Issue - meetings

The following documents are attached:

a) Notice invoking the Call-in

b) Record of the Portfolio Holder Decision taken on 10 February 2014

c) Report submitted to the Portfolio Holder on 10 February 2014

The Sub-Committee received the papers in respect of the call-in notice submitted by 6 Members of Council in relation to the decision made by the Portfolio Holder for Community Safety and Environment on Civic Amenity Site: Policies and Charges.

The Chair advised the Sub-Committee on the suggested order of proceedings and reminded Members of the timings allowed for submissions and questions. 

The Chair invited the lead representative of the signatories, Councillor Graham Henson, to present the reasons for the call in of the decision to the Sub?Committee. 

He stated that the Council was bound to operate in an open, honest and transparent manner, to consult widely and listen to residents’ views.  This decision would result in a selected group of residents being charged for a service without an opportunity to consider their objections and alternative options.

He believed that the consultation had been inadequate; he himself had learned of the change via the local press.  In his view the decision had a wide ranging impact and should therefore have been treated as a key decision and followed the correct procedure for such a decision, particularly in respect of advance notice.

In respect of evidence, the report did not demonstrate how the decision was arrived at, nor how it would reduce aggressive behaviour on the part of site users.   No alternative options had been provided, and no consideration had been given to negative outcomes, such as an increase in fly-tipping.  In seeking to address the behaviour of a minority, many law-abiding residents would be affected.  Furthermore, no Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) had been provided, and it was impossible to judge if certain groups would be adversely affected; for instance, many disabled people used vehicles classified as vans.

Finally, the decision was likely to have an adverse impact on the environment, as residents prevented from using the site were more likely to dispose of waste illegally. 

The Portfolio Holder for Community Safety and Environment expressed her surprise and disappointment that the decision had been called in, as it had been taken in response to a serious threat to the safety of staff at the depot, who had been the subject of aggressive behaviour and physical threats, to such a degree that they were unwilling to give evidence in criminal prosecutions.

In her view, the main stakeholders in this situation were the staff, who had been consulted upon the changes.  The Council had a duty to ensure a safe environment for staff; they had worked with the police and anti-social behaviour teams to address problems, and additional measures had been introduced to minimise the ability of dissatisfied and unlawful site users to treat staff badly. 

The Portfolio Holder informed the sub-committee that an EqIA had been undertaken, and its findings had been summarized and reported in the main document.  As no issues had been identified, it had not been considered necessary to append it to the report.

In her view, a clear policy would reduce arguments and dispute, and this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70