northlincs.gov.uk

Present

THE MAYOR – Councillor Armitage

Councillors Ali, Bainbridge, Barker, Barkworth, Berry, B Briggs, J Briggs, Mrs Bromby, Bunyan, Carlile, Cawsey, Clark, Collinson, Davison, Eckhardt, Ellerby, England, L Foster, T Foster, Glover, Gosling, Jawaid, Kirk, O’Sullivan, Poole, Mrs Redfern, Regan, C Sherwood, N Sherwood, Mrs M Sidell, Mrs Simpson, Smith, Stewart, Swift, K Vickers, P Vickers, Waltham, Wardle, Wells, Whiteley and Wilson.

The Council met at Pittwood House, Ashby Road, Scunthorpe.

1802 MAYOR’S REMARKS – The Mayor welcomed fellow councillors, officers and members of the public to the meeting. She also welcomed Councillor Darrell Barkworth back following illness.

The Mayor stated that she was now over half way through her mayoral year and had undertaken many varied and interesting engagements. She was looking forward to many more.

The Mayor also referred to the Holocaust Memorial Day Service which she was hosting at Pittwood House on 27 January. This was the tenth holocaust memorial day that the council had supported. The theme this year was ‘Legacy of Hope’. The Mayor hoped that members of the council, officers and members of the public would attend.

1803 DECLARATIONS OF PERSONAL OR PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS – Declarations of personal interests were indicated as follows –

1804 MINUTES – Resolved – That the minutes of the meeting of the council held on 18 November 2009, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the Mayor.

1805 (14) MINUTES – The Service Director Legal and Democratic submitted a report on the constitutional implications of votes taken on motions at the council meetings held on 8 July and 23 September 2009.

At the meeting held on 8 July 2009 a motion relating to 20 mph zones around schools had been considered. The electronic vote on the motion resulted in it being carried by 21 votes to 20 votes. However, it was claimed that the electronic system had not recorded one member’s vote. The relevant procedure rule in relation to voting (D1.23(b)) provides as follows –

“If an electronic voting system is used members will have a period of 30 seconds in which to register their vote. At the expiry of the period of 30 seconds the vote then registered will be binding. Members who have not registered a vote at that time will be taken to have abstained.”

That procedure rule was invoked in spite of a strong challenge which was made. At the next meeting of the council held on 23 September 2009, the minutes of the meeting of 8 July came forward to be approved as a correct record. At that meeting a motion was carried approving the minutes with the exception of those relating to the motion of 20 mph zones around schools. Later in that meeting under a substantive motion relating to wind energy the votes of two other members were claimed not to have been recorded by the electronic system. Again, despite a strong challenge, the procedure rule set out above was invoked.

Since the September meeting consideration had been given to the working of the procedure rules, the contents of motions to council under the executive model of local government and possible improvements to the electronic recording system.

In relation to the council’s procedure rules, in view of the same occurrence at successive meetings, but involving different members an important issue had arisen affecting the confidence which members and the public have in the decision making process. Robust decision making processes are at the core of democratically elected bodies such as the council and any uncertainty as to the correctness of the way in which any decision has been reached is damaging to the reputation of such a body. The fact that the effectiveness of the system had been questioned on two separate occasions in relation to the votes of three different members could undermine confidence in the accuracy of the votes as a whole on the two issues.

Bearing in mind the circumstances which had arisen there was a strong argument to the effect that the procedure rule should be interpreted as applying only when it was clear that the electronic voting system was working correctly i.e. implied into the procedure rule is the premise that the system is working effectively. As indicated above that premise could not be relied on with any confidence in these two circumstances. Accordingly those votes could be questioned and would be capable of challenge by judicial review application to the High Court. In view of this uncertainty there was doubt concerning the decisions and that doubt should be remedied by a new vote being taken. For ease of reference the relevant motions were attached to the report as appendices.

With regard to executive functions the procedure rule relating to motions (D1.16(c)) provides as follows –

“Every motion must relate to some matter in which the council have powers or duties or which affects or may affect the area of the council, its inhabitants or visitors.”

