Gloucester Partnership Executive Group Meeting
Thursday 21st July 2011
Ahmed Goga (Chair) Gloucestershire First
Penny Liddicot VCS Representative and Stronger Communities Chair
Alice Walsh NHS Gloucestershire
Steve Elway Aspire Trust
Pauline Reynolds Glos ACA – Voluntary & Community sector representative
Mark Boyce Gloucester Chamber of Trade
Martin Shields Gloucester City Council
Mick Thorpe Gloucester City Council
Claire Rawlings Gloucester City Council
Tim Watton Gloucester City Council
Gill Ragon Gloucester City Council
Lorna Robinson Gloucester City Council
Sadie Neal Gloucester City Council
Sonia Tucker Gloucester City Council
John Henry Looney Gloucester Chamber of Trade/Sustainable Direction
Moira Swann Gloucestershire County Council
Sue Cochrane NHS Gloucestershire
ACTIONS FROM MEETING WHO
1. Formal response on City Plan Scope to be All – Lorna to draft
submitted by 23rd August 2011
2. Lorna Robinson was asked to find out Lorna Robinson
whether there were any University graduation
days which could be targeted
3. Circulation of questionnaire to Chamber of Mark Boyce/Lorna Robinson
4. Steve Elway agreed to assist by circulating Steve Elway/Lorna Robinson
details of the consultation at an upcoming
Volleyball festival in August and also by
emailing Aspire members
5. Identification of BME groups for canvassing Pauline Reynolds/Lorna Robinson
6. Engagement of staff in CV consultation Steve Elway/Alice Walsh
7. Future discussion on thematic groups Agenda item – Lorna Robinson
8. Reflection of partnership views via Leadership Agenda item next Strategic
Gloucestershire Group – Lorna Robinson
1. Introductions, Minutes and Matters Arising
1.1 The minutes of the meeting held on 21st January 2011 were approved as
a correct record. There were no matters arising.
1.2 Action 1 – As John Henry Looney had sent apologies, there was no update
on this item.
1.3 Action 4 – Noted that this money had not been channelled though the LSP
but had been made available through the City Council. It was further
noted that Ross Cook had now taken up a new role at the City Council
and would not be supporting Gloucester Partnership meetings in the
1.4 Action 8 – Had not been carried forward. Rupert Charley had since left
Gloucester City Council.
2. City Plan Formal Response
2.1 Tim Watton and Claire Rawlings presented the final version of the City
2.2 The following points were discussed:-
The public’s perceptions of Gloucester and opinions are lower then they should
be given the confidence of the market in Gloucester future.
Emerging housing issues including the need for an increase in housing by a third,
evidence of the requirement for more affordable housing and more family based
accommodation. Gloucester has an increase in young people and those of
working age will need to be considered when looking at housing allocations and
Limited space within the City for expansion.
The economy of the City was fragile, but was slowly recovering and there is a
need for more manufacturing industries.
There was a forecast decline in the banking and financial sector and an increase
was expected in the care sector (ageing population)
Whilst tourism had decreased it was forecast to increase and there is a need to
exploit our heritage to it’s full potential.
Less investment in retail/shopping/leisure
There was a need for an open space strategy and recognition that sites such as
Alney Island and Robinswood Hill were unique.
2.3 The headlines for Group discussion in the City Plan Scope were:-
Plan for Economic Growth
Focus on City Centre regeneration
Restriction of growth to the south of the City
2.4 The Group then discussed the following matters:-
Residents’ perception of the City as ‘dirty’ with the belief that there was very little
change despite the regeneration that had taken place and that funding would run
out before any major improvements were achieved. There was also negativity
around projects such as the Railway Triangle.
The opportunity should be taken to walk around City estates both to consult with
residents and also to identify open spaces within estates e.g. Matson.
That there was a balance to be struck between protecting open spaces and
releasing appropriate land for essential housing.
The debate within the Joint Core Strategy on developing the green belt to the
north of the City.
There was a need to emphasise the leisure opportunities that the City offered to
illustrate that residents would enjoy living in the City, something the Exec felt
was missing from the current City Plan Scope.
