DOCSLIB.ORG

London Councils

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
London Councils Item 2 – Minutes of meeting held on 14 October 2014 London Councils Minutes of the London Councils Leaders’ Committee held on 14 October 2014 Mayor Jules Pipe chaired the meeting Present: BARKING AND DAGENHAM Cllr Darren Rodwell BARNET Cllr Richard Cornelius BEXLEY Cllr Teresa O’Neill BRENT Cllr M. A. Butt BROMLEY Cllr Stephen Carr CAMDEN Cllr Sarah Hayward CROYDON Cllr Tony Newman EALING Cllr Julian Bell ENFIELD Cllr Doug Taylor GREENWICH Cllr Denise Hyland HACKNEY Mayor Jules Pipe HAMMERSMITH & FULHAM Cllr Stephen Cowan HARINGEY Cllr Claire Kober HARROW Cllr David Perry HAVERING Cllr Roger Ramsey HILLINGDON Cllr Philip Corthone HOUNSLOW Cllr Stephen Curran ISLINGTON Cllr Richard Watts KENSINGTON & CHELSEA Cllr Nicholas Paget-Brown KINGSTON Cllr Kevin Davis LAMBETH Cllr Paul McGlone LEWISHAM Mayor Sir Steve Bullock MERTON Cllr Stephen Alambritis NEWHAM Mayor Sir Robin Wales/Cllr Ken Clark* REDBRIDGE Cllr Jas Athwal RICHMOND UPON THAMES Cllr Lord True SOUTHWARK Cllr Fiona Colley SUTTON Cllr Ruth Dombey TOWER HAMLETS Mayor Lutfur Rahman WALTHAM FOREST Cllr Clyde Loakes WANDSWORTH Cllr Ravi Govindia WESTMINSTER Cllr Philippa Roe CITY OF LONDON Mrs Catherine McGuiness LFEPA - * Cllr Clark substituted for Mayor Wales when he left after item 4. Apologies: HILLINGDON Cllr Ray Puddifoot MBE LAMBETH Cllr Lib Peck NEWHAM Mayor Sir Robin Wales** SOUTHWARK Cllr Peter John CITY OF LONDON Mr Mark Boleat WALTHAM FOREST Cllr Chris Robbins CITY OF LONDON Mr Mark Boleat CAPITAL AMBITION Mr Edward Lord JP OBE CC ** For early departure Item 2 – Minutes of meeting held on 14 October 2014 Ex officio (under the provisions of Standing Order 2.6) EQUALITIES Cllr Marie Pye London Councils officers were in attendance 1. Declarations of interest Mayor Jules Pipe pointed out that legal advice indicated that neither he nor any other remunerated London Councils members were obliged to declare an interest under item 8 Remuneration of Members, he would, nonetheless, and on behalf of all affected members declare an interest on the grounds of openness and transparency. No other interests were declared. 2. Minutes of Leaders’ Committee AGM and ordinary meeting held on the 15 July 2014 Leaders’ Committee agreed the minutes of Leaders’ Committee AGM and ordinary meeting held on the 15 July 2014. 3. London Infrastructure Investment Plan 2050 – London Councils Consultation Response Cllr Claire Kober (Labour, Infrastructure and Regeneration, Haringey) introduced the item saying: • The Mayor had produced a draft London Infrastructure Investment Plan 2050 for consultation with a deadline of 31 October • The draft Plan was an ambitious document and attempted to pull together different infrastructure needs, the costs that would be involved in realising these and aimed to bring together relevant parties to progress the aims within the London Infrastructure Delivery Board • London Councils had put together a consultation response, which was attached as an appendix and which officers were asking us to discuss and sign off • In the consultation response we highlighted a number of issues, grouped within the broad areas of Governance, Finance and specific Infrastructure requirements • One of the key omissions of the draft report was that of social infrastructure. Although housing and schools were included within the overall costs, there was no detailed analysis of the requirements. This was a weakness because housing, schools and Item 2 – Minutes of meeting held on 14 October 2014 health play a critical role in supporting London’s continued growth and also because there were strong inter-relationships between, for example, housing and transport • Within governance arrangements, we highlighted that it was essential to understand how the London Infrastructure Delivery Board would work with existing structures and any new boards that would be created. A Board designed to include all stakeholders was likely to be too large for detailed decision making. How would the London Infrastructure Delivery Board work with the LEP, Homes for London Board, etc? How would it take into consideration any sub-regional partnerships? • We support fiscal devolution, but although this would give us some degree of certainty of available funds, it would not be enough to bridge the estimated funding gap of £1.3 trillion. We therefore needed to look at other solutions and we suggested looking at capturing land values and making the