Thursday 10 October 2013 7 - Stroud District Council€¦ · Cllr Paul Hemming D Cllr Nigel ... Cllr Daniel Le Fleming C Cllr Rhiannon Wigzell C Cllr Graham Littleton C Cllr Tom Williams

Council Meeting

Thursday 10 October 2013

7.00pm

Cllr Dennis Andrewartha (Chair) D Cllr John Marjoram G

Cllr Liz Ashton L Cllr Brian Marsh D

Cllr Dorcas Binns C Cllr Russell Miles C

Cllr Rowland Blackwell C Cllr Stephen Moore L

Cllr Philip Booth G Cllr Alan O’Connor D

Cllr Timothy Boxall C Cllr Keith Pearson C

Cllr Chris Brine L&C Cllr Elizabeth Peters C

Cllr Paul Carter C Cllr Simon Pickering G

Cllr Molly Cato G Cllr Gary Powell L

Cllr Miranda Clifton L Cllr Nigel Prenter L

Cllr Nigel Cooper C Cllr Andy Read I

Cllr June Cordwell D Cllr Mark Rees (Vice-Chair) L

Cllr Doina Cornell L Cllr Frances Roden C

Cllr Gordon Craig C Cllr Mattie Ross L&C

Cllr Karon Cross L Cllr Roger Sanders L

Cllr Paul Denney L Cllr Emma Sims C

Cllr David Drew L&C Cllr Paul Smith D

Cllr Chas Fellows C Cllr Ken Stephens L

Cllr Paul Hemming D Cllr Nigel Studdert-Kennedy CNG

Cllr Nicholas Hurst C Cllr Brian Tipper C

Cllr Haydn Jones C Cllr Geoff Wheeler L&C

Cllr John Jones C Cllr Martin Whiteside G

Cllr Daniel Le Fleming C Cllr Rhiannon Wigzell C

Cllr Graham Littleton C Cllr Tom Williams L&C

Cllr Stephen Lydon L&C Cllr Penny Wride C

Cllr Debbie Young C

C = Conservative Group CNG = Conservative No Group D = Liberal Democrat Group

G = Green Group I = Independent L = Labour Group L&C = Labour and Co-operative Group

(Part of the Labour Group)

Stroud District Council Agenda 10 October 2013 Published 27 September 2013

1

For Agenda enquiries contact: Sarah Weyman, Democratic Services & Elections Officer Tel: 01453 754355 Email: [email protected]

To all Members of Stroud District Council 27 September 2013 You are hereby summoned to attend a Meeting of the STROUD DISTRICT COUNCIL at 7.00 pm in the Council Chamber, Ebley Mill on Thursday, 10 October 2013.

David Hagg

Chief Executive

A G E N D A

Please Note: This meeting will be filmed for live or subsequent broadcast via the Council’s internet site (www.stroud.gov.uk). The whole of the meeting will be filmed except where there are confidential or exempt items, which may need to be considered in the absence of the press and public.

The images and sound recording may be used for training purposes within the Council.

Whilst the public seating areas are not directly filmed, particular camera shots around the Chamber may capture persons seated in the public areas. If you ask a question in accordance with the procedures in the Council’s Constitution and use a microphone for this purpose, then you will be deemed to have consented to being filmed. By entering the Council Chamber and using the public seating areas, you are consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings for webcasting and/or training purposes.

If you have any queries regarding the above, please contact the officer named at the top of this agenda.

1 APOLOGIES 2 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

To receive declarations of interest.

3 MINUTES To confirm and sign as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting

held on 25 July 2013.


2

4 ANNOUNCEMENTS To receive announcements from the Chair of Council, the Leader and

the Chief Executive. 5 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME The Chair of the Strategy and Resources Committee, the Community

Services Committee, the Environment Committee, the Housing Committee or the Audit and Standards Committee will answer questions from members of the public, submitted in accordance with the Council’s procedures.

6 PETITION REQUESTING THE COUNCIL TO PROTECT KINGS

STANLEY PRIMARY SCHOOL FROM BEING FORCED INTO ACADEMISATION

A petition organised by Mr Alan Bladon received 19 July 2013, has been received as follows:

“This is a petition containing 1,100 signatures in support of Kings Stanley Primary School to formally ask the Council for a debate to protect the school from being forced into academisation”.

In accordance with the Council’s Petition Scheme, the petition is to be debated by Council as it contains more than the trigger of 1,100 signatures. The petition organiser will be given five minutes to present the petition and the petition will then be debated by Councillors for a maximum of 15 minutes. The petition has been published on the Council’s website and can be viewed at http://www.stroud.gov.uk/democracy/have_your_say.asp#s=sectioncontent5&p=currpet

7 RECOMMENDATIONS FROM COMMITTEES Following the meeting of the Strategy and Resources Committee held

on 24 September 2013, the following items are recommended to Council for approval (reports attached).

DEADLINE FOR RECEIPT OF QUESTIONS Noon on Monday, 7 October 2013.

Questions must be submitted in writing to the Chief Executive,

Democratic Services, Ebley Mill, Ebley Wharf, Strou d and sent by post, by fax (01453 754957), or by Email: democratic.services@stroud .gov.uk


3

Strategy and Resources Committee – 24 September 20 13

(a)

Title

Agenda Item

No.

Chair of Strategy &

Resources Committee

Increase in Housing Revenue Account 2013/14 Budget and Amended 5 Year Medium Term Financial Plan

7

Councillor Geoff Wheeler

Strategy and Resources Committee RECOMMENDS to Coun cil: a) an increase of £1,273,000 in the 2013/14 budget thr ough:

I. Bringing forward £400,000 from next year’s Rene wable

Energy budget II. Increasing the Voids budget by £700,000 III. Increasing the Asbestos surveys budget by £198 ,000 IV. Removing the vehicle purchase budget of £25,000 .

b) an increase in the 5 year Medium Term Financial Plan

Capital Spend of £78,000 from £71,715,000 to £71,79 3,000 representing a 0.1% increase over the 5 years.

(b)

Title

Agenda Item No.

Chair of Strategy &

Resources Committee

Stratford Park Leisure Centre Village Change Project

9

Councillor Geoff Wheeler

Strategy and Resources Committee RECOMMENDS to Coun cil: To approve the additional resource of £61,000 requi red to complete the project funded from the Capital Reserv e.


4

8 MATTERS FOR INFORMATION

Meetings that have taken place since the last ordinary Meeting on 25 July 2013:

Development Control Committee 13 August 2013 Stroud Council Housing Forum 3 September 2013 Community Services Committee 5 September 2013 Development Control Committee 10 September 2013 Environment Committee 12 September 2013 Special Stroud Council Housing Forum 17 September 2013 Housing Committee 19 September 2013 Strategy and Resources Committee 24 September 2013 Audit and Standards Committee 26 September 2013 Special Housing Committee 2 October 2013 Development Control Committee 8 October 2013

9 MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS See Agenda Item 5 for the submission deadline. 10 NOTICES OF MOTION

(i) Investigations into becoming a Unitary Authorit y – 04/13 Proposed by Councillor Paul Carter and seconded by Councillor Chas Fellows. “Council resolves to set up a cross party working group of leading Members and relevant officers to explore the benefits, issues and options of becoming a unitary authority. That the group’s terms of reference be agreed by it by the end of November 2013. That the work of the group be completed to make recommendations to Council no later than the first meeting following the AGM in 2014”.

(ii) Vaccination of Badgers against Bovine TB – 05/ 13

Proposed by Councillor Paul Denney and seconded by Councillor Paul Hemming. “In 2012 this Council became the first district council in the country to ban the culling of badgers on its land. While the Council is fully aware of the impact that bTB has upon the farming community it does not believe that the culling of badgers and in particular free shooting is an effective, scientific or humane method of controlling the further spread of the disease. The strength of public feeling against the culling of badgers is something that we the elected representatives of the people must take heed of. Dr Brian May’s e-petition against culling has gathered more signatures than any other petition in the history of the e-petition website. However there are two sides to any argument and our duty as SDC councillors is to all the people of Stroud District and that


5

includes those most affected by bTB the farming community. To simply ban culling but offer no alternative is not acceptable. The majority of scientific opinion points to the vaccination of badgers against bTB as the preferred method of controlling the small part that badgers play in the transmission of the disease. The Welsh assembly and many other organisations are now turning to vaccination as a publicly acceptable and effective method of disease control while they wait for a cattle vaccine to be trialled and accepted by the EU. Here in Stroud the Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust (GWT) working alongside DEFRA have made steady progress in vaccinating the district’s badgers. The wildlife trust’s exemplary work in this field points the way to a policy which is not only effective but which can be supported by all sections of the public. It should also be supported by this Council as our chosen alternative to culling which we have banned. GWT will shortly be launching a public appeal for funding for their current badger vaccination program within the Stroud valleys. This will allow GWT to expand and maintain its current program of badger vaccination within the district for the next 5 years, a period of time required to have maximum clinical effect on the prevalence of the disease within the badger population. By working in partnership with GWT this Council will be able to play its part in tackling bTB in a positive and meaningful way to the benefit of all, public, wildlife and the farming community. (See also GWT proposal attached). Council resolves: 1. To support the Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust pr oposal to

extend its badger vaccination programme in Stroud D istrict over a five year period.

