Agenda and minutes

To receive any announcements.

The Chairman welcomed the press and public to the meeting and reminded Members that the meeting was being webcast and that they should remain seated when speaking.  He also welcomed the young people who were present for the early part of the meeting, who had spent the day touring the District and viewing some of the Council’s facilities.

He referred to the recent by-election in Sawbridgeworth ward and welcomed Councillor E Buckmaster to his first Council meeting.  He also referred to Councillor D A A Peek’s illness and expressed the Council’s best wishes to him.

The Chairman congratulated Councillors R Beeching and P Grethe and former Councillor B Engel for their recognition in the New Years Honours list.

Prior to the meeting, the Chairman had conducted a draw for two Members to attend this year’s Royal Garden Party.  He advised that Councillors S Rutland-Barsby and N Wilson had been drawn to represent the Authority.

The Chairman highlighted a number of his recent engagements and concluded by reminding Members that he would welcome their support for his Civic Dinner on 12 March 2011.

To approve as a correct record and authorise the Chairman to sign the Minutes of the Council meetings held on 8 December 2010.

In respect of Minute 434 and the statement of the Executive Member for Planning Policy and Transport, Councillor Mrs M H Goldspink commented that the Executive Member had since apologised to her, but she wished to make a statement. 

She clarified the comments she had made to the local press in relation to the consultation on the Traffic Regulation Order and the market in Bishop’s Stortford, which she maintained had been unbiased and factual and were not a criticism of any Officers.  She could not be held responsible for the way her comments had been reported and the interpretation given in the local press. 

RESOLVED – that the Minutes of the Council meeting held on 8 December 2010 and the Extraordinary meeting held on 8 December 2010, be approved as correct records and signed by the Chairman.

To receive any petitions.

Mr D Annetts had submitted the following petition, comprising 72 signatures:

“We the undersigned do not support the proposals that have been put forward for the development of Vantorts Park. We do not consider that the proposed developments are good value for the scarce resources available or fit in with the nature of the park. In particular having a skate boarding area is unsuitable in this park. It will cause increased noise and also increase the chance of unsocial behaviour occurring. If a skate park is needed then Vantorts Park must be one of the most inappropriate locations being so close to residential property.

Our proposal take into account that Vantorts Park is an enclosed green space surrounded by houses with old and vulnerable people living on the South side. Vantorts Park is difficult to police due to its confined and generally concealed situation. It is important to avoid any development that is likely to increase noise and anti social behaviour. We consider that with the current tight financial climate it is likely that resources to police the park may be reduced in the future. The option that we would like to see developed is as follows:

1. Improve the children’s play area with the introduction of new equipment.

2. Keep both tennis courts. We know that there is significant demand for publically provided tennis courts and that a limited amount of money should be spent on their improvement. It might be worth considering if one of the courts should be marked out for short tennis and that area could also have basketball/netball posts.

3. The proposal for the football area is generally acceptable.

4. Introduction of signs to assist with the enforcement of action against unsociable behaviour.”

Mr Annetts referred to the correspondence he had passed to Members and outlined the recent history of Vantorts Park and the local concerns over anti-social behaviour.  He referred to elements of the latest proposals which he believed were supported by local residents, namely, the children’s play area and the football area.

He expressed concern over the proposals for the tennis courts and the introduction of a skate park.  He believed there was strong local support for the tennis courts to be retained, as they were a popular and valuable public facility.  In respect of the skate park, he commented that there was opposition on the basis of likely increased noise and anti social behaviour.  The proposed location was unsuitable and if there was support for a skate park, alternative sites did exist.

On behalf of the Executive Member for Community Development, Leisure and Culture, the Leader responded by thanking Mr Annetts for the petition.  He commented that it was always helpful to receive the concerns of residents, whose views were taken seriously by the Council.  The Leader reminded Council that a consultation exercise was underway and that this petition had been submitted in response.  He assured the petitioners that their concerns would be included when the consultation was completed.

Councillors  ...  view the full minutes text for item 566.

To receive any Members' questions.

Councillor A M Graham asked the Leader of the Council if he advocated the “Big Society” and, if so, he could enlighten the Council on what it meant in terms of this Council’s priorities.

The Leader responded by stating that he did support the “Big Society” as it facilitated opportunities for residents to contribute to their communities.  There was not a “one size fits all” and that different areas would define for themselves what worked best for them.  He believed East Herts Council had been doing this for many years and that the only new thing was the label itself.  He gave examples of such activity, such as at Ware Drill Hall, the Rhodes Arts Complex, summer playschemes and the campaigns to fight post office closures.  These helped to demonstrate the Council’s priorities to “leading the way and working together” in providing community leadership and to take “pride in East Herts”.

Councillor A M Graham asked the Executive Member for Planning Policy and Transport, in respect of the latest unemployment gloom in which the young, i.e.16-24 year olds have been worst hit, in what ways was the Council addressing positively the support it gives to this age group.

The Executive Member for Planning Policy and Transport referred to the Council’s engagement of two apprentices and to the ongoing dialogue with Job Centre Plus and LSP partners.  He stated that the Council was working closely with Hertford Regional College and local businesses in looking to create further apprenticeships by obtaining funding support in the business sector.  He emphasised that the Council was being proactive despite the difficult economic climate.

