Apologies were received from Councillor D Blanksby and Councillor I Razzell.

The Chairman advised that he had attended the induction of the new High Sherriff Geoff Thompson and on behalf of the Council he wished him his best with his term in office.

He also attended the 100 year anniversary of the war memorial and the dedication of the new British Legion Rutland Standard, the event was well attended.

On behalf of Rutland County Council, the Chairman congratulated Uppingham for winning the ‘best place to live’ within the Midlands.

Mark Andrews, Chief Executive and Head of Paid Service reminded Members of the upcoming by-election within the Uppingham ward on 5^th May 2022. The persons nominated were David Ainsley (Independent), Phil Bourqui (Reform UK), Giles Clifton (Conservative Party) and Stephen Lambert (Liberal Democrat). He wished all candidates the best of luck.

He also updated Members on Ukraine, as of the day of Council, Rutland had 21 sponsors and a total of 42 Ukrainians who had arrived in Rutland. He told Members that all sponsors had been very generous with what had been offered to the Ukrainian families.

Councillor S Harvey advised Members that there continued to be high rates of Covid within the county and figures showed this was moving into our older population. Unfortunately, there was two further deaths last week. She asked that the community took advantage of the vaccinations where eligible, including the spring booster.

Councillor S Harvey also updated Members on the Integrated Care System and that 1^st July was the start date of the Integrated Care Board. The Health and Wellbeing Board had recently approved the Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy. Finally she advised Members that the Council working with Anglian Water and Uppingham Town Council had secured £158k of grant funding from the government to develop two ‘changing place’ toilets. One at Sykes Lane and one in Uppingham which complemented the existing facilities in Oakham.

In accordance with the Regulations, Members are invited to declare any disclosable interests under the Code of Conduct and the nature of those interests in respect of items on this Agenda and/or indicate if Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 applies to them.

There were no pecuniary or non-pecuniary interests declared.

To confirm the Minutes of the 238^th meeting of the Rutland County Council District Council held on 21 March 2022.

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meeting held on the 21^st March 2022

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the Council meetings held on the 21^st March 2022 be APPROVED.

To receive any petitions, deputations or questions received from members of the public in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 28. The total time allowed for this is 30 minutes.  Petitions, deputations and questions will be dealt with in the order in which they are received and any which are not considered within the time limit shall receive a written response after the meeting.

There were no petitions, deputations or questions from members of the public.

To receive any questions submitted from Members of the Council in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rules 30 and 30A.

Councillor A Brown presented his question as set out in the agenda supplement.

The Chairman invited Councillor O Hemsley to respond which was as follows:

“Procedure is vitally important in how we record votes in meetings. We must ensure that any Council vote is lawful and compliant with legislation and procedure. The alphabetic method of recording votes is used across all councils in England and Wales in accordance with the Local Government Act 1972. Consistency is the key in how to record council meeting votes. Votes should be recorded in the same way for every meeting if required so that anyone reading the meeting minutes can quickly see how a councillor voted. There would have to be very good reason for the Council to depart from the alphabetic approach. Members need to have the courage of their convictions when voting and not be swayed by the votes of others. Whatever method is chosen will enable those whose names called later to be aware of earlier votes. If Cllr Brown is suggesting, we introduce secret ballots at council meetings, I would be against this. This would be extremely unusual as it is not conducive to the principles of openness and transparency which are so important within local authority decision-making.

However, I have asked the Chief Executive to explore options to introduce electronic voting alongside the work going on to invest in systems to allow live streaming of council meetings”.

In response to Councillor Brown’s supplementary regarding the option for paper to be used and for the Monitoring Officer to read out individual votes. Councillor O Hemsley would consider that option.

Councillor A Walters presented his question as set out in the agenda supplement.