2. To provide a sum not to exceed £12,500 in total to match (£ for £) money raised by Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust t o fund this 5 year programme and for no other purposes.

3. The Head of Finance and the Legal Service Manager/Monitoring Officer to be satisfied as to th e agreement with Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust regarding the u se of this sum.

4. That Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust provide repo rts to the Council on the implementation of its badger vaccina tion programme and the use of the finance made available by the Council, including any attendance at an appropriate meeting(s) open to all members of the Council.”

(iii) National Planning Policy Framework – 06/13

Proposed by Councillor Stephen Lydon and seconded by Councillor John Marjoram. “Many areas of our towns, our villages, and the adjoining countryside are not places of national importance in the strict legal sense, but they are cherished by local people for their beauty and their recreational value. The incursion of aggressive and insensitive development is very


6

much resented by many in our communities but local voices do not appear to carry much weight in this situation. We are particularly concerned by recent comments from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government which seems to imply that planning regulations may now be relaxed even further in the countryside and the green belt. This Council believes that the true impact of the NPPF has not been understood by the people responsible for this legislation and that it is important to persuade the Government to amend it before the damage has gone too far. Therefore, it is proposed a) we write to Local Town and Parish Councils the LGA, Local MPs and the Secretary of State for Communities asking them to support our view and b) we support the petition set out in Appendix 1 and encourage those listed in a) to also support it. Appendix 1 Amend the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and uphold local democratic decision making

Responsible department: Department for Communities and Local Government

We the undersigned believe that the NPPF is inherently unsound leading to irreversible loss of open countryside and irreparable damage to valuable landscape and heritage assets which are highly valued by local communities. Prioritisation of economic factors and presumption to develop, together with risible sustainability criteria, is leading to decisions from the Planning Inspectorate that damage local communities and create expensive problems.

We believe that the NPPF flouts local opinion and damages democracy. The NPPF is unjustly prejudiced in the interest of the construction industry and developers to the detriment of the local electorate, community, countryside, farming and tourism.

We therefore call upon the Government to amend the NPPF by removing the over-riding presumption in favour of alleged sustainable development, by giving Local Plans over-riding priority. ”


7

I N F O R M A T I O N

FIRE EVACUATION PROCEDURES FOR VISITORS AT EBLEY MI LL

•••• Upon hearing the fire alarm, visitors should immediately evacuate the building following the instructions given by the Chair at the start of each meeting.

•••• DO NOT stay, or return, to collect personal belongings. •••• DO NOT use the lifts when the alarm is sounding. •••• Upon evacuation, visitors should go to the NB assembly point. The

assembly points are situated in the staff car park where a fire steward will be there to take a roll call.

•••• Visitors must remain at the assembly points until permission is given to leave.

•••• Visitors must not leave the site until instructed to do so.

IN THE EVENT OF A FIRE

Leave the room by the nearest fire exit. These are located to the rear of the Chamber and the door leading to the Roof Garden as Fire Exits. Proceed to the main car park and assemble by the Ne w Build Sign (NB)

ALL MOBILE PHONES/PAGERS SHOULD BE SWITCHED OFF OR SET TO SILENT MODE BEFORE THE START OF THE MEETING.

CL.2013/14

Council – 25 July 2013 Subject to approval Minutes at the next meeting

1

COUNCIL

25 July 2013

7.00 pm – 10.05 pm Council Chamber, Ebley Mill, Stroud

Minutes

3 Membership: Dennis Andrewartha** P Chas Fellows P Nigel Prenter A Liz Ashton P Paul Hemming P Andy Read P Dorcas Binns P Nick Hurst P Mark Rees* A Rowland Blackwell A Haydn Jones P Frances Roden P Philip Booth P John Jones P Mattie Ross P Tim Boxall A Daniel Le Fleming A Roger Sanders P Chris Brine P Graham Littleton A Emma Sims P Paul Carter P Stephen Lydon P Paul Smith P Molly Cato P John Marjoram P Ken Stephens P Miranda Clifton P Brian Marsh P Nigel Studdert-Kennedy P Nigel Cooper P Russell Miles P Brian Tipper P June Cordwell P Stephen Moore P Geoff Wheeler P Doina Cornell P Alan O’Connor A Martin Whiteside A Gordon Craig P Keith Pearson P Rhiannon Wigzell P Karon Cross P Elizabeth Peters P Tom Williams P Paul Denney P Simon Pickering P Penny Wride P David Drew P Gary Powell P Debbie Young A ** = Chair of Council * = Vice Chair of Council P = Present A = Absent Officers Present Chief Executive Head of Finance Legal Services Manager and Principal Planning Officer Monitoring Officer Senior Planning Strategy Officers Strategic Head (Development Services) Planning Strategy Officers Head of Planning Principal Marketing Officer Head of Corporate Resources Democratic Services and Elections Officer Head of Housing Management Also Present Mrs Pauline Simpson

CL.2013/14


2

CL.011 APOLOGIES Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Rowland Blackwell, Tim Boxall, Daniel Le Fleming, Graham Littleton, Alan O’Connor, Nigel Prenter, Mark Rees, Martin Whiteside and Debbie Young. CL.012 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST None received. CL.013 MINUTES RESOLVED That the Minutes of the Annual General Mee ting held on 16 May

2013 are confirmed and signed as a correct record. CL.014 ANNOUNCEMENTS (i) Chair of Council Former Councillor Ray Apperley Members of the Council joined the Chair in paying tribute to the service, hard work and dedication of former Councillor Ray Apperley, who had recently passed away. He would be particularly remembered for his commitment and support for improving the health service and his membership of the County Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee. He had served as a Member of this Council from 2002 to 2012 which had included an appointment to Vice-Chair of Council. The Council stood for a minutes silence in his memory. (ii) Chief Executive Investors in People (IiP) Standard and Health and W ell-Being Award Members were informed that the Council had held the IiP Standard since 1999. It was one of only three authorities nationally and the only authority in the South West, to be accredited the Health and Well-Being Award. The Chief Executive was pleased to announce that following a recent assessment in June, the Council had been awarded the Investors in People and Health and Well-Being Award for the forthcoming year. Renewal Heat Payment Premium Social Landlord Compet ition for Funding The Chief Executive announced that the Council had been successful with its grant application for the installation of 400 air source heat pump units (equivalent monetary value of £900,000). This had been the largest allocation in the UK and would represent 25% of installations nationally, providing 400 out of the 480 units for the South West. The Council joined the Chief Executive in congratulating those involved with production of the bid.

CL.2013/14


3

CL.015 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME None received. CL.016 PETITION REQUESTING THE COUNCIL TO RECOGNISE,

REINSTATE AND SUPPORT ARRANGEMENTS FOR TENANT REPRESENTATION IN SHELTERED HOUSING SCHEMES

Mrs Pauline Simpson, petition organiser, presented the following petition to the Council:

“We the undersigned concerned citizens, call upon Stroud District Council to recognise, reinstate and support; • the 55 democratically elected volunteer tenant representatives in

SDC’s sheltered housing schemes across the Stroud District • the related Sheltered Accommodation Panels • and USAP – the independent charity which supports all of the above to

ensure that tenants in sheltered housing have their own independent voice.”

