Council and councillors

Apologies were received from Councillor Burrows.

Councillor Baines’ apologies were sent due to technical issues and as such, Councillor Begy, vice-chairman chaired the meeting, until such a time that Councillor Baines could join the meeting.

The Vice-Chairman informed Council that the Chairman’s announcements had been circulated and noted that since the last Council on the 12^th October, the Chairman had attended Service of Remembrance at the grounds of All Saints’ Church, Oakham.

The Vice-Chairman informed Council that the Deputy Leader, wished to make an announcement.

Councillor G Brown updated Members and explained that discussions had continued on a tripartite agreement between Rutland County Council, Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) and Homes England on the terms and conditions of the General Distribution Agreement (GDA).  He commented that the document was lengthy and detailed the conditions on which the Forward Funding Grant would be provided through the Council to the DIO to deliver the Infrastructure at St George’s Barracks.

Alongside the GDA, Council were also discussing with the DIO a side agreement (called an Allocation Agreement) which would clarify the roles and responsibilities of the DIO and Rutland County Council from a legal perspective. Until progress had been made and being close to an agreement with Homes England on the GDA it would be difficult to finalise the Allocation Agreement.

Councillor G Brown reported that Homes England were seeking early agreement between the parties including the formal approval by their respective governance arrangements; the Council had made it clear that they would be being seeking approval of Cabinet and Council as agreed at the Council meeting on 20^th January 2020.

DIO’s consultants continued to prepare the work around the traffic assessment and other information which they would require for a future planning applications.

A copy of the St George’s viability report would be provided and a link sent to Members.

At this juncture of the meeting, Councillor Baines entered the meeting and assumed the position of Chairman and notified Members that the Interim Chief Executive wished to make an announcement.

Mr Andrews informed Council that cases of Covid remained relatively high at 105 cases per 100,000. He noted that the Council had recently been obtained additional support for businesses and infection control measures and noted that the Government had very recently announced a winter package to provide support for children and families to help cover costs of food and bills. It was explained that whilst there had been progress with a vaccination the Council would continue to work closely with health professionals but recognised that this could be a lengthy process.  

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 declarations of interests.

To confirm the Council minutes of the meeting of the Rutland County Council on the 12^th October 2020.

The minutes of the Council meeting held on the 12^th October 2020 were agreed as a true record.

To receive any petitions, deputations and questions received from Members of the Public in accordance with the Virtual Meetings Regulations (s1 2020 392) and the subsequent RCC Procedure Rules agreed at Council on 20 May 2020 and revised by Council on 14 September 2020. (Please see link: Revision to Virtual Meetings Protocol.)

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.

The Chairman announced that five questions have been submitted by members of the public.

Jennifer Blockley was invited to ask her questions;

It is noted that the County Council appointed a young white male for the position of PM for the feasibility study. Could council members please comment on why the post was not advertised and clarify how a female candidate or a candidate of ethnic minority might have applied?

In response, the Leader explained that he had noted that Ms Blockley had provided to all Councillors a copy of her complaint and the reply that the Council has provided in which it was stated that she would be intending to take her complaint further. Both you and Councillors would be aware that the process would include an independent view from the Local Government Ombudsman and therefore would not comment further until that process has concluded.

Ms Blockley asked a supplementary question which the Monitoring Officer explained was not an appropriate question as the Council meeting was not a forum for directing questions at officers of the Council.

Jennifer Blockley was invited to ask her second question.

Could the Council members please clarify how the £50,000 of taxpayer’s money will be allocated? 

The Leader stated that he was not prepared to answer the question until the local Independent Ombudsmen had made comment.

Ms Blockley asked a supplementary question as to how local tax payers were getting value for money.

The Leader repeated his previous statement that he was not prepared to answer the question until the local Independent Ombudsmen had made comment.

The Chairman invited Ms Blockley to ask her next question on behalf of Ms Sylvia Matthews who had nominated her

If the radio station feasibility study finds that it will go ahead, when and where will the post of station manager be advertised?

The Leader explained that it would be a decision for whatever organisation is formed to manage the platform. This would be independent of the Council.

The Chairman invited Ms Blockley to ask her next question on behalf of Ms Nurse who had nominated her.

Having allocated £50,000 of tax payer’s money to a feasibility study to look into the viability of the setting up of a new radio station, how can the County Council justify this when an article in the Rutland Times states that a former presenter Jennifer Lee has been working on a project to create a new station for Rutland and Stamford since May without any county council funding?

