Councillors MD Lloyd Hayes and GFM Dawe submitted the following notice of motion as a matter of urgency.

 

“This Council has no confidence in the Cabinet Member for Corporate & Customer Services and Human Resources; we therefore invite her to resign from this position.”

 

The Chairman will rule whether the motion is urgent.

 

 

Councillors TM James and RI Matthews submitted the following notice of motion as a matter of urgency.

 

“Members of this Council are deeply angered at the recent announcement by senior executive officers and Members of the Council of their ill thought-out and damaging closure and reorganisation plans for schools in Herefordshire.

 

They are also saddened at the damage that has been done to the public confidence in the local authority, the distress that it has caused to thousands of children, parents, teachers and staff throughout the county, and the consequent disruption to the education of pupils.

 

They also note that there are no financial grounds for these proposals; Herefordshire is this year receiving its highest local government settlement in real terms per pupil.  Further, they note that many of these schools are the best performing in the county, and that they provide a vital role in sustaining our city, town, village and rural communities.

 

Council therefore believe that enough damage has been done to the confidence in our education provision in this county, and demand that the Cabinet instruct the education officers within Herefordshire to work within an undertaking that no schools close or are reorganised, other than under Herefordshire Council’s existing small school closure policy.  An undertaking should also be given by the Cabinet that it will not resurrect this damaging policy within the lifetime of this Council.

 

Members believe that Herefordshire schools will now need a period of stability in order to recover from the damaging way in which this whole subject has been handled.”

 

The Chairman will rule whether the motion is urgent.

 

 

Councillors: MD Lloyd-Hayes and GFM Dawe submitted the first Notice of Motion.

 

“This Council has no confidence in the Cabinet Member for Corporate, Customer Services and Human Resources; we therefore invite her to resign from this position.”

 

Councillors: TM James and RI Matthews submitted the second Notice of Motion.

 

“Members of this Council are deeply angered at the recent announcement by senior executive officers and Members of the Council of their ill thought-out and damaging closure and re-organisation plans for schools in Herefordshire.

 

They are also saddened at the damage that has been done to the public confidence in the local authority, the distress that it has caused to thousands of children, parents, teachers and staff throughout the county, and the consequent disruption to the education of pupils.

 

They also note that there are no financial grounds for these proposals; Herefordshire is this year receiving its highest local government settlement in real terms per pupil.  Further, they note that many of these schools are the best performing in the county, and that they provide a vital role in sustaining our city, town, village and rural communities.

 

Council therefore believe that enough damage has been done to the confidence in our education provision in this county, and demand that the Cabinet instruct the education officers within Herefordshire to work within an undertaking that no schools close or are re-organised, other than under Herefordshire Council’s existing small school closure policy.  An undertaking should also be given by the Cabinet that it will not resurrect this damaging policy within the lifetime of this Council. 

 

Members believe that Herefordshire schools will now need a period of stability in order to recover from the damaging way in which this whole subject has been handled.”

 

The first notice of motion proposed by Councillors Lloyd-Hayes and Dawe was deferred until later in the meeting in order for the large number of members of the public to witness the debate on the notice of motion on the schools review.

 

Councillor TM James spoke on the notice of motion and stated:

 

• Education in the county received a higher financial settlement than 10 years ago therefore the proposals were not purely about money.
• Aylestone High School and the Bishop of Hereford’s Bluecoat School had reduced their admission numbers.
• Concern at the way the Council proposing to bring about changes, feel trying to get proposals through by stealth.
• Request Members to support the notice of motion. 
• Propose the Council give some respite to the schools but fear some will close because of the manner in which the process had been handled.
• Only two years away from an election, but believe Conservative party policy as well as Labour’s is for large urban schools. 
• Do not believe we should destroy what is great in the county.
• Believe proposals fly in the face of the Herefordshire Plan and the school proposals.

 

Councillor RI Matthews also spoke on the notice of motion and stated:

 

·        That the authority had not handled the school review proposals appropriately.

·        Believed that some senior Members did know about the school review proposals prior to the seminar for all Members.