The petition organiser made a statement in support of the petition which outlined the background to the charitable status and operation of USAP, the housing initiatives that it had developed and supported with the Council and other tenants, and the changes made by the Council to sheltered housing, which she felt had decimated the service. She drew attention to the Council withdrawing its support for USAP meetings and to the unfair imbalance of representation between USAP and others on the Sheltered Housing Project Board. She informed Members that USAP representatives had not walked out of meetings and had not withdrawn from consultation, refuting any claims that USAP representatives had been difficult to work with. In her view, the Council no longer recognised USAP, and as a consequence of its exclusion, it no longer had a voice. Approaches had been made to the Tenants and Residents Organisation of England (TAROE) to assist with mediation between Officers and sheltered housing tenant representatives. The Council’s complaints procedure had been exhausted and subsequent recourse had been made to the Local Government Ombudsman and the Housing Ombudsman. She questioned the unjust and unfair dismissal of the 55 democratically elected volunteer sheltered tenant representatives, and believed that the human rights of these representatives and sheltered housing tenants had been violated. She also challenged the marginalisation of USAP, a well established tenant led body, which could have been an integral part of the new structure. Having supported sheltered housing tenants for a long period of time, the Chair of the Housing Committee expressed her dismay at the position before the Council. She reminded Members of the imminent reductions in funding for the sheltered housing service and the measures put in place by this Council to move the service forward. She explained that whilst mediation had been discussed by all parties concerned, this had not been progressed due to the disengagement of USAP, who remained unwilling to work with the Council and who had been relentless in its opposition, rejection and constantly revisiting the past.

CL.2013/14


4

The Chair of the Housing Committee referred to the importance and value given to tenants’ views and the Council’s aim to do the best it could for them, to ensure that the highest level of service could be provided where possible, despite having to make essential service changes due to the loss of Supporting People funding. Unfortunately, such changes had been met with continued resistance by USAP and threats had been made by them if their demands could not be met. She reflected on the Council’s efforts to directly engage with tenants, the need to make changes and the positive desire to move forward with new housing initiatives, which should be celebrated. She concluded that now was the time to stop dealing with complaints and campaigns from USAP and to move on, directly consulting with sheltered tenants and doing what was best for them. Prior to debate the Chair of Council explained that he would ensure that the Council’s response was sent to each signatory on the petition. The ensuing debate demonstrated the Council’s desire to look forward and progress the new arrangements and tenant structures established for the sheltered housing service, with all parties engaged and being treated respectfully. There would be no going back to previous arrangements including the reinstatement of USAP; representation had to be far wider, with new sheltered housing representation on the project board. An impasse had been reached and Members felt that mediation and reconciliation to encourage and develop positive relationships between the Council and its tenants remained an option. Acknowledgement was given to the briefing note circulated to Members from the ‘Future of Sheltered Housing Project Board’, outlining the new arrangements in place for the sheltered accommodation service and the reasons for moving forward. In concluding debate, the Chair of Council explained how the new arrangements had received cross party support from the Council and from the Project Board. The care of the vulnerable remained a high priority for this Council. CL.017 RECOMMENDATIONS FROM COMMITTEES Environment Committee and Strategy and Resources Co mmittee (8 & 10 July 2013, respectively) Stroud District Local Plan The Leader of the Council moved the recommendation of the Strategy and Resources Committee meeting of 10 July 2013, as set out on the agenda for this meeting. The motion was seconded by Councillor Molly Cato. The Chair of the Environment Committee stated how the Local Plan sought to meet future development and employment needs within the District, protect iconic green spaces and enable the Council to defend sites through the Local Plan. He hoped that the motion would receive cross party support. The Strategic Head of Development Services reminded the Council of the importance of producing the Stroud District Local Plan, which set the planning strategy and policies for promoting and managing development in the District for the next 15+ years.

CL.2013/14


5

He referred to the significant debate, discussions and extensive consultation undertaken since 2009, which had contributed to the production of the draft Plan now under consideration. Substantial evidence had supported the understanding of complex issues concerning land use and development to ensure sustainable development continued to be delivered into the future. Members were informed of the approach taken to provide sustainable development in view of the unprecedented period of recession and in line with national objectives, with plans to be progressed as quickly as possible to ensure that sustainable development could be approved without delay. The Strategic Head of Development Services stated that the draft plan sought to achieve the balance between economic, environmental and social factors whilst supporting sustainable growth. The Plan had been based upon a concentrated growth strategy around larger settlements rather than dispersed development within small settlements; an approach overwhelmingly supported through public consultation. The Plan also provided flexibility for local communities to propose further growth, via Neighbourhood Plans, if required. It was vital that the growth proposed was based on solid evidence supported by professional and independent experts and that it was both deliverable and viable. The Strategic Head of Development Services drew attention to the risks of delaying a decision on the plan in terms of the number of current speculative planning applications for Greenfield development on unplanned areas and moving forward with a Plan which did not seek to meet the fully objectively assessed needs of the district. Each of the risks would involve further delay and uncertainty for residents and the local community. Officers believed that the draft plan, with some minor changes, represented a good and robust plan to go out to formal consultation in September 2013 and then submitted to the Government in early 2014 for public examination. Once approved, the draft Plan had some weight for use in considering future planning applications, alongside the current Local Plan. He drew the Council’s attention to the minor changes proposed, as reported to each of the Environment and Strategy and Resources Committees. Namely to replace the jobs figure in Policy CP2 from 5,100 to 6,200, based on the latest Cambridge Econometrics LEFM 2012/13 projections, and to the inclusion of the additional map change to extend Stonehouse Town Centre boundary, to include retail and service properties along Elms Road. A copy of the map had been circulated with the papers for the meeting. The need to include a reserve site in the Plan was questioned. Attention was drawn to page 3 of the officers’ response to Committees, which explained the requirement for a reserve site (identified as West of Stonehouse). In essence, a reserve site at this stage would prevent the Inspector from delaying the public examination, to allow the Council to identify other sites, whilst also preserving the flexibility of the Plan. Any delay in producing the Local Plan would pose an increased risk, with development decisions potentially being made by the Inspector and appeals being permitted. The Inspector could prevent any substantial developments from taking place until the Plan had been adopted.

CL.2013/14


6

The Strategic Head of Development Services was unaware of any other authorities including a reserve site within their Local Plan. The Council was in a unique situation and had gone through an unprecedented period of recession. It was possible that the Inspector may view housing need based on pre-recessionary trends and might therefore wish to include the reserve site West of Stonehouse. He confirmed that there would be no time available to consult upon alternative reserve sites and gather the requisite supporting evidence. The evidence base established since 2009 supported the sites currently put forward and any new site would not be supported by this evidence. Although supporting the motion, Councillor Paul Denney moved an amendment to the housing figures as indicated below. Location Current Number Proposed Number Hunts Grove 500 500 North-East Cam 450 250 Sharpness 300 300 Stroud Valleys 300 300 Council housing 150 150 Windfalls 750 950 Total 2,450 2,450 The motion was seconded by Councillor David Drew. The viability of the Plan was questioned on the basis of the reduction proposed to the allocation at North East Cam. The proposer of the motion referred to the loss of key employment sites in Cam over the past 10 years. He believed the current proposal would make Cam the largest developed area in the district, likely to be occupied by persons out commuting for employment. He referred to the potential increase in traffic movements and believed that an additional 500 dwellings in Cam would be unsustainable and impact on the capacity of the existing community infrastructure. However it was highlighted that to make Cam an economically viable area and create approximately 1500 jobs, a development of 450-500 houses would be necessary. If the Plan’s jobs and growth strategies were not supported, there would be no opportunity to increase employment within the area. The potential risk of increasing the windfall figure to 950 dwellings was questioned. A Member referred to previous trends in windfall growth which had been constant at approximately 70-80 dwellings per year. He believed the increased figure would equate to approximately 40 dwellings per year over the Plan period, would be aligned to a more realistic Council position and would allow some flexibility for development in other areas of the district. The Strategic Head of Development Services pointed out that there had been non policy compliant windfall sites which had been excluded from the current windfall allocation as permission would not be granted for this type of development once the Plan was in place. He advised against undertaking comparisons with historic data.

