Transcript

Good evening, members. Welcome to the First Environment Committee of the new council. Welcome, officers. I'm just going to start with a few quick announcements. So there's no fire alarm scheduled for tonight. So if it does go off, please use the exits that are marked. Please make sure your phones are off or on silent. If you are using the mod.gov app, please feel free to use the link in the description below. Thank you. If you are using the mod.gov app, please feel free to use electronic devices, but otherwise we try not to. The meeting is being filmed for live and subsequent broadcast. If there is anybody in the chamber who does not wish to be filmed, then please let Democratic Services know. If you need to speak, please raise your hand and wait for an invitation from the chair. And please remember to turn your microphone off when you've finished. Please face the microphone when speaking and speak loudly, clearly and as close as possible to the microphone. If you are looking at the slides, please remember that the microphone loses your voice if you turn away. And if you're referring to a particular report or slide, if you could make it clear which one you're referring to so everybody is in the same place, that would be great. And as Democratic Services mentioned earlier, once we finished, if you could remember to pick up your post from the pigeonholes, that would be great. Thank you. So, item one, apologies. I don't think we have any apologies tonight, do we? Nope. Great, thank you. Declaration of Interest, item two. Does anyone have any declarations they need to make for any item on the agenda tonight? No? Great. So we've got the minutes of our last meeting, which was the 21st of March. Is it agreed that I can sign those minutes, if you'd like to raise your hand? Thank you. So we move now to item four, public questions. We've had six public questions. The first three are from Mr Eric Torrington. Eric's not with us tonight. Are members happy that we take the questions and the answers as read for those? They have been published on the website and we've got them paper copies in front of us tonight. Anybody, yes, everyone happy with that? Yeah, okay, thank you. It's probably just worth saying in Eric's absence, and we will pick this up with him separately, but one of the questions that Eric asked was whether we would consider having a new member champion role for litter. And we have had some expressions of interest already in that role, which is great. There's a particular process we have to follow for appointing a new member champion which is set out in the protocol. So what we've proposed, you'll see in the answer to question one, is that Brendan would prepare a report that would go to the next full council proposing this new role, and we can then seek to appoint to that role then. And those members who can express an interest, we can roll that forward to that process. So it would be quite handy tonight if we could just have a sort of broad agreement, if members are in agreement, that we're happy with that process and that the support for that role being created. Are people happy with that? Yeah. Okay, well that's great. So Brendan will take that forward for us. And we'll let Eric know. And I think that will be really helpful because we are keen to do more on litter and it will be really handy to have a member who's focused on that. So I'm going to move now to question number four, which is the first of Mr. Willets' questions. Mr. Willets is with us tonight, so welcome. Would you like to read your question out for the benefit of the people at home? Thank you. Hello, my name is Steve Willets. I'm a resident of CAM. My questions relate to the draft local plan examination, the PAWS plan and the decision with respect to Junction 14 design and costings funding. The decision was taken at the last full council before the local elections to commit up to 100k from reserves for M5 Junction 14 design and costings. Please elaborate on what this work will cover and deliver and state if there is an up-to-date expectation of cost. Is this intended to complete outline and detailed design, including all necessary investigations to permit national highways to tender for contracts, allowing accurate estimates for sponsorship funding? Thank you. Thank you and I'll just read our response. At the 25th of April 2024 council meeting, members approved a budget of £100,000 for M5 Junction 14 design and costings work. The work to be undertaken has been agreed by Stroud District Council and national highways, working together to address the concerns raised by the inspectors at the examination. The details of the work was set out in the report presented to council on 25th of April 24, which included links to the joint action plan containing key outputs and stages for the work. The inspectors have also asked for monthly updates and a progress report for May has been published on the examination library website. As set out in the report and joint action plan, the work undertaken by Stroud District Council and national highways will present the inspectors with the junction design, costings and financial delivery for M5 Junction 14 as required by both national highways and the inspectors. Mr Williams, would you like to ask a supplementary in relation to that? Yes, I would, please. So no update on costings is in the answer, but okay, that's fine. So it will deliver everything. Schemes like this will cost around 100 to 200 million from public information. Benchmarks for design suggest 10 to 15% of that. So even the lower figures give 10 million for all the work that is being described. So how will the 100k deliver the inspectors list on the 5th of February letter, which I won't read out, but is all the list of things that are required to be done, but particularly full design. How will it actually do that? Or maybe what is not