The Leader responded explaining that the County Council was interested in working with everyone who wanted to see a Radio station that would provide truly local information for the County. He was aware that Ms Blockley had been invited to present her proposed business case to the independent board when established. The project that was started by the last Chief Executive was intended to ensure that such a Station can be re-created and this would hopefully involve all who would want to see  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

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

The Chairman confirmed that five questions had been submitted and that they would be taken in the order that they had been received.

Councillor Powell to the Leader:

At the September meeting of Full Council, the leader reported that 'following appeals to the MP and the Council, a project had been initiated to explore retaining a community radio station so local residents could continue to be kept informed of local events'. This followed an announcement on 28 August of the launch of this new project and the confirmation of the appointment of a project manager a few days afterwards on 3 September.

Rutland Radio will be sorely missed and I would certainly would support any initiatives to replace this valuable community resource.

My question is about communication and process in the decision to commit Rutland County Council budget of £50,000 to this initiative and the setting up of this project. Once again, there seems to be a lack of transparency with communication to fellow councillors following only after the decision had been made. 

Can the leader confirm firstly what the precise process was in terms of approval of this project and its budget and secondly how such proposals for additional budgets, not already earmarked, will be dealt with in the future?  

Response from Councillor Hemsley to Councillor Powell:

1. In terms of the process for the approval of this project, this was something that was established by the previous Chief Executive, who did consult with HR, Communications, the Leader and Deputy Leader.  It was recorded on the Covid-19 Incident Record of Executive Delegated Decisions (82).  This was a new project so there was no existing funding for it either from an external source or internally.  A new budget had to be created for it, the money was from the Council’s reserves as this was the only source that it could come from without impacting on other budgets.  The budget was authorised by the previous Chief Executive using her delegated powers. 

2. The project is to assess the feasibility of a community based radio platform for Rutland and Stamford and as such is short term.  There will not be any future budgets as this was a one off allocation of a budget for the costs of the project only. Therefore, even if the findings of the radio station feasibility project are that there should be a community based radio platform for Rutland and Stamford, it would be a decision for whatever organisation is formed to manage the platform as to how they would fund it, what, if any, posts there should be within that organization and how they will be appointed to.

In response to a supplementary question, whereby Councillor Powell raised concerns about future use and allocation of council reserves not within the corporate plan and feasibility studies for commercial ventures, the Leader explained that he would explore ways to ensure more transparency in the allocation of funds.

Councillor A Brown to the Leader:

Can the Leader please explain why the  ...  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 were none.

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-ins of decisions.

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

There were no reports from Cabinet.

a.            To receive 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.

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

There were no reports from Committees of the Council.

To receive the reports from the Scrutiny Commission / Scrutiny Panels on any matters and to receive questions and answers on any of those reports.

There were no reports from the Scrutiny Commission or Scrutiny Committees

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

Councillor Harvey explained that she and Councillor Waller had attended the joint Leicestershire, Leicester City and Rutland Health Scrutiny regarding the re-configuration of services – information was available on the RCC website.

Councillor A Brown attended the Larkfleet Conference and asked about the sustainability of garden villages.

Councillor Bool would be attending meetings of the Fire Authority in November and December 2020 and a briefing would be sent round once he had attended.

Councillor Hemsley mentioned that he had attended two Unitary Council network meetings on 14^th and 28^th of October focused on the Planning White paper and funding issues and attended Ministerial Briefings on 15^th, 1^st November, 3^rd November and the Greater Lincolnshire Local Enterprise Partnership on 6^th November. This was partly around recovery and the pressures being faced by sectors of our businesses amongst other things. He reported that he had undertaken radio and television interviews around the second lockdown and the community.

The Chairman noted that he had recently attended the Rural Community Council and reported that the staff had agreed to take a percentage cut to their wage in an effort not to apply or furlough. He explained that there was a need for improvements in suicide awareness, which in the current climate should be something at the forefront of everyone’s minds. Lastly, he noted that there were various local schemes where a small amount money is allocated annually to each elected member to donate to local institution of their choice; he requested that consideration be given to this for the next civic year as a means to recognise what is being done in the local area.

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 motions were received.

Report No: 127/2020

Councillor G Brown, as the Chair of the Appointment Committee interviewing for the role, elaborated on the report. It was noted that Ms Sharpe had been in post as Deputy Director had been to acting up since the previous Director left the role and was therefore, appointed as the Director on an interim basis. It was noted that following her interview on the 6^th October 2020, the Chief Officer Appointment Committee had unanimously agreed to the appointment for ratification at Council.