The Chairman invited Councillor O Hemsley to respond which was as follows:

“As set out in the written responses to questions raised at Council, the matter of how any development proposed for the quarry farm site will be attributed to respective housing needs for either Rutland or South Kesteven is a complex matter on which we had sort legal advice. This is likely to take time and resolve but I am happy to update Members on this matter on a regular basis. Members will be aware the Local Plan Issues and Options Report was approved by Cabinet at its meeting on 5 April 2022 for public consultation. The report will seek the views of the public as to whether any development at Quarry Farm should count towards Rutland’s housing needs. Paragraph 3.4.8 of the Issues and Options Report sets out that the Council has opened up discussions with South Kesteven on the basis that development on the Rutland element of any urban extension of Stamford should count towards Ruland’s housing numbers and so reduce the requirement of new housing elsewhere in Rutland. The preparation of the new Local Plan for Rutland provides the opportunity to resolve this situation through development plan system. Taking account of the Councils duty to co-operate with neighbouring local planning authorities on strategic matters,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To determine matters where a decision taken by a Committee has been referred to the Council in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 110.

There had been no referral of committee decisions to Council.

To determine matters where a decision taken by the Cabinet has been referred to Council by the call-in procedure of Scrutiny Panels, as a result of the decision being deemed to be outside the Council’s policy framework by the Monitoring Officer or not wholly in accordance with the budget by the Section 151 Officer, in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rules 206 and 207.

There had been no call-in of decisions from Cabinet meetings.

To receive reports from the Cabinet on recommendations referred to the Council for determination.

There were no reports from Cabinet.

1)    To receive Report No. 73/2022 from the Conduct Committee and any other reports from Committees on matters which require Council approval because the Committee does not have the delegated authority to act on the Council’s behalf.

2)    To receive reports from Council Committees on any other matters and to receive questions and answers on any of those reports.

Report No. 73/2022 was received from the Conduct Committee. Councillor O Hemsley, Chair of the Conduct Committee presented the report to seek approval from Council to approve the revised Code of Conduct at Appendix A and to approve the adoption of the revised arrangements for dealing with Conduct Allegations at Appendix B.

The recommendations of Report No. 73/2022 were moved by Councillor Hemsley. This was seconded and upon being put to vote, the motion was unanimously carried.

RESOLVED

That Council:

1)    APPROVED the adoption of the revised Code of Conduct at Appendix A.

2)    APPROVED the adoption of the revised arrangements for dealing with Conduct Allegations at Appendix B.

1)    To receive and approve the final report from the Primary Care Task & Finish Group.

2)    To receive any other reports from the Scrutiny Commission / Scrutiny Committees on any matters and to receive questions and answers on any of those reports.

Councillor P Ainsley presented the updated list of recommendations from the final report from the Primary Care Task and Finish Group as set out in the agenda supplement. The final report was presented to the Adults and Health Scrutiny on 31^st March 2022. An additional recommendation was added to the final report recommending that the Rutland based Patient Participation Groups contacted Lakeside Healthcare Stamford PPG to share good practice.

He thanked the Members of the group and for the officer’s support in producing the final report.

Councillor G Waller moved the recommendations from the Adults and Health Scrutiny Committee relating to the report as set out in the agenda supplement and this was seconded. Upon being put to vote, the motion was unanimously carried.

RESOLVED

The Council:

1. APPROVES the amended report and commend it to Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Clinical Commissioning Group, Lincolnshire Clinical Commissioning Group, the Council’s Health and Wellbeing Board, each Rutland GP practice and their Patient Participation Groups with a request that the recommendations in section 8 be actioned by the appropriate body.

Councillor J Fox updated Members on the Growth, Infrastructure and Resources Scrutiny Committee which took place on 7^th April 2022 with a summary report to be appended to these minutes. Councillor Fox updated Members on the following:

• The Committee received Report No. 72/2022 from Councillor L Stephenson regarding the Culture Review where they noted the draft Terms of Reference and noted the draft Culture review Stakeholder Board Remit.
• An update on the revised Parking Policy had been received from Portfolio Holder for Planning, Highways and Transport Councillor I Razzell.
• Report No. 71/2022 on Leisure Update was also taken to the Committee by Councillor L Stephenson around the demolition of Catmose pool at a reduced cost of £150k.

