Skip to: Navigation | Main Content | Additional Content

Quick Links


Agenda and minutes

Venue: Council Chamber, Council Offices, St. Peter's Hill, Grantham

Contact: Lena Shuttlewood Tel: 01476 406119  e-mail  l.shuttlewood@skdc.com

Items
No. Item

50.

By-Election: Greyfriars Ward, Grantham

Minutes:

The Chairman congratulated Councillor Ian Stokes on being elected Councillor for the Greyfriars ward in Grantham at the by-election held on 21st October 2004.  Councillor Stokes was welcomed to the Council meeting.

51.

Chairman's Charity: Cheque Presentation

Minutes:

Before the commencement of the public open forum, there was a brief presentation of a cheque in the sum of £2,000 by the immediate past Chairman, Councillor Mrs Pam Bosworth to Daphne Oxford of the Motor Neurone Disease Association.  The MNDA was one of Councillor Mrs Bosworth’s nominated charities during her year of office which she had chosen because the late Councillor Mrs Ann Hill had suffered from the disease.

52.

Public Open Forum

The public open forum will commence at 2.00 p.m. and the following formal business of the Council will commence at 2.30 p.m. or whenever the public open forum ends, if earlier.

Minutes:

(2.08 p.m. – 2.12 p.m.)

 

              Prior notice in accordance with Council Procedure rule 10.3 had been given of the following questions put by members of the public:-

 

 

Question:  Mrs M. Patrick, 119 Essex Road, Stamford

 

To Councillor Linda Neal, Leader:-

Mrs. Neal, could you please tell me why the vulnerable people and the elderly are being targeted and their vouchers are being taken away from them once more and why the age discrimination?

 

Response: Councillor Mrs Linda Neal

 

Thank you for your question Mrs Patrick.  Through the Council’s rigorous prioritisation process involving all sectors of the community, travel vouchers were not deemed to be a high priority.  The message has always been loud and clear that when setting priorities there will always have to be non priorities.  Age discrimination is implicit in the whole scheme as it is at present.  Our new proposals attempt to target the most vulnerable.

 

Supplementary Question: Mrs Patrick

 

Mrs Neal, I don’t object to people having vouchers at 65 but I do object to you making people wait until 70 when they are nearly ready for their coffins and that is not good.  You are taking pennies away.  The Councillors here will next year have their rises and they will also have their rises in expenses.  Let the people have them at 65, the proper age for when they retire.  I have no objection to 60 to 65 going – but when they are going into their coffins, I don’t think it is fair.  All you Councillors here should be ashamed of yourself – every one.  I’m sorry for that Mrs Neal, but I do think 65 would be a much more acceptable for the elderly and vulnerable of South Kesteven.  I talk on behalf of all South Kesteven as you know I am passionate about elderly people and vulnerable people of whatever age.  I think that at 65 when they have done a lifetime’s work.  I know it is concessionary what you are doing – and I thank you for the concessions – but I think that 65 would be far more acceptable.

 

Response: Councillor Mrs Linda Neal

 

I note the comments that Mrs Patrick has made, however she will hear if she is still here later, that there is a misprint in the paper and the Chief Executive will be informing us that the 65 should read 60.

 

Question:  Rosie Maclennan, 19 Ryhall Road, Stamford

To Councillor Linda Neal, Leader:-

When funding organisations with public money does your contract to these organisations include a regular audit (most funders do this on a quarterly basis) which will be conducted in order to monitor individual progress and quality of service to include the following:

Outputs

Milestones

Delivery

Professional standards

Community Feedback

 

Response: Councillor Mrs Linda Neal

Yes, when the funds are significant.

 

Supplementary question:  Rosie Maclennan

Do you feel that if a specific audit was in place, South Kesteven would benefit from a more supportive role towards the organisations that they fund, and therefore both  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

53.

Apologies for Absence

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Helyar, Fereshteh Hurst, Kerr, Waterhouse, Avril Williams, Wood, and Mrs Woods.

54.

Declarations of Interest

Members are asked to declare any interests in matters for consideration at the meeting.

Minutes:

There were no declarations of interest made.

55.

Minutes

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 2nd September 2004 were confirmed as a correct record, subject to the following amendment:

 

Page 50, 4th paragraph:  “In response to a comment that Grantham was not represented on the Cabinet ..”

