council annual general meeting · he explained that continuing elections by thirds would require 3...

Council Annual General

Meeting

Thursday, 5 June 2014

7.00 pm

Cllr Liz Ashton L Cllr Caroline Molloy G

Cllr Dorcas Binns C Cllr Stephen Moore L

Cllr Timothy Boxall C Cllr David Mossman C

Cllr Chris Brine L&C Cllr Keith Pearson C

Cllr Paul Carter C Cllr Elizabeth Peters C

Cllr Molly Cato G Cllr Simon Pickering G

Cllr Miranda Clifton L Cllr Gary Powell L

Cllr Nigel Cooper C Cllr Nigel Prenter L

Cllr June Cordwell D Cllr Lesley Reeves C

Cllr Doina Cornell L Cllr Mark Rees L

Cllr Gordon Craig C Cllr Stephen Robinson L

Cllr Karon Cross L Cllr Mattie Ross L&C

Cllr Paul Denney L Cllr Roger Sanders L

Cllr David Drew L Cllr Emma Sims C

Cllr Julie Douglass L Cllr Paul Smith D

Cllr Jonathan Edmunds G Cllr Ken Stephens L

Cllr Colin Fryer L Cllr Nigel Studdert-Kennedy CNG

Cllr Chas Fellows C Cllr Brian Tipper C

Cllr Paul Hemming D Cllr Geoff Wheeler L&C

Cllr Nicholas Hurst C Cllr Martin Whiteside G

Cllr Julie Job C Cllr Rhiannon Wigzell C

Cllr Haydn Jones C Cllr Tim Williams C

Cllr John Jones C Cllr Tom Williams L&C

Cllr Stephen Lydon L&C Cllr Penny Wride C

Cllr John Marjoram G Cllr Debbie Young C

Cllr Russell Miles C

C = Conservative Group CNG = Conservative No Group D = Liberal Democrat Group

G= Green Group L = Labour Group L&C = Labour and Co-operative Group (Part of the Labour Group)

Stroud District Council AGM Agenda 5 June 2014 Published 28 May 2014

1

To all Members of Stroud District Council 28 May 2014 You are hereby summoned to attend the Annual General Meeting of the STROUD DISTRICT COUNCIL at 7.00 pm in the Council Chamber, Ebley Mill on Thursday, 5 June 2014.

David Hagg

Chief Executive

A G E N D A

Please Note: This meeting will be filmed for live or subsequent broadcast via the Council’s internet site (www.stroud.gov.uk). The whole of the meeting will be filmed except where there are confidential or exempt items, which may need to be considered in the absence of the press and public.

The images and sound recording may be used for training purposes within the Council.

Whilst the public seating areas are not directly filmed, particular camera shots around the Chamber may capture persons seated in the public areas. If you ask a question in accordance with the procedures in the Council’s Constitution and use a microphone for this purpose, then you will be deemed to have consented to being filmed. By entering the Council Chamber and using the public seating areas, you are consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings for webcasting and/or training purposes.

If you have any queries regarding the above, please contact the officer named at the top of this agenda.

1 CHAIR OF COUNCIL

To elect a Chair of Council for the Civic Year 2014/15. 2 VICE-CHAIR OF COUNCIL To appoint a Vice-Chair of Council for the Civic Year 2014/15. 3 APOLOGIES


2

4 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

To receive declarations of interest.

5 MINUTES To confirm and sign as a correct record the Minutes of the Special

Meeting and the Ordinary Meeting held on 10 April 2014. 6 ANNOUNCEMENTS To receive announcements from the Chair of Council and the Chief

Executive. 7 SECOND REPORT OF THE COUNCIL’S CONSTITUTION REVIEW

WORKING GROUP: PROPOSED CHANGES REGARDING COMMITTEES To approve changes to the Constitution recommended by the Working Group as set out in the report.

8 APPOINTMENT OF COUNCILLORS TO COMMITTEES

To appoint the Membership and Chairs and Vice-Chair s of Committees To appoint Councillors to the Committee positions set out in the report through nominations at the Council meeting.

9 CIVIC FUND EXPENDITURE 2013/14

To note the breakdown of expenditure totalling £5,678.21 for the Civic Fund during 2013/14.

10 REPORT OF THE INDEPENDENT MEMBERS’ REMUNERATION

PANEL To consider the report and the recommendations of the Panel to review the allowances paid to Councillors from the Municipal Year 2014/15.

11 FUTURE COUNCIL SIZE

The Council is asked to decide what submission should be made to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) on the future Council size after the 2016 elections.

12 NOTICE OF MOTION Financial Assistance for Town and Parish Council E lections in

2016 – 04/14 Proposed by Councillor Paul Smith and seconded by Councillor Paul

Hemming.

“At the Special Council meeting on 10 April 2014, this Council agreed to move to a scheme to provide for whole Council elections every 4 years with effect from May 2016, with the necessary steps being taken to move Parish and Town Council elections to coincide with the same polling day.


3

Until such time, Parish and Town Councils will continue to hold elections in line with the current timetables. The decision to provide for whole Council elections, to include all Parish and Town Councils, will therefore bring about additional and unexpected costs for Parish and Town Councils. In order to assist Parish and Town Councils to meet the costs of their 2016 elections, this Council is asked to

RESOLVE That Stroud District Council provides a grant to each

Parish and Town Council within the District towards the cost of their 2016 elections as follows:

(i) Those Parish and Town Councils holding

elections in 2015 to receive a grant equivalent to 75% of their total 2016 election costs;

(ii) Those Parish and Town Councils who held elections in 2014 to receive a grant equivalent to 50% of their total 2016 election costs;

(iii) Those Parish and Town Councils who held elections in 2013 to receive a grant equivalent to 25% of their total 2016 election costs.”

Financial Implications Should Council support the motion, the cost is estimated to be up to £5,000 dependent upon the number of seats contested in 2015. Only 2 seats were contested in 2014 and there were no elections in 2013. The cost would need to be funded from General Fund balances in 2016.

I N F O R M A T I O N

IN THE EVENT OF A FIRE

Leave the room by the nearest fire exit. These are located to the rear of the Chamber and the door leading to the Roof Garden as Fire Exits. Proceed to the main car park and assemble by the Ne w Build Sign (NB)

ALL MOBILE PHONES/PAGERS SHOULD BE SWITCHED OFF OR SET TO SILENT MODE BEFORE THE START OF THE MEETING.


4

FIRE EVACUATION PROCEDURES FOR VISITORS AT EBLEY MI LL

•••• Upon hearing the fire alarm, visitors should immediately evacuate the building following the instructions given by the Chair at the start of each meeting.

•••• DO NOT stay, or return, to collect personal belongings. •••• DO NOT use the lifts when the alarm is sounding. •••• Upon evacuation, visitors should go to the NB assembly point. The

assembly points are situated in the staff car park where a fire steward will be there to take a roll call.

•••• Visitors must remain at the assembly points until permission is given to leave.

•••• Visitors must not leave the site until instructed to do so.

CL.2013/14

Special Council – 10 April 2014 Subject to approval Minutes at the next meeting

1

SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING

10 April 2014

7.00 pm – 7.45 pm Council Chamber, Ebley Mill, Stroud

Minutes

5 Membership: Dennis Andrewartha** P Chas Fellows A Mark Rees* P Liz Ashton P Paul Hemming P Frances Roden P Dorcas Binns P Nick Hurst P Mattie Ross P Rowland Blackwell P Haydn Jones P Roger Sanders P Philip Booth P John Jones P Emma Sims P Tim Boxall A Daniel Le Fleming A Paul Smith P Chris Brine P Graham Littleton P Ken Stephens P Paul Carter P Stephen Lydon P Nigel Studdert-Kennedy P Molly Cato A John Marjoram P Brian Tipper P Miranda Clifton P Brian Marsh P Geoff Wheeler P Nigel Cooper P Russell Miles P Martin Whiteside P June Cordwell P Stephen Moore P Rhiannon Wigzell P Doina Cornell P Keith Pearson P Tom Williams P Gordon Craig P Elizabeth Peters P Penny Wride P Karon Cross P Simon Pickering P Debbie Young P Paul Denney P Gary Powell P David Drew P Nigel Prenter P 2 vacancies ** = Chair of Council * = Vice Chair of Council P = Present A = Absent Officers Present: Chief Executive Strategic Head of Corporate Services Legal Services Manager & Monitoring Officer

Principal Marketing Officer Democratic Services and Elections Officer

Strategic Head of Finance & Business Services

Democracy Development Manager Also Present: Ben Smith, Contracts Officer David Corker, Principal Appeals and Enforcement Officer

CL.2013/14


2

PRESENTATIONS Members joined the Chair of Council to congratulate Julie Browning, David Corker and Ben Smith for each giving at least 40 years service to the Council. An award was presented to each of them in recognition of their service. CL.065 APOLOGIES Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Tim Boxall, Molly Cato, Chas Fellows and Daniel Le Fleming. CL.066 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST None received. CL.067 FUTURE SCHEME FOR ELECTIONS In presenting the above report, the Democracy Development Manager informed Members that consideration of a future scheme for elections had been instigated by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England as part of its impending boundary review. The Council had the option to continue to hold elections by thirds or to move to a scheme of whole Council elections where all seats would be up for election once every four years. Any change would be implemented from May 2016. He explained that continuing elections by thirds would require 3 Member wards across the whole of the district and elections would take place for each one of the seats in years 1, 2 and 3. Members’ attention was drawn to the advantages of each type of scheme for elections as set out within the report, together with associated cost implications. The Democracy Development Manager pointed out that Town and Parish Council elections would also be expected to change, by legal order, so that elections took place on the same date as district elections once every four years. The Leader of the Council proposed that the Council move to a scheme to provide for whole Council elections every 4 years with effect from May 2016, with the necessary steps being taken to move Parish and Town Council elections to coincide with the same polling day. The Motion was seconded by Councillor Keith Pearson. Responses to questions raised were confirmed as follows:

• The Parish and Town Council elections in 2015 would proceed as usual with Councillors elected for a four year term. This enabled Councils to continue to operate should the boundary review not be successful. However, the consequence of the legal order would curtail the four year term, should all out elections take effect.

• There would be no staff redundancies arising from the cost savings forecast for four yearly elections. An explanation was provided of the process under the new rules for elections by thirds and the associated resource and cost implications, which were largely attributable to the costs of administering a large volume of elections.

• Questions were asked in relation to the low response to public consultation and in respect of the wording of the consultation question which it was felt

CL.2013/14


3

could be construed as biased to move towards elections once every four years.

A Member moved an amendment to the Motion requesting this Council to provide financial assistance to Town and Parish Councils towards the unforeseen costs of their 2016 elections. Following advice and in view of the absence of legal and financial implications, the Member agreed to withdraw the amendment and submit it as a Motion to the next Council meeting. Concern was expressed by some Members that the proposal to hold elections once every four years was purely financially driven and was an attack on local democracy, with no significant benefits. The response to the consultation exercise had been poor and there were other measures that could be explored to improve voter turnout and provide more cost effective voting methods. There was disappointment that the retention of voting by thirds would mean the imposition of 3 Member wards which would make some areas of the District large and unmanageable. The Democracy Development Manager confirmed that the cost savings associated with four yearly elections would in fact be ‘avoided costs’ and not savings on costs currently incurred. Other Members welcomed the proposed move to elections once every four years, which would be in line with other types of election held. The seconder of the Motion explained that the issue was not about the cost savings, but how to avoid future increased costs and the imposition of 3 Member wards on the District, which would prove impractical. On being put to the vote the Motion was CARRIED by 40 votes in favour, with 2 votes against and 3 abstentions. RESOLVED That this Council moves to a scheme to pro vide for whole

Council elections every 4 years with effect from Ma y 2016, with the necessary steps being taken to move Parish and Town Council elections to coincide with the same po lling day.

