Agenda and minutes

The Council is asked to note any apologies for absence received from Members.

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors Bennison, Coley, G V Guglielmi, V E Guglielmi, Khan, Poonian and Watling MP.

The Council is asked to approve, as a correct record, the minutes of the Council Meeting held on 5 September 2017.

RESOLVED, that the minutes of the ordinary meeting of the Council, held on Tuesday 5 September 2017, be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Councillors are invited to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests, or other interest, and the nature of it, in relation to any item on the agenda.

Councillor I J Henderson declared an interest in relation to Agenda Item 21 (Report of the Head of Leadership Support and Community – A.5 – Community Governance Review) insofar as he was also a member of Harwich Town Council.

Councillor Miles declared an interest in relation to Agenda Item 10 (Questions pursuant to Council Procedure 10.1) insofar as she supported Mr S Walker in his campaign against the closure of public conveniences and she was a local Ward Member for Walton.

The Council is asked to note any announcements made by the Chairman of the Council.

The Chairman welcomed back to Council the Committee Services Manager (Ian Ford) following his prolonged absence from his duties caused by a broken leg.

In addition, the Chairman extended a warm invitation to all Members and Officers to join him in the Chairman’s Parlour after the meeting for seasonal refreshments.

The Council is asked to note any announcements made by the Chief Executive.

There were none on this occasion.

The Council is asked to note any statements made by the Leader of the Council. 

Councillors may then ask questions of the Leader on his statements.

The Leader of the Council made the following statements –

Disability Confident ‘Leader’ Status

“I am delighted this evening to be able to inform Councillors that the Council has achieved Disability Confident ‘Leader’ status, for the Council’s recruitment practices and support for disabled employees, in the workplace.

This is the highest accolade for an employer that is positive about employing disabled people. The assessment process was rigorous and thoroughly tested by disabled people throughout. A number of recommendations were made and implemented, including an updated accessibility section on the website which allows adjustments to be made including audio, font size and colour.

Council Officers have been working towards this accreditation for the past 12 months.

Tendring is the only Council to have achieved ‘Leader’ status across Essex.”

Councillor Stock responded to a question put by Councillor Miles.

Sport England Initiatives

“I have got some really exciting news which I want to share with Council. Last month I was involved in what can only be described as a very unusual but incredibly exciting bidding process aimed at changing people’s lives.

Sport England is currently looking to pilot and test some new initiatives aimed at addressing inactivity across the country’s population.  Across Essex 22% of the adult population does less than 30 minutes of physical activity a week and in Tendring that rises to 37% of the adult population who are inactive.  Similar issues apply in parts of Basildon and Colchester.

Inactivity leads to a variety of health conditions and is certainly contributing to the chronic obesity and diabetes crisis sweeping the country. Sport England want to explore new ways of getting people more active as the current systems just don’t work for everyone.  There doesn’t seem to be a magic bullet and Sport England recognise that some of the new approaches they want to try will fail but they want to work with willing and engaged partners who are up for the challenge of working with them to pilot new approaches.  They don’t know how this will work and I suppose that is the point which makes this unusual as we are bidding for a huge slice of funding but don’t as yet know how it will be used.

Working in partnership with Basildon, Colchester and Essex County Council we have submitted a bid for a slice of the £130m which Sport England are prepared to put on the table to bring about a whole system change and they are particularly keen to focus on those living in circumstances of deprivation, poor mental health, old age, social and financial hardship.  Unfortunately we seem to tick a lot of these boxes!

Given the size of the prize it is not surprising that community and system Leaders from across the four Councils are supporting the bidding process and I am pleased to say that we already have got down to the last 19 from the 100 plus who applied. The outcome of the bidding process will be announced very shortly and could mean  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.

The Council is asked to note any statements made by Members of the Cabinet (Portfolio Holders).

Councillors may then ask questions of the Portfolio Holders on their statements.

There were no statements by members of the Cabinet on this occasion.

The Council will consider any petition(s) received in accordance with the Scheme approved by the Council.

There were none on this occasion.