 

Councillors Mrs Jalili and O’Hare raised points in relation to pages 52 and 54 but the Chairman ruled that these were matters arising and the purpose of the agenda item was only to confirm or otherwise the accuracy of the minutes as a record of the meeting.

 

Councillors Bisnauthsing, Mrs Jalili and O’Hare requested that their votes against the acceptance of the minutes be recorded.

56.

Communications

Minutes:

The schedule of Chairman’s and Vice-Chairman’s civic engagements from 28th August to 24th October 2004, previously circulated with the agenda was noted.

 

The Chief Executive advised he had written to the Local Government Association in accordance with Councillor Wilks’ successful motion at the last meeting.  He had been promised a response in time for this meeting, however the response was still awaited and he hoped to be in a position to report this to the next ordinary meeting of the Council.

57.

Order of Agenda

Minutes:

The Chairman advised the meeting, that following his briefing meeting with officers, he intended to now take item 8 on the agenda, Completing the Prioritisation Process.  This would then be followed by item 6, Citizens Advice Bureau Funding.

58.

Completing the Prioritisation Process

Report number CEX257 by the Chief Executive.                 (Enclosure)

 

The Cabinet to recommend that the Council approves the following aspects of the report:

 

A.      The weighting, assessment and scoring of all Council services as set out in paragraphs 3.1 and 3.5.

B.      The resultant classification of services into priority categories as set out in paragraphs 3.5 and 3.8, with the amendment that car parks and public toilets move from Category Y up to a Category B.

C.      All targets and service standards as detailed in the table in paragraph 5, with the amendment that for car parks reference is made to the provision of a new multi-storey facility in Grantham.

Minutes:

DECISION:

 

(1)  That in accordance with the recommendation of the Cabinet, the Council approves the following aspects of report CEX235:

 

A.  The weighting, assessment and scoring of all Council services as set out in paragraphs 3.1 and 3.5.

B.  The resultant classification of services into priority categories as set out in paragraphs 3.5 and 3.8, with the amendment that car parks and public toilets move from Category Y to Category B.

C.          All targets and service standards as detailed in the table in paragraph 5, with the amendment that for car-parks reference is made to the provision of a new multi-storey facility in Grantham.

 

(2)  That as described in 7.3 of report CEX235, in the preparation of the budget for 2005/6 and beyond, a target of £700,000 be set for investment in priority areas, comprising £500,000 from non-priority services and £200,000 from efficiency savings. The savings in non-priority areas to be realised from the services identified in Schedule 1 of part 6 to this report.

 

Members had before them the Chief Executive’s covering report number CEX257 appended to which was his earlier report to the Cabinet on 12th July (CEX235).  He explained that the Cabinet had agreed the contents of report CEX235 as a consultative draft on the completion of the prioritisation process. He highlighted a typographical error in the paper on page 5 of report CEX257 under the service item Travel Vouchers.  This should read: “Restrict eligibility to over 70 for new applicants, protecting existing recipients aged over 60.  The implementation date for this should also read from 01/01/06. 

 

The issues had now been fully considered at each of the Council’s six Local Area Assemblies and by each of the Development and Scrutiny Panels.  The Cabinet had accordingly proposed that the Council now approves its recommendations to effect the completion of this process.  The recommendations contained in report CEX257 were moved and seconded.

 

Whilst supporting the outcome of the prioritisation process and the means by which the priorities were derived, concern was expressed that if the Council did not finance services at an adequate level the expectations of the public would not be met.  The Council’s approach to concessionary travel tokens was already meagre and the present proposal raised issues about the way the Council financed its services. The point was raised that the Council should balance the cost of services with the level of Council Tax it levied.  Comments were made about the accuracy of the Chief Executive’s summarisation of the outcome of the local area assemblies in relation to support expressed for the priorities.

 

A member then addressed  the meeting about serious concerns he had over the proposal to make savings of £13,000 by reducing the level of archaeological services procured from Lincolnshire Heritage.  This, he stressed, was not a grant to a voluntary body but the purchase of a valuable service which not only helped to preserve important historical features of the district but also served to attract other funding for this vitally  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.

59.