Councillor John Marjoram wished it recorded that he had abstained from voting on this item. The meeting closed at 7.45 pm.

Chair of Council

CL.2013/14

Council – 10 April 2014 Subject to approval Minutes at the next meeting

1

COUNCIL

10 April 2014

7.45 pm – 9.50 pm Council Chamber, Ebley Mill, Stroud

Minutes

5 Membership: Dennis Andrewartha** P Chas Fellows A Mark Rees* P Liz Ashton P Paul Hemming P Frances Roden P Dorcas Binns P Nick Hurst P Mattie Ross P Rowland Blackwell P Haydn Jones P Roger Sanders P Philip Booth P John Jones P Emma Sims P Tim Boxall A Daniel Le Fleming A Paul Smith P Chris Brine P Graham Littleton P Ken Stephens P Paul Carter P Stephen Lydon P Nigel Studdert-Kennedy P Molly Cato A John Marjoram P Brian Tipper P Miranda Clifton P Brian Marsh P Geoff Wheeler P Nigel Cooper P Russell Miles P Martin Whiteside P June Cordwell P Stephen Moore P Rhiannon Wigzell P Doina Cornell P Keith Pearson P Tom Williams P Gordon Craig P Elizabeth Peters P Penny Wride P Karon Cross P Simon Pickering P Debbie Young P Paul Denney P Gary Powell P David Drew P Nigel Prenter P 2 vacancies ** = Chair of Council * = Vice Chair of Council P = Present A = Absent Officers Present Chief Executive Strategic Head of Corporate Services Legal Services Manager & Monitoring Officer

Principal Marketing Officer Democratic Services and Elections Officer

Strategic Head of Finance & Business Services

Democracy Development Manager CL.068 APOLOGIES Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Tim Boxall, Molly Cato, Chas Fellows and Daniel Le Fleming.

CL.2013/14


2

CL.069 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST None received. CL.070 MINUTES RESOLVED That the Minutes of the meeting held on 27 February 2014 are

confirmed and signed as a correct record. CL.071 ANNOUNCEMENTS Leader of Council The Council joined the Leader in thanking the Chair of Council for his effective Chairing of full Council meetings during the past Civic Year and wished him a happy retirement. The Chair responded that he had enjoyed his 14 years service on the Council and would miss Councillors, staff and constituents alike. Chair of Council Members joined the Chair of Council in paying tribute to the following long serving Councillors who would not be seeking re-election this year: Councillor Philip Booth Councillor Daniel Le Fleming Councillor Graham Littleton Councillor Frances Roden Members reflected on the experience and skills that each Councillor had brought to the Council, recognising their contributions and also time served on their respective Parish Councils, committee/panel meetings and as representatives on external organisations. Chief Executive The Council was informed that Councillor Andy Read had resigned from the Council with effect from 4 April 2014 and a by-election would be held for the vacancy in Central Ward with the other local elections on 22 May 2014. CL.072 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME None received. CL.073 RECOMMENDATIONS FROM COMMITTEES Housing Committee – 20 March 2014 (a) Council New Build Programme The Chair of the Housing Committee presented the report considered by the Committee on 20 March 2014, which sought approval of the changes proposed to the Council’s New Build Programme.

CL.2013/14


3

It was proposed to bring forward the Chapel Street, Cam development from 2016/17 into 2015/16 and bring forward £850k into 2015/16. There would be an increase in the costs for Littlecombe from £1,490k to £1,643k, an increase of £145k, which was still within approved budgets. The Top of Town budget would also be increased in 2015/16 by £400k to take account of shared ownership properties and income of £400k in 2016/17 for sales. The land at 11 and 11a May Lane, Dursley would be disposed of to a Registered Provider for development and had therefore been removed from the programme. In commending the programme to the Council, the Chair of the Housing Committee moved the proposal set out on the agenda, which was seconded by Councillor Simon Pickering. Clarification was sought and received on points of detail. The seconder of the Motion congratulated both the Housing Committee and Officers for the work already undertaken on the New Build Programme to date. On being put to the vote the Motion was carried overwhelmingly. RESOLVED 1. To bring forward the Chapel Street, Cam site from 2016/17

to 2015/16; 2. Increase the net cost of Littlecombe by £153k t o £1,643k

to take account of potential reductions in the sale s price of shared ownership units and marketing costs;

3. Increase in Top of Town budget by £400k to take account

of increased units and also income of £400k from th e sale of shared ownership units;

4. Removal of May Lane, Dursley from the programme . Audit and Standards Committee – 25 March 2014 (b) Audit & Standards Working Group: changes to ‘Pe rsonal Interests’ in

the Members’ Code of Conduct The Vice-Chair of the Audit and Standards Committee presented the above report considered by the Committee on 25 March 2014, with recommendations to amend ‘Personal Interests’ within the Members’ Code of Conduct (May 2013). He referred to the legislative requirements pertinent to the review of Personal Interests, including the approach and findings of the cross party working group who had reviewed codes adopted by a number of other Councils. Having considered the recommendations of the working group, the Committee had agreed a revised recommendation to approve the Members’ Code of Conduct, subject to references to ‘Personal Interests’ being changed to read ‘Other Interests’. He drew attention to paragraph 4.6(b) which sought a reasonable compromise for Members with other interests to participate at meetings.

CL.2013/14


4

The Vice-Chair of the Committee moved the proposal set out on the agenda paper, which was seconded by Councillor Keith Pearson. Members recognised the work undertaken to move the Code forward and thanked the working group for its efforts and the positive intentions of the proposals. The Motion was put to the vote and carried unanimously. RESOLVED That the Members’ Code of Conduct is amend ed as set out in

Paragraph 10 of the report, subject to references t o ‘Personal Interests’ being changed to read ‘Other Interests’.

(c) Review of Functioning of Standards Panel The Vice-Chair of the Audit and Standards Committee presented the above report considered by the Committee on 25 March 2014, which provided feedback on the workings of the Panel, together with recommendations on changes to the procedure. He explained that having received Committee acceptance of the procedure for assessing allegations of breaches of the Members’ Code of Conduct, the Council was now being asked to confirm the appointment of the existing independent and Parish/Town Council Members for a further 12 months. Members’ attention was drawn to the functioning of the panel and the need for the Monitoring Officer to exercise her delegated powers for making routine or minor amendments to clarify procedure as necessary. The Vice-Chair moved the proposal set out on the agenda paper, which was seconded by Councillor Rhiannon Wigzell. In response to questions raised, the Monitoring Officer explained that the Committee had supported the continued use of the existing independent and Parish/Town Council Members in order to retain and continue with the expertise established for the next twelve months. The Committee also agreed that the Monitoring Officer should seek to create a wider pool of people who could gain the necessary expertise and be called upon to become members of the Panel. It appeared sensible to continue to use the existing Panel members who had demonstrated their objectivity and knowledge in determining complaints during the past year, for a further 12 month period. On being put to the vote the Motion was carried unanimously. RESOLVED That subject to their agreement to do so, the appointment of

the existing independent and Parish/Town Council me mbers be confirmed for a further 12 months.

CL.074 CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES The Leader of the Council presented the report which sought approval of the changes to the Constitution recommended by the Member working group, following Council’s agreement to review the constitutional arrangements in the latter part of the municipal year in light of experience of the new working arrangements. He drew attention to the issues raised by the working group where Constitutional changes

CL.2013/14


5

were recommended, but stipulated that any other changes which might impact on committees would be included as a report to the Annual General Meeting. During questions and debate Members suggested other potential changes to the Constitution for consideration as follows:

• Recommendation 1 on page 4 to be amended to reflect that ward councillors will be copied into all communications between and officers and parish councils as appropriate.

• Recommendation 3, part B, first sentence to be amended to exclude the Development Control Committee.

• Issue 5, page 3, to factor in an additional briefing per each meeting cycle to include Chairs, Vice-Chairs and a spokesperson from each political party to improve communications.

• Amendments to the Council’s Petition scheme at Appendix A to include mechanisms for all Members to be kept informed of petitions received, responses and any reasons for not referring a petition to Council or a Committee. A suggestion was made for the debate of a petition not to be time limited to enable sufficient consideration of the matter.

On the advice of the Monitoring Officer the Council agreed only to consider the Constitutional changes set out within the circulated report, with other suggested changes to be considered initially by the working group and then incorporated into the report to the AGM. The Council approved the report unanimously. RESOLVED That the Constitutional changes detailed i n the report be

implemented with immediate effect. CL.075 CIVIC TIMETABLE OF MEETINGS 2014/15 In presenting the proposed civic timetable of meetings for 2014/15, the Chair reminded the Council of the revision circulated following publication, with the July Council meeting now being held on 17 July 2014. A Member requested that in future, a draft timetable is issued to Members earlier in the year. RESOLVED That the Civic Timetable of meetings for 2 014/15, as revised,

is approved. CL.076 MATTERS FOR INFORMATION The Council noted the meetings that had taken place since the last ordinary Meeting held on 27 February 2014.

CL.2013/14


6

CL.077 MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS The following questions received from Councillor Debbie Young, were presented to and answered by Councillor Geoff Wheeler, Leader and Chair of the Strategy and Resources Committee. Question 1 “Does the Council have a target for answering questions/complaints and what is it?” Answer “There is no fixed timescale for answering general questions. Ask the Leader and Freedom of Information questions are responded to within 20 working days. Complaints are answered within 10 working days in line with the Council’s complaints procedure which is on the website”. Supplementary Question “Is there a target for answering Councillors questions?” Answer The Leader responded that whilst there was no target, Councillors questions would be answered as soon as possible. Question 2 “How is the Council measuring up to its target?” Answer “Level 2 complaints statistics are collected from all service areas and circulated on a quarterly basis by the Complaints Officer to Corporate Team. Level 1 complaints are dealt with by service areas in line with the complaints procedure”. Supplementary Question “To your knowledge, are there any responses to Councillors questions still outstanding?” Answer The Leader hoped that this was not the case, but if so, asked that these particular questions be brought to his attention. Question 3 “As Leader, are you happy about the performance of the Council in responding to questions/complaints?” Answer “As far as I am aware the Council’s performance in responding to complaints is being adhered to. If you have any specific problems then please either come and talk to me, members involved in performance monitoring, Chairs of Committees or the Chief Executive”. Supplementary Question Thanks was given to the Leader on behalf of Councillor Chas Fellows for the response to his question regarding honorariums, with £56,000 paid in honorariums to staff in 2013. However, the questioner stated that responses were still required to

CL.2013/14


7

questions concerning the number of staff being paid in excess of £50 per hour and the Council spending £100,000 to save £20,000 and she asked when they would be answered? Answer Whilst the Leader believed that the questions had been answered, he undertook to investigate and would respond as quickly as possible. CL.078 NOTICE OF MOTION Committee System – 03/14 The following Motion was proposed by Councillor Keith Pearson and seconded by Councillor Debbie Young.

“The Committee System was portrayed as allowing more open, transparent, self-scrutinising and inclusive decision making. We believe that this system can work effectively, if committees are allowed to take public responsibility for policy making. Recent decisions have shown that the Administration has used the committee system as a means of taking decisions out of the public arena and without any form of public scrutiny. This Council therefore has no confidence in the Labour led Administration and the democratic deficit that it has created by the way it has abused the decision making process.”