It had to be borne in mind that the Local Government Act 2000 redefined decision making in the authority and removed it from a council/committee system to an executive model. In so doing the role of the council now focuses on the policy framework, the budget and other miscellaneous functions set out in legislation e.g. adopting byelaws. The functions of the council as highway authority, road safety authority and generally in relation to highways and traffic management are delegated to the cabinet member for Highways and Planning Services i.e. as executive functions. Accordingly, as highways and traffic management matters (such as 20 mph school zones) are classified as executive functions they may not be discharged by the council at a council meeting. However, this does not mean that such matters cannot be discussed at the council meeting but that any “decision” on such an executive matter would be “advisory” only. In effect in such circumstances the correct course of action would be for a report to be prepared by the relevant Service Director to the relevant cabinet member setting out the implications of progressing the matter, the views of members and the role of the cabinet member in making the final decision.

This reasoning is strengthened by considerations relating to robust decision making in that motions are put before the council without accompanying reports setting out options, resources and other implications, results of consultations etc which are standard in reports to cabinet members and cabinet thereby enabling decisions be made against a full background of relevant information. This format had been devised to safeguard the council from challenges to its decision making systems. Accordingly making decisions outside the adopted report format would be in breach of the risk controls set out in the council’s management of strategic risks (number 2 failure of decision making process).

The current electronic voting system is subject to six monthly checks by Auditel. Discussions had been held with the company who have confirmed that as an aid to members the system could be improved by an indicator being visible on the main screen which would enable members to observe the 30 second countdown taking place. As regards the procedure rule which relates to electronic voting (see paragraph 3 above) in order to be better equipped to deal with any similar occurrences were they to happen in the future the rule could be amended so as to include after the word “binding” –

“Unless a member immediately indicates to the Mayor that his/her vote has not been registered or has been incorrectly registered whereupon the Mayor will ask for the vote to be retaken by show of hands.”

Moved by Councillor Kirk and seconded by Councillor L Foster –

“(a) That new votes be taken in respect of the motion relating to 20 mph zones (meeting held on 8 July 2009) and the substantive motion relating to wind energy (meeting held on 23 September 2009); (b) that the position and processes relating to motions dealing with the executive functions be noted; (c) that the improvement to the current electronic voting system as set out in paragraph 2.24 of the report be implemented, and (d) that procedure rule (D1.23(d)) be amended as set out in paragraph 2.25 of the report.”

At the request of members and in accordance with procedure rule 1.23(d) the names of members voting for, against and abstaining from the motion are as follows –

FOR: Councillors Ali, Armitage, Bainbridge, Barker, Barkworth, Carlile, Cawsey, Collinson, Davison, Ellerby, L Foster, Gosling, Jawaid, Kirk, O’Sullivan, Regan, Simpson, Smith, Swift, Whiteley and Wilson

AGAINST: Councillors Berry, B Briggs, J Briggs, Mrs Bromby, Bunyan, Clark, Eckhardt, England, T Foster, Glover, Poole, Mrs Redfern, C Sherwood, N Sherwood, Mrs Sidell, Stewart, K Vickers, P Vickers, Waltham, Wardle and Wells

ABSTAINING: Nil

There being an equality of votes the Mayor used her second and casting vote in favour of the motion.

Motion Carried

The Monitoring Officer explained the steps taken in the independent preparation of the report and that external legal advice had also been taken.

“The council welcomes the government’s increased support for 20 mph zones outside schools and commits to consulting parents and teachers and wherever there is support, implementing zones around primary, junior and infant schools across the district within a 2 year period.”

At the request of members and in accordance with Procedure Rule 1.23(d) the names of members voting for, against and abstaining from the motion are as follows –

FOR: Councillors Berry, B Briggs, J Briggs, Mrs Bromby, Bunyan, Clark, Eckhardt, England, T Foster, Glover, Poole, Mrs Redfern, C Sherwood, N Sherwood, Mrs Sidell, Stewart, K Vickers, P Vickers, Waltham, Wardle and Wells.

AGAINST: Councillors Ali, Armitage, Bainbridge, Barker, Barkworth, Carlile, Cawsey, Collinson, Davison, Ellerby, L Foster, Gosling, Jawaid, Kirk, O’Sullivan, Regan, Simpson, Smith, Swift, Whiteley and Wilson

ABSTAINING: Nil

There being an equality of votes, the Mayor used her second and casting vote against the motion.

Motion Lost

1807 SUBSTANTIVE MOTION – 23 SEPTEMBER 2009 – COUNCILLOR M GRANT – WIND ENERGY – With reference to minute 1805 above, and following the decision to have a re-vote on the substantive motion on wind energy the council proceeded to vote on the substantive motion which is set out as follows-.