Subject to the required notice being given, members of the public can ask questions of the Leader of the Council, Portfolio Holders or Chairmen of Committees.

The Chairman shall determine the number of questions to be tabled at a particular meeting in order to limit the time for questions and answers to half an hour.

One question has been received, on notice, from a member of the public.

Councillor Miles had earlier declared an interest in relation to this item insofar as she supported Mr S Walker in his campaign against the closure of public conveniences and she was a local Ward Member for Walton.

Subject to the required notice being given, members of the public could ask questions of the Leader of the Council, Portfolio Holders or Chairmen of Committees.

The following question had been received, on notice, from a member of the public:

Question

From Mr S Walker to Councillor M Skeels Snr., Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Tourism:

“The proposed closure of 10 public toilets by TDC has generated considerable public concern, anxiety and protest as evidenced by the submission of two large petitions and a third currently being promoted on the online petition site 38 degrees. There has not been a Cost-Benefit analysis or Economic Impact Assessment of the closures while the estimated cost savings have been calculated at £100,000 per annum.

Therefore, before any toilets are closed, will TDC carry out a Cost-Benefit Analysis and Economic Impact Assessment; and consult with Public Health England, Local GP surgeries and local Businesses via their local representatives, to ask what the impact of the toilet closures would be on Patient health and well-being and on Business revenue; and to bring the results of the Cost-Benefit Analysis and Economic Impact Assessment together with those consultations to a Full Council meeting, and publish the results?”

Councillor Skeels replied as follows:

“I would like to thank Mr Walker for his question and I can assure him that it is with great reluctance that the decision has been taken to rationalise any service provision.

I think that it would be very difficult to undertake any meaningful cost benefit analysis on this type of service given the number of variables and cross dependencies involved.  By way of example it would be difficult to discount bias from some consultees as they would have a clear interest in a specific outcome, whether that be positive or negative such as was identified when we considered the toilets in Jaywick Sands where those near neighbours affected by antisocial behaviour associated with the toilets had a very different view as to closure than those who were not local to that provision.

What is important to consider is that we are looking at closing those toilets which generally have lower numbers of users, higher incidents of antisocial behaviour, higher operating costs, have alternative provision and are almost universally not suitable for refurbishment or enhancement.  It is also true to say that we are looking to enhance some facilities as part of the new strategic approach.

We will explore with local businesses, both existing and new, options for the public to use their facilities and it is important that businesses recognise that they need to step up to the plate and play their part to both develop their own provision or work with Town and Parish Councils to take on services which they claim are vital but which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82.

Subject to the required notice being given, Members of the Council can ask questions of the Chairman of the Council, the Leader of the Council, Portfolio Holders or Chairmen of Committees or Sub-Committees.

The time allocated for receiving and disposing of questions shall be a maximum of 45 minutes. Any question not disposed of at the end of this time shall be the subject of a written response, copied to all Members unless withdrawn by the questioner.

Four questions have been received, on notice, from Members.

Subject to the required notice being given, Members of the Council could ask questions of the Chairman of the Council, the Leader of the Council, Portfolio Holders or Chairmen of Committees or Sub-Committees.

Four questions had been submitted as set out below:

Question One

From Councillor Calver to Councillor M Skeels Snr., Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Tourism:

“The Labour Group supports the £355,000 restoration of Clacton’s Venetian Bridge and agrees with the Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Tourism when he described the bridge as being an iconic focal point for visitors.

Will the Portfolio Holder agree with me that the Victorian lighthouses in Dovercourt Bay, both scheduled ancient monuments, represent an even greater iconic focal point for visitors to Harwich and Dovercourt and, therefore, will he advise the Council as to what action is being taken to restore them to their former glory and how long it is likely to be before they once again offer a positive visual impact on Dovercourt Bay’s Blue Flag beach rather than a negative one?”

