to consider the following question(s) (if any) received in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 8.
a) From Cllr McKay to Cllr Pearce, Leader of the Council
‘The Leader will be aware of the Constitution-Part 4-Council Procedure Rules-Rule 13 which states: (removed due to 50 word rule).
Does the Leader agree that this rule provides a framework for the Council to consult with its residents and why has it not been employed?’
b) From Cllr O’Callaghan to Cllr Pearce, Leader of the Council
‘Is it true that SHDC missed the deadline set by the Information Commissioner to reply to a resident making FOI requests in relation to the council’s waste management contract? If so, why did this happen and have we ensured the resident got replies – and that other FOI requests do too?’
c) From Cllr Pannell to Cllr Pearce, Leader of the Council
‘Will the Leadership of this Council consider following the example of Cornwall Council to devolve control and ownership of a number of its car parks to town and parish councils on the grounds that local people best understand local needs and how to manage them and, if not, why not?’
d) From Cllr McKay to Cllr Pearce, Leader of the Council
‘The Leader will be aware that the South Hams needs to reduce its emissions of GHG’s by ~10% per year over 8 years if it is to achieve a 50% reduction by 2030. Does the Leader think the Council’s Action Plan provides a framework for doings this, and why?’
e) From Cllr McKay to Cllr Pearce, Leader of the Council
‘This Council has earmarked £600k for climate change and biodiversity, largely at the behest of the opposition. But why has so little of this money been spent on the myriad opportunities it must surely be aware of to address the Emergency it declared two and half years ago?’
Minutes:
83/21
It was noted that five Questions on Notice had been received in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 8.
a) From Cllr McKay to Cllr Pearce, Leader of the Council
‘The Leader will be aware of the Constitution-Part 4-Council Procedure Rules - Rule 13. Does the Leader agree that this rule provides a framework for the Council to consult with its residents and why has it not been employed?’
In response, Cllr Pearce advised that the Council had adopted the Council Meeting Procedure Rules in July 2021, replacing and therefore revoking, the equivalent part of the Constitution. The Rules were agreed by Council following a number of meetings with Members about the Council’s decision-making arrangements and a review of the Council’s Constitution. Cllr Pearce also recalled that Council deferred adoption of the Constitution from the Annual Meeting in May, so that Members had more time to consider the new Rules.
Cllr Pearce proceeded to inform that, in its adopted form, Council Meeting Procedure Rule 13 dealt with the Procedure for making amendments to Budget proposals. Previously, the same numbered Procedure Rule had provided for the Leader of the Council to have a discretion to call an annual “State of the South Hams Debate” and to decide the form of the debate “with the aim of enabling public involvement and publicity”. It was a provision that had its origin in the Model Constitution introduced by the Secretary of State following the Local Government Act 2000 coming into force, which required all local councils to have a Constitution that covered all of the Standing Orders, delegated processes and the Code of conduct for Members.
Furthermore, the Council was committed to consulting with its residents. In reality, a single annual debate, did not provide the time or the level of engagement with the public that would be needed to ensure that their views are communicated effectively and received an appropriate level of consideration. This was to be contrasted with the approach taken by the Council to consult with residents as part of the process of forming “Better Lives for All” and the various strategies that flowed from it, such as the Housing Strategy.
In addition, “Better Lives for All” also had a number of actions focussed upon how the Council could improve communication and engagement. These actions were detailed in the thematic delivery plans. They included developing a Customer Access Strategy and a forward plan of Consultation on Engagement. Both were now in place. Accordingly, the Council could show by its words and actions, that it had a firm commitment to consultation and engagement.
b) From Cllr O’Callaghan to Cllr Pearce, Leader of the Council
‘Is it true that SHDC missed the deadline set by the Information Commissioner to reply to a resident making FOI requests in relation to the council’s waste management contract? If so, why did this happen and have we ensured the resident got replies – and that other FOI requests do too?’
Prior to providing her response, the Leader reminded the meeting that it had also previously been circulated to all Members on 11 March 2022. Nonetheless, Cllr Pearce proceeded to state that:
‘The Council was of course aware of its duties under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. However, it also had a number of other competing or conflicting duties, both statutory and common law, and limited resources with which to comply with them. It was, and still was, a matter of balancing those duties; the right of the individual to know balanced against the interests of all residents and businesses that the Council was acting prudently in commercial and legal matters affecting the Council.
Members were aware that, at the time of the request, and a number of others like it, the Council was dealing with a significant number of failures by its waste contractor to implement the Devon Aligned Service or indeed to consistently and regularly collect waste across the South Hams. Seeking to protect the waste collection service and to comply with our statutory duties regarding the collection of household waste was the priority. Officers were asked to do just that. Those officers included the same officers who would otherwise have been available to consider the contract and any exemptions that may have applied to it. All those individuals who requested a copy of the contract or parts of the contract were advised of this.