CL.2013/14


7

The Council was informed that any reduction in the allocation for North East Cam would reduce the sites’ viability and it might not be deliverable. With an allocation of 500 dwellings its viability was already marginal but had included a lot of assumptions about infrastructure costs. The subsequent debate indicated some support for the amendment. It was pointed out that development had already been permitted for some windfall sites and it was considered that the reserve site West of Stonehouse would not be viable. Discussion took place on the adequacy of the 500 houses for North East Cam and whether this would even be sufficient to attract employment to the area. There was concern at the impact that a large scale development of 500 houses or more would have on the local amenities in Cam. The Chair of the Environment Committee reminded Members of the need to adopt a draft deposit Local Plan to enable the Council to defend its housing sites and create opportunities for employment. The Plan had to be strong and defendable, with sound advice backed up by strong evidence. He advised Members to vote against the amendment, should the Council wish to have a defendable Local Plan. The seconder of the Motion referred to the time spent by the Council’s Development Control Committee to defend sites in Cam where housing was not wanted. He felt such a high allocation for Cam to be both inappropriate and unfair. He considered that windfalls had also been under allocated and a coherent approach should be developed to protect Cam from future development. The proposer referred to the historic housing and employment position within Cam and felt that it would soon become an area consumed by housing. He felt that Cam would gradually be abandoned as people moved to areas where employment was available. He hoped that Members would support his proposal to reduce the North East Cam allocation to 250 dwellings. On the amendment being put to the vote it was LOST by 15 votes in favour, 26 votes against and no abstentions. The Leader of the Council referred to the uncertainties that lay ahead, unsure of the future economy and the position of the Council in 15-20 years time. Whilst the growth in the local economy could be guided to some extent via the Local Plan and working with partners, there was uncertainty as to how the Council would be able to influence future decisions. For this reason he felt that there needed to be some flexibility within the Plan allowing communities to come forward with their own development proposals or neighbourhood plans. On this basis he moved an amendment for the Local Plan to be reviewed in no more than five years from its adoption. The amendment was seconded by Councillor Chris Brine. The review timescale proposed was questioned. The Leader maintained that a thorough review of the Plan during this time would enable the Council to fully evaluate its position when faced with a number of future uncertainties. In response to questions, the Strategic Head of Development Services advised that setting a specific timescale for a review might lead the Inspector to believe that the

CL.2013/14


8

Plan was unsound. This would also be largely dependent upon the national policy context and the Plan’s strength and ability to withstand change. There were mixed views on whether the amendment should be supported. Some Members believed that setting a timescale for review could jeopardise the standing of the Plan. Other Members believed that it would provide a commitment by the Council to review its projections and assess the appropriateness of future development in line with any uncertainties. It was stated that the review should not be used to reduce realistic needs for the future. On the amendment being put to the vote it was CARRIED by 22 votes in favour, 17 votes against and 2 abstentions. A debate on the substantive motion ensued. Those opposing the motion expressed concern at the level of some allocations and consequent viability of sites, together with the absence of a reserve site within the Plan. It was felt that the Council was missing substantial development opportunities and the ability to generate employment opportunities. Additionally, there was concern that the Inspector would consider the Plan unsound. Whilst acknowledging that the Council had to have a Plan in place, some Members still felt unable to support the motion. Although the Plan contained a range of good initiatives, it was felt that its soundness could be challenged. Forcing the Inspector to consider a review period imposed by the Council, together with removal of a reserve site, stripped the Plan of any flexibility and put the District at risk. Others were reluctant to support the motion, but were minded to do so as a necessary compromise to enable the Council to have a draft Local Plan in place. The Plan was judged as highly ambitious and challenging. Housing allocations were considered sufficient without the need to include a reserve site West of Stonehouse. The Council should maintain focus on securing employment opportunities, whilst planning housing sites that were deliverable. It was considered unnecessary to have sites with high concentrations of housing, the view being that dispersal would be more appropriate to the topography of the District. It was felt that the Council should be more prescriptive on the locations of sites and plan how these would be developed. Some expressed the view that the over allocation of housing sites, realistic windfall figures and sustainable allocations for the Stroud Valleys and North East Cam would be more acceptable. It was acknowledged that there were a range of policies which sought to promote industry and protect sites. A Member was concerned that whilst the advice given on how to progress the Plan had been clear, the Council had already decided to go against it. Based on the information available, the Council would be deciding on a Plan which at best would last for five years, with its robustness left open to challenge. In summing up, the Leader stated that he believed that the Council had a good Local Plan, fit for consultation and public examination. The Council joined the Chair in applauding the members of the Planning Strategy Team for all the work they had undertaken to produce the Plan.

CL.2013/14


9

On the substantive motion being put to the vote it was CARRIED overwhelmingly, with 1 vote against and 1 abstention. Councillor Chas Fellows requested it be recorded that he had voted against the decision. RESOLVES a) The draft Stroud District Local Plan attached at

Appendix A to this report, together with supporting documents, is approved for publication in accordanc e with Regulations 19 and 20 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 201 2 and subsequently to be submitted to the Secretary o f State in accordance with Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, subject to amendments to the requirement for new housing and its locations as follows:-

Location Number Hunts Grove 500 North-East Cam 450 Sharpness 300 Stroud Valleys 300 Council housing 150 Windfalls 750 Total 2,450 Reference to a reserve site west of Stonehouse is t o be deleted from the Stroud District Local Plan.

b) Authority be delegated to the Strategic Head of

Development Services to make textual changes to the draft Stroud District Local Plan in consultation wi th the Chair of Environment Committee prior to publication .

c) The Local Plan is reviewed in not more than five years from the date of adoption.

CL.018 MATTERS FOR INFORMATION The Council noted the meetings that had taken place since the Annual General Meeting held on 16 May 2013. CL.019 MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS None received.

CL.2013/14


10

CL.020 NOTICE OF MOTION Investigations into becoming a Unitary Authority – 04/13 Councillor Paul Carter (proposer) and Councillor Chas Fellows (seconder) announced that they had agreed to withdraw the above Notice of Motion which would now be submitted to the next meeting of the Council for consideration. The Chair of Council asked Group Leaders to consult with each other on the Motion prior to discussion at the next meeting. The meeting closed at 10.05 pm.

Chair of Council

Council 1 Agenda Item 7(a) 10 October 2013

STROUD DISTRICT COUNCIL

COUNCIL 10 OCTOBER 2013

Strategy and Resources Committee

24 September 2013

Housing Committee 19 September 2013

AGENDA ITEM NO

7(a)

Report Title

INCREASE IN HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT 2013/14 BUDGET AND AMENDED 5 YEAR MEDIUM TERM FINANCIAL PLAN

Purpose of Report

To present to the Housing Committee a proposed amended 2013/14 budget and 5 year HRA Medium Term Financial Plan.

Decision(s)

The Housing Committee RECOMMENDS to Strategy and Resources Committee to recommend to Council: a) an increase of £1,273,000 in the 2013/14 budget

through: I. Bringing forward £400,000 from next year’s

Renewable Energy budget II. Increasing the Voids budget by £700,000 III. Increasing the Asbestos surveys budget by £198,000 IV. Removing the vehicle purchase budget of £25,000.

b) an increase in the 5 year Medium Term Financial Plan

Capital Spend of £78,000 from £71,715,000 to £71,793,000 representing a 0.1% increase over the 5 years.

Consul tation and Feedback

Consultation has taken place with the Stroud Council Housing Forum on 17 September 2013.

Financial Implications and Risk Assessment

The increase in this year’s capital programme will be mainly around specific areas such as housing development and heat pump installations and will be funded by related funding such as higher than anticipated right to buy receipts and newly secured Government grant for heat pumps. There will also be some further limited additional drawdown of the borrowing headroom to fund the balance of work required. The majority of this other work is a consequence of recent legislative changes in housing benefit, and the work will be accommodated within the finances available to the HRA whilst still ensuring a sufficient reserve remains available. Ian Garrett, Business Accountant (HRA) Tel: 01453 754121; Email: [email protected]


Legal Implications

There are no legal implications arising from this report. Lucia Fiveash, Solicitor Tel: 01453 754387 Email: [email protected]

Report Author

Ian Garrett, Business Accountant (HRA) Tel: 01453 754121 Email: [email protected] Peter Stoate, Head of Housing Contracts Tel: 01453 754196 Email: [email protected]

Options

There is an option not to undertake the proposed additional works and not increase the budget. However, this would lead to increased void times and potentially a reduction in rental income. In addition, it would mean losing an opportunity to increase the efficiency of our ‘off gas’ properties further.

Performance Management Follow Up

Budget performance is reviewed on a quarterly basis at both Housing Committee and Strategy and Resources Committee.

Background Papers/ Appendices

Appendix A – Current approved HRA Medium Term Financial Plan. Appendix B – HRA Medium term Financial Plan with 2013/14 slippage, grant award and RTB Receipts. Appendix C – Proposed HRA Medium Term Financial Plan as per Appendix B with additional spend request of £1,273,000.

