Council Minutes: 16 June 2011

Present:

The Chairman advised Members that she had an urgent item for consideration, as already distributed, at the end of the public part of the agenda after item 17.

Cl/18/6/11 Apologies for Absence

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mrs Orchard, W Patterson and H Threlkeld.

Cl/19/6/11 Declarations of Interest

1. Councillor N Hughes declared a personal interest in item 9 on the agenda, Penrith New Squares Progress Report, as he was acquainted with the manager of Penrith FC.
2. Councillor K Morgan declared a personal interest in item 10 on the agenda, Response to natural England's Proposed Extensions to the lake District and Yorkshire Dales National Parks Within Eden, as he had been involved in Scrutiny of the original proposal.
3. Councillor Mrs M Robinson declared a personal interest in item 9 on the agenda, Penrith New Squares Progress Report, as her husband works for Riverside Housing.

Cl/20/6/11 Minutes

Minutes Cl/1/5/11 to Cl/17/5/11 of the meeting of Council held on 16 June 2011 were approved as a correct record of those proceedings.

Cl/21/6/11 Chairman's Announcements

The Chairman made the following announcements:

At 10.30am on 20 June, a special flag raising ceremony is taking place at Penrith Town Hall with the Royal British Legion to mark Armed Forces Day. The Council will proudly fly the Armed Forces Day Flag which symbolises the contribution HM Armed Forces have, and continue to make, to our country.

At the ceremony, the Royal British Legion will be joined by Standard Bearers from the Border Regiment, Naval Association, RAF Association and the ATC. My fellow Councillors are welcome to attend the ceremony which is being led by The Rvd John Oliver, President of the Penrith Branch of the Royal British Legion.

I would like to congratulate all of the Council Officers and our blue collar contractor Enterprise, who have all worked doubly hard this year as part of the Appleby Horse Fair Multi Agency Strategic Co-ordinating Group, to ensure this historic annual Gypsy and Traveller event passes as safely as possible for local residents, the Gypsy and Traveller community and visitors.

This year's Horse Fair came under closer media scrutiny due to increased TV coverage by programmes such as The Lakes and My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding. The initial feedback many agencies are receiving indicates that the Fair had a much better atmosphere this year and that operational planning has gone very well. The cleanup operation by Eden's client services team and Enterprise has again been first class.

I am sure the Multi Agency Group, chaired by Robin Hooper, will be closely evaluating the public feedback they receive in the coming week to see how the Fair can be improved year on year for all concerned.

In recent weeks, I have enjoyed attending some superb engagements on behalf of the Council. This included the annual Best Bar None Awards for the Eden and Carlisle area which was held at the Crown and Mitre Hotel in Carlisle.

Best Bar None is an accreditation and awards scheme that focuses on customer care and safety, and aims to raise standards in the licensed trade. Seventeen premises took part in the awards from Eden District and 25 from Carlisle.

Licensed premises who are accredited as part of Best Bar None receive a plaque and certificate for public display and may become eligible for significant reductions in business insurance premiums through a special scheme. The awards evening was a great occasion with CFM Radio DJ Robbie Dee hosting the event, which was supported by the Carlisle and Eden CDRP, Marstons Brewery, Diageo and ABV Training.

• The winners for the Eden area are:
• Eden Best Pub - General Wolfe
• Eden Best Bar - The Lounge
• Eden Best Club - The Warehouse
• Eden Best Rural premises - Kings Arms, Shap
• CFM Radio People's Choice Eden - Board & Elbow

The overall winner of Best Bar None for the Eden area - The Lounge (King Street, Penrith)

I would like to thank the Licensing Officers from both Eden District and Carlisle City Councils for the hard work they put into Best Bar None each year, it pays dividends with the licensing trade and helps make both areas safer places to enjoy a night out.

Other events I have enjoyed attending include the Annual General Meeting of Eden Scouts, where I saw the great work that our voluntary organisations are doing to support communities across our District.