Citizens' Advice Bureau Funding 2005/06

Report number FIN209 by the Chief Executive and the Director of Finance & Strategic Resources previously submitted to the Cabinet on 11th October, the Cabinet’s decision at that meeting, and the notes from the meeting of the Capacity & Resources Development & Scrutiny Panel are circulated with this agenda.                                                                                              (Enclosure)

Minutes:

DECISION:

 

The Council recognises that the last payment has now been made to the Citizens Advice Bureau under the current funding agreement which ends on 31st March 2005.  The Council’s existing budgeted commitment to funding has come to an end.

 

Because of the urgency of the situation from the Citizens Advice Bureau’s point of view and the importance of continuity of service to the community a budgetary decision needs to be made now rather than at the budget meeting in February 2005 – that could be too late for the Citizens Advice Bureau to maintain its service and related commitments.

 

Therefore,

 

(1)  the Council determines a budget of £50,000 for the financial year 2005/2006 for Advice Services in the South Kesteven area;

 

(2)  the determination of any applications within that budget will be a matter for the Cabinet who will need to ensure that outcomes from the Citizens Advice Bureau, or any other service provider are specified and monitored.

 

Members of the Council had previously been circulated with report number FIN209 which had been jointly prepared by the Chief Executive and Director of Finance & Strategic Resources and considered by the Cabinet on 11th October 2004.  The Cabinet had taken into account the recommendation of the Capacity & Resources DSP that the funding request for £135,000 for 2005/06 from the Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) not be accepted.   Since the agenda had been despatched, the Chief Executive had received an e-mail dated 25th October 2004 from the Chairman of South Kesteven CAB confirming the withdrawal of its current £135,000 bid and indicating the intention to submit a new proposal to the Council at its next meeting.

 

In the light of this development, the Leader stated that it was important that the Council recognised that the last payment had now been made to the CAB under the current funding agreement which ended on 31st March 2005.  The Council’s existing budgeted commitment to funding had come to an end.  She went on to advise that because of the urgency of the situation from the CAB’s point of view and the importance of continuity of service to the community, a budgetary decision needed to be made now rather than at the budget meeting in February 2005 as this could be too late for the CAB to maintain its service and related commitments.

 

The Leader moved that the Council determined a budget of £50,000 for 2005/06 for Advice Services in the South Kesteven area.  The determination of any applications within that budget would then be a matter for the Cabinet who would need to ensure that outcomes from the CAB, or any other service provider were specified and monitored.  The motion was seconded.

 

A debate followed during which many members expressed their support for the CAB and the need to retain it services especially as many people nowadays were facing mounting debt crises.  Reference was made to the wealth of support from within the community for the CAB which had become apparent as a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59.

60.

Notices of Motion

(1)  by Councillor Ian Selby

 

“That this Council amends the allocation policy so that it does not pursue a policy of housing young homeless people next to elderly residents and that an alternative housing provision is found instead for the young homeless.

 

Proposed by Councillor Ian Selby, Isaac Newton Ward

Seconded by Councillor Mrs Angeline Percival, Glen Eden Ward”

 

(2)  by Councillor Bob Sandall

 

“The Council supports the motion that no one individual should have the authority to sell any SKDC assets (e.g. land or buildings) without first consulting and taking account of the majority vote from a full Council meeting.  No matter what the value of the asset is.  (This does not apply to Council houses because of the right to buy.)”

Minutes:

(1)  Councillor Ian Selby

 

DECISION: To not support the motion proposed by Councillor Selby.

 

The following motion had been proposed by Councillor Selby:

 

“That this Council amends the allocation policy so that it does not pursue a policy of housing young homeless people next to elderly residents and that an alternative housing provision is found instead for the young homeless.

 

Proposed by Councillor Ian Selby, Isaac Newton Ward

Seconded by Councillor Mrs Angeline Percival, Glen Eden Ward”

 

Councillor Selby stated that he had submitted this motion because urgent action needed to be taken as a result of confrontation and anti-social behaviour created in the community as a result of housing young homeless people next to elderly residents.  He expressed concern for the residents in and around Newton Court, Colsterworth if the Council was going to pursue its policy of putting young people near the elderly.  His concerns were based on the experiences reported to him by other Councillors and elderly residents in other areas.  Whilst acknowledging that not all young people behaved anti-socially, their lifestyles were often incompatible with the needs of the elderly who wished to live in a more tranquil environment.  He suggested that an alternative housing provision should be found for the young homeless and cited as an example the St. Mathew’s housing association which also provided support for these tenants, or through the planning gain process.  Councillor Selby’s motion was met with support from a considerable number of members of the public who had attended the meeting.  The motion was seconded.