“This council recognises the need for using new technology, such as wind turbines, to meet our future energy needs. This council notes the controlling group has written to Ian Cawsey MP who, in turn, has written to the Minister regarding this issue. Council also gives a commitment to raising the issue of regional and sub regional planning boards.

This council wholeheartedly supports any move that puts the welfare of local residents and the environment above those seeking monitory gain. Furthermore, this council denounces any political group in North Lincolnshire that receives donations from those who benefit from allowing wind turbines to be built on their land.”

At the request of members and in accordance with Procedure Rule 1.23(d) the names of members voting for, against and abstaining from the substantive motion are as follows –

FOR: Councillors Ali, Armitage, Bainbridge, Barker, Barkworth, Carlile, Cawsey, Collinson, Davison, Ellerby, L Foster, Gosling, Jawaid, Kirk, O’Sullivan, Regan, Simpson, Smith, Swift, Whiteley and Wilson

AGAINST: Councillors Berry, B Briggs, J Briggs, Mrs Bromby, Bunyan, Clark, Eckhardt, England, T Foster, Glover, Poole, Mrs Redfern, C Sherwood, N Sherwood, Mrs Sidell, Stewart, K Vickers, P Vickers, Waltham, Wardle and Wells

ABSTAINING: Nil

There being an equality of votes, the Mayor used her second and casting vote in favour of the substantive motion.

Substantive Motion Carried

1808 (15) CALCULATING THE COUNCIL TAX BASE FOR 2010/2011 – The Service Director Finance submitted a report asking the council to consider the council tax base to be used for each part of the council’s area for tax setting purposes. The report highlighted the requirements of relevant regulations and how the council tax base would be used. The key points in the report were the requirement of the council to set and notify its tax base, calculation of the tax base for formula grant purposes and a calculation of a local tax base for each parish and the total tax base for the authority as detailed in appendix b to the report.

Resolved – (a) That the recommendations contained in the report of the Service Director Finance in relation to the calculation of the council’s tax base for 2010/2011 as set out in appendix C to the report be approved, subject to the figure for North Killingholme being amended to 90.6 not 90.7 in appendices B and C and the figure for Messingham being amended to 1335.5 not 1335.4 in appendix C, and (b) that pursuant to the report and in accordance with the Local Authorities (Calculation of Tax Base Regulations) 1992, the amount calculated by North Lincolnshire Council as its tax base for the whole area for the year 2010/2011 shall be 50,817.7 and for the parts of the area listed below for the year 2010/2011 shall be for the parish or area of

1809 (16) CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL IN PUBLIC PLACES – WESTCLIFF PRECINCT – The Service Director Legal and Democratic submitted a report which considered the designation of the Westcliff Precinct area as an alcohol restriction zone.

At its meeting on 30 March 2005, the council had approved a formal process for the consideration of applications to make an Order under Section 13 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 for the restriction of alcohol consumption in specified “designated areas”. By virtue of this section local authorities are able to designate areas where they are satisfied that nuisance, annoyance or disorder has been associated with public drinking in that area. The areas must be public places and the boundaries have to be clearly stated. A public place is defined as an area to which the public has the right of access either freely or on payment. It does not include any licenced premises, including areas outside licenced premises where permission had been given for consumption of alcohol.

Designating an area would make it an offence for any person to drink alcohol after being required by a police officer not to do so. The police also have the power to confiscate and dispose of any alcohol and containers in the person’s possession. Failure to comply with the police request was an arrestable offence and punishable by a fine.

A consultation process is required as part of the legislation and before designating an area the local authority had to consult the Police and the chair of any parish or town council which covered or might be affected by the proposed area to be designated and the licensees of any licensed premises that might be affected. The authority also had to take reasonable steps to consult the owners of any land that was to be designated and to publish in the local press a notice giving details of its intention to designate areas under the legislation. It had to allow at least 28 days for receipt of comments. If an Order was made, notice had to be published in the local press and suitable signs erected to warn the public before the Order could come into effect.

An application had been received from the Safer Neighbourhood Partnership for the designation of the Westcliff Precinct area in the electoral ward of Brumby as an alcohol restriction zone. The application was part of an ongoing problem solving exercise and this was considered to be the most viable course of preventative action.

Led by the Safer Neighbourhoods Team a SARA problem solving exercise had gathered information as detailed in paragraph 2.8 of the report. The aim of this exercise was to reduce the perception severity score of the problem of 8.2 to 5 or below by March 2010 and to retain it below that level until October 2010.

