Democracy | Full Council – 27 November 2012

Full Council – 27 November 2012

Present:

The Mayor – Councillor Ivan Glover

Councillors Ali, Allcock, Armitage, Bainbridge, Barker, J Briggs, Mrs Bromby, Bunyan, Carlile, Clark, Collinson, Davison, Eckhardt, England, Evison, L Foster, T Foster, Godfrey, Gosling, Grant, Jawaid, Kataria, Kirk, Marper, Ogg, Oldfield, O’Sullivan, Poole, Mrs Redfern, Robinson, Rowson, C Sherwood, N Sherwood, Swift, K Vickers, P Vickers, Waltham, Wells, Whiteley and Wilson.

The council met at The Civic Centre, Ashby Road, Scunthorpe.

2129 MAYOR’S REMARKS – The Mayor welcomed fellow councillors, officers and members of the public to the meeting.

2130 DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTERESTS AND PERSONAL OR PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS – Declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests and personal or personal and prejudicial interests were indicated as follows –

Member	Subject/Minute
Councillor M Ali	Licensed Hackney Carriage Driver Trustee of the Crosby Community Association
Councillor J Briggs	Humberside Fire Authority – Member
Councillor P Clark	South Humber Racial Equality Council – Member
Councillor J England	Humberside Police and Crime Panel – Member
Councillor T Foster	Humberside Police and Crime Panel – Member
Councillor I Jawaid	South Humber Racial Equality Council – Chair
Councillor N Poole	Federation of Small Businesses – Member Licence Holder
Councillor Mrs E Redfern	North Lincolnshire Homes – Member
Councillor C Sherwood	North Lincolnshire Homes – Member
Councillor P Vickers	Humberside Fire Authority – Member
Councillor R Waltham	Humberside Fire Authority – Member North Lincolnshire Homes – Member

2131 HUMBERSIDE POLICE AND CRIME COMMISSIONER – The Mayor introduced Mr Matthew Grove the newly elected Police and Crime Commissioner for Humberside. He also congratulated Mr Grove on his successful election.

Mr Grove then addressed the council about the role of Police and Crime Commissioner and his aspirations for the future. This was a new role with a huge responsibility and a great deal of work to be done.

Mr Grove then invited questions from members of the council. Mr Grove received 9 questions which he answered.

2132 (12) LOCALISING SUPPORT FOR COUNCIL TAX – The Director of Policy and Resources submitted a report which indicated that at the Spending Review 2010 the government had announced that it would localise support for council tax from 2013/2014 reducing expenditure by 10%. A key object of this change was to “make work pay.” The Welfare Reform Act 2012 provided for the abolition of council tax benefit paving the way for new localised council tax reduction schemes.

The council was required to decide on a localised support scheme before 31 January 2013 and if a decision was not taken by the council it would be required to implement a default scheme, which would effectively mirror existing council tax benefit arrangements and the council would be expected to fund a 10% reduction in government funding. Further information received in October 2012 offered additional funding for one year, dependent upon the local scheme meeting specified criteria. The government criteria differed to some extent from the scheme on which the council had consulted but did address a number of concerns raised by respondents on the impact of the proposed scheme, particularly for those on low pay.

The changes to council tax benefit were part of the fundamental overhaul of benefit legislation of which the universal credit was the centrepiece. Decisions made on council tax support therefore needed to be taken in the context of these wider reforms. Substantial changes were proposed to housing benefit entitlements alongside the phased introduction of a universal credit, which in time would replace a range of current working age benefits including tax credits.

As well as localising responsibility for council tax benefit, from April 2013, the council would also be responsible for elements of the social fund: community care grants and crisis loans. Funding would transfer from the Department of Work and Pensions and the council would determine how it would operate the scheme in its locality. The funding was not ring fenced and therefore the council could change the current approach to fit best with local circumstances and that included the possibility of shaping its use to complement the Local Council Tax Support Scheme and Changes to Housing Benefits.

On 23 July 2012 a draft Local Council Tax Support Scheme had been approved for consultation. The report summarised the responses from the consultation process and the extent to which respondents agreed with the proposals. The report also explained in detail the additional grant funding of £318k recently offered by the government for the transitional period of one year if schemes met specified criteria. This would make the reduction in benefit faced by working age claimants a maximum of 8.5% compared to 23% in the original proposals.