going to be delivered? Or perhaps maybe the scheme is only going to cost a million. Thank you for that. I'm very sure the scheme is not going to cost a million, unfortunately. Tom Ridley, would you like to respond to that now or would you prefer that we respond in writing? I'm conscious there's quite a bit of detail there. Okay, thank you. Could I just ask, though, Chair, that that is given in a fairly timely manner, because the last time a written response was promised, I had to chase for it over six weeks later. So if that could be done fairly promptly, I'd appreciate that. Certainly, yeah, we will follow that up. Okay, let's move on then to your second question. Sorry, yes, Councillor Haynes. Am I allowed to ask a supplementary question as well? I don't believe so. This is the public question session, so members aren't really invited to get involved. Okay, right, let's move on to your next question then, if that's all right. Would you like to read that one out? Yes. So South Gloucestershire Council, who should lead, have stated that they are not in a position to because of all the uncertainties during these stages of their development planning. National Highways and Gloucester County Council have indicated, because of these uncertainties, they are insufficiently progressed in their highways infrastructure planning, and additionally, have resource issues. Plus, of course, Junction 14 and indeed Junction 12 work is currently unbudgeted. So what then will be modelled? Thank you for that. I'll just read our response. South Gloucestershire Council, who should lead, have stated that they're not in a position to do so because of all the uncertainty. Oh, sorry, I'm reading the wrong thing. Yeah, sorry. Which page am I on? Question 2? Yeah. Oh yes, right, thank you. M5 Junction 14 is in South Gloucestershire, but is a National Highways Junction. There's no obligation for South Gloucestershire to lead on the design of the junction works, as it's not part of their local road network. The joint action plan agreed by Stroud District Council, National Highways, Gloucestershire County Council and South Gloucestershire Council sets out what will be included in the design and costings work. South Gloucestershire Council have advanced their local plan and consulted on a draft in February this year. The modelling inputs are therefore available, and South Gloucestershire Council are signed up to the Junction 14 works through the joint action plan. National Highways are working jointly with Stroud District Council to deliver the design and costings work as set out in the joint action plan. This work is progressing and the latest May update report as requested by the inspectors includes an update from National Highways. This sets out that the work is on track for a September consultation, followed by submission to the inspectors in December 2024. Would you like to ask a supplementary, I'm assuming yes? Yes, please. So yes, fully aware that it's a National Highways Junction, but because Stroud District Council chose to lead it seemed reasonable that SGC would choose to lead, but no matter. So on modelling, the SDC letter of the 19th of January says in the JAC that National Highways with SDC will undertake interim year modelling and develop updated housing trajectory and threshold trigger point testing, and it goes on to talk about those parameters with respect to non-IDP sites. How does that stack up with the very confident and defended statements from yourself, I think, in the media actually, that some 80% can be delivered without strategic road network improvements? Can you therefore confirm that PS24 and PS25 in CAM may yet be IDP sites, as indeed National Highways have indicated in their regulatory submissions and response to PS24 outline applications? Thank you. I think it was 70% rather than 80%. I'm not in a position to confirm that. Tom, would you like to comment now or should we respond in writing to that as well? I think this is working now, so I apologise I can't look at you because I've got to look at it this way, but I know you just did from there. The work is to understand what amount can be delivered before the junction is triggered and then do the junction work, so the stuff that is being undertaken will give us an answer on the 70% and at what point the triggers are needed for the junction work to be completed, so all the work that you did read out is part of what we're doing. Thank you. Should we move on to the next question? Would you be happy to read question 6? Yes, and apologies I got the percentages wrong. In the paper asking for the decision to allocate $100,000, it was stated the risk of not progressing would delay or make the seven-edge developments undeliverable. Why do SDC see the risk and urgency as so serious as to take the rare step of acting outside the district with district taxpayers' funds, yet those who will ultimately have to sponsor and deliver clearly do not? Thank you, and I'll just read our response. The reports of Council on 25 April 2024 set out several risks associated with not funding the M5 Junction 14 works. Although the delivery of seven-edge was referenced, the emphasis was on the risk that the Council would not be able to demonstrate it had undertaken the tasks set out as agreed with the inspectors in the Joint Action Plan. In this scenario, it's possible the inspectors would be unable to restart the examination on 5 December 2024 and would instead recommend withdrawal of the Local Plan. As set out in the report paragraphs 2.8 to 2.8.4, this would result in the significant costs of starting a new Local Plan. The constraints of M5 Junction 14 would still exist for any new Local Plan. During the period of preparing a new Local Plan, the Council would be at significant risk of being unable to demonstrate the required five-year housing supply, land supply. This would result in the