Transcript

Thank you, everyone. Please be seated. Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the council meeting. I'll just read the announcements first of all. If you do hear the fire alarm, please make your way to the nearest fire exits which are clearly marked, and please do ensure that your mobile phones or any other devices are switched off or on silent. The meeting is going to be filmed for live and subsequent broadcast by entering the council chamber and using the public seating areas. You're consenting to being filmed. If this presents any difficulty, please inform democratic services. And I remind you, if you are speaking to speakers close as possible to the microphone and speak loudly and clearly, it's natural to want to turn to face others while speaking, but this does affect the sound quality. If you do wish to speak, please raise your hand and wait for an invitation from the chair and do remember to turn your microphone off when you're finished speaking. And when referring to a specific report page or slide, do mention the report page or slide. We've got a very long agenda tonight so that everyone has a clear understanding of what's being discussed. And a reminder that all district councilors are invited to attend the district council count, which is taking place at Stratford Park on Saturday the 4th of May at 9am. And please do email democratic services if you're not standing for re-election, but we'll just still like to attend. And I will also just extend a welcome to Kai Bangbola, who's you'll see the father of Zane and that will become clear as we go to the motion. But thank you very much for attending your very warmly welcome in the council chamber this evening. Just a little bit before we start the agenda tonight, you may have noticed we've got three people seated in front of you. So a welcome to Tara Skidmore, Kirstie Hussein and Connor Ward, who are just going to briefly explain about how the district council has been awarded the best social housing retrofit-led programme. So please, I'll have an explanation from both all of you. Thank you. Thank you. We're all delighted here tonight to be with you to share some great news that on the 5th of March, Stratford District Council won the best social housing retrofit-led programme. This is an excellent achievement and recognises our professionalism across the retrofit area, including applying for and delivering phases of the social housing decarbonisation fund. The demonstrator, wave 1 and wave 2.1, and you'll see on the slideshow behind you some highlights of those programmes. I have asked Connor Ward tonight to come along and share some words of why the judges chose Stratford District Council to win this award. Connor is our carbon reduction and sustainability officer here at Stratford and he delivers these programmes daily. Thanks Tara. So these are the words that the judges gave to us when we picked up the award. Your unwavering excellence, commitment to past 2035 and leadership in the UK's retrofit industry have truly set you apart. Having celebrated your accomplishments on the main stage, your work stands as an inspiration, establishing a benchmark for others in the industry to aspire to. This award is a testament to your dedication and outstanding contribution to the retrofit sector. We believe it will serve as a catalyst, preparing you to make an even greater impact in 2024 and beyond. Once again, congratulations on this remarkable achievement. We look forward to witnessing your continued success and collaboration in shape in the future of sustainable housing. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much. I think we should give them an applause for everyone on the back. Obviously, I know there's a team of officers behind you and I know a lot of councillors in the chamber who have been very supportive of this so that's really welcome. Thank you very much for attending. You don't need to stay there at the front there. Thank you. I move on to apologies now. We have apologies, absence from councillors hind, rider, Ross, Tucker, Hoskin, Davis and Freya. Please raise your hand if there are any further apologies. Yes, Councillor DAVIS. You went with those quite quickly, but Lindsay Green, Jill Oxley, Dave Mossman and Victoria Grey. I think you had Mark Wider and treated Davis already. Yes. Thank you. Any other apologies? Yes. Laurie Davis, yes. Okay. Anyone else? No. Okay. All right. I'm moving on to declaration of interest. Please raise your hand if you have any declarations of interest. No. Okay. All right. I'll move on now to the minutes of the 22nd of February. I have been advised of an error in the minutes for the appointment of Martin Brown as the vice chair of council, which should have listed the term as 2023 to 4 instead of 24 to 5 and democratic services have confirmed this has now been amended. Please raise your hand if you're happy to support the adaptation of the minutes. Can you just double check? You've actually got your cards inserted into the machine just to be sure. Thank you. So that minute, those are passed. I'll just sign those. It's two copies, okay. So that's 25th. Okay. Moving on to announcements now. I'd just like to remind Councillors, the monitoring officer has asked me to remind you that we are now in the pre-election period of extremely close to the election next week. And while there is no restriction on normal debate, they would be grateful if any political comments could be measured with the avoidance of any overtly party political references, please. As some of you may have noticed, we're discussing a report further down the agenda for the appointment of the monitoring officer. Sadly, it's clear he was final week with us at Stroud. I'm sure you'd all like to join me in thanking Clare for her knowledge and support over the last few years. She's been a real asset to the council and I think we'd all like to wish her well in her role at Chutland Borough Council. So as some of you may be receiving your commemorative paperweights and quite a large number of Councillors, I'm not standing for the election next week on Thursday 2nd and May. And on behalf of everyone here, I would really like to thank you all for your service and dedication to the council and our communities during your time as just Stroud district councillors and obviously for those who absent tonight as well. What's quite impressive of the 20 councillors who are not seeking re-election, they've between them collected over 215 years of experience as district councillors. So I think that's quite an impressive service from everyone across the chamber, who everyone has contributed in many different ways. And we have been given out the paperweights myself and Kathy this evening to all those councillors who aren't seeking re-election. And of course, sadly, we don't know who's going to get elected on the 2nd of May. So if funny chance, sadly, you don't get re-elected, then you will also receive a paperweight in case you don't miss out there. I would just like to say a very special thanks to our independent councillors who sadly aren't here this evening. Councillor Chris Bryan, who was first selected in May 1995, one of our longest standing councillors and also Councillor Laurie Davis who was elected in May 2021. I was very pleased to work alongside both of them in many different roles and it was very thorough to see that they're stepping down. And I'm going to invite in turn each of the group leaders to say a few words. So I'll start off with Catherine Braun as the leader of the green group. Thank you, Catherine. Thank you, Chair. I'd just like to say a big thank you to all councillors. As the chair has mentioned, there are many, many councillors standing down at the elections. And it's quite interesting to hear there are over two centuries of experience between them. So particularly to thank them for their service, their communities and commitment to the district. And from my own group, I'd like to mention just two members of the green group who are not with us this evening. Chris Jockle can't be with us because he has other commitments this evening, but he will be standing down. Chris has been a committed member for childhood for the last three years and is a member of both Housing Committee and Audit and Standards Committee. And I'd like to thank him for sharing his knowledge from his professional experience and his real passion for social justice, which has always shone through in his contributions during council debates. I'd also like to very briefly remember the member of the green group who's no longer with us, Councillor Norman Kay, who very sadly and suddenly passed away in December last year, and who we paid tribute to at the council meeting before Christmas. Norman had been a Chair and Vice Chair of this council. And as we discussed in December, had a distinguished record of service to Nailsworth and Horsley as well as Stroud District on a whole range of issues from equalities to housing and environment. This evening, I'm also sad to be saying goodbye to three members of the Alliance leadership team who will not be standing for re-election, Independent Left Councillor and Chair of Housing Committee, Councillor Matty Ross, Libden Group Leader, Councillor Kantaka, an Independent Left Group Leader and Deputy Leader of the Council, Councillor Natalie Bennett. So firstly, for Matty, unfortunately she can't be here with us this evening, so I'm pleased that we did manage to say a thank you and goodbye to her at the Housing Committee meeting, just to thank Matty for her real commitment to housing since she was first elected to the council over 20 years ago, and really for speaking up for all those people who have housing need in our district. So a big thank you and appreciation to Matty for her commitment all this time, and I'm sure we will very much miss her on the council. Unfortunately, Ken Tucker can't be with us this evening, as he's been on well this week, so we do wish him a very speedy recovery. As a fellow ward councillor, I'm very aware of the huge commitment that Ken has made to supporting local residents in the Wharton Ward, always being attentive and responsive to local issues, whatever they may be. And at Strada's District Council, Ken has been a core member of the Community Services and Licensing Committee for many years, as well as a member of the Licensing Panel and a member of the Strategy and Resources Committee too. As group leader, Ken had numerous other jobs, wish involved going to working groups and boards on strategic issues, and we will really miss his insight and wish him a happy retirement from the council. Finally, I'd like to say a big thank you to Deputy Leader of the Council, Natalie Bennett. So Natalie has only been a councillor for the last three years, but she has certainly made her mark. She's been actively involved in equality issues, housing community work, and has helped to share the council leader workload with me, which I have very much appreciated going to additional meetings and taking on extra commitments. Natalie is of course an active member in other ways on the Strategy and Resources Committee and Housing Committee, Chair of Equality, Diversity, Inclusion and Equity Working Group, a mental health champion, and the council's representative on the local branch of Homestart, which supports families with young children. Soon after being elected, Natalie took on the challenge of sharing the panel for the review of street building names and monuments in the Strada District. She showed great courage and skill in leading this review to a conclusion with extensive community consultation and engagement, which as we will remember drew considerable national as well as local press attention and scrutiny. I'm very pleased to see the work of the Community Engagement Task Force, which was initiated through this review panel is now coming to fruition, with one of the outcomes being a new short film to celebrate the equality, diversity, and inclusion of our communities across the district. Natalie also showed great personal commitment to the work of the council and to maintaining our cooperative ways of working when she agreed to become an independent left group leader and deputy leader of the council a couple of years ago. Very much enjoyed working alongside Natalie in her role as Deputy Leader. She's got great insight and understanding of her brief, great people skills, and it's always a pleasure working with her. I wish her every success when she steps down from being a councillor. I'd also like to say a big thank you to the Youth Council who supported our work over the last term and to all the other Alliance colleagues and other colleagues who will be stepping down this year and to the council officers who work so hard to support us councillors with delivering the council plan and statutory duties and generally helping us to resolve issues in the board. Particularly I'd like to thank Kathy, the Strategic Directors, and the brilliant Democratic Services team who are, without fail, supportive and helpful to all councillors. Thank you. I'd like to invite Stephen Dobers, a Deputy Leader of the Conservative Group, unfortunately a council agreed isn't able to be here this evening. Thank you Chair. The words I need to read are the ones that Lindsay wrote. She wanted me to read these out and obviously I would agree with all of them and I may embellish some of them. So where do we start? We start with John Jones who actually I just learned 22 years as a councillor and John has always been the voice of reason. For me, plus we share a wicked sense of humour in equal measure. He's probably looking forward to not having me phoning him all the time but I'm afraid to say sorry John, I will be calling you on your wisdom and light-hearted humour. So Lindsay will be calling you. I'd like to add actually because John is my fellow ward member and we are the dream team, the Berkeley team think they are but we are. It's that combination of wisdom that John brings and whatever I bring to the party. Next I'd come on to Keith Pearson. Lindsay goes on to say, Keith has been a fountain of knowledge across the council for me, always striving for high standards that has benefited us all. I have on many occasions called Keith to ask his opinion on matters. As we all know, the Keith does not want to mince his words or stay silent on things which I've always appreciated. Thank you for the help in keeping me in check. Actually, we could fill the entire section here with Keith's achievements. He's been on council for 18 years but would highlight that he has been deputy leader of this council. He's been a cabinet member and when we used to have a cabinet system and really was a huge force behind the canal project. Next on our list, you notice there's a theme here going longest serving. Hayden has always given a unique perspective to council matters in our group and has often helped me to see between the lines that I may not have done so otherwise, Hayden, please feel free to let me know your thoughts at any time. Hayden is such a local councillor. I think we all acknowledge through the local councillors and that those most more politically motivated but people who just work with their community and I would highlight Hayden as that. Trina Davis, I'm so proud of you and what you've achieved in your time as councillor but most of all I've gained a great friend and I'll miss you dearly. I have to let you into a secret. Trina didn't expect to get elected last time around and has turned out to be one of our best local councillors around and done a fantastic job. Julie, Julie, Jo, Julie, I've valued your contribution and help and support so much over the last few years and I hope that you now get the opportunity to slow down a bit and enjoy life with your family. Dave Mossman, I know in the last few years that Dave has suffered for mental health but he has still remained an integral part of our group by continuing to contribute and still working for his community even from a hospital bed at times. Dave, I hope your help improves and you can sit back knowing you've made a difference. I have to say I've worked closely with Dave and in his day he was a formidable campaigner on issues ranging from energy from waste facility on which we might not have agreed but also you know local planning issues around his area. Nick Hearst, Nick, your knowledge and ability to question everything without questioning everything is a rare quality and one that I know the group and other men and bers will also miss. Our uniqueness across the chamber is a benefit to all of us and I also know that you're keeping a BDI on the Brims Court development as it progresses. Thank you for your hard work on this. Again, I think we'd all acknowledge Nick's incredible contribution when it comes to matters planning and Brims Court. She did like something about me but actually my future is dependent on the good people of business so I'm not reading that one. Gordon Craig and Hayden Jones, they like to think they're the dream team but that's not true. The two Councillors who made me a Councillor that I am today without the sport of you both I would not be where I am and have the knowledge that I do and we would not have made the difference that we have together in the biggest and most beautiful ward in the district. Again, I think some of us would beg to differ but anyway. Gordon, we have had many long conversations over ward and Council matters and you have made me see things differently which is a great good decision making. Hayden, I think it's safe to say everyone here will miss your extensive planning knowledge and understanding of the complexities that surround planning. We've also had our own opinions on certain things but I think we've always worked well together as a team. After all, you're the reason I'm here as a Councillor, I'll blame you for me having to write this. So for all those Councillors across the chamber who are standing down this year, it has been a pleasure to work alongside you all. We made different political opinions but we're all just people here with the same objective to make our areas the best they can be. There will be a lot of years experience leaving us this time and that will be sorely missed but the future will hopefully bring a fresh new perspective to the Council with new faces, opinions and ideas. Thank you everyone and I wish you all well. One last quick note, the Kentucker from the Conservative Group, we would like to wish you a very speedy recovery and you will be missed, get well soon, Ken. Thank you very much. Councillor Layfield, the Leader of the Community Dependents. Thank you, Chair. I'd like to pay tribute to my colleagues, my comrades in the community independence who have each played such a key role in this cooperative alliance. Colin Fryer, who taught me that you don't always have to shout to be heard. Trevor Hall, who taught me the true meaning of solidarity and whose fiery outbursts in this chamber which will all dearly miss, I'm sure. My hero, Trevor. And of course, Dona Cornell, who's always been an inspirational leader, showing us all how to build a collaborative politics based on mutual respect. I wasn't always an independent and I'd like to also recognise the contributions of former colleagues Jesse and Laurie, of Natalie and Matty and Chris Bryan. He has such a powerful way of speaking to this chamber. I think we'll all miss that too. And finally, let's say, not everyone has what it takes to be Councillor, but I feel very honoured to have worked alongside some of the very best. Thank you. Councillor Robinson, Major for Labor Group. Thank you, Chair. That's the current Labor Group. I'm not going to actually say it to anybody because at the moment we have not got anybody leaving us. I know we're a very small group now, but we've got nobody leaving us, so nobody is standing down. But I would like to thank current members and officers for their support over this period. It's not been easy over the last few years, but I would just like to say thank you very much. There are Councillors here today who've worked tirelessly for the Stroud District, not only in their own wards, but really across the district, those former Labor members. Sterling Work, which has been carried out for our residents in the area, and we will never forget that. We've all worked together for our area, and they will be a hard act to follow. I really wish everybody who is retiring the very best, and I hope that they enjoy summer evenings sat with a G&T in their garden rather than sat in here. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Sounds like an excellent idea. I'll ask Councillor Natalie Bennett, the Leader of the Independent Left, please. Thank you, Chair. Well, I'd like to thank all the members of my current group, all current members of my group, the awesome women that make up the Independent Left Group at this time. We're all standing down, so the Independent Left Group will be no more, which is sad, because I think we've been through some difficult times together, and we've managed to keep going and support each other, and I'm really proud of the people that are in my group for giving me the support that they have as well, because it's been quite difficult for all of us, but I'd also like to particularly give my thanks to Matty. She's unfortunately not been able to come tonight, because she's had to go to see a family member who's very poorly. Matty is such a strong female role model, and she's got so much expertise and knowledge as a Councillor, as well as her commitment over years for keeping the need for good quality social housing in the district high on the agenda, and she's worked tirelessly for that, and she's been a great representative for the People of Stone House, and I know she'll continue to give her time to the community that she serves so well for so long, so really it's a shame she's not here. I've got so much respect for the way Matty stands up for what she believes in, and I really want to help her for all the support and friendship she's given me over the last three years as well, and I just wish the best for everybody who's standing down as well, and hope they enjoy their time not in here, and have a bit more time for family and different things as well. But thanks for the lovely words, people have said for me as well, thank you very much, I'd like to thank Doina as well for all the over the years that we've worked together as well, and Kathy, thank you for your support, and all the officers actually as well, so I will miss, personally I'll miss everybody, so thanks very much. I'm going to ask Kathy only who'd like to say a word about Kentuck. Thank you very much, I don't know if you want to say anything Georgian-rich, but just to say I spoke to Ken yesterday, he was in hospital, and he asked me to speak on his behalf and say to all of you that across the chamber he had found it an absolute pleasure working with all of you as colleagues, and I think you'll know that that's heartfelt, he's very disappointed not to be here tonight, and we're very sad for him that he can't be here, but he also wanted to say thank you to all the officers at the Council too, for which I'm very grateful for all the support that they had afforded him, and he does hope to keep in touch in his capacity at Woodton as well, but he was just a heartfelt thank you from him. I don't know if either of you wanted to add something, but I'd like to come back and say something in a moment as well. George, would you like to? Yeah, please. Just very briefly, I actually wanted to thank Councillor Tucker, because when I first came into the Council he was the group leader then for myself, and he was a really great inspirational character, very calm, very sort of together, and sort of led me on my journey into being a Councillor. Frankly, I don't think I could have done it without him, because there's a lot to do, and he really sort of showed the way, and I will argue about the amount of dream teams there, and I would say the Liberal Day, I'm about to dream down on the side of the district, obviously do a very good job there, and I would like to sort of pay tribute to Rich Wilshire here, who I've worked alongside for the last three years, he's been phenomenal to work with, also an inspirational chap, and will be very sorely missed by the Libden group, I will obviously see Councillor and we'll all miss a number of you, I myself am still standing, so I have no idea if I'll be seeing you again or not, but thank you very much. Thank you, Kathy just wanted to add a word. Thank you for indulging me, Chair. I just wanted to say on behalf of all the officers at Strad district Council what an absolute pleasure it has been to work with all those of you who are standing down, it's been a privilege from my perspective, I've worked with many of you extremely closely, group leaders that I won't be seeing anymore, thank you so much for everything that you've done for the Council, but in particular for the service that you have shown the Council and your communities, it is very much appreciated and on behalf of the officers thank you, and I can't, I can't go any further without saying of course, it is clear this last night and a huge thank you to Clare for the support that she's shown me and all of you as Councillors in this last 18 months and I have really appreciated it, I'm sure that we would all wish Clare the best in her very exciting new role, so thank you very much Clare too. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I know it takes a little while, apologies Keith. Yes. I just like from the members point view to echo what the, sorry, what the, what Kathy has just said about Clare and I was working with Clare on the working group for the constitution for the last two years, I think she's done an excellent job and we will, I'm sure the future constitution working group will have, if they have as good a time we've had the last two years and getting it sorted, that would be good. I hope everything goes well for you Clare. It is important to thank everyone, I'm conscious this is my final meeting as chair and we've got an extremely long agenda to get through, so I think we'd better crack on with it now. We have no public questions, but we do have a member question from Councillor John Jones, so I invite you Councillor Jones to read your question. Thank you, Chair. Some time ago, this Council initiated consultations on the future of Black Boys' Cloth and the figurine situated in Castle Street in Stroud as part of a wider review of street names, building names and monuments in the Stroud district. An outcome of the review reported to and approved by full Council was to open a consultation with the owners of the building on which the Black Boys' Cloth and figurine stand to progress matters further. At the same time approval was given to consult with residents in the Black Boys area of Dursley regarding a potential street name change. So question one, how far has the consultation with the owners of the building on which the Black Boys' Cloth and figurine progressed? Thank you, I'm going to ask the Council and that we've been it to respond. Thank you, Chair. The Black Boys' Cloth is owned by the Black Boys' Cloth Trust and at the time of the review panel, they were preparing their recommendations following the review and public consultation held in 2021. The Council had not been able to engage with the trustees and were instead in correspondence with a family member. It was understood that the family member was corresponding with their family solicitor to establish ownership and succession of the trust. The family member had agreed to maintain communication with the Council, an update on the outcome of the conversations with their solicitor. Unfortunately, and despite efforts made by the Council to engage, the family member did not follow up on this and has not responded to any further correspondence on the matter. Although this is unfortunate, another recommendation of the review panel was to establish a task force to contextualise the statue and oversee the installation of an information plaque to be situated outside the Black Boys' House. The work is well underway and the information plaque, as due to be installed in the summer of 2024, is hoped that the unveiling of the information plaque will be an opportunity to re-ignite conversations with the Black Boys' Trust. Thank you. Councillor Jones, do you have a supplementary question? Yes, I do. What does it cost or what is the cost to the Council? All these consultations, both in opposite time and hard money. Councillor Venet. The consultations took place a while ago, so there hasn't been any further work in that respect, but it evolved a conversation on the telephone with the family member. What was the cost that you were questioning, sorry? The question supplementary was, what is the cost to the Council of these consultations, both in opposite time and hard money? Councillor interjecting. The consultation with the family. Councillor interjecting. The cost to the Council. Councillor interjecting. I mean, I think the question is around the cost of the entire consultation around the Black Boys' statue. Do you want to just say that then? Sorry, my microphone was not. Sorry, I thought you meant the consultation, because you were asking about the consultation with the family. I thought you were referring to the cost of that. The cost of the whole consultation was actually part of the report that came to the Council when we presented the report in 2022. All the information was provided then, and the decisions around that and the recommendations were agreed based on those costings, so I don't have them in front of me, but they have already been made available. Thank you, Councillor Vennick. Would you like to ask your second question? Second question is, what is the outcome of the consultation that was done on the Black Boys area of Dursley? Councillor Vennick. Thank you, Chair. The Council worked closely with Dursley Town Council to conduct the consultation with residents of the eight properties of Black Boys in Dursley. The consultation took place in June 2022, and letters were hand-delivered to each address by Dursley Town Council. From the seven responses received, none of the residents actively supported a formal consultation to consider a street name change, five of whom stated clearly that they did not want the street name to change, and two others would have been happy for a formal consultation to take place if the majority supported this process. The matter was considered by Dursley Town Council planning committee who requested for the matter to be closed as most residents did not want any further consultation or a change to the street name. Strive District Council wrote to all residents of Black Boys Dursley in July 2022 to inform them of the outcome of the consultation and that the matter would be closed. The outcome of this consultation was reported to Council in July 2023 in the annual Equality, Diversity, Inclusion and Equity Report. Thank you. Do you have a supplementary question? And finally, as many residents living in rural areas of the district have no idea where the Black Boys Clock is, or Black Boys area of Dursley is, does the cost of these consultations represent good value for money to all Council taxpayers across the whole of the district? Or was it just a need your reaction to events happening in other parts of the country, and in America at that time? Council Bennett? Thank you. The cost was not significant at that time for that consultation and I think that if you're asking me personally then we have to represent all people across the district and that decision was made to carry out that consultation which is what we did. It was agreed by Council. If you're asking for my personal view, we had people working on the review panel over quite some time who put a lot of effort into that. They didn't receive any money for that. They gave up their time and I was proud to be part of that because we actually were responding to concerns within the community which is what we're here to do I think. So I think it was a good use of public money and it wasn't a significant amount and I think I'm more concerned about where the £3 billion went on the track and trace system that never worked so maybe we could ask about that. Thank you Councillor Bennett. So I'm going to move on to item 7 now or 7A which is the motion and this is the motion on support for Zane's Law proposed by Councillor Becky Alden and seconded by Councillor Chloe Turner and as I said very welcome to have Zane's father's Kai Bangvola in the 10th of the meeting this evening. There has been an amendment made to the motion and you should have in front of you a revised version and the changes we made to the second paragraph in the context for the motion section. I'm going to invite Councillor Alden to present the motion and perhaps as part of that you can explain about the amendment as well. So Councillors are clear if that's the key. Councillor Alden. Thank you. So yes the motion in front of you is the final motion tonight and I'd like to thank officers and members who've had given feedback on the motion it's only the second paragraph that's different from your original one so I'm not going to read through that. I'd like to outline for you just briefly the national situation and the situation in our district because this is a national motion that has profound relevance for Stroud and its residents and the situation in my ward and I'd invite others to share their concerns in their ward as well whilst being mindful of our extensive agenda this evening and then what needs to happen. So nationally there is legislation that covers the management and monitoring of contaminated land in particular that's part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act of 1990. However there is huge regional variation because there isn't enough dedicated funding and not enough funding for local authorities to be able to fill the gaps to that national funding. Deptus environmental wrote that at the end of the central funding effectively brings to the end the 2A regime however Council still have stature true responsibilities to act but lack the financial resources to be able to do so. This funding hole has left some councils with little option but to suspend or drastically reduce their work on contaminated land. There are far fewer contaminated land offices and in many councils environmental health officers have had to undertake highly specialist contaminated land work with only preliminary training and even if the funding deficiency were to be resolved tomorrow the historic lack of funding has led to a massive skills gap even the degrees that traditionally led to a career as a contaminated land officer are closing down for example geology and the nature journal commented that the closure of these degrees and withdrawing of their funding neglect to consider the need for qualified geoscientists to achieve the UN sustainable development goals. So we need the national government to step up and fund and resource and vocally support this vital work it needs more attention and this is partly what tonight is about we need the joys and foundations of our country to be functioning so that we ignorant citizens know nothing of it it's like having a good IT system it's only working when you never even think about the IT system and meanwhile councils all over the country are struggling to deal with this situation. Only yesterday a BBC news article highlighting Zane's family's battle for justice outlined other examples of councils including Runnymede who stated of a possibly contaminated site the former EGM experiment site is one of our many potentially contaminated sites which when resources and funding allow will be investigated in order of priority. So in this district I was shocked to learn that we have 1,700 sites that have been recognised as potentially contaminated and according to the council's own contaminated land guide the basis of the district's industrial heritage was the wool and textile industry along with associated processes so the manufacturer dies and in addition the district was host to a wide variety of other industrial uses including brick works, gas works, lime burning, quarrying, wire manufacturer, film and green tanning, bore manufacturer fireworks, artificial manure and land filling operations. These sites have to be investigated and potential mitigation work to be carried out to make them safe and site investigations can cost hundreds of thousands of pounds but the budget this year for contaminated land work is 2,000 pounds and one officer remarked to me that this is about £1.30 per site. We're incredibly lucky here to have the skills and dedication of our environmental health team and a team that are dedicated to using the specialist skills of a contaminated land officer with specific expertise. This contaminated land officer can only be hired part-time but we're the lucky ones. She is the only one in the whole of Gloucestershire and in my ward to the Brimscombe and Threat Ward that I represent Chloe and I have been working closely on a site in Brimscombe that has had waste of various genres dumped onto it. It's on the register to be investigated and the environment agency have also received several reports. It's devastating for locals who moved into a once beautiful valley within the AOMB now being destroyed as well as potentially contaminating a stream that flows into the river through. It's unbearable to think of the effect it's having on the flora and fauna of the land and I've been continually, completely astonished that it's not able to be dealt with by anyone but the funding is not there for the council or for the EA. Funding cuts to the EA have meant a sixfold decline in enforcement actions over the past decade with a decrease in both civil and criminal sanctions so clearly the national situation has a very real impact for the residents of our district. So what needs to happen is perfectly clear what needs to happen with the work of counsellors and officers and other counsellors and feedback from members, the support of CHI and our own brilliant officer team. We've put together a motion that I'm really hoping colleagues who can all support tonight which is calling for more funding, more resource and more attention and support. So finally I'd like to sincerely thank CHI for coming along tonight to hear our motion. It was good of him to travel such a long way and I hope my colleagues tonight can both support this motion and also take their own time to look up and support the campaign for Justice for Zane, a beautiful intelligent boy with a passion for environmental issues, Taekwondo and public speaking. No family should have to go through what Zane's family have been through and these measures we hope will be part of Zane's legacy to ensure that the tragedies of the future never happen. As Zane once said, people think sustainability means looking after your garden but it's really about a bigger garden that belongs to everyone. Thank you. Thank you Becky. Are there any questions? Yes, Councillor Davis. Thank you for that and this is a logismar question. I looked on our website because you're right, the responsibility for this already rests with a district council in whatever 2A. I only saw two sites on there and actually the reports that went with those two sites were neither clear on whether anything had been done about them or whether there was a cost associated with that. So I'm intrigued whether 1700 comes from, if we've not got them on our website because that's a very different figure and whether we're asking for money, money is always difficult, whether we have any idea of what the right amount of money would be to prioritise those sites and address them, not all within 12 months, say, but you know, have you got a number in your head or is this just a motion calling for the government to do more, which we continually hear but is not as helpful as if we knew what that cost was? Thank you, Councillor Davis. Yeah, I also looked on the site and only saw two, the 1700 figure came from our meeting with officers and so I'm not sure at what stage they then put that onto the website. That's something that I can check out and get back to you on. In terms of the figure, it's just very difficult because per site, it depends on the remediation work that needs to be done. There was originally national funding to cover this and that was announced that it would be ending and it ended by 2015. So since that time, there has been this gap in the funding, but I think actually it would need to be worked out regionally and by specialists and that's not me unfortunately, but thank you for your questions. Is anyone else have any questions? No, I can't see any. So, Councillor Turner, you're a seconder of the motion. Would you like to speak now or reserve the right? Okay. Thank you, Chair. I'm just going to speak briefly, but I'd like to echo the concerns that Becky has outlined about the extent of land contamination across our district and the porosity of our resource to deal with it. That is both in terms of the current officer resource, which though excellent and welcome is only part time and the extent of the skilled workforce that is available even if we were to expand it. Becky's touched on Stroud's rich industrial heritage, all of which has left its mark, joined by modern day contamination from land filling, illegal dumping and accidental spillages. In my own ward of Mention Hampton, they're both documented and anecdotal accounts of contamination. All present from asbestos cement used apparently, for example, for the construction of footpaths and chemical contamination at Aston Down from the dismantling of military equipment. Many people talked about the legacy of the fiber creek factory in Brimscombe and where its waste might have ended up. And Becky has mentioned the site that we've been working on, where residents have expressed their extreme concerns about irresponsible behaviour on the part of the landowner and putting ecology and human health at risk. What's important now is that we take responsible and adequate action on the risk to human and ecological health across our district bearing in mind the rapidly changing hydrology as our climate changes. My heart goes out to Zane's family and his father Kai tonight and thank you for joining us tonight. For what they have suffered and I know they like us want lessons learned. What's very clear from the discussions that have led to this motion is that current national funding for this work is woefully inadequate for an area like ours with intensive industrial heritage and I'm grateful to Becky for so clearly articulating the arts of government, environment agency and this Council to do their part in addressing that. I hope we can all support this motion tonight. Thank you. Thank you Councillor SON. Has anyone else was to speak in debate? Yes. Go ahead, Councillor Reynolds. Yeah, I've echoed what my colleagues have said and it's very concerning. Worryingly, as things stand, environment protections have only got worse since leaving Brexit changes by the EU and UK, sorry, changes by the EU that the UK is not following and planned divergences from EU law will mean toxic chemicals banned in the EU would be allowed to be used in in the UK. If we look at chemical regulations, eight rules restricting use of hazardous chemicals have been adopted by the EU since Brexit and a further 16 are in the pipeline. The UK, however, has not banned any substances in that time and is considering only two restrictions on lead ammunition and harmful substances in tattoo ink. We look at pesticides. The UK has banned 36 harmful pesticides that have been prescribed for use in the EU. 30 of the 36 were allowed for use in the EU when the