondary school places on the south side of Cheltenham where there is only room for 93% of the 11-16 year olds we already have living here. All of those are important points. But perhaps the major point to make is that once lost, these fields, ancient hedgerows, trees and spaces will never be replaced, or repaired. They are a precious natural resource for all of us, not just those who live in Leckhampton. They are part of the glorious view from the hill top over the town and they are a resource for all sorts of activities and wildlife. Please please, leave these spaces alone Dr DJ Smith We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Mr A Reynolds We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Deborah J Hicks I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a neighbourhood plan. Any building in these Mrs D James area are NOT properly thought out. Peter Cox I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill parish as a Neighbourhood Plan Area
Application for designation of a Page 20 of 32 Last updated 14/7/2015 neighbourhood area. Council report 20/7/15 Name Comment Janet Loftus I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. I would like to express my support for the Leckhampton with Warden Hill Neighbourhood plan. Anything that helps protect the beautiful open Clare Earl countryside in our area is a step forward. Helen Smith I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as aNeighbourhood Plan area. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Leckhampton Neighbourhood Plan, especially as I did not get the opportunity to respond to the Local Green Space application because of the short consultation time available given the Cheltenham Borough Council deadline of 26th January 2015. I have lived on Church Road, Leckhampton for over 23 years. We regularly walk in the beautiful countryside all weathers and feel lucky to be able to use the green, open space nearby. However, in that time the traffic volume has increased and become noisy, dangerous and aggressive. I am too scared to cycle on the road and getting out of the car or crossing the road is hazardous when drivers travelling in either direction are so belligerent. Drivers using Church Road have also damaged my car numerous times and each time they have failed to stop. I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area and I Christina Henry would be grateful if you would please take my view into account. Thank you again. I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish Eleanor R Will as a Neighbourhood Plan area Page 137 Tabitha Gilchrist We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. James Gilchrist We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. This is to let you know that we strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Ken Flemons Plan area. This is to let you know that we strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Pauline Flemons Plan area. James Hawkins We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Emma Hawkins We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Mrs V Ashton I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton Hill with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Shirley Wood I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Debbie Kersley We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Robert Smart We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Nettie Edwards I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. We would like to write in support of the application named above. Having lived and worked within the boundary of the Neighbourhood Area Mary Nortcliffe defined by this application we recognise its cohesiveness as an area and assert that it has a genuine identity of its own. We would like to write in support of the application named above. Having lived and worked within the boundary of the Neighbourhood Area John Nortcliffe defined by this application we recognise its cohesiveness as an area and assert that it has a genuine identity of its own.
Application for designation of a Page 21 of 32 Last updated 14/7/2015 neighbourhood area. Council report 20/7/15 Name Comment We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. We have lived in Donald MacKenzie this area for 40 years and are keen walkers making full use of the existing green spaces. We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. We have lived in Ann MacKenzie this area for 40 years and are keen walkers making full use of the existing green spaces. David Tilley I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Mike Vonk We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area Jan Vonk We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area Mr J D Stewart I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Sally Hemming We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Tim Hemming We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area.
Rosemary Neal I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. I have already
written an full explanatory email, but apparently you have not received it. Please acknowledge receipt of this email. Page 138 Paul Hayward We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Nicola Hayward We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. I am writing on behalf of my wife and I who strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Kevin Day Neighbourhood Plan area. I am writing on behalf of my wife and I who strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Suzy Day Neighbourhood Plan area. Barbara Carter I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Mr A T Hills We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Mrs C M Hills We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Khrisa Moxey I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Nicholas Mann We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Cornelia Mann We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Fred Ashmore We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Anne Ashmore We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. David Charles Long I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan Area Valerie S M Hopkins We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton and Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan Area. Michael J Hopkins We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton and Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan Area.
Application for designation of a Page 22 of 32 Last updated 14/7/2015 neighbourhood area. Council report 20/7/15 Name Comment Anne Wilson We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Peter Wilson We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Jonathan Stott We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as aNeighbourhood Plan area. Helen Stott We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as aNeighbourhood Plan area. Mrs K Kromm I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. T J Wilding I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Mr Limbrick We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Mrs Limbrick We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. I understand from LEGLAG that there is a neighbourhood plan which supports the Local Green Space application. I have consulted the document online and fully support its aims, particularly as it is based on the NPPF. I did not know that there was a public consultation on this plan before but I would strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Our main concern should be to protect our countryside and all its wildlife for our children and future generations to appreciate so that they in turn can appreciate the need for conservation and protection of our environment which is essential for our future survival.Alongside
the well documented existing problems with traffic on our local roads and resulting air pollution I don't think the increased flood risk with Page 139 Hilary Saxby major developments is being taken seriously enough.Thank you for all you are doing. It is much appreciated. Mark Beard We as a family of five strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Wardenhill parish as a neighbourhood plan area. Rebecca Beard We as a family of five strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Wardenhill parish as a neighbourhood plan area. Matthew Beard We as a family of five strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Wardenhill parish as a neighbourhood plan area. Jack Beard We as a family of five strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Wardenhill parish as a neighbourhood plan area. Katy Beard We as a family of five strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Wardenhill parish as a neighbourhood plan area. Kathryne Gray We strongly support the proposal of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan Area. Peter Gray We strongly support the proposal of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan Area. SM Wilding I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill as a Neighbourhood Plan Area. Martin Williams We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Jan Williams We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Eric Miller I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Robin Brooks We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Julie Brooks We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Duncan Brooks We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area.