 

The Leader sought advice from officers on the legal and financial implications of Councillor Selby’s motion.  The Monitoring Officer stated that his general advice to the Council was that caution should be exercised if it was considering amending its current housing allocation policy on a district wide basis.  The Council had a statutory duty to house the homeless and could not restrict this obligation to housing people of a certain age or in certain places.  Such restrictions imposed upon a statutory duty would be challengeable in Court.  He pointed out that Housing Services already worked within a sensitive housing allocation policy which was part of the Council’s housing responsibilities.  The Director of Finance & Strategic Resources added that if it did not use its own housing stock for those presenting themselves as homeless, the Council would have to turn to the use of bed and breakfast accommodation.  This would be considerably more expensive and housing benefit would only pay a small proportion of these costs.

 

 The motion stimulated considerable debate on the difficult issue of balancing the Council’s legal obligations to the homeless and the welfare of other tenants and residents.  Comments were made on the desirability of integrating different age groups within a community but within a mix of suitable accommodation.  The stereotypical view of a homeless person being a rowdy drug addict was challenged and the point made that during consultation, residents had supported the proposal to de-designate warden controlled accommodation.  It was suggested  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.

61.

Budget 2005/06 and Medium Term Financial Strategy

Report number FIN210 by the Director of Finance & Strategic Resources.

[A presentation will be made to the Council by the Leader and the Director of Finance & Strategic Resources.]

Minutes:

DECISION: That the 2005/06 Budget be developed on:

 

(1) A 6% rise in Council Tax;

(2) Special Expense Areas to breakeven over an 3 year period; and

(3) A target budget requirement of £13,030,000 for 2005/06.

 

The Director of Finance & Strategic Resources referred to his report number FIN210 which had been previously circulated with the agenda. The purpose of the report was to update the Council on the budget development process for 2005/06 and pooled capital receipts.  The Director had appended a copy of his report FIN208, previously submitted to the Cabinet, which outlined the major issues to be taken into account through the budget process.

 

Due to time constraints the Director of Finance & Strategic Resources advised he would make his presentation on the Council’s medium term financial strategy at a later date.  He then outlined the salient points in relation to the progress made in 2004/05 and the issues facing the Council for its 2005/06 budget.  These related to:  the limited expectation of revenue support grant increase; the pressure of capping; the use of reserves; interest receipts; and Gershon efficiency savings (so named after the person appointed to find efficiency savings in Whitehall).

 

As part of the preparation process the Capacity & Resources DSP had made a number of recommendations with regard to the development of the 2005/06 budget which had been taken on board by the Cabinet.  These recommendations were so moved and seconded.

 

 

In accordance with Council Procedure rule 9, as the meeting was nearing being in progress for three hours, the majority of members present voted for the meeting to continue for a further one hour.

62.

Amendments to the Constitution

Minutes from the meeting of the Constitution & Accounts Committee meeting held on 18th October 2004 together with covering report by the Corporate Manager, Democratic & Legal Services (Monitoring Officer).         

Minutes:

DECISION:

 

(1)       That Rule 16 procedure in the Constitution be amended from “seek the agreement of the relevant DSP Chairman” to “notify in writing” the Chairman of the relevant DSP and this be indicated prior to the start of a Cabinet meeting.

 

(2)       That Article 7 of the Council’s Constitution be amended to include the following:

 

            7.7 Consideration of reports from external auditors.  The Cabinet to be responsible for the initial consideration of reports from the Council’s external auditors with pertinent items being forwarded to the relevant Development and Scrutiny Panel.

 

The Leader, in her capacity as Chairman of the Constitution & Accounts Committee proposed amendments to the Constitution put forward by the Committee following its last meeting on 18th October 2004.