most of our assets • With regards to the specific infrastructure requirements, we thought that much more emphasis should be put on demand management. For example, rather than building a tolled, orbital road tunnel, we suggested to look at electronic road pricing to discourage travel at certain times of day in certain areas of London. Walking and cycling should be emphasised, as well as the improvement of the rail infrastructure. Similarly with regards to water, energy and waste infrastructure, emphasis should be on reducing demand, such as water saving measures, improvements to existing infrastructure (fixing leaks), energy efficiency measures and waste reduction at source • We would not support any proposal to bring planning applications for communications infrastructure within the Mayor’s responsibility and suggested looking at the CCTV network for wider data transmission • We looked forward to working in partnership with the Mayor and other stakeholders to develop a fully integrated infrastructure investment proposal for London. Cllr Philippa Roe (Conservative, Devolution and Public Service Reform, Westminster) pointed out that not enough prominence was attached to boroughs’ own infrastructure plans and that the issue of CCTV, and the cost of maintenance need stronger emphasis. She went on to say that if the Mayor’s proposal of a Thames estuary airport did not come to fruition and airport expansion needed to be taken up elsewhere in London infrastructure development needed to follow it. Cllr Nicholas Paget-Brown (Conservative, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea) encouraged reference in the response to Crossrail2 and Thames Barrier renewal. Item 2 – Minutes of meeting held on 14 October 2014 Cllr Stephen Carr (Conservative, Bromley) wanted the London Councils’ response to highlight the fact that the draft Plan did not reflect the Mayor’s 2012 manifesto commitment around DLR extension to Bromley North but, instead, talked about an extension of the Bakerloo Line which, Councillor Carr said, had not been part of the that manifesto. Councillor Kober did not feel it was possible in the response to reflect on the degree to which Mayoral manifesto commitments had been kept, but acknowledged that Councillor Carr’s concerns should be recorded in the minutes. Cllr Tony Newman (Labour, Croydon) also called for better reflection of promises made by the current Mayor about trams and key strategic infrastructure requirements given greater prominence. Cllr Fiona Coley (Labour, Southwark) and Mayor Sir Steve Bullock (Labour, Housing, Lewisham) supported references to the Bakerloo line extension. Cllr Stephen Cowan (Labour, Hammersmith and Fulham) wanted the response to point to the importance of the ‘flyunder’ (replacement of the Hammersmith flyover by a tunnel) proposal as a means of reclaiming land for housing. This was important for Hounslow and Hammersmith & Fulham. Mayor Sir Robin Wales referred to paragraph 17(f) on east London river crossings and asked for it to be referred back to officers to be re-written as many east London boroughs felt that the failure by the Mayor of London to provide a fixed crossing had cost thousands of jobs. He referred to the Galleons Bridge proposal that had now been lost while two other bridges were being consulted on. Cllr Ravi Govindia (Conservative, Wandsworth) called for river connectivity in general to be emphasised and Cllr Lord True (Conservative Richmond) agreed as did Cllr Denise Hyland (Labour, Greenwich) who also emphasised the need to combine river crossings with public transport improvements. Cllr Teresa O’Neill (Conservative, Bexley) argued that however the section on river crossings was rewritten, she maintained that her borough’s approach had always been dictated by the best interests of Bexley. Item 2 – Minutes of meeting held on 14 October 2014 Cllr Claire Kober responded by saying that she was clear on Bexley’s position on river- crossings and suggested that a new wording was put forward by officers to all boroughs that had an interest in river crossings to comment on. Leaders’ Committee agreed the consultation response subject to the changes put forward by members of Leaders’ Committee and, in particular, to section 17(f) on river crossings being re-written and the affected boroughs consulted on the new text. 4. Housing: Recent Activity Mayor Sir Steve Bullock introduced the report saying it was a short report that represented a considerable amount of activity on an area that has been becoming