Application for designation of a Page 23 of 32 Last updated 14/7/2015 neighbourhood area. Council report 20/7/15 Name Comment We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. We very much value a green space area to walk and excercise dogs etc. being very valuable for our health. We appear to be getting built around with far less recreational area than the centre of London and need a corridor of green space up to Leckhampton hill, where I regularly walk and enables me to enjoy the Cotswold Way walking from home and coming back on the bus fro Painswick or Winchcombe or making a circular walk and back Peter Daniels through the Leckhampton Fields. We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. We very much value a green space area to walk and excercise dogs etc. being very valuable for our health. We appear to be getting built around with far less recreational area than the centre of London and need a corridor of green space up to Leckhampton hill, where I regularly walk and enables me to enjoy the Cotswold Way walking from home and coming back on the bus fro Painswick or Winchcombe or making a circular walk and back Dorothy Daniels through the Leckhampton Fields. Gill Nutz I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill parish as a Neighbourhood Plan Area. I strongly support the local plan for Leckhampton and Warden Hill. We need to make sure that adequate green spaces are kept for health, john millington recreation and for landscape. We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. We particularly Page 140 Steve Kelly wish to support Local Green Spaces in Leckhampton. We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. We particularly Barbara Kelly wish to support Local Green Spaces in Leckhampton. Shona Sutcliffe I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Terry Mullins We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Dave Mullins We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. This is to confirm that we strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan Vic Ellis area. This is to confirm that we strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan Stella Ellis area. Jane Hawley We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Paul Byrne We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Chris Tett We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan Area. Megan Tett We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan Area. Christine Harrod We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Robin Harrod We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area.
Application for designation of a Page 24 of 32 Last updated 14/7/2015 neighbourhood area. Council report 20/7/15 Name Comment Please could you register my support for the proposal to designate 'Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish' as a Neighbourhood Plan area? I Alister Marshall think that this is an excellent idea, as it places control over where building work may proceed in the hands of those people who will be most affected by that work. We, Carol and Maureen Bennett strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Mr Carol Bennett Neighbourhood Plan area. This support follows the support we have expressed for Local Green Spaces. We, Carol and Maureen Bennett strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Mrs Maureen Bennett Neighbourhood Plan area. This support follows the support we have expressed for Local Green Spaces. Rachel Abbott I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill as a neighbourhood plan area. Mr WT Boothroyd We strgongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area Mrs AHW Boothroyd We strgongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area Gareth Evans I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. My partner and I strongly support Leckhampton’s Local Green Space application. Leckhampton is a beautiful village and such an area will Bridget Farrer enhance its beauty and give the local people a permanent space for leisure activities and the appreciation of the landscape .
My partner and I strongly support Leckhampton’s Local Green Space application. Leckhampton is a beautiful village and such an area will Page 141 Malcolm Reid enhance its beauty and give the local people a permanent space for leisure activities and the appreciation of the landscape . We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. We live in Derek Sobey Shurdington which is adjacent to Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish and are likely to be impacted by such a plan We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. We live in Jo Sobey Shurdington which is adjacent to Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish and are likely to be impacted by such a plan Richard Fenley We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Denise Fenley We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Colin Scaife We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Valerie Scaife We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. I wanted to email to express my strong support for the proposal to designate Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. This area has outstanding value as a green space and many of us have been increasingly concerned at the recent pressure for Dr WM Oxbury inappropriate development. I firmly back LEGLAG in its attempts, on our behalf, to defend these green spaces. Dr IMRoberts We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Mrs EAH Roberts We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area and request that John Parfitt this is acknowledged as the proposal is processed.
Application for designation of a Page 25 of 32 Last updated 14/7/2015 neighbourhood area. Council report 20/7/15 Name Comment We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area and request that Victoria Parfitt this is acknowledged as the proposal is processed. John Rood
Andrew Chard I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Mrs Waterhouse We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighborhood Plan. Mr Waterhouse We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighborhood Plan. As a former County, and District Councillor and former Leckhampton Parish Council Chair, I wish to stress my support for the Plan as it reflects Anthony Langford my continuing interest in the locality' We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. We fully agree Paul Gardner with the support given to Local Green Spaces within Leckhampton.
We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. We fully agree Page 142 Ann Gardner with the support given to Local Green Spaces within Leckhampton. Phil James We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Jane Few We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Kath Boothman I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Mr Pearce I/We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Mrs Pearce I/We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Mr Cook We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish and the Neighbourhood Plan area. Mrs Cook We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish and the Neighbourhood Plan area. Mr G. Pierce We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish and the Neighbourhood Plan area. Mrs G. Pierce We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish and the Neighbourhood Plan area. David Broadbent I/We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Rob Burns We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Suzie Burns We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Charlie Burns We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Tim Sugrue I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Bob Bickerdike My wife and I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Kathy Bickerdike My wife and I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area.
Application for designation of a Page 26 of 32 Last updated 14/7/2015 neighbourhood area. Council report 20/7/15 Name Comment D W Hoskins We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan Area L Jones We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan Area Claire Hawes I strongly support the proposal to designate Leckhampton with Warden Hill parish as a Neighbourhood Plan Area. Wendy Peek We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Russell Peek We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Michael Cox We support the Leckhampton with Warden Hill parish to be designated as a neighbourhood plan area. Pauline Cox We support the Leckhampton with Warden Hill parish to be designated as a neighbourhood plan area. Tim Baker We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a neighbourhood Plan area. Avril Baker We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a neighbourhood Plan area.
The proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area is one that, I'm sure, will be supported by many in this area. I certainly do - as it seeks to give some protection to the many attributes of this area which drew people here
in the first place. With two small children, I'm concerned about school places and the environment they'll grow up in. As a daily commuter to Page 143 gloucester via the Shurdington Road, I already experience some of the challenges on the local infrastructure. I am increasingly concerned, Lee Taylor however, that local people are beginning to suffer "planning fatigue". We have received many requests for views, opinions, support to consultation processes etc. relating to the various schemes for this area. In talking to people there is a sense that this is all part of the strategy i.e. to make the process so complex to ordinary folk that they ultimately disengage. I sense that people are beginning to give up hope that their voice will be listened to. Those people who do engage are not the only people who care. As with any democratic process, not everyone votes. But that doesn't mean those who don't are immune from being concerned or caring. People are elected and appointed to protect people's interests. Is that proving the case in relation to these various planning applications? Or will disengagement of local people be cited as tacit permission to proceed regardless? I fear the latter. Barry Davies We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighborhood plan area Christine Davies We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighborhood plan area I strongly support the Leckhampton and Warden Hill parish council's neighbourhood plan, in conjunction with this Parish Council's local greenspace application, which leaves sufficient areas of Leckhampton as public open green space eg Lott meadow, Burrows field and Elizabeth Pimley allotments as well as some surrounding fields. S K Kark We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighborhood plan area I F K Kark We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighborhood plan area Anne Isaac I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Lisa Brown I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. John Lawrence We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area.