Council and the communities it serves having less control over where new development is located in the district, with decision-making in accordance with MPPF policies for sustainable development rather than based on the high environmental standards and locally set policies that are in the draft Local Plan. This would also likely bring high costs regarding planning appeals due to the Council fighting inappropriate developments. Do you have a supplementary on that one? Yes, I do, please. So in that same paper, with respect to risks and building on the point about risks there, it says that any new plan would face the same SRN issues, as you've said in your answer. Well, these issues were not spotted in the current draft Local Development Plan, hence six months of time to agree what is now a ten-month pause, further compounding the land housing supply risks, which you alluded to in your answer. So how do you respond to the inspectors final point in five on their fifth of February letter, that there is no guarantee that the draft plan will be found sound? By your own statement, other plans would not be sound because they would face the same issues, and that other spatial strategies have to be considered that are greener, cheaper, and without the strategic road network issues. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Willets. The inspectors have had the transport modelling right from the start of the examination process, so it's not that these are new issues that were suddenly raised to a later date. They have been in a position to consider it. It took them the best part of two years to start the examination process. So I would take issue with what you say there about implying these are new issues or things that weren't considered in the first place. The inspectors quite rightly have reserved the right in section five of their letter to decide whether the plan is sound or not at the point they've received all the information, and they have made it clear to us that they may still not deem the plan to be sound. That's their prerogative, and we wouldn't really expect them to do anything else. They have asked us to do a scheme of work. We have agreed with our partners how we're going to do it. They have agreed that process. We are now in the process of doing the work, and then they will make a decision. But, you know, I don't think we can add more than that at the moment. We are just doing what we've agreed to do with the inspectors. Tom, would you like to add anything from the technical perspective? No. Okay. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Chair. So we'll come back to you promptly with those answers, and thank you for coming in to speak to us tonight. Right. So that concludes the public questions. We move on to item five, which is member questions, and we have not had any member questions tonight. So we move to item six, which is appointments. We'll start with the performance monitors, and we have had at least one nomination for performance monitors, which is very good news. Councillor Chris Haynes, I gather that you're happy to be a performance monitor, which is brilliant. Do we have any other nominations? Yes, didn't you? Yes, I would like to put myself forward as well to be a performance monitor. Excellent. Oh, that's really good news. Thank you. So, fantastic. So we've got our two nominations there, so we can move straight on to the wider group of outside bodies. Becky, would you be able to put that up for us? Thank you. Right. So we're starting then with the Barclay Nuclear Stakeholders. I had put myself forward for this because there weren't any other nominations. If Councillor Turner-Wilkes and Councillor Dutton are happy to take that role, I'm extremely happy to step down. So, Councillor Duttony, are you happy to go ahead with that one? Absolutely. Is there more than one role for this one? Is there two? Yes, there are two positions, and yes, you're happy as well. Okay, fantastic. So that one's sorted. Cotswolds National Landscape Board, so we've just had some discussions about this one. Councillor Brown-Martin has held this role for quite a long time, and that is something that the organisation value. I hadn't actually appreciated that we had another nomination for this. John, Councillor Parker, do you want to go to a vote on this one? I'm happy if Councillor Brown is particularly keen to keep on and there's going to be added value to the project from that, then I'm not concerned about contesting that. Thank you. Sorry, I hadn't appreciated this one was contested, otherwise we'd have discussed it earlier. It's particularly helpful for the organisation if they have that continuity, but if an opportunity comes up later to swap over, then we can absolutely look at that. Thank you. So the next one is Lower Seven Drainage Board, and Councillor Mazi, I gather has kindly put his name forward for that. Thank you very much indeed. We'll bite your hand off there. I think it's much, you know, much belined. I think it will be a really interesting role, so that's great. So Minchinhampton and Rodborough Commons Advisory Board. So we have two nominations there, Councillor Hoffman and myself. What I've suggested for that one is I am in the process with the two county councillors, a cabinet panel at GCC on behalf of the Commons Advisory Committee. That is quite an involved piece of work. It's due to conclude in October and November. So Councillor Hoffman and I have had a chat and agreed that Councillor Hoffman will observe the meetings in the meantime and then take over as soon as that piece of work is completed. So thank you for that, Katie. So I don't know how we record that, but is that OK with you? So initially, OK, that's an appointment for the December meeting. OK, great. Thank you. Next one is the Regeneration Committee. We've had two nominations for this. I've had a conversation