30 November 2020

Committee Council

Date Tuesday, 8 December 2020

Time of Meeting 6:30 pm

This is a remote meeting in accordance with the Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panel Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020. Members of the public will be able to view this meeting whilst it is in session by clicking on the link that will be available on the Agenda publication page immediately prior to the commencement of the meeting.

Agenda

1. ANNOUNCEMENTS

To receive any announcements from the Chair of the Meeting and/or the Chief Executive.

2. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Pursuant to the adoption by the Council on 26 June 2012 of the Tewkesbury Borough Council Code of Conduct, effective from 1 July 2012, as set out in Minute No. CL.34, Members are invited to declare any interest they may have in the business set out on the Agenda to which the approved Code applies.

4. MINUTES 1 - 25

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 29 September 2020.

Gloucester Road Tewkesbury Glos GL20 5TT Member Services Tel: (01684) 272021 Fax: (01684) 272040 Email: [email protected] Website: www.tewkesbury.gov.uk Item Page(s)

5. ITEMS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

a) To receive any questions, deputations or petitions submitted under Council Rule of Procedure.12.

(The deadline for public participation submissions for this meeting is 2 December 2020).

b) To receive any petitions submitted under the Council’s Petitions Scheme.

6. MEMBER QUESTIONS PROPERLY SUBMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULES

To receive any questions submitted under Rule of Procedure 13. Any items received will be circulated on 8 December 2020.

(Any questions must be submitted in writing to Democratic Services by, not later than, 10.00am on the working day immediately preceding the date of the meeting).

7. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

The Council is asked to consider and determine recommendations of a policy nature arising from the Executive Committee as follows:-

(a) Corporate Peer Challenge - Final Report and Action Plan 26 - 49

At its meeting on 18 November 2020 the Executive Committee considered the Corporate Peer Challenge final report and action plan and RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL: 1. That the peer review action plan be APPROVED. 2. That monitoring of the action plan be undertaken by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on a six-monthly basis.

(b) Infrastructure Funding Statement 50 - 77

At its meeting on 18 November 2020 the Executive Committee considered the Infrastructure Funding Statement and RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL: 1. That the publication of the Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS) for 2020 be APPROVED. 2. That it be NOTED that the Annual Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Rates Summary Statement will be published alongside the Infrastructure Funding Statement.

2 Item Page(s)

(c) Replacement Pay and Display Parking Machines 78 - 82

At its meeting on 18 November 2020 the Executive Committee considered setting aside capital receipts for the replacement of pay and display parking machines and it was RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL: 1. That capital funding of £117,000 be allocated from the Capital Receipts Reserve for the replacement of car park pay and display machines across all authority-owned and charged car parks. 2. That authority be delegated to the Head of Finance and Asset Management to procure suitable parking pay and display machines that offer cash and card payment options with a remote back office function.

8. NOTICE OF MOTION: SUPPORT FOR TECH TALENT CHARTER 83 - 89

To note the attached report setting out the decision made at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting on 13 October 2020.

9. MEMBERSHIP OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE POLICE AND CRIME PANEL

The Council is asked to note the change in the Council’s reserve representative on the Gloucestershire Police and Crime Panel from Councillor A S Reece to Councillor R A Bird.

10. COVID-19 EMERGENCY DECISIONS TAKEN UNDER URGENCY 90 - 112 POWERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PART 3 OF THE CONSTITUTION

To note the urgent decisions taken during the COVID-19 pandemic.

11. SEPARATE BUSINESS

The Chairman will move the adoption of the following resolution: That under Section 100(A)(4) Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded for the following items on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.

3 Item Page(s)

12. SEPARATE RECOMMENDATION FROM EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

The Council is asked to consider and determine a separate recommendation of a policy nature arising from the Executive Committee as follows:-

(a) Management Arrangements following the Departure of the 113 - 120 Deputy Chief Executive

(Exempt – Paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 – Information relating to any individual)

At its meeting on 18 November 2020 the Executive Committee considered a report which detailed a proposed way forward in respect of the management arrangements to be put in place following the departure of the Deputy Chief Executive and made a recommendation to Council thereon.

Recording of Meetings

In accordance with the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014, please be aware that the proceedings of this meeting may be recorded. .

4 Agenda Item 4

TEWKESBURY BOROUGH COUNCIL

Minutes of a Meeting of the Council held remotely on Tuesday, 29 September 2020 commencing at 6:30 pm

Present:

The Worshipful the Mayor Councillor G F Blackwell Deputy Mayor Councillor A S Reece

and Councillors:

R A Bird, G J Bocking, C L J Carter, C M Cody, K J Cromwell, M Dean, R D East, L A Gerrard, P A Godwin, M A Gore, D W Gray, D J Harwood, M L Jordan, E J MacTiernan, J R Mason, H C McLain, P D McLain, H S Munro, J W Murphy, P W Ockelton, C Reid, J K Smith, P E Smith, R J G Smith, V D Smith, C Softley, R J Stanley, S A T Stevens, P D Surman, M G Sztymiak, S Thomson, R J E Vines, M J Williams and P N Workman

CL.21 ANNOUNCEMENTS

21.1 The Mayor advised that the meeting was being held under the emergency provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020 and, specifically, The Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panel Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020. The meeting was being broadcast live via the internet, it was not being recorded by the Council but, under the usual transparency rules, it may be being recorded by others.

CL.22 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

22.1 Apologies for absence were received from Councillors J H Evetts and A Hollaway.

CL.23 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

23.1 The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Tewkesbury Borough Council Code of Conduct which was adopted by the Council on 26 June 2012 and took effect from 1 July 2012. 23.2 The following declarations were made:

Councillor Application Nature of Interest Declared No./Item (where disclosed) Action in respect of Disclosure

R D East Item 6 – Member Is a Council Would speak Questions representative on and vote. Properly the Board of Cleeve Submitted in Common Accordance with Conservators. Council Procedure Rules.

1 CL.29.09.20

C Reid Item 10d – Notice Is an employee of Would speak of Motion – the NHS but her and vote. Invitation to position was not Gloucestershire affected by the Hospital NHS decision on the Foundation Trust Motion. to Present its Latest Proposals for Cheltenham A&E.

C Softley Item 7a – Council Declaration made in Would not Tax Reduction accordance with speak or vote Scheme and Section 106 of the and would Council Tax Local Government leave the Discounts Finance Act 1992. meeting for 2021/22. the consideration of this item.

S A T Stevens Item 7a - Council Declaration made in Would not Tax Reduction accordance with speak or vote Scheme and Section 106 of the and would Council Tax Local Government leave the Discounts Finance Act 1992. meeting for 2021/22. the consideration of this item.

23.3 There were no further declarations made on this occasion.

CL.24 MINUTES

24.1 The Minutes of the meeting held on 28 July 2020, copies of which had been circulated, were approved as a correct record subject to an amendment to the attendance to include a number of Members who were missing.

CL.25 ITEMS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

25.1 There were no items from members of the public.

CL.26 MEMBER QUESTIONS PROPERLY SUBMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULES

26.1 The following questions had been received from Councillor Stanley to the Lead Member for Built Environment. The answers were given by the Lead Member for Built Environment, Councillor Gore, but were taken as read without discussion. Update on the primary schools On 26 January 2020 Council resolved that: 1. the Council confirms its continued support for the provision of adequate school places across Tewkesbury Borough, noting the County Council’s own policy that any such primary schools should be within walking distance of most of the new developments.

2 CL.29.09.20

2. the Council works with the County Council, and any other interested party, to find a solution that works for everyone. Question 1: What is the latest update from Gloucestershire County Council on the school for the north of Bishop’s Cleeve? Answer 1: The County Council has advised that work is still ongoing in relation to identifying a location and land for the new school. Section 106 Infrastructure Tewkesbury Borough has seen substantial housing growth over recent years with further large development expected in the future. Developer Section 106 commitments are an essential part of ensuring that the local infrastructure needs of our residents are met and where these commitments are overdue, it is the Borough which is responsible for enforcement. As a ward Councillor, I have been seeking details of all Section 106 Agreements in Bishop’s Cleeve where commitment trigger points have passed, and the agreements are outstanding. Question 1: What Section 106 Agreements are outstanding in Bishop’s Cleeve? Answer 1: In Bishop’s Cleeve there are both financial and non-financial obligations that are due now and into the future. The table below provides an indication of the outstanding S106 Agreements for the Bishop’s Cleeve area relating to the S106 Agreements that the Borough Council has entered into. Most of the obligations below are not due yet, as the trigger point has not been met. In addition, there are also Gloucestershire County Council S106 planning obligations as part of Bishop’s Cleeve developments, such as highway mitigation, education and library contributions. The County Council currently negotiates S106 Agreements independently of the Borough Council for their elements, which they also enter into separate legal agreements. As a result, the Borough Council does not currently monitor the County Council S106 Agreements. A full list has been requested from the County Council and can be provided to Members once it has been received. Working in partnership with the County Council, Officers are commencing discussions on how the S106 process can be improved. Financial Contributions App No Address Obligation Amount Status

10/01005/OUT Homelands Contribution £1,596.90 Not due until Farm, to Bowls Community Building Gotherington is handed over Lane, Bishop’s Cleeve, GL52 8EN 10/01005/OUT Homelands "LEAP" - Not due or Farm, means a determined yet - if Gotherington 'local management Lane, equipped company then no 3 CL.29.09.20 Bishop’s area for play' commuted sum Cleeve, commuted GL52 8EN Sum (maintenance fee) 10/01216/OUT Cleevelands, "MUGA - Not due or Evesham Maintenance determined yet - if Road, Commuted management Bishop’s Sum" company then no Cleeve (maintenance commuted sum. fee) means the sum of £16,421 (sixteen thousand four hundred and twenty one pounds) 10/01216/OUT Cleevelands, "Sports £10,000.00 Linked with the Evesham Equipment Community Road, Contribution" Building. Bishop’s Cleeve 10/01216/OUT Cleevelands, Three LEAP - Not due or Evesham maintenance determined yet - if Road, commuted management Bishop’s sums of company then no Cleeve £33,512 x 3 commuted sum instalments 18/00249/OUT Land At the Recycling - Obligations not due Stoke Road, and Waste yet, development Bishop’s Bins not Cleeve, Contribution' started. GL52 7DG means the sum of £73 (seventy three pounds) per Dwelling payable towards the costs 18/00249/OUT Land At Pitches £80,000.00 Obligations not due Stoke Road, Contribution' yet, development Bishop’s payable not started Cleeve, towards GL52 7DG costs of the provision of off-site playing pitches & changing facilities at Cheltenham North RFC

4 CL.29.09.20 14/01233/FUL Part Parcel Dog Bins £322.00 Obligations not due 7346, yet, development Evesham not started Road, Millham House 14/01233/FUL Part Parcel Off-site £43,513.00 Obligations not due 7346, sports yet, development Evesham facilities not started Road, Millham House 14/01233/FUL Part Parcel Off-site play £19,994.00 Obligations not due 7346, facilities yet, development Evesham not started Road, Millham House 14/01233/FUL Part Parcel Indoor sports £11,321.00 Obligations not due 7346, yet, development Evesham not started Road, Millham House 14/01233/FUL Part Parcel Recycling £1,300.00 Obligations not due 7346, yet, development Evesham not started Road, Millham House 17/00449/OUT Local Centre Still being - Deed of Variation Plots 7 And uploaded + still in progress 8 DOV Non-Financial Contributions AH = Affordable Housing POS = Public Open Space LEAP = Local Equipped Area for Play MUGA = Multi-Use Games Area App No Address Obligation Type Homelands Farm, Gotherington 07/00448/OUT Lane, Bishop’s Cleeve AH - Units On Site Homelands Farm, Gotherington POS - Commuted 07/00448/OUT Lane, Bishop’s Cleeve Sum Homelands Farm, Gotherington POS - Transfer of 07/00448/OUT Lane, Bishop’s Cleeve Land Homelands Farm, Gotherington Lane, Bishop’s Cleeve, GL52 Highways - S106 10/01005/OUT 8EN Provided On Site Homelands Farm, Gotherington Lane, Bishop’s Cleeve, GL52 10/01005/OUT 8EN AH - Units On Site Homelands Farm, Gotherington Ecology/Wildlife - Lane, Bishop’s Cleeve, GL52 S106 On Site 10/01005/OUT 8EN Provision 5 CL.29.09.20 Homelands Farm, Gotherington Lane, Bishop’s Cleeve, GL52 POS - S106 10/01005/OUT 8EN Provided On Site Homelands Farm, Gotherington Lane, Bishop’s Cleeve, GL52 POS - Transfer of 10/01005/OUT 8EN Land Homelands Farm, Gotherington Lane, Bishop’s Cleeve, GL52 Allotments - S106 10/01005/OUT 8EN Provided On Site Pitches & Homelands Farm, Gotherington Changing Rooms - Lane, Bishop’s Cleeve, GL52 S106 Provided On 10/01005/OUT 8EN Site Homelands Farm, Gotherington Lane, Bishop’s Cleeve, GL52 POS MUGA - S106 10/01005/OUT 8EN Provided On Site Homelands Farm, Gotherington Lane, Bishop’s Cleeve, GL52 POS LEAP - S106 10/01005/OUT 8EN Provided On Site Homelands Farm, Gotherington Lane, Bishop’s Cleeve, GL52 POS LEAP - S106 10/01005/OUT 8EN Provided On Site Homelands Farm, Gotherington Lane, Bishop’s Cleeve, GL52 POS LEAP - S106 10/01005/OUT 8EN Provided On Site Homelands Farm, Gotherington S106 Lane, Bishop’s Cleeve, GL52 Miscellaneous - 10/01005/OUT 8EN Youth Shelter Community Centre Homelands Farm, Gotherington - to be provided on Lane, Bishop’s Cleeve, GL52 site – discussions 10/01005/OUT 8EN ongoing Adjacent, 74 Evesham Road, Bishop’s Cleeve, Cheltenham, 15/01177/FUL Gloucestershire AH - Units On Site Adjacent, 74 Evesham Road, Bishop’s Cleeve, Cheltenham, POS - S106 15/01177/FUL Gloucestershire Provided On Site Adjacent, 74 Evesham Road, Play Facilities - Bishop’s Cleeve, Cheltenham, S106 Provided On 15/01177/FUL Gloucestershire Site Adjacent, 74 Evesham Road, Bishop’s Cleeve, Cheltenham, POS - Transfer of 15/01177/FUL Gloucestershire Land Cleevelands, Evesham Road, 10/01216/OUT Bishop’s Cleeve AH - Units On Site Cleevelands, Evesham Road, POS - S106 10/01216/OUT Bishop’s Cleeve Provided On Site Cleevelands, Evesham Road, POS LEAP - S106 10/01216/OUT Bishop’s Cleeve Provided On Site Cleevelands, Evesham Road, POS LEAP - S106 10/01216/OUT Bishop’s Cleeve Provided On Site Cleevelands, Evesham Road, POS LEAP - S106 10/01216/OUT Bishop’s Cleeve Provided On Site Cleevelands, Evesham Road, POS MUGA - S106 10/01216/OUT Bishop’s Cleeve Provided On Site 10/01216/OUT Cleevelands, Evesham Road, Pitches & 6 CL.29.09.20 Bishop’s Cleeve Changing Rooms - S106 Provided On Site Community Centre – to be provided on site – Cleevelands, Evesham Road, discussions 10/01216/OUT Bishop’s Cleeve ongoing Cleevelands, Evesham Road, Smart Water - 10/01216/OUT Bishop’s Cleeve S106 Provision Ecology/Wildlife - Cleevelands, Evesham Road, S106 On Site 10/01216/OUT Bishop’s Cleeve Provision Land At Stoke Road, Bishop’s 18/00249/OUT Cleeve, GL52 7DG AH - Units On Site Land At Stoke Road, Bishop’s POS- S106 18/00249/OUT Cleeve, GL52 7DG Provided On Site Play Facilities - Land At Stoke Road, Bishop’s S106 Provided On 18/00249/OUT Cleeve, GL52 7DG Site Part Parcel 7346, Millham House, Evesham Road, Bishop’s Cleeve, 14/01233/FUL Cheltenham AH - Units on Site Local Centre Plots 7 And 8, 17/00449/OUT Cleevelands DOV in progress

Question 2: How many outstanding Section 106 commitments are there across the Borough? Answer 2: The monitoring of Section 106 Agreements has been highlighted as an important issue for the Council and one that I have been championing. Officers will continue to work with the Lead Member to improve processes and monitoring systems. Exacom, a new computer system, has been acquired to assist in the management, administration, monitoring and co-ordination of Section 106 Agreements and sums. A dedicated temporary officer is to be appointed to input all the historical and current 106 Agreements onto the new system. This will allow all S106 Agreements to be reviewed. It is anticipated that this work will take approximately six months to complete. 26.2 The Mayor invited supplementary questions. The Member asked the following and the answers were provided by the Head of Development Services: Question: The Councillor had hoped for detailed conversations between Tewkesbury Borough Council and the County Council regarding school provision in Bishop’s Cleeve, he understood the school was due to open by 2023 but things had still not moved forward. What will the Borough Council do to ensure it receives a detailed update on the Bishop’s Cleeve school and on other schools in the Borough as this was not the only school that Councillors had been concerned about. Answer: The Head of Development Services indicated that she would provide a written response following the meeting. Question: What are the trigger points for the S106 Agreements?

7 CL.29.09.20 Answer: The Head of Development Services indicated that she would provide a written response following the meeting. Question: When will the work to establish the number of outstanding S106 Agreements be completed? Answer: The Head of Development Services indicated that she would provide a written response following the meeting. 26.3 The following questions had been received from Councillor Munro to the Lead Member for Finance and Asset Management. The answers were given by the Lead Member for Finance and Asset Management, Councillor Vines, but were taken as read without discussion. Cleeve Common is one of Tewkesbury Borough Council’s best open spaces and is extensively used by residents of both Tewkesbury Borough and Cheltenham Borough. It has been a lifeline during the pandemic for local residents. The recent decisions made by the Council’s Executive Committee have caused a lot of consternation on social media which as a local Councillor I was not able to counter as I had not been party to the decisions made at the meeting on 26 August. I have the following questions: Question 1: What assurances can the Council give local residents that the loss of the historic golf club, and income it provides, will not affect the standard of maintenance of the Common? The rent is understood to be about 20% of the Cleeve Conservators (who maintain the Common) income and they have indicated on social media that they will not be able to maintain the Common to current standards. Did the Council specifically work with the Conservators to understand their income streams to be able to understand the implications of the income loss and how this can be made good. Answer 1: The Council has a good relationship with Cleeve Common Trust and Officers have maintained a dialogue with Trustees over the last 18 months regarding the possibility of the Council being forced to exercise a break clause in its licence for the use of the Common for the provision of golf. This position was crystallised this year following notice being served by the Council’s golf tenant and the break clause for the Common expiring in September. A decision to exercise the break clause was made in recognition of the Council’s extremely difficult financial position and following confirmation from an independent industry expert of the financial unviability of the current provision. It was understood from previous discussions with the Trust that the loss of licence income could be offset by grants that were available from various sources to manage the Common as common land rather than it being used for golf. It is not known by Officers whether those sources of funding are still available following recent events and with the forthcoming withdrawal from the European Union. Regardless of the grant funding position, the Council maintains a good relationship with the Trust and Officers are working alongside it to investigate possible options for the continuation of golf on the Common without the Council’s exposure to the financial risks and liabilities associated with direct golf provision by the Council. Officers are currently in confidential negotiations with a number of interested parties which could result in the continued provision of golf and would maintain income levels for the Trust.

8 CL.29.09.20

Question 2: In terms of the clubhouse building, which is scheduled to be demolished as soon as possible after 31 March 2021, what is the timeline for a business case for a replacement facility and how does the Council plan to consult with local residents to establish what people would like to see. Has the Council contacted local clubs that use the Common and clubhouse to see how the changes will affect them? Is the Council considering working with partner organisations, such as Cheltenham Borough Council, to see if there is scope for joint initiatives for any new facility? Answer 2: Should discussions with interested parties fail to materialise into a viable solution for the use of the clubhouse to support a third-party provision of golf, Officers will review options being put forward by other interested parties for alternative uses. All potential uses will need to ensure continued community use of the asset and remove the Council from the financial liabilities associated with the current provision and the asset itself. Should no viable proposition be found, Officers will need to move forward with plans for the demolition of the building and the provision of parking facilities. The option of providing replacement facilities will be considered in 2021 and, depending on the viability of any business case, Officers will then develop a communications and consultation plan to engage the community. Officers have spoken to the golf club about its position with regards to the licence agreement and the affect it will have on that club. No other casual users of the premises have currently been consulted. Officers are currently working with Cleeve Common Trust and interested parties to find potential solutions. No contact has been made with Cheltenham Borough Council, but the question can be asked of them if they wish to invest in community facilities outside of their Borough boundary, should Members wish that question to be raised. Question 3: In the short term, the clubhouse provides the only public toilet facility on Cleeve Hill. The importance of public toilets both for public health and for enabling residents to enjoy the open space cannot be overstressed. What provision does the Council plan to make? Answer 3: The provision of public toilets is not a service that the Borough Council delivers in any part of the Borough. Public toilets, where they do exist, are now provided at a Parish level. Should the Council demolish the current facility, it will engage with the local Parish Council about the possibility of re-provision. Question 4: What support is being given to employees affected by the closure of the clubhouse? Answer 4: Responsibility for the employee’s rests with the current employer, the Share Club Ltd. Officers will, however, seek to provide indirect help and advice where it can. It will also seek to ensure that TUPE requirements between employers, where applicable, are met should that opportunity arise. 9 CL.29.09.20

Question 5: How will the Council secure the car park at night to ensure it does not attract anti- social behaviour? Answer 5: Officers will look at a range of measures including height barriers, lockable gates and CCTV. The consideration of anti-social behaviour will need to be made if the Council wishes to see the re-provision of public toilets on site. Question 6: The decisions made at the Executive Committee are of interest to the public and there has been a lot of disquiet about what is happening and the lack of public scrutiny. Please can you advise who made the decision to commission a report on the golf club, what the cost was, and set out Member involvement in the issue prior to the Executive Committee on 26 August. Please can you explain why this was not an issue that full Council was asked to consider. Answer 6: The decision to commission an independent report by an industry expert was made by the Head of Finance and Asset Management in order to give Members of the Executive Committee an independent view on the viability of the current golf provision when considering whether to continue with the licence for the Common. Without this viewpoint it would have been difficult for Members to fully consider the financial implications for the Council. The report cost £3,650. The Members of the Executive Committee were briefed about the golf club at informal Exec/CLT meetings on 26 June and 13 August 2020. In accordance with the Constitution, the decision was made by the Executive Committee as this is not a matter reserved to Council. 26.4 The Mayor invited supplementary questions. The Member asked the following and the answers were provided by the Head of Finance and Asset Management: Question: The Member questioned whether there was assurance that the finances were available for Cleeve Common Trust to maintain the Common to its current high standards; whether Officers had undertaken detailed discussions about that; and whether the shortfall had been spelt out to the Executive Committee when it had considered the issue. Answer: The Head of Finance and Asset Management explained that several discussions had taken place with the Trust about licences and finances – initially the Council had been led to believe funding was available through grants - but the Trust had not provided any confirmation on that to date. The team was working with the Cleeve Common Trust looking at sources of funding as well as potential other licensees for the land. Within the report to the Executive Committee, it had been stated that £25,000 was no longer payable to the Trust so he could confirm that Members had been advised of the shortfall. Question: 10 CL.29.09.20 The Member was pleased to see the Council was discussing the continuation of golf on the Common but questioned whether those could come to fruition by the end of March. Answer: The Head of Finance and Asset Management explained that there were no exact timescales at the moment but informal exploratory conversations had been held and, as negotiations developed, timescales would be established; he was hopeful to bring the information back to Members as soon as possible. Question: The Member was concerned that the decisions had been made ‘behind closed doors’ and questioned how the Council would keep Members updated on progress, negotiations with golf clubs and whether the Council would be involved in the decisions moving forward. Answer: The Head of Finance and Asset Management confirmed that reports would be brought forward as necessary in line with the Council’s Constitution. They would be confidential depending on the decisions to be made and the information contained within the reports. 26.5 The following question had been received from Councillor Munro to the Lead Member for Built Environment. The answer was given by the Lead Member for Built Environment, Councillor Gore, but was taken as read without discussion. Question 1: The plan is for the Grangefield to be seeded as a wildflower meadow, originally in autumn 2019, then spring 2020, and now autumn 2020. Please can the Council advise of the project timetable for the works due to happen this autumn, when it expects the wildflower seeding to take place and how it will communicate its plan to local residents? Answer 1: The Grangefield project was based on biodiversity principles and this was the basis upon which the grant for the scheme was awarded. This was to enable the creation of a space where nature can thrive and evolving landscape can change, which in turn requires a very different form of management and therefore the usual principle of a detailed management plan is not in place. Staff resource issues have unfortunately delayed this work; however, I can advise that Officers recently met at the Grangefield to discuss future works on site and a plan of action for the next six months is now under development. A contractor will be engaged to plant the seeds in time for the next growing season. Once the contractor has been appointed, and we have a detailed work programme, this will be promoted on the Council’s website, social media, local school and signage on site. 26.6 The Mayor invited supplementary questions. The Member asked the following and the answer was provided by the Head of Development Services: Question: When will the plan be completed and available to Members and can confirmation be given whether the seeds will be sown this autumn or next spring as it was unclear what is meant by the ‘next growing season’? Answer: The Head of Development Services indicated that she would provide a written response following the meeting.