Application for designation of a Page 27 of 32 Last updated 14/7/2015 neighbourhood area. Council report 20/7/15 Name Comment Sally Ward We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Anne Gimingham I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill parish as a Neighbourhood plan area. Jacky Potter I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Gerry Potter I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. This the second time that we have sent our email of support for the Leckhampton/Warden Hill Neighbourhood Plan area, which in turn means that we fully support the ‘Leckhampton Local Green spaces’.....and our desire that these Local green spaces be secured for future generations Violet Millar within the Leckhampton area. James Millar We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area Robert Miller I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Joshua Jacob I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Michael Cairns Smith I/We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Paula Cairns Smith I/We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Page 144 Chris Agombar After viewing the proposal documentation, we strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area.
Sallie Anderson After viewing the proposal documentation, we strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Mrs M B Mears I strongly support designating Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a neighbourhood planning area. Lynda Dineen We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill as a neighbourhood plan area Nigel Dineen We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill as a neighbourhood plan area Ann Tulacz I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Margaret White I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Cliff Yates We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Gillian Yates We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Dear Cheltenham Borough Council Planners I would like to let you know that I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Mrs C Keen Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. I would like to express my strong support for the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill as a Neighbourhood Plan. Most residents use the Leckhampton fields for recreation, exercise, nature watching. Dog walking,playing with children,and socialising, Sue Watson cultivating and animals grazing. The nature of this semi rural area would be totally lost if it was built on. Not to mention the fact that roads and other facilities would be overwhelmed. Caroline Pigott I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area.
Application for designation of a Page 28 of 32 Last updated 14/7/2015 neighbourhood area. Council report 20/7/15 Name Comment Jessica Cornes We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Jonathan Cornes We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area.
Nina Barnes We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area.
Chris Barnes We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area.
Derek Gott We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area.
Jean Gott We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Ellen Jacob We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Joshua Jacob We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Mrs E Miller I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Page 145 Ian Miller I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Caroline Hanagan We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Paul Hanagan We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Caroline Mobley I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood plan. Helen Frankland We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Timothy Frankland We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Please be advised that I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan Ian Statham area. Michael Neal I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. MartinHewett We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Jacky Hewett We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. I am responding to the Consultation for the Leckhampton Neighbourhood Plan. I strongly support the Local Green Space application for Mr C Ringrose Leckhampton, and I also strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Paul Sutcliffe I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Until made aware John Hawes by legal. I have heard nothing about this consultation and find it odd you are running this duplicating the Cheltenham consultation where I
Application for designation of a Page 29 of 32 Last updated 14/7/2015 neighbourhood area. Council report 20/7/15 Name Comment responded making this point.
I would be grateful if you would record my strong support for the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Ruth FitzJohn Neighbourhood Plan area. we are writing to say we strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan Sarah Baker area. we are writing to say we strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan Craig Baker area. Edward Turner I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Kate Turner We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Nick Turner We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Ian Edwards We very strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Linda Edwards We very strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Page 146 W H Matthews I/We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Jane Matthews I/We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Mr D Baume I/We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Mrs D Baume I/We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. D. J. Eustace I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Mr Connole We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Mrs Connole We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Alan Thompson Please note that I support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Justin Daglish We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Elizabeth Daglish We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. We strongly support the Parish Council neighbourhood plan application. Such a plan is essential in order to safeguard the network of public Wyn. H. Jones footpaths in open green land adjacent to the densely populated parishes. We strongly support the Parish Council neighbourhood plan application. Such a plan is essential in order to safeguard the network of public Mary. E. Jones footpaths in open green land adjacent to the densely populated parishes.
Application for designation of a Page 30 of 32 Last updated 14/7/2015 neighbourhood area. Council report 20/7/15 Name Comment
I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. It is extremely A G Watson important that this green space is protected and preserved for the benefit and enjoyment of current and future generations of local residents, the people of Cheltenham and those who visit this beautiful part of the country. This land should not be sacrificed for the short term gains of developers who have little interest in the sustainable future of this lovely part of Gloucestershire. Emily Harrison We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Roger Harrison We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Both my husband and I would most strongly support the proposal that the Parish of Leckhampton with Warden Hill be designated a Jean Thomas Neighbourhood Plan Area. Both my husband and I would most strongly support the proposal that the Parish of Leckhampton with Warden Hill be designated a John Thomas Neighbourhood Plan Area. Allan Knight We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Denise Knight We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Chris Barnes We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area.
Nina Barnes We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Page 147 Dr Adrian Mears I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Sally Marlow We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Peter Marlow We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. I'm writing to confirm my strong support for the proposal that Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parishes be designated as a Neighbourhood Plan Adrian Bridges Area.
Natasha Swanson I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Ekuko Rees We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Alun Rees We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Sarah Mitchell We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Anthony Mitchell We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Stephen Airey We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Anna Airey We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. John Hayler I Strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Margaret Greaves I strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Mr Wellington We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area.
Application for designation of a Page 31 of 32 Last updated 14/7/2015 neighbourhood area. Council report 20/7/15 Name Comment Mrs Wellington We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Martin Jones We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Jenny Jones We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Charlotte Jones We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Victoria Jones We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Elizabeth Jones We strongly support the proposal for the designation of Leckhampton with Warden Hill Parish as a Neighbourhood Plan area. Page 148
Application for designation of a Page 32 of 32 Last updated 14/7/2015 neighbourhood area. Council report 20/7/15 Agenda Item 9 Page 149
Cheltenham Borough Council Cabinet – 15th September 2015 Shopmobility – Future Delivery – Consultation Report
Accountable member Councillor Rowena Hay - Cabinet Member Healthy Lifestyles
Accountable officer Wilf Tomaney – Townscape Manager
Ward(s) affected All
Key/Significant No Decision
Executive summary Cabinet on 14th July 2015 received a report on the future delivery of the Shopmobility service, which has been served notice to quit its current premises. Cabinet resolved to consult on its future delivery. Provisional analysis of the consultation results indicates
significant support for continued provision of a Shopmobility service in the town;
whilst the favoured organisation for continued delivery is the Borough Council, there is general acceptance that delivery could be through another organisation;
a town centre location close to car parking is favoured.