To receive reports about and receive questions and answers on the business of any joint arrangements or external organisations.

The Chairman advised members that a written report had been circulated from Councillors G Brown and Councillor K Payne regarding the Hanson Cement Ketton Liaison Committee, this is appended to the minutes and he took the report as read.

Councillor G Waller reported back to Members from the last meeting of the Leicester, Leicestershire & Rutland Joint Health Scrutiny Committee which took place on 28^th March 2022. Councillor Waller updated Members on the following:

• The emerging Integrating Care system was discussed, Rutland was allowed to have a representative on the Boards after the recent change in Government Policy.
• An update on the Ambulance service, the non-emergency patient transport system.
• The Bradgate Unit following the poor CQC inspection.
• Update on the Transforming Care Programme and finally a progress update was given on the University Hospitals Leicester’s configuration plans.

To consider any Notices of Motion submitted by Members of the Council in accordance with Procedure Rule 34 in the order in which they are recorded as having been received.

No notices of motion were received.

To receive Report No. 74/2022 from the Monitoring Officer.

Report No. 74/2022 was presented by Councillor O Hemsley, Leader of the Council and he proposed the updated recommendations which were circulated at the meeting.

Councillor P Ainsley proposed an amendment to the motion with recommendations 1 and 4 remaining the same. Recommendation 2 changing to a 2-committee system for Scrutiny as outlined in Appendix A to the report. Recommendation 3 would change to a review and report back to Council on the effectiveness of the new 2-committee and commission system in March 2023 after a full municipal year’s operation and that was seconded.

Members in favour set out that Working Groups and Task and Finish Groups would still be put together with the proposed 2-committee system. There would not be a need to go into a 1-committee system to have effective Scrutiny.

It was also considered that Members agreed better training was needed for Members around the Scrutiny function within the Council and increased engagement was also required.

Members against the amendment felt one strategic scrutiny panel allowed far greater flexibility in terms of mechanisms that are available. The flexibility aspect also allowed Members to work according to the need of the task in hand rather than being tied up in process and constitution rules.

Members who had particular interests in certain areas would still be able to get involved with the original proposals. It was also suggested by other Members that targeted scrutiny would be an improvement to the current system we have in place. Several Members welcomed the potential reduced costs with the proposed improved function.

It was also felt that the recent success of the finished Task and Finish Group would in the future have the same results from the proposals set out in the recommendations of the report.

After the debate, this was put to the vote, with 3 votes in favour, 18 votes against and 3 abstentions, the motion was defeated.

The debate then returned to the substantive motion.

Several Members raised concerns about the arrangements were pushed through in time for Annual Council in May. They highlighted that there were no details on how the new process would operate and what impact it would have on the Council.

Other Members felt a change was required and that to trial the new 1-committee system for a year and have it reviewed in March 2023 and for Members to welcome the new way of working.

Councillor M Oxley moved an amendment that the arrangements be deferred until the Constitution Review Working Group had discussed the proposed 1-committee system and for a final report to come back to Council to make a decision, this amendment was seconded.

Councillor A Walters supported the proposed amendment and agreed that he needed more information to be able to make a decision on the proposal.

After the debate, this was put to the vote, with 11 votes in favour, 12 votes against and 1 abstentions, the motion was defeated.

The Chairman then informed Members that he would take the recommendations  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

To receive Report No. 75/2022 from the Chief Executive.

Report No. 75/2022 was introduced by Councillor O Hemsley, Leader of the Council. The purpose of the report was to seek approval to the appointment of Angela Wakefield to the post of Director (Legal and Governance) and Monitoring Officer and for a start date to be agreed for 23^rd May 2022. This was seconded.

This was put to vote and with all Members voting in favour, the motion was unanimously carried.

RESOLVED

That Council:

APPROVED the appointment of Angela Wakefield to the post of Director for Legal and Governance and Monitoring Officer.

To receive items of urgent business which have been previously notified to the person presiding.

There were no items of urgent business.