Members had been advised on several occasions that the contract was complex and one of, if not the largest contracts that the Council had ever let. The Council could not simply hand-over copies of the contract to anyone who requested it. To do so, would have caused harm to the Council’s wider interests and therefore those of our residents and businesses. The application of the exemptions that were necessary to protect the Council’s on-going legal and commercial position in its dispute with its waste contractor was not straight-forward. The Council had taken, and was continuing to take, legal advice on the application of the exemptions. The Council would nevertheless provide what information was appropriate within the 35-day period given by the Information Commissioner’s Office.’
In response to a Supplementary Question, Cllr Pearce expressed some sympathy and stated that it was her view that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee should consider the findings made by the Information Commissioner’s Office as part of the Annual Report produced by the Local Government Ombudsman.
c) From Cllr Pannell to Cllr Pearce, Leader of the Council
‘Will the Leadership of this Council consider following the example of Cornwall Council to devolve control and ownership of a number of its car parks to town and parish councils on the grounds that local people best understand local needs and how to manage them and, if not, why not?
In response, Cllr Baldry, Lead Executive Member for Environment stated that Cornwall Council was currently considering devolution of some of its public open space and minor car parks. South Hams District Council had been taking this approach for some years where Town and Parish Councils had presented a compelling and reasonable case.
Cllr Baldry also advised that public open space and some car parks had been devolved in locations such as Newton and Noss; Dartmouth; and Aveton Gifford and the opportunity remained for Town and Parish Councils to make the case for devolution of non-strategic assets.
For clarity, Cllr Baldry also informed that strategic assets would include Town Centre and coastal car parks.
In response to a supplementary, Cllr Baldry agreed that, in the event of any Local Government reorganisation being proposed, then he would support in principle devolving the control and ownership of such assets to local town and parish councils.
d) From Cllr McKay to Cllr Pearce, Leader of the Council
‘The Leader will be aware that the South Hams needs to reduce its emissions of GHG’s by ~10% per year over 8 years if it is to achieve a 50% reduction by 2030. Does the Leader think the Council’s Action Plan provides a framework for doings this, and why?’
In response, Cllr Pearce advised that the Climate Emergency and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions was a huge challenge to us all. The Councils Action Plan was an evolving piece of work and would be subject to a review later this year after the publication of the Devon Carbon Plan. The Devon Carbon Plan had been co-produced by leading experts, the public and strategic partners and would help to set realistic carbon budgets to work towards. As a Council, we had an aim to reach net zero by 2050 across the District and whilst we had a key role to play, we could not do this in isolation and would continue to co-ordinate our efforts with partners in Devon and across the South West to achieve results in the areas over which we had the greatest level of influence.
In asking a supplementary question, Cllr McKay sought further clarity on what measures would be put in place to ensure the targets within the Action Plan were met.
In response, the Leader suggested that it would be appropriate for either a written response to be provided to Cllr McKay or for a meeting to be convened between Cllr McKay and lead officers to discuss in more detail.
e) From Cllr McKay to Cllr Pearce, Leader of the Council
‘This Council has earmarked £600k for climate change and biodiversity, largely at the behest of the opposition. But why has so little of this money been spent on the myriad opportunities it must surely be aware of to address the Emergency it declared two and half years ago?’
Cllr Pearce’s response advised that, of the £600,000 approved by Council, £359,000 had already been committed against the delivery of climate related projects within the Council’s adopted Corporate Strategy: Better Lives for All and the adopted Climate Change and Biodiversity Strategy. This included an allocation of £200,000 for grants. £50,000 had now been allocated through the Climate Engagement Fund to a range of community driven projects designed at delivering behavioural change. The next phase of our grant scheme would be published shortly. A further £93,000 had been allocated to individual Members through the Climate Locality Fund, of which £35,269 had been spent so far.
A further £46,000 had been committed to the green space management changes to improve biodiversity on our land which would ensure that our aim to increase biodiversity by 10% by 2025 would be comfortably exceeded. Smaller sums were being utilised to scope and develop larger, carbon saving projects such as EV fleet transition. We retained the remaining budget to support costs associated with operational emissions reductions and projects likely to emerge from the Devon Carbon Plan.
In his supplementary question, Cllr McKay asked whether or not there was any intention for grant funding opportunities to be made available to allow smaller organisations to secure funding in the future.
In her response, Cllr Pearce reminded Members that they had the ability to use their Locality Funds to support such organisations.