The area in question was ranked as one of the highest of all areas in North Lincolnshire in the Vulnerable Localities Index (VLI). The VLI was a statistical index developed by the Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science at University College London. The VLI uses a particular combination of crime deprivation and demographic data to identify those areas that have persistent problems and are most at risk of community fragmentation. Any area scoring over 200 on the index is considered a vulnerable locality. The lower level super output area in which Westcliff Precinct was located had a VLI score of 290.96 making it significantly vulnerable.

Currently the Precinct had a direction to leave instrument in place under Section 27 of the Violent Crimes Reduction Act 2006. This gives the police, under certain circumstances, the power to give a direction to any individual who is 16 years or over who is in a public place to leave the area. The direction prohibits them from returning to a defined area for a period specified by a police officer, not for a 48 hours. Appendix 1 to the report details the area covered by the Section 27 direction to leave. However, the direction to leave instrument had not brought about the behavioural changes needed at the Westcliff Precinct.

The report contained further information in relation to the matter.

Moved by Councillor Carlile and seconded by Councillor L Foster –

“(a) That the statutory consultation be progressed as a matter of priority in connection with designating the Westcliff Precinct area under Section 13 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, and (b) that the consultation results be presented at the earliest opportunity for further deliberation by the council.”

At the request of members and in accordance with Procedure Rule 1.23(d) the names of members voting for, against and abstaining from the motion are as follows –

FOR: Councillors Ali, Armitage, Bainbridge, Barker, Barkworth, Berry, B Briggs, JBriggs, Mrs Bromby, Bunyan, Carlile, Cawsey, Clark, Collinson, Davison, Eckhardt, Ellerby, England, LFoster, T Foster, Glover, Gosling, Jawaid, Kirk, O’Sullivan, Poole, Mrs Redfern, Regan, C Sherwood, N Sherwood, Mrs M Sidell, Mrs Simpson, Smith, Stewart, Swift, K Vickers, P Vickers, Waltham, Wardle, Wells, Whiteley and Wilson.

AGAINST: Nil

ABSTAINING: Nil

Motion Carried Unanimously

1810 (17) HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT LAND ALLOCATIONS DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENT – RESULTS OF PRE-SUBMISSION CONSULTATION – SECOND STAGE – The Head of Strategic Regeneration, Housing and Development submitted a report informing members of the findings of the Housing and Employment Land Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) Pre-Submission Consultation – Second Stage and asked members to consider approving the summary of consultation responses.

At the meeting of the council held on 21 January 2009, the Housing and Employment Land Allocations DPD Pre-Submission Consultation: Second Stage had been presented. That document set out a series of potential site options for future housing, employment, retail and gypsy and traveller accommodation in North Lincolnshire up to 2026. It also set out proposed settlement development limits.

The DPD would be a fundamental part of the Local Development Framework and had to comply with the core strategy approach to planned future settlement patterns. The pre-submission consultation – second stage began on 23 January 2009 and ran for six weeks, ending on 6 March 2009. The draft DPD contained 28 site options for housing, 16 site options for employment and two site options for gypsy and traveller accommodation.

The consultation exercise was conducted via the North Lincolnshire Website, Direct Magazine and the local media. Copies of the DPD and associated sustainability appraisal report and appropriate assessments were available for public inspection at Local Link Offices, Pittwood House and Branch Libraries. In addition, nine public exhibitions were held between 3 and 20 February 2009 at Barton upon Humber, Bottesford, Brigg, Crowle, Epworth, Kirton in Lindsey, Scunthorpe, Ulceby and Winterton and over 300 members of the public attended. Representations totalled 1,501 from 1,095 groups, organisations and individuals. Comments were also made on the proposed housing and employment sites, development limits, gypsy and traveller sites, alternatives to the proposed sites and general matters. The vast majority of representations, about 1,000, were objections mainly concerning housing, employment and gypsy and traveller site locations. A further 218 supported parts of the draft DPD, three quarters of whom favoured the proposed employment sites. Another 238 made observations on various topics.

A summary of consultation responses had been prepared to provide an overview of the comments received during the recent pre-submission consultation – second stage on the housing and employment land allocations DPD. That document was attached as an appendix to the report and in line with keeping the public involved in the preparation of the DPD it was proposed to make it publicly available.

The report contained further information about the report and the summary of consultation responses.

Moved by Councillor Bainbridge and seconded by Councillor Collinson –

“(a) That the information in the report be noted, and (b) that the summary of consultation responses be approved.”

