TUNBRIDGE WELLS BOROUGH COUNCIL

MINUTES of a meeting of the Tunbridge Wells Borough Council, duly convened and held at the Council Chamber, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent TN1 1RS, at 6.30 pm on Wednesday, 10 December 2014

PRESENT:

The Mayor, Councillor Julian Stanyer Councillors Dr Basu, Backhouse, Barrington-King, Bulman, Chapelard, Mrs Cobbold, Mrs Crowhurst, Dawlings, Derrick, Elliott (Deputy Mayor), Gray, Hall, Dr Hall, Hastie, Hill, Hills, Holden, Horwood, Jamil, Jukes, Lewis, March, McDermott, Munn, Neve, Noakes, Ms Palmer, Patterson, Rankin, Rusbridge, Scholes, Scott, Smith, Sloan, Mrs Soyke, Mrs Thomas, Tompsett, Ward, Weatherly, Webb, Williams and Woodward

IN ATTENDANCE: William Benson (Chief Executive), Wendy Newton-May (Local Democracy Officer) and Keith Trowell (Principal Lawyer and Deputy Monitoring Officer)

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

FC39/14 Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Lockhart, Rogers, Waldock, Wauchope and Weeden.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

FC40/14 No declarations of interest were received.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

FC41/14 The Mayor made the following announcements:

(a) Since being unavoidable absent from the last Full Council meeting with a bad back, he had returned to a full programme of activities which had included:

 The Civic Dinner in October  Meeting deputations from Wiesbaden  Bennett Memorial diocesan School Founders’ Day Service  Skinners’ School annual prize giving  Wine tasting at Groombridge Place in aid of Burrswood Hospital  Annual Poppy luncheon at Chatham  Launch of the Tree of Hope Centre in Camden Road  Trinity Theatre reception  Joseph at the Assembly Hall  MUNGA event at the Town Hall  Remembrance Day parade  St Augustine’s dedication of memorial  Concert at King Charles the Martyr Church  Commissioning of Rev. Robert Avery as Rural Dean of Tunbridge Wells

(b) The Mayor mentioned that it had been a year of celebrating anniversaries:  Royal Tunbridge Wells Art Exhibition – 80 years

 Grove Bowls Club – 125 years  Pickering cancer drop in centre – 10th birthday  TWODs performance of A Merry Widow at the Assembly Hall – 125 years

As well as the following Christmas events:  Royal Victoria Place Christmas lights  Tree of Light in the Pantiles  Opening of the ice rink in Calverley Park  Toy Appeal collection visits to schools and churches  St George’s Christmas Fete  Young carers and Index magazine ice skating event

(c) The Mayor mentioned the following events coming up in the New Year:

 Mayor’s Charity Quiz – 17 January 2015  Mayor’s Valentine’s Eve Ball at Langton, with guest speaker Ambrose Harcourt from Heart FM and rock and roll band Trapper – 13 February 2015  Mayor’s Film Premier of Les Miserable at Trinity involving ‘Spot the Mayor’ – 19 February 2015

The Leader, Councillor Jukes, then made the following announcements:

(a) He spoke of the delegation that had visited from Wiesbaden and congratulated the Mayor on his address to the visitors and for the success of the visit. (b) He advised members that the Mid Kent Improvement Partnership (MKIP) had been awarded £569,000 funding from the Department of Communities and Local Government, due to a bid submitted by Jane Clarke, MKIP Project Manager, for the purposes of implementing a joint telephony system and a single customer account portal.

The Portfolio Holder for Tourism and Economic Development, Councillor March, advised that the ice rink had been mentioned in the national magazine, Marie Claire. She mentioned that the ice rink had already received 400 more skaters this year, compared to this time last year and profits had been up by £7,800.

THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING

FC42/14 The minutes of the meeting dated 15 October 2014 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Mayor.

QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

FC43/14 No questions had been received by the public.

QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL

FC44/14 Question 1 – Councillor Chapelard

What does the Leader of the Council see as the benefits to justify spending £24,000 of public money decorating the hoardings on the privately-owned former cinema site?

Response from Councillor Jukes

Councillor Chapelard has been pressing me to get involved with the cinema site for nearly three years, when I do he complains!!

The decoration of the hoarding is costing approximately £21,000. Based on a population of 115,000, that works out at 19p per person. Bearing in mind that the hoarding could be in place for up to five years, it amounts to under 4p per annum per person.