UK left on January 31, 2020, but since then have been banned by the bloc and the remaining six have been approved by the UK government, by the EU since then. I haven't even talked about water quality, air pollution and recycling regulations amongst a few. So it is really concerning. We just seem to be environmentally, environment protections just seem to be getting eroded away. I've had discussions with farmers about certain pesticides that they're using in my ward at the moment. Point of order, Chair, please. This is sounding awfully like a political statement and I would like to challenge whether it's applicable in the pre-election period. I've finished anyway, but with all due respect, it's all linked to what we're talking about tonight. Thank you. Thank you Councillors interjecting. Was it Councillor Watson? I wasn't sure who's handed raise back. Thank you. I'd like to thank Becky for raising this issue. It's very poignant in my village right now. Respective developer has disturbed some unreported contaminated land, bringing asbestos from the fibercrete factory that Chloe mentioned to the surface. Everyone in the area knows that every abandoned quarry and every other cavity was filled with spoil from this immense factory in the valley. Neighbors know not to dig too deep in their own gardens and can't believe that their houses were allowed to be built there relatively recently. However, it is still number 23 on the list that Becky mentioned of well over a thousand suspected contaminated land sites in our area waiting to be tested. The owner complete ignorance and he is currently refusing to cap the land that he has recently breached the safe cover that was there before with his unnecessary and unsafe digging. Rain now washes that spoil down the hill towards housing, school and water courses. On dry days the dust blows around and we appear powerless to do anything despite begging the environmental health locally, health and safety executive, nationally and environment agency for all the reasons that Becky's elucidated. So it's a very real and a very present problem in our area because of the many factories that Chloe alluded to. I'd like to applaud and thank Zane's father for his actions in a time of devastation for him and his family and I hope that our support here tonight helps pave the way to adequate funding for proper investigations of all these potentially dangerous sites nationwide at a much faster pace. It's vital to protect our citizens from totally preventable future tragedies. Thank you. Thank you Chair. I'd just like to remind Councillors that it's probably, I got back a long way, so it's probably 30 years ago that toxins were found in the Horsley stream that runs down through nails with a gnome down. If people remember the Horsley tip, it's fondly still known as, was about three times as large and all the non recyclables, I think everything went in there in those days, was just put into the ground in the old quarry that was three times the size of what's up there now and very soon after it's about one and a half miles from the watercourse and toxins were found down in Horsley in the stream and so we do need and then of course there was Huhaan or all the refuge was then taken away to Gloucester and then for quite a while the tip was completely closed until it was modernised. But you know that happened then, it could well still be seeping through, I don't know whether it's tested these days, you know it's a real worry. So I fully support this and I thank our two Councillors here for bringing it to us this evening. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Layfield. Yeah, I'm very much in support of this as well. I think this motion neatly captures the relationship between rainfall and land and contaminated land. I think we're seeing more and more rainfall, real and real. This problem might get worse. I think the land needs to be tested and the funding needs to be made available. So I thank you, everyone, to support it. Thank you, Councillor Hearst. Thank you, Chair. Yes, clearly it's a very serious problem but I'd like to invite you to consider the bigger picture that brownfield sites need to be developed ahead of greenfield sites and the area is fairly full with brownfield sites and not very many of them seem to be coming forward to a point where they actually get developed but the easiest way of cleaning these sites up is through development and one of the problems that I have with national governance but also with the local plan is that there is a lack of, I'm going to say, consideration, or all of the residual costs which go with bringing a brownfield site forward, whether we should take a more lenient view on sale money, on affordable housing percentages within those schemes. Certainly Brim's Comport is currently languishing for various reasons but the costs to clean that site up came in large part from the housing agency and I do feel, yes, certainly national contributions to the cost of brownfield site cleanups should go forward but if you want to take these sites out and I do think we should, then the clearest way is to find other purposes for them in order to produce that cost in order to be able to take the toxins out from those places. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor DAVIS. Thank you, Chair, and I will be supporting this motion this evening and I think we all recognise the tragedy that has brought us here this evening. It's interesting, we've had a number of debates in this Chamber over the years with various connections with the District and the District Council where we end up writing to Prime Ministers or Ministers and I've been at times critical of the waste of our time when it doesn't affect us but this one is different. That recognition that our website has two sites and there are 1700 that we know tells us that we have a role in this. This is not just about writing a letter and asking for more money and I will come onto that separately but we as a District Council can should do more. It's a decision we can make, not tonight but a future Council after an election could make a decision to spend money on doing this. I think it's also important to understand there are laws around this, there are planning restrictions and if we are going to spend more money and I did so, I would reference that. We do need to give some element of prioritisation. We need to understand what the worst cases are and that is a role we can play here at the District before we demand money to solve everything because it will not happen overnight. I think we're all realistic about that and understand that. I think it's also and Councillor Robinson made the point. I think we are dealing and I think actually Councillor Turner did in her bit as well. We're dealing with a legacy of ignorance from a different age and we are cleaning that up. It wasn't intentional that people did that pollution. I have to confess my father-in-law worked for a company that did large amounts of dumping of landfill in this region and as I drive around with him he points out areas where landfill was dumped by the company he worked for. They didn't do it maliciously, they didn't see or understand the harm. We as this more enlightened time need to fix that but this will not happen quickly or easily and we as a District Council do have a role to help identify and prioritise and cost those improvements but I will be supporting this motion. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Tipper. Thank you, Chair. About 40 years ago I redeveloped a garage in Stone House and before the redevelopment could be started a contractor through me had to ship the top six inches of soil from the site down to I believe it was four-wheeled for the soil to be burnt and to get rid of all the contaminants in the soil itself. So on that basis as I said that's about 1985, 86 and what I'm asking is how on earth these toxins and contaminants got into or were allowed to be buried in such places as if a could run through it and that sort of thing. It was that in the hands of the District Council should we have done better than to allow that to happen? I beg the question. Thank you, Councillor Tipper. I can't sit around indicating to contribute so I'm going to ask Councillor Alden to sum up. Thank you. Thank you. I think everyone's heard enough from me already. I just wanted to thank everyone for their contributions tonight. I'm really glad to hear that there is support from across the Chamber for this. It is vital work and as Councillor Davis said there is more to do definitely. This is just the start and so thank you everybody and I hope you can all support it. Thank you very much. We're going to move to the vote now which will be an electronic vote so as usual it's one for yes, two for no and three for the state. Yep, that's unanimous. Thank you very much, Councillors. And just thank you very much, Kai, for attending. I do hope this goes to other Council so you build more momentum and I think we're really grateful for you raising awareness of this. I think many of us weren't aware as you've seen. It's really relevant for our District as well so good luck with the campaign. I think we'll be following it very closely to see how you proceed so hopefully it will be passing into law in this Council. I think regardless of where it goes with Parliament I think it sounds like there's a directive for anyone who's here after the election to do some work definitely around this so thank you very much for coming this evening. Thank you. We'll move on now to item 8A and as you know, unfortunately Councillor Ross wasn't able to present this report this evening but we're very lucky that Councillor Schumacher has stepped in at the last moment and it's going to present the report. So Councillor Schumacher. Yeah, good evening, fellow Councillors. This is a report that's further to the unanimous housing committee's decision in March to add the sites at the Avenue, Stinchcombe, Donal, Yuli and Mount Pleasant what's under edge to the new Home Center Regeneration Program and progress the redevelopment of the provision for 42 APCA Council Homes subject to planning permission and noting that an update then also will be brought back to the housing committee as soon as it's practical regarding highway safety and other key infrastructure considerations before the submission of planning applications. The committee also recommended the budget is approved by Council to enable the sites to be progressed as the next phase of the new build program. Section 1 of the report summarizes the work that has been undertaken since the previous report in February including additional pre-app advice and informal advice from GCC High Race, a tree survey at the null and testing of the financial assumptions and funding requirements in the appraisals for each site. Further meetings were also held with the Town and Paris Councils and the proposed layouts shared with them and the residents as well as the school who are directly impacted. Section 2 runs each site in more detail, the current and proposed housing provision on each site and the proposed so draft layout in appendices A, B and C. The recommended layout that the null gives flexibility in terms of considering opportunities to lessen the impact on the highway, improve access to the school and increase off-state parking for the school or local community. Section 4 deals with funding. Members will be aware of the significant increase in building costs as impacted on the current phase of new build schemes throughout the district and the viability of all the sites and projects in the pipeline. These schemes need high levels of subsidy and a longer borrowing period to ensure it has no impact on the HRA revenue account from delivering them. However, by funding them, the Council would be addressing the major voids on these sites that have been held pending this review enabling tenants and residents who do wish to move to be supported to do so. As I said already, it will be delivering up to 42 new EPCA-rated Council homes. The consultation updated section 5 sets out the main concerns that have come through the consultation undertaken to date, many of which can be addressed until surveys are undertaken and schemes worked up as they are an integral part of the development and planning processes. In addition to this, the Swedish timber houses are valued by the local communities and both Stinkham and Paris Council and new residents believe they should be preserved. There has also been considerable concern expressed throughout the impact of this review and these recommendations on our dear tenants and private owners who would need to be moved. I'm glad to see that the report summarises the Council policy on this starting at paragraph 5.9 and the support that is given by the Council. Moving tenants and private owners has been part of the majority of schemes in the Council's new build program. In Minchinhampton, Stroud, Leonard Stanley, Nilsworth and more recently in Dursley, Cam and Watn under Edge. So in conclusion, the further work that was necessary to be able to make a firm recommendation to the Committee has been undertaken for these three sites and Housing Committee approved adding to the new build program. The need to address the improvement of the Swedish timber houses is ever more pressing and refurbishment would not remove the need for ongoing higher maintenance, higher running across the tenants and lower energy efficiency and an even more limited touch lifespan. The delivery of new Council-owned energy efficient, affordable homes remains a council and personal priority and the need to deliver more affordable homes continues to increase. These schemes are expected to be able to deliver an increase from 16 to 42 new homes built to an EPCA as said previously. They would be adaptable and accessible with lower maintenance and running costs and an expected lifespan of 100 years and make a real contribution to keep those communities alive for longer due to an increased number of residents being able to support the infrastructure that's in these various locations. Thank you. Thank you very much. Do we have any questions? Yeah, Councillor Davis. Thank you for that. When this went through Housing Committee, I'm not sure it was unanimous by the way, but the concern we raised is that you did a consultation in Eulie and we were concerned that it looked like so many consultations this Council does. We turned up, we listened and then we just simply ignored them. I am not happy that we take forward the Eulie site without some evidence that some action has been taken to recognise some of the concerns of the community. If that has happened or you can prove to me it's happened, I'm happy to support this, but I'm looking for evidence I don't see any in this report. As it states in the report, that is part of the planning processes and of the development processes. Every stage, we will come back to the residents and other stakeholders as the plans get more and then also people can relate more to the actual layout and whatever the consequences of that are. In Eulie, we have said already, we would come back to people regarding the high rates and other infrastructure challenges that are obviously are, so we will do that. My understanding was it would therefore come back to Housing Committee with those changes and to the issues raised in the consultation. So I'm now confused as to why we're approving this this evening when it has to go back to Housing Committee for final approval of that. There's something wrong here. I'm making this room we then delegate to officers, which I'm not comfortable to do. Or as I thought we discussed at Housing Committee, it comes back to Housing Committee and the final decision is yet to be made on whether all three of these sites, because two of them are perfect, seem a really good idea, but one of them is clearly causing concern in Eulie. Maybe I should bring Alison Fishkin on this, but as far as I understand, we're just approving the budget allocation here, not the details of each scheme. So if the scheme faults us for whatever reason, that money won't be spent, but we'll be making a budget allocation so that the development process can be taken forward. Thank you, Councillorion MURPHY. Councillor FISKE, do you want to answer this? Sorry. Sorry. Thank you, Chair. Just to confirm that we have appointed Highway Consultants, as we said, we would do it as in committees. So the meeting we had at Eulie, we hadn't gone to consult the residents. We were invited to a parish council meeting to hear their concerns, which we listened to. And as a result, we said we would progress those investigations straight away, which we started to do. But we do need the budget to undertake those surveys, to design the scheme up, to undertake more highway surveys, etc. So that's why we need the budget in place so we can start the works on the site. So if we approve the budget, that's fine. But the spending of that budget is still a decision that will be taken to housing committee. If you can confirm that, then I'm happy to support this. Yes, it says here that we will come back to the housing committee as soon as practical regarding highway safety and other key infrastructure considerations before the submission of planning applications. Planning applications is the end of the process in a lot of ways. So we will continually stay in touch, both with the housing committee and with the local people who are the most affected. Just so we clear about the financial aspect, I think the director resources will just clarify for everyone. Councillor Shoemaker was quite correct there. Council is the ultimate decision maker on the budget. So by approving a budget tonight, you are making it available to be spent. But as the report says, housing committee will be considering this before any planning applications go forward. So we can approve the budget and that allows the new bill team to start the work on all of the sites, but the detail on it then, before it goes forward, any further will go to housing committee. But the money has been approved tonight. It means you don't have to keep going back around in an endless loop with housing committee, approve it. Then we come back for the budget. Thank you. Hopefully, that's clear to everyone. Councillor Baxondale. Yeah, just a quick question for the monitoring officer. In my role as chair of DCC, just if the monitoring officer could just confirm my understanding that members can vote for this in principle without having problems if they end up on DCC when planning, given when planning applications come in around pre-determination. So that isn't a problem. Yeah, no, that's absolutely fine. You can vote on this item and still take part so that applications come forward to DCC in the future. Just wanted to be clear on that. Councillor Brown. Yeah, thank you, Chair. So what I have just completely understood from that discussion, we are not deciding to do this in particular development in newly. We're just deciding that the money is available if it is then decided by housing committee and subsequently by development control to do it. Is that correct? We're still in question, so do you want to respond? Yeah. Sorry. Yeah, with the microphone on. Yeah, that's correct interpretation. Thank you for making it so clear on that. Thank you. Councillor Suda Kennedy. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'm a little lost. If this is past tonight, you have borrowed an extra $14.7 million on the presumption that you're going to spend it. Now, if the newly one does not get accepted, what part of that $14.7 million constitutes over borrowing, unnecessarily required? Councillor Schumacher, do you want to respond or do we want shy, loud, direction of resources to take this in? Yes, apologies, Councillor Schumacher, it's probably a sort of finance question, that one. So Councillors are proving the budget tonight of up to $14.7 million and proportion of that is borrowing. The way that our borrowing works is that it is at the point that the money is spent, which is the sort of notional borrowing. If any of the schemes don't go forward and don't proceed, then we would have not incurred the money. There will be no cash borrowed for this scheme in advance of any of the works being done. Most of the time, we borrow from our own internal resources anyway, but there will not be any element of borrowing before any money is spent effectively. And in short, you can cover this with internal borrowing as it's been done in the past anyway, is that right? So it would depend on the cash flows at the particular time and that's sort of one of the calls that I have to make. But for all of these schemes, the money that we would be spending so far is to get to the stage where we can go to housing committee and give the update before planning permission. Whatever the final cost of these schemes are going to be, that's not spent until we actually do it. So as with any scheme, if we spent the stage to get to a sort of planning decision and then it doesn't proceed, then obviously we have lost that money that we spend to get there, but there will be no element of borrowing the whole cost of the scheme before we get the sort of approval to go further. Thank you. Do we have any? Yes, Councillor? Just got a couple of questions really. One is that if it's approved tonight in terms of the finances, does that then mean that the tenants and residents of the proposed development areas will then be sort of immediately required to or exit their properties? And then the sort of follow-up question is really how long is it expected that once the tenants are, and I don't like the phrase decanted, but that's the phrase that we need to use, decanted from their residents, when a new development will be available for them to potentially return, because that is one of my concerns about the period of the gap when there is nobody going to be on the developments, because they need to be redeveloped. Thank you. Councillor Schumacher, do you want to reply? Yeah, I'll be able to do a great revision of Alison Fisk on that. So no, tenants and private owners are obviously asked to move straight away. The first thing we do is go and meet them all and understand their individual circumstances, and then we're very much led by what those are and what their needs are, and we follow our de-hunting policy whereby we make more than one offer and we keep making offers. So it's really difficult to say how long it will take. All we can say is from our experience it can take between sort of two to three years, so unfortunately it does take a period of time, but that's because we're led by the people who live on the site, and at some point obviously that has to be drawn to conclusion so that we can proceed if indeed we can get planning for it. So yes, we do a lot to support tenants and private owners to move. Thank you. Councillor PSYCH, do you want to come back? If I may, yes. Would there be a significant difference between the period where there could be no occupancy because now the house has been redeveloped, or when they would be potentially refurbished? One of the two times, so you said two to three years, if they're redevelopment, what would it potentially might be if it was just a refurbishment rather than a redevelopment? Thank you. Thank you, Chair. We'll refurbishment is quicker because we haven't had to move tenants when we've done refurbishment but we have to go through the planning process, and I understand that when we've done that previously at the know, then there were objections to that and it was withdrawn at the time, but we have obviously achieved planning permission in other areas of the district for the Swedish timber houses, so it would be quicker. I couldn't give you a definite time. That's something that Taurus Givmore's team would deal with. Thank you. Any other questions? Yes, and I just want to Kenzie. The other thing that concerns me since you've discussed the time is what about this fellow private ownership been there for ever in the day, and you want him to move out. Now, are you going to give him a direct replacement? Well, according to this lot, you're doubling the number of people on the site at least, so what incentive is there for the private owner to actually move at all, and are you going to apply for compulsory purchase in order to achieve it? Councillor Schumacher, do you want to take that one? Oh, to Ellerton Fish again. So, private owners again, that's also set out in our decanting policy, but obviously obviously by through legislation, they're offered market value and other heads of claim, if you like, that we follow, and we try to negotiate those acquisitions, and for all our previous sites, we have been successful in doing that. Obviously, I can't predict what will happen with these private owners. Some want to sell, some don't want to sell to start with, and ultimately we have compulsory purchase powers, but clearly they're a power of last resort, and we don't want to use them if we can avoid it, and that would need a decision by a council in any event, so we'd be coming back to members on that. Thank you, and thank you, Alison, for stepping in there. Councillor Piersi. One final question. One of the residents has been a tenant for, I think at least 40 years, if not longer, and therefore lived in the village all that time. They're clearly, it will be very disruptive and stressful for them to have to decant somewhere else, and it is likely that that would have to be outside of the village, because just a number of social housing units that within newly. Could I have the assurances that every effort would be made to rehouse them, hopefully, in newly, or at least ensure that the stress that they will go through is minimised, and they get all the support that they need to do that. Thank you. Councillor Piersi, I think we should be very mindful of discussing identifiable individuals in the council chamber, and I think perhaps that could be taken offline as an individual case for your ward. I think we've always had to be very sensitive around discussing individual cases, but if you're happy to have a discussion with officers around that individual, that'll be probably the best, most appropriate, if that's OK. But unless you want to make a general point, Councillor Shimachar or in response to that, or? I think it's always difficult to balance local and district interests, but we've got a huge housing need, and also in Yuli and in Stinchcombe and in Watan, and that's we've got a huge housing need, and the new housing we will be much wider variety of houses. It will also help the village in having a wider range of residents moving in. So I think, therefore, this is a big step forward for Yuli, for Watan and Reg, and for Stinchcombe, as well as for the whole district. Thank you. Do we have any? Oh, sorry, apologies. Councillor Patrick. Thank you, Madam Chairman. This is a question for Alice and I think. The market value of one of these types of houses, would that be an adequate amount of money to purchase a new home for the people that you may wish to leave this type of houses? Are you happy to take that question? Yes. We've made, obviously, estimates of values in the financial appraisals that we've done, inevitably, whatever that value is, we need to then look at, you know, the private owners may not want any support, they may go ahead and look for their own accommodation. But we do offer a generous offer over market value because we have to recognise that we're disturbing people and moving them out of the homes when they were perfectly happy to stay. So I'm afraid until we get to talk to individuals, we don't know exactly what they want to do and what's available. Thank you. Councillor Schumacher, did you want to respond? I think it's also a case for the decanting policy that they can move back. Yes, they will have the chance to buy one of the new houses. Thank you. I can't see, unless I've missed a note, I don't know if else has got any questions. Thank you very much. So I'll just read out the decision which you've got there on the screen. Council resolves to approve the request for a additional budget of £14.7 million to be funded from capital receipts, homes, England funding and borrowing are set out within the report to enable the Council to continue with the next phase of the new homes and regeneration programme as recommended by the Housing Committee. Do we have a proposal? Councillor Schumacher, yes. I'm seconder. Councillor Bennet, thank you. Councillor Bennet, do you wish to speak now or reserve the right? No, OK. Right, so we're open for debate now, so who would wish to see us? Councillor Miles. I believe the Council should approve the additional budget of £14.7 million, as recommended by the Housing Committee, because the planning process will consider any heritage harm and expressed by the 20th century of society and concerns of highway issues as expressed by local residents. The 42 EPCA-rated homes, which will further our climate change goals and the need to provide secure, warm homes for local people, which help to provide employment and more balanced age range for the population of our villages. I know change causes people stress and worry and concerns and are understood by all, but the housing team have gained a wealth of valuable experience in providing support in the moving process. When I consider how many people these warm homes will provide a comfortable life over the next 100 years, I must conclude that it should be part of the planning balance. As Mr Spex sometimes says, but sometimes says, sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Thank you, Councillor Miles. Councillor Hirst. Thank you, Chair. Councillor Turner and I will be aware of the schemes in Mentionhampton, where some tired houses were redeveloped with significant increase in the density and numbers of people that we were able to house. However, my concern, it's not a concern, actually, I think it's a principle that we should, as a Councillor, we should be promoting timber framed housing as a solution towards climate change, because housing developers generally don't go anywhere near it because of the difficulties with mortgages. If we are able to deliver, we should set an example, basically, as what I'm saying. I'm very happy to support this. Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak in the debate? Yes, Councillor JOHNSTON. Thank you, Chair. I'll be supporting this motion for the additional budget because it's ultimately about affordable homes for people in our district. I do recognise, though, it is a nuanced situation and it's really tricky. There are people in their homes and it was kind of sad to read the 20th century society letter. I hope and have all faith in the officers and their brilliant work so far that as we go forward, we can work with everybody's concerns and address them, and perhaps even consider a preservation example being retained of one of the houses or something like that. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor SUTTON. Thank you, Chair. Whether it's my ignorance or what, but we don't seem to have an illustration of what these Swedish houses would look like. We've got the plans for the three sites, but we just say Swedish timber houses. They're all going to look alike or they'll be various designs in them. You know what I'm getting at, we haven't got an illustration in here of what these homes would look like, which I think would have a lot of influence and whether people would like them in their area or not. Thank you, Chair. I think we've gone past question. We're in the debate now, but I think your question, your comments are noted. I think we said this will be coming back to housing committee for further discussion. Anyone else wish to contribute the debate? Yes, Councillor PSY. Thank you. Yes, I am a little conflicted on this, in particular, this relation to the proposal in Eulie as well, Councillor, because I know the use of residents and as well, Councillor, I need to take consideration of the reviews of residents, whether you know, you can't agree with them or not. I have been engaged with the Council officers, Annison, Paris Council, and have taken a lot of emails directly from residents. Clearly, I'm a strongly strong believer in we need to increase the number and provision of central housing in the district. You know, we know I'm conscious of the way of the waiting list. But I mean, I was thinking the weather expansion is going to be, it's to be in the right places and it has to have a level of support from local residents. And I think we should need that, particularly those that may be displaced. I am concerned about the gap when there will be no tenants there because of the proposal in terms of development for development in the area, where there will be nobody living there. You know, there is a great deal of affection for the timber houses nearly, and in the other sites as well. And, you know, at the time, they were a really advanced, sustainable solution to housing needs, way above what we were building in the UK at the time. My feeling was always to hope for a refurbishment option, because I think that would be quicker to get people in and out. And I think it will help to preserve some of the heritage there. It's true that more people will help economically, perhaps. But there also is another argument to say that, actually, another eight houses may not increase the economic situation very much, and they will still go and shop in Dursley and take all the services in Dursley using their car because there isn't much public transport up there. And from, as my accountant in me says that I am concerned about the housing capital side being on more pressure on the house in finance. There are a number of other reasons I could go on, and I'm not so close to the other two proposals, but I'm not sure I can fully support the proposal at the moment, and we'll probably abstain. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Percy. Anyone else wish to contribute? I don't see anyone in which case I lost Councillor Bennett the seconder to speak with my kit. Thank you, Chair. I'm happy to support this. I think we need to be realistic that we are in the middle of a housing crisis. We've got people being placed out of the district as far away as Bristol. The number of households on the hopeless applications is rising, and that's going to carry on. I think we need to explore every opportunity we've got to increase the number of social housing we've got in the district. It's not an easy decision. People are concerned, and it is going to be disruptive if it goes ahead. But I think we're agreeing tonight to approve the request of the additional funding so that we can move forward with it and carry on, hopefully, to be able to resolve the issues and the concerns that have been raised. These houses are cold, and they're not efficient with their energy, so they're quite—they're expensive to heat. So I think everything we're looking at doing and improving the EPC rating to A, it's going to reduce people's bills. Just for me, I can't see looking at everything that there would be any reason not to agree this, and I hope everybody can support this. I think it's key that it gets agreed tonight so that we can move it forward. So, yeah, I fully support this and hope we can. Thank you, Councillor Bennett. Councillor Schumacher, would you like to sum up, please? Yes, I think that we've listened to a lot of fair few arguments also from Councillor PC, who has really got the welfare of the people of Yulia at heart. But I have got full confidence in our officers that the process will be as humanely and as kind to those residents as possible, but we need to look towards the future. Even refurbished houses will only last another 40 or 50 years if that. So we need to look forward and create more houses and houses that will last a longer time and address a wider range of needs. So for that, I'm really keen that this moves forward and still goes down through all the consultations and all the negotiations that will come with the program moving forward. Thank you. We'll move to the electronic vote now. One for yes, two for no and three for abstain. Thank you, that's been carried. Thank you, Councillors. We have got to have past eight, we do normally ask for a break after an hour and a half. So we're going to take a 10-minute break, but please do make sure you're back by 10 minutes. We've still got a lot to get through this evening. Thank you. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Thank you. Thank you everyone to support this decision this evening. I feel like it's a good use of resources. As we've discussed, we have an empty car park. We have residents who need space parking. It's great opportunities as Council Afield has mentioned to a trial e-bike park charging and then to allow residents who have electric vehicles to charge their vehicles locally. Really delighted to hear from the Councillor Miles about the impact that that's having on local residents and then feeling very pleased about it. The accessibility improvements as well with wider spaces for parents and people who are in disabled and new car park and it is really quite exciting and unusual to have residents who are thrilled about a new charging car park. So I feel like we should embrace it and vote for this this evening. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councilor Borne. I'll move to the vote now. [BLANKAUDIO] That's passed. Thank you very much. We'll move on now to item 9B, which is the Cotswell Canal Connected Project update. And I'm going to ask Councillor Borne again to as chair of construction resources committee to introduce the report. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. On 7th March, 2024, the Strategy and Resources Committee resolved to endorse the revised approach to the delivery of the Cotswell Canal Connected Project, taking note of the associated risks and implications and recommend to full council this evening that we approve this revised approach. This approach has been based on the Cotswell Canal Connected Project Board and approved by the National Lottery Heritage Fund Project Board. And it's based on five areas. Completing the community engagement and environment programs by the end of next year, 2025. Completing section 3 of the canal from Stonehouse to Eastington, also by the end of 2025. Remitting and monitoring and evaluation report in December 2025. Commencing works on the missing mile, now that the planning application has been secured and within available budget funding. And securing the additional funding required to complete the project. This work will be done within the original National Lottery Heritage Fund budget and the funding which has been secured. The key point to note is that the budget will only enable us to complete the restoration of the canal between Stonehouse and Eastington. And that additional funds will need to be secured to complete the missing mile in connection to the canal network at Soul Junction. I can confirm that good progress is being made on the Stonehouse to Eastington section with most of the work being done by volunteers from the Cotswell Canal's Trust. I'd like to draw your attention also to Appendix A, which sets out the working with nature aspects of the project. On environmental and river fly training, creating new wetland habitat, restoring pockets orchard, developing more species rich grassland, planting hedgerows, installing bird and bat boxes and benches and much, much more. Also, please do take a look at Appendix B, the Community Engagement Progress Report, which is worthy of note and details. All the activity underway with schools, heritage learning and the famous snack heritage archives, canal trails, outdoor interpretations, accessibility focused events, photography competitions, the Canal Festival, developing canal ambassadors and much wider communications. Drug District Council are represented on the project board and members and officers will keep the strategy and resources committee informed on progress. So that will include forecasted costs for the project and progress in meeting the future funding gap. So I'd like to recommend that we do accept this proposal for a revised approach to delivery of the canal project. I know that members across the chamber have been supportive for many years of the work of this Council and of many other organisations to undertake canal restoration, which has such huge benefits for the environment and for local communities. We are extremely grateful to Chris Mitford-Slade, Canal Project Director and all the Stroud District Council team for finally securing this support for the phased programme of work, which allows the project to stay on track despite funding and delivery challenges. We are also very grateful to the many volunteers working with the Cotswell Canal Trust who are helping this project to be delivered on the ground. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions on this? I don't think I have any questions at all. It's obviously such a comprehensive detailed report. So I'm going to read out the decision below, which is that the Council resolves to approve the revised approach, a set out in this report as recommended by the Strategic Resources Committee. Can we have a proposal? Councilor Braun, thank you. Chris, speak very briefly really. I just wanted to pay tribute actually. So this is obviously a huge and very complicated project and a lot of it is to do with the engineering side. But from my point of view, looking at the wildlife and nature side in particular, it's been fantastic working with the Wildlife Trust. Witnessing, for example, the Scrapes creation over at Freenbridge, which have already transformed into incredibly valuable habitat. And I just wanted to pay tribute to Anna Talbot, who is our main environmental officer who's been helping us from the Wildlife Trust, who's actually leaving the trust this week. But there's put such an amazing effort into this project, particularly from an environmental point of view. But yes, I very much hope everyone can support this tonight because it's a really important next phase of this fantastic project for the Council. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else who wishes to speak? Yes, Councillor Davis. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to say what an incredible project this is. And thanks to the officers involved, but also the huge team of volunteers who've done much of the work. This is incredibly complicated. I sit on, I get this wrong, but I see on the Stroud Valley Canal Company Board, and I'm a member of the Connected Canal Trust, and trying to get Robin smiling because he understands this issue, trying to understand the different parts that are involved in this project, and getting them to work together and pull together is a huge undertaking, and Chris is doing a great job at making all of that happen. So I think we should call that out. I recognise also what Chloe talks about in terms of the ecological impact of this canal as we open it up and build it. This is a hugely exciting project, and it's an interesting tonight, particularly of all nights, to look at those people who are stepping down as Councillors. I'm looking at Keith to my side by know there are others who have been intimately involved in this project from its beginning and must never have imagined that we could possibly have got this far. We are in striking distance at that last mile. We do not tonight quite know how we're going to fund and get to the last bit, but certainly working closely with it. I'm confident we will find a way through, and it may outlast a few other Councillors on this Council, but we will get there, and it's an exciting and really innovative project, and welcome this report. Thank you. Councillors interjecting. Councillors interjecting. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I confess to being slightly disappointed. I expected to be on the front of the boat going through the Supperton Tunnel in 2014, and we seem to be some way off that, and when we first got the Phase 1, those of you were on the Council when you remember that, we expected to be a lot further on, and as usual, fate has a habit of kissing you one minute and kicking you in the teeth and the next, and the canal is a great demonstration of that. I want to congratulate the team that stood involved. I think looking round, I'm probably the only one who was there when this started as a Council project, and I look forward to its completion. I do hope we can actually get the money out of the Eldridge Lottery Fund, which I have to say have been extremely tolerant given the changing targets that we've had over the years, to complete and make the join and finally complete this end of it. Having said that, there's the other half to do, you've still got to get the English in, and that's quite a way off, but at least this bit might get done. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Councilor Layfield, are you okay to speak now? Thanks, yes. I'm a supporter, so I'm just recovering from a chest infection. So if I have to dash out the room and cough, I hope it doesn't disturb me too. I'd just like to echo my colleague, Councillor Davis' thoughts about this project. I've been involved with that, and I was a company for some time. I started to understand the intricacies of all the organisations that partner with that. I've seen, we've inherited a huge engineering project, but there's been a bit of a shift towards nature and engagement with nature and support for nature, and that's reflected in the work on the ground. There's a reflection on the work on the actual telepaths, and I'm very proud of what we've achieved. As a massive collective partner, as GCC, as STC, there's a company proprietors, CCT, CCC, all these organisations participating to make this massive piece of work come to life, and it's something we should all be very proud of. So I'm really happy to see this report. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Brown. Thank you, Chair. I'm really going to say what's already been said, but having passed the given planning permission for the missing link at a recent Development Control Committee, and now seeing in this report the habitat creation environmental work alongside it, the scrapes already mentioned, New wetland for wetland birds, fabulous, the whole thing, and, of course, the amount of volunteer that has been done by volunteers and extraordinary thing. Wonderful. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Hirst. Councillor, forgive me, Chair. But I made this point at strategy and resources when we discuss this. Don't let us forget that there is still a small section from called Iron Mills, which, until that is completed, means the Brims-Conport will not realise the imagination of this council, and we do need to, somewhere within the scheme of things, I don't think it's being looked at currently, but I do think that we need to start making provision for that because it is critical, absolutely critical to the success of Brims-Conport, and indeed, I'm not thinking we need to get as far as English in, but it would be quite nice to get as far as Brims-Con. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Pearson. Obviously, I would like to mention this particular report, and fully, wholeheartedly, not surprisingly, support it. It gives me a great deal of pleasure that I shall always look back on the fact of the first four years of this, and walking along that canal in 2009, in January, with David Marshall and Paul Coop, for whatever it was, 0.8 miles from end to end, climbing over trees that were over the canal, walking in the canal bed, where there is now water. So, a great deal of pride in that, and I will support it, obviously. And one thing I just wanted to say, some of you are members of the Canal Trust will have been sent an email recently pointing your way to a YouTube 25 or 35 minutes video all about the canal and what's happened, and all the volunteering, and what's gone on in the canal, which included a reference to the Heritage Lottery Fund, and all they've done for that. And I was really sad that there was not one single reference in that video of the amount of contribution that Stroud District Council has put into this since 2009. Bear in mind, it would not have gone forward had we not voted to take it on in this chamber once British waterways have pulled out. It would never have started. And that was sad, so I did write to the Constable Canal Trust and tried to put that right. I hope that whatever they do in the future will make some reference to the work. The council and its officers have done over the last, whatever it is, 18 years or 17 years. And first, lastly, I would like to say to make sure everyone fully understands that the one person sitting in this chamber who put more work into this than just about anybody right at the beginning is Councillor Stavic Kennedy, who was involved in the whole original application to the Heritage Lottery Fund in the first place, and the huge, and it's around somewhere, and Kathy has probably seen it, the amazing document that was presented to them to get the Heritage Lottery Fund money. And that gentleman sitting there was very much instrumental in that, and he should be applauded for it. Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak in the debate? I don't think so. Okay. Thank you. I'll ask if I'm up now, thank you, Councillor. Very briefly, it's great to hear so many stories of involvement in the canal and all of those who have been involved right from the beginning. I think a new intake of Councillors will have an exciting climb over the next couple of years as we deliver this next phase of the phased programme of work with every expectation and hope that we will really achieve this next phase of the project beyond the work that is funded so far. So I encourage everyone to support it. Thank you. Thank you, and we'll go to the vote now. No, I'm all right. Yes, sorry. Yes, it's unanimous, thank you very much. Right, we shall move on now to item 10, which is the M5 Junction 14 funding costing and design approval for the draft local plan, and I'm going to invite Councillor Chloe Turner to introduce the report. Thank you. Thank you very much, Chair. So this report sets out the background to the now agreed pause in the examination of the draft local plan. The inspector's concerns in relation to Junction 14 of the M5, and specifically Junction 14, the work that needs to be undertaken to progress the draft local plan and design and costing in relation to Junction 14 and the funding required to deliver the design and costing in relation to Junction 14 as set up in the joint action plan. So what we're looking for here is approval of a budget of up to £100,000 for M5 Junction 14 design and costings to allow the draft local plan examination to continue. I think we probably had more than adequate opportunity to explore the rationale for the pause in the examination of the local plan at the extraordinary meeting. So with Member's permission, I'm going to jump to the main points of this paper, although happy to come back to other things and questions if necessary. But where this is coming from is that during the examination in public of the draft local plan, National Highways shared its view that the existing Junction arrangement at Junction 14 is operating at capacity at peak times. So some improvement is required in order to accommodate the forecast growth in the area. And then the draft local plan does acknowledge that for some of the proposed allocated sites to come forward, upgrade will be required. As you'll recall, the inspectors have asked for these concerns to be addressed and the joint action plan that has been agreed between us and our partners, Gloucester County Council, South Gloucestershire Council, and National Highways sets out how we go about that. And that joint action plan is on the examination library. So it is significant that Junction 14 is not within the district and not within the control of the council. South Gloucestershire Council is both the Highways Agency and the local planning authority for where Junction 14 is situated. South Gloucestershire does not itself have an interest at the moment in taking forward the design and costing because of the stage its local plan is at. It's at a much earlier stage than we are at with ours. But we are not in a position to sit and wait for South Gloucesters to catch up. It's just normal for us to, for districts to be out of sync with each other. That's just the way the planning system works. We have been asked to get on with our joint action plan in time for the examination to resume at the start of December. And therefore we need to work with our partners to do this work now. Another material consideration is the recent developments around the seven edge proposals. In particular Western Gateway have been championing Aubrey and Barkley collectively as a seven edge low carbon energy hub ever since the unsuccessful bid to run the first commercial fusion reactor there. And two important recent developments on that front. The Aubrey site has been purchased by the government as part of Great British Nuclear. And there's also a government sponsored project to bring forward small modular reactors with major industry players including most locally Rolls Royce. And then alongside that we have the Barkley campus having been sold to Chilton Vital Group apart from SGS College itself or the part of it that's down there. And that consortium has a focus on low carbon energy and ambition to link up with the wider seven edge proposition. And Chilton Vital Group is a consortium that itself includes Rolls Royce and also the University of Bristol. So we've got these Western Gateway developments and seven edge developments. The prospect of potentially a nationally significant infrastructure project at Junction 14. And that is obviously being taken very seriously by national highways and they have asked South Gloucester Council and us to take that into account in doing one of our draft local plans. As I mentioned South Gloucester Council and also National Highways are not themselves in a position to take the lead on the required works. So it is down to us to take that proactive lead in order to meet the commitments that the inspectors have asked of us and that we have agreed to meet as part of our joint action plan. We could of course not do this and section 2.8 of the report sets out the various serious risks that would come about if we chose not to. The first of those being that we would not then be able to demonstrate that we have met our commitments under the joint action plan that we've agreed with the inspectors. If we were then to withdraw the plan as a result of not meeting those commitments we would have to start all over again with a new plan. That plan would fall under the new regulations so a brand new regime there would be a significant delay before any new plan came forward and the entire likely the entire of the evidence base would need to be reviewed and likely refreshed. Any new local plan though would still have exactly the same issues in relation to the strategic transport network and in terms of this paper in relation to Junction 14. So we wouldn't be any further forward. What we would have though is a new problem in that whereas at the moment we're able to benefit from the fact that because we're in regulation 19 stage we can rely on a four year housing supply we would fall back into the five year housing supply. So we would be in a less robust position from a rogue developer point of view. So finally there's the additional point that if we don't move forward we are not playing the part that we've been asked to do in terms of supporting what could as I mentioned be a nationally significant infrastructure project in our area. So in conclusion then the funding for this work is expected to be no more than £100,000 to the extent that it's less than that. Any amounts left over would be returned to the equalisation reserve. If South Gloucestershire Council is at a later stage asked by the inspector to do work around the junction by its inspectors then we can look to recoup proportional costs from South Gloucestershire Council. So this is really the gateway to the next important step forward for our draft local plan. Hopefully it's very clear that this is part of an agreed route with our partners and with the inspectors. And that there are very significant downsides to not taking this step forward. And I hope that members will be able to support this tonight. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Turner. Any questions? Councillor Davis. I've got a couple of questions chair but I'll take them one in time if that's okay with you. Has the current administration of this district council given its full-hearted support to the developments at seven edge for nuclear? Thank you for the question which I think is well outside the scope of this report which is about junction 14 and whether or not we progress the design and cost things. Yes, I'm referring to the fact that things are happening in the area and that we have been asked by national highways to take seriously those emerging developments. I don't think it has anything to do with whether or not we decide to fund the design and costings. We've just been asked to take it seriously because of the emerging developments. So I'm not party to those discussions and I'm not in a position to answer that question but I don't think it has any relevance for this decision tonight. So the leader is sitting next to you with the leader like to answer the question does this district council under its current administration support the development at seven edge as currently proposed? I'm happy to answer the question and I must say we have been very well informed by partners in Western Gateway certainly the team have been working very closely with Western Gateway. Brendan has been on the working group which meets quarterly I think so we've been very well informed we haven't been asked to take a decision. We're keen to see development that's in line with our local plan and that has always been our key position. I took part in little bus tour with the Western Gateway we talked about, Barkley site we talked about other opportunities across the district. As I understand from the latest briefing that we've had the children vital group which relates to Barkley within our district is in the process of acquiring the site. It hasn't yet acquired the site but you know it has been announced as the preferred buyer for that site. There is a process going through which they explained to us as well which is in relation to small modular reactors which Chloe has mentioned which is something that is being actively considered as I understand for the Aubrey site. I don't know what the proposals are there but I think the government is used to take some kind of decision about that. As far as I know there is no specific proposal as yet for Aubrey and as and when there is we're very happy to discuss it and to take a decision. So there was a proposal which I'm asked the question again you've just said you've never been asked to support that site. Have you ever been asked to support that site for nuclear development and have you ever withdrawn that support or not provided it? There's no direct nuclear proposal for that site. We've not been asked. We're in questions. Okay. Do you want to go to the next question? Things we're not going to get an answer to that one though we all know the answer. Right. This is a little hypothetical and Chloe forgive me if you can't answer it but I just want to work for the logic here. This is a plan to look at the potential to develop junction 14. Is there in the process the possibility that we might come to inclusion that it is on feasible to develop 14? And if so have we had any discussion with the inspectors about what flexibility we would have with the local plan? If our 100k comes to the conclusion that 14 is not a viable option. I'm just trying to understand the options as we go forward. Thank you. National Highways is one of the partners to the joint action plan and clearly a very significant partner in terms of this precise piece of work. I think I'm very confident the National Highways might have flagged it at this point if it was not feasible that we'll be able to move forward with the upgrades. In terms of what number we get to as part of the costing exercise I mean you know clearly it will be a big number. It costs a lot of money to develop a motorway junction but it's something that National Highways are going to do at some point. And this is just you know the fact that a number of different districts up and down the M5 is becoming an issue means that it's pressing up their agenda. So it's not feasible. We can't tell at this point we don't have a crystal ball but National Highways are a key part of the design and costing process. And we'll be looking to them to support as we go through that. Thank you. That's a helpful in the second part of my question. Has there been any discussion with the inspectors that join this pause period while we do this work signing up under capable tonight. How much wiggle the room there is to modify the plan that we've taken forward or how hard and fast is that? There's been no direct discussion with the inspectors. Everything, all correspondence with the inspectors has gone through the program officer. All of that correspondence is visible in the examination library. So no, our joint action plan was developed with our partners sent off to the inspectors and the inspectors have agreed the pause. And we are where we are now. We are now into the phase of delivering the joint action plan with our partners. We will do that in time for the deadline of the 5th of December. And at that point, the correspondence will resume unless anything comes from the inspectors in the meantime. But unless I don't know whether Tom would like to add anything to that. No, nothing better than all communications with inspect. You're obviously publicly available and published online. Council is obviously finished with the questions. Thank you. Council Evans. Thank you, Chair. Paragraph 3.4 says that SDC would look to recover costs from south gloss in the event that they use the plans and costings that we're paying for now. Have there been any discussions with south gloss about that? Have they agreed to that or is that just something that we're hoping would happen? So there have been discussions with south gloss. As you can imagine, there's a neighbouring authority that both our officers and members have had discussions around this. In terms of being able to recoup costs, I think that is as part of the job plan process and adjoining authorities. But over to Tom for technical answer. Thank you. We obviously don't have that agreement with them yet because they're at a different stage and they don't know if they will. But obviously, if they use our designs and plans, then we would look to recoup proportionally that is appropriate. Do you think that's likely that we would get some money back from them? Sorry. Well, I can't really guarantee. Sorry. Sorry. We don't actually have that agreement in place with them at the moment, but obviously we would follow that as strongly as possible. Thank you. Councillor Jones next. Hayden Jones. Thank you, Chair. After something so positive with the canal, this is slightly more contentious, obviously. Paragraph 103-104 about risks. I'm just concerned about the balance of this report. This isn't the only piece of it. It talks about all the risks of not doing something there. But if you go back to the communications that we've had with the inspector all along, when they wrote to us on the 4th of August, they said withdrawal may be the most appropriate way forward. On the 2nd of October last year, we feel it's only appropriate for us to highlight the possibility that following any pause, we could still be in a position of writing device. You that withdrawing the plan remains the best option in our view. And on the 5th of February this year, we would also like to state at this stage that whilst we have agreed to oppose the examination, we will continue to adopt a pragmatic approach on its resumption. This, of course, cannot guarantee that the plan will ultimately be found sound. So all the risks about not doing something are in there. But the risk of spending all this money and doing this work and still being in the same position hasn't been covered. Can you comment on that? All of the earlier comments that the inspectors have made have been superseded by the fact that they've now agreed a joint action with the resumption of the examination starting up at the start of December. So I don't recognise those as risks now. I accept the fact that completing the joint action plan or where we get to with it, we will still be subject to what the inspectors say. But that is true of being anywhere in the inspection process until you come out with an approved plan at the end. So we are in a much better position now. We have worked very closely with our partners. We have something we all agree on that the inspectors have agreed with. They've given us the pause that we asked for. So they clearly recognise that we have moved along a great deal. We are addressing their concerns. We're doing everything asked of us. And frankly, it would be absolute madness to walk away from this process, rather than doing what everybody has agreed that we're going to do. Thank you. Councillor Jones, you want to come back? Sorry, I left my mic on. Thank you for that. I think it might have been superseded, because I'm not sure it's going to start at