I would also like to thank the Rotary Clubs of Upper Eden and Appleby for the invitation to their Retro Automobile International Car Tour. This was a great event attended by many international drivers, who are not used to driving on challenging routes such as the Hardknott and Wrynose pass. Credit goes to Alan McViety and his fellow Rotarians for organising such a great occasion and for their continued work to raise money for many worthy causes both in the UK and abroad.

Cl/22/6/11 Questions by the Public

There were no questions from the public at this meeting.

Cl/23/6/11 Executive Report

Council considered report CE9/11 of the Executive which updated Council on the activities of the Executive and Portfolio Holders since the last full meeting of Council on 14 April 2011.

Members asked questions of Executive Members in relation to the contents of the report.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

Cl/24/6/11 Questions by Members

There were eleven questions by Members under Rule 12 of the Constitution.

1. Councillor A Connell asked the following question of Councillor Nicolson as the Leader of the Council:
   
   “In view of both the dual composition of the Executive, and the impressive unanimity shown by Conservative and Independent Alliance councillors in electing committee chairs, will the Leader or Deputy Leader, for the benefit of the Council as a whole and of the general public, please explain the nature of the arrangement between the two groups?”
   
   Councillor Nicolson replied that the agreement between the Conservative group and the independent Alliance was concluded following the declaration of the election results. The agreement commits the 26 members of both Groups to working together for the benefit of the residents of Eden. The aims of the agreement are: to offer value for money to Eden District Council Tax payers, to maintain quality Council services, to promote effective and efficient conduct of Council business and to reflect an interpretation of Government policies against the needs of Eden District. The terms of the agreement cover: policy and programme formulation, allocation of executive and other responsibilities, communications between the participating groups, variations to the agreement, breaches of the agreement, termination of the agreement and reviews of the operation of the agreement.
   
   The agreement is a basis for sound management of the Council's affairs. It complies fully with the Council's constitution and respects the sovereignty of the Council in approving policies and making decisions and resolutions.
   
   Engagement with Members and Council staff is a very important aspect of the agreement. Also we must recognise that Independent members of the Council may choose their own ways on some issues. Nevertheless our engagement with our members has produced a consensus on the key issues facing our Council and an approach to addressing them. This enabled me to present a defined programme and deal with Members' questions when I stood for election as Leader of the Council and to the conduct of an effective and efficient Annual Meeting.
   
   Councillor Connell asked ‘other than party membership, what features differentiate Independent and Conservative Councillors'?
   
   Councillor Nicolson responded that to stand as a Conservative you have to be a member of the party, there is no such qualification for independent members who have a meeting of minds on essential; issues and problems and how they wish to tackle them.
   
   
2. Councillor N Hughes asked the following question of Councillor Nicolson as Leader of the Council:
   
   “Would the Leader please explain why, in his view, the entirety of Item 19 needs to be taken as a confidential item tonight?”
   
   Councillor Nicolson responded that ‘the decision to place item 19 in part 2 of tonight's meeting accords with advice from the Council's Monitoring Officer. I sought and obtained a dispensation from the Monitoring Officer to say that two of the recommendations before Council tonight are to endorse the principle of appointing a part time Chief Executive and to invite Carlisle City Council to share a Chief Executive with Eden District Council. These matters are in the public domain and there is no reason why the public should not be aware that they will be discussed tonight.
   
   The debate on these items has implications for the structure and organisation of the Council and consequently for individual posts and future employment levels in the Council. It is absolutely right that members should debate matters that will be the basis of consultation with staff in part 2. The principle that discussion of matters that may concern individual officers is in part 2 of meetings is well established. When these items are being discussed, members of the Senior Management Team and democratic Services Officer will leave the meeting as they did on the advice of the Interim Chief Executive when the matter was discussed at the Executive on 31 May'.
   
   
3. Councillor Ms D Stobbart said that since her question was almost identical to the question put by Councillor Hughes she would not ask it again but asked the following question of Councillor Nicolson as Leader of the Council as her supplementary question:
   
   I believe that the Council is not working for the benefit of Eden and is helping in fostering contempt. Can the Leader explain the lack of transparency'?
   
