Agenda and draft minutes

Members observed a minute’s silence to commemorate the 30^th anniversary of the Srebrenica genocide.

The Mayor’s chaplain then read an extract from the letter of St Paul to the Romans, which centred the idea of loving those around us.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Feeney, Hollingsworth, Ron McCrossen, Viv McCrossen, Payne, Pearson, Catherine Pope, Grahame Pope, Towsey-Hinton and Wheeler.

The Mayor welcomed Councillor Meads to the council and congratulated him on his recent win in the Calverton ward by-election.

The Mayor spoke about the recent community events he had attended across the borough and highlighted a few – noting his particular pleasure to have attended the recent unveiling of the Queen Elizabeth II memorial in Gedling Country Park and the Arnold Summer Fair hosted at Arnot Hill Park.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the above meeting, having been circulated, be approved as a correct record.

Councillor Clarke declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 6, noting he was a CAMRA (campaign for real ale) member.

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive

The Mayor welcomed the petitioners to present the petition to the council, which had been signed by 272 residents of the borough and related to changes to the Horse and Groom Public House in Linby.

After the petition had been presented, the Mayor confirmed that it had been accepted, the requested action being as follows:

‘That Gedling Borough Council give full consideration to the petition and ensure that any planning or licensing applications related to the Horse and Groom are subject to rigorous scrutiny, with particular attention to conservation, amenity and community impact.

Should no planning application be in place or submitted prior to the clearly planned refurbishment the local community understand are due to commence in mid-august 2025, the Council will deploy all measures available to protect the Horse and Groom Pub to prevent any further alterations by the owner until both the Council, any other interested stakeholders and local residents are sighted and consulted on the proposed changes and correct permissions are sought. These actions are time critical.”

As the petition had been accepted, that became the motion which was deemed to have been seconded.

It was noted that since the publication of the report, there had been some further background information that Members should be aware of. The detail of this was as follows:

‘Since the publication of the Report, the Council’s Planning and Conservation officer visited the Horse & Groom with Members of the Parish Council on 21^st July following a request from the parish for the building to be listed and for the Council to serve a Building Preservation Notice.

A building preservation notice is a form of temporary listing and protects a building for up to 6 months. In this 6 month period, Historic England would assess the building and submit a report to the Secretary of State to consider whether to list the building formally.

Prior to serving a Building Preservation Notice the local authority must consult with Historic England.

During the visit on 21^st July, the Planning and Conservation Officer observed that the building clearly had a historic core but has been substantially altered in the 20^th Century. Due to the alterations, the building is, in their professional opinion, unlikely to be considered worthy of listing, however, the building has a notable 1930s phase, which includes bar fixtures and fittings which both the Council and CAMRA a Pub Heritage Group can identify historic interest in.

The Council are now engaging directly with Historic Egland in order to establish whether the building may merit listing and building preservation notice served.’

Members debated the motion and on being put to a vote, it was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED that:

Council have debated and accepted the petition actions.

1)    Question to the Leader of the Council – Asked by Tahir Butt

NG5 area is one of the Biggest in Nottinghamshire. So, we believe the Arnold should also get the Tram link to town. Tram would help people of Arnold from all ages, connected areas and will also increase businesses opportunities means more jobs. What is your thought about this?

2)    Question to the Portfolio Holder for Health, Lifestyles and Wellbeing – Asked by John Allen

Why are you considering spending vast sums of ratepayers’ money moving leisure facilities to The Richard Herod Centre when it’s such a difficult place to get to from Arnold by Public Transport?

3)    Question to the Leader of the Council – Asked by Ronald Maddison

Why does Gedling council constantly only consider what is good for Arnold and the other areas under the councils’ umbrella are the poor neighbours?

4)    Question to the Portfolio Holder for Health, Lifestyles and Wellbeing – Asked by Jim Vernon

In light of the significant public concern, packed community protest meetings, and growing confusion surrounding the future of the Richard Herrod Centre site, the public require information on the following concerns:

1. Discussions or decisions which may have, or have not taken place – formally or informally – about ending or not renewing the Richard Herrod Bowling Club’s lease

2. Steps the Council has taken to honour its own transparency commitments during the Max Associates consultation and any emerging redevelopment plans

3. Whether the Council is prepared to pause any decisions relating to the site or the bowling club until full public scrutiny, including site-specific proposals and leaseholder impacts, have been debated openly

The bowling club is a well-established community institution, run by volunteers, with deep roots in the borough. Many residents – including vulnerable pensioners – are now fearful they are being pushed out to make way for something they have never been properly consulted on.

Will the Council finally acknowledge this and commit to a fair, inclusive process before taking any irrevocable steps — or must concerned residents now begin preparing a formal call for an official investigation into the consultation process and treatment of leaseholders?