1. Introduction

1.1 At it’s meeting on 3rd January 2013 the Executive approved the HRA Capital

Programme for 2013/14 and the Medium Term Financial Plan for the next 5 years 2013 to 2018. This was also approved by full Council at its meeting on 24 January 2013.

1.2 In June 2013 the Housing Committee approved that HRA capital budgets for

2013/14 be increased by £822k to include elements of budget carried forward from 2012/13. In addition, to these there is £1,253k in respect of Right to Buy receipts which also require adding to this year’s budget.

1.3 SDC were recently successful in obtaining a grant award of £880k in respect of its energy programme which requires the installation of 400 Air Source Heat Pumps by 31st March 2014.

1.4 The Capital Budget Carry Forwards(slippage) RTB receipts and Grant awards can

be highlighted as follows:


Slippage £’000s Woolaways 325

Catch up works 248

Capital works to be assigned 249

Total Slippage 822 Right To Buy Receipts 1,253 Grant Award 880 Total Add to 2013/14 Budget 2,955

1.5 The effect of incorporating the slippage from 2012/13 plus RTB receipts and the

grant award on the capital programme for 2013/14 can be seen below:

No Capital Programme 2013/14 Budget £000’s

2012/13 Slippage £000’s

RTB Receipts and grant

award £000’s

Total

£000’S 1 New Build/Purchase 1,000 - 1,253 2,253 2 Woolaways – Minchinhampton - 60 - 60 3 Woolaways –Leonard/TOT 456 188 - 644 4 Non Trad Props - - - 5 Major Voids 1,400 - 1,400 6 Electrical Works 100 - 100 7 Doors & Windows 275 100 - 375 8 Estate Works 500 - 500 9 Prof fees 15 - 15 10 Disabled Adaptations 220 - 220 11 Welfare aid: lifeline 3 - 3 12 Asbestos/Radon works 28 24 - 52 13 Kitchen/Bathrooms & Showers 2,000 450 - 2,450 14 Roofing 550 - 550 15 Damp works/insulation 90 - 90 16 Central Heating & Fuel Switch 670 - 670 17 Renewable heating 5,000 880 5,880 18 Sheltered renovations 240 - 240 19 Vehicle Purchase 25 - - 25 Total 12,572 822 2,133 15,527

1.6 The utilisation of the Right To Buy receipts of £1,253k from 2012/13 will lead to an

increased income of £600k (£120k per annum) over the next 5 years. 1.7 The utilisation of the £880k grant income recently awarded to SDC will allow for an

increased specification on the energy project for the 400 homes being renovated in 2013/14.

1.8 Following the collapse of the previous contractor a new doors contract was let in

October 2012 for a total of £800k over 4 years with a maximum of £200k per annum running from October to October. An amendment to the spend profiling within the contract has been agreed to tie the contract into the Council’s financial year i.e. the previous October 2012 to March 2013 will be counted as year 1. Year 2 will begin from April 2013 onwards. The maximum sum under the contract remains at £800k.


2. Revised Budget 2013/14 2.1 Following the introduction of the Welfare Reform Act it has been found that the

number of tenants wanting to ‘down size’ has increased in order to address the loss of their housing benefit through the under occupancy charge. This has lead to a significant increase in the number of voids coming back. In the first four months the number of voids has increased by 25%. The number of ‘major voids’ which account for an average spend of £20k per unit has more than doubled from 34 to 74, an increase of 40 major voids on this time last year.

2.2 This has lead to significant pressure on the voids workload and budget. These have

been incorporated into the programme but there is a need to increase the budget for 2013/14 by £700k. As the year progresses Officers will keep members updated.

2.3 In addition approval is sought to increase the Asbestos budget by £198k to take

account of the increase in voids and to enable the externalisation of asbestos surveys in respect of energy project properties.

2.4 The Energy Project has completed surveys on the 400 properties. The surveys

have identified the need to undertake considerably more damp works than originally budgeted. It is expected to cost on average an extra £1,000 per property on damp works which results in an additional cost of £400k. The successful application for the grant of £880k has meant that we are now able to install a vent axia unit in each property (improves damp conditions) and a Solic 200 unit which automatically converts energy generated by the PV panels into hot water and can save hundreds of pounds over the course of a year – for more information please look at:

http://www.earthwiseproducts.co.uk/images/products/SOLiC%20200%20factsheet.pdf).

These will improve the efficiency and condition of the 400 properties even further

and reduce both utility bills and the potential of damp and mould conditions arising. In addition, it is proposed to reduce the activity in year 2 (2014/15) and let this slip

into year 3 (2015/16). This is to encourage/attract where possible local suppliers and contractors via the new procurement portal.

2.5 The effect on the capital programme for 2013/14 can be seen below:

No Capital Programme 2013/14

Budget

£000’s

Add Budget request £000s

Total

£000s 1 New Build/Purchase 2,253 2,253 2 Woolaways – Michinhampton 60 60 3 Woolaways –Leonard/TOT 644 644 4 Non Trad Props - - 5 Major Voids 1,400 700 2,100 6 Electrical Works 100 100 7 Doors & Windows 375 375 8 Estate Works 500 500 9 Prof fees 15 15


10 Disabled Adaptations 220 220 11 Welfare aid: lifeline 3 3 12 Asbestos/Radon works 52 198 250 13 Kitchen/Bathrooms & Showers 2,450 2,450 14 Roofing 550 550 15 Damp works/insulation 90 90 16 Central Heating & Fuel Switch 670 670 17 Renewable heating 5,880 400 6,480 18 Sheltered renovations 240 240 19 Vehicle Purchase 25 -25 - Total 15,527 1,273 16,800

2.6 The budget for 2013/14 will effectively be increased by £1,273k. This represents an

8% increase in the 2013/14 budget. This will be funded by bringing forward £1,000k of borrowing into 2013/14.

2.7 The Medium Term Financial Plan for 2013 - 2018 with the addition of the grant award (£880k), the slippage (£822k) and RTB Receipts (£1,253k), making an additional £2,955k in 2013/14 can be seen in Appendix 2 – total spend £71,715k.

2.8 By amending other areas to take account of this the effect on the Medium Term

Financial Plan can be seen below:

No Capital Programme

Original 2013/18 Budget £000’s

Revised 2013 to 18

Budget £000’s

Change

£000’s 1 New Build/Purchase 15,853 15,436 -417 2 Major Voids 6,200 6,700 +500 3 Asbestos/Radon works 164 484 +320 4 Kitchen/Bathrooms & Showers 12,450 12,150 -300 5 Vehicle Purchase 25 - -25 6 No change 37,023 37,023 - Total 71,715 71,793 +78

2.9 The current MTFP has a 5 year capital spend of £71,715k (£68,760k plus £822k

slippage plus £880k grant award and £1,253k from RTB receipts). The proposed amended MTFP will have a capital spend of £71,793k (see Appendix C for full details). This is an increase of £78k (or 0.1%) over the 5 year term.

2.10 A fundamental part of the MTFP is to ensure that there are adequate reserves for

any potential adverse scenarios. The reserves projection can be seen below: 2013/14

Budget £000’s

2014/15 Budget £000’s

2015/16 Budget £000’s

2016/17 Budget £000’s

2017/18 Budget £000’s

Current reserve projections 1,644 1,807 2,152 2,134 1,728 Amended reserve projections 1,361 1,640 1,041 1,811 2,964 Change -284 -167 -1,112 -323 +1,236


3. Conclusion 3.1 The overall effect of the proposed changes on the Medium Term Financial Plan is

minimal – the five year spend of £71,715k increases by £78k to £71,793k. Reserves at the end of year 5 will be £2,964k (an increase of £1,236k)

3.2 The new Medium Term Financial Plan brings forward capital spend which will

stimulate the economy and promote jobs and growth with a specific objective to encourage local companies and suppliers to bid/tender for contracts.

3.2 Approval is sought for the Housing Committee to recommend to Strategy and

Resources Committee:

a) an increase of £1,273,000 in the 2013/14 budget through:

I. Bringing forward £400,000 from next years Renewable Energy budget II. Increasing the Voids budget by £700,000 III. Increasing the Asbestos surveys budget by £198,000 IV. Removing the vehicle purchase budget of £25,000.

b) an increase in the 5 year Medium term Financial Plan Capital Spend of £78,000

from £71,715,000 to £71,793,000 representing a 0.1% increase over the 5 years.