·        Cabinet must take full responsibility for the effect on staff moral and the stress put on teachers, parents and children.

·        The Executive have blamed staff for how things have gone wrong, but the Executive must take the responsibility for what has gone on.

·        The Minister has stated that local authorities must have regard for transportation costs.

·        School closure proposals will cause a decline in village life and risks damaging rural communities along with the loss of local shops and post offices. 

·        The county has some exceptional rural schools and are important to the villages and will be needed the coming years.

·        Did not believe there was any problem in rural schools getting extra support instead of urban schools.

·        Members have a responsibility to the electorate and believe that the notice of motion was the only fair way forward and urged Members of all political persuasion to support the motion.

 

Councillor Chappell proposed an amendment to the motion.

 

“Council therefore believes that the Children’s Services Scrutiny Committee should meet regularly, but not less than monthly until the review into the provision of education in Herefordshire is completed.

 

That the scope of the review should be widened to include Special School provision and associated disciplines, including provision for excluded children.

 

That the review will include how the Council, the Children and Young People’s Directorate, Herefordshire Primary Care Trust, Housing Associations, the Voluntary Sector, and the Police administer the Every Child Matters agenda, and the Extended Schools Programme.  As many groups and individuals associated with children in the community to be involved and asked their opinions and views.  These to include; Parents, School Staff, Governors, Parish Councils and elected Members of Herefordshire Council.”

 

Councillor ACR Chappell spoke on the amendment to the notice of motion and stated:

 

·        Labour had put more into education in Hereford in the last 10 years than the Conservative party.

·        In reference to the Minister’s open letter to all education authorities he stated that no rural school was to be closed unless there were special circumstances.

·        Believe there needs to be a holistic review and that parents and children need to be included. 

·        Any review must include anyone involved with schools and children.

·        Must not forget that school buildings are used out of hours in rural areas.

·        Need to ensure that we do more for children with disabilities.

·        As corporate parents community leaders must ensure education is being delivered properly as outlined in every child matters.

 

The amendment to the notice of motion proposed by Councillor Chappell was not supported.

 

The Leader of the Council stated he regretted the upset caused by the school review and proposed an amendment to the original motion.

 

“This Council notes with sadness and regret the distress caused by the draft proposals to re-organise Herefordshire schools as issued by the Directorate of Children’s Services.

 

Council formally rejects these draft proposals.

 

The Council gives an undertaking that no High school closures or major re-organisations will be considered during the life of this administration.

 

The Council re-affirms that it will continue to apply the existing Small Schools Policy for primary schools and that no closures will happen outside that policy.

 

The Council confirms that any future drafting of any changes affecting Herefordshire Schools will involve Heads, Governors, parents, the local community and local Herefordshire Ward Councillors for each pyramid of schools.  These groups will examine every opportunity to ensure the continued protection of our schools.

 

The Council gives the undertaking that such discussions will be held in public and recorded, with all documentation made available on the Council’s website.

 

It further confirms that all statistics used to inform school provision will be independently verified.

 

The Council will continue to lobby the Government for fairer funding for our children and young people in Herefordshire.”

 

The Leader of the Council spoke to the motion and stated:

 

·        Herefordshire is expected to have a new school built to deliver vocational courses.

·        No high school closures proposed until 2011 and only after dialogue with high schools.

·        Give assurance that no schools closed in this administration.

·        Reaffirmed the small schools closure policy if a school falls below 36 in primary schools and 200 in high schools.

·        Need to have dialogue with everyone and look to continue to protect schools.

·        The authority will come under challenge from the government as have received instruction from government to reduce schools with falling rolls.

·        Agree with previous speakers that schools in the country are mainly urban based and that rural schools in the minority, this issue needs to be address as well by government.

·        Members were reminded of the fuel price increases which cause considerable problems for those that live in rural areas.  Council needs to challenge government on this issue as is a national one.  The main issue is about surplus places.

·        Members were reminded that several of the schools in the county did not belong to the authority but to charity organisations.

·        Need to stand up to defend rural schools as they are delivering quality education. 