just now with Councillor Thomas and Councillor Thomas is happy to step down. So Councillor Hoffman, if you're happy to take on that one, that would be great. Stroud Valley Project Board. So we've got two nominations there, Councillor Brown and Councillor Haynes. Yes, over to you, Chris. I'm quite happy to stand down from the nomination for that. That's very kind. That just allows us to have that continuity, which I know will be valued by SVP. So thank you. So rural suds. We have had two nominations. Again, this is one that I have been chairing for a while. Again, I hadn't appreciated that we had a second nomination. Otherwise, we'd have had a conversation about it. So how do you feel about that one, Richard? Well, I've had quite some experience of rural suds, but I'm not desperate to get in an argument about it, to be honest. So if you think continuity is important, then I'm not going to really stand in the way. No, I think what might be best, so we are in a, to be honest, we're in a bit of a transition there. So Chris Utley, the officer who is our new carbon neutral 2030 officer, was previously our rural suds officer. So we are in the middle of a recruitment process. So there won't be any meetings for the time being. So there will be a kind of transition anyway. And if you'd like to pick it up, you know, from the point that the meetings reconvene, that's fine with me. It's really helpful for me to understand what's going on in that group. But we can do that by means of you reporting back to this committee. So yes, I'm happy for you to take that one forward. So Becky, if you could record that, that would be great. I'm very happy to do that. Okay, super. Next one is Stroud Valley's Canal Company, and we have got two nominations for that as well. So, Becky, is that one where we can have more than one nominee? No, not that one. That was the one. It was the strawberry generation one, which was the one I checked, but I haven't checked with this one. Okay. I think it is just one chair. Okay, right. Fine. Again, I didn't realise it was the second nomination. We've spent quite a while lining this one up. So that is unfortunate. Right. I think we may need to take a photo on this, because I presume that you would like to go for this one as well. I mean, representing Slownouse, it's a canal-side town. It's a really big issue there at the moment that a lot of investment is being done from the town council and everything. And I've been working with the canals there on tree advice and various things for quite some time. So I put my name down because it felt appropriate, really, because of where I'm representing. Okay. But, you know, again, I'd rather not get into a fight about it. I just want to continue to help out how I can. But, you know, that's why I put my name down. Well, that makes sense. Jill, do you want to say a few words about what you would like to do in the role? Well, yes, so I live along the canal and we use it regularly with our family. And I recently attended the voluntary conference for the Voluntary Wardens, part of Cotswold National Landscape. And the theme was the waterways. And there was a lovely presentation given by the Canal Trust. And I got very engaged with them and had quite a few conversations moving forwards. But, again, I don't want to get into any kind of arguments. Well, should we just put it to the vote? And it can be a nice friendly vote and then what happens happens and we can move on. So should we have votes, first of all, for Councillor Parker? That's one, two, three, four, five, six, seven and votes for Councillor Thomas. Two, three, four, five. So, Councillor Parker, that's the role. Thank you very much. So the last one is the Gloucestershire Resources and Waste Partnership. So this one I have been on for a while with Tricia. But, Councillor Dutton, you'd like to go for this one as well. Would you like to say a few words about what you'd like to get out of this role? My professional background is with Waste Management and Environment Agency, I worked for many years. And so sustainable use of waste is very close to my heart. I locally work in Nalesworth with the Climate Action Network and one of the themes there that I promote is sustainable use of waste. So I feel I've got sort of the technical, the regulator and a technical background to this, but also the kind of how it works in the community. Thank you very much. Tricia. Yes, again, when we discussed this, I've asked if we can get some clarity on whether we can have additional representation because there's now three extremely competent waste professionals in our midst and it feels, where are these restrictions put in? I've been in the waste industry for about 20 years. I first got involved in council work because of my involvement on the incinerator and trying to come up with a more sustainable waste solution and have been working with the can and with the local parish and the district for many years on trying to extend the garden waste scheme, all that kind of thing. And I've been working closely with all of the other partners on potential solutions for waste in the future. I was actually asked to be deputy chair last year, but fortunately there was a bit of a glitch on the Zoom, so I didn't know what I was being asked for and they've asked me again to stand up for that this time. So I would really like the opportunity to take that forward based on what I've contributed so far. So I would be keen to ask where that restriction is about how many members we can have because there's a lot of expertise that I think the whole county would benefit from having. If they happen to all be in one council rather than across the others, there's very few other councillors turn up on a regular basis. So if we're keen, I think it's rather silly to stifle that term. So that would be my suggestion that we either vote for one of us now and ask