Agenda item

To consider and agree amendments to the Council’s Constitution.  

79.1           The report of the Head of Democratic Services, circulated at Pages No. 32-479, sought to agree a revised Constitution which took account of Council decisions, new/revised legislation, operational changes, current Council practice and the simplification of wording. The report drew attention to the main changes as well as a number of additions to the Scheme of Delegation.

79.2           The Head of Democratic Services explained that the Council’s Constitution was a very important document in terms of the way the Council conducted its business. All Constitutions were based on statutory guidance contained within the Local Government Act 2000 and the last major update of the Council’s Constitution had been in 2009 so a review was needed. The Democratic Services Team had worked together to review the document page by page and there were several items highlighted within the report for amendment/deletion.

79.3           Particular attention was drawn to the Housing Allocation and Homelessness Review Committee which it was considered was no longer required. The Committee had been set up before the current statutory process was put into place and was now an unnecessary secondary review which was time consuming for both Members and Officers. The Standards Committee was likely to change in the future following the results of the recent consultation undertaken by the Committee for Standards in Public Life but, for now, it was suggested that the membership be amended to require one non-voting Parish representative rather than two. In terms of the Tree Panel, the current arrangements were not open and accountable and, since the Planning Scheme of Delegation had been amended and the Planning Committee no longer made the decisions on Tree Preservation Orders, it was felt that the appeal mechanism should rest with the Planning Committee rather than with a Tree Panel. In recent years, the Audit Committee had taken on more of a governance role and the name of the Committee and Terms of Reference had been amended to reflect the importance of that role – it was also suggested that an increase in the membership from seven to nine would be helpful. The Terms of Reference of the Employee Appointments Committee had been amended to take account of new legislation and it had been renamed the Employee Appointments/Disciplinary Committee.

79.4           There was a decision to be made in respect of the Petitions Scheme; as the legislation that had introduced it had now been abolished, and there was therefore no requirement for the Council to have one, it was suggested that the thresholds for requiring a Council debate or a Senior Officer giving evidence at a public meeting be increased from 100 to 800 and 400 respectively in line with the initial guidance. It was felt that the Petitions Scheme was a good tool for gaining peoples’ views and, as such, it should remain in place but, as any petitions of under 800 signatories could still be submitted for consideration by Officers and put through the Committee cycle as appropriate, it was suggested that an increase in the threshold could be considered. In addition, the legislation which had introduced the ‘Councillor Calls for Action’ process had been abolished so there was no longer a requirement for the Council to have this cumbersome and unnecessary procedure in place. As there were far easier ways for Councillors to raise matters of concern, it was suggested the procedure be removed from the Constitution.

79.5           In terms of the Scheme of Delegation, the Contract Procedure Rules had been updated and an additional delegation was requested for the Borough Solicitor to be able to make any changes required as a result of the country’s withdrawal from the European Union (EU). In addition, the Scheme had been restructured to make it clearer and to include an overall delegation for the Corporate Leadership Team to take on any delegations in place of the relevant Officers if necessary. There were also three additional delegations suggested for consideration: firstly, in respect of a possible amendment to planning safeguard 5ii to include applications submitted by Town and Parish Councils; secondly, whether to include a delegation to the Head of Finance and Asset Management to approve adverse possession claims where i) the area of land was less than 200sqm; and ii) there was no strong evidence rebutting the applicant’s claim; and iii) the Head of Finance and Asset Management considered that the land was not of strategic importance to the Council; and thirdly, whether to amend the current delegation to the Head of Finance and Asset Management to allow write-offs and virements to be approved up to a maximum of £20,000 rather than £10,000. Members were also asked for their continued support for a delegation to the Borough Solicitor to keep the Constitution under regular review with any amendments such as spelling, grammar, typographical and formatting changes that did not affect the substantive content, and any decisions made by the Council that would affect the Constitution, being made and notified to all Members. In addition, with such a fundamental change to the format of the Scheme of Delegation, together with legislative changes and previous Council decisions, it was possible that further changes may be necessary and, in those circumstances, it was proposed that they be implemented in consultation with the Lead Member for Corporate Governance; obviously any new delegations would be brought to Members in the normal way.

79.6           A Member referred to Page No. 157 and questioned why the delegation to ‘decide future applications from staff to continue working beyond normal retirement age’ had been deleted. In response, the Head of Democratic Services explained that employees now had the right to work beyond legal retirement age so there was no need for a formal delegation.

79.7           A Member proposed, and it was seconded, that the recommendations on the report be accepted including the petitions scheme threshold changing from 100 to 800 for a Council debate and to 400 for a Senior Officer giving evidence; and planning safeguard 5ii not being amended. During the discussion which ensued, a number of Members felt that the thresholds in the Petitions Scheme were correct at 100 and that they would not like to see them increased. It was considered that, for the smaller villages in the Borough, 100 signatories was actually quite hard to get so 800 would be impossible. Another Member agreed with that view and felt that, as the scheme had not been particularly onerous to date, it did not seem necessary to increase the numbers. The original proposer explained his reasoning for a higher threshold was that 100 was low and could be used frivolously by members of the public; he expressed the view that this was not the only way the public could raise issues with the Council and, as such, a higher threshold than 100 would provide a safeguard. It was suggested that, if the threshold remained at 100, it could be kept under review and if a large number of petitions were received the position could be reconsidered. Another Member expressed the view that the scheme was fine in its current form as it offered an excellent way for the public to engage with the Council and had not been used overwhelmingly to date. Having been proposed and seconded, the motion that the Petitions Scheme threshold be increased to 800 for a Council debate and 400 for a Senior Officer to give evidence was put to the vote and, with three votes for, was lost. Accordingly, the thresholds in the Petitions Scheme would remain at 100.

79.8           In respect of the possible amendment of planning safeguard 5ii to include Town and Parish Councils, a Member expressed the view that Town and Parish Councils should have an automatic right to have their applications debated by the Planning Committee. The Member who had already proposed that the amendment should not be made expressed the view that, currently, Town and Parish Councils had the choice when they made a planning application that it could either be delegated or decided by the Planning Committee whereas the amendment to the safeguard would mean it would have to be considered by the Committee; he was of the view that such applications should be delegated where appropriate just as applications from residents were. Having been proposed and seconded it was agreed that this amendment should not be made.

79.9           Referring to the remaining delegations at 3ii and 3iii of the recommendations contained within the report, a Member proposed that they should be included in the Scheme of Delegation.

79.10         Accordingly, it was

                  RESOLVED          1.   That the Constitution be ADOPTED, as attached to the                                      report at Appendix 1, including the changes suggested in                                        Paragraphs 2.1-2.8 and 2.10-2.14.

2.   That the number of signatories to a petition under the Council’s Petitions Scheme remain at 100 for both a Council debate and a Senior Officer giving evidence at an Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

3.   That authority be delegated to the Borough Solicitor to undertake further necessary changes to the Contract Procedure Rules as a result of the country’s withdrawal from the European Union.

4.   That authority be delegated to the Head of Finance and Asset Management to APPROVE adverse possession claims where:

i.    the area of land is less than 200sqm; and

ii.   there is no strong evidence rebutting the applicant’s claim; and

iii.  the Head of Finance and Asset Management considers that the land is not of strategic importance to the Council.

5.   That authority be delegated to the Head of Finance and Asset Management to allow write-offs and virements to be approved up to a maximum of £20,000 rather than £10,000.

6.   That the arrangement for ensuring the Constitution is kept up-to-date, as set out in Paragraph 3 of the report, be APPROVED.