Councillor Skeels replied as follows:

“I would like to thank Councillor Calver for his question and appreciate his support with the restoration of the Venetian Bridge.  I concur completely on the subject of the Victorian Lighthouses in Dovercourt Bay, which are a key landmark for the District and an instantly recognisable feature for one of our Blue Flag Beaches.  You may recall that a condition survey of the lighthouses was commissioned earlier on this year, to establish what it would take to bring the lighthouses back to their former glory.  You will appreciate this is very specialist work and there have been a number of tasks to complete in advance to ensure the safety of contractors prior to any survey commencing.

Once the survey is complete, which is likely to be later on this year, we will have a clear picture of the condition the lighthouses are in and importantly what the cost will be to restore them.  At that point, we will be able to consider how we go forward in possession of all the appropriate facts.”

Councillor Calver then responded to Councillor Skeels’ reply with a supplementary

question:

“I thank the Portfolio Holder for that answer. I’m a little bit concerned that the Portfolio Holder has suggested that the survey will be completed later on this year as we are only five weeks from the end of the year. Can he be a little more specific on when this information is going to be available please?

Councillor Skeels responded to Councillor Calver’s supplementary question as follows:

“Thank you Councillor Calver. I haven’t got an answer to that question but I can find out from the Officers and come back to you.”

Question Two

From Councillor I J Henderson to Councillor Honeywood, Portfolio Holder for Housing:

“Will the Portfolio Holder responsible for dealing with homelessness advise the Council of the annual number of people contacting TDC to declare themselves as ‘homeless’ but who fall outside of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.

The Council will receive a report on any Cabinet decisions taken as a matter of urgency in accordance with Access to Information Procedure Rule 17.4, Budget and Policy Framework Procedure Rule 6(b) and/or Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 18(i).

There is no report on this occasion.

There was no such report on this occasion.

To enable Council to decide, whether to support Councillor Jack Parsons’ motion to Council in respect of a proposed parish/town council for Clacton-on-Sea. [Note: This item was deferred from the meeting of the Council held on 5 September 2017.]

Members were aware that, due to an incident in the public gallery, this item had been deferred from the meeting of the Council held on 5 September 2017 (Minute 67 referred).

Council had before it a reference report (A.1) from the Community Leadership and Partnerships Committee which reported that, at the meeting of the Council held on 9 May 2017, the following motion had been moved by Councillor Parsons and seconded by Councillor Bucke and, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12.4, had stood referred to the Community Leadership and Partnerships Committee for consideration and report:

"This Council, in accordance with Local Government and Public Health Act 2007 (as amended) and the statutory guidance issued by DCLG in 2010, conducts a Community Governance Review following the conclusion of the LGBCE Ward Boundaries review, with the view to creating a Clacton Town Council to come into effect in 2023. During this

review the Council will consult with members of the public and other stakeholders as to the creation of a Clacton Town Council which will be intended to serve the areas of Clacton-on-Sea that are not currently being represented by a Town or a Parish Council. This will be inclusive of the following current wards:

Golf Green

Rush Green

Bockings Elm

Peter Bruff

Alton Park

St James

Pier

St Mary's

St John's

Burrsville

St Paul's

St Bartholomews

Haven

In addition, this Council will authorise Officers to, with regard to the aforementioned guidance and acts, draft potential boundaries within the specification above, potentially through a working party, for Full Council approval prior to public consultation."

It was reported that, at its meeting held on 10 July 2017 the Community Leadership and Partnerships Committee had considered Councillor Parsons’ motion. Councillor Parsons had attended that meeting and had explained the motion to the Committee.

Members had then been given the opportunity to ask questions. The Council’s Head of Governance and Legal Services (Lisa Hastings) had clarified what the Committee was being asked to make a decision on and the procedure that would be followed should they recommend to Council that the motion be supported or not.

Following discussion, the Community Leadership and Partnerships Committee had resolved that it would recommend to Council that it supports the motion as written except that the legislation referred to therein be amended to the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (as amended).

Councillor Baker moved that Council supports Councillor Parsons’ motion as written except that the legislation referred to therein be amended to the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (as amended).

Councillors Parsons, Bucke, Everett, Griffiths, Honeywood, Miles, Stock, Bray, Calver, Talbot and Stephenson each addressed the Council on the subject matter of this item.