The mover of the Motion reflected on the Council’s achievements under the previous Executive system and former Administration, compared to the current committee system, which was intended to be more inclusive. He believed that the committee system had operated unsatisfactorily for a number of reasons, including Chairs and Vice-Chairs of Committees conducting themselves as Cabinet Members, together with the production of fait accompli reports. He cited a number of key areas whereby the process leading to decision making had not allowed any opportunity for Members to consider policy or to have appropriate discussion. Whilst committees were supposed to be self scrutinising he had not seen any evidence of scrutiny within the current system and believed that the Council would have to work hard to improve the situation in the coming Civic Year. Members of the current Administration referred to cross party representation on all committees, with the Conservatives having the greatest entitlement to seats as the single largest group. It was highlighted that there had been a number of opportunities available for Members to contribute to discussion and influence decision making but these had not been utilised. Reference was made to the previous Council meeting when the Conservative Group had vacated the Chamber prior to the discussion of Motions, noting their apparent desire for the current system to fail. The ensuing debate highlighted the need for individual Councillors to take advantage of the opportunities available to participate in discussion and decision making and to commit to making the committee system work effectively. Other Members commented that whilst both governance systems had their advantages and disadvantages, there was no apparent scrutiny being undertaken and the situation had to improve to strengthen this function. A Member reminded that performance could be monitored via Excelsis and each Committee had established performance monitoring champions who met with officers quarterly.

CL.2013/14


8

A Member of the cross party working group expressed discontent at the negative comments made on the operation of the committee system and was disappointed that the Council was now faced with a vote of no confidence when all cross party Members of the group had worked hard to develop it. Some Members concluded that the committee system was still in its infancy and any new decision making structure required flexibility, with time to improve and develop its effectiveness. The seconder of the Motion explained that the Motion concerned the spirit of the committee system, believing that there was scope for it to develop and operate effectively. However, in her view, performance monitoring and scrutiny had to be far more open and transparent and the system extended with democratic inclusion for the public. The Motion was put to the vote and was LOST by 14 votes in favour, 26 votes against and 3 abstentions. The meeting closed at 9.50 pm.

Chair of Council

Council AGM Agenda Item 7 5 June 2014

1

STROUD DISTRICT COUNCIL

COUNCIL AGM

5 June 2014

AGENDA ITEM NO

7 Report Title

SECOND REPORT OF THE COUNCIL’S CONSTITUTION REVIEW WORKING GROUP: PROPOSED CHANGES REGARDING COMMITTEES

Purpose of Report

To approve changes to the Constitution recommended by the Working Group as set out in the Decision box below.

Decision(s)

The Member Constitution Working Group recommends to Council the following changes to the Constitution:

1. Introduction to the Council’s Constitution “Changes to the Constitution” paragraph 9.2, be deleted.

2. The Licensing Committee be abolished and all functions previously the responsibility of such committee (including any specific rules etc regarding it) be undertaken / applied by the Community Services Committee in connection with these functions.

3. The terms of reference of the Audit &

Standards Committee be amended to include its role as “lead member body for risk management”.

4. (a) A District Planning Review Body (DPRA)

be established as proposed in the report; and (b) The Strategy and Resources Committee be authorised to determine the membership of the DPRA as proposed in the report paragraph 16.

5. Delegated Authority be given to the Legal Services Manager to make appropriate amendments to the Constitution in view of the Council’s resolutions and to address anomalies etc. in the Constitution which may arise as a result of the said amendments.


2

6. That the Constitution Working Group

(including its 2013/14 cross party membership): (a) continues to review the Constitution; and (b) provides an update on its work by January

2015 at the latest.

Consultation and Feedback

The recommendations contained within the report have been developed by a cross party working group. Members of the working group were tasked with consulting their groups and feeding the groups’ views into the development of the recommendations.

Financial Implications and Risk Assessment

No significant financial implications arising as a result of the report. Sandra Cowley, Strategic Head of Finance & Business Services Tel: 01453 754136 Email: [email protected]

Legal Implications

The Council may resolve to amend its Constitution as set out in the report. Karen Trickey, Legal Services Manager & Monitoring Officer Tel: 01453 754369 Email: [email protected]

Report Author

Karen Trickey, Legal Services Manager & Monitoring Officer on behalf of the Working Group

Options

Not to amend the Constitution as proposed.

Performance Management Follow Up

It is proposed that the Working Group keep the Constitution changes under review and report to Council by January 2015 on any pertinent issues.

Background Papers / Appendices

None.

Background 1. The new constitutional arrangements to implement a committee system were

adopted at the May 2013 AGM. At that time it was agreed to set up a cross party working group to review the constitutional arrangements in light of the Council’s experience of the new arrangements in 2013 / 2014.


3

2. Following the adoption of its recommendations as set out in the report to

Council on 10 April 2014, the Working Group met on 7 May 2014 to finalise its recommendations regarding committees and the establishment of a planning strategy advisory panel. Councillor Pearson was appointed chairman of the Group. This report sets out the findings and recommendations of the Group to the Council.

Procedural issue (Recommendation 1 in the Decision Box) 3. Since May 2013, the Constitution has included a provision whereby there is

an expectation that any proposal to alter the committees should be the subject to prior consultation with the relevant committees (see Introduction to the Council’s Constitution, section 9.2). The provision only sets out an expectation as opposed to a requirement to consult.

4. Although the relevant committees were not consulted on the proposed changes to committees (see paragraphs 6 to 7 of this report), members of the Working Group have consulted their political groups and involved committee chairmen regarding possible changes. Furthermore, all members are engaged in the process by virtue of the need for full Council to approve any changes to the Constitution.

5. Irrespective of there only being an expectation that relevant committees will be consulted, as all changes to committees have to be approved by Council, the existing consultation provision in the Constitution is not considered necessary or useful. Consequently, the Working Group recommends that the consultation provision is removed from the Constitution - see the Working Group’s Recommendation 1 in the Decision Box at the commencement of this report.

Number of Service Committees (Recommendation 2 in the Decision Box) 6. The Working Group considered the existing committee structure and debated

if there was a need to make substantial changes to the principle of retaining four service committees (i.e. the Strategy & Resources, Community Services, Environment and Housing). Having reviewed the workload of the committees, on balance the group concluded that these service committees operated effectively and should be retained with the same number of members as provided for in the Constitution.

7. The Group considers that there is potential for Community Services and Licensing committees to undertake further work as they generally have less business to attend to than the other committees. Consequently, it is recommended that the Licensing Committee’s functions are transferred to the Community Services Committee as from the AGM – see Recommendation 2 above.

8. The Licensing Panel which is responsible for determining licensing

applications will therefore sit under the Community Services Committee. For


4

the avoidance of doubt, as the Panel performs a statutory quasi judicial function, the whipping provisions will not be permitted to apply to this regulatory part of the committee’s licensing function – again, Recommendation 2 addressees this.

Audit & Standards Committee (Recommendation 3 in the Decision Box) 9. For the sake of clarity it was proposed that the terms of reference for Audit &

Standards Committee should be amended slightly to include reference to it being the “lead member body for risk management” – see Recommendation 3.

Development Control Committee 10. The Group was requested to consider increasing the number of members on

the Development Control Committee (DCC) with a view to raising the level of district wide representation on the committee. Following careful consideration, the Group was not convinced that the benefits (in terms of an increase in democratic representation in the decision making process) would outweigh the disadvantages (e.g. increase costs). Consideration was then given to whether an increase in the quorum for the committee (from 50% to 66%) might assist in encouraging all members of the committee to attend. However, it was recognised that the attendance at the committee was generally higher than other committees and an increase in the quorum would raise the prospect of meetings of DCC having to be adjourned if only four members needed to leave early, declare an interest or were otherwise unavoidably prevented from attending the meeting. This would potentially delay decision making and increase costs as a result of having to reconvene meetings to resolve the outstanding committee business.

11. In view of the concerns raised but recognising the potential issues outlined above, the Group considered that it would be beneficial for all Council members who proposed to sit on the DCC to be reminded as part of their induction and via Party Group Leaders particularly before their appointment to the DCC, of the importance of their participation throughout the committee.

Member Body to Consider Strategic Planning Issues (Recommendation 4 in the Decision Box) 12. In view of the concerns expressed that the new committee system does not

provide for a specialist member body to consider strategic planning issues, the Working Group proposes the establishment of a dedicated member advisory body.

13. The advantages and disadvantages of establishing a formal committee or sub-committee were discussed. In summary, it has been concluded that the Council’s strategic planning would most benefit from the establishment of an informal advisory body. If decisions need to be made as a result of the body’s work, it is anticipated that the body will make recommendations to the Strategy & Resources Committee. Furthermore, given the implications for


5

strategic planning across a range of service areas, it is anticipated that the new advisory body will potentially work with the Environment and Development Control committees, as well as officers and the Strategy & Resources Committee in the course of considering pertinent issues.

14. The Working Group’s proposed terms of reference for the new advisory group (to be known as the District Planning Review Body) are: (i) To consider issues affecting the delivery of the Council’s strategic

planning policies; (ii) To review planning appeal decisions which have key implications for

the Council’s strategic planning policy or planning performance; (iii) Where appropriate make recommendations on the above matters to

the Strategy & Resources Committee to promote the continuous improvement in planning performance and planning policy strategy.

15. In brief, the new group will have a wide ambit to examine key issues affecting

local and national planning policies and to consider their impact upon the Council’s strategic planning. In doing so, it will also review key planning appeal decisions (of the Council and other authorities potentially) and consider the implications for the development (or not) of the district.

16. It is proposed that:

(i) the new body will comprise nine members from the Council membership;

(ii) the body will be permanently chaired by a member of the Strategy & Resources Committee;

(iii) subject to (i) and (ii) the latter committee will determine the membership which shall include all political groups / parties; and

(iv) the body will meet informally as often as it considers appropriate, with an initial meeting to be convened in July (following determination of membership by the Strategy & Resources Committee which next meets on 26 June 2014).

Future Work of the Constitutional Member Working Gr oup (Recommendation 6 in the Decision Box) 17. It is proposed that the Working Group continues beyond the AGM to examine

other aspects of the Constitution which it has not had the opportunity to consider to date. These comprise:

a. Fine-tuning of the Constitution (including those items raised by members of the Council at the 10 April 2014 Council);

b. Review of the Council’s Scheme of Delegations; c. Consideration of the role of scrutiny within the committee system; d. Review as to whether there is a need for further clarity of committee

functions / reporting lines for officers to minimise occasions when reports are considered by more than one committee.

Council AGM 1 Agenda Item 8 5 June 2014


COUNCIL AGM

5 June 2014

AGENDA ITEM NO

8 Report Title

APPOINTMENT OF COUNCILLORS TO COMMITTEES

Purpose of Report

To appoint Councillors to Committees with effect from 5 June 2014.

Decision(s)

The Council RESOLVES: To appoint Councillors to the Committee positions set out in the report through nominations at the Council meeting.


The proposed Constitutional arrangements and committee make up have been developed through a cross party member working group.


There are no financial implications arising out of the report. Sandra Cowley, Strategic Head of Finance and Business Services Tel: 01453 754136 Email: [email protected]

Legal Implications

The Council is required to appoint councillors to Committees in accordance with the proportionality rules. Karen Trickey, Legal Services Manager & Monitoring Officer Tel: 01453 754369 Email: [email protected]

Report Author

Karen Trickey, Legal Services Manager & Monitoring Officer Tel: 01453 754369 Email: [email protected]

Options

Members are asked for nominations to the places available on committees.



It is proposed that the constitutional arrangements be kept under review.