Finally the report considered the implications for the North Lincolnshire Draft Scheme and the financial impact. It presented a final scheme for approval for 2013/2014. Details were contained in appendices to the report.

Resolved – (a) That the “proposed scheme” set out at appendix A to the report be confirmed as the final scheme for North Lincolnshire for 2013/2014; (b) that the government’s offer of transitional funding be accepted; (c) that a support fund be established to help in cases of hardship; (d) that the cabinet member for Policy and Resources approve the scheme for the operation of the support fund, and (e) that the Director of Policy and Resources in consultation with the cabinet member for Policy and Resources be authorised to make such other incidental or consequential amendments to the scheme in the light of further government guidance.

2133 (13) CALCULATING THE COUNCIL TAX BASE FOR 2013/2014 – The Director of Policy and Resources submitted a report asking the council to consider the council tax base to be used for each part of the council’s area for formula grant and 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 a council tax base, to approve changes to the level of council tax discount applied to some unoccupied properties to encourage them to be brought back into use, to set and notify a gross tax base for the purpose of calculating parish precepts, to set a tax base net of localised council tax support for the council and major precepting authorities and to note the new requirements to formally set a non domestic rate tax base and to authorise completion of the provisional National Non Domestic Rate Return (NNDR1).

The report contained details about the setting of the council tax base including some new council tax technical changes arising out of new regulations. These included further changes for 2013/2014 with the introduction of the new localised council tax support scheme, which replaced council tax benefit (CTB). This did not affect the calculation of the tax base as it was accounted for as received income. The new scheme was effectively applied as a discount and therefore subsequently reduced the tax base calculation.

Reference was also made to details of new arrangements for calculating the council taxbase which had been received on 26 November, 2012. These indicated that the council needed to calculate a taxbase incorporating council tax support discounts for each Parish. The total of 44,030.02 Band D equivalent remained unchanged and there was no effect on Parish Councils. It was a technical change which had been incorporated in the report and recommendations.

Regulations also required the council to formally set a business rate tax base for the area on the same timescale as the council tax base (by 31 January at the latest). The basis for setting the business rate tax base, however, had not yet been confirmed and there was no council meeting scheduled before 31 January 2013. It was proposed therefore that the Director of Policy and Resources be given delegated authority to complete the NNDR1 return in December as required to notify the provisional tax base to the Department for Communities and Local Government, in consultation with the cabinet member for Policy and Resources and that the final tax base be confirmed by cabinet on 29 January 2013.

The report contained other relevant information in relation to this matter including details about the potential consideration of council tax relief for special constables. This operated in other parts of the Humberside Police Area as an incentive to recruitment. It was an allowance paid by Humberside Police which was reimbursed by the council. Any scheme would need approval by the Secretary of State which Humberside Police would obtain and could operate from 1 April 2013.

Resolved – (a) That the recommended technical changes to council tax discounts as set out in paragraph 3.4 to the report be approved; (b) that the council tax base in 2013/2014 as set out in appendix C to the report be approved (total 44,030.02 Band D equivalent); (c) that authority be delegated to the Director of Policy and Resources in consultation with the cabinet member for Policy and Resources to allocate the council tax base to parishes and make other necessary changes, in accordance with recently issued regulations, and (d) that authority be delegated to the Director of Policy and Resources in consultation with the cabinet member for Policy and Resources to submit the provisional NNDR1 non domestic rate tax base to the Department for Communities and Local Government in December 2012.

2134 (14) CONSTITUTION – A report was submitted by the Director of Policy and Resources proposing changes to the council’s Constitution in relation to its working arrangements for 2012/2013 following new regulations and changes to working practices.

The Local Government Act 2000 required the council to adopt a Constitution which was a living document and which required frequent amendment to keep up with changes made by the council to its management structure and procedures and following the receipt of new legislation. At the meeting of cabinet held on 20 September 2012 it was reported that the government had published the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012. These revoked the previous regulations which governed meetings of the executive and how executive decisions were recorded. The new regulations covered various elements of the executive decision making process including meetings of the executive (cabinet), key decisions, the recording of executive decisions, background papers, dispensations, members’ rights of access to information, reports from the Leader, inspection of documents by members of the public and other general issues.