Council 7 Agenda Item 7(a) 10 October 2013 Appendix A

Appendix A The Current HRA Medium Term Financial Plan


Budget £000’s

2014/15 Budget £000’s

2015/16 Budget £000’s

2016/17 Budget £000’s

2017/18 Budget £000’s

Total

£000’s 2 New Build/Purchase 1,000 2,650 3,350 3,000 4,600 14,600 3 Woolaways –

Michinhampton - - - - - -

4 Woolaways –Leonard/TOT 456 3,435 490 - - 4,381 5 Non Trad Props - 500 250 250 250 1,250 6 Major Voids 1,400 1,400 1,200 1,200 1,000 6,200 7 Electrical Works 100 100 100 100 100 500 8 Doors & Windows 275 275 275 275 275 1,375 9 Estate Works 500 500 500 500 500 2,500 10 Prof fees 15 15 15 15 15 75 11 Disabled Adaptations 220 220 220 220 220 1,100 12 Welfare aid: lifeline 3 3 3 3 3 13 13 Asbestos/Radon works 28 28 28 28 28 140 14 Kitchen/Bathrooms &

Showers 2,000 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 12,000

15 Roofing 550 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 4,550 16 Damp works/insulation 90 90 90 90 90 450 17 Central Heating & Fuel

Switch 670 670 670 670 670 3,350

18 Renewable heating 5,000 7,000 1,017 1,017 1,017 15,051 19 Sheltered renovations 240 240 240 240 240 1,200 20 Vehicle Purchase 25 - - - - 25 Total 12,572 20,626 11,948 11,108 12,508 68,760

Council 8 Agenda Item 7(a) 10 October 2013 Appendix B

Appendix B

The HRA Medium Term Financial Plan with grant/slippage and RTB Receipts added


Budget £000’s

2014/15 Budget £000’s

2015/16 Budget £000’s

2016/17 Budget £000’s

2017/18 Budget £000’s

Total

£000’s 2 New Build/Purchase 2,253 2,650 3,350 3,000 4,600 15,853 3 Woolaways –

Michinhampton 60 - - - - 60

4 Woolaways –Leonard/TOT 644 3,435 490 - - 4,569 5 Non Trad Props - 500 250 250 250 1,250 6 Major Voids 1,400 1,400 1,200 1,200 1,000 6,200 7 Electrical Works 100 100 100 100 100 500 8 Doors & Windows 375 275 275 275 275 1,475 9 Estate Works 500 500 500 500 500 2,500 10 Prof fees 15 15 15 15 15 75 11 Disabled Adaptations 220 220 220 220 220 1,100 12 Welfare aid: lifeline 3 3 3 3 3 13 13 Asbestos/Radon works 52 28 28 28 28 164 14 Kitchen/Bathrooms &

Showers 2,450 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 12,450


Switch 670 670 670 670 670 3,350

18 Renewable heating 5,880 7,000 1,017 1,017 1,017 15,931 19 Sheltered renovations 240 240 240 240 240 1,200 20 Vehicle Purchase 25 - - - - 25 Total 15,527 20,626 11,948 11,108 12,508 71,715

Council 9 Agenda Item 7(a) 10 October 2013 Appendix C

Appendix C The new Proposed HRA Medium Term Financial Plan with grant/slippage and RTB Receipts added plus additional spend


Budget £000’s

2014/15 Budget £000’s

2015/16 Budget £000’s

2016/17 Budget £000’s

2017/18 Budget £000’s

Total

£000’s 1 New Build/Purchase 2,253 3,803 1,040 2,785 2,255 12,136 2 Woolaways - New Build - 1,650 2,300 -650 - 3,300 3 Woolaways –

Michinhampton 60 - - - - 60

4 Woolaways – Leonard Stanley/Top of Town - Refurbishment

644 3,435 490 - - 4,569

5 Non Trad Props - 500 250 250 250 1,250 6 Major Voids 2,100 1,400 1,100 1,100 1,000 6,700 7 Electrical Works 100 100 100 100 100 500 8 Doors & Windows 375 275 275 275 275 1,475 9 Estate Works 500 500 500 500 500 2,500 10 Prof fees 15 15 15 15 15 75 11 Disabled Adaptations 220 220 220 220 220 1,100 12 Welfare aid: lifeline 3 3 3 3 3 13 13 Asbestos/Radon works 250 150 28 28 28 484 14 Kitchen/Bathrooms &

Showers 2,450 2,500 2,200 2,500 2,500 12,150


Switch 670 670 670 670 670 3,350

18 Renewable heating 6,280 3,817 3,800 1,017 1,017 15,931 19 Sheltered renovations 240 240 240 240 240 1,200 20 Vehicle Purchase - - - - - - Total 16,800 20,368 14,321 10,143 10,163 71,793

Note: 1. Woolaways – New Build £3,300k; refurbish/ replace £5,232k – Total £8,532k less

£663k already spent – total in MTFP is £7,869k (£3,300k new build and £4,569k refurbish/ replace).

2. Renewable Heating programme has been spread over 3 years in order to

encourage/engage local contractors and local suppliers in the project.

Council Agenda Item 7(b) 10 October 2013 1

STROUD DISTRICT COUNCIL

COUNCIL

10 OCTOBER 2013

Strategy and Resources Committee 24 September 2013

Community Services Committee

5 September 2013

AGENDA ITEM NO

7(b)

Report Title

STRATFORD PARK LEISURE CENTRE VILLAGE CHANGE PROJECT

Purpose of Report

To provide the Committee with details of the proposed changes to Stratford Park Leisure Centres changing facilities.

Decision(s)

1. Community Services Committee to approve the expenditure required for undertaking the project.

2. Strategy and Resources Committee to

RECOMMEND to Council to approve the additional resource of £61,000 required to complete the project funded from the Capital Reserve.

Consultation and Feedback

Extensive consultation has taken place with the centres users on what changes would benefit the centre and enhance the experience for its customers.

This has been undertaken through various roadshows and the centres Customer Forum Group.

Financial Implications and Risk Assessment

Appendix D of this report provides a financial summary of the SPLC Village Change project and the resources already identified. Funding already earmarked for the project includes slippage from the 2012/13 capital programme, use of existing revenue budget underspends, and utilising the £40,000 MTFP contribution to the SPLC sinking fund. Members will also have noted the expenditure incurred on replacing the Sports Hall Floor. This has largely been funded from the council’s insurers following a successful claim against the policy.


Financial Implications and Risk Assessment (cont/d)

Appendix D also highlights an additional £61,000 required to complete the Village Change project and to fund the ongoing planned maintenance works at Stratford Park Leisure Centre. However, there is a significant forward funding required of around £167,000 in 2013/14 (Year 3), with surplus funding in 2014/15 to 2017/18 (Years 4-7) being paid back taking the overall shortfall back to £61,000. It is proposed that the Capital Reserve provides the additional funding. As members will appreciate, the SPLC project was not included in the Capital Programme for 2013/14 and the request for additional funding is outside of the budget framework. Therefore the SPLC project has not been appraised against other capital schemes that may come forward during the 2014/15 budget setting process. This means that any decision to allocate funding from the capital reserve will be taken in isolation and presents a risk that funding may be allocated to schemes that are not necessarily the best use of resources. Furthermore, there is an additional risk that the costs outlined in Appendix D increase, or additional expenditure is required during Years 4-7. This may mean that the repayment to the Capital Reserve may not be at the levels indicated, thereby leading to a potential increase in the net additional resource required. Robust budget monitoring will ensure that any potential variation can be reported back to members if the overall funding level is likely to be exceeded. It is also worth noting that Years 8-10 of the Planned Maintenance work will require funding and that the overall level of the SPLC sinking fund will remain at £74,000 for the duration of the project David Stanley Accountancy Manager Tel: 01453 754100 Email: [email protected] Risk Assessment The refurbishment will reduce ongoing maintenance costs and make the centre more cost effective to run. Due to the enhanced layout there will be a reduced personal safety risk with the removal of corridors; this will enhance safety and security within these areas.


Mike Hammond Facilities & Civil Contingencies Facilities Manager Tel: 01453 754447 Email: [email protected]

Legal Implications

A decision to provide a fund of £61,000 would not be in line with the existing budget framework. Any decision to allocate funds may only be taken by the Council. There are no other significant legal implications arising directly from the report. Saira Malik, Solicitor Tel 01453 754357 Email: [email protected]

Report Author

Mike Hammond, Facilities and Civil Contingencies Facilities Manager Tel: 01453 754447 Email: [email protected]

Options

1. Undertake the project, which will address the ageing condition of changing rooms, and reception toilets in one project giving maximum visual impact alongside best use of spend.