11 CL.29.09.20

CL.27 RECOMMENDATIONS FROM EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Council Tax Reduction Scheme and Council Tax Discounts 2021/22

27.1 At its meeting on 26 August 2020, the Executive Committee had considered the Council Tax Reduction Scheme and Council Tax Discounts 2021/22 and recommended to Council that the default Council Tax Reduction Scheme be adopted effective from 1 April 2021 with a minor revision to the national working age regulations to allow for a de minimis tolerance for income changes; that authority be delegated to the Head of Finance and Asset Management, in consultation with the Lead Member for Finance and Asset Management, to agree the uprating of the working age regulations incorporated into the local Council Tax Reduction Scheme in line with those announced by the Department for Work and Pensions; that the following Council Tax discounts be adopted effective from 1 April 2021: the discount for unoccupied and substantially unfurnished properties is 25% for a maximum period of six months; the discount for properties which are vacant and require major repair work to render them habitable is 25% for a maximum period of 12 months; the discount for unoccupied furnished properties (second homes) is zero; an empty homes premium of an additional 100% is levied on properties that have remained unoccupied and substantially unfurnished for at least two years, but less than five years; an empty homes premium of an additional 200% is levied on properties that have remained unoccupied and substantially unfurnished for at least five years, but less than ten years; and an empty homes premium of an additional 300% is levied on properties that have remained unoccupied and substantially unfurnished for at least ten years. 27.2 The report which was considered by the Executive Committee had been circulated with the Agenda for the current meeting at Pages No. 15-20. 27.3 The Vice-Chair of the Executive Committee, who had chaired the meeting on 26 August 2020, proposed the recommendation and the Lead Member for Finance and Asset Management seconded it. 27.4 A brief discussion ensued, in which a Member questioned how ‘substantially unfurnished’ was defined. In response, the Revenues and Benefits Manager indicated that this was a property that was essentially devoid of furniture which someone would need to live there, e.g. no bed, however, if it had white goods it could still be deemed to be substantially unfurnished. 27.5 Accordingly, it was RESOLVED 1. That the default Council Tax Reduction Scheme be ADOPTED effective from 1 April 2021 with a minor revision to the national working age regulations to allow for a de minimis tolerance for income changes. 2. That authority be delegated to the Head of Finance and Asset Management, in consultation with the Lead Member for Finance and Asset Management, to agree the uprating of the working age regulations incorporated into the local Council Tax Reduction Scheme in line with those announced by the Department for Work and Pensions. 3. That the following Council Tax discounts be ADOPTED effective from 1 April 2021:  The discount for unoccupied and substantially unfurnished

12 CL.29.09.20 properties is 25% for a maximum period of six months.

 The discount for properties which are vacant and require major repair work to render them habitable is 25% for a maximum period of 12 months.  The discount for unoccupied furnished properties (second homes) is zero.  An empty homes premium of an additional 100% is levied on properties that have remained unoccupied and substantially unfurnished for at least two years, but less than five years.  An empty homes premium of an additional 200% is levied on properties that have remained unoccupied and substantially unfurnished for at least five years, but less than ten years.  An empty homes premium of an additional 300% is levied on properties that have remained unoccupied and substantially unfurnished for at least ten years.

CL.28 OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT

28.1 Attention was drawn to the report of the Head of Corporate Services, circulated at Pages No. 21-23, which attached the Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s report that had been approved by the Committee at its meeting on 1 September 2020. The Council was asked to consider the contents of the report. 28.2 The Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee drew attention to Pages No. 24- 53 of the Council papers and indicated that he was particularly pleased with how well the new Committee had bonded and carried on the good work of previous Members. This had been acknowledged by the Local Government Association Peer Challenge Team which had reported positively on the Committee’s contribution to the Council’s governance structure. He felt the report spoke for itself, demonstrating the breadth of work overseen by the Committee, and he was confident this would continue into 2020/21. 28.3 Within the Council’s work programme there were key plans to scrutinise, such as the new Council Plan, the COVID-19 Recovery Plan and the Peer Challenge Action Plan as well as key strategies such as climate change, housing and economic development and tourism. 28.4 The Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee was of the view that scrutiny would need to continue in the current virtual environment for the foreseeable future and he offered his thanks to both the Members and Officers for their efforts to ensure the success of the Council’s new virtual world. 28.5 Accordingly, it was RESOLVED That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Annual Report be NOTED.

CL.29 AUDIT AND GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT 2019/20

29.1 The Chair of the Audit and Governance Committee drew attention to the Committee’s Annual Report 2019/20 which had been circulated at Pages No. 54-64. 13 CL.29.09.20 The Council was asked to consider the report which had been approved by the Committee at its meeting on 23 September 2020.

29.2 The Chair advised that the report demonstrated the breadth of items that were considered by the Committee. It received reports from a variety of sources that helped to give the Committee assurances that systems and processes were operating as they should be; those mainly came from the internal audit team, the Council’s external auditors, Grant Thornton, and the finance team. Similar to the previous Agenda item on the Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s Annual Report, the Peer Challenge Team had commented positively on an area the Committee depended upon, that being the experienced, and technically strong, finance team which helped ensure the Council’s statement of accounts were signed off with a minimum of fuss. 29.3 The Committee’s biggest source of assurance came from the Council’s internal audit team. The team provided Members with an independent and objective opinion on its findings. Overall, as detailed in Pages No. 59-60 of the report, its findings were positive; however, where issues were identified, those were supported by recommendations for improvement and progress in implementing them was monitored by the Committee. 29.4 For the majority of 2019/20, internal audit work had been unhindered but, since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, and until recently, the three members of the internal audit team had been deployed to support the administration of business grants. Despite that situation, it had been a pleasure for the Committee to recently approve an audit plan for the next six months, with an audit resource now available to deliver that plan. 29.5 The Audit and Governance Committee Chair thanked the Members of the Committee for their support during the year and Officers, both internal and external, who reported into the Committee or supported its administration. He felt the Committee had adapted well to its virtual surroundings and he looked forward to the continued success despite the challenges faced. 29.6 Accordingly, it was RESOLVED That the Audit and Governance Committee Annual Report 2019/20 be NOTED.

CL.30 NOTICES OF MOTION

Local Electricity Bill

30.1 The Worshipful the Mayor referred to the Notice of Motion set out on the Agenda and indicated that, in accordance with the Council’s Rules of Procedure, it was necessary for the Council firstly to decide whether it wished to debate and determine the Motion at this evening’s meeting, or whether it wished to refer the Motion, without debate, to a Committee for consideration with authority either to make a decision on the matter or to bring a recommendation back to Council. 30.2 A Member expressed the view that, whilst he supported green energy initiatives in principle, he felt the Motion lacked detail in its current format and that it should be referred to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to consider and make a recommendation to the Executive Committee for decision.

14 CL.29.09.20

30.3 A recorded vote was requested and, upon receiving the appropriate level of support, voting was recorded as follows:

For Against Abstain Absent

R A Bird C L J Carter J H Evetts

G F Blackwell C M Cody A Hollaway

G J Bocking L A Gerrard

K J Cromwell D J Harwood

M Dean M L Jordan

R D East H S Munro

P A Godwin P W Ockelton

M A Gore P E Smith

D W Gray R J G Smith

E J MacTiernan C Softley

J R Mason R J Stanley

H C McLain S A T Stevens

P D McLain M G Sztymiak

J W Murphy S Thomson

A S Reece P N Workman

C Reid

J K Smith

V D Smith

P D Surman

R J E Vines

M J Williams

30.4 With 21 votes in favour and 15 against, it was agreed that the Motion would be deferred for consideration by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and recommendation to the Executive Committee for decision. 30.5 In accordance with the Council’s Rules of Procedure, the proposer was invited to briefly introduce her Motion. She indicated that one of the Council’s key priorities was ‘sustainable environment’ and she was of the view that this could be supported 15 CL.29.09.20 by the Local Electricity Bill. This was a cross-party Bill and 57 county and local authorities had already supported it, including 11 which were in overall Conservative control. She had not expected the Motion to be controversial and had hoped Members would be able to support it. Her view was that the Bill looked to the future and the Council’s support of it would help enable a better future for its residents. She welcomed the input of Overview and Scrutiny, and was pleased the Motion would be further discussed, but she felt it should not really be necessary. 30.6 In line with the recorded vote, it was RESOLVED That the Motion be referred to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for consideration and recommendation to the Executive Committee for decision.

Support for Increased Provision for Cyclists within Tewkesbury Borough

30.7 The Worshipful the Mayor referred to the Notice of Motion set out on the Agenda and indicated that, in accordance with the Council’s Rules of Procedure, it was necessary for the Council firstly to decide whether it wished to debate and determine the Motion at this evening’s meeting, or whether it wished to refer the Motion, without debate, to a Committee for consideration with authority either to make a decision on the matter or to bring a recommendation back to Council. 30.8 It was agreed that the Motion would be considered at the current meeting and, in accordance with the Council’s Rules of Procedure, the proposer of the Motion was invited to present the Motion. She explained that one of the few positives to come out of the COVID-19 pandemic was the increase in cycling that had been seen across the county when the roads had been quiet and her Motion sought to build on that. She felt it was a joy to explore the Borough on a bicycle and, whilst accepting that the Highways Authority was the lead authority in terms of cycleways, the Motion hoped to promote Tewkesbury Borough Council as a leader in supporting such initiatives. She was of the view that the kind of support offered could include press releases, social media, articles on the website and in the Borough News. The Motion also provided the opportunity for Tewkesbury Borough Council to show its support publicly for the County Council and its cycling and walking initiatives. In addition, she hoped Tewkesbury Borough Council could put pressure on the County Council to start the Bishop’s Cleeve to Gotherington cycleway. The seconder of the Motion agreed, and indicated that, essentially, the Motion asked the Borough Council to publicly confirm its support for cycling, as well as the County Council’s initiative on cycling, and asked the County Council to push forward a scheme which was well overdue. 30.9 During the discussion which ensued, a Member noted that sustrans had been an initiative for active travel which the Borough Council had supported several years previously and that had included a cycleway between Bishop’s Cleeve and Gotherington so he questioned why that had not yet been built. Another Member indicated that sustrans was still in existence and was creating a national network of cycling routes across the country working alongside County Councils. He knew the organisation had done a considerable amount of work in the Borough over the years but could not recall the previous discussions about a Bishop’s Cleeve to Gotherington cycleway. 30.10 The view was expressed that the Motion contained quite a lot of misunderstanding. The Member indicated that both the Borough and County Councils had done a lot of promotion of safe cycling and safe cycleways; specifically, Tewkesbury Borough Council had been asked by the County Council to put forward its top three schemes which it had done. He felt the reality was that the Borough Council had been promoting effective cycling for a long time and as such the Motion was not necessary. In respect of the Bishop’s Cleeve to Gotherington cycleway, he felt 16 CL.29.09.20 there was confusion about what was available. To his knowledge there was no Section 106 Agreement for the specific cycleway from Bishop’s Cleeve to Gotherington, there was due to be a cycleway installed on Gotherington Lane as part of the development in Gotherington which would result in changes to the road layout but that was currently being assessed. The Section 106 Agreement specifically related to cycle signage around the Borough and the footway/cycle link between Bishop’s Cleeve and Cheltenham which was an entirely separate scheme. Overall, he felt the Borough Council was at the forefront of safe cycling and cycleways which was in direct conflict with the sentiment of the Motion being considered. In expressing an alternative view, a Member indicated that she supported the Motion as the Council had previously declared a climate emergency and safe cycling went a long way to reducing carbon emissions which was one of the Council’s aims. She agreed that the uptake in cycling had been helped by the lockdown earlier in the year and she really wanted to see the Council do everything it could to support the continuation of that habit. 30.11 In endorsing the previous comments against the Motion, a Member was disappointed and saddened by the amount of work that the Borough and County Councils had done to date which was not recognised by the Motion. Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, work had been ongoing on cycling strategies and the two authorities had worked together to deliver great schemes such as the cycleway from Mitton to Tewkesbury Town; the extension to the Newtown cycle track – which was one of the most used in the county seeing 550 daily movements; discussions about the cycleway between Cheltenham and Gloucester which would go right through the heart of Churchdown; the Cheltenham to Bishop’s Cleeve cycleway which should come online next year; as well as the ‘travel by cycle’ five year strategy which sought to build a network, meaning someone could get on a bike in Tewkesbury and cycle to Tetbury. Another Member agreed with that view and added that the Tewkesbury Borough Plan showed clearly how the Council felt about safe cycling schemes through the policies within it which supported active travel. 30.12 A number of Members felt that there were cycling and walking links missing in their particular communities despite the amount of building that had taken place across a number of large developments. Whilst they accepted there was progress with cycle links in some areas, this was not the case in every area and this did need to be addressed; they felt that, however well the Council was already doing, more could always be done. One Member expressed concern about the tone of some of the debate so far which had been unhelpful and that, in her view, any Motion that a Member felt was worthy of being discussed at Council should be shown a level of respect without the proposer and seconder feeling discredited. Other Members agreed and felt the Motion was about acknowledging that more could always be done to keep residents safe; particularly when new developments were being built, and changes were being made to the highway anyway, the Council could push for the addition of cycle lanes etc. It was also suggested that, if some Members knew more than others about schemes that were being put forward, there may need to be clearer communication about those things between Councillors. In terms of the suggestion that there was to be no cycleway between Bishop’s Cleeve and Gotherington, the proposer of the Motion advised that Officers had shown her a route map for the proposed path so if it was actually not happening, as had been muted by another Member, this was certainly a very confusing picture. 30.13 A Member indicated that he was an avid supporter of cycling; however, he was concerned about the Motion as it set out a public statement of intent about things the Council was already doing, it sought to offer support to the County Council which, again, was something the Borough Council already did, and it asked the County Council to prioritise one particular area – Bishop’s Cleeve and Gotherington – above other areas such as Brockworth, Churchdown and Twigworth which were also in need of active travel connections. A Member 17 CL.29.09.20 proposed an amendment, which the proposer and seconder of the original Motion agreed, that point 3 of the Motion be amended from “ask the County Council to prioritise the works of the highways legal team to ensure that the Bishop’s Cleeve to Gotherington cycleway is not delayed further, with a request for work to start on building the cycleway by the end of the current financial year” to “ask the County Council to work alongside Tewkesbury Borough Council to identify and prioritise areas within the Borough that are in desperate need of cycling routes”. Some Members felt the amendment did not offer any clarity on what was required, whereas, others felt it was a good amendment which made it clear there were a number of areas across the Borough that were in need of cycling facilities. 30.14 It was proposed and seconded that point 3 of the Motion be amended to ask the County Council to work alongside Tewkesbury Borough Council to identify and prioritise areas within the Borough that are in desperate need of cycling routes. A recorded vote was requested and, upon receiving the appropriate level of support, voting was recorded as follows:

For Against Abstain Absent

C L J Carter R A Bird H S Munro J H Evetts

C M Cody G F Blackwell R J G Smith A Hollaway

L A Gerrard G J Bocking R J Stanley

D J Harwood K J Cromwell

M L Jordan M Dean

P W Ockelton R D East

P E Smith P A Godwin

C Softley M A Gore

S A T Stevens D W Gray

M G Sztymiak E J MacTiernan

S Thomson J R Mason

P N Workman H C McLain

P D McLain

J W Murphy

A S Reece

C Reid

J K Smith

V D Smith

P D Surman

R J E Vines

18 CL.29.09.20

M J Williams

30.15 With 12 votes in favour, 21 against and three abstentions, the amendment was lost. 30.16 A recorded vote was requested and, upon receiving the appropriate level of support, voting on the original Motion was recorded as follows:

For Against Abstain Absent

C L J Carter R A Bird J H Evetts

C M Cody G F Blackwell A Hollaway

L A Gerrard G J Bocking

D J Harwood K J Cromwell

M L Jordan M Dean

H S Munro R D East

P W Ockelton P A Godwin

P E Smith M A Gore

R J G Smith D W Gray

C Softley E J MacTiernan

R J Stanley J R Mason

S A T Stevens H C McLain

M G Sztymiak P D McLain

S Thomson J W Murphy

P N Workman A S Reece

C Reid

J K Smith

V D Smith

P D Surman

R J E Vines

M J Williams

30.17 With 15 in favour and 21 votes against, the Motion was lost. 30.18 Accordingly, it was

19 CL.29.09.20 RESOLVED That the Motion not be approved.

Adjournment

30.19 The meeting was adjourned for a ten-minute break at 8:25pm. The meeting reconvened at 8:35pm with the same Membership present.

Transparency and Openness of Tewkesbury Borough Council Proceedings

30.20 The Worshipful the Mayor referred to the Notice of Motion set out on the Agenda and indicated that, in accordance with the Council’s Rules of Procedure, it was necessary for the Council firstly to decide whether it wished to debate and determine the Motion at this evening’s meeting, or whether it wished to refer the Motion, without debate, to a Committee for consideration with authority either to make a decision on the matter or to bring a recommendation back to Council. 30.21 It was agreed that the Motion would be considered at the current meeting and, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, the proposer of the Motion was invited to present the Motion. He indicated that the Motion was intended to improve the Council’s transparency to residents as well as bringing Tewkesbury Borough Council into step with the other authorities in the county. In terms of members of the public asking supplementary questions, it was felt that offering a right of reply would enhance the experience and engagement of the public in the Council’s business which could only be a good thing in respect of the scheme of public participation. In relation to the publication of a decision notice following meetings of the Council, it was envisaged this would follow the same process as the Executive Committee decision notices which Officers had confirmed would be achievable taking account of current resources. The seconder of the Motion agreed with the proposer and expressed the importance of local government being seen to be open, transparent and accountable as well as encouraging members of the public to come forward and ask questions about things which were of concern to them. She also felt it was important to get decisions of the Council out into the public domain as quickly as possible. 30.22 During the discussion which ensued, a Member expressed the view that the Motion was a perfectly sensible proposal which would bring Tewkesbury Borough Council into line with other authorities. In agreement, another Member felt that community engagement should be encouraged and this meant offering residents the opportunity to respond to answers received; she was of the opinion that the Council could not be too open or too transparent and, as such, she would be supporting the Motion. In offering an alternative view, a Member indicated that the Borough Council had operated its current constitutional procedures for a very long time with no identified problems and therefore he was unsure of the need for the Motion. The recent Peer Challenge Review had commended the authority for the way it carried out its business; he felt the fundamental point was that the Council changed things through its constitutional structures following thorough investigation and considered analysis rather than on an ad-hoc basis through Council Motions and the Council should be proud of its open and transparent history. Another Member felt it was embarrassing to the Council that a member of the public could take the time to engage by asking questions and then not be given the opportunity to come back if they were not satisfied with the response provided. He was of the view that allowing a follow-up question was a common courtesy which should be extended to all. 30.23 A Member drew attention to the last time the Constitution was considered by the Council and the fact that, within that revision, the right to ask supplementary 20 CL.29.09.20 questions had been amended – shown by track-changes – and, whilst it did not state that supplementary questions were allowed, it also did not say they were not. In addition, she felt it should be noted that decisions made at Executive Committee were not made ‘behind closed doors’; any Councillor could attend the meeting and all open business was streamed online for anyone to watch. She found the suggestion that the Council was not transparent to be upsetting as she was proud to be a Member of Tewkesbury Borough Council and felt it demonstrated its openness to its residents all the time. In response to an earlier statement, another Member indicated that the Council could change things because it wanted to improve them rather than because it had to and he saw no reason not to make the changes suggested in the Motion, the core of which, was to improve the experience of the public when they engaged with the Council. In agreeing with that view, a Member noted that residents did not ask questions for no reason, they were there because they were passionate about an issue and the Council should engage with that and encourage it. 30.24 There was some concern expressed about the tone of the discussion and debate and it was suggested it might be helpful for Motions to be discussed informally in the first instance to enable a full understanding of the reasons for it and what it aimed to achieve. A Member indicated that she had tried to use that approach in the past, but it had not resulted in support for her Motion and concern was expressed at the political nature of the debate which was not the intention of the Motions put forward. Some Members expressed offence at the suggestion that the Council was not transparent and it was confirmed that there had been no intention to cause offence to any other Member. 30.25 Clarification was requested about supplementary questions not being mentioned in the Constitution and, in response, the Borough Solicitor confirmed that the Council’s Procedure Rules were silent on the matter, i.e. they did not say there was or was not a right for the public to ask supplementary questions, and on that basis the inference was that there was no right. 30.26 It was proposed and seconded that the Motion ‘be put’ and, upon receiving the appropriate level of support, a recorded vote was taken as follows:

For Against Abstain Absent Not Voting

R A Bird J H Evetts P W Ockelton

G F Blackwell A Hollaway

G J Bocking

C L J Carter

C M Cody

K J Cromwell

M Dean

R D East

L A Gerrard

P A Godwin

M A Gore

D W Gray 21 CL.29.09.20

D J Harwood

M L Jordan

E J MacTiernan

J R Mason

H C McLain

P D McLain

H S Munro

J W Murphy

A S Reece

C Reid

J K Smith

P E Smith

R J G Smith

V D Smith

C Softley

R J Stanley

S A T Stevens

P D Surman

M G Sztymiak

S Thomson

R J E Vines

M J Williams

P N Workman

30.27 Accordingly, it was RESOLVED That the Motion be put. 30.28 A recorded vote was requested and, upon receiving the appropriate level of support, voting on the Motion was recorded as follows:

For Against Abstain Absent Not Voting

C L J Carter R A Bird J H Evetts P W Ockelton

C M Cody G F Blackwell A Hollaway 22 CL.29.09.20

L A Gerrard G J Bocking

D J Harwood K J Cromwell

M L Jordan M Dean

H S Munro R D East

P E Smith P A Godwin

R J G Smith M A Gore

C Softley D W Gray

R J Stanley E J MacTiernan

S A T Stevens J R Mason

M G Sztymiak H C McLain

S Thomson P D McLain

P N Workman J W Murphy

A S Reece

C Reid

J K Smith

V D Smith

P D Surman

R J E Vines

M J Williams

30.29 With 14 votes in favour and 21 against, the Motion was lost. 30.30 Accordingly, it was RESOLVED That the Motion not be approved.