Background Papers/ Appendices

Background Papers – Constitutional report also on this agenda

APPOINTMENTS TO COMMITTEES 1. Political Composition Stroud District Council consists of a number of Political Groupings. In accordance with the “Widdicombe Principles” regard must be had to the numerical strength of each group in allocating Committee seats. A group has to consist of at least 2 councillors. The various groups comprise the following Members. Conservative Group Councillors (21) Dorcas Binns Julie Job Lesley Reeves Timothy Boxall Haydn Jones Emma Sims Paul Carter John Jones Brian Tipper Nigel Cooper Russell Miles Rhiannon Wigzell Gordon Craig David Mossman Tim Williams Chas Fellows Keith Pearson Penny Wride Nicholas Hurst Elizabeth Peters Debbie Young Labour Group Councillors (20) Elizabeth Ashton Colin Fryer Roger Sanders Chris Brine Stephen Lydon Ken Stephens Miranda Clifton Stephen Moore Geoff Wheeler Doina Cornell Gary Powell Tom Williams Karon Cross Nigel Prenter Paul Denney Mark Rees Julie Douglass Stephen Robinson David Drew Mattie Ross Liberal Democrat Group Councillors (3) June Cordwell Paul Hemming Paul Smith Green Group Councillors (6) Molly Cato John Marjoram Simon Pickering Jonathan Edmunds Caroline Molloy Martin Whiteside Note: In addition to the above there is 1 independent member, Councillor Nigel Studdert-Kennedy who wishes to be known as Conservative - No Group.


2. Political Proportionality The “Widdicombe Rules” specify that any Councillor who is not a member of a Political Group will be entitled to serve on at least one Committee. 3. Committees (a) Those subject to Political Balance Requirements

The numbers of members for each committee which are subject to the proportionality rules are set out below: Committee No. of Members

Community Services 12 Environment 12 Housing 12 Strategy and Resources Committee 13 Audit Committee 9 Development Control Committee 12 Licensing Committee*(see note below) 11 *Note: The retention of this committee (and as such the need to appoint members to it) is subject to the decision on the proposed changes affecting committees as set out in the “Second Report of the Constitution Working Group” considered earlier on the agenda. (b) Those NOT subject to Political balance requirem ents Name of Group No. of Members

Licensing Panel 3 trained members (who will be

members of the Licensing Committee or if the latter is abolished Community Services Committee) – convened when required

Stroud Council Housing Forum Chair and Vice Chair of Housing plus one seat to each political group not represented through Chair or Vice Chair appointments

Standards Panel Chair of Council

Health, Community and Care Scrutiny Committee (Gloucestershire)

• Lead • Substitute

1 Member 1 Member

Gloucestershire Police & Crime Panel • Lead • Substitute

1 Member 1 Member


Gloucestershire Economic Growth Overview and Scrutiny Committee

• Lead • Deputy

1 Member 1 Member (cannot be the Leader of the Council or Vice-Chair of the Strategy and Resources Committee)

4. Allocations to Committees subject to political b alance requirements POLITICAL BALANCE FIGURES 2014/15 The following calculations (which will be completed following the 22 May 2014 elections) will be in compliance with the political proportionality requirements contained in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and appropriate statutory regulations. Scenario (a) – Retaining the Licensing Committee

Total No. of Councillors

51

Con

serv

ativ

e (2

1 C

llrs)

Labo

ur

(20

Cllr

s)

Libe

ral

Dem

ocra

t (3

Cllr

s)

Gre

en g

rp

(6 C

llrs)

Con

serv

ativ

e -

No

Gro

up

(1 C

llr)

Total Seats

Available

Community Services

12

Environment 12

Housing 12

Strategy and Resources

13

Audit and Standards

9

Development Control

12

*Licensing 11

Total Seats 81


Scenario (b) – Community Services Committee incorpo rating licensing functions

Total No. of Councillors

51

Con

serv

ativ

e (2

1 C

llrs)

Labo

ur

(20

Cllr

s)

Libe

ral

Dem

ocra

t (3

Cllr

s)

Gre

en g

rp

(6 C

llrs)

Con

serv

ativ

e -

No

Gro

up

(1 C

llr)

Total Seats

Available

Community Services

12

Environment 12

Housing 12

Strategy and Resources

13

Audit and Standards

9

Development Control

12

Total Seats 70 Each political group has been asked to provide its allocations for the various Committees/Panels, together with nominations for Chair etc. These details will be reported to the Annual General Meeting or circulated earlier if possible. (a) Community Services seat allocation Community Services (12)

Conservative (x)

Labour (x)

Lib Dem (x)

Green (x)

Conservative - No Group

Community Services – Nominations for Chair and Vice Chair

Conservative Labour Lib Dem Green Conservative - No Group

Ch

V-Ch


(b) Environment Committee seats allocation

Environment Committee (12)

Conservative (x)

Labour (x)

Lib Dem (x)

Green (x)


Environment Committee – Nominations for Chair and V ice Chair


Ch

V-Ch

(c) Housing Committee seat allocation

Housing Committee (12)

Conservative (x)

Labour (x)

Lib Dem (x)

Green (x)


Housing Committee – Nominations for Chair and Vice Chair


Ch

V-Ch


(d) Strategy and Resources Committee seat allocatio n

Strategy and Resources Committee (13)

Conservative (x)

Labour (x)

Lib Dem (x)

Green (x)


Note: the Chairs of Community Services, Environment and Housing as well as each political group leader have a place on Stra tegy and Resources with ‘top-up’ seats then remaining to be allocated

Strategy and Resources Committee – Nominations for Chair and Vice Chair


Ch

V-Ch

(e) Audit and Standards Committee seat allocation Audit and Standards Committee (9)

Conservative (x)

Labour (x)

Lib Dem (x)

Green (x)


(x)

Audit and Standards Committee – Nominations for Cha ir and Vice

Chair


Ch

V-Ch


(f) Development Control Committee seat allocation

Development Control Committee (12)

Conservative (x)

Labour (x)

Lib Dem (x)

Green (x)


Development Control Committee – Nominations for Cha ir and Vice

Chair


Ch

V-Ch

(g) Licensing Committee seat allocation

Licensing Committee (11)

Conservative (x)

Labour (x)

Lib Dem (x)

Green (x)


Licensing Committee – Nominations for Chair and Vic e Chair


Ch

V-Ch


5. Allocations to Committees and other bodies NOT subject to political

balance requirements (h)

Stroud Council Housing Forum - (Chair and Vice Chair of Housing plus 1 seat to each political group not already rep resented)


(i)

Health, Community and Care Scrutiny Committee (Glou cestershire) (1) - Lead


Health, Community and Care Scrutiny Committee (Glou cestershire) (1) - Substitute


(j)

Gloucestershire Police & Crime Panel (1) - Lead


Gloucestershire Police & Crime Panel – (1) Substitu te



(k)

Gloucestershire Economic Growth Overview and Scruti ny Committee (1) - Lead Conservative Labour Lib Dem Green Conservative

- No Group

Gloucestershire Economic Growth Overview and Scruti ny Committee – (1) Deputy


Council AGM Agenda Item 9 5 June 2014 1


COUNCIL AGM

5 June 2014

AGENDA ITEM NO

9 Report Title

CIVIC FUND EXPENDITURE 2013/14

Purpose of Report

To receive details of Civic Fund expenditure for 2013/14.

Decision(s)

Council is recommended to RESOLVE: To note the breakdown of expenditure totalling £5,678.21 for the Civic Fund during 2013/14.


In accordance with the decision of the Council on 26 April 2012, details of expenditure incurred under the Civic Fund are published on an annual basis and reported to full Council.


There are no direct financial implications arising from the recommendations in this report. The report details the expenditure incurred throughout the year 2013/14. David Stanley, Accountancy Manager Tel: 01453 754100 Email: [email protected]

Legal Implications

At the Council meeting of 26 April 2012, a Motion was submitted concerning Members’ expenses, the latter part of which requested “that the Civic Fund be published annually and that it be publicly signed off by the Chairman.” The Motion was supported by the full Council. This report is produced to satisfy the Council’s resolution. Karen Trickey, Legal Services Manager & Monitoring Officer Tel: 01453 754369 Email: [email protected]

Report Author

Karen Trickey, Legal Services Manager & Monitoring Officer Tel: 01453 754369 Email: [email protected]

Options

N/A

Council AGM Agenda Item 9 5 June 2014 2


N/A


None

Report Detail

Description of Civic Fund Cost 2013/14

Amount

1 Photographs – Civic Reception for previous Chair £ 362.49

2 Bouquets – Civic Reception for previous Chair £ 84.97

3 Refreshments – Civic Reception for previous Chair £ 36.60

4 Corporate Gift – Civic Reception for previous Chair £ 197.50

5 Catering - Civic Reception for previous Chair £ 259.10

6 Remembrance Service Booklets for Remembrance Parade – Stroud Sea Cadets

£ 65.06

7 Remembrance Sunday Wreath for Vice Chair – The Royal British Legion Poppy Appeal

£ 18.50

8 Remembrance Sunday Wreaths x 3 for Chair and Chief Executive – The Poppy Appeal

£ 51.00

9 Armistice Day Ceremony Stroud Subscription Rooms £ 50.00

10 Longest Serving Stroud District Youth Council Member Award

£ 122.39

11 National Autistic Society Charity Christmas Cards – Chair

£ 59.96

12 Print Stamp for National Autistic Society Charity Christmas Cards – Chair

£ 19.07

13 Cost of Chair of Council (allowances) £2637.51

14 Cost of Vice Chair of Council (allowances) £1014.06

15 Annual Finance Support Service Charge £ 700.00

Total Expenditure

£5678.21


1


COUNCIL AGM

5 June 2014

AGENDA ITEM NO

10 Report Title

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT MEMBERS’ REMUNERATION PANEL

Purpose of Report

For the Council to consider the report and the recommendations of the Panel to review the allowances paid to councillors from the municipal year 2014/15.

Decision(s)

Council is recommended to RESOLVE:

(i) To approve all the recommendations set out in the Independent Remuneration Panel’s report (see paragraphs 3 and 4 of this covering report)

OR until a further review:

(ii) Make alternative provision for the Members’ Allowances Scheme from 2014/15 taking account of the report (e.g. adopt some of the recommendations); or

(iii) Continue with the Members’ Allowances Scheme applicable in 2013/14.

Consultation an d Feedback

The Panel has sought views from councillors regarding the matter.


The proposed changes to the Members’ Scheme of Allowances recommended by the Panel result in an increase of approximately £3,200 (1.05%) in a full civic year if approved. This figure takes into account the proposed changes to the Basic Allowance and Special Responsibility Allowances, but does not include any assumption on indexation. The overall increase can be contained within existing budgets. David Stanley, Accountancy Manager Tel: 01453 754100 Email: [email protected]


2

Legal Implications

The Council cannot amend its current Members’ Allowance Scheme without having regard to the IRP report. The Council is required to publish its Members’ Allowances Scheme, but also publish a notice in at least one newspaper circulating in the district that the IRP report has been received and also subsequently that a scheme has been adopted. As at the date of this covering report (23 May 2014) arrangements are therefore being put in place for the preliminary notice of receipt of the report. Karen Trickey, Legal Services Manager & Monitoring Officer Tel: 01453 754369 Email: [email protected]

Report Author

Karen Trickey for Stuart Hook, consultant Democracy Development Manager on behalf of IRP Tel: 01453 754369 Email: [email protected]

Options

To accept or vary the recommendations of the IRP; or otherwise retain the existing Members’ Allowances Scheme.


N/A


Appendix A: Report of Independent Remuneration Panel

Report Detail

1. The Council is referred to the report of the Independent Remuneration Panel (IRP) contained within Appendix A which was received by the Democracy Services Manager on 22 May 2014. (It should be noted that unfortunately the table set out on page 2 of the IRP report is not based on the 1% increase to the SRA that applied for the year 2013/14 and thus the SRA figures for the start of 2014 / 15 should be increased by a further 1%. The Basic Allowance does include such increase).

2. The Council is requested to consider whether to adopt the recommendations of the Panel; retain the existing scheme; or otherwise make alternative arrangements.

3. In summary, the IRP recommends to Council that for 2014/15 that until a

further review of the relevant allowances:


3

a. The Basic Allowance paid to councillors is increased by a

percentage equivalent each year to that received by the Council’s staff for the relevant year;

b. The Special Responsibility Allowances referred to in the report are increased by a percentage equivalent each year to that received by the Council’s staff for the relevant year;

c. Travel Allowances (Mileage Rates) remain at the HMRC approved rate; and

d. All other elements of the Members’ Allowance Scheme remain as per that applicable in 2013/14.