At the request of members and in accordance with Procedure Rule 1.23(d) the names of members voting for, against and abstaining from the motion are as follows –

FOR: Councillors Ali, Armitage, Bainbridge, Barker, Barkworth, B Briggs, Carlile, Cawsey, Collinson, Davison, Ellerby, L Foster, Glover, Gosling, Jawaid, Kirk, O’Sullivan, Poole, Simpson, Smith, Swift, Whiteley and Wilson

AGAINST: Nil

ABSTAINING: Councillors Berry, J Briggs, Mrs Bromby, Bunyan, Clark, Eckhardt, England, T Foster, Glover, Mrs Redfern, C Sherwood, N Sherwood, Mrs Sidell, K Vickers, P Vickers, Waltham, Wardle and Wells

Motion Carried

1811 (18) LOCAL ACTION TAKEN TO MANAGE FLOOD RISK IN NORTH LINCOLNSHIRE – The Safer and Stronger Communities Scrutiny Panel submitted a report into a review of local action taken to manage flood risk in North Lincolnshire. The panel’s brief was –

• To consider the arrangements the council has put in place to mitigate the impact of any future flooding incidents.
• To consider if those arrangements are robust enough and have the support and commitment of all the other agencies and stakeholders.
• To investigate the success and workings of the Flood Forum and consider its effectiveness, as seen from other partners.
• To explore the effectiveness of emergency plans with individuals and community groups.
• To consider the implications to Overview and Scrutiny of the recommendations arising from Sir Michael Pitt’s review into the floods of 2007.

Having completed its work on the review the panel had formulated 33 detailed recommendations.

Resolved – That the recommendations contained in the report be received and referred to cabinet for detailed consideration.

1812 CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S REPORT – The Chief Executive outlined how the council had dealt with the severe winter weather prior to, during and after the Christmas period. He indicated that those staff directly involved had provided an excellent service and he asked the council to join with him in thanking staff for their efforts.

1813 FORWARD PLAN FOR THE COUNCIL – Councillor Mark Kirk, the Leader of the Council, introduced his forward plan for the period February to May 2010 as required by the Local Government Act 2000 and the Council’s Constitution. He then invited and answered questions on the plan’s contents.

At this point in the meeting it was moved by Councillor Swift and seconded by Councillor Kirk under Procedure Rule D1.20 (p) and agreed – that in view of timing issues and the fact that a member of the public had put down a question to be asked of the Leader, that the order of business of the meeting be varied to enable that to take place.

1814 QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC (INCLUDING TOWN AND PARISH COUNCILS) – The Leader referred to the format of the full council meetings which enabled members of the public to ask questions. The following member of the public attended the meeting and asked a question of the Leader.

Motion Carried

Question – Mr B Nobbs

“I was a full time paid Youth Worker in the Local Youth Services for over 20 years and still help them regularly, on a voluntary basis, for the Duke of Edinburgh Award.

I am concerned at what appears to be the gradual erosion of the Local Youth Service over that last few years.

Please could the Leader advise me as to how he sees the Youth Centres developing in the immediate future?”

The cabinet member for Children’s Services responded to that question as follows –

“The council has made the provision of positive activities for young people a local priority. Nationally the provision of support for young people is a priority and the policy direction is for local councils to bring together a range of services to support young people. No youth centre has closed during this time.

North Lincolnshire Council has brought young people’s services together to form one integrated service. We see this as an opportunity to modernise young people’s services and to manage budgets more efficiently and effectively, to be able to invest more in the provision of activities for young people especially the most vulnerable. We have seen a successful expansion of positive activities over the summer of 2009 and we are seeing an increase in activities taking place on a Friday and Saturday night. We expect and plan for this to expand. The modernised Youth Service is a key partner in providing and co-ordinating this activity.

Youth centres play a crucial part in the provision of locally accessible places for young people to go, not only for access to positive activities but also a range of support services which are important to all young people but especially our most vulnerable young people.

Historically youth services have changed over time. Youth work is a valued and respected profession, where and how youth work takes place is being transformed nationally and locally with the support of the National Youth Agency; but more importantly, young people in the 21st Century are helping to transform youth services in to activity which is meaningful to more young people in North Lincolnshire and right for all. This may look and be very different to the youth services of the past and recent past.

The inception of Integrated Youth Support services has meant that in real terms an extra £1.5m of council funding is now potentially available for youth support services. This is made up of some savings through integrating services, Connexions transfer, YCAP money, substance misuse and by pooling resources for activities for each locality across the council and the third sector.”