The further recommendation was to delete the post of Deputy Director in the area following a review of the senior structure and funding from the deletion of the post would allow for any gaps to be filled in the service area.

In response to a question raised by Councillor Cross, Cllr G Brown stated that the Council had held a number of appointment panels for the role and a large number of people had been interviewed over the past 18 months and she had been considered to be the best candidate.

Upon a recorded vote there voted in favour:

Councillors Ainsley, Baines, Begy, Blanksby, Bool, A Brown, G Brown, Coleman, Cross, Dale, Fox, Harvey, Hemsley, Jones, Lowe, MacCartney, Oxley, Payne, Powell, Razzell, Stephenson, Waller, Walters, Webb, Wilby and Woodley.

No member voted against and no member abstained. The motion was carried;

RESOLVED:

1.     That the recommendation of the Chief Officer Appointments Committee to appoint Mrs Penny Sharp (currently Acting Strategic Director Places) to the permanent position of Strategic Director Places be approved.

Upon a recorded vote there voted in favour:

Councillors Ainsley, Baines, Begy, Blanksby, Bool, A Brown, G Brown, Coleman, Cross, Dale, Fox, Harvey, Hemsley, Jones, Lowe, MacCartney, Oxley, Payne, Powell, Razzell, Stephenson, Waller, Walters, Webb, Wilby and Woodley.

No member voted against and no member abstained. The motion was carried;

RESOLVED:

2.     That the deletion of the post of Deputy Director of Places be approved.

Report No: 135/2020

Councillor Hemsley, as Leader of the Council, elaborated on the report and explained that at Annual Council various approvals were made to outside body and proposed that Councillor Ainsley be appointed as a trustee for Victoria Halls.

The appointment of the Chair of Scrutiny Commission was deferred at Annual Council to allow the Chairs of the Scrutiny Committees to discuss and propose a Chair of the Scrutiny Commission, Councillor Ainsley.

The third appointment was to the Health and Wellbeing Board which was noted as a statutory committee of the Local Authority. The Constitution states that we appoint two elected representatives and one of those will be the Portfolio Holder for Health and one to be nominated from the remaining councillors, Councillor Hemsley proposed Councillor Harvey as Chair of the relevant Scrutiny Committee.

Councillor Woodley seconded the proposal.

Councillor Powell asked for clarification on the outside bodies and requested that reports include information with regards to previous appointments and the rationale for the proposed appointment.

Councillor Cross left the meeting.

Upon a recorded vote there voted in favour:

Councillors Ainsley, Baines, Begy, Blanksby, Bool, A Brown, G Brown, Coleman, Dale, Fox, Harvey, Hemsley, Jones, Lowe, MacCartney, Oxley, Payne, Powell, Razzell, Stephenson, Waller, Walters, Webb, Wilby and Woodley.

RESOLVED:

That Councillor Harvey be appointed to the Rutland Health and Wellbeing Board.

Upon a recorded vote there voted in favour:

Councillors Ainsley, Baines, Begy, Blanksby, Bool, A Brown, G Brown, Coleman, Dale, Fox, Harvey, Hemsley, Jones, Lowe, MacCartney, Oxley, Payne, Powell, Razzell, Stephenson, Waller, Walters, Webb, Wilby and Woodley.

RESOLVED:

That Councillor Ainsley be appointed to the position of Trustee of Victoria Hall Board as a representative on the Councils outside body.

Upon a recorded vote there voted in favour:

Councillors Ainsley, Baines, Begy, Blanksby, Bool, A Brown, G Brown, Coleman, Dale, Fox, Harvey, Hemsley, Jones, Lowe, MacCartney, Oxley, Payne, Powell, Razzell, Stephenson, Waller, Walters, Webb, Wilby and Woodley.

RESOLVED:

 That the Chairman of the Scrutiny Commission be Councillor Ainsley.

Report No: 142/2020

Councillor Cross returned to the meeting.

Councillor Hemsley elaborated on the report and explained that there had been discussions with the Group Leaders to provide a solution that all were in agreement with. He further noted that there was one seat on the Conduct Committee held by Councillor Stephenson, which would be for Liberal Democrats and this would be taken by Councillor Waller. Councillor Razzell would be appointed to the Children and Young Peoples Scrutiny Committee following the removal of Councillor Coleman to that position.

Councillor Harvey seconded the report.

Councillor Oxley notified Council that Councillor Powell would go on to the Employment and Appeals Committee.