Invitation to Gloucestershire Hospital NHS Foundation Trust to Present its Latest Proposals for Cheltenham A&E

30.31 The Worshipful the Mayor referred to the Notice of Motion set out on the Agenda and indicated that, in accordance with the Council’s Rules of Procedure, it was necessary for the Council firstly to decide whether it wished to debate and determine the Motion at this evening’s meeting, or whether it wished to refer the Motion, without debate, to a Committee for consideration with authority either to make a decision on the matter or to bring a recommendation back to Council. 30.32 It was agreed that the Motion would be considered at the current meeting and, in accordance with the Council’s Rules of Procedure, the proposer was invited to present the Motion. He expressed his thanks to the NHS staff and the Gloucestershire NHS Trust for all their hard work, on a day to day basis as well as 23 CL.29.09.20 throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. He also offered his thanks to the campaign, Restore Emergency at Cheltenham General Hospital (REACH) for its support with the Motion. It was understood that the three-month closure of Cheltenham General Hospital had been to keep it COVID-19 free and the extension was also for that purpose. However, he felt it was important that District Councillors were as well informed as possible prior to the consultation which was the reason for the request in the Motion; in addition, he understood that other Councils were preparing similar Motions so they were fully aware of the facts prior to the consultation. The seconder of the Motion indicated that the temporary closure of the Accident and Emergency department affected all residents and would have a potentially devastating effect if it became permanent. There had been a great deal of media coverage about the issue and she felt it would be helpful for Councillors to have the opportunity to question the Clinical Commissioning Group and hold it to account. 30.33 A Member indicated that he was not aware of anyone that did not oppose any intention to reduce or close Cheltenham Accident and Emergency department, as had been discussed when a previous Motion on the possible closure of the department had been submitted to Council. He was supportive of the sentiment of the current Motion but felt there was a need to consider COVID-19 and the role the Clinical Commissioning Group played in that and, for that reason, he proposed an amendment to make the point that, whilst the Council wanted to invite the Clinical Commissioning Group to explain its proposals, that needed to be at a time that was appropriate for them. Accordingly, he proposed “that this Council remains opposed to permanent closure or downgrading of Accident & Emergency facilities at Cheltenham General Hospital, in accordance with the Motion by Councillors Gore and Hollaway approved on 1 October 2019, and we fully support the effective work by local MPs Laurence Robertson and Alex Chalk in this regard. We thank the NHS Trust for its hard work and commitment during the COVID-19 emergency, and note that the recent three month closure of Accident and Emergency was understood to help keep Cheltenham General ‘COVID Free’ during the height of the COVID transmission, in order that elective surgery could be resumed. However, at the Gloucestershire Health Overview Scrutiny Committee (HOSC) meeting on 15 September 2020, the Gloucestershire Hospital NHS Foundation Trust proposed to extend the three-month closure of Cheltenham’s Type 1 Accident and Emergency Department for a further six months. We are concerned about the proposed six month extension both in terms of the Accident and Emergency at Gloucestershire Royal Hospital having the capacity to cope with all Accident and Emergency patients from the whole County together with the capacity of Emergency Ambulance services and that the additional six month extension could become a long term or permanent change. We are grateful to the Clinical Commissioning Group for responding to our previous motion in such a positive way and taking the time to present their plans to us on 18 October 2019. In view of the latest developments we would welcome further representations from the Clinical Commissioning Group on its long-term intentions, but recognise that this needs to be when critical emergency COVID-19 work allows, so we extend an invitation to the Clinical Commissioning Group to provide us with an update on their proposals at an appropriate time”. The amendment was seconded. Other Members agreed that it was right to hold the Clinical Commissioning Group to account but that had to be at the right time so it did not detract from the COVID-19 response. A Member indicated that the Clinical Commissioning Group had consistently given out ‘cast-iron’ assurances that the Accident and Emergency department at Cheltenham General Hospital would reopen and that Gloucester Royal Hospital could not cope on its own as a single Accident and Emergency site but he would like to know when numbers would allow the department to reopen and what the ‘R Rate’ would have to be – it was then that the local MPs and the County Council’s Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee would be able to make judgments as to the genuine intentions for the Accident and Emergency 24 CL.29.09.20 department at Cheltenham General Hospital.

30.34 There was some concern about the fact that many Members had not had foresight of the amendment and it was suggested there was a need for Councillors to communicate more effectively. The proposer of the Motion, indicated that there appeared to be some confusion between frontline Accident and Emergency staff and the NHS Trust and he felt there was a need to question the Trust before the consultation – particularly as other local authorities in the county would be doing the same and he did not want Tewkesbury Borough to be at the ‘back of the queue’ in terms of being able to speak to the Trust. 30.35 The amendment, as proposed, was circulated to the Council for consideration. The proposer of the original Motion advised that he was happy to accept the amendment except for the last line which he suggested was further amended to read ‘….so we extend an invitation to the Clinical Commissioning Group to provide us with an update on their proposals at the earliest appropriate time’. This was agreed as the substantive Motion and, upon being put to the vote, it was RESOLVED That this Council remains opposed to permanent closure or downgrading of Accident & Emergency (A&E) facilities at Cheltenham General Hospital, in accordance with the motion by Councillors Gore and Hollaway approved on 1 October 2019, and we fully support the effective work by local MPs Laurence Robertson and Alex Chalk in this regard. We thank the NHS Trust for its hard work and commitment during this COVID-19 emergency, and note that the recent three month closure of A&E was understood to help keep Cheltenham General ‘COVID Free’ during the height of the COVID transmission, in order that elective surgery could be resumed. However, at the Gloucestershire Health Overview Scrutiny Committee (HOSC) meeting on 15 September 2020, the Gloucestershire Hospital NHS Foundation Trust proposed to extend the three-month closure of Cheltenham’s Type 1 A&E Department for a further six months. We are concerned about the proposed six month extension both in terms of the A&E at Gloucestershire Royal Hospital having the capacity to cope with all A&E patients from the whole County together with the capacity of Emergency Ambulance services and that the additional six month extension could become a long term or permanent change. We are grateful to the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) for responding to our previous motion in such a positive way and taking the time to present their plans to us on 18 October 2019. In view of the latest developments we would welcome further representations from the CCG on its long-term intentions, but recognise that this needs to be when critical emergency COVID- 19 work allows, so we extend an invitation to the CCG to provide us with an update on their proposals at the earliest appropriate time.

The meeting closed at 9:45 pm

25 Agenda Item 7a TEWKESBURY BOROUGH COUNCIL

Report to: Executive Committee

Date of Meeting: 18 November 2020

Subject: Corporate Peer Challenge – Final Report and Action Plan

Report of: Chief Executive

Corporate Lead: Chief Executive

Lead Members: Leader of the Council

Number of Appendices: Two

Executive Summary: As part of its approach to sector led improvement, the Local Government Association (LGA) offers a fully funded corporate peer challenge to Councils every four to five years. Tewkesbury Borough Council accepted the LGA offer and, looking to build on the previous and very successful peer challenge in November 2014, welcomed an LGA led team on site during week commencing 2 March 2020. As with all peer challenges, this included a review of five core components. This is essentially a high level, external ‘health-check’ centred upon understanding of local context and priority setting, financial planning and viability, political and managerial leadership, governance and decision making and organisational capacity. In addition, the scope of the challenge was localised, to ask the challenge team to also focus on: are we set up organisationally to successfully deliver our growth plans and ambitions?, are we confident in the delivery of the Garden Communities projects? and in more general terms, the ability and capacity to deliver the new council plan? During the four-day challenge, the team spoke to more than 120 people including a range of Council staff, Councillors, external partners and stakeholders and gathered information and views from more than 40 meetings. The final report from the LGA is attached at Appendix 1. The overall opinion is very positive about how the Council performs across the subject areas. As with all challenges, areas for improvement are identified. Five key recommendations were made by the team and these are summarised within page two of the final report. An internal action plan comprising these recommendations with associated action points and other less implicit recommendations can be found in Appendix 2. It is proposed the delivery of the action plan is monitored by the council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee. The production of the report was delayed as a result of the LGA’s response to COVID-19.

Recommendation: To RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL: 1) That the peer review action plan be APPROVED. 2) That monitoring of the action plan be undertaken by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on a six-monthly basis.

26

Reasons for Recommendation: The implementation of the recommendations will help the Council’s overall performance. There is also an expectation that the final report from a peer challenge is communicated publicly.

Resource Implications: None directly arising from this report.

Legal Implications: None directly associated with this report.

Risk Management Implications: If the Council does not implement the recommendations made by the peer challenge team then this will be a lost opportunity for improvement. If the Council does not implement the recommendations made by the peer challenge team then there is a potential reputational risk of not accepting critical feedback.

Performance Management Follow-up: The action plan will be monitored on a six-monthly basis by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

Environmental Implications: None directly associated with this report.

1.0 INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

1.1 As part of its approach to sector led improvement, the Local Government Association (LGA) offers a fully funded corporate peer challenge to Councils every four to five years. Tewkesbury Borough Council accepted the LGA offer and, looking to build on the previous and very successful peer challenge in November 2014, welcomed an LGA led team on site during week commencing 2 March 2020.

1.2 The challenge week provided an excellent learning opportunity. The challenge was centred around the LGA’s five core components as well as localised questions around the Council’s growth and priorities. During the four day challenge, the team spoke to more than 120 people including a range of Council staff together with Councillors and external partners and stakeholders and gathered information and views from more than 40 meetings. The final report from the LGA is attached at Appendix 1.

27

2.0 SCOPE AND FOCUS OF THE PEER CHALLENGE

2.1 The scope of all peer challenges, irrespective of Council, is centred around the LGA’s five core components: 1. Understanding of the local place and priority setting: does the Council understand its local context and place and use that to inform a clear vision and set of priorities? 2. Leadership of Place: does the Council provide effective leadership of place through its elected Members, Officers and constructive relationships and partnerships with external stakeholders? 3. Organisational leadership and governance: are there effective political and managerial leadership supported by good governance and decision-making arrangements that respond to key challenges and enable change and transformation to be implemented? 4. Financial planning and viability: does the Council have a financial plan in place to ensure long term viability and is there evidence that it is being implemented successfully? 5. Capacity to deliver: is organisational capacity aligned with priorities and does the council influence, enable and leverage external capacity to focus on agreed outcomes? In addition to these questions, the Council asked the challenge team to consider the following questions: - Are we set up organisationally to successfully deliver our growth plans and ambitions? - In more general terms, do we have the ability and capacity to deliver the new Council Plan, particularly around our new priorities?

3.0 PEER CHALLENGE OUTCOME

3.1 The review team was very positive about the Council and this positive message flows through the report. The report gives much that the Council can be proud of. A summary of this feedback can be found in the executive summary of the report (paragraph 1). As with all challenges, areas for improvement are identified. Five key recommendations were made by the team and these are summarised within page two of the final report. An internal action plan comprising these recommendations with associated action points and other less implicit recommendations can be found in Appendix 2. It is proposed the delivery of the action plan is monitored by the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

4.0 COMMUNICATION OF FINAL REPORT

4.1 The final report will be published on the Council’s website and will be promoted by the Communication’s Team. This will include a press release and all stakeholders who participated during the challenge will receive a link to the report. The report has already been circulated through the Member Update and through the staff newsletter ‘News4U’. Further communications will follow as the action plan develops.

5.0 OTHER OPTIONS CONSIDERED

5.1 None.

28

6.0 CONSULTATION

6.1 The undertaking of a peer review was approved by Executive Committee. A significant number of Officers, Members and partners were consulted during the peer review week. Heads of Service have been consulted with regard to the development of the action plan.

7.0 RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICIES/STRATEGIES

7.1 Council Plan 2020-2024.

8.0 RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICIES

8.1 None.

9.0 RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS (Human/Property)

9.1 None directly arising from this report.

10.0 SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS (Social/Community Safety/Cultural/ Economic/ Environment)

10.1 None directly arising from this report.

11.0 IMPACT UPON (Value For Money/Equalities/E-Government/Human Rights/Health And Safety)

11.1 None directly arising from this report.

12.0 RELATED DECISIONS AND ANY OTHER RELEVANT FACTS

12.1 Executive Committee – 27 November 2019 (endorsement of peer challenge).

Background Papers: None. Contact Officer: Head of Corporate Services Tel: 01684 272002 email: [email protected] Appendices: 1 – LGA Peer Challenge Final Report. 2 – Action Plan – Implementation of Recommendations.

29

Corporate Peer Challenge

Tewkesbury Borough Council

0 3 - 06 March 2020

Feedback Report

30

1. Executive Summary

This review was conducted prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and the world is now a different place in many ways. Nevertheless, this report reflects the views of the Peer team at a specific point in time and the recommendations made in this report will be for the council to consider within the new global, national and regional context.

The Peer Team would like to acknowledge the level of support provided to them both before and during the onsite visit by members of the Corporate Services Team as well as the positive way in which the whole council engaged in the process.

Tewkesbury Borough Council (TBC) is a well-run organisation, with well-respected management team, officers and members. The council shows a good understanding of place and has a strong presence within it. Officers and members have a passion for their borough which is recognised and valued by partners, with whom they have strong working relationships. The council takes a leading role in developing and maintaining these relationships for the benefit of its residents and communities.

TBC benefits from the highly effective personal leadership of its Chief Executive (CEO) is unanimously well regarded and respected both within the council and amongst partners and stakeholders. The supportive leadership style he models is valued by staff at all levels. We heard of numerous hard won projects and relationships that are of significant benefit to the council and can be directly attributed to the CEO, for which he is to be commended. However, the council needs to continue to take steps to ensure effective succession planning.

Staff are dedicated, forward looking and open to change – they represent an asset to the organisation and should continue to be nurtured and engaged in taking TBC forward. The ‘can do’ attitude of staff is an enviable strength, but with the strategic and operational demands increasing as the new council plan comes online, along with the emerging work to support the Garden Town plans, there is a risk this willingness to help could lead to staff being over committed and this strength becoming a weakness.

The council could take a more proactive approach to external communication - when they have taken the lead in the past, such as press briefings on key initiatives, they do it well and this is welcomed by stakeholders, but there is a need to recognise the strategic value of effective comms and look to build specialist/dedicated capacity in this area.

In relation to Garden Town Delivery, clearly defined next steps are now needed to define the programme within the external context, to ensure the output is co-owned and co-produced with the full range of stakeholders. Effective multi-agency governance is now required and the council needs to consider how to structure and resource this.

There is an experienced and technically strong finance team and members and officers are confident that the financial position is being well managed. The council recognises their significant dependence on New Homes Bonus (NHB) funding the base revenue position and there is some visibility of the risk this represents given the likely changes coming down from government. Greater organisational awareness of this risk, its potential impact and viable mitigation options is needed. This should be prioritised in order to ensure that any alternative or additional efficiency programmes that need to be initiated to offset this income risk have time to deliver savings in advance of any change in funding approach by government.

1

18 Smith Square, London, SW1P 3HZ T 020 7664 3000 F 020 7664 3030 E [email protected] www.local.gov.uk 31

TBC has proactively embraced the commercialisation agenda and has a well-performing portfolio which makes a valuable contribution to the Medium-term Financial Strategy (MTFS). More detailed scenario planning to map the impact of potential changes to the commercial investment regulatory framework would be beneficial. This is to ensure the council is comfortable with the level of risk being managed, rather than presupposing a change is required.

2. Key recommendations

These recommendations were made at a point in time, reflecting the thoughts of the team at that time, and based on the evidence gathered. As part of the LGA’s ongoing role supporting our members in the region, we have seen that TBC, like many others, has responded well to COVID-19 and that the post-emergency landscape for the council will be very different. Nonetheless, these recommendations provide the thoughts of the LGA team at the time of the visit and, it is hoped, provide valuable reflections back to the council on the pre-pandemic situation that might help inform future considerations and prioritisation.

There are a range of suggestions and observations within the main section of the report that will inform some ‘quick wins’ and practical actions, in addition to the conversations onsite, many of which provided ideas and examples of practice from other organisations. The following are the peer team’s key recommendations to the council and are caveated in that they were made in a pre-COVID-19 world and the council will need to consider the relevance of these recommendations accordingly:

1. Build upon your effective and well-embedded budget planning arrangements into the future by ensuring that you: - Take appropriate steps to minimise reliance on NHB as a means of sustaining the base revenue requirements of the organisation. - Prepare for possible changes to commercial investment regulatory framework through detailed scenario planning.

2. Create the necessary senior leadership resilience, focus on prioritisation and overall resource requirements within the organisation going forward so that so that the council is on as sound a footing as possible to continue to meet the challenges facing the sector. As part of this: - Clarify roles and responsibilities of Corporate Leadership Team (CLT) and Management Team in order, ensuring that opportunities for senior officers to contribute and influence are well understood; - Build on partnership and shared service delivery strengths to cement your ‘place leadership’ role and from this explore further opportunities as to how these arrangements will help build capacity - Build on existing corporate project evaluation mechanisms to develop a clear process for prioritisation and changing resource requirements

3. Consider ways and approaches to promote the ‘Tewkesbury Brand’ more effectively as part of your successful leadership of place approach.

4. Agree how you can proactively move the Garden Town delivery programme to the next phase by establishing/ developing stakeholder governance and engagement structures and processes.

5. Building upon your existing sound governance arrangements review both: - the timings of key meetings so that all members can contribute effectively

2

18 Smith Square, London, SW1P 3HZ T 020 7664 3000 F 020 7664 3030 E [email protected] www.local.gov.uk 32

- the length/ style of member reports so they more effectively inform and enable better decision making.

3. Summary of the Peer Challenge approach

3.1 The peer team

Peer challenges are delivered by experienced elected member and officer peers. The make- up of the peer team reflected your requirements and the focus of the peer challenge. Peers were selected on the basis of their relevant experience and expertise and agreed by you. The peers who delivered the peer challenge at TBC were:

- Stephen Walford – Chief Executive, Mid Devon District Council (Lead Peer) - Councillor Linda Haysey - Leader East Herts District Council - Councillor Allan Knox – Leader, Liberal Democrat Group, Ribble Valley District Council - Jo Yelland – Strategic Director – Exeter City Council - Mark Green – Director of Finance and Business Improvement, Maidstone Borough Council - Emily McGuinness – LGA Peer Challenge Manager

3.2 Scope and focus

The peer team considered the following five questions which form the core components looked at by all Corporate Peer Challenges cover. These are the areas we believe are critical to councils’ performance and improvement:

1. Understanding of the local place and priority setting: does the council understand its local context and place and use that to inform a clear vision and set of priorities?

2. Leadership of Place: does the council provide effective leadership of place through its elected members, officers and constructive relationships and partnerships with external stakeholders?

3. Organisational leadership and governance: are there effective political and managerial leadership supported by good governance and decision-making arrangements that respond to key challenges and enable change and transformation to be implemented?

4. Financial planning and viability: does the council have a financial plan in place to ensure long term viability and is there evidence that it is being implemented successfully?

5. Capacity to deliver: is organisational capacity aligned with priorities and does the council influence, enable and leverage external capacity to focus on agreed outcomes?

In addition to these questions, you asked the peer team to consider the following questions:

- Are we set up organisationally to successfully deliver our growth plans and ambitions? - In more general terms, do we have the ability and capacity to deliver the new Council Plan, particularly around our new priorities?

3.3 The peer challenge process

It is important to stress that this was not an inspection. Peer challenges are improvement focussed and tailored to meet individual councils’ needs. They are designed to complement and add value 3

18 Smith Square, London, SW1P 3HZ T 020 7664 3000 F 020 7664 3030 E [email protected] www.local.gov.uk 33

to a council’s own performance and improvement. The process is not designed to provide an in- depth or technical assessment of plans and proposals. The peer team used their experience and knowledge of local government to reflect on the information presented to them by people they met, things they saw and material that they read.

The peer team prepared for the peer challenge by reviewing a range of documents and information in order to ensure they were familiar with the Council and the challenges it is facing. The team then spent 4 days onsite at TBC during which they:

- Spoke to more than 120 people including a range of council staff together with councillors and external partners and stakeholders. - Gathered information and views from more than 40 meetings and additional research and reading. - Collectively spent more than 220 hours to determine their findings – the equivalent of one person spending more than 5 weeks in the council.

This report provides a summary of the peer team’s findings. It builds on the feedback presentation provided by the peer team at the end of their on-site visit (3-6 March 2020). In presenting feedback to you, they have done so as fellow local government officers and members, not professional consultants or inspectors. By its nature, the peer challenge is a snapshot in time. We appreciate that some of the feedback may be about things you are already addressing and progressing

4. Feedback

4.1 Understanding of the local place and priority setting

The TBC Plan, adopted in January 2020 and running until 2024, provides a sound blueprint for the future delivery of services within the borough as well as reaffirming a longstanding commitment to driving an ambitious growth agenda.

The council is rightly seen as a ‘market leader’ in identifying and more importantly, leading the delivery of local growth – something which is evidenced by the two Garden Community initiatives planned for the borough. This proactive approach is welcomed across the piece and the strong working relationships with partners from all sectors is testament to this. The council clearly has a strong sense of place, and its role within it – especially when it comes to leading successful growth plans.

The Council plan is a sound basis upon which to build and shape how the council supports its communities and stakeholders going forward, but there is more that could be done to ensure greater ownership of the plan and its priorities both within the council and externally with partners. The plan sets out the council priorities of:

- Finance and Resources - Economic Growth - Housing - Customer First. - Garden Communities - Sustainable Environment

The partners and staff we met with were clear about the council’s commitment to making Tewkesbury the place of choice for business and the accompanying aims of delivering employment land and housing, together with the right infrastructure and skills. There is less

4

18 Smith Square, London, SW1P 3HZ T 020 7664 3000 F 020 7664 3030 E [email protected] www.local.gov.uk 34

clarity around the other new priority areas – understandably given their relatively recent adoption.

There is a lack of clarity around how data is used to determine priority areas and if the council wishes to see parity across the four priority areas in terms of successful delivery, a clearer narrative would be helpful, explaining the rationale behind each priority area. Similarly, whilst it is encouraging to note the council makes effective use of benchmarking data such as CIPFA and LGInform in some areas of performance management, there is more that could be done to underpin more robust service planning in terms of gathering, analysing and using customer insight to inform prioritisation discussions and decisions.

The need for a more consistent approach to using customer insight is perhaps most relevant when considering the Customer First Council Plan Priority and improvements in this area will help inform the emerging Digitalisation and Transformation Programmes, ensuring that the needs of customers are clearly understood and services reshaped or redesigned accordingly.

The council clearly understands and is well embedded in the local business community and became one of the first district councils to work with the Local Enterprise Partnership to establish a Growth Hub on the site of the council offices. This is an excellent initiative and within the first year of operation over 1000 local businesses have interacted with the Hub with some impressive examples of supporting new business that have gone on to grow their business within the borough. Stakeholders from the business community hold the council in high regard, and they have a well-earned reputation of delivering results.