·        The authority needs to address the issues raised by the Minister.

·        The Council gives an undertaking that meetings are publicly held and recorded and put on the website.

·        Members were reminded that Herefordshire was the lowest funded for education in the county.

·        The authority must ensure we continue to lobby central government with the backing of Council and that any closure of a school is a last resort.

Councillor LO Barnett seconded the amendment to the original notice of motion and reserved her right to speak later on the motion.

 

A number of Members spoke on the amendment to the motion and stated:

• Members should reject the draft proposals. 
• In relation to high schools the proposals were about social mixing taking place moving pupils from Kingstone to Wyebridge
• Aylestone and Bishop of Hereford’s Bluecoat school had both reduced their admission numbers. 
• The Council should be talking with governors and headteachers. 
• Concern that Members were not being informed of changes in their ward and that Cabinet were not in control of what officers were doing. 
• Concern over a statement by the Cabinet Member that it was easier to close community schools than church schools. 
• Proposed that the original notice of motion stand as is and not be amended.
• It was felt there was a need to take time to reflect and for the people of Herefordshire to recover from the upset and stress that had been caused by the proposed review.
• Some Members expressed their support for the original notice of motion and not to amend it. 
• It was felt that an unambiguous statement was required to reassure the public that the authority would not carry out the proposals.
• Cabinet should apologise for the way the review was handled.
• The amendment was clear and unequivocal, there would be no closure of any school outside of the small schools policy in the life time of this authority.

The Leader of the Council stated he gave an unreserved apology on the radio, which he reiterated, for the upset and stress that had been caused.  He understood how parents felt and had been a governor himself for 20 years.  He added that when he saw the proposals he was outraged.  He added that the proposals were rejected and that as long as he was Leader there would be no closure of any primary school outside of the small schools policy.  He reiterated that an independent consultant would be brought in and that full consultation would be carried out with teachers, governors and parents.  He added that he would be meeting with the Minister next month and would express the concerns and backing of the Council and the community.

A named vote was taken on the amended notice of motion with 29 Members for and 24 Members against the motion.  The amended motion became the substantive motion.  Members then took a named vote for the substantive motion with 31 Members for, 17 Members against and 5 abstentions.

 

 

 

 

 

Council then adjourned at 2.00 pm for a short break and reconvened at 2.30 pm.

Council returned to the first notice of motion proposed by Councillors: MD Lloyd-Hayes and GFM Dawe.

“This Council has no confidence in the Cabinet Member for Corporate, Customer Services and Human Resources; we therefore invite her to resign from this position.”

Councillor Lloyd-Hayes spoke on the notice of motion and stated:

• The motion was simple, modest and clear
• Referred Members to the seriousness of the Crookall report and the request for the Cabinet Member to resign.
• Noticed there had been no apology for what had happened.
• Felt one person directly responsible.
• Concern amongst Members and the public had not reduced
• Public put their trust in elected Members to voice their concerns.
• Requested a named vote on the notice of motion.

At this point Councillors TM James and WJ Walling left the meeting.

Councillor A Blackshaw proposed an amendment to the original notice of motion.

“Whilst recognising a failure to challenge a breach of Council procedures, it is noted that there was no censure of the Cabinet Member for Corporate and Customer Services and no recommendation in relation to the continuing role of that Cabinet Member.

This Council re-affirms its acceptance of the recommendations of the Crookall Report.”

Councillor DB Wilcox seconded the amended notice of motion and reserved his right to speak later.

Some of the points and concerns raised by Members were:

• Crookall report pinpointed the dysfunctional problems not just with officers but with Members also.
• Cabinet Member only had a one hour meeting before signing off for the expenditure of £1.4 million, therefore ask Members to vote against the amendment.
• ICT review in 2006 recommending further work for scrutiny to do, but this not happened.
• Herefordshire Connects has no clear direction.  Cabinet Member duty bound to step down, as important for the future of Public Service Trust.
• Owe debit of gratitude for her work on job evaluation and single status, support amendment.
• Respect what the Cabinet Member has done previously but should be accountable for actions, therefore should consider position.
• Provided advice and guidance to Members across the political spectrum and turned around West Mercia Supplies, therefore deserves support.
• The Cabinet Member has been supportive to new Members and worked hard for the Council but support original motion.
• If Cabinet Member held accountable then so should all scrutiny Members.

