Agenda item

          (1)  From Councillor Terl Bryant:

          “This council deplores the continuing degradation of services to the

          hospitals that serve our district and we will support any actions that can

          be taken to ensure the Labour Government reverse their current stance.”

          (2)  From Councillor Terl Bryant

          “This council welcomes the change in public perception that crime and

          antisocial behaviour has become less of a problem within South Kesteven district council area and we will now work with the county council to address traffic congestion and road pavement repairs.”

          (3)  From Councillor Mike Williams

          I move that the Constitution & Accounts Committee seek to change the

          Constitution with regards to notices of motion at meetings of this council.

          I move that no more than two notices of motion be debated at any single

          Council meeting and that because of time constraints, no notices of

          motion be allowed at the annual budget meeting.  I also move that no

          member be allowed to submit more than one notice of motion at any

          meeting of the council.”

(4)    From Councillor Rob Shorrock

          “This council notes that £463,049.10 has been spent to date on the use

of external consultants and agencies on the failed stock transfer process. The remit of the majority of these consultants was to advise the council on the most effective way of securing the transfer of council housing stock to a new housing association.  In this they demonstrably failed. Given that the use of consultants is currently at an all time high,

          procurement and commissioning criteria should be developed that

          Includes a performance related element as part of the contract for

          commission of consultants to ensure the best use of council resources

          and value for money for the taxpayer.”

          (5)  From Councillor Ian Selby

          “That this council pledges to review and improve the development

          control planning process so that the general public’s voice is

          heard with confidence and for it to encourage greater accountability

          from both planning officers and members of this council.”

          (6)  From Councillor Linda Neal

          “That on behalf of the communities of South Kesteven this council

          acknowledges, respects and thanks the commitment and dedication

          of all members of the council who will be retiring at the end of this

          civic year.”

(1) and (2) From Councillor Terl Bryant

DECISION: In accordance with Council procedure rule 14.8, to consent to the withdrawal of Councillor Bryant’s two notices of motion.

(3)  From Councillor Mike Williams

DECISION:

(1)      The Constitution Committee seek to change the Constitution with regards to notices of motion at meetings of this Council;

(2)      That no more than two notices of motion be debated at any single Council meeting with provision for the operation of a guillotine on such debates, and that because of time constraints, no notices of motion be allowed at the annual budget meeting;

(3)      No member be allowed to submit more than one notice of motion at any meeting of the Council.                                         

Councillor Mike Williams moved his motion which was seconded by Councillor Exton.  Councillor Williams explained his reasons for bringing this motion to Council; too many motions did not allow each motion to be debated properly.  He stated that the Lincolnshire County Council include provision for the operation of a guillotine on such debates and indicated that he wished to amend his motion to include a similar provision.  This amendment was agreed by his seconder.  A member asked who would decide which two motions were put forward.  The Chief Executive replied that, in common with other authorities that operated similar arrangements, it was usually the first two motions received that were included on the agenda and the decision would ultimately rest with him.  The Chief Executive was asked if this would affect the budget debate.  He replied that it would not affect the budget debate as amendments could be moved to substantive agenda items.  A member expressed concern at introducing a cut off after a specific period of time as he considered this to be a retrograde step.  After the Corporate Head of Finance & Resources had advised on the timings of the budget meeting, a vote was taken on the motion as amended and carried.

(4)  From Councillor Rob Shorrock

Councillor Shorrock had left the meeting during the refreshment break.  In his absence his notice of motion was moved but did not find a seconder.

(5)  From Councillor Ian Selby

DECISION: That this Council pledges to review and improve the development control planning process so that the general public’ voice is heard with confidence and for it to encourage greater accountability from both planning officers and members of this council.           

In moving his motion, which was later seconded by Councillor Mrs Jalili, Councillor Selby referred to his perception that attending the Development Control Committee felt like a waste of time as the decision had already effectively been made by the development control officers. He referred to the process that had to be followed when the committee wished to proceed contrary to the officers’ recommendation.  He stated that the public felt their views were not being heard and cited an example whereby an application was deferred for the production of amended plans.  However, the amended plans had not been available for viewing before the application came back before the committee for determination.  He said the public perceived that applications were a “done deal” before they came before the committee.

The motion stimulated considerable debate and the Council heard several existing Development Control Committee members express their opinions about how they felt that the committee was just a “rubber stamping” exercise, the restrictions on speaking on a deferred application if you had not been present at the previous meeting, the perception that the once excellent working relationship enjoyed by officers and members of the committee had now been eroded, and that there was too much delegated power to the planning officers.