ever-more important. He said: • It would be helpful to get an idea from borough leaders on their strength of feeling on the Mayor’s consultation on top-slicing 5-10% of allocations for new developments in the 2015-18 programme. So far the response from boroughs had been mainly negative but it had come from officers rather than leaders and further clarification would be useful • Similarly, it would also be helpful to get a steer from Leaders on the Right to Move consultation, recently issued by the Government. Cllr Richard Watts (Labour, Islington) expressed a strongly held view that if boroughs surrendered any control over allocations from new developments it would undermine their ability to counter objectors’ arguments by pointing to the potential benefits to local residents of being allocated a home in the new development. Cllr Ravi Govindia pointed out that housing need was not confined to those living in social housing and that he was not convinced by the Right to Move proposals. It was not clear who would bear the costs? He went on to refer to the question of out-of-borough placements described in paragraph 13 of the report and urged transparency in boroughs sharing of information.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A New Agreement for London
    Devolution Working Group A New Agreement for London September 2015 Devolution Working Group Darren Johnson (Chair) Green Len Duvall (Deputy Chair) Labour Andrew Boff Conservative Caroline Pidgeon MBE Liberal Democrat The Devolution Working Group The Fiscal Devolution Working Group was established by the GLA Oversight Committee in December 2013. In response to policy developments, at its meeting of 20 November 2014, the GLA Oversight Committee amended the title to the Devolution Working Group and agreed the following amended terms of reference: • To consider London’s case for further devolved services and taxes in the context of developments including the Scottish referendum and the devolved model of service provision announced for Manchester; • To progress the case for further devolution to London by developing practical solutions to unanswered questions including how additional powers and yield from any localised taxes could work in terms of the roles and responsibilities of GLA and London Boroughs; and • To develop draft position statements for the Assembly’s consideration on issues related to the potential further devolution of powers to London Government and any potential changes to governance arrangements within London Government and to take the lead in promoting the Assembly’s agreed views on these matters. Contact Richard Derecki Email: [email protected] Contact: 020 7983 4899 2 Contents Foreword ...................................................................................................................... 4
    [Show full text]
  • London Borough of Newham Council
    LONDON BOROUGH OF NEWHAM COUNCIL Report title The Council’s Budget Framework 2019/20 – The Mayor’s Final Revenue Budget Proposals and Council Tax Setting Proposals Date of Meeting 18th February 2018 Lead Officer and Simon Little, Interim Head of Finance Strategy contact details E: [email protected] T: 020 33737549 Director, Job title Mike O’Donnell, Interim Executive Director of Financial Sustainability Lead Member Cllr Terry Paul, Cabinet Member for Finance and Corporate Services Key Decision? Yes / No The Council has a statutory duty to set a balanced and deliverable budget for the financial year 2019/20 by midnight on 10 March 2019. Exempt Yes / No Grounds: information & Grounds Wards Affected All Appendices A. 2019/20 Budget (if any) B. Details of Savings Proposals C. Details of Pressures D. Summary Capital Programme E. Detailed General Fund Capital Programme F. Detailed HRA Capital Programme G. Council Tax Setting H. Overview & Scrutiny Report and Cabinet Response to Recommendations I. Fees and Charges J. Equalities Impact Assessment K. HRA Equalities Impact Assessment L. 2018/19 Period 9 Financial Monitoring M. Feedback from the “People’s Budget” Forums N. Monitoring Officer Advice on the Budget Setting Report 1 1 Executive Summary 1.1 This budget is the first opportunity for Mayor Fiaz and her Administration to demonstrate to residents of Newham how the priorities set out in the manifesto endorsed by 73.4 per cent of voters last May will be funded and implemented. 1.2 Since the Mayor was elected in May 2018, officers have been engaged in transferring her manifesto promises into a delivery programme.