   Councillor Nicolson replied that ‘it will be apparent once changes have been agreed and carried out that the Council will invest in services that residents want and desire'
   
   
4. Councillor Mrs D Spence asked the following question of Councillor Nicolson as Leader of the Council:
   
   “As a new councillor, I hoped that I would play a part in justice being done and also in justice being seen to be done. That is, I believe, a vital part of democracy.
   
   Tonight we are being asked to make a decision which will affect all residents of Eden, and that decision is going to be made behind closed doors.
   
   Could Councillor Nicholson please indicate HOW he intends to open up major debates of this kind so that the public can at least witness the key parts of the decision making process?"
   
   Councillor Nicolson replied that ‘we now have the same issues raised for the third time at tonight's meeting.
   
   There has already been considerable public debate in this chamber on matters concerning shared services and I have made everyone aware that we will be considering the question of a part time Chief Executive and an invitation to Carlisle City Council to share a Chief Executive. Again, I would refer Councillor Spence to my response to Councillor Hughes.
   
   The proposals for the future organisation and staffing structures will be debated in public when staff have been consulted, costs and savings established and, if appropriate, budgets and forecasts are revised. There is absolutely no intention to exclude the public from debate on the future of our Council. However I believe that our processes should reflect the sensitivities of matters affecting staff and staff should have the opportunity to comment on the Council's conclusions before Council is asked to debate in open forum and to approve specific proposals'.
   
   
5. Councillor M Eyles asked the following question of Councillor Nicolson as Leader of the Council:
   
   “Despite an assurance given to me and in front of all members present, in response to a direct question, at a closed members' briefing, the leader has gone back on that assurance. Since he has put the item in question on confidential papers I am unable to even mention it in public but how does the leader justify his actions to the chamber to talk about who to share a Chief Executive with rather than debate the concept'?
   
   Councillor Nicolson responded ‘every member of this Council is entitled to change their views following consideration of matters and advice from senior officers and colleagues.
   
   Earlier this year, the cross group Transformation Board reached agreement on the criteria and key considerations for selecting a partner. Board Members also agreed that consideration should be given to working with either South Lakeland District Council or Carlisle City Council but were unable to reach a conclusion on which Council represented the best option. Some members of the Board considered that insufficient information was available. On 14 April, Council deferred a decision on a recommendation that we work with Carlisle City Council.
   
   A number of specific opportunities have been created for members to request additional information on the merits of working with either Council or to make alternative proposals. There have been comments in response to invitations to request information but no specific requests and no alternative proposals have been received. The opportunities include:
   
   1. Invitation to members of the Transformation Board - February 2011
   2. Member briefings on the Transformation Project - 10 March, 11 April, 2 June
   3. Individual meetings with Leader on Transformation Issues.
   4. Group Leaders' discussions with Interim Chief Executive on Transformation issues.
   
   These were specific opportunities created and are in addition to a members entitlement to receive information from members of the Executive and senior officers at any time about any matter concerning the Council.
   
   I am satisfied that there is sufficient information available to members to demonstrate that the recommendation to invite Carlisle City Council to share a Chief Executive is in the interest of our Council. Had members specified additional information needs, they would have been met but there were none.
   
   Had members advanced alternative proposals for sharing a chief executive they would have been considered but there were none. Tonight we must move on and make a decision. I hope that all members will recognise the necessity for this.
   
   Councillor Eyles asked the following supplementary question of the Leader ‘Twice previously we have debated sharing a Chief Executive with Carlisle and South Lakeland District Councils and on both occasions the reports were inadequate and Members requested more information. Why are we left with a single choice once again'?
   
   Councillor Nicolson responded that he had nothing further to add and that a decision needed to be made so that the authority could move on.
   
   
6. Councillor M Eyles asked the following question of Councillor Nicolson as Leader of the Council:
   
   “Will the portfolio holder please investigate the possibility of linking a recording system to the amplification system for the hard of hearing in the chamber so a verbatim record of council meetings are available in addition to the minutes, which are, of necessity, an overview of proceedings?”
   