 

The legality of sending out a paper on the Committee’s recommendations after the agenda had been despatched was questioned.  The Monitoring Officer stated that the matter appeared as a substantive item on the Council agenda and therefore subsequent circulation of his report DLS6 complied fully with the Access to Information provisions.  Concern was expressed that there was no need to amend the Rule 16 procedure as adequate safeguards in terms of consultation with the Vice Chairman of the DSP, the Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Council existed.  An objection was also raised by the same member to the proposal to provide access to recordings of meetings in the Members’ Room rather than access on request to CD copies.  He saw this as placing more restrictions on members’ access to information.  The Leader pointed out that the recommendations before the Council had received the unanimous support of the Committee.  The proposed amendments to the Constitution were seconded and carried following a vote.


63.

Stock Option Appraisal Process

Report number DRS9 by the Corporate Director of Regulatory Services.

                                                                                                            (Enclosure)

Minutes:

DECISION:

 

(1) To approve the work programme of the Stock Option Appraisal Commission and to accept the Council’s responsibilities to complete the Stock Option Appraisal process and achieve sign off by the Government Office by July 2005;

(2) To note the letter received from the Government Office for the East Midlands on 20th September 2004 referring to the District Council being “at risk” of not completing the process by July 2005 and the Chief Executive’s response to this dated 29th September 2004;

(3) To note that a risk assessment regarding the completion of the process has been undertaken by the Director of Regulatory Services.

 

The Chief Executive presented report number DRS9 by the Director of Regulatory Services which referred to the requirement upon the Council to undertake a Housing Stock Option Appraisal Process which must be signed off by the Government Office for the East Midlands (GOEM) by July 2005.  The report detailed the timetable for the work programme of the Stock Option Appraisal Commission (SOAC) and advised the Council on the outcome of recent correspondence between GOEM and the Council in relation to the Council’s progress on this issue.

 

The Corporate Director of Regulatory Services had completed a risk assessment and as identified that although the timescale is extremely demanding the Council should be in a position to complete this process in line with the Government timescale provided clearly focused and targeted work is undertaken by the Stock Option Appraisal Commission and that the Council and tenant groups both support the Commission in its work throughout this process.  The Director warned about the adverse implications should the Council be unable to complete the process which made it even more essential that the Council fully supported the prioritisation of this work.

 

A member asked what this exercise was costing the Council, was it able to recover anything from the Government, and if not, why not?  The Chief Executive replied that there was a budget of £50,000 within the Council’s Housing Revenue Account but that there was no specific additional support from the Government.  He stated he would be happy to take up these concerns with GOEM as he also shared them.

 

The Housing Service Portfolio Holder advised members that the Council was consulting widely through a series of roadshows and commended the Director of Regulatory Services and the Head of Housing Services for driving the process in line with the timescale.  In response to a question on the possible sanctions if the Council failed, the Chief Executive explained that the Government could penalise the Council by stopping funds allocated from its Major Repairs Allowance.  The recommendations were so moved and second and carried following a vote.

64.

People Management Strategy and Workforce Development Plan

The Leader on behalf of the Cabinet to recommend that the Council formally adopts the above documents.

A copy of report HR&OD71 by the Corporate Manager, HR and Organisational Development previously circulated with the Cabinet agenda for the meeting held on 11th October 2004 is attached.                      (Enclosure)

Minutes:

DECISION:  That the Council formally adopts the People Management Strategy and Workforce Development Plan as submitted.

 

All members of the Council had been previously circulated with copies of the above two documents which had been submitted to the Cabinet on the 11th October 2004.  The Leader, on behalf of the Cabinet, recommended that these documents now be formally adopted as policy by the Council.

 

A member highlighted reference in the Workforce Development Plan to Job Evaluation being identified as unsettling and impacting on staff morale.  He considered that this vindicated the legitimacy of concerns he had expressed in the past.

65.

Review of Performance Targets for BVPIs included in SKDCs 2004/05 Best Value Performance Plan.

Report number DOS255 by the Director of Operational Services.      

                                                                                                            (Enclosure)

Minutes:

DECISION: To agree the amendments to the current year performance targets (as appended to report DOS255) for inclusion within the Council’s Best Value Performance Plan.

 

The Chief Executive submitted report DOS255 by the Director of Operational Services which referred to the annual targets which the Council was obliged to set for its performance against a range of specified performance measures.  These targets formed part of the content of the Council’s Best Value Performance Plan.  All targets were set having regard for factors applying at that time i.e. the beginning of the year.  Therefore, it was felt that it was sensible to review these targets and amend them where necessary and justifiable to reflect current circumstances.