    [Show full text]
  • Strong Suburbs
    Strong Suburbs Enabling streets to control their own development Dr Samuel Hughes & Ben Southwood Foreword by Ben Derbyshire Strong Suburbs Enabling streets to control their own development Dr Samuel Hughes & Ben Southwood Foreword by Ben Derbyshire Policy Exchange is the UK’s leading think tank. We are an independent, non-partisan educational charity whose mission is to develop and promote new policy ideas that will deliver better public services, a stronger society and a more dynamic economy. Policy Exchange is committed to an evidence-based approach to policy development and retains copyright and full editorial control over all its written research. We work in partnership with academics and other experts and commission major studies involving thorough empirical research of alternative policy outcomes. We believe that the policy experience of other countries offers important lessons for government in the UK. We also believe that government has much to learn from business and the voluntary sector. Registered charity no: 1096300. Trustees Diana Berry, Alexander Downer, Pamela Dow, Andrew Feldman, David Harding, Patricia Hodgson, Greta Jones, Edward Lee, Charlotte Metcalf, David Ord, Roger Orf, Andrew Roberts, George Robinson, Robert Rosenkranz, William Salomon, Peter Wall, Simon Wolfson, Nigel Wright. Strong Suburbs Policy Exchange has led the debate on empowering communities, winning support for development, and creating beautiful popular homes. The Government supports enabling communities to set their own rules for what developments
    [Show full text]
  • Social Integration Strategy
    SOCIAL INTEGRATION STRATEGY. WE ARE NEWHAM. CONTENTS MAYOR AND LEAD MEMBERS FOREWORD 4 CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND NEWHAM’S COMMISSIONER FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE FOREWORD 5 1. WHAT IS SOCIAL INTEGRATION? 6 2. THE LOCAL CONTEXT 9 3. KEY OBJECTIVES OF THE SOCIAL INTEGRATION STRATEGY 12 4. CORE NARRATIVE 13 5. EVIDENCE 16 6. OUR APPROACH 30 7. MEASUREMENT AND INDICATORS 32 2 Social Integration Strategy FOREWORD Social Integration Strategy 3 MAYOR AND LEAD MEMBERS FOREWORD The new Social Integration Strategy for Newham is a step change The COVID-19 pandemic has shone a light on many of the long- in the way the Council will be approaching issues of equality for standing health and economic inequalities that face many of our our residents; and supports the health, wellbeing and happiness residents in Newham, exacerbating the disadvantage they endure. they experience so that their quality of life is improved. Our That’s why the new Social Integration strategy compliments the new social integration strategy will be the driver to build a more Council’s ‘Towards a Better Newham – Covid-19 Recovery and cohesive, united and fairer borough, where 72% of our residents Reorientation’ strategy which was published in July. Combined, are from Black, Asian and Ethnic Minority communities. According they will drive the necessary changes required to help us address to the last census, Newham is also one of the most religious the inequality and disconnection that persistently burdens too London boroughs and its diversity is also reflected in our religious many of our residents. identities, so understanding these identities are important factor in our approach to social integration.
    [Show full text]
  • London Borough of Newham
    LONDON BOROUGH OF NEWHAM Sir Robin Wales, Mayor of Newham “Newham has a young, vibrant and diverse population that enjoys doing things together. Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park is somewhere that new and existing residents should be proud to come to, as well drawing visitors every day from across London and beyond. It is a fitting legacy of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.” LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY Jules Pipe, Mayor of Hackney "Hackney residents will now be able to enjoy even more of Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, with new sporting facilities, more open green space, easy access from Hackney Wick to Stratford and the recently-opened Aquatics Centre on our doorstep. I'd encourage everyone to visit the sporting facilities, green trails and places to eat and drink while finding out how the landscape has changed since 2012." LONDON BOROUGH OF TOWER HAMLETS Lutfur Rahman, Mayor of Tower Hamlets “The Olympics and Paralympics gave us a fantastic opportunity to showcase the best of our borough - its colourful history, diverse character and extensive tourist attractions. We benefited from the Games too. We had significant investment in our leisure centres; a host of arts, cultural and sporting opportunities were delivered on our doorstep and thousands of jobs were created for our residents. “The opening of Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park is a fantastic additional resource for east London. I am delighted that the Games legacy continues to benefit Tower Hamlets and provide new resources and experiences for our residents. “ WEST HAM UNITED FC Karren Brady CBE, Vice-Chairman “The full re-opening of Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park marks another major milestone in the regeneration of this part of east London following the hugely successful Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2012.
    [Show full text]
  • Future of NHS at Risk After Sale of Newham GP Practices to US
    FREE Issue 5 | May 2021 @newhamvoices /NewhamVoices @newhamvoices www.newhamvoices.co.uk We need to Youth Voices Our Heritage: invest to combat Special: It’s my Shops, Docks violent crime Page 3 life let me live it Page 13 and Factories Page 15 Future of NHS at risk after sale of Newham GP practices to US AIDAN WHITE said Phil Edwards a leader of the © Sylvie Belbouab Newham Save Our NHS group. ewham is at the centre of a He said the loophole opening growing storm over NHS pri- the door to transfers of this kind Nvatisation fears following the came in 2004 with the launch of transfer of GP care for thousands of the Alternative Provider of Medical local patients into the hands of an Services (APMS) contracts for GPs organisation controlled by a giant that introduced the possibility of American health corporation. their practices being sold on to A top-level meeting with health other companies. care regulators has been organised Stephen Timms, Labour MP for East this month to find out how this Ham, told Newham Voices: “We have takeover was “nodded through” to be clear about what is the basis for earlier in the year, without any this decision, and if there are grounds public consultation. for blocking such a transfer.” Local doctors, councillors and He will take part in a meeting campaigners are calling for a between the responsible oversight thorough investigation into the move body, the Newham Clinical that affects thousands of patients in Commissioning Group, and Stratford, Manor Park, Canning Town councillors and the campaign and North Woolwich and up to half a group Newham Save Our NHS million patients receiving GP services which will ask searching questions in London and around the UK.