Don’t you think that this is a very small price to pay for enhancing one of the major sites in the town and advertising very effectively the borough and Tunbridge Wells as a major destination. Illustrations from Sissinghurst, Lamberhurst and Cranbrook will be included in the artwork and demonstrates what Tunbridge Wells has to offer.

Supplementary Question from Councillor Chapelard

How far did the Council go to find and involve local businesses, associations and community groups in this project?

Response from Councillor Jukes

The Council had initially involved a local company to produce the artwork for the hoardings but unfortunately, due to the adverse publicity regarding the project, they pulled out.

Question 2 – Councillor Chapelard

Is the Leader of the Council aware of the anger of residents and indeed members of his own Council at the lack of transparency by using the urgent decision process to bypass the Council’s democratic committee system to spend £24,000 of public money on the former cinema site hoardings? Does he agree, in future, to inform in advance all members whose wards are affected before making a decision under the urgent decision process?

Response From Councillor Jukes

No, I don’t travel in the limited circles that Councillor Chapelard inhabits. Perhaps Councillor Chapelard can tell me where he meets these angry people?

In meetings with the Chamber of Commerce, Civic Society, retail establishments and others all have been in favour of making the hoarding around the site more attractive. I haven’t incurred any anger! A few rude comments from the ‘twitterati’ but then that goes with the job of Leader.

As far as angry comments from my own group, we hold regular meetings of up to 30 Councillors from the leading group and no adverse comments have been forthcoming. Nor have I had any angry comments from UKIP, Labour and Independent councillors.

I would also point out that, as he well knows, the urgent decision on the hoardings was carried out in line with the Constitution, and was published 5 clear days in advance of the decision.

He may also like to know that the Chair of Overview & Scrutiny is working with Democratic Services to improve the administration of the process for urgency so this matter is well in hand.

As he is probably aware the change he suggests would require an amendment to the Constitution but just to show I am fully open and transparent he has my word that I will ask Democratic Services to make sure that all ward members are alerted to urgent items.

Question 3 – Councillor Chapelard

Since Sodexo took over the grounds maintenance contract, can the portfolio holder give this Council figures for: i) the number of sports fixtures and bookings cancelled due to unplayable facilities? ii) the loss of revenue from these cancellations to Tunbridge Wells Borough Council?

Response From Councillor March

When we plan our budgets there is expectation that some cricket and football matches will be cancelled due to adverse weather conditions and teams having to cancellation fixtures for various reasons. We know that some of these fixtures are then rearranged for a later date.

In the period 2011 to 2014, which includes the wettest winter on record, the number of pitch bookings made for cricket and football was 2230 of which 1922 games were played. During this winter so far 243 matches out of 402 bookings have been played.

Our expected income from sport pitch bookings during this is £97,755 and our actual income was £111,645.

Supplementary Question from Councillor Chapelard

The clubs I have spoken to have ensured that they had budgeted for approximately £60,000 per year to pay for these facilities, which haven’t yet been paid to this Council. How much has this Council claimed from Sodexo from loss of revenue for them not maintaining the facilities to the correct standard?

Response from Councillor March

The Council work closely with Sodexo.

However sometimes football matches are called off due to other factors such

as teams not getting enough players etc. Cancelled games are not always due to Sodexo and the quality of the pitches. An official from the Football Association will be coming to visit the Council in due course to discuss drainage and other matters further.

Question 4 – Councillor Backhouse

Further to the success of this year's two jobs fairs could Councillor Jane March confirm if Tunbridge Wells Borough Council intend to facilitate a Jobs Fair in 2015?

Response From Councillor March

Following the jobs fair event at the Town Hall in September 2014, a review meeting was held between officers of the Council, Job Centre Plus and other members of the Tunbridge Wells Employability Forum.

In light of the overwhelming success of the event, with large participation of private sector companies, it was agreed that a jobs fair be held next year again under the aegis of the Tunbridge Wells Employability Forum - to bring together all parties working on employment-related issues in the Borough.

The Assembly Hall has been booked for 23 September 2015 to host the next Tunbridge Wells Jobs Fair.

Supplementary Question from Councillor Backhouse

Can you give an indication of the levels of unemployment in Tunbridge Wells at the present time?