The Leader of the Council stated that the use of dysfunctional was only in relation to the senior management team.  The Leader reminded Members of the breach of confidentiality in relation to the livestock market and the need for individuals to take responsibility for their actions.  He added that Herefordshire had always had a co-operative style and hoped this would continue.  He added that the Cabinet Member had only made one mistake which was to sign the memo to the Chief Executive and the Director, but otherwise had done a tremendous amount of work for the Council.  Lessons had been learnt and believed that the amended motion was the correct way forward.

Councillor French added that she gave her assurance to Council that since the incident had occurred she had considered resigning and giving up public life, but she believed in working for the community.  She added that when she took on the portfolio responsibility she understood how to use a computer but not the technical aspects and there was a requirement for officers to explain issues to Members.  Councillor French stated that she wanted to stay and sort out the situation and that staff wanted to deliver on ICT and that Members should join her in supporting staff to carry it through.

A named vote was taken on the amended notice of motion with 29 votes for, 12 against and 8 abstentions.  The amended notice of motion became the substantive motion and a further named vote was taken on the substantive motion with 29 votes for, 11 against and 9 abstentions.

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX 19 OF THE COUNCIL’S CONSITUTION – MEMBERSHIP OF COMMITTEES AND OTHER BODIES

Members were reminded that a revised Appendix 19 was reported to Council on 2 November 2007 and that the Appendix now needed further revision to reflect the consequences of the formation of a new political group on the Council.  Council was advised that there were two seats for agreement on the Adult Social Care and Strategic Housing Scrutiny Committee and the Environment Scrutiny Committee. 

The Group Leader for the Alliance group referred Members to Standing Order 5.7 on proportionality and requested that agreement be sought at the next Group Leaders meeting.  The Head of Legal and Democratic Services advised that as there was currently no agreement amongst Group Leaders it was for Council to decide and that each political group had two seats on a scrutiny committee.  He added that this was not a matter for negotiation.  Council took a vote on the proposals for proportionality with 12 Members for and 6 against.

Council agreed to defer the remainder of the Council meeting until the next meeting of Council on 8 March 2008.  The meeting adjourned at 3.50 pm.

 

COUNCIL 8 FEBRUARY 2008 RECONVENED AT THE SHIREHALL, HEREFORD ON 7 MARCH 2008.

Council reconvened at 10.00 am on Friday 8 March 2008 and referred back to the Member Questions which had not been completed and in particular to the supplementary question from Councillor Dawe and the Member question from Councillor Robertson.

In reply to Councillor Dawe’s supplementary question as to why no politician had resigned in relation to the Crookall report, which had been critical of elected Member and senior officers, the Leader stated that as indicated in the Crookall report only the director had been referred to.  He added that any actions taken were consistent with the Crookall report.

The Chairman then called upon Councillor Robertson to ask her question that had held over from the Council meeting on 8 February.  The Chairman also welcomed the children and teachers from Burghill village school who had come to see the question put to Council.

In referring to her question Councillor Robertson stated that inline with the Every Child Matters agenda being safe was a key element and the safety of children was paramount.  Councillor Robertson asked if the Cabinet Member for Highways and Transportation would reconsider the request for a 20 mph speed limit at Burghill School and also visit the school to see at first hand the problems the school faced.

 

11.       Question from Councillor SJ Robertson to Cabinet Member Highways and Transportation

 

Burghill School is a successful and well supported local school with an unsafe entrance and road crossing close to a dangerous bend where vehicles regularly exceed the present speed limit of 40 mph.  All children who walk to school have to cross this busy road to get into school and there have been several near misses.