Four questions were received from members of the public and two of the questioners were in attendance to ask their questions. The questions and answers were as follows:

1)    Question to the Leader of the Council – Read by Mike Hill on behalf of Tahir Butt

NG5 area is one of the Biggest in Nottinghamshire. So, we believe the Arnold should also get the Tram link to town. Tram would help people of Arnold from all ages, connected areas and will also increase businesses opportunities means more jobs. What is your thought about this?

Response from Councillor Clarke:

Thank you for your question.

This Council has always supported the extension of the tram into Gedling, but unfortunately it is not within our control to do so.

The tram system is owned by Nottingham City Council and is operated and maintained by Nottingham Trams Ltd. In March of this year there was an announcement that the new East Midlands Mayor has provided £300,000 to commission a study into extending the NET network, with one option to extend into Gedling.

We very much support this, but realistically this could take many more years before we see anything on the ground. I will add that I am part of the NET board, as is Cllr Hollingsworth, and neither of us have been notified of the meetings that have taken place despite several requests to do so. I have also challenged this at county hall, as a county councillor, to try get and get us there as we know this would be a tremendous support to the people of Gedling and would boost our local economy.

2)    Question to the Portfolio Holder for Health, Lifestyles and Wellbeing – Asked by John Allen

Why are you considering spending vast sums of ratepayers’ money moving leisure facilities to The Richard Herod Centre when it’s such a difficult place to get to from Arnold by Public Transport?

Response from Councillor Clarke:

Our Leisure Strategy, the Strategic Outcomes Planning Model, has recommended the Council should consider two new sites when planning its leisure provision for years to come. This has been based on an analysis of current site age and maintenance liabilities, the performance of existing sites, and local population and market analysis. The Cabinet has agreed to consider feasibility work for both a new site in Carlton and a new site in Arnold. 

The current priority for investment is a new Carlton site at the Richard Herrod Centre.  This is based on the following:

• the current Carlton Forum Leisure Centre is 55 years old and has the more significant building maintenance challenges,
• we do not own Carlton Forum so investment in that site is restricted,
• the high community need in Carlton reflected in the high usage of the current Carlton Forum site. 

Carlton Forum is our biggest leisure centre site supporting the wellbeing of residents across the wider area. In 2024/25 it had:

• over 550,000 visits, almost half the footfall across all our sites,
• 2,500 individual DNA  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

Question from Cllr M Smith to the Portfolio Holder for Sustainable Growth and Economy

Members have been repeatedly told in this chamber that there is a housing crisis in this country. This, along with all the problems that the country and the world are facing have previously been blamed on the Conservative government. However, Gedling Borough Council has the means to assist with alleviating some of the housing problems within the Borough, by using S106 contributions from housebuilders.

£560,567 was allocated by the developer of the Strata Homes site in Linby nine years ago, application 2014/0959. This money needs spending by 2026, otherwise the money will be returned to the developer. Whilst I am aware that officers know there is a time limit on this money, why has this not been spent before and used to alleviate some of the acute housing needs faced by those in this Borough? We either have a housing crisis or we don’t. This council’s own website shows that in total there is £1,451,019 in the pot for affordable housing.

Officers have informed me that they are working on delivering affordable housing on sites in Netherfield and are looking to acquire properties for the same purpose. Those who purchased their home in Linby, nine years ago, would prefer to have seen this money spent locally to them, and certainly by now. Why the nine year delay and still nothing to show for the S106 contribution?

Question from Cllr Bestwick to the Portfolio Holder for Environmental Services (Operations)

What is the current number of pavement sweepers deployable across the Borough, are they all currently operational and does the Cabinet Member feel certain this will be adequate during the autumn?

Question from Cllr Maltby to the Portfolio Holder for Public Protection

In a bid to help reduce ASB, CCTV was promised to be installed in Muirfield Park, Bestwood, but then installation plans were cancelled. Can you advise why and how we can work together and with the residents to get it installed?

Question from Cllr Walker to the Portfolio Holder for Lifestyles, Health and Wellbeing

Can the Cabinet Member for Public Health assure me that Calverton Leisure Centre will remain open under Labour's 'Leisure Transformation' plans?

Question from Cllr Adams to the Portfolio Holder for Sustainable Growth and Economy

Can the cabinet member for Sustainable Growth and Economy please direct us to the planning application number, decision notice or if not available, the authoriser for the June 4^th raising of the Pride Progress flag at Gedling Borough Council?

Question from Cllr S Smith to the Portfolio Holder for Environment Services (Operations)

Fly-tipping on Catts Lane, Stoke Bardolph, is a far too regular occurrence. Will the Cabinet Member finally commit her department to working alongside Cllr Adams, the Parish Council and me in ensuring Gedling Borough Council fund and install CCTV on Catts Lane to prosecute and deter those fly-tipping at this hotspot?

Question from Cllr Whiting to the Portfolio Holder for Sustainable Growth and Economy

The  ...  view the full agenda text for item 34.