1815 PLANNING COMMITTEE – Resolved – That the minutes of the meetings of the Planning Committee held on 11 November and 9 December 2009 be received.

1816 LICENSING COMMITTEE – Resolved – That the minutes of the meetings of the Licensing Committee held on 10 November and 3, 16 and 22 December 2009 be received approved and adopted.

1817 STANDARDS COMMITTEE – Resolved – That the minutes of the meeting of the Standards Committee held on 26 November 2009 be received.

1818 APPEALS COMMITTEE – Resolved – That the minutes of the meeting of the Appeals Committee held on 4 December 2009 be received.

1819 SAFER AND STRONGER COMMUNITIES SCRUTINY PANEL – Resolved – That the minutes of the meetings of the Safer and Stronger Communities Scrutiny Panel held on 3, 4, 10 and 24 November and 8 December 2009 be received.

1820 HEALTHIER COMMUNITIES AND OLDER PEOPLE’S SCRUTINY PANEL – Resolved – That the minutes of the meetings of the Healthier Communities and Older People’s Scrutiny Panel held on 3 and 17 November and 1 and 15 December 2009 be received.

1821 SCRUTINY CO-ORDINATING PANEL – Resolved – That the minutes of the meeting of the Scrutiny Co-Ordinating Panel held on 15 December 2009 be received.

1822 SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE APPOINTMENT OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR – CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE’S SERVICES – LOCALITIES AND PARTNERSHIPS – Resolved – That the minutes of the meetings of the Special Committee on the Appointment of the Assistant Director – Children and Young People’s Services – Localities and Partnerships held on 18 and 30 November 2009 be received.

1823 QUESTIONS RELATING TO HUMBERSIDE POLICE AUTHORITY – Councillor C O’Sullivan asked the following question in relation to the Humberside Police Authority –

“Can the representative of the Police Authority please tell me how much money Humberside Police and if possible ‘B’ Division, spends on hiring cars for use by officers? Can the representative also explain the process the Police Authority uses to authorise any hire vehicles and give examples of what they are used for?”

Councillor I Jawaid responded to that question.

Councillor L Foster asked the following question in relation to the Humberside Police Authority –

“Is it the policy of Humberside Police to DNA test all suspects, whether later proven innocent or guilty, and how long do they keep such results? How many DNA samples does Humberside Police have on record – both suspects found guilty of a crime and those who have been found to be innocent?”

Councillor I Jawaid responded to that question.

1824 TIME OF MEETING – PROCEDURE RULE D1.07 – GUILLOTINE – In accordance with procedure rule D1.07, the time having reached 9.00 pm the Mayor informed the meeting that the remaining business of the council ie notices of motion would be put to the council without speech or debate and written replies furnished in respect of the remaining questions which had been tabled.

1825 NOTICE OF MOTION – FOX HUNTING

Moved by Councillor Swift and seconded by Councillor Ali –

“This council welcomes the government’s renewed support for a ban on hunting foxes with dogs, as set out in The Hunting Act of 2005, with the launch of the Back The Ban campaign. This council pledges support to the campaign and will not allow the barbaric act to return.

Furthermore this council urges all local prospective candidates in the upcoming General Election, as well as the sitting MPs, to sign up to the Back The Ban campaign.”

Motion Carried

1826 NOTICE OF MOTION – FINANCES

Moved by Councillor Mrs Redfern and seconded by Councillor J Briggs –

“This council recognises that all national political parties are proposing financial savings for years 2011 onwards and in light of this the Council will consult the residents of North Lincolnshire on their priorities for service delivery. Following on from this an urgent, special Full Council debate will be held to decide what action needs to be taken.”

There being an equality of votes, the mayor used her second and casting vote against the motion.

Motion Lost

1827 NOTICE OF MOTION – HIGHWAYS ISSUES

Moved by Councillor Stewart and seconded by Councillor England –

“North Lincolnshire Council appreciates the hard work and dedication of its highways service, particularly in the light of the successful highways alliance with Clugstons which was established by the previous Conservative administration.

The present Labour administration’s priorities do not however include highways, to the detriment of the council’s highway network. This council will therefore write to central government outlining its concerns about the serious deterioration of the highway network in North Lincolnshire, particularly in the rural areas and calls for highways to be given a higher priority.”

There being an equality of votes, the mayor used her second and casting the vote against the motion.

Motion Lost