Upon a recorded vote there voted in favour:

Councillors Ainsley, Baines, Begy, Blanksby, Bool, A Brown, G Brown, Coleman, Fox, Harvey, Hemsley, Jones, Lowe, MacCartney, Oxley, Payne, Powell, Razzell, Stephenson, Waller, Walters, Webb, Wilby and Woodley.

There voted against the recommendation:

Councillor Dale.

RESOLVED:

1.     That the changes to the make-up of the political groupings of the Council be noted.

2.     That Council notes the allocation of seat(s) on relevant committee(s) appointed by Council to political groups

Report No: 145/2020

Councillor Hemsley proposed the report which sought Council’s agreement to approve the updated Equality, Diversity and Inclusion statement and the recommendation that it forms part of the Council’s Policy Framework, and endorse essential Unconscious Bias training for all Rutland County Council members and employees as a key enabler in creating an anti-discriminatory environment.

Councillor Ainsley seconded the report.

Councillor Waller spoke in favour of the report and commended the celebration of diversity and welcomed the training but questioned whether it was sufficient and accessible for all.

Councillor Oxley as the Independent Group Leader supported the motion.

Members discussed the report and there were a number of personal experiences and instances of unconscious bias given by Members. Questions were raised about the effectivity of the online training.

Upon a recorded vote there voted in favour:

Councillors Ainsley, Baines, Begy, Blanksby, Bool, A Brown, G Brown, Coleman, Dale, Fox, Harvey, Hemsley, Jones, Lowe, MacCartney, Oxley, Payne, Powell, Razzell, Stephenson, Waller, Walters, Webb, Wilby and Woodley.

There voted against: Councillor Cross.

RESOLVED:

Council approved the updated Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Statement

Council approved the recommendation that the Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Statement forms part of the Council’s Policy Framework

Council endorsed the recommendation that annual Unconscious Bias training becomes mandatory for all staff and members.

Report No: 143/2020

The Chairman explained that the appendix to the report was exempt but noted that as a Council there was a need to be as open and transparent as possible and urged Councillors to have as much of the debate in public which included a discussion on the proposed charge. He stated that he was hopeful that Council could discuss the proposed recommendations within the report without making specific reference to the information in the appendix.

It was noted that as the contract covered two Cabinet Member portfolio’s, the report would be proposed by Councillor G Brown and seconded by Councillor Stephenson, both of whom had responsibility for.

Councillor G Brown explained he had worked with the Head of Service on this matter and had some historical knowledge of the details. In May 2020 a number of contracts were extended under emergency powers following Covid. The process for getting the contract in place and officer were not fully aware of the financial impacts of the extensions. In 2018 Council took the decision to charge for green waste and it was set at thirty- five pounds per bin to cover the cost of collection. For three years there has been no increase in charges and now the costs have been more accurately assessed it has been considered necessary to increase charges.

It was noted that the responses to the consultation on Waste strategy had been very low in part due to the pandemic and therefore it has been proposed that an additional fifty thousand pounds be given for residual waste to ensure that waste was reduced and recycled where and when possible. Extensive negotiations had taken place with the current contractor and it was noted that the Council would only be recovering costs and not making profit and remained very much below costs compared to local neighbouring Councils.

Members congratulated the work of officers for their hard work on the report and for the extensive amount of information given. It was considered a necessity for the Council to cover their costs. Some concern was raised that contracts were not being renewed and updated in a timely and effective manner. However, on the contrary some Members were pleased that this was being considered prior to the Environment Bill being passed which had the potential to cause the Council to be tied into an extension. Cabinet was asked that when the Waste Strategy Review was being undertaken that members of the public be consulted to feed into the process.

In response to questions asked, Councillor Stephenson explained that Civil Amenity sites were part of waste management and would be part of the review. The revenue for green bin waste off-sets the costs and no additional revenue could be gained as it was a non-statutory service. It was confirmed that residents would be consulted as part of the review and that it would also be presented to Scrutiny as it was an issue that affected every resident. It was anticipated that the waste strategy  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

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

Councillor Baines thanked Councillor Begy for stepping at the beginning of the meeting. He gave thanks to Councillor Bool and stated that he had conducted himself whilst Chairman of the Council with dignity, courteously and integrity and thanked him for everything he had done during his time in office.

Councillor Baines also gave thanks to the Civic Officer- Kate Haworth and to Councillor Razzell for their hard work organising the Remembrance Service and commented that he very moving and a poignant occasion.