Response from Councillor March

In Sherwood unemployment fell from 1.9% to 1.6% from March to September 2014. In the Tunbridge Wells borough unemployment remains below 1% and figures fell from 758 to 468 during the same period. In Sherwood the three building sites have 20% of local builders employed, as per the planning agreement.

SITE ALLOCATIONS DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DOCUMENT - SUBMISSION DPD

FC45/14 The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Transportation, Councillor McDermott, presented the Site Allocation Development Plan document (SADPD) which proposed the allocation of those sites required to fulfil the Council’s committed growth as set out in the Core Strategy which was adopted in 2010. He advised that the Site Allocation was part of a suite of documents which the Council was required to prepare and would be part of the Development Plan when adopted.

Councillor McDermott informed members that the final version, when agreed, would be published for a further six week consultation period, likely to commence February 2015. After which it would be submitted, together with any comments received as part of that consultation, to the Secretary of State for an examination by an inspector nominated by the Secretary of State.

Members were advised that the document presented to them had been

informed by an extensive evidence base as well as three previous stages of public consultation between 2010 and 2013 and a series of meetings with the Planning Policy Working Group between September 2013 and October 2014. The document had also been considered by the Planning and Transportation Cabinet Advisory Board on 10 November, as well as Cabinet on 4 December 2014.

Councillor McDermott asked for the consent of the meeting to amend the recommendations in the report and replace them with those that had been approved by Cabinet and two further officer recommendations, which were tabled for Members’ information. He proposed that these amendments be approved. This was seconded by Councillor Jukes.

The Mayor then invited the following speakers who had registered to speak:

(1) Louise Welsford Miss Welsford expressed her support for the Cabinet recommendation to remove Highgate Hill from the DPD as a site. She referred to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which stated: that land with the least environmental and amenity value should be allocated to plans, that great weight must be given to the protection of the landscape; and separately, that brownfield sites should be used for development first.

Miss Welsford stated that the sites being considered were greenfield, had a high environment and amenity value and consequently the proposals for their inclusion in the DPD were contrary to the NPPF. She referred to the existing brownfield sites in the village and said that, as the DPD had not provided adequate justification for their exclusion, she did not think an inspector would find sound clause for their exclusion.

Miss Welsford did not the think the DPD accorded with the NPPF as it did not give sufficient weight to landscape issues and contravened stage four of its methodology for site allocations. She added that both the AONB unit and Natural England had stated that the inclusion of land at Highgate Hill would have a detrimental impact on the AONB.

Miss Welsford reminded members that both the Planning and Transportation Advisory Cabinet Board and Cabinet had recognised the substantial harm and therefore fully rejected the allocation of Highgate Hill. She urged the Council to consider prioritisation of brownfield sites as even a small proportion of the land of this type available in Hawkhurst would meet the housing need requirements.

(2) Graham Clark Mr Clark supported the views of Hawkhurst Parish Council and the recommendations from Cabinet on 4 December 2014. He considered that the existing brownfield sites: Woodham Hall; Springfield Garden Centre; and Station Road at Gill’s Green, should be prioritised for inclusion in the DPD ahead of land at Highgate Hill. Mr Clark felt the designation of all three sites as brownfield land would be supported by an inspector, as well as meeting the housing needs of the borough and the aspirations of the parish of Hawkhurst.

(3) Dickon Kindersley

Mr Kindersley supported Cabinet’s recommendation to Full Council that site AL/HA2 be removed from the DPD as he felt to retain it would be unsound as it was mainly grade 3a agricultural land and an intrinsic part of the AONB (selected to be allocated as a last resort). In addition, Mr Kindersley mentioned that the NPPF and NPPG clearly stated that there was a hierarchy when allocating sites, with brownfields being the most preferable.

Mr Kindersley also supported Cabinet’s recommendation that the northern part of Woodham Hall and Springfields be included in the DPD as allocated sites because these sites were within, or partly within, the 2006 LBD and were brownfield or land with a lesser value – not greenfield sites. In addition, he considered that these sites formed the majority of sites that the local community had identified in its neighbourhood plan.

Mr Kindersley asked Councillor McDermott to confirm that he was referring to the whole of site 31, as shown in the DPD site templates document and in Hawkhurst’s NDP.

