Agenda and minutes

To receive Declarations of Interest from Members on items included in the agenda

Councillor White declared an interest with regard to agenda item 5. Councillor White had signed the call-in form and therefore could not participate nor vote during agenda item 5.

There were no apologies received.

To consider the minutes of the previous meeting of this Committee held on 12 June 2012.

The minutes of the meeting held on 12 June 2012 were agreed as a correct record.

Members were informed by the Chair that the Budget training requested at the last committee meeting had been scheduled for 13 September 2012. Members were asked to note this date.

There was a brief update on Performance Management by the Council’s Head of Business Improvements and Partnerships. The Committee were informed that a report went to Cabinet on 18 July 2012 and the new performance framework had been approved. The Budget Performance Monitoring Report for 2012/13 First Quarter would be received by the committee in September and would be a new style report based on the new framework.  

RESOLVED:           (a) That the information be received.

(b) That the minutes of the meeting held on 12 June 2012 be agreed as a correct record.

Following agreement with the Chair to consider a call-in request submitted on Monday 23^rd July 2012 regarding two Cabinet decisions made at the meeting held on Wednesday 18^th July 2012:

item 6. surplus land – proposed newcastle development programme disposals

item 7.site allocations and policies development plan document – draft issues and options consultation paper.

Urgent business had been called to consider a call-in request submitted on Monday 23^rd July 2012 to review the decisions of Cabinet made at its meeting on 18th July 2012, in relation to the proposed Newcastle Development Programme Disposals and the Site Allocations and Policies Development Plan Document (agenda items 6 and 7).

The Chair clarified the procedure for the consideration of the call-in at the meeting, as set out in section 1 of the report on the agenda. It was clarified to the Committee that there were three options they could consider:

(a) Reject the call-in and note the original decision. The decision would take effect on the date of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

(b) Accept the proposal set out in the call-in form and refer back to Cabinet with any comments they wished to make. The Cabinet would then reconsider at the next scheduled Cabinet meeting, amending the decision or not before adopting the final decision.

(c) Accept the proposal set out on the call-in form and refer the matter to Full Council if the decision was deemed to be outside the budget and policy framework.

The lead call-in member gave their explanation of the reasons for the call-in and justification for the proposal set out on the call-in form. A hand-out with excerpts from various sources was distributed, which was referred to by the lead call-in member. It was asserted that the call-in members were not saying the seven sites in question should be developed and nor did the Newcastle Development Programme conclude that the seven sites should not be developed. There was a local need due to local population growth. It was felt that the process was flawed at the beginning and the decision itself was undemocratic. There would be unfair pressure on other sites if the seven sites were excluded now. There had already been representations from Madeley and Audley opposing the Cabinet’s decision.

The Portfolio Holder for Regeneration, Planning and Town Centres Development was unable to attend and sent their apologies. The Leader of the Council gave their explanation of the decision taken and their views on the alternative. The six call-in members were thanked for the robust scrutiny the call-in had created. It was felt that the decision was democratic and this had been part of the party manifesto. There had been a number of recommendations from the NDP Scrutiny Task and Finish Group, of which recommendation no. 10 regarding consultation could be misleading by referring to ‘all’ development sites. Not ‘all’ development sites would be considered, only those that were suitable for housing development. The consultation process for the Site Allocations and Policies Local Plan would not prohibit comment on the seven sites. With regard to being open and transparent, the seven sites had been the most scrutinised pieces of land that the Council owned and the scrutiny for these sites had been one of the most robust scrutiny processes ever conducted at the Council. Sites could be added  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

The Committee considered a report regarding the Staffing Committee that had been agreed in principle by Full Council on 11 July 2012. The report sought the views of the Committee in order to inform the Leader and the Chair of Transformation and Resources to finalise the details of the Committee.

It was felt that as accountable Members, Members should be making decisions. It was not intended to take away day-to-day functions from officers. The Employees Consultative Committee would remain unchanged except that reports would be received by the Staffing Committee and not the Executive Management Team.

The functions of the Committee were listed under section 2.6.1 of the report. This list was not exhaustive and it was felt that members of the Committee had the expertise to embellish the list. The list under section 2.6.1 stressed the range of policies to be reviewed.

Some Members did not agree with the decision to have a Staffing Committee and questioned the lack of scrutiny on the matter.

Members questioned whether the Staffing Committee would convene after training had been undertaken, how long this training would take, who would conduct the training and in what form the training would be. It was questioned whether the Council could be open to a legal challenge if the Staffing Committee was set up and operational without training. This question related in particular to section 2.6.3 of the report. If policies were to be amended then this would be quasi-judicial and training would be required. It was confirmed that there would always be a solicitor present at meetings and that training could be provided by West Midlands Councils which already provided training at councils with Staffing Committees. It was confirmed that this training would be free of charge through the annual subscription the Council paid to West Midlands Councils.

Members questioned point 9.1 of the report that ‘it is intended to meet the needs of this Committee out of existing resources’. They questioned whether there was risk associated with this and if a formal risk assessment was required. It was still considered that the Staffing Committee’s needs would be met from existing resources but the point regarding a risk assessment would be taken on board.

The Chair asked the Committee for further comments with regard to the in principle decision to have six Members on the Staffing Committee and questioned what the frequency of the meetings should be. The Leader confirmed that they would be happy to look at the number of Members on the Committee and there could be negotiation as it was an in principle decision. With regard to the frequency of the Committee meetings, these are set down in the constitution, but had not been agreed for the new committee and would be discussed by the Transformation and Resources Scrutiny Committee. Members questioned what the frequency of the Employees Consultative Committee was. It was confirmed the Committee met quarterly and Members felt it would be appropriate for the Staffing Committee to mirror the ECC  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.