   Councillor Nicolson responded that ‘there is no Performance and Improvement Portfolio Holder anymore. It is technically possible to record Council meetings so that there is a verbatim record. Unfortunately, Councillor Eyles does not indicate what purpose he seeks to achieve through recording the meetings. If a verbatim record of Council meetings were to be transcribed it would represent a considerable volume of work for someone to undertake. I would remind Councillor Eyles that we embarking upon a process of restructuring the Council's staffing resource and considering the most effective use of all of the resources which we have. If Members thought that there was a clear purpose behind this request it could be considered by scrutiny Members. However, I cannot see the value of recording and transcribing Council meetings with its attendant additional costs.
   
   The answer to the question is therefore no'.
   
   Councillor Eyles said that he was aware that it was possible to set up a computer to record in MP3 format and that this could be used if there was a problem recollecting discussion.
   
   Councillor Nicolson responded that he was not aware of this possibility but there was no reason for the proposal therefore it would not be considered.
   
   
7. Councillor M Eyles asked the following question of Councillor Nicolson as Leader of the Council:
   
   “Bearing in mind that the deadline for the public submitting questions to the executive of Eden District Council is noon on the Tuesday before such meetings, is it reasonable for the agenda for the meeting not to be available on the council's website even as late as 0947 hours on the Sunday of that week? Should it not be made available to the public at the same time as papers are normally received by members, which is the Thursday before the meeting?”
   
   Councillor Nicolson responded that ‘in the normal course of events the agenda for Council will be put on the website on a Thursday which is one week before the meeting. The agenda and the reports have to be made accessible for the web and various technical adaptations have to be made such as enabling links for the various items. There was a limited staffing resource available to do the necessary work. This meant that the agenda was not posted on the website until Monday of this week which was much later than the scheduled timescale. The staff will endeavour to meet the timescales. I do understand and accept your point.
   
   Nonetheless the statutory requirements for the posting of the agenda were met. I think everyone would agree that the agenda should be posted on the website as soon as possible and whenever practicable at the time it is available to the public. I recognise that the electronic means is the simplest and most accessible for the public to see what will be considered in Council.
   
   
8. Councillor M Eyles asked the following question of Councillor Nicolson as Leader of the Council:
   
   “We have read recently in the press that Eden Council takes the issue of the infamous ‘Penrith Pong' very seriously and that they are working to identify the source of the odours. Has the portfolio holder actually visited the site when the smell is present, since that would seem to be the obvious way of identifying the source?”
   
   Councillor Nicolson responded to the question as follows: ‘I am answering on Councillor Tonkin's behalf as it has emerged that he has a non beneficial interest in land in the vicinity of the Wildriggs site. Details are in the members' register of interests.
   
   Operational matters are dealt with by officers and not Members of the Executive. It would not be appropriate for the portfolio holder to visit any site to identify any source of complaint. Such a task is an activity for an officer.
   
   Councillor Eyles asked the following supplementary question: ‘Is it not shameful that the public have to consider the possibility of a civil law suit because of the seemingly indifference of the Executive'?
   
   Councillor Nicolson replied that it was not shameful.
   
   
9. Councillor R Howse asked the following question of Councillor Nicolson as Leader of the Council:
   
   “It is in the public domain that the Council Leader wishes to share a Chief Executive and Management Team with Carlisle City Council. There are serious risks in implementing that programme and Members have been promised in a public document tabled in April that this meeting will be presented with a full risk assessment and mitigation report. Will the Leader please explain why that report is not forthcoming and the public made aware of the risks and potential consequences?”
   
   Councillor Nicolson responded to the question as follows ‘To spare members the task of listening to me repeating myself I refer Councillor Howse to my answer to Councillor Eyles first question.
   
   I will add that I agree that there are risks in any new relationship. Councillor Howse does not specify any risks in his question therefore I am unable to comment on how they will be mitigated.
   