A study had been commissioned into looking at what industries the City needed
and this would be reported back to the Group.
3,000 businesses had been targeted with an inward investment prospectus to
help draw in investment.
It was suggested that, the need for affordable housing was not sustainable in the
Need to look at Enterprise Zone model to attract investment, tax breaks etc.
Everywhere is trying to attract investments, what makes us different?
Need to deicide if Gloucester goes for high level, well paid jobs or retail/service
low paid mass jobs?
The City Plan Scope document needed to be bolder, more radical and in line with
business/economy factors. An example of the opportunities at Junction 11A was
The document was a work in progress and the next City Plan Scope would be
2.4 The Chair then summarised the discussions and requested the Executive
to formally respond by 23rd August 2011.
Action 1 – Formal response on City Plan Scope to be submitted
by 23rd August 2011, a draft to be circulated by Lorna in advance.
JCS needs to be on the agenda for future discussion.
3. City Vision Progress
3.1 Lorna Robinson gave an update on the current position of the City Vision
3.2 Events to date:-
There had been programmed work with various organisations ranging from
young people to older people, voluntary groups and neighbourhood partnerships.
City Vision events and community days had taken place, mostly achieving good
There had been online surveys, media coverage and promotion on social
3.3 The events so far had resulted in 710 people being made aware of the
City Vision, of which 400+ had given a formal response. There was a
need to increase this to 1000+ (see 3.8).
3.4 Aspire were thanked for their help during the recent filming of a video.
3.5 Upcoming dates for future events were noted by the Group. Lorna
Robinson was asked to find out whether there were any University
graduation days which could be targeted.
Action 2 – Lorna Robinson
3.6 There had been two consultation projects, one involving a youth video
diary and the other was a business questionnaire. Mark Boyce agreed to
circulate the questionnaire to the Chamber of Trade.
Action 3 – Mark Boyce/Lorna Robinson to liaise
3.7 The Group then discussed the findings to date which were summarised in
both online survey and face to face survey responses.
3.8 There were issues for the Group to consider:-
The need to get consultation responses up to 1000. Steve Elway agreed
to assist by circulating details of the consultation at an upcoming Volleyball
festival in August and also by emailing Aspire members.
Action 4– Steve Elway and Lorna Robinson to liaise
The need to improve on the low BME response of only 2%. Agreed that
Pauline Reynolds and Lorna Robinson would liaise to identify BME groups
which could be canvassed.
Action 5 – Pauline Reynolds/Lorna Robinson
The need to get key partners engaged in the consultation process and
going forward. Agreed that Steve Elway and Alice Walsh would both push
this forward within there organisations.
Action 6 – Steve Elway/Alice Walsh
3.9 The Group examined the budget for the consultation exercise and noted
that currently the programme was well within budget.
The presentation which includes further details on the above will be circulated with
4. Delivery of City Vision
4.1 The Group looked at the three proposed theme groups – Social, Economic
and Environmental. There was a discussion on whether these should be
networking groups or task and finish groups and a debate on whether the
six current groups of Health, Children, Stronger, Safer, Economic and
Environmental should be retained.
4.2 Some Group members said there would be a difficulty with constrained
resources in committing to attending lots of different groups.
Key discussions included a matrix model or coming together around
issues not themes e.g. deprivation.
4.3 It was agreed that this should be further discussed at the next meeting
on 29th September 2011 in order that recommendations could be made to
the Strategic Group in October 2011.
Action 7 – Agenda item and discussion paper - Lorna Robinson
5. Strategic Group and Gloucestershire Conference
5.1 Lorna Robinson was currently trying to get an update on this. There has
been limited activity at the County layer and significant staff changes.
5.2 The Chair felt that the best mechanism was the Leadership
Gloucestershire group and that Paul James should be asked to reflect
partnership views via this forum.
Action 8 – Agenda item for the next Strategic Group - Lorna
6 . Any Other Business
6.1 Round Robin:
There was no other business to discuss.
Next meeting – Executive Meeting 29th September 2011, 9.25 to 12 noon,
Oxstalls Tennis Centre