Councillor Baker’s motion, on being put to the vote, was declared LOST.

The Council will receive the minutes of the following Committees:

(a)       Audit of Thursday 21 September 2017;

(b)       Corporate Management of Monday 25 September 2017;

(c)       Standards of Wednesday 27 September 2017;

(d)       Community Leadership and Partnerships of Monday 2 October 2017;

(e)       Service Development and Delivery of Monday 9 October 2017;

(f)        Corporate Management of Monday 16 October 2017;

(g)       Human Resources of Wednesday 1 November 2017; and

(h)       Local Plan of Thursday 2 November 2017.

NOTES:         

(1)       The above minutes are presented to Council for information only.  Members can ask questions on their contents to the relevant Chairman but questions as to the accuracy of the minutes must be asked at the meeting of the Committee when the relevant minutes are approved as a correct record;

(2)          The recommendations to Council contained in the minutes of the Standards Committee and the Human Resources Committee will be presented for Members’ consideration with a covering report to the meeting of the Council due to be held on 23 January 2018.

It was RESOLVED that the minutes of the following Committees, as circulated, be received and noted:

(a)       Audit of Thursday 21 September 2017;

(b)       Corporate Management of Monday 25 September 2017;

(c)       Standards of Wednesday 27 September 2017;

(d)       Community Leadership and Partnerships of Monday 2 October 2017;

(e)       Service Development and Delivery of Monday 9 October 2017;

(f)        Corporate Management of Monday 16 October 2017;

(g)        Human Resources of Wednesday 1 November 2017; and

(h)       Local Plan of Thursday 2 November 2017.

Council was advised that the recommendations to Council contained in the minutes of the Standards Committee and the Human Resources Committee would be presented for Members’ consideration with a covering report to the meeting of the Council due to be held on 23 January 2018.

Corporate Management Committee – 16 October 2017 – Minute 34 – Assets Update

Councillor I J Henderson raised a question to the Chairman of the Corporate Management Committee (Councillor Steady) on this minute to which, Councillor Steady gave a response.

The Council will consider motions, notice of which has been given pursuant to Council Procedure Rule 12.

There are none on this occasion.

There were no motions, notice of which had been given pursuant to Council Procedure Rule 12, on this occasion.

The Council is asked to consider the recommendations submitted to it by the Cabinet in respect of the Local Council Tax Support Scheme 2018/19, Council Tax Exemptions for 2018/2019 and the Annual Minimum Revenue Provision Policy Statement 2018/2019.

The Council had before it the recommendations submitted to it by the Cabinet in respect of the Local Council Tax Support Scheme 2018/2019, Council Tax Exemptions/Discounts for 2018/2019 and the Annual Minimum Revenue Provision Policy Statement 2018/2019.

Councillors Parsons, I J Henderson, Talbot, Scott and Broderick each addressed the Council on the subject matter of this item.

It was moved by Councillor Honeywood and RESOLVED that:

(a)       the Local Council Tax Support Scheme (LCTS) remains the same as the current year, as set out as Appendix A to item A.15 of the Report of the Housing Portfolio Holder (which was submitted to the meeting of the Cabinet held on 10 November 2017 and is contained within the Council Book) and that therefore:

i)          the LCTS be approved with the maximum LCTS award being 80% for working age claimants; and

ii)         delegation be given to the Corporate Director (Corporate Services), in consultation with the Housing Portfolio Holder, to undertake the necessary steps and actions to implement the LCTS scheme from 1 April 2018.

(b)        the Council Tax Exceptional Hardship Policy, as set out in Appendix B to the   aforesaid report, be approved.

(c)       the proposed Council Tax exemptions and discounts (which remain unchanged), as set out in Appendix C to the aforementioned report, be approved and that delegation is given to the Corporate Director (Corporate Services), in consultation with the Housing Portfolio Holder, to undertake the necessary steps and actions to implement the Council Tax exemptions and discounts from 1 April 2018.