The co-location of other key public sector partners such as Gloucestershire Police, Department for Work and Pensions, Citizens Advice Bureau and Children’s Services in the Public Services Centre demonstrates the council’s commitment to not only making the best use of its assets, but also seeking to provide the most ‘joined up’ end-to-end service for some of their most vulnerable customers and residents.

The council’s plans to meaningfully respond to the Climate Change Emergency declared by members needs further detail and articulation. There are active campaign groups within the community, and indeed amongst elected members and how the council will meet climate- related targets alongside ambitious growth plans will be a considerable challenge, helped by the imminent appointment of a County-wide Climate Change co-ordinator.

4.2 Leadership of Place

Being identified as the ‘Fastest growing district outside of London’ in an ONS report in 2019 is a strapline that TBC is rightly proud of, and this has been achieved through a proactive approach to leadership of place, led from the front by the CEO but supported across the council. Officers and members have a visible and commendable passion for the district which is appreciated by partners and translates well within the partnership arena.

The council clearly has a good understanding of place and a strong presence within it - particularly in relation to growth. The adopted Joint Core Strategy, working in partnership with Gloucester City and Cheltenham Borough Councils is an impressive and challenging framework for sustainable growth which seeks to deliver: - 35,000 homes by 2031 – half will be built within Tewkesbury Borough - 50% increase in housing to 2031 - 200 hectares of employment land – 75% of which will be in Tewkesbury Borough - 40,000 new jobs.

5

18 Smith Square, London, SW1P 3HZ T 020 7664 3000 F 020 7664 3030 E [email protected] www.local.gov.uk 35

Such stretching targets cannot be delivered in isolation, and the council have forged highly effective working relationships with key local, sub-regional, regional and national partners, resulting in tangible outcomes such as delivering 25% extra homes over a 3 year period.

The council is well placed to exploit the opportunities presented by City Region proposals, where they will be fulfilling the Senior Responsible Officer role, along with the Midlands Connecting Corridor plans. Their positioning in these key regional programmes is testament to the personal, and therefore, organisational credibility of the CEO. In order to de-risk any strategic reliance on any one individual, some thought could be given to succession planning in this area. Ensuring sufficient and sustainable senior leadership capacity in these areas will be crucial to continuing success.

Small and medium businesses value the communication and advice channels that exist with TBC with the Growth Hub cited as excellent innovation. Building on the knowledge and expertise developed through the Growth Hub, the council may wish to consider slightly redefining its support for local business growth – moving more towards an enabling role rather than delivery. This will help manage resource requirements whilst wishing to maintain a strong economic development focus.

The council is able to work well across geographical and sector boundaries and this enables them to exert a level of influence disproportionate to the size of the organisation. Opportunities exist to broaden and strengthen these partnership arrangements - we heard from key partners that approaches to enhance partnership working would be well received and that the council would be ‘pushing on an open door’. Capitalising on the credibility of leading officers and members will help build capacity to deliver mutually beneficial ambitions within the borough, for example through more integrated working with Parish Councils.

Work to deliver the Town Centre Strategy, and in particular issues around parking, demonstrated that the working relationship between the County Council and the District Council is not always aligned – this relationship is crucial to the delivery of major projects e.g. Garden Communities and it is important that effective communication is maintained.

Nearly half of members were newly elected in May 2019, and bring with them a wealth of new skills, knowledge and experiences. Whilst members have the opportunity to engage in key policy areas through Scrutiny and the cross-party Cabinet, there is huge potential for all members to further develop their leadership roles. We mention elsewhere in this report the need for TBC to seek greater customer insight to inform key future decisions about service delivery and design, and elected members can play a useful role in this as conduits between their communities and the council. The Garden Communities projects will need careful community liaison and elected members are perfectly placed to support this and should be proactively engaged at the earliest opportunity.

External communication from TBC can be reactive and this will not serve the council well as high profile projects such as the Garden Communities move to the delivery phase. When press briefings have been held in the past, they have been well received as have website updates, press releases etc. The council has a small communications team – with only one dedicated officer who also edits the twice-yearly magazine posted to every household and leads on internal communications. A more proactive approach to external comms and branding of place would be valued by residents and businesses alike.

Given the pace of change at TBC - particularly large projects such as the Garden Town Communities and The Joint Core Strategy, there is a need for a more proactive external communication in the near future. Addressing this will require additional, specialist capacity

6

18 Smith Square, London, SW1P 3HZ T 020 7664 3000 F 020 7664 3030 E [email protected] www.local.gov.uk 36

and expertise, but will prove invaluable as the council seeks community engagement in, and support of major growth plans.

In times of crisis, most notably significant flooding events, TBC is able to show visible and effective leadership of place, and the same is true in terms leading on the growth agenda. In order to fulfil the ambitions of the Council Plan, similar levels of leadership and energy will need to be shown in other priority areas such as Garden Communities and Sustainable Environment.

4.3 Organisational leadership and governance

TBC benefits from the highly effective personal leadership of its CEO who is unanimously well-regarded and respected both within the council and amongst partners and stakeholders. The supportive leadership style he models is valued by staff at all levels. We heard of numerous hard-won projects and relationships that are of significant benefit to the council and can be directly attributed to the CEO, for which he is to be commended. The Council, in appointing a Deputy CEO, is already taking steps to ensure these impressive gains are not risked in the future by being too dependent on any one individual. The council could be more cognisant of this risk moving forward, especially as many high-profile projects will depend on a consistent approach from the council in the medium to longer term, and ensure that clarity exists around succession planning at a senior level.

The current senior management structure works well at the CLT level, which consists of the CEO, Deputy CEO and Monitoring Officer and we heard that other officers, including the s151 are involved when considered appropriate. This provides a good forum to establish Leadership level thinking and a collective position on important issues.

However, there is some confusion amongst both the next tier of management and the wider organisation about the roles, responsibilities and functions of the CLT and how it interacts with the Management Team – a much larger forum consisting of all Heads of Service along with CLT. Whilst the view from CLT is that the majority of key decisions are taken collectively at Management Team level, some greater clarity on the respective roles of each group would enhance transparency and confirm confidence that all key officers (especially those responsible for finance and planning) are appropriately involved in decision making.

Staff hold the authority in high regard as an employer – citing the benefits of the successful apprenticeship scheme, the numerous opportunities for personal and professional development and excellent working relationships amongst other examples. This investment in staff translates into an impressively enthusiastic and committed workforce. Transformation Plans, including the Workforce Development Strategy are at an early stage, as is the Digital Strategy, and whilst staff can see the rationale for needing to adapt the organisation to meet new and emerging challenges, those leading the process will need to ensure staff are fully engaged in shaping thinking at the earliest opportunity, creating a sense of ownership. There are enviable levels of good will amongst staff and it is vital these are maintained if organisational change and development are to be meaningful and sustainable.

Middle (Operational) Managers, as a cohort, are well engaged and have considerable development potential – and are keen to develop within and for the benefit of the council. However, they are under a lot of pressure and are at risk of becoming the “squeezed middle.” They can suffer from a lack of clear direction around prioritising competing demands, for example. All the staff we spoke to appreciate and support the council’s commitment to growth, but some also felt that there can sometimes be a conflict between the ‘nice to have’ ambitions and the ‘need to maintain’ core services. The mutually beneficial relationship between income generation and the ability to continue to deliver services valued 7

18 Smith Square, London, SW1P 3HZ T 020 7664 3000 F 020 7664 3030 E [email protected] www.local.gov.uk 37

by the community is well understood, but a better articulated rationale for project prioritisation is needed.

Elected members from all parties are positive about governance and decision-making processes, citing a particularly good approach to consensus building and collaborative decision making – the inclusion of an opposition member on the Executive Committee is testament to this. Through the Democratic Services Team, members are well supported and have an innovative member development programme that meets the needs of councillors now as well as looking at succession planning. There is an impressive Member Induction Process which was well regarded by all members and seen as setting the tone for positive member/officer relations and good working relationships.

Overview and Scrutiny has improved following changes made over the past 2-3 years; members and officers have more clarity on the role and purpose of the function and there seems to be appropriate levels of challenge in many cases. Opportunities exist to strengthen the role of Scrutiny in pre-decision and policy development work, thus creating greater capacity and eventually ownership of ultimate decisions – this will be particularly important should the council adopt the recommendations of this report and look to prioritise projects and activities in the future.

There is more that could be done to meet the needs of those members newly elected to the Council in May 2019, many of whom have work and/or family commitments which mean they find the current timing of meetings difficult to manage. Greater use of technology could promote virtual engagement outside of formal meetings and thus make better use of the skills and expertise of all members. Similarly, some new members of the council find formal committee reports inaccessible and reviewing how key information is presented to them, and the communities they serve, would be beneficial and further enhance engagement.

4.4 Financial planning and viability

The council benefits from an experienced and technically strong finance team supporting them as they address a potentially significant budget shortfall, resulting in members and officers being confident that the financial position is being well managed. However, the base revenue position continues to rely on NHB to a concerning degree. There is a likelihood that New Homes Bonus will either be significantly reduced/restructured or not be available beyond the short term. This poses a strategic risk to the future financial stability of the council. More detailed scenario planning involving members and officers would give greater visibility on various ‘what if’ scenarios and their impact. This will help the council manage this risk and inform wider prioritisation conversations within the council. Low Council Tax is an inherent handicap from a financial viability viewpoint, but to some extent this is now irretrievable (due to ‘capping’ restrictions) and other more innovative options will need to be played into the scenario planning work.

The Transform Work Group have proved a useful and successful forum for discussing savings ideas to date, although targets remain challenging e.g. £400K waste and recycling, £265K commercialisation, £500k other efficiencies. Continued, and perhaps widened, use of this group would support greater organisational input into defining future plans and in doing so, ensure the financial landscape is understood by all members and officers.

Even though the council is currently reporting a favourable variance from the 19/20 budget, latest revenue projections from Pixel are more pessimistic than those in the MTFS and the council should assure itself that it is adequately sighted on the risk judgements being made.

8

18 Smith Square, London, SW1P 3HZ T 020 7664 3000 F 020 7664 3030 E [email protected] www.local.gov.uk 38

Reserves have increased over past few years from a very low level and this is further evidence of sound financial planning and management. The successful approach to building levels of reserves should be documented in a formal, member approved Reserves Strategy to enhance financial monitoring and oversight.

The council has amassed a significant commercial portfolio from a small legacy investment and is now a major contributor to the revenue budget generating a net return of around £2.8m per annum. The council plans for further investment, continuing to use their ‘risk versus return’ decision making process. Due to a lack of investment opportunity within the borough, the council has made large investments across the country which could potentially expose them to greater risk, especially should the economic forecast shift in the future. More needs to be done to ensure there is greater organisational awareness and understanding of the risks of potential changes to the Commercial Investment Regulatory Framework to protect the interests of the council.

The Garden Town Programme represents major investment in and by the borough council, but successful delivery is dependent on Homes England funding of around £8.1 million and this is a risk to the council. Enhanced planning around alternative options – and likely impact – should these funds not materialise in part or in full would enhance financial and risk management.

4.5 Garden Town

TBC has taken a bold grasp of the opportunity to seek Garden Town Status for delivery of major projects in Ashchurch in Tewkesbury and in partnership with Cheltenham Borough Council on the Cyber Park development. These Garden Communities provide the opportunity for the council to deliver on its aims to deliver sustainable, well designed and vibrant communities.

These projects are complex and require effective stakeholder management from the outset. Tewkesbury Borough Council has made good progress to date in establishing an effective member reference group. The focus now needs to shift to the next phase and defining the projects in the wider community and sub-region. To be successful, the projects will need to demonstrate they are rooted in the community and that going forward, plans are co-owned and co-designed. In order to achieve this more effective multi-governance structures will need to be developed – the existing work has had limited exposure to other key players and this needs to be addressed before undertaking further work.

The Council needs now needs to consider how to structure and resource the various governance and delivery requirements such as:

- stakeholder panels, - Parish Council engagement - community groups - strategic delivery partners, - infrastructure groups, - landowner forums.

Outside the capacity-funded programme team, it is unclear if wider organisational capacity requirements are fully appreciated, and therefore adequately addressed. These major projects will require specialist communication and engagement support alongside the likely impact on support services such as Legal and Finance teams. When taken alongside wider organisational capacity concerns, and the need to prioritise both current and planned work,

9

18 Smith Square, London, SW1P 3HZ T 020 7664 3000 F 020 7664 3030 E [email protected] www.local.gov.uk 39

the council would benefit from taking time to map in more detail the likely resource implications of the Garden Towns across their projected delivery timescales.

4.6 Capacity to deliver

The council benefits from a hardworking and committed workforce which is ready to respond to the challenges ahead and to deliver the priorities of the new council plan. Staff are dedicated, forward looking and open to change – they represent an asset to the organisation and should continue to be nurtured and engaged in taking TBC forward.

The ‘can do’ attitude of staff is an enviable strength, but with the strategic and operational demands increasing as the new council plan comes online, along with the emerging work to support the Garden Town plans, there is a risk this willingness to help could lead to staff being over committed and this strength becoming a weakness.

There is a strong organisational focus on developing and retaining staff which has created a dedicated and loyal workforce. The Apprenticeship Scheme is particularly well-regarded and is a commendable reflection of the supportive workplace culture that is evident at TBC – the team heard some heart-warming stories from members of staff about the support and guidance they had received from all levels of the organisation as they developed in a series of roles. Staff recognise and value this investment in them, as reflected in the very positive 2018 staff survey responses, and this will stand the authority in good stead as it embraces future challenges.

There is a lack of clarity around priority work areas and projects, which impacts on organisational capacity to deliver. We heard numerous staff state that ‘everything is a priority’ and this, combined with a genuine desire to support the organisation, runs the risk of overloading staff and an inevitable drop in capacity. The extent, and process by which actions are prioritised is unclear and understanding is varied across the organisation. Some dedicated time spent prioritising the aims and ambitions of the Council Plan alongside available resources would go a long way to ensuring a committed, talented and capable workforce are deployed to maximum benefit and effect.

In the Corporate Project Management framework and process, the council already has a potentially effective means through which to manage change and demand. This process could be used to assess all projects and activities against the Corporate Priorities but there is a need for more organisational rigour and discipline to ensure a consistent approach across the whole organisation - it is vital that there is a focus on identifying and tracking benefits realisation, prioritising and even saying ‘no’ where resources do not permit.

There are recruitment concerns in key professional areas such as planning and legal services. Recent recruitment drives have had disappointing results, and although issues in these fields is not uncommon in the sector, when looking at the future significant growth plans for the borough, some more innovative thinking may be required to build capacity in these areas. The council benefits from the shared knowledge and capacity generated by the shared legal partnership although the partnership is now having to turn away work due to a lack of capacity. A review of pay banding may be one option to ensure the council is adequately and appropriately resourced to deliver ambitious growth plans.

The council has embraced alternative means of service delivery such as the local authority owned teckal company, Ubico Ltd, which operates the council’s waste, recycling, street cleansing and grounds maintenance contract and the One Legal shared services partnership. Given the positive relationships that exist across the sector and region, there is potential for the council to explore more commissioning opportunities, building on 10

18 Smith Square, London, SW1P 3HZ T 020 7664 3000 F 020 7664 3030 E [email protected] www.local.gov.uk 40

organisational knowledge and expertise in this area to ensure the council is always an effective client.

There are a suite of updated policies and strategies (Workforce development, ICT, Digital and Transformation) that will provide important cornerstones for organisational Transformation Plans, as will the creation of the new Corporate Business Transformation Team. Members of this team are positive about the potential of their role in helping the council deliver efficiency savings through greater digitalisation. In order for the programme to be truly transformational, the team may benefit from spending time establishing clear baseline metrics and targets so that statements such as ‘meeting our customer needs’ can be better quantified and measured e.g. what are the needs of customers, to what extent are we currently meeting them and where are the gaps? A comprehensive and regular resident’s survey could be an effective way of achieving this, and if the questions recommended via LGInform are used, the council will have ready access to comparative data in order to monitor performance. The work the council carried out in November 2019 through a snapshot survey and use of the Citizens Panel should prove useful foundations for this.

The Transformation Programme is well embedded in the organisation and has successfully delivered innovation and financial savings since its inception in 2014, however, taking into account the points made above about priority-setting and better management of staff resources, skills and knowledge, greater clarity around what success will look like – beyond digital enhancements – will give the programme greater longevity and sustainability. It will also ensure that the programme can be robustly managed, with benefits-realisation being key to delivering the efficiencies required to meet future budget requirements, or to free up resources to redeploy into other priority areas of work.

5. Next steps

5.1 Immediate next steps

We appreciate the senior managerial and political leadership will want to reflect on these findings and suggestions in order to determine how the organisation wishes to take things forward.

As part of the peer challenge process, there is an offer of further activity to support this. The LGA is well placed to provide additional support, advice and guidance on several areas for development and improvement and we would be happy to discuss this. Paul Clarke Principal Adviser is the main contact between your authority and the Local Government Association (LGA). His contact details are: [email protected]

In the meantime we are keen to continue the relationship we have formed with the Council throughout the peer challenge. We will endeavour to provide signposting to examples of practice and further information and guidance about the issues we have raised in this report to help inform ongoing consideration.

5.2 Follow up visit

The LGA Corporate Peer Challenge process includes a follow up visit. The purpose of the visit is to help the council assess the impact of the peer challenge and demonstrate the progress it has made against the areas of improvement and development identified by the peer team. It is a lighter-touch version of the original visit and does not necessarily involve all members of the

11

18 Smith Square, London, SW1P 3HZ T 020 7664 3000 F 020 7664 3030 E [email protected] www.local.gov.uk 41

original peer team. The timing of the visit is determined by the council. Our expectation is that it will occur within the next 2 years.

5.3. Next Corporate Peer Challenge

The current LGA sector-led improvement support offer includes an expectation that all councils will have a Corporate Peer Challenge or Finance Peer Review every 4 to 5 years. It is therefore anticipated that the council will commission their next Peer Challenge before 2024.

12

18 Smith Square, London, SW1P 3HZ T 020 7664 3000 F 020 7664 3030 E [email protected] www.local.gov.uk 42 Corporate Peer Challenge 2020- recommendation action plan

Recommendation Details of recommendation Action to be taken Responsible Implementation number Officer Date

KR = key recommendation KR1. Build upon your effective and well-embedded budget The MTFS recognises the likely Head of Finance planning arrangements into the future by ensuring withdrawal of NHB from the next financial and Asset Completed. (page 2, that you: - year. Management recommendation 1) - Take appropriate steps to minimise reliance on Information is currently being gathered to New Homes Bonus (NHB) as a means of allow Transform Working Group to December 2021 sustaining the base revenue requirements of the understand the scale of the deficit that organisation. this will cause and the choices that will - Prepare for possible changes to commercial need to be made between services and

investment regulatory framework through council priorities, if the full effects of the detailed scenario planning. withdrawal are felt. Recommendations from the working group will be made to (incl. continued and possible widened use of the appropriate decision making body. 43 Transform Working Group would support greater (page 8, para 5) organisational input into defining future plans and in Detailed scenario planning regarding the doing so, ensure the financial landscape is regulatory framework is not possible at April 2021

understood by all members and officers). And; the current time and our central understanding of the position will be fed The Garden Town Programme represents major into financial planning until the position is investment in and by the borough council, but either clear or resources are free to successful delivery is dependent on Homes England undertake scenario analysis. (page 9, para 3) funding of around £8.1 million and this is a risk to the council. Enhanced planning around alternative TWG will be used to review the gap

options – and likely impact – should these funds not between cost and resource and make December 2021 materialise in part or in full would enhance financial recommendations on the changes and risk. necessary to ensure the council remains financially sustainable.

In addition, the MTFS will become a July 2021 biannual exercise to increase member understanding and awareness of the financial challenges facing the Council.

1

Corporate Peer Challenge 2020- recommendation action plan

Recommendation Details of recommendation Action to be taken Responsible Implementation number Officer Date

KR = key recommendation The council is dependent on the funding being secured in order to deliver the bridge. Given the MTFS deficit, it is not March 2022 possible to add to this to in order to self fund the bridge. All resources will be focussed on ensuring the funding is available and drawn down. It is expected that a first draw could take place by December 2020. KR2. Create the necessary senior leadership This recommendation was pre-covid Corporate March 2021 resilience, focus on prioritisation and overall and therefore the financial and Management (page 2, resource requirements within the organisation resource challenge is more Team

44 recommendation going forward so that so that the council is on significant than at the time of the 2) as sound a footing as possible to continue to LGA report and even then there was meet the challenges facing the sector. As part a large degree of uncertainty in of this: - relation to Local Government finances. Actions currently being - Clarify roles and responsibilities of undertaken around prioritisation and Corporate Leadership Team (CLT) and resources with regards to the current Management Team in order, ensuring that challenge (if and when the council is opportunities for senior officers to contribute the other side of Covid then further and influence are well understood; prioritisation, resource and senior - Build on partnership and shared service leadership resilience will need to be delivery strengths to cement your ‘place looked at) include: leadership’ role and from this explore further opportunities as to how these arrangements - Heads of Service prioritising their will help build capacity (see also page 10) work streams to identify what - Build on existing corporate project could be deferred including evaluation mechanisms to develop a clear project related work. process for prioritisation and changing - Update on capacity list to identify resource requirements (‘prioritise the any potential spare capacity

2

Corporate Peer Challenge 2020- recommendation action plan

Recommendation Details of recommendation Action to be taken Responsible Implementation number Officer Date

KR = key recommendation priorities – see page 10) - Recovery fund has been approved that could be used for (incl. thought be given to succession planning to additional resources. (page 6, para 2) fulfil the council’s leadership responsibilities re: - Clarity of roles and city region, midlands connecting corridor) responsibilities will be re-affirmed as part of the interim arrangements to cover the Deputy CEO role. KR3. Consider ways and approaches to promote the Branding, particularly around the Head of Spring 2021 (page 2, ‘Tewkesbury Brand’ more effectively as part of Garden Town project will be Development/ recommendation your successful leadership of place approach. considered moving forward. Garden Town

45 3) Programme An additional communication’s officer Director/Head (page 6, para 7) (incl. more proactive approach to external has been recruited to give additional of Corporate comms) resilience to corporate Services communications. KR4. Agree how you can proactively move the TGT team are working with ARUP to Garden Town Spring 2021 Garden Town delivery programme to the next develop the governance and are Programme (page 2, phase by establishing/ developing stakeholder working to establish governance Director recommendation governance and engagement structures and structures for the program.

4) processes.

The TGT team meet regularly with (page 6, para 6) (incl. community liaison and engaging with Northway and ARPC and Member members at the earliest opportunity) and; Reference Panel to engage them Spring 2021 with the work being carried out and (the council would benefit from taking time to this will be continued. A terms of ref- (page 9, para 7) map in more detail the likely organisational erence are being created to support resource implications of the Garden Towns the group. There will also be full across their projected delivery timescales) member briefings to ensure all mem- bers are kept up to date with rele-

3

Corporate Peer Challenge 2020- recommendation action plan

Recommendation Details of recommendation Action to be taken Responsible Implementation number Officer Date

KR = key recommendation vant work.

The TGT are currently recruiting a Spring 2021 Place Manage which will focus on developing the “place” aspect of the Garden Town. Along with discus- sions with finance regarding for fund- ing for wider Garden Town support.