 

Despite numerous telephone calls, letters and site meetings, the school is not in the first group of schools to have a 20 mph this year or in the following year.    There are 92 pupils on role and plans to incorporate the playgroup on site will increase the number by 20 plus.   The entrance is often chaotic, dangerous and congested and the new cattle market site at Stretton Sugwas will increase the traffic on this road.

 

(a)                     As the Council has a clear directive to reduce speed limits outside  schools, why is this not being given priority?

 

(b)                     The School’s Travel Plan in conjunction with “Safer Routes to School” encourages children to walk or cycle to help improve the carbon footprint, reduce obesity and promote a healthy lifestyle as recommended by Government.   Have all the schools chosen produced School Travel Plans and who is responsible for the final selection?

 

Answer from Councillor DB Wilcox Cabinet Member Highways and Transportation

 

(a)          The Council is committed to rolling out the introduction of 20 mph limits at schools. However, it is necessary to effectively prioritise their implementation within the available budget. Burghill School has been assessed alongside many other schools across the County, which do not currently have 20mph zones. The speeds outside Burghill School average 30.3mph and 85% of drivers progress at or below 39mph. The accident record for the site identifies that there has been one serious accident, which is not considered to be directly linked to the speed of traffic. A very small percentage of the pupils actually walk to school at present (5%) and only 1% cycle. A school travel plan has been compiled. All these points are considered in identifying our priorities for action. The schools currently proposed for inclusion in the coming year’s programme of works have a more onerous accident record than at Burghill. These accidents are also attributed to speed and it is this factor that has made these schools a higher priority. Given that the demand for such schemes exceeds the available resources on an annual basis, we must act at those sites where the risk is highest and target resources to reduce the numbers who are killed or injured on our roads.

Having taken into account accident history, together with the levels of walking and cycling, the schools listed as the highest priority are:

 

·                          Withington Primary school

·                          Leominster Junior and Infants School

·                          Walford Primary School                                                                                   

·                          Madley Primary School

 

(b)          The Council has actively encouraged all schools to develop school travel plans for several years. The Local Transport Plan includes a target that all schools will have developed one by 2010. As of January 2008, 84 out of 104 have completed a plan. We are actively chasing those remaining schools to develop a school travel plan and we anticipate at least a further 6 by the end of the year.

 

Whilst all schools are actively encouraged to develop a travel plan, the Council needs to prioritise funding for the implementation of Safer Routes to School Schemes. Prioritisation takes into account the school's travel plan, accidents, potential benefits (value for money), scheme costs and other relevant local factors.  Some of the schemes identified through this process may be subject to further consultation depending on their complexity, whether or not additional land is required or if traffic regulation orders are required.

 

The Chairman referred Members to the questions of Councillors Bowen and Lloyd-Hayes that also been left over from Council on the 8 February.  The Chairman advised Council that as both Councillors had proffered their apologies for the meeting no supplementary questions could be asked and referred Members to the answers provided.

 

12.             Question from Councillor MD Lloyd-Hayes to Cabinet Member Economic Development and Community Services

 

Why has the funding been with drawn from Zig Zag , this service provides an excellent service for young people under 19 who take part in substance misuse, illicit drugs and  alcohol .They deal with homelessness educational exclusions, sexual health and pregnancy prevention. They are well thought of by partnership organisations and Social Services staff with whom they have worked?

 

Answer from Councillor AJ Blackshaw Cabinet Member Economic Development and Community Services

 

The Zig Zag service is currently jointly funded by Connexions and the Herefordshire Community Safety and Drugs Partnership.

The Herefordshire Community Safety and Drugs Partnership element of the funding comes in the form of the ‘young persons substance misuse grant’ which has historically been allocated to the partnership by the Home Office.  The Government is currently reviewing the allocation of this grant which may become part of the Area based grant under the Local Area Agreement (LAA), it is hoped that the position for next year will be confirmed in the very near future.

The Connexions element of the funding transfers to the area based grant which will be administered under the LAA from 1st April, 2008.  This element of the LAA funding will be overseen by the Children’s Trust.  The new Children and Young People’s Plan identifies priorities for Herefordshire and under the Children’s Trust the Government’s expectation is that services will be commissioned to ensure we meet our priorities effectively.  Decisions on future funding are due to be confirmed at the Children’s Trust in March.   The Children’s Trust is aware of the implications of decommissioning services and is mindful to extend funding until the end of the academic year in the first instances to allow greater continuity.

