Agenda item

* O&S 62       

The Chairman introduced this agenda item and highlighted that, in accordance with the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules, three Members of the Committee had invoked a Call-in on Hub Committee Minute HC 39 ‘Public Conveniences: Clarification for Parishes’.

Upon the conclusion of the debate on the Call-in, the Chairman advised that there would be three options available to the Committee.  These were:

1.     that the Committee was content with the original Hub Committee resolution and the decision would therefore take immediate effect;

2.     that the Committee refer the decision back to the next Hub Committee meeting (on 20 November 2018) for further consideration; and

3.     that the Committee opt to refer the decision to the next full Council meeting (on 4 December 2018). 

At this point, the Chairman invited the three signatories of the Call-in to explain their reasoning behind this decision.  In so doing, the key focus of their concerns related to the belief that the process that had been undertaken to reach this Hub Committee decision had been deeply flawed and had been handled really poorly.  In expanding upon their process related concerns, particular reference was made to:-

(a)   non-Hub Committee Members having effectively been bypassed throughout the decision-making process.  For such a key issue, the Members felt that this decision should have been referenced up to the full Council for an ultimate decision;

(b)   the justification for the speed of the decision being to enable town and parish councils to set their annual precepts accordingly being a weak argument.  Furthermore, this speed had been to the detriment of an open and transparent decision-making process;

(c)    clarification being sought over exactly when the decision was taken to bring the report forward from the Hub Committee meeting on 20 November 2018 to the meeting on 16 October 2018;

(d)   recommendation 2 (i.e. that the 75% contribution from town and parish councils be increased over three years to the point where full costs were covered by them).  In citing Brentor Parish Council as an example, the local Ward Member highlighted that consultation meetings had been carried out prior to the Hub Committee meeting.  However, neither he nor the local Parish Council had been made aware of this proposal during these meetings or before the report had been published with the Hub Committee meeting agenda.  The Member advised that this had created a great deal of ill-feeling and resentment amongst the Parish Council;

(e)   the lack of reference in the Hub Committee agenda report to the impact of Discretionary Business Rate Relief; and

(f)     the lack of any mention of these proposals at the all Member Budget Workshop that had been held on 8 October 2018.

The Chairman then proceeded to invite the lead Hub Committee Member for Commercial Services to respond to the concerns raised.  During which, the lead Member informed that:-

-        the speed of the decision had been largely determined by the town and parish councils themselves seeking clarification at the earliest opportunity;

-        there was absolutely no intention to bypass the wider membership;

-        there had been a number of Member meetings during which the principle of this matter had been discussed, including an opportunity at the full Council meeting on 25 September 2018 during consideration of the Medium Term Financial Strategy (Minute CM 33 refers);

-        the feedback from the town and parish councils had been generally understanding.  In reply to a question, the lead Member did inform that, since the Hub Committee had taken its decision, one parish council had formally declined the offer;

-        the proposals had been generated as a means to achieve the necessary £50,000 savings that had been approved by the Council at its Budget meeting on 20 February 2018 (Minute CM 57 refers).

The Section 151 Officer was also invited to respond and confirmed that Public Conveniences had been part of the documentation for the Budget Workshop that had been sent to all Members.

During the ensuing debate, the following points were raised:-

(a)   For clarity, the Committee noted that these proposals only related to rural parishes;

(b)   In agreement with the experiences of Brentor Parish Council, another Member highlighted the consultation meetings held with representatives of Buckland Monachorum Parish Council.  The Member stated that it was his understanding that further dialogue would take place between the two councils before any decision was taken.  However, no further dialogue had been undertaken prior to the Hub Committee making its decision;

(c)    Notwithstanding the decision of the Council to obtain £50,000 of savings, a Member retained the view that any public conveniences closures would be to the detriment of the local economy and the tourism industry;

(d)   A Member expressed the view that there were instances of locally managed public conveniences that were run both effectively and efficiently;

(e)   To improve communication links between the Hub Committee and the wider membership, a Member again made the request for lead Members to provide (and circulate) regular brief written update reports from their portfolio areas to all Members;

(f)     A number of Members expressed sympathy with the process concerns that had been highlighted.  That being said, these Members also stressed the extent of the ongoing budgetary pressures being faced by the Council and, whilst the Council had already set a target of £50,000 savings to be made in the service, unfortunately, there had been no alternative suggestions made to deliver these savings.  As a consequence, these Members each expressed their support for the original Hub Committee decision and the following motion was then PROPOSED and SECONDED:-

‘That the Committee expresses its concern and dissatisfaction over the process adhered to yet does endorse the decision arising from Hub Committee Minute HC 39: ‘Public Conveniences: Clarification for Parishes’.

Such were the extent of his governance concerns, that a Member PROPOSED an alternative recommendation as follows:-

‘That the 75% contribution be increased annually in line with inflation.’

However, this alternative recommendation was not seconded.

Prior to the vote on the motion, some Members requested that a recorded vote be undertaken in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 19.  However, when expressions of interest were sought, there was an insufficient number of Members who supported a recorded vote.

It was then:

RESOLVED

That the Committee expresses its concern and dissatisfaction over the process adhered to yet does endorse the decision arising from Hub Committee Minute HC 39: ‘Public Conveniences: Clarification for Parishes’.