Agenda item

The Portfolio Holder for Communications, Policy and Partnerships will give a statement on his priorities and work objectives for the next six months. The Committee will have the opportunity to ask questions following the statement. There will be an opportunity for the Portfolio Holder to flag up areas within their remit that may benefit from scrutiny in the future e.g. policy development.

The Chair stated that Cllr Snell had circulated a written report regarding his Portfolio prior to the meeting. 

Cllr Snell stated that he wished to add some further information to the written document which had been circulated regarding his Portfolio.  He was responsible for Central Services which covered Legal and Democratic Services.  The possibility of a shared services arrangement covering Legal Services with the County Council had been explored but ruled out due to there not being significant savings.  The intention was for the Borough Council’s Legal Department to always be slightly under resourced and then solicitors to be paid for from the County Council as and when required to take case work.  This was a model which the County Council were also in agreement with. 

Mark Bailey would be taking on the position of Head of Central Services permanently.  Democratic Services were working hard implementing some of the recommendations from the Peer Review and through the Member Development Panel.  Within Elections considerable work was taking place on individual electoral registration which was a legal requirement from 2015. 

Cllr Howells had submitted the following question in advance of the meeting, ‘Does Cllr Snell have the agreed minutes from SCC to show that they, not NULBC have been responsible for the delay in pulling down the Sainsburys building, as he alleged at Full Council.  I am informed it was understood at Full Council that he said he was going to publish them when responding in debate to Cllr Mark Holland.’

In response to the question, Cllr Snell stated that he was currently collating all the relevant information which included email correspondence as well as minutes, these would be published to Members in the near future. 

A Member asked why the Council was using Windows 7 rather than Open Office.  In response Cllr Snell stated that there were issues with compatibility with certain specialist software.  He was however not against the idea but making it work in practice was more challenging. 

Cllr David Becket had submitted the following question in advance of the meeting, ‘Most of the LAPs in non parished areas are successful, but the success in the areas with Parish Councils is mixed.  Where there is a Parish Council part of the work that LAPs might do is undertaken by the Parish Council.  Many Parish Councils are suspicious of LAPs.  The Parish Council is a democratically elected body, with true accountability.  They view the LAP as an unaccountable body with no legitimate democratic mandate.  Some Parish Councils do not attend LAP meetings, usually they have attended in the past and seen little value.  Can the Borough Council take any steps to resolve this?’

Cllr Snell in response stated that it was true in some parishes that some Councils refused to engage.  The Borough Council was looking at how LAPs were working overall.  He promised to give a full written response to Cllr Becket’s question.

A Member asked if the Council was going to consider further partnership work with other Councils.   Cllr Snell responded that this was the case and there were a number of areas being considered. 

A Member stated that the relationship with the Borough Council and Parish Councils on the matter of planning was important.  It was important for the Borough Council to consider village plans and design statements when making decisions on planning matters.  It was important for the credibility of the Council.  Cllr Snell agreed that it was important for them to be taken into account and he would feedback the comment to the relevant portfolio holder.