KR5. Building upon your existing sound governance The Council determines the Head of Current 46 arrangements review both: - Schedule of Meetings, including the Democratic practice, no (page 2, - the timings of key meetings so that all time those meetings commence. Services change is recommendation members can contribute effectively Individual Committees are always anticipated. 5) - the length/ style of member reports so they free to review and revise start times more effectively inform and enable better and any changes are made in decision making. consultation with the Chair and Lead Member as appropriate. Similarly, (page 8, para 3) (incl. greater use of technology to promote Working Groups, Ad-Hoc meetings, virtual engagement.) seminars etc. are set in consultation with the appropriate Lead Member and take place at a variety of times in the morning, afternoon and evening to cater for all Members.

4

Corporate Peer Challenge 2020- recommendation action plan

Recommendation Details of recommendation Action to be taken Responsible Implementation number Officer Date

KR = key recommendation A review of the report format is in the March 2022. Democratic Services Work Programme but due to other commitments it is not anticipated that this will be complete until the end of next year. All the Council’s meetings are Current currently held virtually and the use of Practice. new technology has been embraced by Members. KR6. Building on the knowledge and expertise Consideration will be given to the Head of Jun 2021 47 developed through the Growth Hub, the council recommendation. This needs to be Development (page 6, para 3) may wish to consider slightly redefining its balanced with the contractual support for local business growth – moving obligation the council has with the more towards an enabling role rather than Local Enterprise Partnership regards delivery. This will help manage resource to the running of the Growth Hub. requirements whilst wishing to maintain a strong This will be looked at as part of the economic development focus. development of the new Economic Development and Tourism Strategy. KR7. Opportunities exist to strengthen the role of The Overview and Scrutiny Head of March 2021 Scrutiny in pre-decision and policy development Committee receives the Executive Corporate (page 8, para 2) work Committee Forward Plan at each of Services/Head its meetings and has been of Democratic particularly keen to ensure the Services document is well populated. The Committee also considers its own Work Programme at each meeting and conducts an annual review of policies to ascertain whether they

5

Corporate Peer Challenge 2020- recommendation action plan

Recommendation Details of recommendation Action to be taken Responsible Implementation number Officer Date

KR = key recommendation require review and what, if any, the Committee’s role is in that review. Progress on projects are reviewed as part of the performance tracker and any requiring further scrutiny are highlighted by Members for further work to be undertaken. The Council and the Executive Committee also refer matters directly to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for further work to be undertaken. A session

48 with the committee will be held to obtain their views on how to maximise the value of O&S. KR8. Look at innovative recruitment initiatives, We are in the process of procuring Head of Spring 2021 particularly around Planning and One Legal and installing a new system for Corporate (page 10, para 6) services recruitment which will make our Services/Head ‘front-face’ much more attractive and of modern to prospective applicants. Development/ This should be in place by Spring Borough 2021. Also more broadly we are Solicitor building a ‘total rewards’ offer to sell the considerable benefits of working for our Council.

We will be joining new national November 2020 initiatives to recruit those who previously were employed in Legal, Planning, and ICT, but have taken time out (to look after children for

6

Corporate Peer Challenge 2020- recommendation action plan

Recommendation Details of recommendation Action to be taken Responsible Implementation number Officer Date

KR = key recommendation example). KR9. Consider the undertaking of a comprehensive By the end of the financial year the Head of March 2021 and regular resident’s survey. Corporate Services Team will Corporate (page 11, para 1) consider the options and engage Services Member’s appropriately. This could include: - the undertaking internally of a snapshot survey (using Borough News and online) - commissioning externally a statistically weighted snapshot

49 survey - an ongoing survey through the website and hardcopy forms.

7

Agenda Item 7b TEWKESBURY BOROUGH COUNCIL

Report to: Executive Committee

Date of Meeting: 18 November 2020

Subject: Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS) Approval for Publication

Report of: CIL Manager for the JCS Authorities

Corporate Lead: Head of Development Services

Lead Member: Lead Member for Built Environment

Number of Appendices: Three

Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to update Executive Committee on the preparation of the Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS) for 2020 including the required Infrastructure List.

Recommendation: That it be RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL: 1. That the publication of the Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS) for 2020 be APPROVED. 2. That it be NOTED that the Annual Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Rates Summary Statement will be published alongside the IFS.

Reasons for Recommendation: 1. All “contribution receiving authorities” are now required, under the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended) to produce an IFS at least annually [Regulation 121A]. 2. The deadline for producing the first IFS and publishing it on the Council’s website is 31 December 2020. Detailed requirements are set out in Schedule 2 to the Regulations and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) requires that it is sent details of the website address where the IFS can be found.

Resource Implications: None – work undertaken within existing capacity.

Legal Implications: The production of an IFS, including a regulation 121A Infrastructure List, is a statutory obligation as a result of amendments to the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (the Regulations) by the Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) (England) (No.2) Regulations 2019. As is the publication of the Annual CIL Rates Summary Statement.

50 Those amendments also revoked, as of 1 September 2019, Regulation 123 of the Regulations thereby removing the restrictions there had been previously, both on the pooling of monies from s106 obligations and also the spending of both CIL and s106 monies on the same infrastructure. The regulation 123 infrastructure list previously published alongside the adoption of CIL by the Council remains the Council’s infrastructure list until replaced by the regulation 121A Infrastructure List within the IFS.

Risk Management Implications: 1. Failure to publish the required statements would be a breach of Regulations.

2. Though the Infrastructure List will not dictate how funds must be spent, it will set out the Council’s intentions and its publication as part of the IFS will provide clarity and transparency for communities and developers on the infrastructure that is expected to be delivered.

3. Not having a clear prioritisation of infrastructure projects may risk that CIL receipts are not targeted towards the most critical infrastructure needed to deliver development.

Performance Management Follow-up: 1. Statutory obligation to produce an annual IFS requires detailed accounts of income and expenditure for both CIL and S106 to be maintained to ensure that the flow of income- purpose-expenditure is transparent.

2. As part of the IFS, the Infrastructure List must be updated annually through the maintenance of the JCS Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) Project Tracker in collaboration/consultation with Infrastructure Providers.

Environmental Implications: None directly, though the effective use of CIL receipts has the potential to have a positive impact on all three dimensions of sustainable development through the provision of infrastructure necessary to facilitate growth including environmental infrastructure.

1.0 INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

1.1 Regulation 121A requires Charging Authorities to produce an IFS which, in accordance with Schedule 2, provides details of not only CIL but also S106 income and expenditure and an Infrastructure List.

1.2 The CIL Report, on the previous financial year ("the reported year") must include the answers to specific questions on billed and received income, committed and spent expenditure.

1.3 The S106 report, again on the same ‘reported year’, must include answers to specific questions on not only balances, income, allocation and expenditure of financial contributions but also non-financial contributions that have been secured, such as affordable housing.

1.4 The ‘Infrastructure List’ is “a statement of the infrastructure projects or types of infrastructure which the charging authority intends will be, or may be, wholly or partly funded by CIL” (other than CIL which relates to the neighbourhood portion).

51 1.5 The Council must also produce an Annual CIL Rates Summary Statement applying the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) CIL index, published in November each year, to the existing Charging Schedule to produce a Charging Schedule for the following calendar year. Regulation 121C (1) requires it to be published no earlier than 2 December and no later than 31 December.

2.0 REPORT DETAILS

2.1 Infrastructure Funding Statement - CIL Report

2.1.1 Tewkesbury Borough Council and JCS partners in Cheltenham and Gloucester began charging CIL on applications received after 1 January 2019, however the first payment was made on 7 October 2019, within the reporting year

2.1.2 CIL Receipts for the reporting year were £37,165.55 and from this we deduct: £1,858.28 paid towards administrative expenses. £8,190.00 ‘Neighbourhood Fund’ which was distributed to Parish Councils; and this leaves a balance of - £27,117.28 ‘Infrastructure Fund’, for infrastructure required to deliver planned development, held by the Borough Council. The CIL report also provides details of the £427,453.55 in Demand Notices issued during the reporting year which, in line with the Council’s adopted Instalments Policy, will be received over the next two years.

2.2 Infrastructure Funding Statement - S106 Report

2.2.1 At the start of April 2019 there was a balance of £5,808,354.99. During this year we received £4,122,767.88 and spent £1,049,767.65. At the end of March 2020 there was a closing balance of £9,509,293.15. The S106 report also provides details of the £1,453,447.58 off-site financial contributions secured and the 310 affordable homes secured on site.

2.3 Infrastructure Funding Statement - Infrastructure List

2.3.1 In the adopted JCS IDP a number of projects were identified as critical. This was updated in 2017 and 2020 and it is those projects that have been selected for inclusion in the Infrastructure List.

2.3.2 The Borough Council and JCS partners will review this list, as a minimum, on an annual basis, alongside the preparation of their Infrastructure Funding Statement(s).

2.4 The Annual CIL Rates Summary Statement

2.4.1 The Annual CIL Rates Summary Statement (Appendix 2) is based on the RICS CIL Index, published on 26 October ready for 1 November.

3.0 NEXT STEPS

3.1 The recommendation will be considered by Council on 8 December.

3.2 Publication of both reports on the Borough Council’s website and notification to the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) in December 2020.

52

4.0 OTHER OPTIONS CONSIDERED

4.1 None as the publication of the IFS and CIL rates summary statement are a statutory requirement.

5.0 RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICIES/STRATEGIES

5.1 Joint Core Strategy 2011 to 2031 (December 2017).

5.2 Joint Core Strategy 2011 to 2031 Infrastructure Delivery Plan (2014) and Addendum (2017).

6.0 RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICIES

6.1 The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended).

6.2 The Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) (England) (No.2) Regulations 2019.

7.0 RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS (Human/Property)

7.1 As above.

8.0 SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS (Social/Community Safety/Cultural/ Economic/ Environment)

8.1 None directly, though the effective use of CIL receipts has the potential to have a positive impact on all three dimensions of sustainable development through the provision of infrastructure necessary to facilitate growth including environmental infrastructure.

9.0 IMPACT UPON (Value For Money/Equalities/E-Government/Human Rights/Health And Safety)

9.1 None directly.

10.0 RELATED DECISIONS AND ANY OTHER RELEVANT FACTS

10.1 October 2018 - Adoption of CIL Charging Schedule and supporting policies.

Background Papers: None.

Contact Officer: CIL Manager. Tel: 01684 272261 Email: [email protected]

Appendices: 1. DRAFT Tewkesbury Borough Council Infrastructure Funding Statement 2020. 2. DRAFT Tewkesbury Borough Council Annual CIL Rates Summary Statement 2020. 3. An introduction to Infrastructure Funding Statements.

53

Appendix 1 Infrastructure Funding Statement for Tewkesbury Borough Council 2019/2020

Tewkesbury Borough Council December 2020

Page 1 of 20 54

Contents Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Report ...... 3 Introduction ...... 3 Questions and Answers ...... 3 Section 106 (S106) Report ...... 7 Introduction ...... 7 Questions and Answers ...... 7 Infrastructure List ...... 14

Page 2 of 20 55

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Report

Tewkesbury Borough Council December 2020 Introduction

The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 (as amended) require Contribution Receiving Authorities to publish:

“Annual infrastructure funding statements … no later than 31st December in each calendar year”.

Regulation 121A(1)

The annual ‘infrastructure funding statement’ (IFS) must include:

“ a report about CIL, in relation to the previous financial year ("the reported year"), which includes the matters specified in paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 ("CIL report")”.

Regulation 121A(1)(b)

Questions and Answers

Schedule 2 sets out a series of questions that must be answered in the annual infrastructure funding statement. The structure of this report is based around answering each of those questions.

Question 1. The total value of CIL set out in all demand notices issued in the reported year?

Regulation 121A(1)(a)

Answer £427,453.55

Question 2. The total amount of CIL receipts for the reported year?

Regulation 121A(1)(b)

Answer £37,165.55

Question 3. The total amount of CIL receipts, collected by the authority, or by another person on its behalf, before the reported year but which have not been allocated?

Regulation 121A(1)(c)

Answer £0 (commenced charging on 1st January 2019 no receipts until 20th December 2019)

Page 3 of 20 56

Question 4. The total amount of CIL receipts, collected by the authority, or by another person on its behalf, before the reported year and which have been allocated in the reported year?

Regulation 121A(1)(d)

Answer £0

Question 5. The total amount of CIL expenditure for the reported year?

Regulation 121A(1)(e)

Answer Regulation 59A Neighbourhood £0

Regulation 61 Administration £1,858.28

Regulation 59(1) Infrastructure £0

Question 6. The total amount of CIL receipts, whenever collected, which were allocated but not spent during the reported year?

Regulation 121A(1)(f)

Answer £0

Question 7. In relation to CIL expenditure for the reported year, summary details of—

Regulation 121A(1)(g)

Question 7(i) The items of infrastructure on which CIL (including land payments) has been spent, and the amount of CIL spent on each item?

Answer None (apart from administrative costs under Regulation 61 income up to 31st March 2020 has been rolled forward in to the 2020/21 financial year)

Question 7(ii) The amount of CIL spent on repaying money borrowed, including any interest, with details of the items of infrastructure which that money was used to provide (wholly or in part)?

Answer £0

Question 7(iii) The amount of CIL spent on administrative expenses pursuant to regulation 61, and that amount expressed as a percentage of CIL collected in that year in accordance with that regulation?

Answer Regulation 61 Administration £1,858.28 (5%)

Question 8. In relation to CIL receipts, whenever collected, which were allocated but not spent during the reported year, summary details of the items of infrastructure on which CIL (including land payments) has been allocated, and the amount of CIL allocated to each item?

Regulation 121A(1)(h)

Answer £0

Page 4 of 20 57

Question 9. The amount of CIL passed to –

Regulation 121A(1)(i)

Question 9(i) Any parish council under regulation 59A or 59B?

Answer £0

Question 9(ii) Any person under regulation 59(4)?

Answer £0

Question 10. Summary details of the receipt and expenditure of CIL to which regulation 59E or 59F applied during the reported year including -

Regulation 121A(1)(j)

Question 10(i) The total CIL receipts that regulations 59E and 59F applied to?

Answer £0

Question 10(ii) The items of infrastructure to which the CIL receipts to which regulations 59E and 59F applied have been allocated or spent, and the amount of expenditure allocated or spent on each item?

Answer Description: None

Amount: £0

Question 11. Summary details of any notices served in accordance with regulation 59E, including -

Regulation 121A(1)(k)

Question 11(i) The total value of CIL receipts requested from each parish council?

Answer £0

Question 11(ii) Any funds not yet recovered from each parish council at the end of the reported year?

Answer £0

Question 12. The total amount of—

Regulation 121A(1)(l)

Question 12(i) CIL receipts for the reported year retained at the end of the reported year other than those to which regulation 59E or 59F applied?

Answer £35,307.27

Question 12(ii) CIL receipts from previous years retained at the end of the reported year other than those to which regulation 59E or 59F applied?

Answer £0

Question12(iii) CIL receipts for the reported year to which regulation 59E or 59F applied retained at the end of the reported year?

Page 5 of 20 58

Answer £0

Question 12(iv) CIL receipts from previous years to which regulation 59E or 59F applied retained at the end of the reported year?

Answer £0

Regulation 121A(2)

For the purposes of paragraph 1—

(a) CIL collected by an authority includes land payments made in respect of CIL charged by that authority;

(b) CIL collected by way of a land payment has not been spent if at the end of the reported year—

(i) development (within the meaning in TCPA 1990) consistent with a relevant purpose has not commenced on the acquired land; or

(ii) the acquired land (in whole or in part) has been used or disposed of for a purpose other than a relevant purpose; and the amount deemed to be CIL by virtue of regulation 73(9) has not been spent;

(c) CIL collected by an authority includes infrastructure payments made in respect of CIL charged by that authority;

(d) CIL collected by way of an infrastructure payment has not been spent if at the end of the reported year the infrastructure to be provided has not been provided;

(e) the value of acquired land is the value stated in the agreement made with the charging authority in respect of that land in accordance with regulation 73(6)(d);

(f) the value of a part of acquired land must be determined by applying the formula in regulation 73(10) as if references to N in that provision were references to the area of the part of the acquired land whose value is being determined;

(g) the value of an infrastructure payment is the CIL cash amount stated in the agreement made with the charging authority in respect of the infrastructure in accordance with regulation 73A(7)(e).

Page 6 of 20 59

Section 106 (S106) Report

Tewkesbury Borough Council December 2020 Introduction

The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 (as amended) require Contribution Receiving Authorities to publish:

“Annual infrastructure funding statements … no later than 31st December in each calendar year”.

Regulation 121A(1)

The annual ‘infrastructure funding statement’ (IFS) must include:

“A report about planning obligations, in relation to the reported year, which includes the matters specified in paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 and may include the matters specified in paragraph 4 of that Schedule ("section 106 report")”

Regulation 121A(1)(c) Questions and Answers

Schedule 2 sets out a series of questions that must be answered in the annual infrastructure funding statement. The structure of this report is based around answering each of those questions.

Question 1. The total amount of money to be provided under any planning obligations which were entered into during the reported year?

Regulation 121A(3)(a)

Answer

Planning Reference Location Date Amount 17/00520/OUT Land at Fiddington Ashchurch 14 June 2019 £30,000.00 15/00841/FUL Land to the Rear of Church Row 18 April 2019 £58,618.96 Gretton 17/01203/FUL Land to the South of the A46 and 11 March £1,200,000 north of Tirle Brook Tewkesbury 2020 18/00361/FUL Land adjoining Sunnyside Ash Lane 16 May 2019 £164,828.62 Down Hatherley TOTAL £1,453,447.58

Question 2. The total amount of money under any planning obligations which was received during the reported year?

Regulation 121A(3)(b)

Page 7 of 20 60

Answer £4,122,767.88

Question 3. The total amount of money under any planning obligations which was received before the reported year which has not been allocated by the authority?

Regulation 121A(3)(c)

Answer £6,487,075.39

Question 4. Summary details of any non-monetary contributions to be provided under planning obligations which were entered into during the reported year, including details of—

Regulation 121A(3)(d)

Question 4(i) In relation to affordable housing, the total number of units which will be provided?

Answer

Planning Reference Location Date Number (Dw) 17/00520/OUT Land at Fiddington Ashchurch 14 June 2019 298 16/01172/FUL Land South West of Wainlode 19 July 2019 12 Lane TOTAL 310

Question 4(ii) In relation to educational facilities, the number of school places for pupils which will be provided, and the category of school at which they will be provided?

Answer As a two –tier authority area Gloucestershire County Council will be publishing an Infrastructure Funding Statement and will include details of planning obligations it has secured by way of S106, as well as S278 in its areas of competence.

Question 5. The total amount of money (received under any planning obligations) which was allocated but not spent during the reported year for funding infrastructure?

Regulation 121A(3)(e)

Answer £0.00

Question 6. The total amount of money (received under any planning obligations) which was spent by the authority (including transferring it to another person to spend)?

Regulation 121A(3)(f)

Answer £1,049,767.65

Question 7. In relation to money (received under planning obligations) which was allocated by the authority but not spent during the reported year, summary details of the items of infrastructure on which the money has been allocated, and the amount of money allocated to each item?

Regulation 121A(3)(g)

Answer

Page 8 of 20 61

ALLOCATED BUT NOT SPENT

Title Description Allocation Reference Received £0.00 £0.00

Question 8. In relation to money (received under planning obligations) which was spent by the authority during the reported year (including transferring it to another person to spend), summary details of—

Regulation 121A(3)(h)

Question 8(i) The items of infrastructure on which that money (received under planning obligations) was spent, and the amount spent on each item?

Answer

SPENT

Source Purpose Parish/Supplier Amount For 01/01124/OUT Green Hartell N B £2,091.28 Dog Bins/Signs Infrastructure Construction 01/10875/1124/OUT Burial Facilities Brockworth Parish £480.00 Brockworth Council burial ground 01/10875/1124/OUT Leisure Facilities Hucclecote Parish £2,649.73 Hucclecote Council Playground Works 04/2868/1421/OUT Community St Philip & St James £2,918.90 Works at St Facilities Church Centre James Church Centre 04/2868/1421/OUT Community Badgeworth Parish -£7,850.00 Village Hall - Facilities Council Cold Pool Lane 04/2868/1421/OUT Leisure Facilities Badgeworth Parish £192,432.00 Maintenance of Council / Andy Cold Pool Lane Crawford Kitchen Pavilion Bedrooms / RJH Electrical Solutions / West Mercia Energy 04/2868/1421/OUT Public Open Finance and Asset £192,418.67 POS - Cold Pool Space Management Lane 05/00883/OUT Community Hartell N B £900.00 Longford Village Facilities Construction / Hall Wybone Ltd 05/00883/OUT Green Hartell N B £1,141.83 Dog Bins/Signs Infrastructure Construction / Wybone Ltd 06/00193/FUL Community Brockworth Parish £1,789.29 Court Road Facilities Council Community Centre

Page 9 of 20 62

07/00448/OUT Community Bishops Cleeve £62,174.09 Community Facilities Parish Council / DJ Barn Project - Willems t/a Onecall Bishops Cleeve Construction Services 08/01221/OUT Leisure Facilities Henley School / £13,984.53 Henley Bank Finance and Asset High School Management Swimming Pool 10/00091/OUT Green Wybone Ltd £894.16 Dog Bins/Signs Infrastructure 10/00091/OUT Leisure Facilities Bentham Bowling £25,063.00 Improvements Property to Bowls Club 10/00576/APP Green DJ Willems t/a £20.49 Dog Bins/Signs Infrastructure Onecall Construction Services 10/01005/OUT Green Hartell N B £2,458.02 Dog Bins/Signs Infrastructure Construction / Wybone Ltd 10/01216/OUT Green DJ Willems t/a £15,428.89 Recycling/Waste Infrastructure Onecall Construction Bins Services / Wybone Ltd 11/00357/APP Green DJ Willems t/a £20.49 Dog Bins/Signs Infrastructure Onecall Construction Services 11/00622/FUL Leisure Facilities Northway Parish £3,215.16 Northway Council Footpath at pitches 12/00464/OUT Green Winchcombe Town £1,389.68 Dog Bins/Signs Infrastructure Council 12/01078/FUL Green Wybone Limited £1,206.41 Dog Bins/Signs Infrastructure 12/01256/OUT Community Brockworth Link £27,000.00 Brockworth Link Facilities Community Project - Salary Support 12/01257/APP Green DJ Willems t/a £6.85 Dog Bins/Signs Infrastructure Onecall Construction Services 13/000978/FUL Community Twyning Parish £22,704.32 Tywning Play Facilities Council Area 13/000978/FUL Green Hartell N B £165.00 Dog Bins/Signs Infrastructure Construction 13/000978/FUL Leisure Facilities Twyning Parish £32,288.59 Development of Council field - Twyning 13/00114/FUL Leisure Facilities Alderton Parish £895.00 Pitch Council improvement - Alderton 13/00163/APP Green DJ Willems t/a £1,379.31 Dog Bins/Signs Infrastructure Onecall Construction Services / Hartell N B Construction

Page 10 of 20 63

13/00311/APP Green DJ Willems t/a £96.90 Dog Bins/Signs Infrastructure Onecall Construction Services 13/00794/FUL Community Witcombe & £5,863.03 Bentham Village Facilities Bentham Village Hall Hall equipment 13/00794/FUL Green Witcombe & £0.01 Recycling/Waste Infrastructure Bentham Village Hall Bins 13/01205/FUL Community Twyning Parish £6,758.30 Twyning Village Facilities Council / Travis Hall Perkins Trading Co Ltd 13/01205/FUL Green Wybone Limited £1,569.72 Recycling/Waste Infrastructure Bins 13/01205/FUL Leisure Facilities Twyning Parish £26,371.41 Resurfacing Council / Travis Tennis Courts - Perkins Trading Co Twyning Ltd 14/00074/OUT Community Stoke Orchard & £4,445.53 Stoke Orchard Facilities Tredington Parish Community Centre 14/00211/OUT Green DJ Willems t/a £539.87 Dog Bins/Signs Infrastructure Onecall Construction Services 14/00211/OUT Leisure Facilities DJ Willems t/a £19,769.06 Mitton Play Onecall Construction Area Services / Fenland Leisure Products Ltd 14/00432/FUL Green Gotherington Parish £253.85 Dog Bins/Signs Infrastructure Council 14/00432/FUL Leisure Facilities Gotherington Parish £7,748.93 Sports Facilities Council - Freeman Field Gotherington 14/00583/OUT Green Highnam Parish £417.38 Dog Bins/Signs Infrastructure Council 14/00583/OUT Green Highnam Parish £4,366.77 Recycling/Waste Infrastructure Council Bins 14/00583/OUT Health NHS Gloucestershire £47,755.28 Highnam CCG Surgery Extension 14/00583/OUT Leisure Facilities Highnam Parish £1,301.95 Highnam Parish Council Plan works 14/00838/FUL Green Shurdington Parish £29,058.13 Recycling/Waste Infrastructure Council Bins 15/00131/OUT Community Maisemore Village £8,041.44 Maisemore Facilities Hall Village Hall 15/00394/OUT Community Toddington Village £200.44 Toddington Facilities Hall Village Hall improvement 15/00394/OUT Green Toddington Village £2,581.40 Recycling/Waste Infrastructure Hall Bins

Page 11 of 20 64

15/00394/OUT Leisure Facilities Toddington Village £41,716.27 Toddington Hall Sports Facilities 15/00841/FUL Green Gotherington Parish £1,804.70 Recycling/Waste Infrastructure Council Bins 15/00965/OUT Green DJ Willems t/a £320.00 Dog Bins/Signs Infrastructure Onecall Construction Services 15/01177/FUL Leisure Facilities Bishops Cleeve £27,005.95 Cleeve Sports Parish Council / Centre Cleeve School improvements Enterprises 15/01177/FUL Monitoring Bishops Cleeve £3,600.00 Due Diligence - Parish Council / Pick Cleeve Everard Community Centre 16/00965/OUT Green Hartell N B £305.00 Dog Bins/Signs Infrastructure Construction 17/00347/FUL Green DJ Willems t/a £1,738.28 Dog Bins/Signs Infrastructure Onecall Construction Services 17/00347/FUL Community Wheatpieces Parish £92,576.63 Walton Cardiff Facilities Council Community Centre 17/01041/FUL Community Toddington Village £17,734.00 Annexe - Facilities Hall Toddington Village Hall 17/01041/FUL Community Toddington Village -£900.00 Community Facilities Hall Project - Toddington Various small Public Open Finance and Asset £97,461.73 Various Open developments Space Management Space within Borough TOTAL £1,049,767.65

Question 8(ii) The amount of money (received under planning obligations) spent on repaying money borrowed, including any interest, with details of the items of infrastructure which that money was used to provide (wholly or in part)?