4. In addition, the Panel has recommended that it undertake a further

review of Special Responsibility Allowances during the course of 2014/15. This is proposed in respect to two issues:

a. Consideration of any means by which councillors may be encouraged to attend relevant meetings. (It should be noted that consideration was given by the Panel to some options – see paragraph 71 to 75 of the IRP report);

b. Consideration of the responsibility / workload in practice of the chairman of the new advisory panel which is proposed by the Constitution Working Group (see Agenda Item 7). (It should be noted that the latter panel unlike the other bodies (i.e. committees) for which SRA’s are payable, will have an informal advisory role and will not be a decision making body).

APPENDIX A

A Review Of Members’ Allowances

For Stroud District Council

____________________

The Tenth Report By the Independent Remuneration Panel

Pauline Bailey

Dr Declan Hall

John Parker

May 2014

Foreword

This is the tenth report produced by the statutory Independent Remuneration Panel (or Panel) for Stroud District Council. The Panel was established in spring 2002 to make recommendations to the Council on the scope and levels of remuneration for Members in accordance with the requirements of the 2000 Local Government Act and subsequent Regulations. A second review, undertaken in March 2003, set the framework for the Members’ Allowances scheme that remains largely in place. Since then seven further reviews have taken place, some extensive in scope and some less so but the broad framework has remained substantially unaltered. The previous (ninth) review in April 2013 was one that was extensive in nature as the Council exercised its right to change its governance model from an executive to committee system under the relevant provisions of the 2011 Localism Act, adopted at its Annual Meeting on 16 May 2013. At the same time, the Council had to establish a new scheme of allowances to reflect the new committee structures. The Panel noted at the time that although it had the relevant written information and informed views of Members and Officers, the problem was that the Panel was required to make judgements vis-a-vis the impact of the new committee system and the concomitant impacts on Members roles and responsibilities before experience of the new system had been gained. Consequently, the Panel cautioned that the recommendations in the ninth review could not be regarded as the definitive view of the Panel. In particular, a further mini review in 12 months would be required when experience of the new committee system of governance had time to settle in and a more informed judgement of the impacts of the new committee system on Members roles and responsibilities can be gained. Thus, this review is assessing the degree to which the last review successfully anticipated the impact of the new governance system. The evidence and representations received showed that on balance, the recommendations from the last review were appropriate and the task of this review is to identify and address any anomalies arising. Ironically, the Panel has identified a few instances where there is a strong case to amend or add a Special Responsibility Allowance (SRA) but it has chosen not to do so at this stage and suggests a further mini review in 6-9 months when further evidence can be presented to make particular cases definitive rather than indicative. Regardless, the guiding principle underpinning the work of Panel remains in place in that it has sought to ensure that as far as practically possible financial barriers to being and remaining an elected Member is reduced for most people balanced

Stroud District Council 10th Report by IRP

Dr Declan Hall membersallowances.co.uk

1

against ensuring that the remuneration of Members represents value for money and can stand up to public scrutiny. Dr Declan Hall Stroud District Council Independent Remuneration Panel Chair May 2014



2

STROUD IRP: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2014/15

REMUNERATED POSTS 2014/15

Basic Allowanc

e No.

Payable

SRA Payable for Post

Total Per

Member

SRA Payable

for Category

Leader of Council & Chair of Strategy & Resources

Committee £5,050 1 £9,000 £14,050 £9,000

Chairs of 3 Service Committees £5,050 3 £6,000 £11,050 £18,000

Vice Chairs of Strategy & Resources + 3 Service

Committees £5,050 4 £2,000 £7,050 £8,000

Chair of Development Control Committee £5,050 1 £4,704 £9,754 £4,704

Main Opposition Group Leader £5,050 1 £4,704 £9,754 £4,704

Vice Chair of Development Control Committee £5,050 1 £941 £5,991 £941

Chair of Audit and Standards Committee £5,050 1 £3,900 £8,950 £3,900

Vice Chair of Audit & Standards Committee £5,050 1 £780 £5,830 £780

Chair of Council £5,050 1 £3,000 £8,050 £3,000

Vice Chair of Council £5,050 1 £600 £5,650 £600

Other Opposition Group Leaders £5,050 0 £1,000 £6,050 £0

BA SUB TOTAL £5,050 51 £257,550

SRAS SUB TOTAL 15 £53,629

TOTAL ALLOWANCES PAYABLE £311,179



3

The Panel also recommends the following, namely tha t A Future Mini Review The Panel carry out a mini-review in 6-9 months to receive further evidence to assess whether there is a case to amend or add SRAs. Chair and Vice Chair of Licensing The SRAs for the Chair (£3,000) and Vice Chair (£600) of the Licensing Committee are discontinued from the date the committee is merged with the Communities Committee and the SRAs for the Chair and Vice Chair of the Communities Committee will be maintained at £6,000 and £2,000 respectively. If the Council maintains the Licensing Committee the current SRAs paid to the Chair and Vice Chair of the Licensing Committee be continued at the current levels, subject to any indexation that may be applied. The 1-SRA Only Rule There should be no exceptions to the 1-SRA only rule. Mileage Rates HMRC mileage rates claimable by Members for attending approved duties be maintained. The Dependants' Carers' Allowance There is no change to the Dependants' Carers' Allowance scheme and the terms and conditions under which it is claimable.

Indexation The following indices are applied to the relevant allowances: � Basic Allowance and SRAs:

o Indexed to the annual percentage salary increase for local government staff, to be implemented from the start of the municipal year, rather than financial year, for which year it is applicable

� Travel Allowance – Mileage Rates:

o Indexed to HMRC approved mileage rates Issues Arising: Attendance, performance and remuner ation



4

The Panel flags up that if the issue of attendance is raised during its next mini-review then it will consider the approaches outlined in this report with a view to making a recommendation to Council.

Implementation of Recommendations The amended scheme of allowances as approved by Council arising from this review is implemented from the date of Annual Meeting 2014.



5

Independent Remuneration Panel

The Tenth Report

Review of Allowances

For

Stroud District Council

May 2014 Introduction: The Regulatory Context 1. This (tenth) report sets out the deliberations and recommendations made by

the statutory Independent Remuneration Panel (the Panel) reconvened by Stroud District Council to advise the Council on its Members’ Allowances scheme for 2014/15.

2. The Panel was convened under The Local Authorities (Members’ Allowances)

(England) Regulations 2003 (SI 1021). These regulations, arising out of the relevant provisions in the Local Government Act 2000, require all local authorities to set up and maintain an advisory Independent [Members] Remuneration Panel (the Panel) to review and provide advice on members’ allowances on a periodic basis In particular, the Panel has reconvened under the 2003 Regulations [19. (1], which states that before an authority:

…. makes or amends a scheme, the authority shall have regard to the recommendations made in relation to it by an independent remuneration panel.



6

3. As the Council has asked the Panel to revisit its recommendations from its previous review (April 2009) then it is under this statutory requirement that the Panel has undertaken this review of Members’ Allowances for Stroud District Council.

Terms of Reference 4. The Council asked the Panel to conduct a refresh of its members' scheme of

allowances in light of experience of the committee model of governance and make recommendations for the future scheme for the year 2014/15.

The Panel 5. Stroud District Council reconvened its Independent Remuneration Panel and

the following Panel Members carried out the independent review; namely:

� Pauline Bailey: o Retired business owner, former acting Executive Director of

Learning & Skills Council Gloucestershire � Dr. Declan Hall:

o Former academic at Institute of Local Government and currently a self-employed consultant specialising in members’ allowances and support

� John Parker:

o Non-executive director Newbury Building Society and The Housing Finance Corporation and a Stroud District Council taxpayer

6. The Panel was supported by Stuart Hook, Democracy Development Manager

at Stroud District Council who acted as the ‘Panellist’s Friend’, and whose role was to take the organisational lead in facilitating the work of the Panel.

Process and Methodology - Evidence reviewed by the Panel 7. The Panel met at the Council Offices, Ebley Mill, Stroud, on 1st May 2014.

The Panel held its meetings in private session to enable it meet with interviewees and conduct deliberations in confidence.

8. In arriving at its recommendations, the Panel took into account the following

range of evidence including inter alia:



7

� The terms of reference for Stroud District Council committees, including meeting schedules, membership, and relevant reports to Council outlining proposed future changes in council structures

• The views of Members, both written and oral • The range and level of allowances payable in the comparator group of

authorities, namely other Gloucestershire District Councils • Other relevant supporting material such the guidance from Department of

Communities and Local Government (DCLG) 9. All Members received an aide-mémoire to respond to if they so wished, which

served as a basis for written submissions to the Panel (of which five were received). Furthermore, the Panel met with those Members who expressed a wish to do so, where they were able to provide their assessment of how the allowances scheme fits into the reality of the committee model of governance and bring up any other issues of concern.1

Evaluating the 2013 Review 10. A fundamental dilemma faced by the Panel in the 2013 review was that it had

to make judgements and recommendations prior to actual experience of the committee model of governance. This was further exacerbated by the fact that Stroud District Council was alone amongst district councils in the South West and only one of two district councils in England (the other being Newark & Sherwood) that were moving to a committee governance model. Thus, benchmarking while still of value did not provide the same test of robustness as it usually did, a situation that has not improved as the number of councils moving to a committee system is still limited.

11. Nonetheless, a key message to the Panel was that, largely, the recommendations of the 2013 review were appropriate. The levels payable have largely been borne out by experience. Furthermore, the benchmarking undertaken by the Panel, where relevant, shows that Stroud District Council Members’ Allowances are broadly on a par with peer authorities.

12. At the same time, it is clear that there are some posts with a strong case to amend their current SRA, plus to add a post to the SRA schedule. However, at this stage the Panel has not received enough evidence to act upon all of the arguments presented. This does not preclude the possibility of the Panel accepting these arguments in the future but that point has not been reached at the time of this review.

1 See Appendix 1 for full range of evidence considered by the Panel. Appendix 2 lists those Members and Officers who met with or made written submissions to the Panel. Appendix 3 summarises the 2013/14 allowances schemes for all Gloucestershire District Councils.



8

13. Consequently, the Panel recommends that a mini-review be undertak en in 6-9 months to receive further evidence to assess whether there is a case to amend or add SRAs .

14. As such, the recommendations of the Panel will not substantially alter the current allowances scheme. Indeed if all the recommendations are accepted, they will result in a minor savings on the current allowances scheme, although that is more a function of the Panel responding to proposed structural changes rather than recommending savings for the sake of it.

Recommendations: The Basic Allowance

Arriving at the previous Basic Allowance (2013/14) 15. In its previous review, the Panel considered two potential figures for the Basic

Allowance (2013/14) by the following methods: I. A Recalibrated Basic Allowance: This approach replicated the original

method in arriving at an appropriate Basic Allowance but with up dated variables. It is also the method set out in the 2006 Statutory Guidance on Members' Allowances and the figure arrived at was £5,620. If the hourly rate of remuneration was up dated to reflect the most recent published figure which is £13.29 (a 1% reduction on the 2012 figure)2 the recalibrated Basic Allowance would be:

� 12 hours per week expected input minus 1/3 public service discount

multiplied by 52 weeks per year multiplied by £13.29 per hour = 8 hours per week X 52 weeks = 416 hours per year X £13.29 = £5,529

II. A Benchmarked Basic Allowance: The second Basic Allowance the Panel considered was arrived at through benchmarking, namely taking the average Basic Allowance across the Gloucestershire District Councils, which at the time was £5,064.

