Agenda and minutes

To note the appointment at the Special Meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 16 May 2005 (subject to confirmation of that decision) of Chair of the Sub-Committee for the Municipal Year 2005/2006.

RESOLVED:  To note the appointment at the Special Meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 16 May 2005 of Councillor Mitzi Green as Chair of the Sub-Committee for the 2005/06 Municipal Year.

To note the attendance at this meeting of any duly appointed Reserve Members.

Reserve Members may attend meetings:-

(i)                 to take the place of an ordinary Member for whom they are a reserve;

(ii)               where the ordinary Member will be absent for the whole of the meeting; and

(iii)             after notifying the Chair at the start of the meeting.

RESOLVED:  To note the attendance at this meeting of the following duly appointed Reserve Member:-

To receive declarations of personal or prejudicial interests, arising from business to be transacted at this meeting, from all Members present.

RESOLVED:  To note that there were no declarations of interests made by Members in relation to the business transacted at this meeting.

To consider whether any of the items listed on the agenda should be considered with the press and public excluded on the grounds that it is thought likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted, that there would be disclosure of confidential information in breach of an obligation of confidence or of exempt information as defined in the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985.

RESOLVED:  That all items be considered with the press and public present.

To appoint a Vice-Chair of the Sub-Committee for the Municipal Year 2005/2006.

RESOLVED:  That Councillor Jean Lammiman be appointed Vice-Chair of the Sub-Committee for the 2005/06 Municipal Year.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 11 January 2005, having been circulated, be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 11 January 2005, having been circulated, be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

The Sub-Committee considered a decision of the Leader dated 4 May 2005, which determined that the Council would not object to the Lands Tribunal for the release of a restrictive covenant.  Members received the notice invoking the call-in procedure, together with the record of the Leader’s decision and the documentation sent to the Leader to inform his decision.

The decision had been called-in on three grounds: inadequate consultation with stakeholders prior to the decision, the absence of evidence on which to base a decision, and insufficient consideration of legal and financial advice.

A Member representing the signatories to the call-in notice explained the reasoning behind invoking the call-in procedure.  The Sub-Committee was referred to paragraph 2.3 of the officer report on page 10 of agenda.  Concern was raised that the report referred to consultation via the planning process.  The Member did not accept that the planning process involved sufficient consultation.  It was added that previous considerations of the Development Control Committee had not related to a change of use for the property.

The Member also felt that the issue should not have been dealt with through a decision of an individual Executive Member.  Instead it was felt that the report should have been submitted to the Cabinet for decision.  Another concern raised by the Member was the lack of information on which the decision was based.  The Member felt that the report should have been included on the Cabinet agenda as a Part II item, which would have afforded an opportunity to incorporate a more detailed examination of the financial aspects of the Council’s landholding and the implications of the decision.  A Ward Councillor who was backbenching stated his concern about the lack of information available to the residents particularly given the contentious nature of the decision.  The Ward Councillor noted that he had received a verbal briefing from officers that had failed to allay the concerns of the local residents.

In response, an officer explained that the decision was initially intended for the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Development and Housing.  Following discussions between officers in Legal Services, it was judged that the decision did not fall under the terms of reference for the Portfolio Holder and that the Leader of the Council should instead make the decision.  Both the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Development and Housing and the Leader stated that the issue was handled in the appropriate manner.  The Sub-Committee were informed that, in the professional judgement of the officers, the release of the covenant would not have a negative impact on the Council’s property holding.  In response to a previous point, an officer noted that the financial implications of the decision did not lend itself to a more detailed report.  An officer also clarified that under the Lands Tribunal procedure, an objector could be liable for a percentage of the applicant’s costs if their conduct was deemed to be unreasonable.

Members of the Sub-Committee asked questions on a number of issues.  The consultation process was highlighted as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.