(4) Chris Austen Mr Austen’s speech focussed on sites 356 and 357 off Highgate Hill. He thanked both the Planning and Transportation Cabinet Advisory Board and Cabinet for supporting and listening to the residents’ case and agreeing that Highgate Hill was not a suitable site for allocation. He added that this was a very sensitive site and any development there would cause huge damage to the AONB and would be highly visible from the south.

Mr Austen went on to say that the Highgate Hill site was of historic interest and had a wealth of wildlife with a number of protected and notable species. He mentioned the public footpaths and the use of the site for grazing and hay making, as well as use of the fields by the Bonfire Society.

Mr Austen concluded by stating that the consultations with the residents of Hawkhurst had overwhelmingly shown that the village wished for brownfield sites to be developed before greenfield. The village agreed that growth was essential, but it must be in the right place at the right time.

(5) Mark Booker Mr Booker spoke on behalf of the Planning and Development Working Group of the Tunbridge Wells Town Forum. He voiced their concern at the inconsistent treatment of the Green Belt within the DPD. Mr Booker advised that in chapter 1.4 it stated that “a full reassessment of the Green Belt may need to be undertaken”, however in chapter 2.34 it stated that “a detailed review of the Green Belt…….will be carried out…”. In the context of evolving national policy on protection of existing Green Belt, he preferred the more flexible wording of chapter 1.4.

Mr Booker added that guidance given in the NPFF stated that, once established Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances and he claimed that there was no evidence

in the Submission Draft to suggest exceptional circumstances justifying changes to the Green Belt in Tunbridge Wells in the immediate future.

(6) Parish Councillor Peter Dartnell, Chairman of Hawkhurst Parish Council Parish Councillor Dartnell thanked both the Planning and Transportation Advisory Board and the Cabinet for listening to the Parish Council’s arguments and to recommend removal of the Highgate Hill site and instead to insert the two brownfield sites, Springfield Nursery for 40 dwellings and the northern section of the Woodham Hall site for 12 to 15 dwellings.

He added that the Parish Council would work with the owners and developers of the sites to make sure they delivered the required allocation. Parish Councillor Dartnell reassured members that he was sure there was no risk that Hawkhurst would not deliver its allocation of 240 dwellings in the Site Allocation DPD.

The Mayor then opened up the debate to the Borough Councillors.

Councillor Dr Hall thanked Mr Booker for his speech and for identifying inconsistencies in the wording of the document with regard to Green Belts and the words ‘may’ and ‘will’ – which had very different meanings. She considered that it was vital that the document retained flexibility and this should be addressed before the document went out to consultation.

Councillor Mrs Rankin considered that the document was not sound and the Green Belt should only be touched in exceptional circumstances. She suggested that all references to the Green Belt should be removed within the document.

Councillor Holden felt that there was a strong sense of commitment to preserving the AONB and the Green Belt from those who had spoken at the meeting. He informed members that he would not be voting on the recommendations and considered that the proposals for Cranbrook were too large and not favoured by the residents.

Councillor Webb acknowledged that a huge amount of work had been done by the officers and interested parties. He welcomed the amendments that had been proposed but felt that even those sites identified would not meet the amount of dwellings required.

Councillor Ward asked that members listened to the pleas from Paddock Wood residents regarding the sites proposed there. He referred in particular to land at Church Farm, which had been opposed to by residents and the Town Council as it was considered totally unsuitable. He felt that Paddock Wood took the brunt of the housing need and had concerns regarding flooding and the infrastructure.

Councillor Williams referred to Chapter 3 regarding retail space requirements for Royal Tunbridge Wells. He expressed his surprise at why the physical demand for retail growth was required when internet usage had increased. He also highlighted inconsistencies within this

paragraph and asked that this be addressed by the officers. In response to this comment, Councillor March advised that when examining retail figures, both North Farm and the town centre area needed to be taken into account.

Councillor Hill mentioned the Southborough Hub and the demolition of the Royal Victoria Hall. He considered that as this was given to the Southborough residents by David Salomon it should be retained. In addition he felt that Southborough lacked green space – particularly children’s football pitches.

Councillor Bulman stated that the Green Belt should not be reviewed, as he considered this to be the breathing space for the communities. He suggested that reference to reviewing the Green Belt should be removed from the document.