The report recommends that the Council proceeds with relocation to the Horse & Groom, St George’s Place and then commences a procurement exercise to establish interest from other organisations in operating the service.
Recommendations 1. That Cabinet agrees the relocation of the Shopmobility service to the Horse and Groom, St George’s Place with the one-off costs being funded from within the existing service budget.
2. That Cabinet commits to a commissioning process for the Shopmobility service, the process to commence in January 2016.
3. That in the interim a review of fees and funding sources is undertaken, in conjunction with the 2016/17 Budget Setting Process.
$bf2nbrjw.docx Page 1 of 21 Last updated 03 September 2015 Page 150
Financial implications The anticipated current year under spend within the service area is likely to cover the costs of the relocation.
The outcome of a review of fees and funding sources will need to be fed into the 2016/17 Budget Setting Process.
Contact officer: Nina Philippidis, Business Partner Accountant [email protected], 01242 264121
Legal implications When the Council undertakes the commissioning review, it will need to have regard to its Public Sector Equalities Duty contained in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. It will need to consider the likely or actual effects of proposed changes in the service on persons who share a protected characteristic (as defined by the Act).
If the decision of the commissioning review is to outsource the service to another provider, the council will need to undertake a procurement exercise in compliance with its contract rules to select that provider.
Contact officer: Donna Ruck, Solicitor, [email protected], 01684 272696
HR implications There are significant HR implications as highlighted in the report. (including learning and Consultation and negotiation with the individuals and trade unions is organisational required for contractual changes. Should the service be transferred there development) would be TUPE and possible redundancy implications which must be considered. HR’s continued involvement as options and decisions are considered is essential.
Contact officer: Richard Hall – HR Business Partner, [email protected], 01242 774972
Key risks If a suitable relocation option is not agreed, then the authority could be vulnerable to having no relocation site available by November.
Corporate and Shopmobility contributes to the following Corporate Plan objectives community plan Implications Sustain and grow Cheltenham’s economic and cultural vitality People live in strong, safe and healthy communities
Delivery considerations have an impact on the following objectives Transform our council so it can continue to enable delivery of our outcomes for Cheltenham and its residents Environmental and None climate change implications
$bf2nbrjw.docx Page 2 of 21 Last updated 03 September 2015 Page 151
Property/Asset The property is the only one the Council owns in the town centre with Implications sufficient space to accommodate Shopmobility. The relocation of Shopmobility into the building will ensure that the service is not lost to the town, and will help bring the building back into use. Following the relocation of Vision 21 the majority of the property has remained empty, apart from one room on the ground floor currently occupied by Cheltenham Print. This room will be incorporated into Shopmobility to provide reception facilities when Cheltenham Prints lease expires in March 2016.
The first and second floors are unattractive and uneconomic to refurbish, but could be let to provide light weight storage space for instance to someone like The Wilson.
If in the future the Shopmobility service is no longer required or relocates elsewhere then this opens up redevelopment/disposal options.
Contact officer: David [email protected]
$bf2nbrjw.docx Page 3 of 21 Last updated 03 September 2015 Page 152 1. Background
1.1 The report to Cabinet on 14th July 2015 established that the Shopmobility service has been served notice to quit its current premises in Beechwood Arcade by 1st November 2015.
1.2 The report also set out key facts around the current operation of the service. These included
a. the financial position as follows:
Table 1: Shopmobility Annual Budget and Net Cost 2014-15 2014-15 2014/15 2015-16 Budget Outturn Variance Budget Expenditure £74,250 £55,894 £18,356 £81,450 Income (£13,800) (£7,138) (£6,662) (£14,000) Net £60,450 £48,756 £11,694 £67,450
b. a decline in patronage and income as follows:
Table 2: Shopmobility Annual Budget, Use & Cost per visit 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Annual visits 3,156 2,736 2,362 2,280 Daily average visits 10 9 8 7 Net Budget £79,250 £64,550 £60,450 Net Outturn £68,227 £55,037 £48,756 Avg cost per visit to CBC £25 £23 £21 (Outturn) c. Usage
patterns as follows:
Table 3: Shopmobility Frequency of Use & Registration Address 2012 - 2015 Frequency No. of Registration Address of use per clients client Cheltenham Rest of Other Glos 1 200 20% 36% 45% Apr 2012- 2-5 88 30% 43% 27% Mar 2015 6-20 42 33% 57% 10%
21-50 22 68% 27% 5%
>50 6 83% 17% 0% All 358 28% 39% 33%
1.3 There were three main issues identified
$bf2nbrjw.docx Page 4 of 21 Last updated 03 September 2015 Page 153 a. Should there continue to be a Shopmobility service in Cheltenham and if so; b. Where should it be located; and c. How should it be delivered? 1.4 Cabinet resolved to undertake a consultation on the three main issues and receive a report on its results at this meeting. 2. Reasons for recommendations 2.1 In considering how to respond to the three substantive issues identified, Cabinet now has three information sources, specifically designed to help inform decisions: a. The report from the Overview and Scrutiny task group and the consequent recommendations of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee presented to Cabinet on 14th July. Both were presented to Cabinet on 14th July; b. The consultation undertaken in response to the Council’s Duty to Consult and the Cabinet’s resolution of 14th July. The consultation ran between 6th August and 1st September. Section 4 “Consultation and Feedback” (below) and Appendix 2 between them set out a summary of interim consultation responses up to 24th August (due to reporting deadlines); a complete summary analysis will be circulated at or before the meeting as a revised Appendix 2 and an updated Section 4. and c. The Community Impact Assessment (Appendix 3). 2.2 It is evident that any changes to the provision of Shopmobility will affect a vulnerable section of our community and there is a sensitive assessment to be made. Cabinet needs to weigh consideration of these information sources against the budgetary position, both of the Council in general and of this service in particular (see Table 2) and opportunities for addressing falling patronage of the Shopmobility over recent years (see Table 3). Issue – Continued Provision of Service. 2.3 Turning to the first main issue of continued provision of a Shopmobility service in the town, the interim results show 100% in favour of the continued provision of a Shopmobility service in the town. This was also the view of the Scrutiny Task Group and the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. 2.4 It is recommended that Cabinet seek to retain a service in the town. The approach outlined below in relation to the other two main issues is designed to help achieve that. Issue – Future Location 2.5 If the service is to continue in any form (whether within or outside the Council) it needs a site to operate from. The Notice to Quit requires vacating the Beechwood Arcade site by 1st November and there is now a critical time issue. The Task Group and Overview and Scrutiny Committee recognised the critical timeframe and recommend that relocation is a priority and should take place before further consideration of which organisation should run the service. Officers agree with this analysis. 2.6 Because the move is de facto as a result of the notice to Quit, the consultation concentrated on the criteria best suited to a new location. The responses favour a town centre location close to parking and buses, preferably with on-site toilet facilities. This reflects the view of the Scrutiny Task Group. 2.7 Operationally, approximately 65-70 square metres floorspace is required to accommodate storage, minor cleaning and maintenance facilities, front of house and staff facilities. 2.8 A problem with the service currently is a falling patronage. Anecdotally evidence suggests that proximity to a busy car park and/or a “street” presence would be useful both in raising profile and patronage.