(d)          the Annual Minimum Revenue Provision Policy Statement for 2018/19, as set out in Appendix D to the above report, be approved.

The Council is asked to consider the recommendations submitted to it by the Cabinet in respect of the proposed changes to the Financial and Procurement Procedure Rules contained in Part 5 of the Council’s Constitution.

The Council had before it the recommendations submitted to it by the Cabinet in respect of proposed changes to the Financial and Procurement Procedure Rules contained within the Council’s Constitution.

It was moved by Councillor Stock OBE and RESOLVED that the Council’s Constitution be amended to reflect the proposed changes to the Financial and Procurement Procedure Rules as set out in the Appendix to item A.10 to the Joint Report of the Leader of the Council and the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Corporate Services (which was submitted to the meeting of the Cabinet held on 10 November 2017 and was contained within the Council Book).

To inform Council of appointments to Committees that had been made since the last meeting of the Council.

The Chief Executive formally reported that, in accordance with the wishes of the Leader of the UKIP Group and the Leader of the Conservative Group and the authority delegated to him, the following appointments had been made since the last meeting of the Council -

Human Resources Committee

Councillor Bennison had been removed from this Committee.

Local Plan Committee

Councillor Ferguson had been appointed to serve in place of Councillor M J D Skeels.

Planning Committee

Councillor J A Brown had been appointed to serve in place of Councillor Bennison.

Council noted the foregoing.

To inform Council of a change in the membership of the Conservative and Non-Aligned political groups on Tendring District Council and also to enable Council to consider the outcome of a review of the membership of Committees conducted in accordance with Section 15(1)(e) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and Regulation 17(b) of the Local Government (Committees and Political Groups) Regulations.

The Chief Executive formally reported that, pursuant to Regulation 10(b) of the Local Government (Committees and Political Groups) Regulations 1990, Councillors Jeff Bray and Richard Everett on 22 September 2017, had each served formal notice on the Council that they no longer wished to be treated as a member of the Independent Alliance political group.

He further formally reported that, also on 22 September 2017, Councillor Bray and Councillor Everett, pursuant to Regulation 9(b) of the Local Government (Committees and Political Groups) Regulations 1990, had served formal notice on the Council that they wished to be treated as a member of the Conservative political group.

The Chief Executive formally reported that, pursuant to Regulation 10(b) of the Local Government (Committees and Political Groups) Regulations 1990, Councillor Andrew Pemberton on 25 September 2017, had served formal notice on the Council that he no longer wished to be treated as a member of the UKIP political group.

He further formally reported that, on 8 November 2017, Councillor Pemberton, pursuant to Regulation 9(b) of the Local Government (Committees and Political Groups) Regulations 1990, had served formal notice on the Council that he wished to be treated as a member of the Non-Aligned political group.

In accordance with Section 15(1)(e) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and Regulation 17(c) of the Local Government (Committees and Political Groups) Regulations 1990 a review of the allocation of seats to political groups had been carried out. The outcome of that review, as agreed by Group Leaders, was tabled at the meeting.

Councillor I J Henderson addressed the Council on the subject matter of this item.

It was moved by Councillor Stock OBE, seconded by Councillor Honeywood and –

RESOLVED that the Schedule of Appointments to Committees, (which had been agreed by Group Leaders and tabled at the meeting), be approved with immediate effect.

Council is requested to agree a response to the Boundary Commission for England’s consultation on its revised proposals for new Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries.

Council was aware that, in February 2016, the Boundary Commission for England (BCE) had announced the start of a review of the Parliamentary Constituencies in England. On 13 September 2016 the BCE had published its initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituencies. Council had considered those initial proposals at its meeting held on 29 November 2016 (Minute 107 referred) and had agreed the following response to the BCE:

“At present the Harwich and North Essex constituency surrounds the Colchester constituency at its north-west, north, east and south sides, taking in the port of Harwich to the east. We propose to modify this arrangement by pairing Harwich with Clacton-on-Sea in a Harwich and Clacton constituency. In addition, we propose a North East Essex constituency that completely surrounds the Colchester constituency. Our proposed North East Essex constituency comprises 13 wards from the Borough of Colchester and ten wards from the District of Tendring. As a result, the villages of Point Clear, St. Osyth, Seawick and Jaywick are no longer included in a constituency with Clacton. The entirety of our proposed Harwich and Clacton constituency falls within the District of Tendring.”