 

To date longer term funding decisions have not yet been made.  Zig Zag workers have been issued with notice of redundancy, whilst everything possible is done to receive notification of secure and continued funding.

 

13.1       Question from Councillor WLS Bowen to Cabinet Member Corporate and Customer Services and Human Resources

 

               Can this Council, once again, have a true Members’ Development Working Group – composed of back bench councillors, - independent of thought and chaired by an independent minded chairman and not by a ruling cabinet member?  Do you not think that the vast majority of council members would appreciate this chance to have a proper input into the development of both individual members and of Council itself?

 

13.1       Answer from Councillor JP French Cabinet Member Corporate and Customer Services and Human Resources

 

Members’ Development is an important consideration for Council.  Any programme needs to reflect the specific roles of executive, scrutiny and all Members as community leaders in their individual wards.  The introduction of the Members’ Development Policy Working Group seeks to address that breadth by bringing together Group Leaders and three co-opted members from the broader membership of Council.

 

The Terms of Reference have been constructed so that the group can maintain a balance between the need for a more strategic review with consideration of personal development and specific targeted training.  Following the Crookall report, the Chief Executive will be bringing forward proposals for a comprehensive Members’ Development programme and consideration will need to be given as to how current arrangements dovetail with that.

 

13.2       Question from Councillor WLS Bowen to Cabinet Member Environment and Strategic Housing

 

13.2.1    Can the Cabinet Member for the Environment bring Full Council (and the general public) up to date on the current planning policy (and its implementation) on polytunnels?  For instance, how many growers have had demands made for planning permission for their polytunnels?  How many have complied?  How many have claimed exemption?  How many polytunnels in or adjacent to AONB’s have gained planning permissions and are these permissions for a limited period of time or are they permanent?

 

13.2.2    Why is this Council being so slow, so dilatory, in demanding higher standards of energy conservation and efficiency and in the production of renewable energy from all new buildings including commercial developments?

 

13.2.3   This administration promised 12.5% reduction in carbon footprint (starting from 2005) for Herefordshire.  How much has been achieved so far and by what means.  Please can you give details?

 

13.2       Answer from Councillor JG Jarvis Cabinet Member Environment and Strategic Housing

 

13.2.1    CURRENT PLANNING POLICY

 

Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan adopted March 2007 contains policies to enable determination of planning applications.

 

Forward Planning Team are currently preparing a Supplementary Planning Document on polytunnels in consultation with growers and interested parties. Draft SPD is due to go to planning committee on 11th April 2008.

 

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

 

11 growers were invited to attend individual meetings on 23rd and 24th January 2008 with relevant officers to provide an ongoing opportunity for those that had not engaged in pre-application discussions, or for those who would benefit from further advice on their sites. 7 growers attended the meetings and are engaged in the process of preparing planning applications. Two growers made contact after the event and further meetings have been arranged.

 

For information, there are ongoing enforcement investigations on various sites in the county.

 

AREAS OF OUTSTANDING NATURAL BEAUTY (AONB)

 

There are 3 sites within the AONB. One has been subject to a public inquiry following the service of an enforcement notice. Part of the site was refused, part granted a 2 year temporary permission and part deemed lawful as they had been in existence for more than 4 years. Pre-application discussions have commenced with the grower on a planning application. Pre-application discussions are ongoing with the 2 other sites.

 

13.2.2    The ongoing increasing energy conservation and efficiency standards in the Building Regulations are resulting in buildings being constructed in a more sustainable way. Unlike ground breaking Councils such as the London Borough of Merton this Council does not have a policy in its UDP that provides a basis to negotiate efficiency standards beyond those set out in the Building Regulations. This matter will be addressed in the Local Development Framework, which was the subject of the member seminar last week. Notwithstanding the current lack of any policy basis planning officers continue to negotiate for ever higher standards of energy conservation and efficiency. Increasingly several companies are recognising the marketing advantages of building in a sustainable way.