   What I will ask of all members is that if the proposals to be debated later this evening are approved by Council every member becomes engaged in making any new relationships effective.
   
   Councillor Howse asked the following supplementary question of the Leader ‘ The last meeting of the Transformation Board was on 30 March, the Leaders of all the Political Groups agreed that a recommendation to the Annual Meeting was that the Transformation Board should be reconvened once the new Council had been appointed to continue it's work. Why has this been ignored'?
   
   The Interim Chief Executive said that as the question did not arise from the answer to the first question it was not appropriate.
   
   
10. Councillor I Torkington asked the following question of Councillor Nicolson as Leader of the Council:
    
    “The majority of the people of Ravenstonedale would prefer to share any management with South Lakeland rather than Carlisle. In the interests of openness and democracy can the Council Leader explain why ‘the principle of a part time Chief Executive, and whether he or she be shared with another Council' needs to be taken behind closed doors?”
    
    Councillor Nicolson responded to the question as follows: ‘I think that I am being subjected to a continuity test this evening. This is the fourth time that the same question has been raised. I refer Councillor Torkington to my answer given to Councillor Hughes at the beginning of this agenda item.
    
    I do hope that in advancing a case for working with South Lakeland District Council, Councillor Torkington has been able to convince Councillors Eyles, Howse and Derbyshire respectively that all due information has been taken into account, all risks assessed and mitigated and all the options have been fully researched'.
    
    
11. Councillor Mrs J Derbyshire asked the following question of Councillor Nicolson as Leader of the Council:
    
    “Previously it had been agreed that after research and discussion of all the options and implications, the Full Council would decide the way forward for Eden District Council in the near future on the major issue to be discussed in Item 19. Can the Leader explain how he feels the Full Council can make this important decision tonight, when all the options have not been fully researched and the information discussed by the Council, especially as some of the options may be quicker and cheaper to implement than his preferred option?”
    
    Councillor Nicolson responded to the question as follows: ‘I believe that my answers to Councillor Derbyshire's colleagues deal with the points she has raised.
    
    The proposals before members at item 19 on our agenda this evening tonight if agreed and implemented will enable Council to move forward on a programme of restructuring the Council and aligning our organisation to deliver services previously considered for withdrawal.
    
    The Council has been living beyond its means. The questions before you tonight generally overlook the big picture in that they fail to recognise that we are seeking a mandate to progress our agenda and work programme. This programme is fully consistent with the reaction of our residents and visitors to earlier budget proposals. I do hope that the majority of our members will recognise this.
    
    Please do not become immersed in process and delaying tactics. Make some decisions and enable our Council to move forward.

Cl/25/6/11 Motions on Notice

No motions on notice under Rule 13 of the Constitution were received for this meeting.

Cl/26/6/11 Penrith New Squares - Progress Report

Council considered report TS48-11 of the Director of Technical Services which was the quarterly progress statement in order to keep Members informed in respect of the Penrith New Squares Development. Members were advised that scheme is monitored through the monthly partners meeting and that full recommencement of the scheme was underway with work progressing on various elements.

RESOLVED that the quarterly progress report be received.

Cl/27/6/11 Response to Natural England's Proposed Extensions to the Lake District and Yorkshire Dales National Parks within Eden

Council considered report PP30/11 of the Director or Policy and Performance which outlined Natural England's consultation on the revised proposed extensions to the Lake District and Yorkshire Dales National Parks and the implications for Eden, verbal comments from the Environment and Economy Panel, and a possible response to the consultation. Members were advised that 68% of the responses were in favour of some or all of Natural England's proposals however many statutory consultees, including Cumbria County Council, were not. Natural England were seeking views on:

• The proposed inclusion of the Orton fells in the Yorkshire Dales National Park (YDNPA);
• Additions / deletions to the detailed boundary proposals;
• Strategic Environment Assessment; and
• Equality Impact Assessment.