$bf2nbrjw.docx Page 5 of 21 Last updated 03 September 2015 Page 154 2.9 Table 1 identifies the current budget and last year’s outturn profile. In 2014-15, a net under spend of £11,694 was achieved; a similar figure is anticipated this year. As no additional budgetary provision has been allocated towards the one-off costs of relocation, it is important that these can be funded from within existing budgets. 2.10 The Scrutiny Task Group identifies the 3 sites which have potential for relocation, all of which have an ability to meet the criteria. A brief summary is set out below with approximate costs for comparison purposes, only costs substantially additional to existing costs are given (predominantly build and rental cost). Costs do not include relocation cost which will be common to all sites, business rates (already within budget) or other operational costs. a. Regent Arcade contains the town’s busiest car park and has a high footfall. It is considered, largely for this reason, to be the location best able to grow patronage of the service. Two options were considered i. A Portacabin within the existing car park. . This is thought to be technically achievable, though there is some uncertainty around plumbing and drainage. . Informal discussions suggest that landlord’s consent would be forthcoming. . Building cost (one-off) in excess of £30,000 . Rental cost – nil. . Loss of income from about 10 car parking spaces – Notionally 10 x £1616 per space (2012/13) = £16,160 per annum. Option rejected on cost grounds. ii. A shop unit within the Arcade was considered, however none were available to the Council. b. High Street Car Park (rear of Henrietta Street) – Portacabin in car park. Well located for the High Street, the Brewery and bus hubs. . Technically achievable. . Building cost (one-off) in excess of £30,000 . Rental cost – nil. . Loss of income from about 10 car parking spaces - Notionally 10 x £1910 per space (2012/13) = £19,100 per annum. Option rejected on cost grounds. c. Horse & Groom, St George’s Place. Conversion of building vacated by Vision 21. Located close to Chester Walk car park (privately run). Got potential for synergies with TIC at the Wilson. Reasonable proximity to High Street, Brewery, bus hubs. |Frontage to street. . Technically achievable. . Conversion cost (one-off) estimated at £10,000 . Rental cost – nil. This is the option which is easiest to achieve and lowest cost. Officers are currently developing this option. A design is prepared and implementation is considered to be achievable by the move date if authority given swiftly. Relationship to car park is not as convenient as other options, but is acceptable. Footfall is weakest of the three locations. 2.11 It is recommended that Cabinet notes the one-off virement in the current financial year of £11,000 from within existing Shopmobility budgets to fund costs of relocation.
$bf2nbrjw.docx Page 6 of 21 Last updated 03 September 2015 Page 155 2.12 It is recommended Cabinet identifies the Horse and Groom as its preferred relocation site and that officers progress implementation of the move. Issue – Delivery of Service 2.13 The Task Group considered that provision of the service outside the Council was an option which should be explored and O&S Committee recommended that seeking partnership options with other local service providers should for part of strategies to enhance the service. Both recognised that the process of identifying other providers should follow, not precede, relocation. 2.14 The consultation responses favoured the Council as the operator. However, did recognise that both charities and community organisations as strong alternatives. There was no strong desire for operation either by the private sector or by a tourism operator. Nevertheless, officers are of the opinion that no option should be ruled out at this stage; ability to meet operational criteria and deliver outcomes within an acceptable budgetary framework should be the determining factor in any commissioning process. 2.15 Officers have identified some interest from other organisations in operating the service. However, the move to full financial independence from the Council seems unlikely to be immediate and is likely to involve a progressive move to independence over a number of years. The attractiveness of the service is likely to depend on synergies with any new provider – this could include customer base, staff resource and skills, hardware or proximity of premises. 2.16 Staff would be subject to TUPE arrangements. 2.17 It is recommended that following relocation, the Shopmobility service is put forward as a commissioning option. Additional Financial Support. 2.18 Through both the Scrutiny process and the consultation there is recognition that there are opportunities to enhance the budgetary position of the Shopmobility service. 2.19 The Task Group considered that Shopmobility could look for link partners and organisations; they were particularly interested in links to NHS and occupational health services. The Task Group had no appetite to consider introduction of charging for disabled parking to finance the service. 2.20 The consultation delivered a large number of suggestions including: a. 30% of respondents suggested increasing fees. There were a wide variety of suggestions about how this might work, but frequently mentioned were increasing the annual membership to £50 (an 80% increase) and introduction of a daily or hourly fee on top. There were concerns raised about protection for those on low incomes. b. 12% felt that the service should seek donations from the public and others. c. 11% considered that business sponsorship should be sought. d. It was frequently suggested that the profile needed to be raised (through better publicity or a higher profile location) e. Interestingly, 5% of respondents suggested some sort of parking charge. 2.21 Shopmobility staff recognise that there are untapped opportunities and the relocation is an opportunity to relaunch the service with a review of these opportunities. 3. Alternative options considered 3.1 The main body of the report considers a range of options. 4. Consultation and feedback 4.1 The Scrutiny Task Group report and O&S Committee have made recommendations which are discussed in section 2 of this report and were considered by Cabinet on 14th July. 4.2 The consultation ran between 6th August and 1st September. It was directly mailed to all registered users of the Shopmobility Service; a range of local charities and interest groups; local