2. Do the project in stages. However, if the village

change project is undertaken without all works being carried out in one go this may result in work having to be undone in order to carry out works. This will also result in little change for customers who will not notice the affects in one go and may result in longer disruption for customers. It is expected that this will result in the continuation in the number of complaints.

3. Do nothing with the existing changing and toilet

facilities until the planned maintenance programme dates. This is planned in during the PPMP year 8-11. This equates to 2018/22. It is expected that this will result in the continuation in the number of complaints.

Performance Management Follow Up

The centre’s facilities are regularly reviewed by the Council’s Facilities Management Team, to ensure that the services specification standards are fully met. As part of this services specification, the centre is also audited by QUEST, which is a nationally recognised benchmark for Sports facilities and this will be reviewed again in 2013.

A NBS (National benchmarking survey) was undertaken in November 2012 and another survey is due to be carried out in November 2013. The 2012 survey noted that the changing and toilet facilities let the centre down.


In June 2013 the staff at the centre achieved CIMSPA European pool safety award.

Background Papers/ Appendices

Available to view in the Members’ lounge. Appendix A – Full details from customer feedback Appendix B – Proposed plans Appendix C – Existing plans Appendix D – Funding Plan

Introduction On 1st November 2011, Stroud District Council (SDC) and Sports Leisure Management (SLM) entered into a contract for the management of Stratford Park Leisure Centre for a period of ten years. In the terms of the contract, SDC has a responsibility to maintain the fabric of the building and replace fixtures when they are no longer repairable. SLM are responsible for day to day maintenance and servicing of equipment. Since the contract commenced there has been significant investment in the centre by both SLM and SDC. SDC has replaced the swimming pool roof as well as the pool hall ceiling tiles. It has continued to work through its maintenance plan including replacing a number of pool circulation pumps, replacing floor coverings throughout the centre and the wall tiles along poolside. SLM have reconfigured the 1st floor fitness area (gym) and has seen the introduction of upstairs changing and showering facilities. In November 2012 the main sport hall floor was flooded meaning that a replacement was required. The majority of the cost for the replacement floor has been covered by insurance. It should be noted that the sports hall floor was due to be replaced on the condition survey in year 8 of the contract (2018/19) resulting in a considerable saving to the authority estimated to be in excess of £100,000 at today’s prices. In 2012/13 there have been 438,589 recorded users at the centre, this compares to 434,736 in 2010/11, (the last full year of the previous contract). This shows an increase of 3,853 users in the recorded period and it is anticipated that this trend will continue over the coming years. Customer feedback In the past 14 months there have been 27 complaints recorded at the centre regarding the changing facilities. The majority of the complaints are centered on the cleanliness of the changing rooms. There is a comprehensive cleaning regime in place but the age of the existing facilities mean that they still look tired and at times unclean. Complaints have also been received about the lack of baby changing facilities within the family change and the size of the current family changing facilities. Under the proposed plans both of these areas will be improved dramatically


with a large family changing area including eight cubicles with baby changing facilities. See Appendix A for full list of customer feedback Benefits of the proposed project

There are numerous benefits to completing this project both to SDC in terms of reputation and to customers of the centre. See Appendix B and C for the proposed and current layouts.

Some of the key points are detailed below:-

• This project will be the next phase of modernising the centre following the last condition survey in 2010. The changing rooms were subject to a cosmetic make over in 2000 and only minimal maintenance work has been undertaken within the reception toilets since the centre was built in 1975. The male and female toilets will be switched to allow for the provision of better baby change facilities in this area.

• To accommodate changing family structures most new builds of leisure and sports facilities now have family (village change), this will mean that the centre will enable families to change together if required.

• By maintaining a separate lockable room that can be used by individuals or families this allows for people with specific religious beliefs to be catered for.

• With the removal of the corridor wall this will bring people with disabilities entering and exiting the same area as able-bodied users, whilst having a door that will give privacy if required ensuring compliance with the DDA.

• The changing room air handling unit failed in 2011. This formed part of the 1st phase of upgrading the ventilation system and has ensured a modest level of ventilation to the changing rooms and toilets. The proposed alterations in the project to the ductwork will ensure a high quality of air meeting with modern standards. This system will cover the entire changing and toilet areas.

• Energy efficient lighting will be fitted throughout the entire changing area and toilets

• Providing a unique facility in Gloucestershire allowing family change alongside single sex changing areas for those customers who wish to use them. This was a reoccurring point brought up in customers comments and via the user forum.

• New lockers will make leaving valuables more secure. The lockers will be a mixture of sizes to cater for different needs, with specific lockers for those with disabilities.

• Enhancements will be made to include baby change facilities within the family changing area, a new ‘pram park’ area for the storage of buggies, push chairs etc; will aid cleanliness within the changing area. This area can also be used for the storage of wheelchairs.


• This project will create a safer and more comfortable environment for all users.

Financial Information Close management of the Planned Maintenance programme and getting best value via procurement has resulted in a saving of £71,000 over the last 3 years. With the introduction of the new contract the current contractor has undertaken their own PPMP and have carried out some works identified as SDC responsibility or have shared costs where they can see that there is a clear benefit and impact for customers. Changing Room project was specified and tenders were received in excess of the current values. Following negotiations with the lowest priced contractor tendered costs have been reduced by approximately 8% without reducing the specification and quality of the proposals. The expenditure for this project to be undertaken is £224,597. With rephasing of PPM programme the current budget can fund the majority of the project. However there is a funding shortfall of £61,000. Conclusion Undertaking the complete project as specified will enhance the centres appearance and the experience for users. It will provide the centre with new and greatly enhanced facilities for disabled users and those with families. In terms of expenditure undertaking the project as a whole rather than in parts will be most cost effective with minimal disruption to users.

Council Agenda Item 7(b) 10 October 2013 7 Appendix A

Stratford Park Leisure Centre CUSTOMER COMMENT SUMMARY

Date Comment Summary Changing Rooms Action Taken

April

Very happy with Centre. However would like ladies changing rooms &

poolside ceiling fixed. Very Good

Advised that external leaks have now been fixed. Date being scheduled for

repairs

April

Male cleaning staff in ladies changing rooms and dryside showers closed

closed off.

Advised the need for cleaning by male staff. However would request that the

showers are not cleaned at busy times.

May Multiple showers out of order and

general cleanliness Advised of shower repair order and

cleaning schedule

June Dirty wetside changing rooms

Poor Email sent advising on work schedule

to re-decorate

June Unclean, unhygienic changing rooms

Poor Phoned to advise on repairs and

apologised for cleanliness

June Dirty gym changing rooms

Poor Letter sent advising cleaning rota of

changing rooms June Pool and changing room cleanliness Looked at pool cleaning - pool vac June Changing room lockers Maintenance repaired June Changing room cleanliness Reviewed schedules June Changing room cleanliness as above

June No baby change in family change Review undertaken of main changing

room June Mens toilet stinks Cleaned

July Dirty showers in ladies dryside

changing room Poor Apologised and advised would clean.

Asked DMs to keep on top of this July Very hot in ladies changing rooms Advised would get contractor to look at

July Showers in main change need

updating Advised on possible investment July Strong stench in male toilets Look at cleaning routine

August Dryside shower cubicles need

cleaning Average Advised on discoloration of cubicles

August Male staff walikng into ladies change

& dirty changing rooms Poor Explained need to regularly check and

clean facility

September Swimming pool change rooms dirty

Looked at cleaning rota to check room

was regularly inspected November Dirty changing room Poor Explained about new development

November Very rarely sees anyone checking

ladies change Poor Explained new changing room

development December Family change are too small Improvements as part of re-fit January Family changing rooms to small Poor Advised on new development

February Pool change not clean

New cleaner employed to assist at

peak times

March Dryside changing room being used

by swimmers Poor Advised on new village change

April When are changing rooms being

refurbished Poor Advised that start was imminent

April Female changing room was very dirty

Apologised and explained cleaning rota

and refurbishment planned

Appendix A Customer Feedback

Council 10 October 2013

Agenda Item 7(b) Appendix B

8

Appendix B Proposed Plan


Agenda Item 7(b) Appendix C

9

Appendix C Existing Plan

Male dry change

Male wet change

Female dry change

Female wet change

Female wet showers & WC

Staff

Store

Store

Store

Store

Office

Male WC Female WC

Disabled WC

Group change 30

Office

Female Change Entrance

Female dry WC

Male dry Showers

Group change 20

Disabled change

Male wet showers &

WC

Male dry WC

Male Change Entrance

Female dry showers

Family Change

Existing Changing Rooms (Not to scale)