16. The Panel decided to recommend the lower figure, rounded down to £5,000, since increased to £5,050 through indexation. This was done on the basis that the higher figure could not be substantiated by experience but by having Members more involved across the Council as a result of the committee system the Basic Allowance should no longer be at the lower end of the comparative spectrum and more reflective of it.

2 See Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE), 2013 Provisional Results, Table 8.5a, median hourly pay - gross (£) for all full time employees resident within area of Stroud District Council, Office of National Statistics



9

17. If this approach was to be up date and replicated for 2014/15 it would suggest a Basic Allowance of £5,100 - see table 1 below. Table 1: Basic Allowance Gloucestershire Districts 2013/14

Gloucestershire District Councils Basic Allowance

Cheltenham £5,066 Cotswold £4,000

Forest of Dean £4,250 Gloucester City £5,250

Stroud £5,050 Tewkesbury £7,200

Mean

£5,136

18. There was a view presented to the Panel that the current Basic Allowance is

marginally too low, in that it represents a barrier to recruiting a more diverse and representative set of candidates, particularly the working young. This may be the case but as was also pointed out to the Panel there are also wider structural issues in play that present barriers to a more diverse representation, such as employer support, the commitment required to be an elected Member and the ability to make a difference as a Councillor. Moreover, there was representation that argued not all Members 'earned' their Basic Allowance and this issue needs addressing before any increase in the Basic Allowance can be justified (see below for further discussion). The Panel also noted the intention, starting 2014/15, to move from an 8 week meeting cycle to a 10 week meeting cycle; in effect removing a meeting per year for Council and the main committees (bar the Development Control Committee - DCC). Finally, the consensus was that, at this stage, the Basic Allowance should not be revisited.

19. The recommended Basic Allowance for 2014/15 is £5,0 50, subject to any

indexation that may be applied. Special Responsibility Allowances

Chairs: Community Services, Environment & Housing Committees 20. The SRA (£6,000) for the Chairs of the three Service Committees

(Community Services, Environment and Housing) was set on the basis that the Chairs of these service committees would not be exercising the same decision making powers as their equivalents were under the Executive modal of governance yet they were still a significant role that merited proper recognition. In particular, they all sit on the Strategy and Resources Committee to assist with the central co-ordinating role that committee fulfils.



10

21. Thus, in the previous review the recommended SRA for the Chairs of the

three Service Committees was framed by taking the view that

"the workload and responsibility of the Chairs of the 3 Service Committees will lie between that held by the Chair of DCC and the current Executive Members." (Ninth Report, paragraph 52)

22. The view was that the role of Chair of DCC would not change in the new system, with their SRA unchanged at £4,704, whilst the Cabinet SRAs were £8,477. The Panel opted for £6,000, recognising that it might be a cautious approach but it was the safest approach in lieu of actual experience of how the new service committees would operate.

23. On balance, it appears the Panel was vindicated in 'erring on the side of caution'. Partly, because one of the committees (Communities) turned out to have a lighter workload than was originally scheduled for (to be addressed - see below) and partly due to the fact that these committees, as with all other committees bar DCC will be moving to a 10 week cycle next year, thus having one less meeting per year.

24. The Panel recommends that the current SRA (£6,000) for the Chairs of the three Service Committees remains unaltered for 2014/15 subject to any indexation that may be applied .

Vice Chairs of Service Committees

25. The Vice Chairs of the Service Committees are remunerated at 1/3 of their respective Chairs' SRA, as opposed to the standard ratio of 20%, on the basis that there is an expectation under the committee form of governance that they have a greater role than simply standing in when their Chair is absent. For example, they should have a potentially strong role in helping to clear issues with reports between meetings with Officers and other committee members. Yet, there was evidence received that the involvement of the Vice Chairs, for example leading on sub-themes of their respective committee, and how they supported their chair was variable. As consequence, there were suggestions that their SRA should reduced.

26. The Panel has decided not to go down this route now. However, the Panel would like to see specific role profiles for all Vice Chairs that brings out and makes explicit what the role involves. It can make a more informed judgement during their next review on the effectiveness of Vice Chairs of the Service Committees.



11

27. The Panel recommends that the SRAs for the Vice Cha irs (£2,000) of the Service Committees remain unaltered for 2014/15 sub ject to any indexation that may be applied.

Leader of the Council/Chair of Strategy & Resources Committee

28. Similarly, the recommended SRA (£9,000) for Leader of the Council was on

the basis that the post holder would not be exercising the same range of executive powers under the committee form of governance. The recommended SRA of £9,000 was arrived at by simply applying a multiple of 1.5 on the service committee chairs recommended SRA.

29. There was a view, by no means unanimous, that the Panel had underestimated the role of the Leader/Chair of Strategy and Resources Committee under the committee model of governance. In particular, while the post of Leader now carries fewer powers the role has not reduced in terms of workload and effort required. In fact, it was argued that in terms of time there was little noticeable change as the Leader has to spend more time in discussions with Chairs/Vice Chairs and Officers whereas previously the same need was not present when the Leader and Cabinet Members possessed executive powers. In addition, it was clear that the Leader still has a substantial external representation role to undertake, which may have increased (or will do) with more working with external partners and stakeholders in delivering the councils 'Jobs and Growth' agenda.

30. Benchmarking (see Table 2 below) shows that the Leader of Stroud receives an SRA at just under 75% of the average SRA paid to Leaders of all the Gloucestershire district councils and although it is not the lowest SRA it is the lowest total remuneration package. The Panel is not convinced that just because Stroud is the only Gloucestershire council operating a committee model of governance that the Leader's SRA or total remuneration should be the lowest. Other job evaluation factors also come into play such as size of authority, budget and complexity - even if they are less measureable in a political context than in a more typical job evaluation context.

31. The differential between the mean Basic Allowance and mean Leaders SRA across Gloucestershire is a multiple of 2.35 whereas nationally the normal range is a multiple of 2.5 - 3. Taking into account the Leader of Stroud is not an executive Leader then it would not be unreasonable to increase the multiplier used in arriving at the Stroud Leaders SRA from 1.5 to two. By multiplying the Basic Allowance by a factor of two, it equals £10,000. Table 2: Leaders' remuneration Gloucestershire District Councils 2013/14



12

32. However, the Panel felt that it is an inappropriate time to recommend what would be an increase of 11% in the Leader's SRA regardless of the strength of the argument/merits of the case. It will look at it again when it also looks at some of the other posts that will keep under consideration for the future mini review (see below).

33. The Panel recommends that the current SRA (£9,000) for the Leader of the Council/Chair of Strategy and Resources Committ ee remains unaltered for 2014/15 subject to any indexation tha t may be applied .

Chair of Development Control Committee (DCC) 34. There was no evidence to suggest that the role of Chair of the Development

Control Committee (DCC) under the committee form of governance had changed. There was a view that the post may be under remunerated somewhat, a view that was mostly based on the general principle that all Chairs should be remunerated equally. This is not a principle the Panel has historically accepted. Under the committee model of governance, the Service Committees in particular while not meeting as often as DCC are more proactive, charged with developing policy, making delegated decisions and more wide ranging in their remit.

35. Moreover, benchmarking shows that the SRA (£4,704) for Chair of DCC in Stroud is the highest among the Gloucestershire District Councils, with the

Gloucestershire District Council Basic Allowance Leader's SRA Leader Total

Cheltenham £5,066 £16,428 £21,494

Cotswold £4,000 £12,000 £16,000

Forest of Dean £4,250 £9,840 £14,090

Gloucester City £5,250 £17,063 £22,313

Tewkesbury £7,200 £7,937 £15,137

Stroud £5,050 £9,000 £14,050

Mean £5,128 £12,045 £17,181



13

average SRA being £3,494. The Panel received no evidence to convince it that the current SRA (£4,704) was in need of revision.

36. The Panel recommends that the SRA for the Chair of the Development

Control Committee remains unchanged at £4,704 for 2 014/15 subject to any indexation that may be applied .

Vice Chair of Development Control Committee (DCC) 37. The current SRA (£941) for Vice Chair of the DCC was determined by setting

it at 20% of the Chair's SRA. Conversely to the DCC Chairs' SRA the Vice Chair of DCC receives the lowest SRA out of the five Gloucestershire districts that remunerate the post, (it is not a remunerated post in Tewkesbury). The average SRA is £1,377.

38. Furthermore, the Vice Chair of DCC is the most likely Vice Chair to be required stand in; not simply in the Chair's absence but when the Chair has to stand down, e.g., when considering a planning application in the Chair's ward and an interest is declared.

39. However, there was no representation received to suggest that this SRA was in urgent need of revision. The Panel reiterates that it would need to see a role profile for all Vice Chairs before it has enough information to make an informed judgement to alter their current SRAs payable.

40. The Panel recommends that the SRA for the Vice Chai r of the Development Control Committee remains at £941 for 2 014/15 subject to any indexation that may be applied .

Chair and Vice Chair of Licensing Committee

41. A Member Working Group has proposed, from the date of the 2014 Annual Meeting, that the Licensing Committee merge with the Communities Committee as both committees in their own right have a relatively light workload. In this context, it means that the Communities Committee SRA is fully justified as the imbalance in workload vis-a-vis the other Service Committees is redressed. Consequently, the SRAs for the Chair and Vice Chair of Licensing become redundant.

42. The Panel recommends that the SRAs for the Chair (£ 3,000) and Vice Chair (£600) of the Licensing Committee are discont inued from the date the committee is merged with the Communities Commit tee and the SRAs for the Chair and Vice Chair of the Communitie s Committee will be maintained at £6,000 and £2,000 respectively .



14

43. If the Licensing Committee is maintained then it is recommended that the current SRAs paid to the Chair and Vice Chair o f the Licensing Committee be continued at the current levels, subje ct to any indexation that may be applied .

The Chair of the Audit & Standards Committee

44. The SRA (£3,000) for the Chair of the Audit and Standards Committee was set on the basis that the Panel re-evaluated the role as being broadly on par with the Chair of the Licensing Committee. Clearly, that comparison has not been borne out by experience. The Panel heard arguments from a number of quarters that the role is under paid; although that was largely based on the principle that all committee chairs should be paid the same - a principle that the Panel has not historically adopted as it is not supported by the evidence or most common comparative practice.

45. Audit in particular is an important function and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) advocates as good practice for Councils to establish a separate committee to carry out the Audit function. Consequently, most councils now have an audit committee in some form. Five out of the six Gloucester districts have a separate audit committee, the sixth district (Cotswold) has chosen to retain the audit function within the remit of its scrutiny committee. The Standards function is a minor aspect of the committee's work since the advent of the Localism Act 2011. Indeed, only one other Gloucestershire district (Cheltenham) has chosen to retain a separate Standards Committee with a Chair who is an elected Member and in receipt of an SRA (£302).

46. The Panel had some sympathy with the argument to increase the SRA for the Chair of Audit and Standards. The committee is charged with ensuring all business of the Council is transacted within the law and terms of the Council's Constitution. Principally this involves receiving reports from internal and external auditors and making recommendations following these reports - in this sense much of its work programme has bedded in and has developed its own routine.

47. As things stand the case to increase the SRA to place it on a par with the Chair of the DCC is not convincing, particularly when placed in the comparative context. The average SRA paid to chairs of Audit Committees (whether it is a standalone function or combined with another function) across the Gloucestershire districts is £2,128 whereas the current SRA for the Stroud Audit and Standards Committee is the 2nd highest (just) at £3,000, with the highest being £3,150 in Gloucester City Council.

Table 3: SRAs for Audit Chairs & Vice Chairs: Gloucestershire District Councils 2013/14



15

48. Benchmarking alone is not a clinching argument. Development Control is a

statutory function that must be discharged by one or more development control committees. The Chair of DCC has a high profile and has to handle publically sensitive issues that require striking the right balance between what are often competing claims. The work of the Chair of Audit and Standards has a more inward focus and less of a public profile. Moreover, while Audit and Standards are statutory functions there is no statutory requirement for either function to be discharged by a committee, they can in the main be discharged by Officers and to a lesser extent full Council.