$bf2nbrjw.docx Page 7 of 21 Last updated 03 September 2015 Page 156 branches of relevant national charities; local business groups; private businesses involved in provision of mobility aids. It was publicised through a press release and covered in the Echo. A questionnaire was available on the Council’s website and paper copies were available at Municipal Office’s reception and the Shopmobility office. 4.3 Due to reporting deadlines, an interim analysis has been undertaken of the 104 questionnaires received by 24th August. An analysis of all responses will be presented as an update at the Cabinet meeting. Appendix 2 sets out the interim average results relating to “numeric” questions. 4.4 A summary of the results is set out below. a. On the three critical issues: Continuity All respondents considered that there should continue to be a Shopmobility service in the town. Location A town centre location close to car parking and bus stops, with on-site toilet facilities was favoured. Proximity to health services or visitor attractions was not considered important. Delivery The Borough Council was considered the best placed organisation to run the Shopmobility Service. However, there was a reasonable degree of confidence in either a charity or community group leading the operation. There was little support for a private company leading; nor a “tourism organisation”. There were few suggestions for other body’s which might be involved – two respondents suggested a business organisation such as the Chamber of Commerce. b. Other questions attempted to understand what kind of service would be important and glean ideas around how funding might be supplemented. Services Hire of scooters and wheelchairs is seen as most important, followed by professional and pleasant staff. Hire during temporary disability and for holidays are considered important. Free, covered car parking are thought desirable. Funding opportunities There were a range of suggestions, the most popular being: o A variety of fee increases - annual fee; daily charge etc. (32% of respondents) o Seek charitable donations (12%) o Council funding (11%) o Business support (11%) o Raise profile (8%) o A variety of parking charge suggestions (5%) c. General points The comments reflect highly on the professionalism, caring and friendly nature of Shopmobility staff. Comments on the value of the service regularly mention how important it is in allowing disabled people to have a more fulfilling life by enabling access to the town centre and its facilities and allowing them to use the centre with their friends and family. About 50% of respondents own a scooter or wheelchair and are a user of the service. 5. Performance management –monitoring and review
5.1 Through appropriate contract management and procurement procedures.
$bf2nbrjw.docx Page 8 of 21 Last updated 03 September 2015 Page 157
Report author Contact officer: Wilf Tomaney, [email protected],
01242 264145
Appendices 1. Risk Assessment
2. Consultation Summary
3. Community Impact Assessment
Background information 1. Cabinet Report 14th July 2015 – “Recommendations from the Scrutiny Task Group – Shopmobility”
2. Cabinet Report 14th July 2015 – “Shopmobility – Future Delivery”
$bf2nbrjw.docx Page 9 of 21 Last updated 03 September 2015 Risk Assessment Appendix 1
The risk Original risk score Managing risk (impact x likelihood) Risk Risk description Risk Date Impact Likeli- Score Control Action Deadline Responsible Transferred to ref. Owner raised 1-5 hood officer risk register 1-6 1 Risk of adverse impact on WT June 5 4 20 Reduce Implement measures September WT quality of life of disabled 15 to secure long term 2016 and aged people if there future of Shopmobility is no Shopmobility outside the Council provision 2 Any environmental risks None 3 If suitable relocation WT June 5 4 20 Reduce Agree preferred September WT options are not identified 15 relocation option at 2015 in September, then the September Cabinet. Council could be
vulnerable to having no Page 158 relocation site available by November.
Explanatory notes Impact – an assessment of the impact if the risk occurs on a scale of 1-5 (1 being least impact and 5 being major or critical) Likelihood – how likely is it that the risk will occur on a scale of 1-6 (1 being almost impossible, 2 is very low, 3 is low, 4 significant, 5 high and 6 a very high probability) Control - Either: Reduce / Accept / Transfer to 3rd party / Close
$bf2nbrjw.docx Page 10 of 21 Last updated 03 September 2015 Page 159 Appendix 2
Questionnaire - The Future of Shopmobility in Cheltenham
Interim analysis – of 104 responses to 24th August 2015.
Full analysis to be circulated in due course.
Responses shaded grey
Cheltenham’s Shopmobility office is moving. It has been served a notice to vacate its current premises at Beechwood Arcade by November 2015.
The Borough Council has decided to use the move as an opportunity to review the Shopmobility service and seek the views of interested people on its continued provision, the way in which it is provided and its future location.
Shopmobility has about 350 registered users and offers a valuable lifeline. It helps them to live more fulfilling lives; gives them the ability to use the town centre’s shopping, leisure and cultural facilities; and enables them to meet socially with friends. For many, their contact with Shopmobility staff is an important part of their social life. About a third of users are from Cheltenham, a third from the rest of Gloucestershire and a third from elsewhere in the country.
The Shopmobility Service is operated by Cheltenham Borough Council. In 2014-2015 the Council spent about £56,000 on Shopmobility and it generated an income of just over £7,100. Between March 2011 and March 2015 use has declined from 3,156 to 2,280 visits per year. This puts last year’s average cost to the Council at £21 per visit.
The following questions will take about 10 minutes to complete and will give the Council an idea of what local people, users and organisations think of Shopmobility and its future provision. Its findings will be reported to the Council’s Cabinet in September and will be used to inform decisions on the future.
If you have any questions about the survey, phone the Shopmobility office on Cheltenham 255333.
If you are posting your response, please reply to
Shopmobility Level 1a Beechwood Shopping Centre High Street Cheltenham Glos GL50 1QD Questionnaires must be received by 4:30pm Tuesday 1st September 2015.
$bf2nbrjw.docx Page 11 of 21 Last updated 03 September 2015 Page 160 On-going Provision of a Shopmobility Service Questionnaire Interim analysis
Total response - 104 (interim - at 24th August 2015)
1. Do you use the Shopmobility Service Yes – 86 : No - 17
2. Do you value the Shopmobility service Yes – 103 :No- 1
3. Please give your reasons for how you value the service.
78 respondents – rely on service to access town shopping and other facilities 24 – provides independence 22 – improves quality of life 12 – excellent reliable service, friendly staff 9 – easy access to car park 6 – enables people to support local economy 4 – value the holiday hire 4 – value temporary use while recovering from injury 3 – use it when disabled parent is visiting family 3 – enables me to stay out longer 3 - Indispensable service 3 – other towns have good Shopmobility service 2 each – may need it when I get older; serves an increasingly elderly population; central location; cost; meet and greet.