the beginning of December, because the inspectors refused our last request, so I think it's going to be the new year. Tom will be able to confirm that or not. If I could move on to my next question. You mentioned South Gloucester Council, and obviously they're significant in this deal. I watched their Regulation 18 debate where they moved to Regulation 18 eventually. And the responsible person was asked why Junction 14, the M5, didn't feature in any of their plans, the lenses, as they call them. And her answer was two things. It was unfunded and the plan would be blown out of the water. Her word's not mine. At EIP, if it was included, we know something about that. And secondly, it would create damaging, transgreen belt commuting and unsustainable patterns of commuting. So do you recognise those risks and are you happy to create unsustainable patterns of commuting? In coming first to our latest request, it wasn't actually our request for an additional couple of weeks. It came from our partners, specifically from the County Council, recognising the fact that the day you receive a letter is not the same day. You can suddenly mobilise a team and get on with the project. But anyway, the inspectors chose not to honour that request from the County Council. The County Council have since confirmed that they will be able to still meet the timing deadlines. It just would have been nice to have that fit a breathing room to set up their team. But they are still going to do their part as are we all. In terms of South Gloss, though, I haven't watched that meeting, so I haven't got the benefit of that. But they are at a far earlier stage. Their plan is still evolving, their housing numbers, their areas of development are still very much evolving. And now, on top of everything else, we have these new developments around Aubrey and Barclay, which will, it's looking increasingly likely, mean that their plan, whatever it looked like now, and it's very draft stage, will have to evolve again. So I don't think it's really particularly useful to discuss that at this point. We have this decision to make about our plan, which is a completely different point of its evolution. And as far as I'm concerned, this is the only sensible decision we can make. Thank you, Councillor Turner. I think I'd like Councillor Tipper next. Tipper, did you ask a question yet? Well, some while ago, South Gloss this year we were talking about doing something about Junction 14. And now, what I did here, I can actually prove it, but they talked about a full roundabout instead of the straight road that we've got. Basically, that was going to cost millions. I'm bearing in mind what the missing link has cost on the 417. And basically, you're talking about 300 million to do that work. Admittedly, there's a bit more to it than what would happen in four-field. What scares me is that we have not a real description of the work that is proposed to be done. It's just been admitted that they're still in the planning stage. And they talk about costs. Frankly, I'm not going to sell anything to my residents unless I see some qualified costs from a civil engineer of whatever we're proposing to do. And it's costed out and my residents know exactly what they're going to be walking into. And frankly, I'm really scared as to the way the district council is talking about this situation. They're doing anything they can to appease the developers in the area. And they're paying for it. We are in question, counts, tippers. There was a sort of question. Sorry. The question, yeah. OK. The question is, currently, we've got some planning applications in the area. They're waiting to be approved. And basically, my question is, will they be approved only if the infrastructure improved in the area, which, according to conversations in their previous meetings, was going to take 14 to 15 years. I'm not really sure where to go at that. I mean, in relation to your point about costings, that's exactly what we're doing here. So the £100,000 is based on a quote from AECOM, who are our engineering consultants. So it is not just a figure from the air. It's based on what they expect this exercise of design and costing the junction improvements would be. And the outcome of that exercise will be a number or a range of how much it would cost to upgrade the junction. So that what you're wanting for your residence is exactly what we're seeking to do here. In terms of planning applications, I mean, moving forward with the draft local plan in this way ensures that we continue to be able to rely on the four year rather than the five year housing supply and that we move in the direction that we need to move to get an approved plan. Because as I set out, the only other option of withdrawing the plan means we go right back to the beginning and we will inevitably be a lot further from having an approved plan and therefore a lot further from being able to hold off development that is unappealing to the district. So hopefully that answers your question. Thank you. Can I switch a bit? Did you have a further question? Yes. Well, I'm trying to think of a way of turning it into a question. But my question is, is it, wouldn't it be better to actually put an actual plan and a costed plan as well so that we can go back to our residence and give them an actual truthful and sustainable... Yeah, Brian, that's exactly what this is. So we've got the Agreed Joint Action Plan and this particular report is about costing one aspect of that. So that genuinely is what we're trying to do here. Yeah, but there are repercussions along the way with regard to planning permission to lower the end. Yeah, and as I've described, the applications that are in, we're much better able to defend because we're reliant on a four year housing supply rather than five. And because of the way the formula operates, we are in a more robust position from staying in the regulation 19 phase than by yanking ourselves out of it. So, yeah. Thank you. Councillor Houston, next. Yeah, thank you, Chair. My question is specifically, I finance ones are probably one for Andrew. But when I look at it, and you talk about £100,000, and all the things that we could spend £100,000 on actually within Stroud, and all the good things you could actually do with £100,000 in Stroud, my question really in terms of finance and probably legislative one is, Andrew, where do we sit in terms of actually using Stroud tax payers' money, £100,000 at least worth a bit to spend on designing and costing a scheme for another council? So, should we, are we allowed, or should we be allowed? It's probably a better question, but are we allowed to use Stroud tax payers' money to design and cost a scheme for another council? I think it's a chair's decision as to whether we ask it with an office first. I'm going to ask Councillor Turner first. I'll ask Councillor Turner to respond, and if she feels necessary to prefer to Andrew, then I'll come to Andrew. I think the report makes clear why Stroud district needs this work to happen in relation to Junction 14, even though it's outside our district. But in terms of the legal position, if you look at Section 4.2 and then jump about five, six paragraphs down, it sets out at Section 137 of the Local Government Act, which authorises a local council to spend money anywhere if it's in the interest of the district, the district and this clearly is in the interest of the district because our plan, our local plan is not going to progress unless we satisfy the inspect that's concerned which pertain to Junction 14 because Junction 14 is sensitive to development within our district. How's the general further question? Yeah, thank you, if I can come back. So, on that point, if you take your answer as the specific part that you've highlighted, then by your own logic, if self-gloss council don't support this work, which they don't, then that is not in the interest of trial taxpayers because they've no interest in designing and costing the actual program. So, the question I ask again is are we allowed to use this money, have struggled tax payers' money to design and cost a scheme that the actual council have no interest or have showed no interest a day in actually doing. So, I'm just not, I'm not clear what's the relevance of whether somebody else has no interest in doing it. We want to do it. It's our money. The localism act allows us to spend the money elsewhere if it's in our interest. So, where's the issue? The issue is that a design and costed scheme would be self-glossed scheme to look at it. They are the local authority. So, if they have no interest in looking at that scheme, should we be using our money to fund and design and cost a scheme that that local authority have no interest in actually doing and they are the local authority that will decide what we can or not. It's not our decision. You can respond. I feel like you've probably already replied to this question when I've explained about where South Gloucester is currently and they're not in a position to support or not support. I think actually you would like to comment on this so it's clear to Councillors. Thank you. Yeah, just like to add, sorry, I just like to add although it is in South Gloucester, it's actually a national highways junction. South Gloucester has actually signed up to the joint action plan which they have approved and agreed to the actions in it. Although they're not leading on the scheme, they have signed up to the actions we were undertaking and jointly agreed that with us. Thank you for that clarification on that. I'll go to Councillor Pearson now. Thank you, Chair. A multi-part question, really. I assume in order to carry out cost to get a costings and a scheme design plan, this would have to be done by consultants and therefore, given this is the national highways motorway, who tend to design all of their own schemes, is it not right that the possible consultant here is going to be national highways to ensure that it conforms to all of their standards are quite rigorous. As we all know, if you come back down to county highways, there are standards of doing certain things on roads is very, very, very vigorous and often can be done at less cost by other people. So is it possible that we're going to end up spending £100,000 to pay a consultant who could possibly be, and I think probably the only logical consultant, be national highways to design its own scheme that at some point in the future, they will be responsible for paying for because no matter how much money we spend on a design and cost plan, if and as when that ever gets done, which if it does, then surely, we are not going to ask that question. We are not intending to fund that junction improvement. So there's a three-part question, really. But firstly, it would be consultants. I think you nodded anyway. And isn't it likely that consultant will be national highways? And therefore, is it not right that we will be financing the cost of a design through the people that should be doing it in the first place? Councillor CASSIDY, I think Tom would be happy. Are you happy for him to take that? If that's OK, thank you. Thank you. Yes, I'll cover those points. In terms of how the work will be undertaken, it will be undertaken by our consultant. The brief has been agreed with national highways. So the way national highways operate, and I think you've got a valid point that maybe they should lead on it, but that's a debate we've had before we got here. We will use their models. They will provide the modeling, our consultant will run through their demands to come up with a model. So it will be them, but through the proxy of our consultant. That's just the way they operate and trade. In terms of following on from that then, it will be what they want it to be, because they will be obviously included in every stage as well, signing off, it's being done properly. Ultimately, they will be jointly producing this through us and our consultant. Yes, that's a person. Yes. So is it not conceivable that national highways would actually give us what the design has to be exactly, and then all we require is a consultant quantity survey to tell us how much it costs. I would totally agree that would sound the best system, but that isn't the way national highways operate. I'm afraid they expect us to do it and produce that and they will review and feed into it. Thank you, Councillor SRI Kennedy next. Thank you. It's just a little clarity from Councillor Turner, please. I've listened carefully to your answers and my summation of this lot is that we are invited to spend what amounts to 1% of the community charge upon a plan to take forward the examination public, which, if I understand you correctly, now will not fail because you have a joint plan agreed by you and all the partners and the inspectors. Now, do I have that right? Because as I understood it, when the question of whether they would allow the plan to go forward or not, you stated that it would start from where they had agreed with the local plan. So logically, there should be no chance of failure. Please advise. Councillor Turner. No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying the joint action plan has been agreed as the route forward for the next stage, but it's not set in stone what the results will be. As Hayden pointed out earlier, the inspectors have reserved the right to make their decision at that point and it isn't guaranteed that there will be success because we will still be in the examination process and so they still have decisions to make. But this is the route that has been agreed with them and they are happy with the joint action plan as are all of our partners. So this is therefore the route that we need to take to progress to the next stage where we can have a decision one way or the other about the plan. Did you have a question for the question. Well, thank you. I just very quickly as I understand it, then we've been invited to spend 100,000 pounds to find out which if we put all this lot together beforehand, we've already been decided. Thank you. Councillor interjecting. I'm not sure if there was a question in there. Yes, this has been identified as a piece of additional work that the inspectors need in order to form a view on the soundness of the plan. So yes, you know, we did an enormous amount of work. This is one additional piece. It's all been agreed with our partners that we can do this and how we do it. And now we just need to deliver it and like everything, it will cost money because it requires expert consultancy. But you know, this is what will enable the inspectors to form a view on our plan, which is what we need. Thank you. I'll go to Councillor Patrick now. Thank you, Madame Chairman. Just popped into my head as everyone's talking about plans. Do highways require planning permission? And if they do, where do they go to get it? Because it won't be us, will it? Because it's not in our patch. So we wouldn't be a governing body dealing with planning permission. Tom is going to take this. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. National highways own the land around junction 14, where any improvements will be made or changed. They will have to have agreement with south gloss and ourselves. It will be agreed with all parties. Kathy O'Leary wants to add something here. So, Major, are you saying that that is the planning permission? Agreed is one thing, but a planning application as we normally do. Do you want to let... Sorry? We've got further answers for you. You've got a further answer. Yes. I couldn't hear without these on. Okay, yes, sure. And then if you've got a further follow-up, apologies. I didn't have my microphone on. Kathy O'Leary was going to add something to that. And then if that answers your question, if not, come back after you know what she's got to say. Sorry about that. Thank you. So nationally significant infrastructure projects are matters that are determined by the planning inspectorate. So, major applications for major infrastructure are determined by the planning inspectorate. That will include motorway junctions, other things that you might think of, like quite often significant power stations, that kind of thing. But this kind of motorway junction would be an NSIP's project. So, it wouldn't be for us to determine it would be for the planning inspectorate. Hopefully that answers your question. Thank you. Thank you. I'd counsel to be vast questions, but I think you've already had three questions. So, I think if anyone else has any questions to ask at this stage, I can't see anyone else indicating. I'm conscious we are getting quite close to 10, but because we had a 10-minute break, that means we have actually got until 10 past 10. So, just so we don't need to take a vote at this point to extend the meeting. I'm going to move on now to read out the decision, which is the council resolves to approve the budget of up to £100,000 for the M5 junction 14 design and costings to allow the draft local planning examination to continue. Do we have a proposal? Councillor Tipp, Eterna, sorry. Councillor Tipp, thank you. And do we have a seconder? Councillor Brawn, thank you. Councillor Brawn, do you wish to speak now or reserve the right? Okay. So, then we're into debate, if anyone wishes to contribute to the debate. Councillor— Thank you, Chair. I'm essentially a pragmatic person, and in two weeks' time, any decision that is made this evening will become somebody else's responsibility because I'm standing down. However, it seems to me that whatever we decide this evening on this—and much to the probably disappointment to some of my colleagues, I'm probably going to support this—the issue here is beyond making this decision because given that Chukesbury Barra Council took, I think it was 12 years to sort out the junction of the Ash Church, and then you've got a construction period beyond that. We are talking about a 15-year decision here, and that affects not just the current draft local plan, but probably the next two local plans beyond the current one when it's finally agreed. So therefore, for me, this is a decision for the future. It gives opportunity for a wider consideration about the way the planning system can work within Stradistry Council, but I do not see a result coming out of this apart from as Chloe has suggested that we can work with a four-year housing supply rather than a five-year housing supply. I do not see a decision coming out of this that can really impact the delivery of the draft local plan as it currently stands because there is too much emphasis on this junction improvement, if that's how you want to consider it. This junction, being able to contribute to the way in which the local plan in its current draft review is going forward. So for me, as I say, this is about making a decision for the future rather than for where we stand tonight with the local plan. Thank you. Councillor JOHNSTON. Thank you, Chair, and I'll be cognizant of your comments about Purda. I'll do my best, I promise. The junction 14 has become an issue, I'm afraid, because planners, my esteemed Davis mentioned it earlier on, I'm afraid they ignored the consultation responses from our residents and decided to put some massive estates in an area where there's limited infrastructure, namely, junction 14, and the party that runs this council, I looked at their policy, which is quite interesting. They say they want to incentivise local authorities to spread small developments across their areas rather than building huge new estates. While people of sharpness and barkly and slimbridge and cam and artwork and warden even would say amen to that, but unfortunately, not in stride, it would seem. The five-year land supply, I accept that, but I'm afraid I think that ship has sailed. We are, as you say, we've got a little bit of protection at the moment, but we were told about this issue. In March last year, 14 months down the line, we're still pre-barricating, and now we're looking at further 10 months or whatever it is. If we had taken action, then we could have been well progressed with a reform plan, because it doesn't have to go right back to the very beginning, but it would have to go back a few stages. You mentioned the seven-edge. That is an interesting one. I am wholly supported of nuclear power and the SMR project, as I believe most people in the Barclay Vale are. It's been our lifeblood for employment in particular, but also power since the 1950s. But if that does come about, it would be national infrastructure, as we've heard. So why are we putting the cart before the horse? If it's national infrastructure, the government will be paying. It shouldn't be our residents that pay for it. We've talked about Saks Bloscher a lot. Clearly, they're really important. If you looked, if you watched their debate, which I would recommend, there's a lady called Chris Wilmore, who's the lady that leads on this cabinet member, quite an impressive lady. She was very clear. They are not interested in Junction 14 as any of their lenses, as they call them, because of the unsustainable commuting practices it would create. I thought that's what we were trying to stop doing. GCC, they may well be partners in the Joint Action Plan, but they said very clearly, on day one of the inspection, we had chosen the wrong strategy. I say this with no real hope or confidence, but I would encourage Councillors across the Chamber to join us and not agree to spend a single penny more on this plan. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Watson. It does feel a little frustrating that this national infrastructure spend has been put on our plate at this point, but it also doesn't sound like we've got much choice if we want to carry on with what we've been trying to do for the last few years with getting this plan through. It also sounds rather inevitable. This Junction Improvement will happen with all these seven-edged aspirations and business developments, and I don't understand why we're standing in the way of potentially facilitating big business coming to our area to provide employment to our residents. I totally agree we shouldn't be focusing on a motorway as our major infrastructure. It is the most unsustainable way of getting between home and work that I've ever heard, but unfortunately the national situation seems to be that rail and buses and other forms of transport aren't seriously considered, so this is our only option at the moment. I will continue to support this proposal in the hope that we can recoup some of the costs of other bodies as they come along and use our plans. As Chloe's explained, there may be an opportunity to recoup some costs, but I think it's a responsible thing to do for the residents in Alberta, to reap the benefits of any industrial development that happens as well as all the local housing issues that this came from in the first place, so I will be supporting it. Thank you. Councillor Layfield. Yeah, just like to remind my colleague across the Chamber that the word 'purd' is fallen out of use, being linked as it is with colonialism, gender violence and the oppression of women. The cracked face should be pre-election period, but get back to the point. Junction 14 is a problem. It will continue to be a problem. It will always be a problem until it's resolved, until people stop driving altogether. I'm pessimistic about the latter option. I fully support our Council taking the lead on this and showing a practical and pragmatic commitment to getting the job done for benefit of everyone. And if that happens to include our costs, that's great, but it's benefit of everyone in our districts. That's what we're doing this for. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Craig. Thank you, Chair. I think it's important that we see the big picture here. The big picture as I see it is simply this, that Junction 14 to us is important. It's the exit from our district south towards Bristol. To the people of South Gloucestershire, the Almondsbury interchange is important. It's the exit from South Glouces from Thormbray and Yeet towards Bristol. The fact of the matter is, and this is the big picture, and this is how the planners will look at it, the national planners. If Junction 14 is developed, and the older people who would live in the developments that this Council is proposing for Whizzlow and for Sharpness, if they would all enter onto the M5 Junction 14 on their route to employment, and literally I have to remind this Council again, that the direction of commute from the southern part of Stroud district is south towards Bristol. When you look at the Gloucestershire 2050 plant, it is hugely wrong. It's hugely faulted because it assumes that there's going to be a hub and spork scenario. Of course, the very fact that the direction of commute from the south of this district is against that floor, it would in fact be, for any cyclist here, it wouldn't be the same effect as a broken spork. The concept is very flawed that we should encourage any follow commuting south. This plant does nothing but that. I believe that when South Gloucestershire comes to consider this, that they will look at Junction 14, see the extra traffic coming on there, consider what that traffic is going to do for the bigger picture, their bigger picture, which is to absolutely overwhelm the Armelsbury interchange, and they are going to say no, this cannot happen. I think this country should consider that before spending £100,000 of our ward members' money on something that is obviously not going to happen. I cannot support this. Thank you. Councillor DAVIS. Thank you, Chair. When I talk to people who are interested in becoming district Councillors, one of the things I say to them is you will notice that actually we vote unanimously more often than we don't. Unfortunately, I'm going to be voting against this one this evening, which is a shame because I like it when we're unanimous. I don't want to rehearse the local plan argument and I don't want to repeat things that have been said by my colleagues and very sensible and quick, but I did just want to highlight what a strange place we're in. At DCC a couple of weeks ago, we gave planning permission for a warehouse development on Junction 12. The other junction that the inspectors don't like. We also granted 44 houses in Whitminster, not identified in our current legal local plan, but they are in the one that we're working on that has not been accepted by the inspector. We added four houses. Our plan said 40, but it's OK. We'll make it 44. We are in a mess in planning. We are in a mess on our local plan and this is just throwing more good money after—more bad money after money that's been spent. It is absolutely bizarre and some of you must be looking at—and I'm going to be very careful that I don't wander into territory I'm not supposed to—but we're going to have Green Party Councillors voting from motorway junction that is supported by the potential nuclear development and against dispersal, which is their party policy. How did we get here? I'll tell you how we got here. When we saw this in March last year, we, the public, didn't see this till August, but we know that the Council had visibility of this problem in March last year. They could have started down a different route and chose not to. It was a decision that was made. I have a point of order, Councillor Watson. It feels this is getting political, even said Green Councillors are going to be voting for this, and I feel that that's not appropriate at this time. I'm a bit fed up for the local plan being used as political football, so apologies if it's not a political point of order, but it certainly feels like one for me. I'm getting really tired. I want to go home and I want to get on with the other things on the agenda. I do think Councillor Watson, you did have a point. I think that we don't know how everyone's going to vote in the Chamber, and we are trying to stick with the rules, so I think Councillor Davis, you know that as well as I do, so I think that's unfortunate. I don't have anyone else indicating my wish to speak in the debate, so I'm going to ask Councillor BORNER, seconder to speak, and then Councillor Turner to sum up. Thank you, Chair. I think we've rehearsed at length the importance of the local plan and all the arguments relating to that. I suppose the reason why we find ourselves in the situation, the reality of the decision we're being asked to take today relates to national government targets, which we are required to implement, and the national framework, national planning, policy framework and the requirements of the national planning inspectors. If we did have free reign to decide how development was allocated, how housing and economic development and public transport, and indeed private transport was organised in the district, then it clearly would not be in this way. However, the local plan is extremely important to the district. It's important to our residents. It's important to businesses, and it's about protecting green spaces, about delivering high quality and sustainable housing. It's about securing the future prosperity of our districts. The planning inspectors have required us to continue with this work, and so we will be doing that. Thank you. Councillor Turner, do you wish to sum up? Thank you. Only to say that this recommendation is in line with both officers and inspectors recommendations, and I hope that members will be able to support it tonight. Thank you. Thank you. We'll go to the vote now. Thank you. Can we get the results on this one? Yes. We can't vote then. No, it's not in the room. Okay. So, say we have yes, 24, no, nine and abstentions, one. So the vote is carried. Thank you. We have just gone to 10 o'clock, and as I said, we did have a 10 minute break, so we'll be at the three hour limit at 10 past 10, and I suggest before we go on to the next item, if Council is happy to take a vote on whether we extend the meeting, so I'm going to ask you all if you're happy to vote to extend beyond the three hours, so all those in favour, please, I think we'll do, that's a show of hands, so all those in favour? You're going to have to count. Oh, Robert, Council, I feel, George will just stay there for a minute. Do we need to count? Yeah, do you want to count? Do you want to count? George, do it as an electronic vote, if you've got just enough. Okay, we'll do an electronic vote to be sure, so all those in favour of extending beyond the three hours. Okay, so it has been carried. Okay, thank you. Right, yes. Fair point. Okay, sorry, it's just after 10. We're going to move on now to item 11, which is updates to the Constitution, and I'm going to ask Councillor Kupierson, who's our chair of a constitutional worker group to present the report. Thank you. Never mind, the end is now. You have, in front of you, the report compiled by the monitoring officer on behalf of the working group of the Constitution. As you're all aware, over the last couple of years, we've gone methodically through the every aspect of the Constitution, and we're now finished, I believe. Correct? Well, it's a working document, so we've got to start again. It's like the fourth bridge. I think it's quite obvious. There's a lot of changes in there. Many of them are cosmetic. What has been a sort to be done this time, is to bring things right up to date, so it ensures that terminology of roles within the Council are correct and stuff like that. We don't believe there's anything contentious in there whatsoever. However, at this moment in time, there are three things I'd like to mention. The terms of reference for committees have been updated by heads of services, and they are at high level and not intended to be a comprehensive list of everything a committee might deal with. Also, since publication of the papers, I've now been advised that the reference to the appointment of a member of the Strategy and Resources Committee as chair of the Strategic Planning Advisory Board is incorrect. This will be updated and it will reflect that the appointment is actually made by the Environment Committee. In the first bullet point in the Environment Committee, in terms of reference, that's been updated to read strategic planning as opposed to strategic planning of the local plan to reflect the wider role of the Committee in this area, i.e. e.g. neighbourhood development plans, habitat mitigation strategies, etc. So it's not just purely to the local plan. Those are the three things that have been highlighted to say to you, and those two areas of correction, one has been done and the other one is about to be done before it goes into print effectively. So there we go, that's from my point of view. Any questions I'll take if I can answer them, but on the chairing of this committee for the last two years, it's over and out. Thank you, Councillor PLESS. Do we have any questions? I can't see any. I'll read out the decision then, which is Council Resolves to Approve the revised section two meetings of the Council, and section four, Scheme of Delegation of the Constitution. Do we have a proposal? Councillor Pearson and a seconder? Councillor Sutter Kennedy. Councillor Sutter Kennedy, do you wish to speak now or reserve the right to speak? In which case we'll move to the debate, anyone wish to speak in the debate? Councillor DAVIS. I only wanted to reiterate what I said earlier. None of us want to sit on Constitution Committee. It's not the most exciting place, and I think we should thank those that do, and particularly Keith, who has done this for a long time. Certainly when I've been in this role as leader of this group, the first person I call when I've got a question about Constitution is Keith, and we should be very, very grateful to him and to Claire, who's also moving on for the very hard work on a very dull subject. No, it's not done. I've been on the Constitution working here. Councillor Robinson. Yes, I was just going to reiterate what Stephen's just said, and thank you very much to Keith. I know you put a lot of time and a lot of energy into it, and your fellow members and to Claire. Thank you very much. Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak in the debate? If not, I'll ask Councillor Sutter Kennedy, a seconder. Thank you. I think most of it's been said, I would strongly recommend the incoming council to read this before they start arguing in the Chamber and in committee for that matter. But the changes there have all been agreed. There are one or two minor points that might have to be brought to the general meeting of the new council, but that is for next year, not this year, rather this next several years, what I'm talking about. I did have a quiet word to the monitoring officer in regard to independent person on the audit committee, things like that, which might need a more discussion. Other than that, I've gone through this and I haven't fallen over with shock or anything. I think it's perfectly acceptable all around. I would like to commend Councillor Pearson for his hard work he has with the Infinite Patience on occasion, chaired the Constitution Working Group. I have to tell you, those of you who think it's boring is because you haven't read the Constitution. Once you've read it, you might want to pay a little more attention. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you. Councillor Pearson, would you like to sum up? As I said, I think the actual Constitution changes have been said. I would just like to thank those members that have sat on the Constitution Working Group along with myself. I think there's been about three people, well, two people apart from myself, have been constant. Councillor stud at Kennedy and Councillor Matty Ross, unfortunately, can't be here, and I'll thank them for their contribution. Some of the other people that have come and gone during that period of time, Councillor Robinson, Councillor Cornell, Councillor Kaye, Councillor Kaye, I can't remember how many others. Councillor Hirst? Councillor, it's not there. Thank you very much for all of your input. It was quite interesting because an awful lot of our meetings took place over a period of time through COVID and stuff like that towards the end all on Zoom. They're not the easiest. I don't care what anybody says. I was much happier than the last meeting we had when we were back in a room. Thank you for all your help, Chair, and before you, the other monitoring officers. I recommend that we approve this. Thank you. In which case, we'll go to the vote now. It looks like it's unanimous. There you are, Keith. You've got the unanimous vote through the Chamber. Well done. Thank you very much for your work. I just want to echo the work and the words everyone else has. Sorry, do you want to put your microphone on? I'm going to leave at this point, so I have a bit of a problem in my eyes. I did tell Claire earlier, but I'd stay for this. I'd just like to wish everyone the best for next week that's standing and it's been a privilege to know everybody else. Thank you, Keith. Thank you for staying under this item. Right. We'll move on to item number 12, which is the M Gloucesters City Region Board, and I'm going to invite Councillor Brawn as an agent of the Council to present this report. Thank you, Chair. The local authorities in Gloucestershire have been working together to coordinate economic development activity across the county since the establishment of the Gloucestershire Economic Growth Joint Committee in 2014. This was a statutory joint committee, which also oversaw the allocation of pooled funding from the business rates pilot through the Strategic Economic Development Fund, also known as CEDF. The inter-authority agreement behind the joint committee was extended several times, and you may recall that this was brought to previous council meetings to extend the life of the joint committee, which is now ceased to exist. Members will also call that for some time leadership Gloucestershire has been developing a vision to replace the joint committee and the three other boards set up to deliver the county's former Vision 2050 with one board, the Gloucestershire City Region Board, to develop and deliver a vision for the future economic success of the whole of the Gloucestershire Economic Area. It's fair to note that these three boards rarely if ever met. The report sets out the purpose of the board section two and the principles behind the board at section three. Appendix one sets out the board's proposed terms of reference, including details of its proposed purpose, powers and administrative arrangements. It's proposed that the board membership will be elected members from each of the seven local authorities in the county, and that it will be chaired by Gloucestershire County Council. Each member will have an equal vote. There's a proposed protocol that although the board decisions will be by majority, the board will not make a decision that impacts on one council's area without that council's agreement. The work of the board would be supported by the county senior officer group. The report proposes that Star District Council's elected member representative is the leader of the council and if the leader is unable to attend their nominated member from the council's administration. As leader, I've represented the council of the economic growth joint committee and leadership Gloucestershire meeting with the deputy leader attending when I'm unavailable. The board would administer the strategic economic development fund as noted above, and that's explained at section four, and appendix two sets out the new scrutiny arrangements in the report. Article ten of our constitution recognises the council's power to establish joint arrangements with other local authorities. This evening, we're asked to agree to the establishment of the city region board and to delegate authority to the chief executive and monitoring officer in consultation with the leader of the council to finalise and complete the into authority agreement in terms of reference and other key documents. I will certainly be looking for key changes to the draft terms of reference, if indeed I am a leader at that point, to take into account the economic and skills opportunities of the low carbon economy in Gloucestershire, the wider context of the climate and nature emergency, and some specific local challenges relating to demography in our ageing population. All of the councils in the county are considering similar reports and all councils will need to agree to the establishment of the board, which I trust will get the support of all councillors tonight. Thank you. Are there any questions? Yes, the councilor is the senate committee. Thank you. I think it may be that I should address this to the chief executive, but maybe you can do it, Catherine. Can you please explain to me the difference between this organisation is proposed and Gloucestershire first? What is to happen to the executive of Gloucestershire first as a result of forming this? This is the third question. As required, this Gloucestershire first, according to the internet, ceases to function on the first of May. If there isn't agreement amongst the seven districts or rather the county in the six, what happens? I don't have an answer to those three, please. I think I'll go to the leader in the first instance and then she can refer to the chief. Sorry, wait a minute, just try again. I'll go to the leader in the first instance who may be able to answer your question and she can refer to the chief executive needed, Catherine. Thank you, Catherine. I think it was announced over a year ago by the government that the LEP's, the Gloucestershire first low plan enterprise partnership would cease to exist at the end of the previous financial year. So they have known for some time that their time is limited. Interestingly, I think the government did a consultation about what the impacts would be of abolishing the low plan enterprise partnerships after they announced that they were going to be abolished. But in any case, they have been wrapped up within the county council, the transition period which has involved the chief executive of the LEP, becoming a director at the county council. I think it was the first of March that those new arrangements formally started. Thank you. Just a confirmation. Did you say that the chief executive of the LEP is now a director of the county council? Have I understood that correctly? Thank you very much. Yes, that's correct. Yes, thank you. Are there any other questions? I can't see any. Okay, I'm going to have to read the decision out now, which is quite long. Apologies. Was there a question? Sorry. Can I take it? Do you think it's quite complicated? I think it's quite detailed and it's there up on the screen and you've got your papers as well. So hopefully everyone's happy to take that as read. Do we have a proposal? Yes, Councillor Braun and a seconder. Councillor Bennett, do you wish to speak now or later? No? Okay. Thank you, Chair. No, I'd just say that it's taken quite a while to get to this stage. So I think we should all just agree it and hopefully it will work. It will work well in the future. Sorry. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak in debate, Councillor James? I just wanted to welcome this. I think there is a challenge in the change of organisation and certainly the chief executive, the chief first, is now part of the senior leadership team at the Canada Council and having an impact there. My only regret is did we really have to call it a city region board as we're in stride and we don't feel we have any city, so I've always worried about that, but I'm just being a pedant, I suspect. Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak? Yes, Councillor Smith. It's just a small comment really and it also applies for the following item, which is, I support it, I won't say wholeheartedly, but I think I support it in general and most of the principles contained within it. There's just a slight question I have, I suppose, on whether or not this should be done now prior to the local elections which are next week and also with the knowledge that we have potentially a change of government in a few months' time. I mean, I'm broadly supportive but I just think the timing is a bit questionable. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak in debate? It doesn't seem so. In which case, I'll ask Councillor BORN to sign up. Thank you. Thank you. Just to respond to the issues around the title of the group, certainly the Forest of Dean are not happy about being called City Region, as you can imagine. There was some discussion about it, but it was with the Leader of the County Council who has insisted it out to be a City Region. I think it's quite an old-fashioned term really, we should call it something better. As and when the Greens take control of the County Council, I'm sure we'll do that. For the moment, that's what it is. It's an opportunity just to formalise working arrangements together. It's good that we can all meet together and talk about county-wide issues. There are a number of issues, including transport and other things that we need to talk about. I would encourage everyone to support it. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor BORN. We'll move to the vote now. Unanimous. Very good. Right. Moving on, swiftly moving on, to item 13, which is the County Deal and Devolution Memorandum of Understanding and Councillor BORN, as Leader of Councillor BORN, I'm going to ask you to introduce this as well. Sorry about this. I've got another rather dull County Council paper to prevent. This one is about Gloucestershire County Council seeking the support of all six district and borough councils to pursue a county deal for Gloucestershire. The autumn statement in November last year, during the autumn statement, the Chancellor announced the intention of the Secretary's State for levelling up housing and communities to offer level two devolution deals to seven county areas, including Gloucestershire. A level two deal means a deal without a directly elected mayor across a county. So in the budget in March this year, level two devolution deals were announced for Buckinghamshire, Warickshire and Surrey. It's understood that the plan is for the other four, including Gloucestershire, to follow soon. So the other counties are Somerset, Oxfordshire and Hertfordshire, a set out in paragraph 1.5 of a report. The proposed benefits of a county deal for Gloucestershire are relatively limited, and they are set out in section two of the report. It's understood that these are off the peg, non-negotiable benefits. The most financially significant of these benefits is the transfer of the adult education budget of £10m. The former G first let functions are already integrated in the County Council, as we have just discussed, and there is some reference to climate change responsibilities, although it is uncertain whether any powers on that front would actually be devolved. One of the main concerns of the district and borough council leaders has been that this proposed county deal provides for county council strategic oversight and effectively control over our UK shared prosperity funding allocated to the districts and boroughs. The devolution memorandum of understanding at Appendix 1 provides reassurance to us as districts and boroughs in respect of the controls that the county council intends to leave with them. It confirms that the district and borough councils would continue to have control over the UK shared prosperity fund that we have allocated for the remaining year of its funding. Beyond this financial year, the future of the UK SPF is uncertain anyway and will be a matter for the government after the general election. The leader of each group and borough is asked to sign the memorandum of understanding and as the leader of the council, I am seeking your approval this evening to sign the MOU on the council's behalf. This so-called devolution deal does not really make a huge difference and it certainly doesn't involve any significant devolution of power or funding to stray a district as the term would imply. It doesn't enable decisions to be made closer to local people or communities as we would like. However, it is a small step towards more collaborative working and there should be some benefits for the adult education budget. If this county deal is progressed, it is expected that the Gloucestershire City Region Board previously discussed to a play a role in finalising and administering county. I hope you will be able to support me in signing the memo of understanding in relation to this proposed county deal. Thank you. Do we have any questions? Yes, Councillor Broughton. Yes, thank you. I think you've answered this actually in your comments just now, but I want to do us. What difference does it make to us as a district council, if any? I can't see any really. I mean, I don't see any particular benefits. Devolution doesn't seem to transfer any powers close to the people or give us any additional budgets. It just protects the budget that we've got. It'd be interesting to explore, it does reference a couple of items around land assembly and something else to do with. There's two other vague points which are in there, but it would be interesting to explore whether there are indeed any potential benefits that we'll wait and see. Certainly for adult education it might be helpful that we can allocate that spending where we feel it's mostly in Gloucestershire rather than that being allocated by National Government. Thank you. Any other questions? I can't see any in which case I'll read the decision, which is the Council results to agree to the Leader of the Council on behalf of the Council signing the devolution memorandum of understanding. Appendix 1 to this report with Gloucesters Council in respect of the proposed county deal for Gloucestershire. Do you have a proposal, Councillor Broughton, and a seconder? Councillor Bennet, do you wish to speak now? No, okay. Does anyone else just speak in the debate? Councillor DAVIS? I just wanted to say, I think the Leader summed it up. It makes not a huge difference to anything at this point. There's a whole debate as to what could be done going forward, but I think this is really only going to impact adult education and nothing else. But it's a good thing as a staff. Thank you. So, anyone else wish to speak in the debate? I don't see anyone. Councillor Bennet, a seconder, do you want to speak and then I'll ask Councillor Broughton to sum up? Yeah, I think we should vote in favour of this definitely. I think if for anything it just will hopefully bring a more collaborative approach with working with the county working with us. So, yeah, I'm in favour of this. Councillor Broughton, do you want to sum up? Thank you. I've just located its paragraph two where it sets out the proposed benefits to Gloucestershire of a county deal, which includes land assembly and compulsory purchase powers between the local planning authority, county council and homes in England, as well as local skills improvement programs. So, there's some potential to explore those options and find out a little bit more what they would mean. This memorandum of understanding will allow us to protect the UK shared prosperity fund that we have allocated to important local projects. So, I would encourage everyone to support this evening. Thank you. Thank you very much and we'll move to the vote. Councillor interjecting. And that's past. Thank you. Right, Catherine, you'll be glad to see you have a break now from presenting reports and we're going to move to item 14, appointment of a monitoring officer. This report seeks the appointment of a new monitoring officer, Haley Sims, and Haley has kindly joined us this evening. So, can I ask her to quickly stand up so everyone can say hello and just want to be sitting at the back very quietly all this time. Thank you very much for joining us tonight and I'm going to ask Cathy O'Leary as she's accepted to present the report. Thank you very much. So, as we know very sadly our current monitoring officer, Claire Hughes is leaving us and the council is required to appoint a monitoring officer. So, back when we started with our one legal partnership in 2020, there was always an ambition for one legal to provide us with monitoring officer services, but at that particular point in time one legal couldn't resource it. They're in a completely different position now. So, with Claire leaving us, we've taken the opportunity to slightly recast the way that we do things and we will be purchasing, contracting with one legal to buy monitoring officer services. So, this report seeks two things. First of all, to appoint Haley Sims as the designated monitoring officer from one legal forced route district council and secondly to enter into a common agreement arrangement with one legal so that we can do that because it's not actually set out in the agreement that we have very specifically with one legal at the moment. So, Haley has supported his deputy monitoring officer on a number of occasions. Some of you will have seen her when Claire's appointed her in her place and Haley is very keen to take up that particular position. You'll notice it's for a period of one year. That's because there are some consequential changes around the corporate director and monitoring officer leaving us that I'll come to in the next report, but the one year gives us a chance to reflect, see if it's working for us and then make that a more regular appointment, a permanent appointment if we wish to do so at that point. Thank you. I happy to take any questions. Yeah, any questions around this? I don't seem to see any. So, apologies. Sorry very quickly, when does the new monitoring officer start? I've got an idea when the present one leaves. When does the new one start? First of May. Thank you. Thank you. So, day before the election. Thank you. I'll read out the decision which is the council resolves that a Haley Sims be designated monitoring officer with the council in accordance with section five of the local government and housing act 1989 with effect from the 1st of May 2024 for initial period of one year and be the chief exec be authorized to enter into a second agreement with one legal by a two-speed borough council to second the above mentioned one legal officer to start our district council to have a proposal. Thank you. A seconder. Council attorney. Thank you. Council attorney George to speak now. No, Councilor. Right. Okay. Does anyone wish to debate this? Yes, Councilor. I don't want to debate it. I just want to take the opportunity, if I may, to thank there for efforts where I've been concerned. We've been working closely for the period of time. You've been here. Sometimes to your chagrin, I've no doubt. But anyway, I want to say as sincere, thank you, which is made life relatively easy in terms of understanding the problems I get presented with. So many thanks and good luck for the future. Thank you. Councilor Turner, did you wish to speak? Yes. Thank Haley for her heroic effort in making it this far tonight and may all your other meetings be much shorter. Welcome. Yes, she's left the room during this item. No, just because of this item, obviously. Yes, just for the item. Not because she's. Yes. So she will be back, I hope. Councillor Brown, would you like to sum up? Yes, thank you. I'm very pleased to see that this issue has been resolved very sad, obviously, to lose Claire. And again, thank you to Claire for all the work that she's been doing across so many different areas of the council's work, whether that's in relation to standards or whether it's in relation to providing us with legal advice on the many matters that come to council. So we will very much miss you and shall very lucky to have you. I hope you enjoy it there. We'd like to have Haley on board. I do attend the One Legal Management Board. I think it's called now with Andrew and they're really flourishing as an organisation and they set the providers with good legal support and it's great that Haley is able to come to us from One Legal. Thank you. Thank you. We'll move to the vote now. That's unanimous. Thank you very much, Councillors. I'm afraid we're nearly there, but not quite. So moving on to item 15, organisational changes and... To take a slight pause last then a couple of us will leave the room. Yes. So we're going to ask the directors to leave the council chamber for this item. That's okay. Thank you both. And hand over to our chief executive to present this report now. Thank you very much, Chair. This report addresses some of the other consequential changes as a result of the departure of our corporate director and monitoring officer because you'll notice that if you read the report that there are a number of other things that Claire Hughes has been doing for us. So the first of those is looking at her duties as the data protection officer for the council. That is a post that we are required to nominate an officer of the council to do. We could choose to buy that service from One Legal, but actually we have got a very good information and governance officer already who's been working extremely closely with monitoring officer on this and this is a development opportunity for that officer. So we seek to make that particular officer the data protection officer for the council as well. That's it out in section two. Section three of the report looks at some of the other responsibilities that Claire has taken on for us. And you'll notice that most of those are delegated to other officers of the council principally the head of corporate policy and governance. So that as you know is Hannah Emery. So she'll take on some of those responsibilities there. Section four of the report is the reason why we've asked the directors to leave the room because I've been considering the implications for the monitoring officer and corporate director leaving us on the rest of the team. It's unsettling I think when any member of the team leaves and I've been thinking about how to move the team into its next iteration of life. So what I would like to do what I'm asking for your support for this evening is to create the role of deputy chief executive. This would be if you like a bolt on to one of our existing strategic directors but it would nominate somebody to be my deputy in my absence and also I think you can see it's probably a very good developmental opportunity for somebody and of course I do need to think about succession planning. So it's important as councillors as well that we think about what my succession plan might be as I age ever closer to retirement. I'm not thinking of retiring anytime soon. You're welcome to offer to pay me off if you like. I'm hopefully not after the election. So the way I would really like to run this process would be to involve as we have done for all of our strategic directors is to ask the group leaders to play a role in that final selection and to run that process probably at some point over the summer. But because it's allied to the monitoring officer and corporate director leaving us I thought I would bring that report now. I do need your permission because of course we make a little bit of a saving from the corporate director and monitoring officer leaving us and contracting some services from one legal and some services putting to offices in house but there is an additional piece of funding that I'm asking for and that is to add to the deputy chief executive salary. So you'll notice that there's a discrepancy between the salary there and what I'm asking for and that's because of the on costs that go with any salaries that's pension funds and what have you as well. If you chose not to support this we probably would be able to manage to sort out the data protection officer another way around but I think you probably all recognize that this is a very good development opportunity for one of our directors each of them will have the opportunity to put their hat into the ring and you would be involved in that process. So that is what I'm asking your mission for. If you've got any questions please do feel free to ask. Any questions from councillors? Very quickly do I take that Haiti Mills will now become strategic director and therefore you're tuning from three? Oh yes three. Hey we're pointing Haley Sims as our monitoring officer and she will be part of the strategic leadership team when she joins it. The opportunity for the deputy chief executive is being ring fenced to our existing strategic directors three of them. We have three strategic directors each will have the opportunity to put their hat in the ring for that. That is HR's process advice we need to do that. Thank you. Any other questions on this report? I can't see anyone. Okay I'll read out the decision and so councillors are clear what we're voting on. The council resolves to a note the arrangements for the redistribution of the responsibilities of the corporate director and monitoring officer not covered by report to appoint a new monitoring officer. I think that was slightly different in them. Hang on what item this is? Hang on a minute. Is it? Oh it's my okay sorry not recovered by just report. I feel like there's a verb missing there but okay not recovered by report to appoint a new monitoring officer. B support the process outlined in this report to identify and appoint one strategic director as deputy chief executive including the involvement of all group leaders or their nominated representatives and the chief executive in the final selection panel. And see as £16,000 to the budget from £24.25 to support the arrangements set out in this report. Do we have a proposal for this Catherine Braun? Thank you. And a seconder Councillor Laifield thank you. Councillor Laifield do you wish to speak now? In short I think this makes a lot of practical pragmatic sense. With developing our workforce, we're retaining our workforce, it's reducing our costs, we're using strategic placement of our assets. So data or data protection officers are a great role that we've created there. I just think this is really a really sensible direction for us to take. Thank you. Anyone else else just speak and debate? No I don't see anyone. In which case Councillor Braun would you like to sum up? Thank you. Thank you. I encourage everyone to support this this evening. I think it's worth acknowledging that data protection is a very important role and some of the other work that Claire has been undertaking such as setting up the corporate governance group is also going to be taken forward by existing officers so expanding the work that's happening already and certainly in terms of the deputy chief executive role for the reasons that Kathy set out I think that makes a lot of sense in terms of strengthening the leadership team. Thank you. Thank you in which case we'll move now to the vote. Everyone voted and that's passed. Thank you Councillors. Okay we're moving on to the final item you'll be pleased to know. Item 16 which is the Eubico five-year vision and business plan 2024-25 and I'm afraid Kathy you have to present this report as well. Thank you Chair. Members will be aware I bring this report every year so every year Eubico prepares its business plan for the year ahead in the context of its five-year vision. We're coming towards the end of that five-year vision. Members will know that as the council shareholder representative I can actually sign the written authority to agree the business plan but for transparency I choose to bring it to full council so the members have got an opportunity to see what the business plan is proposing and to note that and then I will sign providing there are no major objections to that. So this isn't the first time members will have seen it the managing director of Eubico came to Environment Committee in December and presented the main themes for the business plan for this year. The draft business plan was circulated in February and all group leaders have had the opportunity to see it and the final version of the business plan is attached here. I'm happy to take any questions but unless there's anything significant I do propose to sign the written memorandum of understanding on that in my capacity as stakeholder representative of the council. Thank you. Does anyone have any questions? I don't think so. Okay in which case the decision is the council resolve to note the Eubico business plan for 2024-25. Do we have a proposal? Councilor Turner thank you and a seconder Councillor Layfield. Councillor Laifield do you wish to speak on now or okay? Yeah I recommend we note this. I think it's a great business plan. Eubico working really well for us to look after the workers and yeah let's get behind it. Thank you. Councilor Turner would you like to sum up? Thank you. Yes and as Kathy said this came to Environment Committee, received universal approval and was impressed by how much Eubico's values align with ours as a council and our council plan and working closely with that team and with our finance staff it's been really good to see the relationship continue to evolve in a positive direction so very much in support of this tonight. Thank you. I feel like I jumped the gun there and I forgot to offer Councillors. Did anyone wish to speak in debate? I don't see anyone indicating so I went to quite quickly. I think everyone's looking really tired so okay in which case thank you for that and we'll move on to the vote. That's unanimous re-pass. Thank you. Travel safely home. Good luck to everyone who's standing for election next week and thank you so much to everyone who is going to have a well-earned break. Thank you, Dona. Oh my God, I flapped myself. Thank you. a lot of you. Thank you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. a lot of you. [BLANK_AUDIO]