RESOLVED that:

1. the Council notifies Natural England of its opposition to extensions of the lake District and Yorkshire Dales National Parks within Eden on the grounds that:
   1. The area is remote from the majority of the Yorkshire Dales, is not an intrinsic part of the Yorkshire Dales and the people of the area would not have an effective representation on the Board given the lack of democratic arrangements and distances to offices;
   2. The Authority is not satisfied that provision of housing, which is one of the Council's Corporate priorities will be met sufficiently and appropriately if the area is subject to the YDNPA's housing policies as it doesn't take account of the area's specific and particular needs;
   3. The area does not require to be included in the National Park to be protected from inappropriate development.
2. the boundaries of Reagill, Sleagill and Kirkby Stephen be reviewed so that a parish falls entirely in one administrative area;
3. the proposed response be approved subject to inclusion of appropriate references to the above grounds of objection.

Cl/28/6/11 Scrutiny Annual Report

Council considered report PP19/11 of the Chairman of Scrutiny for the 2010/2011 municipal year which was designed to be read and understood by the people and stakeholders of Eden. The annual report described the activities of the various Scrutiny panels and ‘task and finish' groups between May 2010 and April 2011 and advised members that 96% of the recommendations from Scrutiny reviews were accepted for implementation by the Executive during the municipal year.

RESOLVED that the report be approved and the work of Scrutiny during the 2010/2011 municipal year be noted.

Cl/29/6/11 Composition and Format of the Scrutiny Committees

Council considered report CLS28/11 of the Director of Corporate and Legal Services which asked Members to consider the views of the Scrutiny Co-ordinating Board on the composition and format of the Scrutiny Panels. Members were advised that the Scrutiny Co-ordinating Board had considered the composition and format of the Scrutiny Panels at its meeting on 2 June 2011 and were of the view that no change should be made to the composition of the Scrutiny Co-ordinating board and the two Scrutiny Panels for a number of reasons.

RESOLVED that no change be made to the composition of the Scrutiny Co-ordinating Board or the Scrutiny panels for the following reasons:

• The current composition and format of the scrutiny process enables people with the time, interest and commitment to become engaged particularly on task and finish groups;
• The current system enables there to be more flexibility and having people who are available should they be required does enable them to be able to contribute if the standing members are not available;
• Smaller more focussed groups of panels have proved to be the most effective and appropriate. By contrast the larger panels or groups tend to be too unwieldy;
• The current system enables people to volunteer so that they can take part in those reviews or studies in which they are interested which gives rise to a better attendance;
• Anyone who is interested in a particular activity can ask to take part in the appropriate scrutiny review or consideration;
• Any member of the Council who is not on the Executive can take part in any scrutiny review. For example, the previous chair of the Accounts and Governance Committee had a significant role in the consideration of the budget during the course of the previous year;
• An invitation should be given to those who are not on any of the Scrutiny panels to attend the Co-ordinating Board or the panels and become involved on particular issues should they wish to do so;
• It should be recognised that some people do not wish to participate in scrutiny and are content to take part in the other committees on the Council.

Cl/30/6/11 Standing Deputies - Liberal Democrats

Council considered a request from the Liberal Democrat Group that Councillor Andy Connell replace Councillor Robin Howse as standing deputy to the Scrutiny Co-ordinating Board.

RESOLVED that Councillor Andy Connell replace Councillor Robin Howse as standing deputy on the Scrutiny Co-ordinating Board.

Cl/31/6/11 Scrutiny Procedure Rules - Amendment

Council considered report CLS27/11 of the Director of Corporate and Legal Services which asked Members to review the scrutiny procedure rules relating to a call-in and specifically as to whether cross-party or group support is required. Presently in accordance with rule 16(a)(iii) any three members of the Council can request and sign a call-in as amended in the constitutional review in 2010. Members were advised that the change was made to make it clear that the request for a call-in was not limited to those who sat on the Scrutiny Committee. However it was not the intention of changing the requirement for three Members to be from more than one political party or group as it is considered that a scrutiny call-in should be used in a non-political way.