Answer £0

Question 8(iii) The amount of money (received under planning obligations) spent in respect of monitoring (including reporting under regulation 121A) in relation to the delivery of planning obligations

Answer £0

Question 9. The total amount of money (received under any planning obligations) during any year which was retained at the end of the reported year, and where any of the retained money has been allocated for the purposes of longer term maintenance ("commuted sums"), also identify separately the total amount of commuted sums held?

Page 12 of 20 65

Regulation 121A(3)(i)

Answer Rolled Forward TOTAL £9,509,293.15

Of which Commuted Sums TOTAL £876,182.13

There are also matters which may be included in the section 106 report for each reported year —

Regulation 121A(4)

(a) Summary details of any funding or provision of infrastructure which is to be provided through a highway agreement under section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 which was entered into during the reported year?

(b) Summary details of any funding or provision of infrastructure under a highway agreement which was provided during the reported year?

Answer As a two –tier authority area Gloucestershire County Council will be publishing an Infrastructure Funding Statement and will include details of planning obligations secured in its areas of competence as Local Highways and Passenger Transport Authority.

Regulation 121A(5)

For the purposes of paragraph 3 -

(a) where the amount of money to be provided under any planning obligations is not known, an authority must provide an estimate;

(b) a non-monetary contribution includes any land or item of infrastructure provided pursuant to a planning obligation;

(c) where the amount of money spent in respect of monitoring in relation to delivery of planning obligations is not known, an authority must provide an estimate."

Page 13 of 20 66

Joint Core Strategy (JCS) Authorities of Tewkesbury Borough Council, Gloucester City Council and Cheltenham Borough Council Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Infrastructure List December 2020

Introduction

The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 (as amended) require Contribution Receiving Authorities to publish:

“Annual infrastructure funding statements … no later than 31st December in each calendar year”.

Regulation 121A(1)

The annual ‘infrastructure funding statement’ (IFS) must include:

“A statement of the infrastructure projects or types of infrastructure which the charging authority intends will be, or may be, wholly or partly funded by CIL (other than CIL to which regulation 59E or 59F applies) ("the infrastructure list")”

Regulation 121A(1)(a)

The removal of the Regulation 123 'pooling restriction', by the 2019 Amendment Regulation, is intended to make it easier to deliver major infrastructure projectsi. It allows local authorities to combine CIL and 106 revenues towards the same infrastructure project or item.

The inclusion of a project within the Infrastructure List does not represent a commitment that the Councils will necessarily spend CIL monies on that item and for clarity, there is no priority implied by the order in which infrastructure projects/types appear in the List.

Projects have been selected from those identified as ‘critical’ to the delivery of the Cheltenham, Gloucester and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy (JCS) 2011 to 2031 and the adopted and emerging District Level Plans, in the JCS Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) 2014, as updated in the 2017 Addendum and the most up to date information from an annual review to present progress as of July 2020 in the JCS IDP Project Tracker. This has included cross-referencing with projects that partners have included in the Gloucestershire Economic Growth Capital Investment Pipeline (CIP). The projects are required for the delivery of the quantum of development planned up until 2031 in the JCS.

As set out at CIL Regulation 122, planning obligations such as a section 106 agreements, will continue to be sought alongside the CIL to secure infrastructure which is “necessary to make the

Page 14 of 20 67

development acceptable in planning terms, “is directly related to the development and is “fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development”.

The JCS Councils will review this list at least annually as part of the preparation of their Infrastructure Funding Statement(s).

Page 15 of 20 68

Scheme Description Purpose Stage Cost Est. Secured Sought Sought CIL S106/S278 A40(T) Innsworth New signalised junction on To facilitate development in Tbc £1,500,000 Gateway Project A40 between Longford and SA1 Innsworth & Twigworth Planning £3,000,000 £1,500,000 Roundabout Elmbridge Court roundabouts A4019/ B4634 Old Revised A4019 traffic signals To facilitate development in Tbc Tbc Gloucester Rd at site access junction SA2 South Churchdown Feasibility Unknown £0 identified in the draft LTP3 New junction on A38 New priority junction on To facilitate development in Tbc £3,000,000 A38 giving priority to new SA1 Innsworth & Twigworth highway link accessing to Feasibility £3,000,000 £0 new junction on A40 (scheme 17) A38-A40 highway link New 50 mph highway link, To facilitate development in Tbc £7,500,000

69 joining upgraded junctions SA1 Innsworth & Twigworth Feasibility £7,500,000 £0 on A40 and A38 through development site A38 Tewkesbury Road A38 Tewkesbury Road to be Reducing forecast congestion - Tbc £1,000,000 downgraded between Demand reduction to ensure A40/A38 Longford signalised efficient operation of the crossroads and new highway network and A38/Twigworth junction to encourage more sustainable 20mph and encourage as a modes of travel sustainable travel corridor. Feasibility £1,000,000 £0 Access from A38 north is restricted to one lane entry to crossroads, A40 west to A38 north - right hand turn banned with alternative route via A40 / A38 Link Road. A38 Tewkesbury Road Upgrade A38 Tewkesbury Reducing forecast congestion - Tbc £1,000,000 Feasibility £1,000,000 £0 Rd / Down Hatherley Lane Capacity increase to ensure

Page 16 of 20

junction, to include a the efficient operation of the dedicated right turn from highway network A38 south. A417 Brockworth Bypass Reducing forecast congestion – Tbc £1,000,000 Signalising the westbound Flow management to ensure Feasibility £1,000,000 £0 and eastbound ‘Off-slips’. the efficient operation of the highway network A38 / A4173 St. Barnabas Remove roundabout and Reducing forecast congestion – Tbc £6,500,000 roundabout signalising junction (with Flow management to ensure removal of Reservoir Rd the efficient operation of the Feasibility £7,500,000 £1,000,000 approach arm) Part-funded highway network by Gfirst LEP A430/A417 Castlemeads Reducing forecast congestion – Tbc £1,000,000 Upgrade signals to MOVA or Flow management to ensure SCOOT operation to Feasibility £1,000,000 £0 the efficient operation of the optimise signal timings highway network A38 Coombe Hill Reducing forecast congestion – Tbc £1,000,000 70 Flow management to ensure Optimise signals Feasibility £1,000,000 £0 the efficient operation of the highway network New junction west of M5 New 50 mph dual To facilitate development in Tbc £22,500,000 J10 carriageway two-lane link SA7 West Cheltenham road, providing free-flow Feasibility £22,500,000 £0 access from A4019 / M5J10 to West of Cheltenham site only. West of M5 J10 Major/Minor Priority To facilitate development in Tbc £3,000,000 Junction on new 50 mph SA7 West Cheltenham and dual carriageway two-lane Reducing forecast congestion - link road, with Minor Capacity increase to ensure Feasibility £3,000,000 £0 junction arm for West of the efficient operation of the Cheltenham residential site highway network access only. West of M5 J10 Change to highway priorities Reducing forecast congestion – Tbc £7,500,000 west of M5J10, with a new Flow management to ensure Feasibility £7,500,000 £0 Major/Minor Priority the efficient operation of the

Page 17 of 20

Junction, with A4019 (West) highway network as Minor junction arm. A4019 / A4013 Kingsditch A4019 / A4013 Kingsditch Reducing forecast congestion – Tbc £3,000,000 (Centrum Park) Roundabout Flow management to ensure – replacing existing the efficient operation of the Feasibility £3,000,000 £0 roundabout with traffic highway network signals, West of B4634 Old New A4019 traffic signals To facilitate development in tbc £3,000,000 Gloucester Road site access junction, west of Cheltenham Borough Plan HD8 Feasibility £3,000,000 £0 B4634 Old Gloucester Rd Old Gloucester Road A4019 / B4634 Gallagher Revised A4019 traffic signals To facilitate development in Tbc £3,000,000 Retail Park site access junction at JCS SA4 North West Feasibility £3,000,000 £0 B4634 Old Gloucester Rd / Cheltenham Gallagher Retail Park A4019 Tewkesbury Road Upgrade signals to SCOOT Reducing forecast congestion - Tbc £7,500,000 operation to optimise signal Demand reduction to ensure timings with bus priority efficient operation of the 71 along A4019 corridor highway network and junctions including: encourage more sustainable B4634 Old Gloucester modes of travel Feasibility £7,500,000 £0 Rd/A4019 Junction Hayden Road/A4019/Manor Road Junction A4019 / Elm Street Junction B4633 Gloucester Rd / A4019 /Townsend Street Withybridge Lane Reducing forecast congestion – Tbc £1,000,000 Flow management to ensure Close access onto A4019 Feasibility £1,000,000 £0 the efficient operation of the highway network A435 / Hyde Lane / Signalised Junction - Reducing forecast congestion - Tbc £1,000,000 Southam Lane Signalised Upgraded to provide Capacity increase to ensure Junction additional straight-ahead the efficient operation of the Feasibility £1,000,000 £0 lanes on all junction highway network approaches A435/ Stoke Road and Capacity Improvements by Reducing forecast congestion - Feasibility £1,000,000 £0 Tbc £1,000,000

Page 18 of 20

A435 / Finlay Way approach arm widening Capacity increase to ensure Roundabouts the efficient operation of the highway network A435/GE Aviation Capacity Improvements by Reducing forecast congestion - Tbc £3,000,000 Roundabout increasing the number of Capacity increase to ensure circulatory lanes to 2, and the efficient operation of the Feasibility £3,000,000 £0 the A435 south bound exit highway network to two lanes A435 / Racecourse Reducing forecast congestion - Tbc £1,000,000 Roundabout Capacity Improvements by Capacity increase to ensure Feasibility £1,000,000 £0 approach arm widening the efficient operation of the highway network Leckhampton Lane Upgrade A46 / Reducing forecast congestion - Tbc £3,000,000 Leckhampton Lane priority Capacity increase to ensure junction, to include a the efficient operation of the Feasibility £3,000,000 £0 dedicated right turn from highway network A46 south into 72 Leckhampton Lane. A46 / Moorend Park Road A46 Shurdington Road Reducing forecast congestion - Tbc £3,000,000 northbound approach to Capacity increase to ensure Moorend Park Road – the efficient operation of the additional highway space highway network Feasibility £3,000,000 £0 for right turning traffic by providing a longer stacking lane. London Road / Denmark To facilitate development in Tbc Tbc Road Junction Gloucester City Plan including Project within the improvement SA03: Former Prospect House, Countywide revenue 67-69 London Road, SA04: Feasibility £0 £0 highway project delivery Former Wessex House, Great priorities (2015-2031). Western Road and SA08: King’s Quarter £88,500,000 £2,500,000 £0 £86,000,000

Page 19 of 20

The Gloucestershire Economic Growth Capital Investment Pipeline (CIP) ) is shared across GFirst LEP, Gloucestershire County Council and the 6 District Councils in Gloucestershire, to maintain a viable pipeline of capital projects that have the potential to support significant economic growth, and are seeking public funding, where ever it may come from.

GECIP Interactive Map

i The government response to the CIL consultation recorded support for this change from 35 local authorities "because of the additional flexibility to fund and deliver infrastructure" these changes provide.

Page 20 of 20 73

Appendix 2

Tewkesbury Borough Council’s ‘Annual CIL Rate Summary Statement’ December 2020 Introduction

The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 (as amended) require CIL Charging Authorities to:

“Each calendar year, no earlier than 2nd December and no later than 31st December … publish a statement (“Annual CIL Rate Summary”) in relation to the next calendar year”.

Regulation 121C(1)

This ‘Annual CIL Rate Summary’ Statement sets out how ‘indexation’ will affect CIL charges within Tewkesbury Borough from 1st January 2021 to 31st December 2021.

Indexation

Indexation allows the rates we charge to be adjusted to take account of inflation.

Whilst the most common index is the Retail Prices Index (RPI), published by the Office for National Statistics, the CIL Regulations require us to use an index published by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS).

The CIL Regulations require RICS to publish the CIL Index for 1st November each year, starting in 2019 and updated annually thereafter and for all Charging Authorities to apply this index.

74

Calculating CIL

1 CIL is calculated by multiplying the net increase in gross internal area (GIA) by the relevant CIL rate (£/m²). The CIL rates must be index linked from the year that CIL was introduced to the year that a planning permission is granted.

Background

Prior to changes in the CIL Regulations in 2019 we were required to use the national ‘All-In Tender Price Index’, published by RICS’ Build Cost Information Service (BCIS). Changes to the CIL Regulations that came into force on the 1st September 2019 now require us, from the Calendar year 2020, to use a new RICS ‘CIL Index’.

Along with the other JCS Authorities Gloucester City Council began charging CIL on planning permissions granted after the 1st January 2019. As required at the time the Authorities applied the ‘All-In Tender Price Index’ published on the 1st November 2018 for the first calendar year of charging.

The index is now applied annually on the 1st January each year based on the RICS ‘CIL Index’ published on the 1st November in the previous year.

New Charges

From the 1st January 2021 to the 31st December 2021 rates have been adjusted in line with the RICS CIL Index published for the 1st November 2020 (26th October 2020).

The table below shows:

 The original charges in Year 1 (2019) when we began charging and the index was 322;

 the increased charges in Year 2 (2020) as the index rose by 3.73% to 334; and

 the reduced charges that will apply in Year 3 (2021) as the index has fallen by 0.3% to 333.

Charging Schedule

Development All-in Year 1 CIL Index Year 2 CIL Year 3 Category TPI (2019) 01/11/19 (2020) Index (2021) 01/11/18 01/11/20

1 The definition of gross internal area is not specified in the regulations; however, the generally accepted method of calculation is the RICS Code of Measuring Practice (6th edition, 2015)

75

Tewkesbury Borough Council 10 dwellings 322 £104 per m2 334 £107.88 per 333 £107.56 per and under m2 m2 including extensions and annexes greater than 100 m2 Between 11 322 £200 per m2 334 £207.46 per 333 £206.83 per and 449 m2 m2 dwellings 450 dwellings 322 £35 per m2 334 £36.31 per 333 £36.20 per and over m2 m2 JCS Strategic 322 £35 per m2 334 £36.31 per 333 £36.20 per Allocations A5 m2 m2 and B1

Publication

Regulation 121C(3) requires us to “publish each annual CIL rate summary” on our “website”. This statement will therefore be published on-line, alongside Tewkesbury Borough Council’s Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS) no later than the 31st December 2020.

Contingency

If the RICS CIL Index is discontinued, we will revert to using the BCIS Index and, in the event that both are discontinued, we will use the Retail Price Index.

Further information and all CIL forms are available on the Planning Portal website at: www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning/applications/howtoapply/whattosubmit/cil

If you have any questions regarding CIL please contact us at: Tewkesbury – [email protected]

76

Appendix 3

Infrastructure Funding Statements – Developer Contributions and Infrastructure

New planning guidance was published by the Government on the 1st September 2019. Whilst the guidance supported amendments to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 it contained requirements regarding other forms of developer contributions as well as CIL.

One of the key changes made was the revocation of Regulation 123, which provided that a development could not be required to pay a planning contribution in relation to infrastructure where CIL had been identified as responsible for funding its delivery. This regulation required the publication of a list (usually described as the Regulation 123 List) which set out what may be funded from CIL.

As a result of this amendment authorities can now choose to use funding from different sources of developer contributions towards the same infrastructure and at the same time a restriction on the number of S106 agreements that can contribute to an infrastructure scheme has also been removed. But to ensure transparency a new requirement has been inserted into the CIL Regulations requiring charging authorities to publish an “Infrastructure Funding Statement”.

The infrastructure funding statements are required to set out the infrastructure projects or types of infrastructure that the authority intends to fund, either wholly or partly, using CIL or other planning obligations, such as financial contributions from Section 106 Agreements or Unilateral Agreements.

The Infrastructure Funding Statement must include:

 An Infrastructure List;  A Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Report; and  A Section 106 (S106) Planning Obligations Report.

The regulations also require us to publish:

 An Annual CIL Rate Summary Report alongside the Infrastructure Funding Statement, by the 31st December each year.

The ‘Infrastructure List’ differs from the Regulation 123 List as it will not dictate how funds must be spent and in turn collected. Importantly, it is possible for an infrastructure funding statement to identify that an item of infrastructure may be funded by both CIL and by planning obligations.

The ‘Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Report’ and the ‘Section 106 Report’ must answer specific questions on income and expenditure during the ‘reported year’ which is the last financial year which ended in the preceding March each year.

77 Agenda Item 7c TEWKESBURY BOROUGH COUNCIL

Report to: Executive Committee

Date of Meeting: 18 November 2020

Subject: Replacement Pay and Display Parking Machines

Report of: Head of Finance and Asset Management

Corporate Lead: Deputy Chief Executive

Lead Member: Lead Member for Finance and Asset Management

Number of Appendices: None

Executive Summary: This report outlines a request for a capital budget of £117,000 to replace the ageing parking pay and display parking machines within the car parks. The Borough Council manages 10 car parks across Tewkesbury and Winchcombe towns which currently have an ageing stock of pay and display machines that have not been replaced for more than 13 years. Replacing these machines will give an opportunity to offer card payment for users and remote access for officers via a back-office portal to receive live data of car park usage and any machine faults, providing a better user experience with live data of car park usage and machine faults. The capital investment will reduce the ongoing maintenance cost of the machines.

Recommendation: That it be RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL: 1) That capital funding of £117,000 be allocated from the Capital Receipts Reserve for the replacement of car park pay and display machines across all authority owned and charged car parks. 2) That authority be delegated to the Head of Finance and Asset Management to procure suitable parking pay and display machines that offer cash and card payment options with a remote back office function.

Reasons for Recommendation: The current parking machines are ageing and require daily management to ensure they remain operational, along with ever increasing maintenance costs and parts becoming obsolete. These machines are unable to take card payments in this ever-increasing cashless society and there is a national indication that 60% of users wish to use cards to make payments. The remote back office live data from the new machines will provide valuable data for the operational and strategic management of our car parks. The new machines will also reduce the staff resource required to manage the car parks allowing the property team to reallocate resources to other areas of the business.

78 Resource Implications: The new machines will require an initial capital investment of up to £117,000 and will incur additional card transaction charges. However, savings will be made on the cash collection and handling costs currently incurred. This sum is to be allocated from the capital reserve that stands at £1,140,540.84 as of 31 March 2020. The number of machines can be rationalised as we currently have a minimum of two machines in the majority of car parks in case of any breakdowns. The new machines will provide daily operational reports allowing response times for repairs to be quick reducing any loss of income.

Legal Implications: The authority will undertake a procurement exercise in line with its Contract Rules and the Public Contracts Regulations 2015. With regard to the introduction of new technology, the authority will also undertake a Data Protection/Privacy Impact Assessment to ensure compliance with Data Protection legislation.

Risk Management Implications: The proposal in this report will mitigate the significant risk of machine failure which could lead to a loss of income. The new machines will also improve the impression of our car parks and Towns for visitors therefore mitigating some of the reputational risk associated with the appearance of our car parks.

Performance Management Follow-up: The Asset Management team will carry out a procurement exercise and work with the selected contractor to implement the machines in time for the new financial year.

Environmental Implications: The primary power supply for the new machines is solar and they will only be connected to the electricity supply as a secondary source of power if we have limited sunlight and heavy usage. The new machines have an option to be paperless.

1.0 INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

1.1 The authority currently operates 10 off-street car parks within Tewkesbury Borough for Pay and Display and two further off-street car parks which provide free car parking and do not have parking enforcement. Eight of the off-street car parks are located in the town of Tewkesbury and two are in Winchcombe

1.2 The off-street car parks operate with the following pay and display machines:  16 x Metric Accent.  one Autoslot.  one Parkeon. All these machines are in excess of 13 years old and currently have no back office management provision and only allow cash payment. The age of the machines, and lack of functionality, create a poor first impression for visitors to the Borough.

79

1.3 In addition to the parking machines, the authority currently offers a cashless parking system via Ringo which allows users to pay by phone, app or paypoint. 40% of users currently use this product as it offers added benefits like text alerts that your session is ending and the ability to top up your stay whilst you are not at your car.

1.4 The current enforcement contractor NSL manages the off-street parking along with the first line car park maintenance reporting and first line management and maintenance of the car park machines.

1.5 The enforcement is currently managed under section 76 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 parking regulations. All machines must meet this regulation and the Tewkesbury Borough Council Parking Order 2015 and any subsequent versions.

1.6 The current revenue cost of the management of the machines includes maintenance, cash collection and general servicing costs i.e. tickets, is approximately £16,500 per annum - £6,800 for quarterly service visits, £9,000 for cash collection and processing and £700 for parts and tickets for the machines.