Agenda Item 7(b) Appendix D

10

Stroud District Council

Accountancy Services

Stratford Park Leisure Centre

Year 3

2013/14 Year 4

2014/15 Year 5

2015/16 Year 6

2016/17 Year 7

2017/18

TOTAL Years 3-7

Capital/Revenue works Planned Maintenance Work Condition Survey Year 3-7 36,100 38,720 35,625 38,575 27,250 176,270 Commitments from 2012/13 (CCTV, pipework etc) 15,000 15,000 Changing Village /Ventilation project Capital works: Changing Village and Toilets 219,375 120,000 Less 2.5% Retention (5,625) 5,625 0 219,375 5,625 0 0 0 225,000 Emergency work - Sports Hall floor SPLC Sports Hall Floor and other associated works 150,000 150,000 Chairs for Sports Hall (Replacement of Bleachers) 10,000 10,000

Subtotal - Costs 430,475 44,345 35,625 38,575 27,250 576,270

Funding Revenue Budgets (per annum) - Building Maintenance (10,000) (10,000) (10,000) (10,000) (10,000) (50,000) Revenue Budgets (per annum) - Rates budget saving not taken (13,000) (13,000) (13,000) (13,000) (13,000) (65,000) Insurance settlement (less £5,000 excess) (124,192) (124,192) Appropriation from Insurance Reserve (to cover insurance excess) (5,000) (5,000) Contribution to SPLC Sinking Fund as per MTFP (40,000) (40,000) (40,000) (40,000) (40,000) (200,000) Use of SPLC Sinking Fund balances 0 2012/13 Revenue budget c/f 0 2012/13 Capital Funding slippage (as per Capital Outturn Report to S&R) (71,000) (71,000) (£47k SPLC Sinking Fund & £24k Building Maintenance Reserve)

Subtotal Funding (263,192) (63,000) (63,000) (63,000) (63,000) (515,192)

Shortfall in Funding 167,283 (18,655) (27,375) (24,425) (35,750) 61,078

Balance on SPLC Sinking fund at 31/03/13 (121,421) Less: Amount required to fund works 47,000 Anticipated SPLC Sinking Fund Balance (74,421)

Appendix D Stratford Park Leisure Centre Funding Plan

Agenda Item 10(ii) – MOTION 05/13

Council 1 Agenda Item 10(ii) 10 October 2013 MOTION 05/13

Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust Badger vaccination proposal A proposal to Stroud District Council to extend bad ger vaccination

Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust has pioneered use of badger vaccination to demonstrate that there is an alternative to culling badgers in the county. The Trust has pledged not to participate in the cull on any of our 60 nature reserves in Gloucestershire because we believe the science demonstrates it will not be effective in controlling the disease and could even make things worse. In 2010 we were the first non-Governmental organisation in the country to launch a badger vaccination programme, but now it is time to step up our action. After three years successfully vaccinating badgers on seven of our nature reserves, now we want to grow our programme. We are looking for support from Stroud District Council to help us vaccinate more badgers beyond our nature reserves, working with farmers and landowners in the district to show there is a workable alternative to the cull. Working with farmers across Gloucestershire, we know the hardship that bovine TB causes our farming community. Bovine TB is an infectious disease of cattle costing the UK’s farming community tens of millions of pounds every year - causing economic hardship and distress to farmers affected. The problem is a complex one, but unfortunately there is no single, cheap fix. We want to see bovine TB eliminated from the British countryside, but we must find the right mechanism to control the disease. We think that the science clearly shows that a badger cull is not the solution. The debate on the badger cull has overlooked the merits of other solutions, especially the benefits of a sustained programme of vaccination. Vaccinating badgers could play a much larger role in controlling bovine TB while a cattle vaccine is developed and licensed. Organisations like county Wildlife Trusts, the National Trust and the Welsh Government are now demonstrating that vaccinating badgers on a large scale is possible, without the risks of a cull. Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust’s vaccination programme is now in its third year. We have successfully vaccinated over 100 adult and cub badgers against bovine TB on nature reserves in the Cotswolds and around the Stroud Valleys. By the end of the five years the badger populations living on these reserves will be protected from carrying the disease. Now the time is right to extend the programme to farms around our nature reserves and make a difference in the wider countryside in the fight against bTB. We want to demonstrate that smaller scale badger vaccination programmes can make a difference. Our trained badger vaccinators will work alongside farmers and other private landowners to extend the range of our vaccination programme. The five year vaccination programme involves trained and licensed Trust staff humanely trapping adult badgers and cubs, vaccinating them with the vaccine and releasing them. The same area will be visited annually for five years (the average life span of a badger) to ensure the majority of the local population has been vaccinated.



Extending the vaccination of badgers in Stroud Dist rict

In planning an extension of badger vaccination in Stroud District, the Trust has looked at extending both its own vaccination programme on GWT nature reserves, but also the Defra-supported Badger Vaccination Deployment Programme (BVDP) operating out of Woodchester Park but covering a large area in Stroud District. Only one GWT reserve (Frith Wood) falls within the BVDP boundary. Swift’s Hill and Snows Farm in the Slad Valley are within 2 kms of the boundary. Siccaridge Wood/Daneway Banks/Strawberry Banks nature reserves are approximately 7 kms from the BVDP boundary. Siccaridge Wood has been used in the past by Defra in the trials for the oral vaccine. The potential sites listed below at least double our current vaccination programme in Stroud District. We plan to expand the Swift's Hill/Stroud/Slad Farm deployment south towards Stroud. Although not within the mapped area of the BVDP they have already vaccinated at land close to the above sites. Negotiation with landowners in the Slad and Painswick Valleys – an area adjacent to the BVDP – has already begun and many are enthusiastic about participating in a GWT extension programme. Additionally as we are already vaccinating at Siccaridge Wood/Daneway Banks and Strawberry Banks (approximately 2km to the west) we would like to link land to create a long strip of land along the Golden Valley that with a badger vaccination programme. Again, landowners have been positive about participation in the programme We are also keen to talk to SDC about two areas of council-owned land that are within the BVDP but not GWT nature reserves, namely Selsey Common and Stratford Park. Badger vaccination

Vaccinating badgers and cattle can significantly reduce bTB without the disruption of a cull. In a veterinary field study, vaccinating wild badgers resulted in a 74% reduction in bTB. In comparison, culling trails have shown that shooting 70% of wild badgers might reduce bTB cases by just 12-23% over 9 years – and the increase cases of bTB on the outskirts of the zones. Progress in vaccine development

Since 1998, the Government has invested £30 million in developing bTB vaccines for cattle and badgers. The current status of vaccine development is:

• An injected vaccine called Badger BCG has been available since 2010 • An oral badger vaccine is being developed, but needs to be tested before potential

submission to regulatory bodies • A cattle vaccine is being developed but requires regulatory approval and changes to

EU legislation to permit its use – a process that will take around 10 years. Costs of extending the GWT programme

Any programme of badger vaccination deployment needs to be secured for 5 years in order to be effective in tackling the disease and reducing TB in badgers. As a result, the attached budget details an expansion of the badger deployment programme as described above for the next five years in the Stroud District.



Badger Vaccination Programme - Stroud / Slad Valley

Based on estimate of 100ha

Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Staff costs - 100 hours £2,328.57 £2,398.43 £2,470.38 £2,544.49 £2,620.83 Overhead costs £1,015.71 £729.69 £894.08 £758.90 £774.17 Vaccine costs - estimated at 40 @ £25 each £1,000.00 £1,000.00 £1,000.00 £1,000.00 £1,000.00 Sundry items - syringes, sharps bucket, bait etc £250.00 £250.00 £250.00 £250.00 £250.00 Replacement badger traps 10 yr1, 5 yr 3 £1,500.00 £750.00

£6,094.29 £4,378.11 £5,364.46 £4,553.39 £4,644.99

Average cost of vaccination over five years is £50 per hectare per annum.

Documents

Thursday 10 October 2013 7 - Stroud District Council€¦ · Cllr Paul Hemming D Cllr Nigel ... Cllr Daniel Le Fleming C Cllr Rhiannon Wigzell C Cllr Graham Littleton C Cllr Tom Williams