Reference was made to the obligation to work in accordance with planning guidance issued by central government and an acknowledgment was made that the planning officers were not to blame as they were working under considerable pressure from government directives.  A member stated that there was a widely held perception throughout the district the planning process was corrupt and this was a serious slur on the reputation of both the Council itself and its officers.  This was an issue which had to be addressed if the Council was not to lose its reputation altogether. 

The debate on the motion ensued with other members commenting on the fact that the majority of contact they had with constituents concerned planning related matters.  Some felt that there was a lack of communication and regard for the planning process by large development companies and that there was a perception of inconsistency of treatment compared to the individual developer.  The Economic portfolio holder responded by expressing his concern over the allegations of corruption; he considered the way the Development Control Committee operated was very open and transparent.  Whilst he appreciated members strength of feeling on this issue, the Council had to have due regard to material planning considerations in determining applications.  The authority also had to take account of the fact it received considerable funding from the government’s planning delivery grant.  The portfolio holder acknowledged that there had been recent problems in the development control services section following the loss of key experience staff but that this was under review and actions in place to address these staffing issues.

The Leader referred to the examination of the operation of the committee by the Constitution & Accounts Committee.  She said that her understanding was since the demise of the planning panel, the Development Control Committee was keeping under review its practices and procedures.  She expressed concern at the comments made about local knowledge being ignored; she re-iterated points made in an earlier debate that the committee was acting in a quasi-judicial capacity and decisions should not be based merely on matters of opinion or local knowledge.  Decisions should be made on material planning considerations. The suggestion that there was a widely held perception of corruption elicited very strong expressions of concern amongst the Council. The Leader asked the previous speaker immediately to bring to the attention of the Council any evidence she had about such a broad and damming statement because this had extremely serious consequences for the authority.

Further speakers voiced their views on the consistent application of planning guidelines suggesting that applications are scored against criteria in order to help simplify the process.  A member who had a professional background in planning stated that planning was a very complex issue; she suggested that new Councillors are taught that planning guidelines and statements were there as guidelines only and open to interpretation.  It should be down to the talent and skills of the planning officers to interpret the guidelines.  The member proposed that the way forward for the Development Control Committee was to use its officers as technocrats and not dictators.  The debate drew to a conclusion with calls for common sense to prevail over restrictive planning guidance and the need to recognise the valuable input made by Parish Councils who were best placed to provide detailed information about what effect developments will have on their communities.

Before the vote was taken, Councillor Selby was thanked for putting his motion.  It was agreed that the Council must work hard to get the message across that there was no room for corruption at this Council and that the practices and procedures it followed in the development control process served to build a better reputation.

(6)  From Councillor Mrs Linda Neal

DECISION: That on behalf of the communities of South Kesteven, this Council acknowledges, respects and thanks the commitment and dedication of all members of the council who will be retiring at the end of this civic year.

The Leader stated that she was moving this motion in order to place on record the thanks and appreciation of the authority to all those who had contributed to the Council over the years.  Some people who were not seeking re-election to the Council would be sorely missed, indeed, their seats would certainly take some filling.  Several of the members to whom she referred had significantly contributed to the work of the Council over a very long period of time.  The motion was seconded by Councillor Lovelock.

Councillor Kirkman, as an out going member, addressed the Council.  He thanked the Leader for her comments.  He stated it had been his privilege to serve the district and the residents of the Bourne East ward.  He suggested it was not to say whether he had been successful in this but he had endeavoured to do his best.  He paid tribute to past and present members, many of whom were now friends.  He thanked them for the cut and thrust of debate in meetings that had never continued outside the council chamber.  This, he felt was indicative of the spirit of camaraderie that existed within this council.  He also thanked the officers many of whom worked hard for the benefit of the community; he considered he had always been treated with courtesy and respect which he had tried to reciprocate.  He paid particular tribute to the financial service team, mentioning Sally Marshall, Richard Wyles, and Colin Wyatt for all their hard work and dedication towards the closure of accounts which they had achieved this year under particularly difficult circumstances.  In conclusion, he said he looked forward to this Council making progress on its path to “brilliance”.

A vote of thanks to the outgoing Chairman was made and unanimously supported.  Councillors Fisher, Nadarajah, and Mrs Woods as outgoing members also thanked their colleagues and friends and spoke on how they had enjoyed their time on the Council.  Councillors Auger, Howard, and Sandall who were seeking re-election also addressed the Council.

As mover of the motion, the Leader drew the debate to a close by directly addressing the outgoing Chairman.  She expressed the view that “South Kesteven is a better place because of you”.