4. Should there continue to be a Shopmobility Service in Cheltenham? Yes – 104 : No - 0
5. If the answer to Q3 is “Yes”, which organisation do you think is best placed to run the Shopmobility Service? Please rank in order of preference as many as you wish (1 best placed - 6 worst placed)
Organisation Rank 1-6 a. Cheltenham Borough Council 1st b. An existing charity 2nd c. Another voluntary or community group 3rd d. A private company 6th e. A tourism organisation 4th f. Another body 5th Please specify which 2 respondents – Local trade organisation 2 - any willing provider 2 - New operator at Beechwood 1 – Park & ride 1 - Not CBC 1 - Only CBC 1 - A charity 1- Any financially viable provider 1 – Social services
$bf2nbrjw.docx Page 12 of 21 Last updated 03 September 2015 6. How do you think Shopmobility’s income couldPage be supplemented 161 or supported?
34 respondents - Increase fee (various suggested permutations) 13 – accept charitable donations 11 – Council should fund 11 – Local business sponsorship or support 10 – Raise profile (advertising, signage, better location etc.) 5 – Charge for parking (various permutations) 4 – introduce volunteer staff 3 – Sell merchandise 3 – charge for meet and greet 3 – better relationship with bus company 2 – appoint fundraisers 1 each – sponsorship from scooter suppliers; increase membership; supply through other outlets (e.g. Everyman); expand scope of repairs in the workshop.
Relocation of the Shopmobility Service
7. What do you think is important in choosing a new location for Shopmobility ? Place “X” in box a. In the Town Centre
Not important 1 2 3 4.22 5 Very Important
b. In a car park
Not important 1 2 3.87 4 5 Very Important
c. Close to a car park
Not important 1 2 3.86 4 5 Very important
d. Close to bus stops
Not important 1 2 3.41 4 5 Very Important
e. Close to health-related service
Not important 1 2.60 3 4 5 Very Important
f. Close to visitor attractions
Not important 1 2.62 3 4 5 Very Important
g. A shopfront on the street
Not important 1 2.59 3 4 5 Very Important
h. A covered space for training
Not important 1 2 3.01 4 5 Very Important
i. Toilet provision on-site
$bf2nbrjw.docx Page 13 of 21 Last updated 03 September 2015 Not important 1 2 Page3.57 162 4 5 Very Important
$bf2nbrjw.docx Page 14 of 21 Last updated 03 September 2015 Page 163 The Service
8. What is important about a Shopmobility service? Place “X” in box a. Hire of mobility scooters Not important 1 2 3 4.22 5 Very Important b. Hire of wheel chairs Not important 1 2 3 4.21 5 Very Important c. Hire of other mobility aids Not important 1 2 3.59 4 5 Very Important d. Professionalism of staff Not important 1 2 3 4.12 5 Very Important e. Pleasant staff Not important 1 2 3 4.14 5 Very Important f. Social contact for users Not important 1 2 3.45 4 5 Very Important g. Advice and information about health and disability services Not important 1 2 3.36 4 5 Very Important h. Sale of mobility aids Not important 1 2.99 3 4 5 Very Important i. Hire of equipment for holidays Not important 1 2 3.62 4 5 Very Important j. Hire during temporary illness Not important 1 2 3.81 4 5 Very Important k. Free parking Not important 1 2 3.76 4 5 Very Important l. Covered parking Not important 1 2 3.53 4 5 Very Important m. Personal shopping assistance Not important 1 2.69 3 4 5 Very Important
9. How can the Shopmobility Service be improved?
33 responses – current service is excellent 9 – Raise profile (better advertising; social media; publicity in clinics etc.) 3 – better location 3- later opening 3 - Sunday/bank holiday opening 2 – involve local stores 2- closer to bus stops 2 - move to Regent Arcade 2 - ground floor location 2 - locate close to outdoor car park. 1 each – on-line booking; make available to park & ride users; consult local disable groups on improvements; make it free; offer short hire discount; sell batteries; make Winchcombe St disabled parking only; larger spaces; more staff; better toilets; staff training;
$bf2nbrjw.docx Page 15 of 21 Last updated 03 September 2015 Page 164 About you
10. Age – Place “X” in box Under 18 18-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 Over 80 0 3 8 12 31 22 10 14
11. Gender ………………………………………………………………………………….. male– 33 : female - 66
12. Do you have a permanent mobility disability? …………………………………… yes – 71 : no - 31
13. Do you have, or have you ever had, a temporary mobility disability? .. yes – 69 : no - 30
14. Are you visually impaired? ………………………………………………………………….. yes – 5 : no - 96
15. Do you own any of the following? 53 positive responses a. Mobility Scooter ………………….. yes - 42 b. Powered Wheelchair …………….. yes - 5 c. Wheelchair …………………………… yes 34
16. Are you any of the following – place “X” in all boxes that apply a. Registered disabled 54 b. Unregistered but use mobility aids 19 c. A carer for a Shopmobility user 11 d. A friend or relative of a Shopmobility user 18 e. A charity working with disabled people 4 f. A charity working with the elderly 3 g. A private business working in the care sector 0 h. A private business dealing with mobility aids 0 i. Other 0 Specify here - Any other comments Please use this space to make any other comments 21 responses – loss of Shopmobility would have significant impact on lifestyle & independence 12 - Shopmobility is a vital service to disabled people & carers 11 – Excellent staff/service/equipment 8 – Shopmobility allows visits to town centre & its facilities 5 – the Council has a duty to provide Shopmobility 4 – Shopmobility should be retained 3 – a town of Cheltenham’s prestige needs Shopmobility 2 each – Shopmobility is a right not a privilege; Shopmobility is increasingly needed as extent of pedestrianisation increases; Shopmobility is good for the economy; Shopmobility is important for disabled people on low income; Loss of service is discriminatory to disabled people; Own scooter is not able to be transported to town; Consult with disabled groups on reprovision. 1 each – would be forced to shop elsewhere; enable holidays for disabled; important service as disabled parking becomes more difficult; adjust spending priorities to retain Shopmobility; important for both regular use and when carer is unavailable; important because disabled parking is poor in Cheltenham. 1 each – reprovision should– retain meet & greet; retain undercover parking; retain access to toilets; retain low cost parking; extend to more than one site; work closer with the NHS; link with TIC at The Wilson.