Councillor Rusbridge advised that it was not beneficial to make lots of further changes to the document at this stage, in addition to what had been recommended by Cabinet. He suggested that the inspector could be advised that there were minor changes to be made to the text to remove the inconsistencies. The public would also have the opportunity to make their submissions to the inspector.

In response, both Councillors Holden and Mrs Rankin felt that the Council should not rely on the inspector to take on board all of the important points raised. The document submitted must be clear and concise and contain all the points supported by the Council.

Councillor Patterson supported the suggestion to delete reference to the Green Belts being reviewed as his ward was almost entirely Green Belt and therefore he wanted to protect it.

Councillor Dr Hall mentioned that Greg Clark MP had addressed the Local Development Framework Working Party and had made it clear that, due to the various constraints in the borough (i.e Green Belts, AONB and flood plains), it would be difficult to build the number of dwellings required and therefore the Council should decide on the evidence presented to it.

The Mayor then took a vote on the amendment to the recommendations already proposed by Councillor McDermott as follows:

‘That references to a review of the Green Belt within the DPD be removed’

VOTE CARRIED

In his summing up Councillor Jukes reminded members that, due to the population growth, sites within the borough had to be allocated for housing. The Council had undertaken an extensive consultation with parishes and towns in an attempt to identify the best sites possible and to avoid an inspector making these decisions.

The Mayor then took a vote on the amended recommendations in full.

VOTE CARRIED RESOLVED –

1. That the chapters within the Site Allocation Development Plan Document be agreed as follows:

Chapter 1 – Agreed Chapter 2 – Agreed Chapter 3 – Agreed, subject to: 3.1 The removal of Powdermill Lane in Southborough (policy AL/SO 3) as a designated area of open recreation space; and 3.2 The adding of Class D2 after “assembly and leisure” in policy AL/SO 2 “assembly and leisure (Use Class D2) or theatre (sui generis use)” to make it clear this would allow for provision of a theatre or other uses within use class D2.

Chapter 4. Agreed, subject to: 4.1 Knight’s Park (policy AL/GB 2): the wording be amended to read “…community facilities to include retail provision”. 4.2 Hawkenbury Farm (AL/GB3), amended to read ‘…..Opportunities shall be explored to re-provide allotments within the locality’ 4.3 Reference to the Green Belt review be removed throughout the document.

Chapter 5 - Agreed, subject to: 5.2 Community facilities and policy AL/PW 3: clarify the wording so that policy AL/PW 3 reflects the intention set out in sub-text 5.20. the same will apply to policy AL/PW4.

Chapter 6 - Agreed

Chapter 7 - Agreed, subject to: 7.1 The removal of land at Highgate Hill from the DPD as a site; and 7.2 The inclusion as housing allocation of the top parts of land at Woodham Hall (for approximately 12-15 dwellings) and Springfield Gardens (for approximately 40 dwellings)

Chapter 8 – Agreed

2. That, subject to the amendment above, the Site Allocations DPD and supporting information be approved for public consultation and submission to Secretary of State for examination in public;

3. That the Sustainability Appraisal report, once amended to reflect the above changes in the main DPDF, be approved for public consultation and submission to the Secretary of State for examination in public;

4. That the relevant statutory notices be placed in the press and public

consultation be undertaken on the Site Allocations Development Planning Document and Sustainability Appraisal; and

5. That authority be delegated to the Head of Planning Services for minor changes to text and the insertion of photographs prior to final publication for consultation purposes.

REASON FOR DECISIONS:

To ensure that the Borough Council provides a robust planning framework, allocating sites for development to meet the requirements of the adopted Core Strategy, while also conserving and enhancing the Borough’s natural and built environment.

COUNCIL TAX SUPPORT SCHEME 2015/16

FC46/14 Councillor Rusbridge introduced the report which provided details of a proposed local council tax support scheme to be implemented from 1 April 2015. He explained that the Council was required to approve the scheme on an annual basis, and no changes were proposed to the current scheme presently in place.

Councillor Rusbridge advised that the existing scheme reduced awards for working age recipients by 18.5% as agreed by Full Council in December 2012. It was noted that in maintaining the scheme at 18.5% the Council would predict the overall cost of the scheme during 2015/16 to be £5,566,042 against the budget of £5,546,889.

Councillor Horwood seconded the recommendations.

Councillor Webb objected to the scheme continuing in its present form. He stated that 18.5% was too harsh in an already tough climate. In addition, he considered that the scheme would potentially have an impact on people with disabilities, carers and some working age groups.