    [Show full text]
  • Newham Democracy and Civic Participation Commission
    Newham Democracy and Civic Participation Commission: Public Engagement Findings Findings from face to face engagement sessions which took place in Newham between 13-24 January 2020, and from online engagement between 13 December 2019 to 26 February 2020. This report sets out what people in the London Borough of Newham said during engagement events and an online platform as part of the Democracy and Civic Participation Commission, with some ideas and recommendations they have for the council. We have sought to represent what people said and concluded as faithfully as possible without adding our own analysis or interpretation. Acknowledgements: Thank you to everyone who was involved in helping us access peoples’ views through the engagement sessions. In particular, thank you to all the wonderful people we met, who were so forthcoming and kind in sharing their thoughts, feelings and ideas. Youth centre workshop Better democracy, everywhere The Democratic Society Limited is a non-profit company limited by guarantee, registered in England with number 5785839. Registered office 28 Fourth Avenue, Hove. The Democratic Society is an international non-profit association registered in Belgium as The Democratic Society AISBL. TVA BE 0677.558.361. Siège Sociale/Hoofdkantor 107 Avenue de la Brabançonne-laan, 1000 Bruxelles/Brussel. The Democratic Society (Demsoc) works for more and better democracy, where people and institutions have the desire, opportunity and confidence to participate together. We work to create opportunities for people to become involved in the decisions that affect their lives and for them to have the skills to do this effectively. We support governments, parliaments and any organisation that wants to involve citizens in decision making to be transparent, open and welcoming of participation.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Election Results 2006
    Local Election Results 4th May 2006 Andrew Teale Version 0.10.1 August 22, 2010 2 LOCAL ELECTION RESULTS 2006 Typeset by LATEX Compilation and design © Andrew Teale, 2006–2010. The author grants permission to copy and distribute this work in any medium, provided this notice is preserved. This file is available for download from http://www.andrewteale.me.uk/ Please advise the author of any corrections which need to be made by email: [email protected] Contents Introduction and Abbreviations6 I London Boroughs8 1 North London9 1.1 Barking and Dagenham.......................9 1.2 Barnet................................... 11 1.3 Brent.................................. 14 1.4 Camden................................ 17 1.5 Ealing.................................. 20 1.6 Enfield................................. 23 1.7 Hackney................................ 25 1.8 Hammersmith and Fulham..................... 29 1.9 Haringey................................. 31 1.10 Harrow................................. 33 1.11 Havering................................ 36 1.12 Hillingdon............................... 39 1.13 Hounslow............................... 42 1.14 Islington................................ 44 1.15 Kensington and Chelsea....................... 47 1.16 Newham................................ 49 1.17 Redbridge............................... 53 1.18 Tower Hamlets............................ 56 1.19 Waltham Forest............................ 59 1.20 Westminster............................... 61 2 South London 65 2.1 Bexley.................................