2.0 REPLACEMENT PAY AND DISPLAY MACHINES

2.1 The proposal is to replace the ageing stock of 18 pay and display machines across all the car parks. The proposed new machines will include the following functions:  Contactless payment and cash options.  Live data of machine faults and usage.  Remote access to alter the tariffs and displays.  Full audit details of who have accessed the machines to service the units and empty the cash.  Solar operated with electric connection as a back up.  Fully programmable to issue double pay and display tickets and can be operated as a ticketless option. Officers will look to providers to demonstrate value added functionality of the machines such as the ability to read discount cards for local discretionary schemes.

2.2 There are a number of machine providers that offer an end to end product which includes the provision of the physical machine, ongoing maintenance, processing and management of the card payments.

2.3 With the machines having remote access and back office connectivity, the number of machines that are required can be rationalised reducing the capital expenditure and ongoing maintenance costs. Therefore, the current provision of 18 machines could be reduced to as little as 12 with the smaller car parks only having 1 machine due to the quick response to faults and the payment option of Ringo.

80

2.4 The capital cost per machine ranges from £5,000 to £6,500 per unit installed with annual maintenance and software costs ranging from £4,000 per annum to £9,500 per annum. The average electronic transaction fee is 15p per transaction. Savings will be generated directly through a reduction in cash processing fees and the internal resources required to maintain and manage the machines. Data will be available via remote access negating the need to visit the machines on a monthly basis. Any savings made to the proposed capital expenditure, either through machine rationalisation or reduced procurement costs, will be returned to capital balances. The 2021/22 revenue budget will be amended to reflect the change in ongoing cost base.

2.5 Should the Council agree to this capital request, it is envisaged that the new machines could be installed and operational in time for the start of the new financial year.

3.0 OTHER OPTIONS CONSIDERED

3.1 Two other options have been considered:  not to replace the machines – the machines are at the end of their useful life resulting in frequent issues and a scarcity of replacement parts. The cost of maintenance is continually increasing, and the machines are unable to process card payments.  Remove the machines entirely and rely on the cashless parking systems - only 40% of users currently take this option and a large number of individuals still wish to use a physical machine for payment.

4.0 CONSULTATION

4.1 The Parking Strategy Review Working Group and stakeholders in Winchcombe and Tewkesbury have been consulted all of which are very supportive of additional payment methods being introduced in the car parks. The recommendations in this report were originally going to be put forward in a new Parking Strategy but the impact of Coronavirus has delayed this. The need for replacement machinery however remains and therefore Members agreed to support the replacement proposals as a separate report to the strategy.

5.0 RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICIES/STRATEGIES

5.1 Car Parking Strategy.

6.0 RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICIES

6.1 None.

7.0 RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS (Human/Property)

7.1 Replacement of machines as detailed within the report.

8.0 SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS (Social/Community Safety/Cultural/ Economic/ Environment)

8.1 The machines are powered by solar and reduce the number of maintenance visits required to the machines reducing the overall carbon footprint.

81

9.0 IMPACT UPON (Value For Money/Equalities/E-Government/Human Rights/Health And Safety)

9.1 A procurement exercise will be completed in line with the 2015 procurement rules which will demonstrate best value.

10.0 RELATED DECISIONS AND ANY OTHER RELEVANT FACTS

10.1 None.

Background Papers: None. Contact Officer: Asset Manager Tel: 01684 272023 Email. [email protected] Appendices: None.

82 Agenda Item 8 TEWKESBURY BOROUGH COUNCIL

Report to: Council

Date of Meeting: 8 December 2020

Subject: Notice of Motion: Support for Tech Talent Charter

Report of: Chair of Overview and Scrutiny Committee

Lead Member: Lead Member for Organisational Development

Number of Appendices: One

Executive Summary: At the Council meeting on 28 July 2020 a Motion was presented seeking support for the Tech Talent Charter. In considering the Motion, it was determined that it be referred to the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee for consideration. The Overview and Scrutiny Committee considered the Motion at its meeting on 13 October and following discussion the proposer of the Motion agreed that it would be withdrawn with a view to presenting a reworded Motion at the appropriate time that took on board the points made at the Committee and had been discussed with the other Groups on the Council prior to submission.

Recommendation: That the Council NOTES the decision of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 13 October 2020.

Reasons for Recommendation: The matter was referred by the Council for consideration by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and back to the Council for a final decision.

Resource Implications: None directly arising from this report.

Legal Implications: None directly arising from this report.

Risk Management Implications: None directly arising from this report.

Performance Management Follow-up: None directly arising from this report.

Environmental Implications: None.

83

1.0 INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

1.1 Following a decision by the Council, the Motion below was considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee at its meeting on 13 October: The Council is asked to note that just 17% of Tech/ICT workers in the UK are female, only 1 in 10 females are taking A level computer studies and yet there is a looming digital skills gap where the UK needs one million more Tech workers by 2020. The Tech Talent charter (https://wwwtechtalentcharter.co.uk) was founded by a number of organisations across the recruitment, tech and social enterprise fields and was supported in the Government’s policy paper on the UK Digital Strategy in March 2017 (https://www.gov.uk.government /publications/uk-digital-strategy). The Tech Talent Charter is a non-profit organisation leading a movement to address inequality in the UK Tech sector and drive inclusion and diversity in a practical and measurable way. There is no charge to join the Tech Talent charter and over 300 organisations have signed up as signatories. The Tech talent charter encourages and supports signatories to tackle this lack of diversity and inclusion by undertaking to: Support attraction, recruitment and retention practices that are designed to increase the diversity of their workforce. Define their own timetable of change and implement the strategy that is right for their organisation. Measure the diversity profile of their UK employees and to share this data for (anonymous) collective publication. Signatories of the tech talent charter pledge to: 1. Have a senior-level, named representative with responsibility for charter commitments. 2. Adopt inclusive recruitment processes, working toward a goal that, wherever possible, women are included on the shortlist for interviews and diverse talent is actively encouraged to apply for roles. 3. Ensure that they have employment policies and practices that support the development and retention of an inclusive and diverse workforce. 4. Work collectively with other signatories to develop, share and implement protocols and best practice for the practical implementation of the aims of the charter. 5. Contribute their employment diversity data into a common central anonymised database, for sharing amongst signatories bi-annually and for publishing publicly in an annual report. In light of the Council’s investment in and commitment to the Cyber Park, the Council is asked to lead by example and strive to ensure that both its own IT services and industries within the Borough are diverse and all under-represented groups are fairly included. Cheltenham Borough Council, our cyber park partner, has already signed up to this charter. Accordingly, the Council is asked to: 1) Ask the Council’s Human Resources Section to look at the Tech talent charter, identify what the Council could do better, the benefits to the Council in signing up to the Charter and how the Council can influence other shared service providers that the Council works with (including, but not limited to, UBICO, One Legal, Publica, South West Audit Partnership). 84 2) Receive a report back to a future meeting of the Council in 2020/21 with the findings and recommendations from the Human Resources Section.

1.2 The Minute of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 13 October 2020 is attached at Appendix 1 and the decision was as follows: That the Council be advised that the Motion on the Tech Talent Charter had been WITHDRAWN at the current time whilst the proposer worked with other political groups to find some wording which would be acceptable across the board to come back to the Council at a future date.

2.0 OTHER OPTIONS CONSIDERED

2.1 Not applicable.

3.0 CONSULTATION

3.1 None.

4.0 RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICIES/STRATEGIES

4.1 Workforce Development Strategy.

5.0 RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICIES

5.1 None.

6.0 RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS (Human/Property)

6.1 None.

7.0 SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS (Social/Community Safety/Cultural/ Economic/ Environment)

7.1 The Committee considered these implications when making its recommendations.

8.0 IMPACT UPON (Value For Money/Equalities/E-Government/Human Rights/Health And Safety)

8.1 The Committee considered these implications when making its recommendations.

9.0 RELATED DECISIONS AND ANY OTHER RELEVANT FACTS

9.1 Council 28 July 2020 – Minute No. 20.2. Overview and Scrutiny Committee 13 October 2020 – Minute No. 29.1.

Background Papers: None. Contact Officer: Head of Democratic Services Tel: 01684 272020 Email: [email protected] Appendices: 1. Minute Extract – Overview and Scrutiny Committee 13 October 2020.

85 Appendix 1 Minute Extract – Overview and Scrutiny Committee 13 October 2020

OS.29 COUNCIL MOTION - SUPPORT FOR TECH TALENT CHARTER

29.1 The Committee was reminded that at the meeting of the Council on 28 July the following Notice of Motion was referred to Overview and Scrutiny for consideration and recommendation back to Council. The Motion asked the Council to adopt the following 1. Ask the Council’s Human Resources Section to look at the Tech Talent Charter, identify what the Council could do better, the benefits to the Council in signing up to the Charter and how the Council can influence other shared service providers that the Council works with (including, but not limited to, Ubico, One Legal, Publica, South West Audit Partnership).

2. Receive a report back to a future meeting of the Council in 2020/21 with the findings and recommendations from the Human resources Section. 29.2 The Chair explained that he would firstly ask the proposer of the Motion to present it to the Committee, followed by the Head of Corporate Services presenting his report circulated with the Agenda at Pages No. 145-152. The item would then be opened up for questions and debate before determination of what response should be sent back to Council in respect of this Motion. 29.3 The proposer of the Motion indicated that she would like to give Members some background on the Tech Talent Charter which was essentially a commitment by organisations to a set of undertakings that aimed to deliver greater inclusion and diversity in the workforce. An organisation had to nominate a senior member of staff who would be the lead and work towards inclusive recruitment and retention policies together with a commitment that once a year data would be submitted anonymously to the Tech Talent Charter organisation. She explained that the Motion had really come about to ask Tewkesbury Borough Council to look beyond itself and play its part in encouraging diversity in the tech area. The proposer felt that this was particularly pertinent as the Council was supporting the Cyber Park and she felt it would be a good message to send to potential employers that, as a local authority, Tewkesbury Borough Council was committed to doing everything it could within its power to try and achieve the best workforce with the most talent. The Charter was supported by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport together with a number of major government departments who were signatories to the Charter. In addition, a large number of the Country’s blue-chip companies and neighbouring authorities had signed the Charter, so it was very mainstream. There was no cost involved with the Charter, no membership fee to pay and each organisation’s progress was at its own timetable, so the Council set the timetable which it wished to work to. The Charter compliance was not monitored by the responsible body so the Council would not be questioned for instance on the outcomes from an interview panel. She indicated that, from reading the report of the Head of Corporate Services, it looked like Tewkesbury was doing very well with women in the Tech Sector but it needed to be recognised that the Tech Talent Charter was expanding beyond just the Tech Sector and was looking at diversity in more general terms. She felt that the Charter offered the opportunity for prestige, to have good work recognised and would enable the

86 Council to scrutinise from within to see if there was anything more that could be learnt about diversity and inclusion. In conclusion, she urged Members to support the signing of the Charter which would be a good badge that demonstrated the Council’s commitment to equality and diversity and she asked that Members approach this matter with an open mind. 29.4 The Head of Corporate Services presented his report which contained some background research he hoped would aid the Committee’s consideration of the Motion. He drew attention to Paragraph 3.1 which stated that, as at 16 September, 544 organisations had signed the Charter, predominantly from the private sector but a few neighbouring Councils, including Cheltenham, Cotswold, Forest of Dean and West Oxford. A Board of Directors was in place to oversee the Charter but, again, the representation was dominated by the private sector. Paragraph 4.1 of the report set out some points that Members may find pertinent in discussing the Motion and, as had been stated earlier by the proposer of the Motion, it was very positive that the percentage of females in the Council’s IT and Business Transformation Teams were significantly above the national figure of 17%. However, the Motion went beyond just signing the Charter as it referred to influencing other shared service providers two of which, namely Publica and the South West Audit Partnership, the Council had no relationship with and therefore would be unable to exercise any influence over them. In terms of One Legal as the Council was the lead in this partnership the staff fell within the Council’s human resources and equality policies. In respect of Ubico, the contract with the Council required adherence to equality and diversity practices and policies and the Committee received an annual performance report from that organisation which could include relevant data in this area if required. The Motion also referenced the fact that the influencing of other service providers should not be limited to these partnerships and the Head of Corporate Services indicated that, if Members were to accept this, Officers would need a steer on what other partnerships should be included. Again as indicated by the proposer of the Motion, the Charter was derived from the Tech Sector but as reference was made to other partnerships this broadened the scope beyond the ICT Sector as none of the partnerships referenced were from that sector. With regards to preparing a report for Council, the Head of Corporate Services suggested an alternative in that equality and diversity data relevant to the Tech Charter could be included in the Workforce Development Strategy which was considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on an annual basis and was due to be presented at the next meeting in November. In conclusion, initial feedback from the HR team had been that signing the Charter would not have a significant impact on resource and could be seen as a badge of the Council’s commitment for continued positive work around equality and diversity based on the caveat that the Council simply signed the Charter and updates were provided through the Workforce Development Strategy. 29.5 During the debate that ensued, a Member indicated that diversity and inclusion was recognised throughout the Workforce Development Strategy and particular reference was made to Page No.10 of the Strategy which stated that the effectiveness of these issues were regularly tracked and reviewed. On this basis he asked the proposer of the Motion whether she had been aware of this when proposing the Motion. The proposer of the Motion indicated that she felt the Motion was about looking beyond Tewkesbury Borough Council with the authority playing its part and contributing to get more women involved in the Tech industry across the board and raising the profile; nationally women did not have a very high profile in the Tech industry yet they made up 50% of the talent in the Country and she felt it was important to make use of all the

87 talent available. Upon receiving confirmation that the proposer was aware of the content of the Workforce Development Strategy, the questioner asked why the proposer of the Motion appeared to be concentrating on specifically females. He was aware that this Motion was almost word for word the same as one put to Cheltenham Borough Council but with a paragraph missing which covered other under-represented Groups such as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LBGT), Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME), the disabled and those with mental illness. He also referred to the fact that the Chief Executive of the Board responsible for the Tech Talent Charter had stated that if only white middle class women were brought into the industry that was not diversity. Again, he asked the proposer of the Motion if she was aware of this and specifically why the Motion focused on females only. The proposer of the Motion indicated that she would be happy with more diverse policies across the board she was not saying that it was particularly only women, she indicated that she was only asking the Council to sign up to the Charter and the aspirations of the organisation responsible for it. Other Members spoke about their concerns that the Motion was focussed on women, despite the fact that the Council’s statistics were very good with over 37% of the ICT team and over 50% of the Business Transformation team being female. The view was expressed that the Motion was not about diversity it was concentrating on females and by pushing one group forward other groups such as LGBT and BAME were automatically pushed back. Some Members agreed that the focus and wording of the Motion was not appropriate and were of the view that it should be withdrawn as it was just looking to promote one group to the detriment of other groups. One Member stated that he disagreed with this view as he believed that the Motion was about equality of the sexes and race, religion etc. did not factor into this. Further questions were asked about the time commitment involved with the Charter which covered just eight people at the Council. Whilst it was acknowledged that signing the Charter involved a negligible amount of time Members were advised that the Chief Executive of the Tech Talent Charter was on record saying that organisations had been required to leave as they had not complied with the requirements of the Charter. In response to a question about whether the proposer was aware of how much time would be involved with the Charter requirements, she indicated that she was not but the Motion requested further information on the work involved and the report now before Members indicated that signing the Charter would have little impact on resources. It was stressed that the question was about compliance with the requirements of the Charter in terms of attending meetings, preparing data, exchanging views etc. not simply signing a document. The Member was of the view that the resource implications could not be justified in respect of such a small area of the Council’s business that already exceeded national expectations in terms of the gender split. He maintained that the Charter was aimed at the Tech Sector, companies like Hewlett Packard and the Royal Bank of Scotland that had hundreds of Tech Staff and, whilst he had nothing against the Charter, he was a consultant in the IT field and a member of the British Computer Society, which was a signatory of the Charter, he did not think that it was appropriate for Tewkesbury Borough Council which had a very small number of IT staff. In addition, he felt that the Motion was poorly written, was very woolly, and, in his opinion, its contents and scope had no worth. Some Members disagreed with the views expressed about the Tech Talent Charter not recognising all sectors of the community as opposed to just women and could see no problem with signing the Charter; the Council was not being asked to spend any money nor commit huge resources, other authorities locally had signed up to the Charter and their teams would be of a similar size if not smaller than Tewkesbury’s

88 therefore they were in favour of supporting the signing of the Charter and could not understand the reluctance of other Members. 29.6 A Member stated that the key to this was for all Members to work together to bring forward a Motion that would be acceptable and provide benefit to the Council and its residents. Other Members stated that the Motion as presented was trying to address something that was not a problem at Tewkesbury Borough Council in terms of the gender split in IT, it sought to influence partners that the Council was not able to influence, it did not address the real problem of the limited number of females in school studying in the Tech field at A level, it did not reference a diverse workforce and it did not provide information on the requirements of the Council once the Charter had been signed in terms of resource and what benefits would be derived to the Borough. In essence it was felt that the Motion was trying to address a problem that for the most part did not exist at Tewkesbury Borough Council instead of focusing on the real problems in this area and putting forward a Motion that was suitably worded to make a real difference. The Chair agreed that it was important for Members to work together but the time for that was before a Motion was submitted to Council not after it had been considered and referred for consideration by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. He indicated that the situation currently was that the Committee was considering a Motion as written and it needed to determine its view on that Motion in order to report back to Council. Some Members of the Committee urged the proposer of the Motion to withdraw it, take on board the comments made at today’s meeting, work with all Members to prepare an alternative Motion that could at the appropriate time be submitted to Council. The Chair indicated his intention to make a proposal that the Council should not sign the Tech Talent Charter as there were no specific benefits to the Council; the gender split for females in the Tech roles at the Council was good and would not benefit from the Charter being signed; the Council’s resources were already under pressure and it was for other organisations and partners to determine for themselves whether they wished to sign the Charter without influence from the Council particularly since the Council was unable to influence two of the partnerships mentioned. He referred Members to the discussion that had taken place earlier in the meeting in relation to the performance trackers and how many projects for the benefit of the Borough and its residents were being delayed or put on hold as resources were severely overstretched in trying to deal with response and recovery to the COVID-19 pandemic; he could not support the Motion when it did not deliver for the Council’s residents and, however minor, would impact further on the Council’s resource problems. Putting aside the problems with the wording of the Motion, in addition he did not think that this was the appropriate time to be considering this Motion as, with everything else that was going on, it did not seem to him a good use of Officer or Member time. After further discussion, the proposer of the Motion agreed to withdraw it with a view to presenting a re-worded Motion at the appropriate time that took on board the points made and had been discussed with the other Groups on the Council prior to submission. 29.7 Accordingly, it was RESOLVED That the Council be advised that the Motion on the Tech Talent Charter had been WITHDRAWN at the current time whilst the proposer worked with other political groups to find some wording which would be acceptable across the board to come back to the Council at a future date.

89 Agenda Item 10 TEWKESBURY BOROUGH COUNCIL

Report to: Council

Date of Meeting: 8 December 2020

Subject: Covid-19 Emergency Decisions Taken Under Urgency Powers In Accordance with Part 3 of the Constitution

Report of: Chief Executive

Lead Member: Leader of the Council and Lead Member for Finance and Asset Management

Number of Appendices: Two

Executive Summary: Further to the decisions reported to Council on 30 June 2020, further decisions have been taken by the Chief Executive under the urgency powers set out in Part 3 of the Constitution as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. This report advises Members of those decisions in order to comply with the requirements of the Constitution.

Recommendation: That the Council NOTES the decisions taken by the Chief Executive in consultation with the appropriate Lead Members as set out in the appendices attached to this report.

Reasons for Recommendation: To comply with the requirements of the Constitution and ensure all urgency decisions taken as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic are reported to Members for information.

Resource Implications: Contained in Appendices.

Legal Implications: Where applicable contained in Appendices.

Risk Management Implications: Where applicable contained in Appendices.

Performance Management Follow-up: Where applicable contained in Appendices.

Environmental Implications: Where applicable contained in Appendices.

90 1.0 INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

1.1 Since the Council meeting on 30 June 2020, further decisions have been taken under urgency procedures as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. As required, the decisions have been documented as follows:

Appendix one – approval of the Test and Trace Discretionary Support Payments Policy.

Appendix two – approval of the Additional Restrictions Grant Discretionary Scheme Policy.

1.2 The decisions have been published on the Council’s website and, in accordance with the Constitution, are now being reported to Members for information.

2.0 OTHER OPTIONS CONSIDERED

2.1 Not applicable.

3.0 CONSULTATION

3.1 Appendices identify the consultation which was undertaken in respect of the decisions.

4.0 RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICIES/STRATEGIES

4.1 The Council’s Constitution sets out the requirements in respect of urgency decisions.

5.0 RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICIES

5.1 Not applicable.

6.0 RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS (Human/Property)

6.1 Where applicable detailed in Appendices

7.0 SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS (Social/Community Safety/Cultural/ Economic/ Environment)

7.1 Not applicable.

8.0 IMPACT UPON (Value For Money/Equalities/E-Government/Human Rights/Health And Safety)

8.1 Not applicable.

9.0 RELATED DECISIONS AND ANY OTHER RELEVANT FACTS

9.1 None.

Background Papers: None. Contact Officer: Chief Executive Tel: 01684 272001 Email: [email protected] Appendices: 1. Decision - Test and Trace Discretionary Support Payments Policy. 2. Decision - Additional Restrictions Grant Discretionary Scheme Policy. 91 COVID-19 EMERGENCY DECISIONS TAKEN UNDER URGENCY POWERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PART 3 OF THE CONSTITUTION

Test and Trace Discretionary Support Payments

1. Decision: Approve the Test and Trace Discretionary Support Payments policy document attached to this report.

2. Background documents The Government announced a test and trace support payments scheme in September 2020 with a requirement for a discretionary local policy to support individuals on the edge of qualification for the main scheme.

3. Reasons for decision: Government requires that the scheme is launched from 12th October 2020. In order to make awards under the discretionary element, a decision must be made using urgency powers as there is no committee date available which would allow the scheme to operate within the required timescales.

4. Resource implications: A £32,000 grant from government has been received to fund the grant payments within the main scheme. The discretionary scheme has a grant award of £19,274.10 available to fund it. This is a finite amount and no further allocations will be made by Government.

Resources required to administer the scheme exist within the council, particularly the Benefits team. Should applications numbers increase dramatically the Council will need to reallocate resources from other area to support the delivery of this grant scheme.

5. Who has been consulted: The policy has been drafted in line with national and local guidance and discussion on the scheme requirements. The decision to agree the policy has been taken in consultation with the Leader of the Council and the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Asset Management.

6. What were the comments: Comments received from all parties have been incorporated into the final policy wording.

7. Background/context: The Government announced a financial support package for those on benefit/low incomes in order to encourage self-isolation when an individual has had a positive covid test. A government grant has been received to fund this scheme.

92

8. Alternative options considered and why they were rejected: Setting up the discretionary scheme is a mandatory requirement of government.

9. Risk analysis: The funds are limited by government and the monies are finite. The policy highlights that it can be changed at any time in order to mitigate the risk of over subscription.

