Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED:  To note the attendance at this meeting of the following appointed reserve members:

There were no declarations of interest.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 5 February 2018 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 5 February 2018 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

To appoint a Vice-Chair for the Municipal Year 2019/20.

It was moved by Councillor Lee and seconded by Councillor Proctor that Councillor Smith be elected Vice?Chair for the Municipal Year 2019/20.  On being put to the vote the motion was declared carried.

The Chair drew attention to the document ‘Protocol for the Operation of the Call-In Sub?Committee’.  She outlined the procedure to be followed at the meeting, and the options open to the Sub-Committee at the conclusion of the process.

In accordance with Committee Procedure Rule 46.5, a notice seeking to invoke the call?in procedure must state at least one of the following grounds in support of the request for a call-in of the decision:

a)            inadequate consultation with stakeholders prior to the decision;

b)            the absence of adequate evidence on which to base a decision;

c)            the decision is contrary to the policy framework, or contrary to, or not wholly in accordance with the budget framework;

d)            the action is not proportionate to the desired outcome;

e)            a potential human rights challenge;

f)             insufficient consideration of legal and financial advice.

She informed the Sub-Committee that the grounds a), b), c) and f) had been cited on the Call In notice, and this had been deemed to be valid for the purposes of Call?in.

Referring to paragraph 8 of the Protocol, the Legal Adviser stated that the Sub-Committee, having considered the grounds for the call-in and the information provided at the meeting, may come to one of the following conclusions:-

(i)            that the challenge to the decision should be taken no further and the decision be implemented;

(ii)          that the decision is contrary to the policy framework, or contrary to, or not wholly in accordance with the budget framework and should therefore be referred to the Council. In such a case the Call-in Sub-Committee must set out the nature of its concerns for Council; or

(iii)             that the matter should be referred back to the decision taker (i.e the Portfolio Holder or Executive, whichever took the decision) for reconsideration. In such a case the Call?in Sub?Committee must set out the nature of its concerns / reasons for referral for the decision taker/Executive.

RESOLVED:  That the Call-In would be determined on the basis of the following grounds:

a)            inadequate consultation with stakeholders prior to the decision;

b)            the absence of adequate evidence on which to base a decision;

c)         the decision is contrary to the policy framework, or contrary to, or not wholly in accordance with the budget framework; and

d)            insufficient consideration of legal and financial advice.

a)    Notice invoking the Call-in;

b)    Minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on 30 May 2019;

c)    Report submitted to the Cabinet on 30 May 2019.

The Sub-Committee received the papers in respect of the call-in notice submitted by 11 Members of the Council in relation to a decision made by the Cabinet on 30 May 2019, setting out a process to procure a Strategic Development Partner to assist with the delivery of a number of the Council’s core strategic development sites within the Regeneration Programme.

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 then invited the representative of the signatories to present his reasons for the call-in.

The representative began by explaining that he was not calling in the decision to develop a Partnership; the call-in was more concerned with the shortcomings in the processes that had been followed to reach this decision as set out in the Call-in notice.  The representative went on refer to the specific reasons for the call-in and made a number of points with regard to each of the grounds as follows:

Inadequate consultation with stakeholders prior to the decision

Given that that the proposals were a significant departure from previous plans there was a reasonable expectation that further consultation would take place with residents or stakeholders.  The report however only refers to consultation carried out 5 years ago.  It was also disappointing that the Opposition had been denied an opportunity to discuss suggestions and concerns so that a cross party consensus to what would be a long term commitment could be secured.

The absence of adequate evidence on which to base a decision

The report includes three sites but specifically excludes the Greenhill Way site.  No explanation is provided for this exclusion and no financial assessment is given about the site.

The decision is contrary to the policy framework, or contrary to, or not wholly in accordance with the budget framework

The decision sets the Council on a path that may result in expenditure outside the current budget framework set by Full Council in February 2019.  Any changes to this framework would require the approval of Full Council.

Insufficient consideration of legal and financial advice.

The report does not address the financial implications of the three schemes.  Nor does it provide financial evidence to support the preferred site for the New Civic Centre.

The representative concluded his presentation by saying that he was disappointed that he had found it necessary to call-in the decision but felt that it was important for the Cabinet to get things right from the beginning given the implications for ratepayers for the next 20/30 years.

Responding to each of the grounds for the call-in the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Regeneration and Employment made the following points:

Inadequate consultation with stakeholders prior to the decision

Further consultation was not appropriate or necessary at this stage as the decision being sought was to agree a framework and commence a procurement exercise.  Further consultation would be carried out once the exercise had been completed and the delivery mechanism set up.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.