It was reported that on 17 October 2017 the BCE had published revised recommendations which were out for consultation until 11 December 2017.

Council was informed that as far as the District of Tendring was concerned the BCE now proposed a Harwich and Clacton County Constituency (electorate 77,200) wholly within the Tendring District and a North East Essex County Constituency (electorate 77,481) comprising ten wards within the Tendring District and thirteen wards of the Borough of Colchester. The two constituencies proposed would comprise the following wards:-

Harwich and Clacton County Constituency – Twenty five wards of the District of Tendring:- 

Alton Park, Beaumont and Thorpe, Bockings Elm, Burrsville, Frinton, Golf Green, Great and Little Oakley, Hamford, Harwich East Central, Harwich East, Harwich West Central, Harwich West, Haven, Holland and Kirby, Homelands, Peter Bruff, Pier, Ramsey and Parkeston, Rush Green, St Bartholomews, St James, St Johns, St Marys, St Pauls and Walton.

North East Essex County Constituency -  Thirteen wards of the Borough of Colchester:-

Birch and Winstree, Copford and West Stanway, Dedham and Langham, Fordham and Stour, Great Tey, Marks Tey, Pyefleet, Stanway, Tiptree, West Bergholt and Eight Ash Green, West Mersea, Wivenhoe Cross and Wivenhoe Quay; and

Ten wards of the District of Tendring:- 

Alresford, Ardleigh and Little Bromley, Bradfield, Wrabness and Wix, Brightlingsea, Golf Green, Great Bentley, Lawford, Little Clacton and Weeley, Manningtree, Mistley, Little Bentley and Tendring, St Osyth and Point Clear and Thorrington, Frating, Elmstead and Great Bromley.

Council was advised that the changes from the initial proposals were that the Golf Green Ward had been moved from the North East Essex County Constituency to the Harwich and Clacton County Constituency whilst the Little Clacton and Weeley Ward had moved from the Harwich and Clacton County Constituency to the North East Essex County Constituency.

Councillors Bucke, I J Henderson, Parsons and Stock each addressed the Council on the subject  ...  view the full minutes text for item 92.

Council is requested to agree that certain Community Governance Reviews be undertaken.

Councillor I J Henderson had earlier declared an interest in relation to this item insofar as he was also a member of Harwich Town Council.

Council recalled that, at its meeting held on 5 September 2017 (Minute 66 referred) it was agreed that:-

“a Community Governance Review be undertaken in relation to the land in the St Osyth District Council area but not in the St Osyth Parish area.”

Accordingly, the draft Terms of Reference for that review was attached at Appendix A to item A.5 of the Report of the Head of Leadership Support and Community for Council’s approval.

Council further recalled that it had also agreed that:-

“in principle, a wider Community Governance Review of parished and unparished areas in the Tendring District be supported subject to specific terms of reference, having regard to the initial views which are currently being sought, coming to a future meeting of Council for agreement.”

Those initial views submitted had been considered by the Electoral Review Working Group at its meeting held on 7 November 2017 and could be summarized as follows:

·                16 Town / Parish Councils had responded and 11 had not.

·                Of those that had responded only 1 (Harwich Town Council) would welcome a review of its number of councillors.

·                Lawford, Manningtree and Mistley Parish Councils had discussed the idea of a joint parish but that did not yet appear to be fully decided.

·                Clacton Town Partnership had responded and were fully supportive of a Clacton Town Council. No other comments in support of a Town Council for Clacton had been received but neither were any objections.

·                3 District Councillors and 3 Parish Councillors had replied.

·                5 residents had responded but of those 4 had expressed concerns about the running of the same Parish Council.

In discussing those initial responses the Working Group had also had in front of them a summary of the current position regarding the number of seats on each Town / Parish Council; the number of seats filled; the suggested number of seats and whether an election had been held in 2011 and / or 2015.