10. Any other relevant considerations:

None

11. Chief Executive/CE authorising decision:

Chief Executive

12. Title of Officer completing report:

Head of Finance & Asset Management

13. Date:

15 October 2020

Appendix A – Test and Trace Discretionary Support Payments

93

Tewkesbury Borough Council Test and Trace Discretionary Support Payments

Contents

94

1) Introduction…………………………………………………………….… …………2

2) Applying for a Test and Trace Discretionary Support Payment…………….…2

3) Eligibility Criteria……………………………………………………………………. 3

4) Making an application…………………………………………….……...... 4

5) List of Required Evidence…….....…………………………………………………4

6) Determinations of applications…………………………………………………….5

7) Appeals…………………………………………………………………… …………6

8) Funding of the discretionary scheme and data sharing……………...... 6

9) Definitions……………………………………………………………… ……………7

95

1) Introduction

Test and Trace Support Payments: an overview

From 28 September 2020, individuals are entitled to a Test and Trace Support Payment (‘standard scheme’) or a discretionary support payment of £500. This is to support people on low incomes who are unable to work from home if they are told to self-isolate by NHS Test and Trace and will lose income as a result.

These payments are designed to help ensure people who have tested positive for COVID-19 and their close contacts self-isolate for the required period to stop the onward spread of the virus. They are also designed to encourage individuals who are eligible for this payment to get tested if they have symptoms. This is important to help stop the transmission of COVID-19 and avoid further economic and societal restrictions.

2) Applying for a Test and Trace Discretionary Support Payment

From 28 September 2020, individuals will be entitled to a payment of £500 from the council’s Test and Trace Discretionary Support Payments Scheme if they meet the eligibility criteria listed below:

1. Make an application in the prescribed form and provide all the evidence and verification required;

2. Are resident within the Tewkesbury Borough Council area;

3. Have been told to stay at home and self-isolate by NHS Test and Trace either because they have tested positive for coronavirus or have recently been in close contact with someone who has tested positive;

4. Are employed or self-employed;

5. Are unable to work from home and will lose income as a result;

6. Are NOT currently receiving one of the following benefits:  Universal Credit;  Working Tax Credit;  Income-related Employment and Support Allowance;  Income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance;  Income Support;  Housing Benefit; or  Pension Credit

96

7. Are on low income and will face financial hardship as a result of not being able to work whilst self-isolating; and

8. Meet the council’s additional criteria for a discretionary support payment.

This scheme is designed for applicants who meet ALL the conditions above, are not receiving any of the listed benefits and are complying with the self-isolation requirements laid down by the government.

3) Eligibility Criteria and Exclusions

The discretionary scheme is for applicants who are not eligible for a Test and Trace Support Payment. Individuals will NOT be entitled to a payment under both the standard scheme and the discretionary scheme.

Applicants will firstly need to meet the government’s eligibility criteria before they can be considered for a discretionary support payment. Where an applicant has yet to apply for one of the eligible benefits, is awaiting a decision on a benefit, is currently appealing a decision or is unable to apply for qualifying benefit they may make an application under this discretionary scheme.

The Council will make one payment of £500 per application based on an individual period of self-isolation providing the applicant meets both the government eligibility and the additional locally set criteria. The payment is taxable, but is not subject to national insurance contributions. HMRC will be informed of all discretionary support payments made.

Additional locally set eligibility criteria

Given that the funding for the discretionary scheme is limited, government has stated that it will be up to each council to determine additional criteria that has to be met if a payment is to be made.

Tewkesbury Borough Council has determined the following locally set criteria:

1. The applicant must be resident full time at an address in the Tewkesbury Borough Council area.

2. Applicants must work 16 hours or above per week.

3. Prior to their need to self-isolate the applicant’s average gross weekly earnings must have been less than £290 per week to be considered as low income. ‘Prior to’ means the average of the 4 weeks prior to the applicant’s requirement to self-isolate. Exclusions

Full time students are not eligible for the scheme.

97

4) Making an application

Time limits for making an application

No application for a discretionary support payment can be made before 28 September 2020 or for any individual who has been required to self-isolate before 28 September 2020.

Eligible individuals can apply for a discretionary support payment at any time up to 14 days after their self-isolation period ended.

Where an individual has been required to self-isolate on or after 28 September 2020, but before the council’s scheme opened on 12 October 2020, an application for a backdated payment must be made by 26 October 2020.

Application procedure

Consideration of applications will be dependent on the submission of a complete and valid online application form from the Tewkesbury Borough Council website. This will include the provision of sufficient information and evidence to allow eligibility checks to take place. Those who are not able to complete an application online can contact the Council’s Customer Services team on 01684 295010 for support in completing the application.

All applicants will be required to complete a declaration to confirm the details are correct, that they are eligible based on the national and local criteria and will also need to confirm that they will suffer financial hardship as a result of not being able to work whilst self-isolating.

The applicant will also required to verify that they are resident in the council’s area. The council will check other records held (and make other enquiries where necessary) to determine this.

5) List of Required Evidence for Discretionary Test and Trace Support Payments

Below is a list of the minimum evidence required to support an application. We may request further information to evaluate a claim. Any delay in providing suitable evidence may impact applicants receiving a payment

98 • a formal notification from NHS Test and Trace asking the applicant to self- isolate (this will include a unique CTAS Account ID number) that shows the applicant was required to do so ; • the applicant’s bank statement from the last two months showing all transactions and confirming the applicant’s name, address, sort code and bank account number; and • the applicant’s latest wage slip if employed and an email or letter from their employer confirming the applicant is an employee and their pay has been stopped or reduced as a result of the applicant self-isolating; or • if self-employed, the applicant’s latest self-assessment return, trading income and proof that the business delivers services which cannot be undertaken without social contact

Evidence of financial hardship

The council requires all applicants making an application for a discretionary payment to provide evidence of financial hardship such as being unable to pay rent or mortgage and utility bills or buy food. All applicants will be required to demonstrate that the financial hardship is solely due to being required to self-isolate.

6) Determinations of applications

Decisions

When deciding the application the council will consider the completeness of the application, its contents and the additional documentation submitted. The council will also verify the accuracy of the test and trace reference, start date of self- isolation, employment status, loss of income and evidence of financial hardship.

The council will aim to make a decision within 3 working days following receipt of an eligible application and all supporting documentation. As this is a discretionary policy the council reserves the right to obtain additional information from the applicant and third parties in order to determine a decision e.g. request additional wage slips and bank statements. The applicant will receive a decision award email or letter and a remittance advice once the payment has been made.

If the application is refused the applicant will receive an email or letter explaining the reason for the decision.

Payments

Payments will be made by BACS to the applicants bank account as verified through the bank statement submitted as evidence. Payments will be made within 3 working days of receipt of a fully complete application.

99

Payment can only be made to the person self-isolating. No payment can be made to a third party in any circumstances.

Anti-Fraud Measures

Tewkesbury Borough Council will conduct post payment checks to prevent fraud and the applicant’s employer may be contacted to confirm that full pay was not received for the period of isolation and the applicant would have a reduction in their income and their role was not able to be conducted whilst in self-isolation.

We will take steps to recover the payment from applicants who claim the payment fraudulently - an example would be where full pay is received from employment for the self-isolation period.

7) Appeals

Whilst there is no formal right of appeal, if the applicant is dissatisfied with the outcome, they can request a review of the decision. The request should be submitted in writing, detailing the reasons why a review is considered necessary, and providing any additional supporting information required. The review will be undertaken by the Head of Finance and Asset Management along with the Lead Member for Finance and Asset Management whose decision will be final.

8) Funding of the discretionary scheme and data sharing

Funding

The council will receive a fixed amount of funding from government which will be for the period to 31 January 2021 when the scheme closes. Government has confirmed that no additional monies will be given to the council.

In view of this and to ensure that discretionary payments are available throughout the period to 31 January 2021, the council reserves the right to change the Test and Trace Discretionary Support Payments Scheme at any time to ensure funds go to those who face the most financial hardship.

Data sharing

Information collected during the application process will be used to assess an applicant’s claim. Information will be cross matched with other data held by the Council and third party agencies including NHS Test and Trace, Department for Work and Pensions and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for verification purposes. Applicants’ information may also be shared with the Council’s Counter Fraud Unit and the police for the prevention and detection of fraud.

100

Definitions

The following definitions are used within this document:

‘Additional Eligibility Criteria’; means the additional criteria decided by the council that need to be met, in order to receive a payment under the council’s Test and Trace Discretionary Support Payments Scheme. These will be in addition to the standard criteria and are allowable under government guidance;

‘Applicant’; means the individual making an application for a payment under this scheme;

‘Contact Tracing and Advice Service (CTAS)’; means the web-based system used by Public Health England to contact and trace individuals who are required to self- isolate;

‘CTAS Account ID’; means the unique number provided by Public Heath England through the Contact Tracing and Advice Service (CTAS);

‘COVID-19’; means the infectious disease caused by the most recently discovered coronavirus;

‘face financial hardship’; a key criterion of the Test and Trace Discretionary Support Payments Scheme is that all applicants will, if not for the payment, face financial hardship solely due to their need to self-isolate;

‘Housing Benefit’; means the benefit administered by local authorities under either the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 or the Housing Benefit (Persons who have attained the qualifying age for state pension credit) 2006;

‘income-related Employment and Support Allowance’; means the means-tested Employment and Support Allowance administered by the Department for Work and Pensions under the Welfare Reform Act 2007;

101 ‘income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance’; means the means-tested Jobseekers Allowance administered by the Department for Work and Pensions under the Jobseekers Act 1995;

Income Support’; means the means-tested Income Support administered by the Department for Work and Pensions under the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987;

‘NHS Test and Trace’; means the service provided to the National Health Service in England, established in May 2020 to track and help prevent the spread of COVID-19;

‘Pension Credit’; means the means-tested Guarantee or Savings Credit administered by the Department for Work and Pensions under the State Pension Credit Regulations 2002;

‘Qualifying benefit’; means any of the following benefits: Housing Benefit, Income support, income-based jobseeker’s Allowance, income-related Employment and Support Allowance, Working Tax Credit or Universal Credit

‘Self-isolation, Self-isolate’; means the legal requirement for an individual to self- isolate when told to by NHS Test and Trace or the NHS COVID-19 app and the legal duty to self-isolate under the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self- Isolation) (England) Regulations 2020 which came into force on 28th September 2020;

‘Test and Trace Discretionary Support Payments Scheme’ (‘Discretionary Scheme’); means the Test and Trace Discretionary Payments Scheme which has been agreed by the council and which may be available for individuals who are unable to access the ‘Standard Scheme’.

‘Universal Credit’ means the means-tested Universal Credit administered by the Department for Work and Pensions under the Universal Credit Regulations 2013;

‘Working Tax Credit’; means the means-tested benefit administered by Her Majesty’s Revenues and Customs under the Working Tax Credit (Entitlement and Maximum Rate) Regulations 2002.

102 Appendix 2 COVID-19 EMERGENCY DECISIONS TAKEN UNDER URGENCY POWERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PART 3 OF THE CONSTITUTION

ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS GRANT

1. Decision: Approve the Additional Restrictions Grant Discretionary Scheme policy document, attached to this report.

2. Background documents In response to the second lockdown, the Government announced support for Business, including the Additional Restrictions Grant, which aims to support those businesses impacted by the lockdown but not eligible for the main grant scheme. Guidance on this element of business support was issued on the 3rd November with further advice, in the form of FAQ’s, being published on the 9th November.

3. Reasons for decision: To approve a policy for the distribution of discretionary business grants within a reasonable timeframe of the announcement of the second lockdown.

4. Resource implications:

An £1,900,380 grant from government has been received to fund the Additional Restrictions grants. It has been made clear in the funding agreement that this is a one-off payment and no further top ups will be paid. The funding is to cover the remainder of the current financial year and can be carried into the next financial year for ongoing scheme elements. There is also more flexibility in the scheme which will allow the council to consider wider business support if a balance of funding exists from the initial grants round and any subsequent grant rounds required.

5. Who has been consulted: The policy document attached as Appendix A is a product of partnership working neighbouring authorities. The decision to agree the policy has been taken in consultation with the Leader of the Council who is also the Portfolio Holder for Economic Development and the Lead Member for Finance & Asset Management.

6. What were the comments: Comments received from all parties have been incorporated into the final policy wording.

7. Background/context: On 31 October 2020, the Government announced the introduction of additional support for Local Authorities under national and Local Covid Alert Level 3 restrictions. The scheme is called the Additional Restrictions Grant (ARG) and is administered by business rate billing authorities in England. This scheme is in addition to the main business grant support scheme - Local Restrictions Support Grants (Closed) Addendum – which supports those business which have been mandated to close during the second lockdown.

103

8. Alternative options considered and why they were rejected: Directive from Government to put in place an Additional Restrictions grants scheme. The policy document aims to capture as many businesses impacted by lockdown restrictions as possible within the financial envelope provided and thus has selected eligibility criteria to allow this. The policy also mirrors the level of support offered in the main scheme so as to be consistent and fair.

9. Risk analysis: Limited financial risk given the grant award made by Government. This and the main scheme will cover a large proportion of business within the Borough that have been impacted by CV19 therefore mitigating the reputational risk. Given the timeframe associated with the grant, there will be opportunity to consider further additions to the policy and wider business support. The opening of this grant scheme will be two weeks after the opening of the main scheme to mitigate the risk of the staffing resource being overwhelmed by applications.

10. Any other relevant considerations:

None

11. Chief Executive/CE authorising decision:

Mike Dawson

12. Title of Officer completing report:

Head of Finance & Asset Management

13. Date:

13th November 2020

Appendix A – Additional Restrictions Grants Scheme Policy.

104

Tewkesbury Borough Council National – Additional Restrictions Grant Discretionary Scheme

105

Version Control

Version Version date Revised by Description 1 2 3 4 16.11.20 E Harley Final approved 5 6 7

106

Contents

1.0 Purpose of the scheme ...... 4 2.0 Funding...... 4 3.0 Grant Funding and Period ...... 4 4.0 Grant Eligibility ...... 5 5.0 How will grants be provided to businesses? ...... 6 6.0 How much grant will be payable ...... 6 7.0 Limitation of funds and applications ...... 7 8.0 EU State Aid requirements ...... 7 9.0 Scheme of delegation ...... 7 10.0 Notification of decisions ...... 7 11.0 Reviews of decisions ...... 8 12.0 Complaints ...... 8 13.0 Other scheme conditions ...... 8 14.0 Managing the risk of fraud ...... 8 15.0 Post Assurance Monitoring…………………………………………………….………………………………..8

107

1.0 Purpose of the scheme

1.1 The purpose of this document is to determine eligibility for a payment under the Council’s Additional Restrictions Grant (ARG).

1.2 The new grant scheme has been developed in response to the ARG guidance provided to local authorities by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) issued on 3 November 2020. This guidance sets out circumstances whereby a grant payment may be made by the Council to a business which does not qualify for the national ‘Local Restrictions Support Grant Schemes’.

1.3 Whilst the awarding of grants will be at the total discretion of the Council, the BEIS has set down criteria which must be met by each business making an application for a discretionary grant. The Department has also indicated the types of business which should be given priority.

1.4 This document sets out the criteria which BEIS has provided to the Council to determine eligibility for this discretionary grant scheme. It also outlines the approach the Council will take in determining whether an award should be paid or not.

2.0 Funding

2.1 The Government has provided the Council with funding to cover all national restrictions imposed upon the Borough within financial year 20/21. The Council can still make payments from any of the remain funding until 31 March 2022. The primary use of these monies is to provide discretionary grants to as many eligible businesses as possible, however the Council’s expenditure cannot exceed the allocated funding. Any unspent monies, at the end of the imposition of national restrictions will be used towards wider business support activities within the Borough as agreed by the Council.

2.2 The Council will limit the total awards to the level of funding available from Government.

3.0 Grant Funding and period

3.1 The Government, whilst wanting Councils to exercise their local knowledge and discretion, expect the funding provided to help those businesses which – while not legally forced to close – are nonetheless severely impacted by the restrictions.

3.2 A business is excluded from the grant funding if: - a) The business is in administration, insolvent or has been struck off the Companies House register b) The business has exceeded the permitted state aid threshold. The ARG counts towards the total de minimis limit a business can receive over a 3-year period which is €200,000. If a business has reached this threshold it may still be entitled to the funding under the COVID-19 Temporary Framework. The limit for this framework is €800,000. c) The business fails to meet the criteria or fails to provide the Council with sufficient information to determine whether it meets the criteria, it will not be awarded an Additional Restrictions Grant. d) The Business is entitled to receive a grant under the Local Restrictions Support (Closed) Addendum Grant is not eligible for a grant under the ARG.

108 e) A business will not receive funding if its substantive operational activities are undertaken online. f) Self-employed persons who are eligible for the Self-Employed Income Support Scheme (SEISS) and do not have fixed property costs, for example rent, are not eligible for ARG.

3.3 The grant is a one-off payment and an online grant application can be made from 10am, Monday 23 November 2020 to midnight, Wednesday 2 December 2020.

4.0 Grant Eligibility

4.1 The Council has established the eligibility criteria based on Government guidelines and with the aim to support local businesses within the borough of Tewkesbury. The criteria are as follows (you must meet at least one of these to be eligible): -  Businesses which supply the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors  Businesses in the events sector or who supply the events sector  Businesses who have been forced to close due to circumstances beyond their control  Businesses who have been severely impacted by the national restrictions in place from 5 November 2020 to 2 December 2020.

4.2 Businesses must demonstrate a local connection to the borough of Tewkesbury, either by being on the Council’s business rating list or the registered address of the business is within the borough. It might only be a residential address for a sole trader or partnership. Simply trading within the Borough of Tewkesbury is not sufficient to demonstrate a local connection.

4.3 Businesses must have been trading up to 4 November 2020 and will continue to trade after the restrictions have been lifted.

4.4 Businesses must be able to demonstrate that they have suffered financial loss as a result of the national restrictions.

4.5 Businesses must have fixed costs that are attributed to the business and that will be incurred through the lock down period 5 November 2020 to 2 December 2020. Costs excluded for eligibility purposes are residential property costs such as domestic mortgages and rents.

4.6 Business must be registered with HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) for tax purposes (for sole traders and partnerships this means they must be registered for self -assessment purposes).

4.7 The types of evidence required to support the eligibility criteria are: -  Bank Statements – which cover the last 3 months. The statements should detail Bank Account Name, Address, Sort Code, Account Number and highlight transactions that support business costs.  HMRC – latest self-assessment tax return, VAT registration reference (if applicable)  Financial Accounts/Records – most recent annual accounts, and income/expenditure data (this could be from an accounting or manual system)  Customer data – list of business customers and event bookings.  Lease/rent agreements and Title Deeds – documentation that demonstrates the business connection to a property located within the borough of Tewkesbury and the annual rent.

109  Business costs – business costs are defined as business loans provided by an approved lender (excluding those provided through Government backed schemes), business rent, commercial mortgage, business equipment and maintenance costs, insurance, utilities, and licences. Such payments must continue to be incurred during the national restrictions’ lockdown period.

The above is not an exhaustive list and the applicant should provide as much information as possible to support their application. The Council reserves the right to request further information from the applicant as required in order to make a grant determination.

5.0 How will grants be provided to businesses?

5.1 The Council is fully aware of the importance of grants to assist businesses and support the local community and economy. The Additional Restrictions Grant scheme will offer a lifeline to businesses affected by the national lockdown restrictions.

5.2 In all cases, an online application form is required, and this can be completed on-line at the Council’s website: https://covid19.tewkesbury.gov.uk/national-restrictions-grants If the requested information is not provided with the application form, the application may be deemed invalid. The Council may ask for supplementary information. If this is not provided as requested the application may also be deemed invalid.

5.3 An application for an Additional Restrictions Grant is deemed to have been made when a duly completed application form is received via the Council’s online application form.

5.4 The Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) has issued a guidance document which will be used in administering the scheme along with any updated versions and supplementary guidance.

6.0 How much grant will be payable

6.1 Grant values payable are as follow: -

A) A self-employed person who has no fixed property costs - £1,334 one off payment for each business Or

B) Businesses that have a rateable value (RV) or annual Grant Value and Terms rent £15,000 or under Property on business rating list - 1 grant for each hereditament

Property not on the rating list – 1 grant per business

£1334

£15,001 - £50,999 Property on business rating list - 1 grant for each hereditament

Property not on the rating list – 1 grant per business

£2,000.

110

£51,000 or over Property on business rating list - 1 grant for each hereditament

Property not on the rating list – 1 grant per business

£3,000

6.2 The Council reserves the right to alter the level of grant awarded where the number of successful applications received exceeds the level of funding available.

7.0 Limitation of funds and applications

7.1 All monies paid through the Additional Restrictions Grant scheme will be funded by Government and paid to the Council under S31 of the Local Government Act 2003. However, as mentioned in Section 2, the funds are limited and, as such, the Council is not able to award a grant where funds are no longer available.

7.2 In order to fairly administer the scheme, the Council has decided that awards will be determined as follows: (a) Any businesses wishing to claim should complete the necessary form on the Council’s website as shown in paragraph 5.2. This will also include the provision of such evidence as required by the Council; (b) All claims will be made online; (c) Applications will be validated before assessment commences. An application is considered valid when all supporting evidence has been received in order to assess against the grant criteria. Due to the wide reach of this scheme we aim to make all payments to businesses before Christmas.

8.0 EU State Aid requirements

8.1 Any Additional Restrictions Grant is given as aid under the Temporary Framework for State aid measures to support the economy in the current COVID-19 outbreak as published on 19 March 2020. This means that businesses receiving support under these provisions can receive up to €800,000 in aid over three years (being the current and the previous two years).

8.2 Any grant awarded is required to comply with the EU law on State Aid. This will involve the applicant declaring to the Council if they have received any other de minimis State aid or aid provided under the EU Commission Covid-19 Temporary Framework.

9.0 Scheme of delegation

9.1 The Chief Executive in consultation with the Lead Member for Economic Development and Promotion and the Lead Member for Finance and Asset Management has approved this policy under urgency powers.

9.2 Officers of the Council will administer the scheme and the Lead Member for Economic Development and Promotion, the Lead Member for Finance and Asset Management and Chief Executive are authorised to make technical scheme amendments to ensure it meets the criteria set by the Council and, in line with Government guidance.

111

10.0 Notification of decisions

10.1 Applications will be considered by the Business Grants Team.

10.2 All decisions made by the Council shall be notified to the applicant by email.

11.0 Reviews of decisions

11.1 Each application will be reviewed by a separate review team before a refusal is issued and the applicant will be notified by email.

11.2 The applicant can then ask for a review of this decision within 3 working days, clearly stating the grounds for review, and this will be undertaken by the Head of Finance and Asset Management (or other Head of Service) and agreed with the Lead Member for Finance and Asset Management. Their decision is final.

11.3 The review process will be the mechanism used to review decisions to award or not award grant payments. The Council’s complaints procedure will be applied in respect of other grievances in relation to the scheme.

12.0 Complaints

12.1 The Council’s complaints procedure (available on the Council’s website) will be applied in the event of any complaint received about this scheme apart from the decision to award or not award a discretionary business grant.

13.0 Other scheme conditions

13.1 The Council has been informed by Treasury that all grants are taxable. Applicants should make their own enquiries to establish any tax position or liability.

14.0 Managing the risk of fraud

14.1 Neither the Council, nor the Government will accept deliberate manipulation of the scheme and fraud. Any applicant caught falsifying information to gain grant money or failing to declare entitlement to any of the specified grants will face prosecution and any funding issued will be recovered from them.

14.2 Applicants should note that, where a grant is paid by the Council, details of each individual grant may be passed to Government.

14.3 The Council reserves the right to reclaim any grant paid in error.

15.0 Post Assurance Monitoring

15.1 Grant applicants in receipt of a payment may be contacted by the Council in connection with either obtaining further information to support a beneficiary or eligibility verification check or, to gather information on the purposes to which the grant monies were used.

112 Agenda Item 12a

Document is Restricted

113 Document is Restricted

114 Document is Restricted

119