RESOLVED that the scrutiny procedure rules be amended to require that a call-in of a decision should be signed by at least three Members of the Council who are from at least two political groups.

Cl/32/6/11 Proper Officer Functions - Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984

Council considered report CLS26/11 of the Director of Corporate and Legal Services which requested Members to amend the designation of the proper officer functions in relation to public health. Members were advised that the Council has been requested by the Health Protection Agency of the Cumbria and Lancashire Health Protection Unit to update its authorisation for proper officers which is currently contained in the list of proper officer functions in Part 3 of the Constitution.

RESOLVED that the Council appoint the consultant level staff in the Cumbria and Lancashire Health Protection Unit as proper officers under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act, 1984.

Cl/33/6/11 Delegation of Setting of Combined Council Tax

Council considered report F32/11 which was a joint report of the Director of Finance and Director of Corporate and Legal Services which requested members consideration of a change to current practice to the setting of the combined Council Tax. Members were advised that the Councils sets its own Council Tax in the second week in February and that the Police and County Council timetable their meetings to set their Council Tax to give enough time for a report to be produced. Parish and Town Councils however are not required to set their precepts until the end of February, however, they have always been willing to voluntarily meet the earlier deadline.

RESOLVED that:

1. the setting of the combined Council Tax be delegated to the Accounts and Governance Committee;
2. the meeting of Council scheduled for 23 February 2012 be cancelled; and
3. an Accounts and Governance Committee be timetabled for 23 February 2012.

Cl/34/6/11 Refresh of Corporate Plan

Council considered report PP33/11 of the Director of Policy and Performance which asked Council to consider how a refresh of the Corporate Plan might be approached. Following extensive consultation, Council agreed a Corporate Plan for 2011-2014 in February 2011.

RESOLVED that:

1. a refresh of the Council's Corporate Plan be carried over the Summer with a more focussed consultation exercise to review what targets the Council should set itself for service provision over the next four years: and
2. the timetable for revision be as follows:
   1. Consultation 20 June to 22 August 2011;
   2. Final plan written up 23-30 August 2011;
   3. Draft revised plan to informal Executive 6 September 2011;
   4. Resources Plan to Executive 6 September and Council 29 September 2011;
   5. Revised Corporate Plan priorities to Council 29 September 2011.

The Chairman considered that the following item should be considered as a matter of urgency at this meeting because a delay of one committee cycle would not be in the best interests of the efficient operation of the service.

Cl/35/6/11 Revised Select Tender List for the Re-tender of Leisure Management Services

Council considered report TS59-11 of the Director of Technical Services which advised Members that it had been discovered that one leisure management organisation which was rejected had not received all the clarification documents which were issued before applicants submitted their Pre-Qualification Questionnaire's (PQQ). The Council's procurement advisers, Ward Hadaway, advised that the Council should take the process back to the point where the error occurred which involved confirming all clarification notes and giving a further opportunity of 10 days for all the applicants to resubmit their PQQ's.

RESOLVED that the following select list of contractors be invited to participate in dialogue for the Leisure Management Services contract: Contractors 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 9.

Cl/36/6/11 Exclusion of Press and Public

Moved and duly seconded

that in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, members of the public (including the press) be excluded from the meeting during discussion of the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.

Amendement by Councillor Mrs J Derbyshire
Seconded by Councillor M Eyles

That recommendation c, d and e of the report on the Management of Succession be heard in public as they don't fit the exemptions as described in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

A recorded vote was taken when there were:

For the Amendment - 9
(Councillors G Bowen, A Connell, Mrs J Derbyshire, M Eyles, R Howse, N Hughes, Mrs D Spence, Ms D Stobbart and I Torkington)

Against it - 24
(Councillor K Beaty, Miss M Clark, Mrs P Godwin, Mrs L Grisedale, D Harding, C Harrison, H Harrison, J M Holliday, D Huxley, J Lynch, K Morgan, G Nicolson, Mrs J Raine, Mrs M Robinson, H Sawrey-Cookson, S Simpson, M Slee, M Smith, M Temple, J Thompson, A Todd, M Tonkin, D Whipp, Mrs D Wicks)

Abstentions - 2
(Councillors T C Ladhams, P Richardson)

The amendment was lost.