Councillor Munn also expressed his dis-satisfaction with the scheme. He considered that those groups most disadvantaged would be people on a low income and those with disabilities, which would adversely impact on many of the residents of High Brooms and Southborough . He suggested that funding could have been sourced from other projects such as the Fiveways Scheme.

Councillor Lewis supported Councillor Munn’s comments, adding that he felt that central government had made some bad choices and had negatively affected people who should not have been targeted.

Councillor Holden commented on the poorly presented document that had been written by central government; he considered that it should have been produced in a more user-friendly manner.

In response to a question asked by Councillor Smith, Councillor Rusbridge confirmed that the Council expected to recover 85% of the cost of the scheme. Councillor Rusbridge also reassured members that the Council worked hard to support those residents with disabilities and carers where appropriate.

The mayor then took a vote on the recommendations.

VOTE CARRIED

RESOLVED –

(1) That the Local Council Tax Support Scheme, detailed in Appendix B to the report, be introduced from 1 April 2015;

(2) That it be noted that the proposed scheme will maintain the level of support as provided during 2014/2015, reducing the level of support previously provided through the national council tax benefit scheme by 18.5%;

(3) That the Finance Director, in consultation with the Cabinet Portfolio- holder for Finance and Governance, be given delegated authority to make such future changes as are necessary to maintain the effective operation of the scheme.

REASONS FOR DECISIONS:

The changes to local council tax support represent a significant financial and social risk for the Council. With Government funding for the scheme reduced by 10% and a requirement to protect pensioner households at the level to be provided by the former national scheme, the Council has to decide on the level of funding to be made available to support low income households meet their council tax liabilities, whilst balancing the wider interest of council tax payers within the Borough.

The recommended approach looks to balance these pressures by maintaining the scheme for a further year with a reduction of 18.5%. That level of support is affordable to the Council and held to provide a reasonable level of support to low income (working age) households.

REVIEW OF POLLING DISTRICTS, POLLING PLACES AND POLLING STATIONS

FC47/14 Councillor Jukes presented a report advising members that the Council had recently undertaken its statutory duty to review its polling districts, polling places and polling stations under the provisions of the Electoral Administrators Act 2006.

Members were advised that only three changes to polling stations were proposed and these were detailed in Appendix B to the report.

Councillor Patterson commended the officers who had worked on the review and gave his full support to the proposal to replace Goldsmid Hall in Tudeley with Arnold Cooke Hall, which had improved disabled access, safer access in general and parking. The Mayor then took a vote on the recommendations. VOTE CARRIED RESOLVED –

(1) That the proposal from the Returning Officer to change the polling

station at Tudeley (J) from Goldsmid Hall to Arnold Cooke Hall be approved;

(2) That the proposal from the Returning Officer to change the polling station at St James’ (BB) from Grosvenor Bowls Pavilion to a combined station at St Barnabas Church Hall, Camden (AA) for 2015 only be approved;

(3) That the proposals from the Returning Officer to change the polling station at Christ Church (LL) from Vale Royal Methodist Church to the Conference Room, Holy Trinity with Christ Church be approved; and

(4) That the remaining proposals for no change be agreed.

REASON FOR DECISIONS:

To comply with legislation.

NOTICE OF MOTION

FC48/14 Councillor Webb put the following motion to Council:

“That Tunbridge Wells Borough Council’s Constitution be amended so that sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 7.3.2 defines a key decision as a decision that involves expenditure or savings in excess of £50,000 instead of the existing threshold of £250,000 in order that decisions on expenditure or savings in excess of £50,000 is authorised by Cabinet rather than delegated to individual portfolio holders or officers.”

Councillor Neve seconded the motion.

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Jukes, considered that as this was a constitutional matter it should be referred to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for further debate, under Council Procedure Rule 11.4. This was seconded by Councillor McDermott.

The Mayor then took a vote on this proposal. VOTE CARRIED

RESOLVED – That the above motion be referred to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for further consideration.

COMMON SEAL OF THE COUNCIL

FC49/14 RESOLVED – That the Common Seal of the Council be affixed to any contract, minutes, notice or other document arising out of the minutes or pursuant to any delegation, authority or power conferred by the Council.

NOTE: The meeting concluded at 8.40 pm.