 

The Cabinet had considered the amendments proposed at its meeting on 11th October and accordingly recommended to the Council that the adjustments be made.  After the Head of Housing Services had responded to a query relating to the target for use of bed and breakfast accommodation, it was moved and seconded to accept the revised targets as presented.

66.

Representation on Outside Bodies

(1)  Grantham College – Engineering Focus Group

Report number DLS5 by the Member Services Manager.      (Enclosure)

 

(2)  Stamford Vision – the Head of Planning Policy & Economic Regeneration to report on a vacancy which has arisen on Stamford Vision (town centre management partnership).  Nominations are sought for a member who is able to attend meetings during the working day.

Minutes:

DECISION:

 

(1)               That Councillor Parkin be nominated to serve as the District Council representative on the Grantham College Engineering Focus Group;

(2)               That the nomination to fill the vacancy on Stamford Vision be deferred until the next meeting for clarification on the membership of this body.

 

Report DLS5 by Member Services Manager had previously been circulated which referred to a request from the Grantham College for a District Council member to serve on its newly constituted Engineering Focus Group. The college had been successful in its bid to the Learning & Skills Council to become a Centre of Vocational Excellence for Engineering and the purpose of this new group was to support the aims behind the Centre of Vocational Excellence.   Councillor Parkin was the only nominee put forward for this position.

 

The Chairman invited nominations for a vacancy that had arisen on Stamford Vision (formerly the Stamford town centre management partnership).  A member queried the need to fill this vacancy given that at the annual meeting of the Council in May 2003, names of members willing to serve on Stamford Vision had been put forward pending clarification on the totality of the membership of this body.  It was agreed that this matter be deferred so that membership details could be clarified.

67.

Annual Stakeholder Conference: 9th December 2004

Report number CEX253 by the Chief Executive.              (Enclosure)

Minutes:

DECISION:

 

(1) To agree the proposals contained in the Chief Executive’s report CEX253 for the Annual Stakeholder Conference on 9th December 2004;

(2) That an ordinary meeting of the Council be held at 2.00 p.m. on 9th December 2004.

 

 

 

The Chief Executive presented his report CEX253 which outlined the proposed format, venue, agenda and invitations to the Annual Stakeholder Conference.  He also recommended that this be followed in the afternoon by a formal Council meeting starting at 2.00 p.m.  It was necessary to hold an ordinary meeting of the Council as the authority was required to approve its Licensing Policy at least one month before the implementation of the new legislation on 7th February 2005.  There were also other matters on the proposed agenda for determination.

 

A member stated that there was no provision within the Constitution to hold this meeting as it had not been included within the schedule of meetings set at the annual meeting.  The Monitoring Officer advised that the Constitution does not specifically state that the Council cannot call another ordinary meeting of its own volition.  The alternative would be to call a series of extraordinary meetings (one for each item).  He suggested that to send out four agendas for one day would be a case of administrative “over kill”. Given that the proposed meeting was 9th December 2004, due notice of the meeting in accordance with the Local Government Act Access to Information provisions would be fully complied with.   Agreement was indicated for the Chief Executive’s recommendations with the corollary that this would suggest a marker for the future that Council meetings needed to be more frequent.

68.

Report on Urgent Key Decision

In accordance with Part 4 of the Constitution, Access to Information Procedure Rule 17.3, the Leader to report on the executive decision taken in the circumstances set out in Rule 16 (special urgency) in the preceding three months.

Minutes:

In accordance with Part 4 of the Constitution, Access to Information Procedure Rule 17.3, the Leader reported on the urgent Key Decision which had been taken by the Cabinet on 20th September 2004.  The decision related to the opportunity to re-submit a bid to DEFRA for just under £1m of funding for a green waste recycling scheme.  She explained that the timescale for this bid had been extremely tight which had necessitated the calling of a special meeting of the Cabinet in order to make this decision.

69.

Questions without Discussion.

Minutes:

Seven questions had been submitted prior to the meeting.

 

Verbatim details of the questions, together with supplementary questions and the responses are set out in the appendix to the minutes.

70.

Close of Meeting

Minutes:

The meeting closed at 5.40 p.m.

Appendix to Council Minutes: 28th October 2004 - Minute 69: Questions without Discussion