Moved by Councillor J Thompson
Seconded by Councillor D Harding

and RESOLVED that in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, members of the public (including the press) be excluded from the meeting during discussion of the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.

Cl/37/6/11 Management of Succession (Exclusion Paragraph No 1)

Council considered report CE6/11 of the Leader of the Council which outlined proposals for the management of succession, consequential upon the report of the Interim Chief Executive presented to the Executive on 31 May 2011 and feedback from the Members seminar on 2 June 2011.

Moved by Councillor G Nicolson
Seconded by Councillor M Smith

That:

1. the structure at Option 3 and the proposals thereafter be agreed for formal consultation with the staff, Unions, staff representatives and JCC and the Interim Chief Executive report to Council in September thereon;
2. the at-risk letters be issued to those people who would be vulnerable or at risk of losing their jobs at this stage;
3. the principle of appointing a part-time Chief Executive be agreed;
4. the HR and Appeals Committee be appointed by Council to commence the recruitment or appointment process of a part-time Chief Executive;
5. in light of Carlisle City Council having a vacancy for a Chief Executive in September, the Council formally invites Carlisle City Council to share a Chief Executive and a joint appointment be made and the Leader to report to the next meeting of Council on the matter;
6. the report on feedback from the consultation from the Interim Chief Executive including details of any expressions of interest from employees wishing to accept voluntary redundancy in accordance with the Council's existing policies for the Council in September 2011 should include proposals on how to deal with:
   1. Filling of new posts in the structure;
   2. Person specifications and competencies for posts;
   3. How to respond to volunteers for redundancy;
   4. Management of the pool of people at risk;
7. subject to the consideration of the consultation responses, the new staffing structure be implemented with effect on 1 April 2012;
8. the voluntary redundancy framework be involved in relation to this restructure of the Council's establishment; and
9. it be noted that the Interim Chief Executive will report to the Executive on 28 June on the arrangements for continuing to employ staff in posts funded on a temporary basis until 31 March 2012 so that those posts can be considered as part of the consultation.

Amendments were proposed firstly to withdraw point 5 above then to amend point 5 by replacing it with ‘to formally invite South Lakeland District Council to share a Chief Executive. Both of those amendments having been debated and put to the vote were lost.

The original motion was then debated and upon a vote being taken it was RESOLVED that:

1. the structure at Option 3 and the proposals thereafter be agreed for formal consultation with the staff, Unions, staff representatives and JCC and the Interim Chief Executive report to Council in September thereon;
2. the at-risk letters be issued to those people who would be vulnerable or at risk of losing their jobs at this stage;
3. the principle of appointing a part-time Chief Executive be agreed;
4. the HR and Appeals Committee be appointed by Council to commence the recruitment or appointment process of a part-time Chief Executive;
5. in light of Carlisle City Council having a vacancy for a Chief Executive in September, the Council formally invites Carlisle City Council to share a Chief Executive and a joint appointment be made and the Leader to report to the next meeting of Council on the matter;
6. the report on feedback from the consultation from the Interim Chief Executive including details of any expressions of interest from employees wishing to accept voluntary redundancy in accordance with the Council's existing policies for the Council in September 2011 should include proposals on how to deal with:
   1. Filling of new posts in the structure;
   2. Person specifications and competencies for posts;
   3. How to respond to volunteers for redundancy;
   4. Management of the pool of people at risk;
7. subject to the consideration of the consultation responses, the new staffing structure be implemented with effect on 1 April 2012;
8. the voluntary redundancy framework be involved in relation to this restructure of the Council's establishment; and
9. it be noted that the Interim Chief Executive will report to the Executive on 28 June on the arrangements for continuing to employ staff in posts funded on a temporary basis until 31 March 2012 so that those posts can be considered as part of the consultation.

The meeting closed at 9.05pm