Following discussion the Working Group had agreed that a review be carried out for those that had asked for it and that those that had had elections in 2011 and / or 2015 were not reviewed. Officers had been asked to provide further information on those which had not been contested in both 2011 and 2015 including functions, precept and the make-up of the Council. This would be considered at a future meeting of the Working Group to determine whether the group wished to make any further recommendations about Community Governance Reviews being undertaken.

In summary, the Working Group had concluded that:-

·                a Community Governance Review of the number of seats on Harwich Town Council be undertaken;

·                the suggested merger of Lawford, Manningtree and Mistley Parish Councils be kept under review and that a Community Governance Review be undertaken if all three Parish Councils ask for one;

·                the position  ...  view the full minutes text for item 93.

Council is requested to agree, in principle, a new committee structure.

Council recalled that, at its meeting held on 5 September 2017 (Minute 66 referred) it was agreed that:-

“officers are authorised to commence a review of meeting arrangements, Cabinet and committee size, frequency and make-up in preparation for the reduction to 48 Councillors in 2019;”

Council was informed that, at the meeting of the Electoral Review Working Group held on 7 November 2017, initial proposals had been submitted for discussion in relation to the review of Committees in preparation for the reduction in the total number of Councillors to 48 from 2019. The key proposals, in summary, were:-

·                Two Overview and Scrutiny Committees - with task and finish groups focused on evidence based reviews.

·                Presentations and providing information to all Members would remain through the all Member briefings (not formal meetings, but provided the ability to ask questions).

·                A single Governance Committee incorporating the existing Audit and Standards Committees.

·                Two Licensing sub-committees reduced from the current four.

·                A combined Human Resources and Council Tax Committee able to consider senior management appointments and dismissals as well as the impact of emergency planning on staff.

·                Titles were for working purposes and formal Committee titles would need to be decided in due course.

The following timetable had been proposed by the Working Group:-

·                Consideration by Electoral Review Working Group – 7 November 2017;

·                Consideration by Full Council and agreement to an “in principle” new committee structure – 21 November 2017;

·                Consideration by Electoral Review Working Group of the proposed terms of reference, size and committee names etc. – Early January 2018;

·                Consideration by Full Council of terms of reference etc. for the new committees – 23 January 2018;

·                Implementation of new committee structure – Annual Council 24 April 2018 (seats to be allocated to new committees based on existing 60 Councillors);

·                Operation of new Committees to be monitored during 2018;

·                Any necessary amendments to terms of reference and appointments to committees based on new Council of 48 Councillors – Annual Council 2019.

It was reported that the Working Group had discussed issues including:-

(i)         whether to have a member of an “Opposition” Group as chairman of the “inward facing” overview and scrutiny committee;

(ii)        cross-membership of the Local Plan and Planning Committees;

(iii)       the number of meetings in a municipal year of the “inward facing” overview and scrutiny committee;

(iv)      the possibility of the Planning Committee meeting in the daytime;

(v)       the size of the committees and especially making sure that the overview and scrutiny committees were large enough to form a pool of potential members of the “task and finish” working groups;

(vi)      external input on the workings of the new committee structure;

(vii)     the importance of keeping a human resources committee (albeit with a smaller membership than at present); and

(viii)    how the overview and scrutiny “task and finish” working groups could operate.

Council was made aware that the Working Group had agreedthat The Centre for Public Scrutiny and/or SOLACE be invited, in Summer 2018, to give their input  ...  view the full minutes text for item 94.

The Council will formally receive for its information the Decision Notices.

The Council formally received and noted the Decision Notices.

The Council will consider any urgent matters submitted in accordance with Council Procedure Rules 3(xvi), 11.3(b) and/or 13(q).

There were none on this occasion.

The Chairman informed Members that the meeting of the Council provisionally arranged for 28 November 2017 would now not be needed as all business in the agenda for this meeting had been dealt with and that therefore the next meeting of the Council would be held on 23 January 2018.