$bf2nbrjw.docx Page 16 of 21 Last updated 03 September 2015 Community impact assessments – for services, policies and projects Appendix 3
What is a community impact assessment? A community impact assessment is an important part of our commitment to delivering better services for our communities. The form will help us find out what impact or consequences our functions, policies, procedures and projects have on our communities, as well as employees and potential employees.
By undertaking an impact assessment, we are able to: Take into account the needs, experiences and circumstances of those groups of people who use (or don’t / can’t use) our services. Identify any inequalities people may experience. Think about the other ways in which we can deliver our services which will not lead to inequalities. Develop better policy-making, procedures and services. Page 165 Background Name of service / policy / project Shopmobility - relocation and date
Lead officer Wilf Tomaney
Other people involved in Collette Sekulic completing this form Rhonda Tauman
$bf2nbrjw.docx Page 17 of 21 Last updated 03 September 2015 Step 1 - About the service / policy / project
What is the aim of the service / Shopmobility provided mobility aids for rent, available for use in the town centre. policy / project and what outcomes It contributes to Corporate Strategy 2015-16 Economic Outcome and Community Outcome. is it contributing to
Who are the primary customers of Residents and visitors with a mobility difficulty. the service / policy / project and how do they / will they benefit
How and where is the service / Currently delivered from the car park of Beechwood Arcade. Notice to quit has been served. Currently searching policy / project implemented for an alternative suitable location. What potential barriers might The Council’s budgetary constraints. already exist to achieving these Falling numbers using the service – reasons unclear- possible reasons are outcomes location (reducing passing trade); cost; and Page 166 increasing private ownership of mobility aids. All anecdotal, no positive evidence.
Step 2 – What do you know already about your existing / potential customers Declining use year on year. Three year analysis of users shows registration address as follows o 28% Cheltenham o 39% rest of Gloucestershire o 33% outside Gloucestershire What existing information and data o Regular users tend to be Cheltenham based; one-time users largest proportion is from out of do you have about your existing / County; moderate users, largest proportion from rest of Glos. potential customers e.g. Statistics, Usage appears low compared to similar towns/cities (notably Worcester and Gloucester – anecdotal). customer feedback, performance Comparative costs to clients are difficult to assess because of the variety of payment methods across the information various providers nationally. A number of services are free to customers. Cheltenham looks to be on the high side of the norm for services which charge. O&S Shopmobility Task Group, Cheltenham Chamber of Commerce and Cheltenham Business Partnership want to see a continued service in the town. The service receives positive responses for customers What does it tell you about who There is a small core of regular users who are very frequent users. uses your service / policy and Users are roughly even split in terms of the three divisions used for analysis of the registration address. those that don’t? This suggests some value to tourism and to the town centre economy.
$bf2nbrjw.docx Page 18 of 21 Last updated 03 September 2015 Primary users are people with a mobility disability, usually (but not exclusively) those without access to their own equipment. Many are late middle-age or elderly, though again, not exclusively. What have you learnt about real Consultation shows significant support for the continuation of the service. There is some support for increased barriers to your service from any fees to help the service survive. consultation with customers and any stakeholder groups? There is a preference evident through consultation for continued provision of the service by CBC, however, a recognition that it could be provided by charities of the community. If not, who do you have plans to Will need to undertake some consultation on any relocation options – but realistically they are very limited; and consult with about the service / notice to quit by November means remaining in situ is not an option. policy / project? Decision to close service or procure to another supplier will need consultation. Page 167
$bf2nbrjw.docx Page 19 of 21 Last updated 03 September 2015 Step 3 - Assessing community impact How does your service / policy / project impact on different groups in the community?
Group What are you already What are you doing that What could you do No impact on this doing to benefit this might disadvantage this differently to benefit this group group group group People from black and minority No specific impact ethnic groups
Gender No specific impact
Gender Reassignment No specific impact
Older people / children and young Older people are a major Closure is likely to impact Seek to retain service in people user of the service on ability to access town some form within the town. centre for shopping, leisure or social contact. Page 168 People with disabilities and mental People with mobility Closure is likely to impact Seek to retain service in health challenges disabilities are a major on ability to access town some form within the town. user of the service centre for shopping, leisure or social contact. Religion or belief No specific impact
Lesbian, Gay and Bi-sexual people No specific impact Marriage and Civil Partnership No specific impact
Pregnancy & Maternity Potential user of service, Seek to retain service in but not a major target some form within the town. Other groups or communities No specific impact
$bf2nbrjw.docx Page 20 of 21 Last updated 03 September 2015 Step 4 - what are the differences Are any groups affected in different Financially disadvantaged groups may be affected if unable to access Shopmobility. ways to others as a result of the Users of public transport may be disadvantaged if Shopmobility is required to move away from town centre. service / policy / project?
Does your service / policy / project No either directly or indirectly discriminate?
If yes, what can be done to improve n/a this?
Are there any other ways in which There may be synergies between the service and other organisations in the town. These can be considered as the service / project can help part of the commissioning process. support priority communities in Cheltenham? Page 169 Step 5 – taking things forward What are the key actions to be Implement Relocation– monitored against a set of criteria, including conformity with DDA; accessibility to town carried out and how will they be centre; accessibility to car parking. resourced and monitored? Implement commissioning review. Who will play a role in the decision- Cabinet, informed by all party member discussion and officer advice. making process?
What are your / the project’s Need clarity around the commissioning process. learning and development needs?
How will you capture these actions Need to develop full project plan. No project manager yet appointed. in your service / project planning?
17.
$bf2nbrjw.docx Page 21 of 21 Last updated 03 September 2015 This page is intentionally left blank