49. Nonetheless, while the Audit and Standards Committee may not be on a par with DCC as things currently stand the Chair's SRA is on a par with that paid to the Chair of Council. Clearly, these roles are very different, with the Chair of Audit and Standards being required to be more involved in their remit and on occasion handle complaints made against Members that if mismanaged would have a negative impact on the whole council.

50. The Panel accepts the case to revise upwards the current SRA (£3,000) paid to the Chair of the Audit and Standards Committee but not as high as that paid to the chair of DCC (£4,704). In settling on an appropriate level the Panel has divided the recommended SRA into two parts: • Audit function: keep at £3,000 or 1/3 of Leader's SRA • Standards function: allocate an additional £900 or 10% of the Leader's

SRA • = total of £3,900

51. This sum also closely replicates the mid-point between the Council Chair's SRA and DCC Chair's SRA.

Gloucestershire District Council Audit Chair Audit & Standards or

Governance Vice Chair

Cheltenham £454

Cotswold

Forest of Dean £2,050

Gloucester City £3,150 £1,050

Tewkesbury £1,984

Stroud £3,000 £600

Mean £2,128



16

52. The recommended SRA for the Chair of the Audit and Standards Committee is £3,900 for 2014/15 subject to any inde xation that may be applied .

53. The Panel will specifically reconsider this recommendation during its next review with a particular eye on whether the 75/25 division between the workload of the Audit and Standards Committee that is suggested in the calculation of the recommended SRA is appropriate.

The Vice Chair of the Audit and Standards Committee

54. Similarly, if the Panel underestimated the workload and responsibility of the Chair of the Audit and Standards Committee then by extension it has done so for the Vice Chair of the Audit and Standards Committee. The Panel received no evidence to revise the current ratio utilised in setting the Vice Chair's SRA, namely 20% of the Chair's SRA, which is now £780.

55. The recommended SRA for the Vice Chair of the Audit and Standards Committee is £780 for 2014/15 subject to any indexa tion that may be applied .

Chair and Vice Chair of the Council 56. The Panel received no evidence to suggest that the current SRAs (£3,000

and £600) for the Chair and Vice of the Council require reconsideration.

57. The Panel recommends that the SRAs for the Chair an d Vice Chair of the Council remain at £3,000 and £600 respectively for 2014/15 subject to any indexation that may be applied .

Opposition Group Leaders 58. Similarly, the Panel received no evidence that the SRAs for the Main

Opposition Leader (£4,704) and other Opposition Group Leaders (£1,000) merited re-evaluation.

59. The Panel recommends that the SRAs for the Main Opp osition Group Leader and Other Opposition Group Leaders remain at £4,704 and £1,000 respectively for 2014/15 subject to any inde xation that may be applied .

Chair of the District Planning Review Body (DPRB)



17

60. Currently, the Environment Committee works up planning strategy, the Strategy and Resources Committee has final approval for planning strategy while DCC implements planning strategy. To bridge a perceived 'gap' between planning strategy approval and implementation the Council is setting up a District Planning Review Body (DPRB) to consider matters of importance in regard to strategic planning issues. It will have a wide and free ranging remit in regard to issues relating to strategic planning and development and will report to the Strategy and Resources Committee.

61. Representation was made to the Panel that the Chair of the DPRB merited an SRA. However the Panel felt that it had not enough information to a make an informed decision at this stage. In particular, there were concerns regarding the fact that the DPRB would be an informal body with no decision-making powers and no scheduled meetings.

62. Thus, the Panel is not making a recommendation on a SRA for the Chair of the District Planning Review Body at this stage. It will look at the role in light of experience during the recommended mini- review in 6-9 months time .

The 1-SRA Only Rule 63. The Panel confirms that the 1-SRA only rule should remain and that

there should be no exceptions to this rule .

Travel Allowances – Mileage Rates

64. Since the last review, the operative mileage rates for Members when claiming

reimbursement for car journeys when carrying out an approved duty are those published by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC). These HMRC mileage rates are also known as Approved Mileage Authorised Payment (AMAP) rates.

65. The Panel received comments that the HMRC mileage rates do not reflect the true cost of motoring that many Members are required to undertake in carrying out their approved duties on behalf of the Council. This may well be true in some cases, particularly for Members who have automobiles with large engines. Nonetheless, the Panel was not convinced that this argument alone was enough to revisit mileage rates payable under the Members' travel allowance scheme. The Panel reiterates its rationale from its previous report in recommending HMRC mileage rates, namely: • They are the rates that are most commonly used in the public sector



18

• They should not incur any tax or national insurance liability on behalf of the claimants3

• They are “greener” in that they do not reward those with larger car engines • They are based on an external point of reference • They are the rates most commonly used in the Gloucestershire district

councils 66. The Panel recommends that HMRC mileage rates for wh ich Members are

able to claim for attending approved duties are mai ntained.

The Dependants' Carers' Allowance

67. Similarly, there was comment that the Dependants' Carers' Allowance should

reflect the necessary costs involved in caring for a Members' dependant[s]. However, the Panel points out there is no restriction on the amount a Member can claim under the current Dependants' Carers' Allowance scheme. All claims made under the Dependants' Carers' Allowances scheme has to be verified through the production of receipts. The Panel accepts that this may not be suitable for Members who rely on 'informal' carers for their dependants but claims backed by receipts is good practice in both the public and private sector and the Panel would be derelict in its duty as the public scrutinizer of Stroud's Members' allowances by not having such safeguards in place.

68. The Panel does not recommend any changes to the Dep endants' Carers' Allowance scheme and the terms and conditions under which it is claimable .

Indexation

69. There was a view that the differential between the Basic Allowance and SRAs payable was slightly on the high side and by not indexing SRAs, it would help address that differential. This is no longer the case and SRAs should also be indexed.

70. The Panel recommends that the following indices are applied to the relevant allowances :

o Basic Allowance and SRAs:

3 It is noted that some district tax inspectors now argue that unless specific conditions are met then the HMRC mileage rates are liable to tax and national insurance, although this in turn has been challenged by the Local Government Minister, Brandon Lewis - see Local Government Chronicle 2nd April 2014. If it proves to be the case in the future that the HMRC mileage rates are liable to tax and NI then the Panel will reconsider the appropriate mileage rates for Stroud Councillors.



19

� Indexed to the annual percentage salary increase for local government staff to be implemented from the start of the municipal year, rather than financial year, for which year it is applicable

� Travel Allowance – Mileage Rates:

� Indexed to HMRC approved mileage rates Issues Arising: Attendance, performance and remuner ation

71. Once again, some comments were received that suggested not all Members

merit the full Basic Allowance as they do not attend all their scheduled meetings or do not put in the time expected in return for the Basic Allowance. Apart from the fact that attendance at meetings is a blunt measure of a Member’s performance, under the current legislation, there are few if any financial sanctions the Panel can recommend if an individual Member is not attending a reasonable percentage of their scheduled meetings. Moreover, figures presented to the Panel show that it is not a major issue.

72. Nonetheless, the Panel did flag up in the previous review that if the issue was raised again then it will be more proactive in exploring what can be done particularly where a Member does not meet a minimum threshold of attending meetings.

73. Tewkesbury Borough Council members' allowances scheme contains provision to 'invite' a Member to pay back an appropriate proportion of their Basic Allowance if either of two scenarios arise:

I. If a Member does not attend at least 2/3s of their scheduled meetings II. If a Member is absent from 'Council business' (other than on grounds

of illness) for more than one continuous month

74. While such an arrangement has to be voluntary for legal reasons, Tewkesbury does report that in 2011/12 and 2012/13 three Members were invited repay part of their Basic Allowance for not meeting attendance expectations and they all complied. Cheltenham has a similar provision in its allowances scheme but it is not known whether it has been invoked and if so whether there was compliance.

75. On the recommendation of its IRP, Tamworth Borough Council adopted a slightly different approach. Since last year, rather than penalize Members they are incentivised to attend their full complement of scheduled meetings. In this arrangement the Basic Allowance is reduced by 10%, with the saving designated as an SRA, paid in arrears when a Member reaches the attendance qualifying criteria, in this case 75% of scheduled meetings. The early indications are that this provision has resulted in a marked improvement



20

in Members attendance and that its Panel is looking to extend the use of the 'attendance SRA' further.

76. The Panel flags up that if the issue of attendance is raised during its next mini-review then it will consider the approach es outlined above with a view to recommend to Council .

Implementation of Recommendations 77. The Panel recommends that the amended scheme of all owances as

approved by Council arising from this review should be implemented from the date of Annual Meeting 2014 .



21

APPENDIX 1:

MEMBERS AND OFFICERS WHO MET WITH THE PANEL, INCLUD ING WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Members who met with Panel : Cllr June Cordwell: Chair Community Services Committee (Liberal

Democrat Group) Cllr John Marjoram: Vice Chair Development Control Committee

(Green Group) Cllr Nigel Studdert-Kennedy: Vice Chair Audit & Standards Committee (Conservative Member - No Group) Members who made written submissions : Cllr Chris Brine: Vice Chair of Housing Committee and Deputy

Labour Group Leader Cllr Nigel Cooper: Conservative Group Member Cllr Gordon Craig: Conservative Group Member Cllr Paul Hemming: Liberal Democrat Group Leader Cllr Geoff Wheeler Leader of Council, Chair of Strategy & Resources

Committee and Labour Group Leader Officers who provided briefing to Panel : David Hagg: Chief Executive Stuart Hook: Democracy Development Manager



22

APPENDIX 2

INFORMATION REVIEWED BY THE PANEL 1. Briefing paper summarizing the April 2013 review

2. Summary of allowances schemes (2013/14) of the Gloucestershire District

Councils namely • Cheltenham • Cotswold • Forest of Dean • Gloucester City • Stroud • Tewkesbury

3. Briefing Paper for Panel - proposed changes to political structures, 2014/15

4. Terms of reference for committees, meeting timetable 2014/15 and 2013/14

and number of members on each committee

5. District Planning Review Body - Draft Terms of Reference

6. Chair of District Planning Review Body - draft terms of reference including general terms of reference for chairs of all committees

7. Review of Members’ Allowances, The Ninth Report by the Independent Remuneration Panel, April 2014

8. Stroud District Council, "Job and Growth Plan 2013-18"

9. Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE), 2013 Provisional Results, Table 8.5a, median hourly pay - gross (£) for all full time employees resident within area of Stroud District Council, Office of National Statistics

APPENDIX 3

Main Allowances paid in the Gloucestershire Distr ict Councils 2013/14

Gloucs

District

Council

Basic

Allowa

nce

Leaders

SRA

Leader

Total

Deputy

Leader

Executive

Member

Chair

Service

Committee

V/Chair

Service Committee

O&S

Chair

O&S

Vice

Chair

DCC

Chair

DCC Vice

Chair

Licensing

Chair

Licensing

Vice

Chair

Cheltenham £5,066 £16,428 £21,494 £12,930 £2,722 £1,361 £3,025 £1,512 £1,361 NA

Cotswold £4,000 £12,000 £16,000 £8,000 £6,000 £4,000 £4,000 £1,333 £4,000 NA

Forest of

Dean £4,250 £9,840 £14,090 £6,560 £5,740 £4,100 £4,100 £2,050 £1,025 NA

Gloucester

City £5,250 £17,063 £22,313 £11,813 £9,188 £3,150 £1,050 £3,150 £1,050 £3,150 £1,050