    [Show full text]
  • London Legacy Development Corporation Annual Report and Accounts 2020/21
    LONDON LEGACY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ANNUAL REPORT AND ACCOUNTS 2020/21 STATEMENT OF DRAFT UNAUDITED ACCOUNTS Page 1 of 152 Table of contents Chair’s foreword ......................................................................................................................... 3 Chief Executive’s statement ....................................................................................................... 4 Members of the London Legacy Development Corporation .................................................... 10 Narrative Report ....................................................................................................................... 16 Land ownership ........................................................................................................................ 22 Statement of Responsibility for the Accounts .......................................................................... 41 Independent Auditor’s Report to the Members of the London Legacy Development Corporation .............................................................................................................................. 42 Comprehensive Income and Expenditure Statement .............................................................. 43 Balance Sheet .......................................................................................................................... 45 Movement in Reserves Statement ........................................................................................... 46 Statement of Cash Flows ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Democracy and Civic Participation Commission's Final Report
    NEWHAM DEMOCRACY AND CIVIC PARTICIPATION XXXXXXXX COMMISSION FINAL REPORT Delivered by www.newhamdemocracycommission.org CONTENTS Foreword 4 Executive summary 5 Introduction 10 SECTION 1: THE LOCAL AND NATIONAL CONTEXT 13 1.1 The local context 14 1.2 The national context 18 SECTION 2: THE MAYOR & THE GOVERNANCE OF NEWHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL 19 2.1 Governance systems: the available choices 21 2.2 Roles for Mayors 23 2.3 The Mayor as “first citizen of the Borough” 26 2.4 The Mayor’s relationship with full Council 26 2.5 The Mayor, good governance and democracy 28 2.6 A unique and distinctive Mayoral model for Newham 30 SECTION 3: AREA & NEIGHBOURHOOD GOVERNANCE 33 3.1 What we understand by “area governance” 34 3.2 Components of effective area working 35 3.3 Structural models for area working 40 3.4 Making it work: a structure to develop area-based working across Newham in context of the Newham 43 Mayoral model SECTION 4: PARTICIPATORY & DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY 45 4.1 Background 46 4.2 Understanding what we mean by effective, meaningful public participation 50 4.3 Ways of working to develop more deliberative democracy 53 2 Newham Democracy and Civic Participation Commission SECTION 5: CO-PRODUCTION & COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT 57 5.1 Co-production 58 5.2 Use of co-production in regeneration 63 5.3 Building up the skills and capacity within the council and community on co-production 67 5.4 Empowering communities, and working with the voluntary sector 68 SECTION 6: DEMOCRACY, DATA & INNOVATION 69 6.1 An “Office for Data, Discovery and Democracy” 70
    [Show full text]
  • Nations and Regions: the Dynamics of Devolution
    Nations and Regions: The Dynamics of Devolution Quarterly Monitoring Programme The English Regions Quarterly Report February 2003 John Tomaney and Peter Hetherington The monitoring programme is funded by the ESRC Monitoring the English Regions Report No. 10 Research supported by the Economic and Social Research Council John Tomaney, Peter Hetherington and Emma Pinkney Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies University of Newcastle Upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK Tel. +44(0)191 222 8016 Fax. +44 (0)191 232 9259 Web: http://www.ncl.ac.uk/curds Title Key issues The last quarter was dominated by the passage of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill through the Commons. The Bill completed its Third Reading on January 23rd and now faces a rough ride through the Lords. With the government and country preoccupied by the prospect of war, the fire strike and the ailing economy, the Bill generated barely any attention outside Westminster. Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs placed numerous amendments in 9 meetings of the Standing Committee, focusing mainly on the questions of boundary definition, local government reform and the wording of the referendum question. Virtually all of these were rejected by the government, which, in the face of Opposition criticism, guillotined the Bill’s Third Reading. The Electoral Commission questioned the ‘intelligibility’ of the Bill’s proposed referendum, and this may prove to be one area where the Act will be amended. The potential of the government’s proposal for local government reform to be a source of dissension was demonstrated by the outbreak of hostilities between the North West Regional Assembly and Lancashire County Council.
    [Show full text]
  • DRAFT Paper to All Nine Councils
    AGENDA ITEM NO 9C COUNCIL MEETING 18 SEPTEMBER 2012 Title : Mayoral Remuneration Report of : Members’ Remuneration Independent Review panel Recommendation That Members consider the recommendations of the Panel in relation to the level of remuneration for the elected mayor, the deputy mayor and cabinet members. Summary The Panel was tasked with recommending an appropriate rate of remuneration for the elected mayor. It was also asked to consider the level of allowance which should be paid in respect of the deputy mayor and other cabinet members in a mayoral system of governance. Following the commissioning of a review by the consultant, Dr Declan Hall, details of which are appended, this report recommends the remuneration which might be paid for these positions. The significant issues in the report are: Set out below. Consultation Party Leaders and Whips. Responses from the Green, Labour and Liberal Democrat Groups are attached at Appendix A. Background 1. The Panel was convened under the Local Authorities (Member Allowances) (England) Regulations 2003. These regulations, which arise out of the relevant provisions of the Local Government Act 2000 require all local authorities to set up and maintain an advisory Independent Remuneration Members‟ Allowances Panel to review and provide advice on members allowances. All councils are required to convene their allowances panel and seek its advice before they make any changes or amendments to their allowances scheme and they must pay regard to the Panel‟s recommendations before setting a new or amended allowances scheme. 2. The Panel was asked to make recommendations as to the level of remuneration for the forthcoming elected mayor (to be elected on November 2012), their appointed Deputy Mayor and for Cabinet Members.
    [Show full text]