In response to a supplementary question, the Executive Member agreed that the Council would actively pursue all opportunities for young people, including voluntary work experience activities, where the young could develop learning skills.

Councillor V Shaw understood that Ware Town Councillors had now successfully persuaded East Herts Council to provide funding, not only for Tudor Square, but also for further projects in the town.  She asked the Executive Member for Planning Policy and Transport when this was agreed, what the further projects were, and how they had answered the questions as set out in the Executive Member’s letter to Ware Town Council on 7 September.

In reply, the Executive Member for Planning Policy and Transport stated that the question contained factual errors.  There had been an exchange of correspondence in which Ware Town Council had been given clarification, but there had been no discussion since.

Councillor V Shaw asked a supplementary question on why therefore, the local Conservatives had issued a leaflet stating that the Council had provided funding.  In reply, the Executive Member stated that he could not comment on this.

Councillor V Shaw referred to funds in the region of £400,000 that had been provided to the Drill Hall in Ware in the past few years.  She asked the Leader of the Council how this sum had been spent, when there appeared to be very little material  ...  view the full minutes text for item 567.

To receive a report from the Leader of the Council, and where necessary, approve the recommendations of the Executive meetings held on:

The Leader reported on the work of the Executive and presented the Minutes of the Executive meetings held on 11 January and 8 February 2011.

In respect of Minutes 531 – 535, which were all items relating to the Council’s budget, the Executive Member for Resources and Internal Services gave a presentation.

The Executive Member referred to this being the last budget to be set by this Council before elections in 2011 and so took the opportunity to provide an overview of the four years since the last elections.  He referred to the transformation of the Council and reminded Members of the key budgetary objectives that had been set in 2007.  He highlighted the major achievements, such as recycling, leisure and cultural investments and reducing the net cost of services.  The Executive Member concluded by referring to the proposed council tax increase of 0% in 2011/12 and the undertaking to repeat this in 2012/13.

Councillor M Wood responded by referring to the national picture where many job losses had been reported and estimated from the budget proposals, that up to eight posts in could be made redundant.  He questioned whether the full impact of the C3W programme, which was due to be completed in 2011, had been assessed sufficiently.  He believed that some of the proposed cuts, such as leaf clearance and weed control were unnecessary and could have been avoided by using reserves.  Whilst supporting the freezing of council tax, he opposed the budget proposals because of what was in the detail.

Councillor K A Barnes supported Councillor M Wood’s comments.

In respect of Minute 535 – Consolidated Budget Report: Probable Outturn 2010/11: Revenue Budget 2011/12: Medium Term Financial Plan 2011/12 – 2014/15, Councillor A M Graham proposed, and Councillor Mrs M H Goldspink seconded, an amendment to recommendation (C) to the effect that savings relating to community and cultural elements totalling £121k be deleted and that budgets for leaf clearance (£14k) and weed control (£10k) be reinstated resulting in an increasing contribution from the General Reserve to £197k.

Councillor A M Graham spoke on the impact of the cuts for the vulnerable in society and suggested that in the current economic climate, such support needed to be increased and not reduced.  He referred to the Council’s level of Reserves and reminded Members that these belonged to the council taxpayer.  He believed that using 1% of them to reduce the impact of savings was sustainable in the short and medium term.  He referred to his many years on the Council and the work undertaken during that time to develop partnerships and pleaded for the Council not to undo that investment in one go.

Councillor Mrs M H Goldspink referred to the Council’s priorities and questioned how these would be met by reducing community grants.  She acknowledged the need for prudence and supported the freezing of council tax, but stated her belief that such savings could me avoided by utilising the Council’s large level of Reserves.  She referred to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 568.

To receive, and where necessary approve, the Minutes of the following Committees:

Chairman: Councillor W Ashley

RESOLVED – that the Minutes of the Development Control Committee meeting held on 15 December 2010, be received.

Chairman: Councillor D A A Peek

RESOLVED – that the Minutes of the Human Resources Committee meeting held on 12 January 2011, be received.

Chairman: Councillor W Ashley

RESOLVED – that the Minutes of the Development Control Committee meeting held on 12 January 2011, be received.

Chairman: Councillor D Andrews

RESOLVED – that the Minutes of the joint meeting of Scrutiny Committees held on 18 January 2011, be received.

Chairman: Councillor J O Ranger

RESOLVED – that the Minutes of the Audit Committee meeting held on 19 January 2011, be received.

Chairman: Councillor C Woodward

RESOLVED – that the Minutes of the Community Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 25 January 2011, be received.

RESOLVED – that the Minutes of the Development Control Committee meeting held on 9 February 2011, be received.

RESOLVED – that the Minutes of the joint meeting of Scrutiny Committees held on 15 February 2011, be received.

To receive a report of the Monitoring Officer.

The Monitoring Officer submitted a report proposing amendments to the Constitution and drew attention to some typographical errors, which he corrected.