 

13.2.3    An overall carbon reduction figure for Council carbon emissions since the 2002 baseline is not yet available. However we do know that energy use in council buildings including schools has reduced steadily over the period - and expenditure has risen due to increases in costs.

 

Electricity consumption dropped from 9.2 million kWh in 2003/04 to 7.4 million kWh in 2005/06 and gas consumption dropped from 19.8 million kWh to 16.8 million kWh over the same period. However the cost of utilities rose from circa £1.5 million in 2003 to £2.4 million in 2007. The data sets are not directly comparable but do show clear trends. Business mileage has also reduced steadily from just under 3 million in 2003/04 to 2.3 million in 2006/07.

 

Building sufficiently comprehensive, replicable and reliable data sets to pick up relatively subtle consumption changes of 1-2% a year is a challenge, being faced across the country - and indeed the world. Provision of data on this will now be part of the National Indicator set (NI 185) and we hope this framework will help develop consistent and clear reporting guidance.

 

Nationally, discussion continues on the relative importance to be given to reducing direct impacts and to reducing those in the wider community. Both elements are included within the authority’s Corporate Plan and it is anticipated that a target on reducing county per capita carbon emissions will be included in the forthcoming Local Area Agreement targets. he Council is working closely with the Herefordshire Environment Partnership and Herefordshire Partnership on carrying forward Herefordshire’s Climate Change Strategy. However the Council only has direct control over emissions resulting from its own activities. Both the initiatives outlined below will help meet the Council’s target for reducing carbon emissions from our own estate.

 

MY Energy

 

This year the Council has been running a low and no-cost energy saving theme as part of its commitment to reducing costs, resource consumption and carbon emissions. This has been developed through the implementation of MY Energy (Manage Your Energy) a project running with Severn Wye Energy, which aims to reduce electricity consumption by 10% over 15 Council buildings. The project was launched in May 2007 and works with a group of 30 volunteers based in 15 of our office buildings. The volunteer 'Energy Champions' encourage colleagues to switch off and reduce the amount of energy being wasted. The project runs with SWEA and the Private Sector Housing team for one year and aims to increase awareness of energy use at work and in the home. Events held so far have included:

 

Sustainable Breakfasts - Jointly run with Integrated Transport to encourage and reward colleagues who travel to work sustainable and promote sustainable travel, Fairtrade Tea & Coffee, Energy Efficiency and the MY Energy project.

 

Energy Efficiency Advice Stands - run with the local Energy Efficiency Advice Centre to promote energy efficiency at work and home.

A regular slot during Central Induction to introduce GEM & ISO14001 and to promote the MY Energy project giving tips on how colleagues can save energy at work.

 

Energy Saving Trust

 

The Council started work with the Energy Saving Trust in autumn 2007, one of a small number of Councils who have been offered free consultancy. Data have been collected on energy use across the Council and  recommendations for improvement in performance are now being worked up with the EST.

 

13.3    Question from Councillor WLS Bowen to Cabinet Member Resources

 

13.3    Did you not promise to spend £1 million pounds a year to save much more?  How much of this potential £3 million has been spent and what savings have been achieved and by what means?

 

13.3    Answer from Councillor H Bramer Cabinet Member Resources

 

In making my reply, I am assuming that the question is referring to the ‘Invest to Save Initiatives’ earmarked reserve that stood at £1.115m as at 1^st April 2008.  This earmarked reserve has been built up from contributions from the revenue account of £433k at the close of the 2005/06 financial year and £682k at the close of the 2006/07 financial year.  The purpose of this earmarked reserve is to provide financial pump-priming for projects that lead to both an improvement in service and a cash saving over the longer term.  It provides some flexibility around the requirement for all Directors to manage services within their budget for each financial year and allows projects to come forward part way through a financial year after formal budget setting has taken place.  No requirement for such assistance has to date been identified in this financial year.  The Council regularly reviews its policies with regard to general and earmarked reserves