to have additional reps or ask if we can extend the membership, whether that restriction is here or at the Gloucestershire Waste Partnership. So I suspect the membership will be defined by the terms of reference of the partnership and there'll probably be a bit of resistance to adding a third member. But what I'll suggest is that I stand down because I also cover waste through Climate Leadership Gloucestershire because it's one of the 10 themes there. And if the three of us just keep in touch and of course Sarah, who is another exemplary waste professional, we have an over supply of waste people in this group. But if Councillor Dutton and Councillor Watson, if you're happy to take on that role, then I think that will work best. So with great relief, let's move on. Right, so I think we've done all of those and that is great, thank you very much. So we move then to the member officer reports, starting with the performance monitoring report for the last quarter. And that was published in the document pack. Are there any questions? Good, okay. So we move then on to Climate Leadership Gloucestershire, which was a very recent meeting. Hopefully we'll have a chance to have a look at the briefing that Brendan sent out, which was very helpful from the Secretariat to Climate Leadership Gloucestershire. In very brief, Climate Leadership Gloucestershire pulled together all of the districts plus the county, the police, the NHS, the local nature partnership and it was the local enterprise partnership as well. And we look at ten different themes in relation to climate across the county and try to move forward the work in particular of the voting members, which is the councils, but also learn from each other and best practice elsewhere. We've had new membership recently from the youth council and from the universities who are taking in turns to be members. So at the most recent meeting, we had an update from the energy theme, which was looking at the local area energy plan that's being put together for Gloucestershire. Forest of Dean District Council are leading on that and they are working with the network operator and the south west net zero hub to put that together. It's quite a big exercise, quite an expensive exercise and we're at quite an early stage at the moment. But the idea is that it sort of lines up where development broadly is going to happen across the county, where the transmission and distribution network sits in terms of the grid and where the gaps are and how we seek to address that and where we've got new generation where that sort of plugs into the system as well. So most councils, most local authority areas are producing one of these now. And in Wales, they started the process much earlier, so they're all pretty much done. But England, as usual, lagging slightly behind. But yeah, the process is underway and it's going well so far. The other area we covered was Green Skills. So we had an update from the Green Skills Centre down in Barclay Green, which we led on some funding for last year and they are doing some great work down there. We also had a bit of an update from Gloucestershire's universities about the work that they're doing on Green Skills, responding to what will be a massive challenge coming up with, in particular, the numbers of skilled retrofit practitioners. So that was useful. And then we also had a little look at the strategic risks in relation to climate as they pertain to the county. All of the minutes for climate leadership at Gloucestershire are saved on Gloucestershire County Council's website under the Green and Gloucestershire section. So if you're ever interested to go and have a look, do. And if you ever have any questions, please let me know and I can raise matters for you in those meetings. Item C then is the oh, sorry, any questions now? No. OK. Item C was the walking and cycling annual report and that again was published in the document pack. Did anyone have any questions in relation to that one? No. OK. So we move then to the work programme. And as Democratic Services mentioned earlier, this is one of the opportunities for you to feed into the work programme for the remainder of the civic year. It's not the only opportunity. You're welcome to give ideas and suggestions either to me or to Becky at any time. But does anyone have any comments tonight that they'd like to feed in? No. Oh, yes. Martin. Thank you, Chair. Yes. Just to say that we get not always every meeting, but at least a couple of times a year the representatives on the outside bodies that we've been talking about report back. And that's sometimes done, better done with a written report put in beforehand. But sometimes if you don't do that, it's all on the night, which has been my tendency a bit. So I think some of them come up standardly every time and others I think we representatives need to say we would like on. Is that right? So my two, for example, I should give advance notice. Is that the process? Yeah. I think what I might ask actually, Becky, is if given that so many of us are new, it might be handy to have a timetable of when you're expecting the reports and when members will need to deliver them in terms of getting them to you well in advance of the papers. Would that be all right? Great. Thanks very much. So, yeah, the next meeting is September. We've got Adele coming to give our budget budget monitoring report for the first quarter of this financial year. We've got the anti-social behaviour policy, which I'm sure will generate some public questions and hopefully some interesting debate. And other than that, we just have the member and officer reports and then it goes on from there. So if there are no further questions, then I will conclude this meeting and we will move into the informal session when we're going to hear a bit from the senior officers who help us with this committee about their work.