A question was asked of the Portfolio Holder for Sustainable Growth and Economy by Councillor M Smith, as follows:

“Members have been repeatedly told in this chamber that there is a housing crisis in this country. This, along with all the problems that the country and the world are facing have previously been blamed on the Conservative government. However, Gedling Borough Council has the means to assist with alleviating some of the housing problems within the Borough, by using S106 contributions from housebuilders.

£560,567 was allocated by the developer of the Strata Homes site in Linby nine years ago, application 2014/0959. This money needs spending by 2026, otherwise the money will be returned to the developer. Whilst I am aware that officers know there is a time limit on this money, why has this not been spent before and used to alleviate some of the acute housing needs faced by those in this Borough? We either have a housing crisis, or we don’t. This council’s own website shows that in total there is £1,451,019 in the pot for affordable housing.

Officers have informed me that they are working on delivering affordable housing on sites in Netherfield and are looking to acquire properties for the same purpose. Those who purchased their home in Linby, nine years ago, would prefer to have seen this money spent locally to them, and certainly by now. Why the nine year delay and still nothing to show for the S106 contribution?”

Response from Councillor R Allan:

The council's new local plan will meet government housing targets, delivering more homes, including affordable ones, faster.

When approving planning applications, the council requires developers to provide affordable housing on site. Only in rare cases where on site provision isn't possible does the council negotiate a financial contribution instead following its affordable housing supplementary planning document.

The strata homes section 106 agreement allows funds to be spent boroughwide. The delay in using strata homes contribution is because the council doesn't manage its own housing stock. While developers have paid sums instead of providing affordable homes, buying and managing just a few properties isn't practical or affordable without knowing future contributions.

With more funds now available, the council is exploring options to buy properties across the borough for social housing as allowed by section 106 agreements. This aligns with the upcoming housing strategy which will be consulted on after approval by the portfolio holder. All contributions will be spent by their deadlines. Thank you.

A question was asked of the Portfolio Holder for Environmental Services (operations) by Councillor Bestwick, as follows:

“What is the current number of pavement sweepers deployable across the Borough, are they all currently operational and does the Cabinet Member feel certain this will be adequate during the autumn?”

Response from Councillor Paling:

At the current time the Council has 4 mechanical sweepers as part of the Council fleet. There are 2 large sweepers for roads, and 2 smaller sweepers for pavements. All four are operational at the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

Report of the Chief Finance Officer and S151 Officer.

RESOLVED that:

Members approve the Annual Treasury Activity Report for 2024/25, as required by the regulations.

Report of the Chief Finance Office and S151 Officer.

RESOLVED that:

Members approve:

      i.                The overall method of financing of the 2024/25 capital expenditure; and

     ii.                The determination of the minimum revenue provision for the repayment of debt

Report of the Chief Finance Officer and S151 Officer

RESOLVED that:

Members:

      i.        Approve the additional budget required of £88,549 for the 2024/25 External Audit Scale fees; and

     ii.        Note the grants received from MHCLG in response to the Redmond review and rebuilding assurance

Report of the Director of Operations

RESOLVED that:

Council:

      i.        Notes the content of the Regulatory Assessment at Appendix 4 and the Consultation Report at Appendix 5; and

     ii.        Approves the publishing of the statement of regulatory assessment at Appendix 6 in line with the 2016 Regulations; and

    iii.        Delegates authority to the Director of Operations to make any minor amendments to any documents prior to advertising; and

   iv.        Approves that the proposed Scheme be sent to the SoS for approval with the supporting documentation in line with the 2016 Regulations; and

     v.        Authorises officers to undertake the necessary publication requirements (publication for a period of at least 28 days) in line with the 2016 Regulations should approval be granted by the SoS

Report of the Democratic Services Manager

RESOLVED that:

The following changes to representation on committees, be approved:

      i.        Remove Councillor Elliot from Environment & Licensing Committee

     ii.        Remove Councillor Elliott from Licensing Act Committee

    iii.        Add Councillor Meads to Environment & Licensing Committee

   iv.        Add Councillor Meads to Licensing Act Panel

     v.        Add Councillors Whiting and Meads to Standards Committee

   vi.        Remove Councillor Catherine Pope from Joint Consultative & Safety

  vii.        Committee

 viii.        Add Councillor Elliott to Joint Consultative & Safety Committee

   ix.        Remove Councillor Elliott from Standards Committee

     x.        Add Councillor Adams to Standards Committee

   xi.        Remove Councillor Adams from Appeals & Retirement Committee

  xii.        Add Councillor Maltby to Appeals & Retirement Committee

Report of the Democratic Services Manager

RESOLVED that:

The updated appointment of representatives to Outside Bodies be approved.

Report of the Leader of the Council

RESOLVED that:

The changes to Policy Holders be noted.

No comments or issued were raised.

None.