Councillor E Buckmaster opposed the proposal for Members’ questions to not be read out, on the basis that it would disadvantage the public watching the webcast.  He believed that the proposed change on supplementary questions detailed at paragraph 4.1.3 of the report, was unnecessary as the Chairman had this right in any case. 

In response to a question from Councillor E Buckmaster, the Director of Internal Services confirmed that the establishment and application of earmarked reserves would still be subject to approval by Council.

Councillor Mrs M H Goldspink proposed, and Councillor V Shaw, seconded an amendment to the effect that the proposed amendments be approved, subject to deleting the proposed changes detailed at paragraphs 4.1.2 and 5.1.1.

Councillor Mrs M H Goldspink echoed the comments of Councillor E Buckmaster in respect of Members’ questions and believed that approving this change would be a disservice to the public.  In respect of the scrutiny process, she believed that the proposed change would hamper the opportunity for Members to contribute to the decision-making process if items were not submitted to scrutiny.

Councillor V Shaw supported the amendments and referred to the need for transparency in the Council’s decision-making processes.

Various Members agreed that the proposed change at paragraph 4.1.2 relating to Members’ questions not being read out should be deleted.  After being put to the meeting, and a vote taken, this element of the amendment was declared CARRIED.

In respect of the amendment relating to scrutiny, a number of Members commented on its meaning and impact on the work of scrutiny.  After being put to the meeting, and a vote taken, this element of the amendment was declared LOST.

Councillor J O Ranger moved, and Councillor A Burlton seconded, an amendment that the proposed changes at paragraph 5.1 of the report, be deferred for clarification by Officers until the next meeting of Council.  After being put to the meeting, and a vote taken, this amendment was declared CARRIED.

Council approved the recommendations as now amended.

RESOLVED - that the amendments to the Constitution, as now submitted, be approved, subject to:

(A)      deleting the proposed changes at paragraph 4.1.2 of the report submitted; and

(B)      deferring the proposed changes at paragraph 5.1 to the next Council meeting, pending further clarification.

Council considered a report detailing the recommendations of the Council’s Independent Remuneration Panel (IRP) following its review of Members’ Allowances.

The Head of Democratic and Legal Support Services stated that the Panel’s report referred to the Chief Executive’s comments on the time and commitment of the Leader being perhaps more comparable to that of the Leader in a unitary council because of the local expectations of the role.  The report interpreted these comments as indicating support for the benchmark for allowances being that of unitary councils.  He advised that the Chief Executive had pointed out that this was not the intention.

The Head of Democratic and Legal Support Services also referred to Appendix 1 setting out the recommended Allowances and advised that the list had omitted the Chairman of Health Engagement Panel at £2,373.

The Leader commented that his Group would be accepting the IRP’s recommendations with a couple of minor amendments.  In doing so, he suggested the Panel be asked to take on board the following comments.  He suggested that the same Panel should be invited to review Allowances in 2011/12 in order that it could start its work earlier, as even by its own admission, there had been insufficient time to consider some aspects fully.  He also suggested that the Panel should be requested to include a mechanism in the review process for Members to seek clarity on its draft findings.  Finally, he also sought clarity on the issue of benchmarking and the need to go beyond the headline figures.

The Leader proposed, and the Deputy Leader seconded, that the IRP’s recommendations be approved, subject to Special Responsibility Allowance (SRA) for Development Control Committee members being payable to all of its members regardless of whether they were in receipt of another SRA.  Also, that the SRA for leaders of minority groups be set at a multiple of 0.1 of the Basic Allowance multiplied by the number of members within the group.  Finally, that the changes take effect from the start of the next civic year (i.e. the date of the Annual Council meeting – 18 May 2011) and not 1 April 2011 (with the existing allowance scheme being retained for the period 1 April to Annual Council Meeting date).

The Leader commented that he did not believe that the IRP intended to introduce a mileage allowance for development control site visits that could only be claimed by some members.  He suggested that it would be inequitable for a minority group leader of perhaps 3 Members to receive the same level of SRA as a minority group leader of perhaps 21 Members. 

Councillor M Wood supported these proposals and thanked the IRP for their work in such a short space of time.  He believed there were still many areas of unfinished work and hoped that the IRP might look at escalating petrol costs when considering mileage allowances in the next review.

Councillor M Newman opposed the Leader’s proposal in respect of the SRA for minority group leaders as he  ...  view the full minutes text for item 571.

The Chairman has agreed to accept this item onto the agenda as an urgent matter in order to avoid delay in the appointment of Members to committees.

The Head of Democratic and Legal Support Services submitted a report reviewing the allocation of seats to political groups following the recent by-election in Sawbridgeworth ward.  He advised that notification had been received that Councillor E Buckmaster had joined the Group of Independents.  As a consequence of this, the proposed allocation of seats was detailed in the report now submitted. 

Council noted that the Group of Independents had nominated Councillor E Buckmaster to serve on Community Scrutiny Committee.  All other places remained unchanged.

RESOLVED – that (A) the allocation of seats be as set out in the report now submitted, and

(B)   the membership of Scrutiny Committees, Regulatory Committees be as now detailed, with Members being appointed in accordance with the wishes of the political groups to whom the seats on these bodies have been allocated.