Tewkesbury £7,200 £7,937 £15,137 £5,953 £3,953 £1,984 £1,984 NA £1,984 NA

Stroud £5,050 £9,000 £14,050 £6,000 £2,000 £4,704 £941 £3,000 £600

Mean £5,136 £12,045 £17,181 £8,082 £7,562 £3,191 £3,494 £1,377 £2,420

Median £5,066 £12,000 £16,000 £7,280 £6,000 £3,150 £3,150 £1,423 £1,984



24

Gloucs

District

Council

Audit

Chair

Audit &

Standards or

Governance Vice

Chair

Standards

Chair

SRA

Council

Chair

SRA Council

Vice Chair

Main

Opposition

Group

Leader

Main Opposition

Group Deputy

Leader

2nd Opposition

Group Leader

2nd Opposition

Group Deputy

Leader

Cheltenham £454 £302 £454 £605 £605

Cotswold £4,000 £2,000 £2,000

Opposition Group Leaders paid total of £2,000, only

applies to 1 presently but if there were 2 it would be

£1,000 each & so on

Forest of

Dean* £2,050 £4,100 £2,050 £2,489 £1,025

Gloucester

City** £3,150 £1,050 £3,150 £1,050 £5,250 £2,625 £5,250 £2,625

Tewkesbury £1,984 £2,000 £1,250 NA

Stroud*** £3,000 £600 £3,000 £600 £4,704 £1,000

Mean £2,128 £2,784 £1,390 £3,010 £1,970

Median £2,017 £3,150 £1,625 £2,245 £1,025

* Forest of Dean: Opposition Group Leaders SRA formula = £4,100 total Opposition SRA pot divided by # of Opposition Members. As of 1/4/14 = 28

Members = £146.43 per member for each Opposition Group Leader. Leaders of 2 Minority Opposition Groups receive 2 X £146.43 each = £293 apiece

** Gloucester City: it is Audit & Governance Committee + SRA for 2nd Opposition Group Leader is not currently payable it is provided for

*** Stroud: it is Audit & Standards Committee

Council AGM 5 June 2014

Agenda Item 11

1


COUNCIL AGM

5 June 2014

AGENDA ITEM NO

11 Report Title

FUTURE COUNCIL SIZE

Purpose of Report

To consider the future Council size after 2016.

Decision(s)

Council is asked to decide what submission should be made to the Local Government Boundary Committee for England (LGBCE) on the future Council size after the 2016 elections.


Various aspects of the boundary review have been the subject of previous Council meeting reports, member briefings and frequent group leader briefings. The LGBCE is the body that will make a decision on the future Council size and they will run a consultation process as part of the boundary review. The Council is a stakeholder in this consultation and the view expressed by the Council on the preferred future council size will be sent to the LGBCE. The LGBCE is likely to also receive submission from other interested parties such as political groups and individuals as part of the consultation process.


The financial implications will be dependent on the Council size decision that is made by the LGBCE but any costs or savings will fall to the Council. Examples of the possible costs/savings are provided within the report. Sandra Cowley, Strategic Head of Finance and Business Services Tel: 01453 754136 Email: [email protected]


Agenda Item 11

2

Legal Implications

Pursuant to Section 56 Local Government Economic Development & Construction Act 2009, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) must from time to time conduct a review of the district of the Council and recommend whether a change should be made to the electoral arrangements for the district. Such matters include the total number of councillors for the district, the number and boundaries of the electoral wards, the number of councillors to be returned by any ward in the district, and the name of any ward. In making representations on such issues the Council can be assured that its view (along with others including members of the public) will be taken into account before the LGBCE sets out its draft proposals and subsequently orders any relevant changes to the electoral arrangements for the district. Karen Trickey, Legal Services Manager & Monitoring Officer Tel: 01453 754369 Email: [email protected]

Report Author

Stuart Hook, Democracy Development Manager Tel: 01453 754380 Email: [email protected]

Options

N/A.


N/A.


Technical guidance on boundary reviews issued by LGBCE which includes guidance on council size and is available at: http://www.lgbce.org.uk/policy-and-publications/guidance Appendix A – Statistical Information

1. Background

1.1. The LGBCE has the power to conduct boundary reviews. Reviews

are either conducted as part of a rolling programme or to correct electoral imbalances caused through development.

1.2. The council has been notified by the LGBCE that an electoral

review will be undertaken of the Stroud District to correct electoral imbalances.


Agenda Item 11

3

1.3. The first formal phase of the review will commence in August 2014 and implementation of the revised boundaries following the review will take place with all out elections in May 2016.

1.4. Prior to the first formal phase of the review, the Council has to

consider two main issues during a preliminary phase of the review. The Council made a decision on the first of these two issues at the April Council meeting when it was decided to move to whole Council elections following the May 2016 elections.

1.5. The second issue to consider is the number of Councillors to

comprise the Council in the future and is the purpose of this report. Any submissions on council size need to received by the LGBCE by the 14 July 2014.

1.6. It is worth noting that statistical evidence shows that there is a trend

of a reduction in Council size in the vast majority of recent reviews. In some cases this has been as a result of a request from the Council concerned in order to make efficiency savings and in others as a result of the LGBCE decision making process.

2. Financial Implications

2.1. The financial implications will be dependent on the Council size

determined by the LGBCE but any costs or savings that result will fall to the Council.

2.2. While it is not possible to give definitive costs or savings as these

would be a consequence of the Council size determined by LGBCE, it is possible to give indications of the type of costs or savings that could be expected in the event of a change from the current 51 Councillors.

2.3. For each councillor added or reduced £5,097 per annum (pa) or

£21,560 per 4 year term would be incurred or saved. This is comprised of £5,000 pa basic allowance and £390 IT equipment each 4 year term which can be claimed.

2.4. Other areas of costs or savings are more difficult to quantify and

without a radical change in numbers would be unlikely to yield any significant impact. These relate to support costs such as payroll costs, IT support, training and mileage.

2.5. The last area of possible financial implications relate to special

responsibility allowances (SRA) but these are dependent on secondary decisions. It does not automatically follow that a change in council size would lead to changes in the committee structure and therefore SRA’s. However, the greater the amount of


Agenda Item 11

4

movement from the current 51 members, the more likely that some corresponding increase or reduction in committee size might follow.

3. Areas of Evidence

3.1. LGBCE do not issue a prescriptive formula for council size because

arrangements should reflect local circumstances which vary in each area.

3.2. However LGBCE do make clear that they expect a boundary review

to be an opportunity to review the appropriate number of councillors comprising the council when a review has not been conducted for some time. An automatic assumption of status quo is not acceptable and any submissions must be accompanied by supporting information to justify the proposal.

3.3. LGBCE stress that submissions which are well reasoned or

evidenced based will carry much more weight. The technical guidance issued by LGBCE gives detailed guidance on the areas of evidence likely to be considered within the body of the guidance. Appendix C to the guidance suggests the sort of detailed issues that LGBCE will look to consider. The link to this guidance is provided on the front cover in the background papers box.

3.4. An extract from the guidance is reproduced below:

“Broadly speaking, we will take a view on the right council size for an authority by considering three areas: • We will look at the governance arrangements of the council,

how it takes decisions across the broad range of its responsibilities, and whether there are any planned changes to those arrangements;

• We will examine the council’s scrutiny functions relating to its own decision making and the council’s responsibilities to outside bodies, and whether any changes to them are being considered; and

• We will also consider the representational role of councillors in the local community and how they engage with people, conduct casework and represent the council on local partner organisations.

In short, we will be asking for council size proposals to reflect not simply the council’s current arrangements, but also likely future trends or plans. In every review we carry out, we aim to ensure our recommendations remain relevant for the long term and to recommend a number that delivers effective and convenient local government well after the completion of the electoral review.


Agenda Item 11

5

Accordingly, we will be looking for those involved in a review to set out their vision for the local authority in five to ten years”.

4. Statistical Information

4.1. Appendix A provides some statistical information that members

might find useful on some of the areas of evidence identified by LGBCE.

5. Recommendations

5.1. Council is asked to:

1 Debate and decide the preferred number of councillors to

constitute the Council following the implementation of the boundary review in May 2016 for submission to the LGBCE.

2 Authorise officers to develop the appropriate supporting information to the Council’s decision for submission to the LGBCE.


6 Agenda Item 11 Appendix A

Appendix A

Statistical Information Relating to the Boundary Review

Member Attendance at Meetings Percentage attendance at meetings over a sample period from May to December 2013 = 84% average The breakdown across the meetings over the sample period is as follows:

• Community Services – 79% • Environment – 80 % • Stroud Council Housing Forum – 64% • Strategy and Resources – 92% • Housing – 90% • Council – 85% • Audit and Standards – 78% • Development Control – 88% • Licensing – 55%

Comparator Councils Elector to Councillor Ratios

Council Name Elector to Councillor Ratio Councillor Number Borough Council of Wellingborough 1554 36 Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council 1779 54 Stroud (based on current electorate) 1804 51

Rugby Borough Council 1906 42

Cotswold District Council 1963 35

Swale Borough Council 2157 47

South Hams District Council 2220 31

Slough Borough Council 2271 42

Shepway District Council 2960 30



List of Outside Body Type Appointments

Body Member Appointed Council GCC Health Community and Care Scrutiny Committee

David Drew - Lead Paul Smith - sub

Gloucestershire Police and Crime Panel Mark Rees- Lead vacant - sub

Gloucestershire Economic Growth Overview and Scrutiny Committee

1 Member - Lead 1 Member - Deputy (cannot be the Leader of the Council or Vice-Chair of the Strategy and Resources Committee)

Gyde Almshouses Trust This appointment is given to the Chair of Council

Community Services Committee Glos Playingfields Association John Jones Kingshill House Charitable Trust Geoff Wheeler PREMA Project Management Committee Stephen Lydon Stinchcombe Hill Recreational Ground Miranda Clifton Stroud Festival Ltd Nigel Prenter + 1 vacancy Woodchester Park Mansion Rowland Blackwell Stroud CAB Miranda Clifton, Penny Wride,

Rhiannon Wigzell CCTV User Group John Jones and Paul Hemming Painswick Educational Trust Vacant but previously a non

councillor appointment Stroud and Rodborough Educational Trust Nigel Cooper, Stephen Moore and

Mrs Elisabeth Bird Stroud and Tetbury District Scouts Elizabeth Peters Stroud Road Safety Liaison Group Paul Smith and Russell Miles Stroud and District CVS Elizabeth Peters SARA Russell Miles League of Friends of Stroud Hospital & the Health Centre

John Marjoram and Paul Smith

Cowle Trust (Museum in the Park) June Cordwell Other Meetings/Events - CSC Crime and Disorder Meeting June Cordwell Parking Board John Jones Older Peoples Forum Rowland Blackwell Youth Council June Cordwell and Miranda Clifton Stroud District Council Health and Well Being Partnership

Lead - Karon Cross Sub - Stephen Lydon

Health and Well Being Second Tier / District Lead Officers Meeting

Lead - Karon Cross Sub - Stephen Lydon

Supporting People Partnership Board Karon Cross



Environment Committee Berkeley Nuclear Stakeholders Liz Ashton Lower Severn Drainage Board John Jones Minchinhampton and Rodborough Commons Advisory Committee

Paul Carter

Wessex Water Paul Smith Cotswold AONB Nick Hurst Stroud Valleys Project board Paul Denney Tyndale Monument Charity Paul Smith and June Cordwell Stroud Concordat Simon Pickering Other Meetings/Events - EC Glos Waste Partnership Simon Pickering Glos Joint Waste Committee Simon Pickering Cotswold Canals Partnership Martin Whiteside Countywide Strategic Planning Issues Group

Geoff Wheeler

Housing Committee Home Start Stroud and Dursley Liz Ashton Care and Repair (Stroud) Stephen Moore Strategy & Resources Committee Gloucestershire Economic Growth Committee

Lead - Leader of Council Sub – Vice-Chair of Strategy & Resources Committee

council annual general meeting · he explained that continuing elections by thirds would require 3...

Documents