In addition, other changes to the Constitution were required as a result of the abolition of the Humberside Police Authority and in relation to petition panel hearings. Details of these were contained in paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6 of the report.

Resolved – (a) That the proposed changes to the council’s Constitution as detailed in paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6 and the appendix to the report be approved; (b) that the Chief Executive be authorised to make other incidental or consequential amendments to the Constitution following the publication of further Department for Communities and Local Government Guidance, and (c) that the Chief Executive in consultation with the Monitoring Officer and the Chairman of the Standards Committee be authorised to deal with the granting of dispensations to members who have declared a conflict of interest in decisions taken or to be taken.

2135 TO CONSIDER APPOINTING COUNCILLOR H KATARIA TO THE AUDIT COMMITTEE IN PLACE OF COUNCILLOR S WILSON – Resolved-That Councillor H Kataria be appointed to the Audit Committee in place of Councillor S Wilson.

2136 CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S REPORT – The Chief Executive submitted an oral report in relation to problems associated with flooding in North Lincolnshire following the recent heavy rains.

Resolved – That the report be noted.

2137 PLANNING COMMITTEE – Resolved – That the minutes of the meetings of the Planning Committee held on 27 June, 25 July, 22 August, 19 September and 17 October 2012 be received with the exception of minutes 1454 (ii), 1462, 1466 (i), 1473 (i), and 1474 (xvii).

2138 APPLICATION 12/0337 – With regard to excepted portion (a) it was –

Moved by Councillor Bunyan and seconded by Councillor Rowson –

That the minute be received.

Moved by Councillor L Foster and seconded by Councillor Gosling as an amendment –

That the minute be received with regret at the decision arrived at by the committee.

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 amendment are as follows –

FOR: Councillors Ali, Armitage, Bainbridge, Barker, Carlile, Collinson, Davison, L Foster, Godfrey, Gosling, Grant, Jawaid, Kataria, Kirk, Oldfield, O’Sullivan, Swift, Whiteley and Wilson

AGAINST: Councillors Allcock, Briggs, Mrs Bromby, Bunyan, Clark, Eckhardt, England, Evison, T Foster, Glover, Marper, Ogg, Poole, Mrs Redfern, Robinson, Rowson, C Sherwood, N Sherwood, K Vickers, P Vickers, Waltham and Wells

ABSTAINING: Nil

Amendment Lost
Motion Carried

2139 UPDATE ON INCOMPLETE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT – WEST STREET, WEST BUTTERWICK – With regard to excepted portion (b) it was –

Moved by Councillor Bunyan and seconded by Councillor Rowson –

That the minute be received.

Motion Carried

2140 APPLICATION 12/0456 – With regard to excepted portion (c) it was –

Moved by Councillor Bunyan and seconded by Councillor Rowson –

That the minute be received.

Motion Carried

2141 APPLICATION 11/0236 – With regard to excepted portion (d) it was –

Moved by Councillor Bunyan and seconded by Councillor Rowson –

That the minute be received.

Moved by Councillor Collinson and seconded by Councillor Davison as an amendment –

That the minute be received with regret at the decision arrived at by the committee.

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 amendment are as follows –

FOR: Councillors Ali, Armitage, Barker, Carlile, Collinson, Davison, L Foster, Godfrey, Gosling, Grant, Jawaid, Kataria, Kirk, Oldfield, O’Sullivan, Swift, Whiteley and Wilson

ABSTAINING: Councillor Bainbridge

Amendment Lost
Motion Carried

2142 APPLICATION 12/0168 – With regard to excepted portion (e) it was –

Moved by Councillor Bunyan and seconded by Councillor Rowson –

That the minute be received.

Motion Carried

2143 LICENSING COMMITTEE – Resolved – That the minutes of the meetings of the Licensing Committee held on 21 June, 6, 14, 20, 24, 25 September, 15 and 31 October and 1 November 2012 be received, approved and adopted.

2144 AUDIT COMMITTEE – Resolved – That the minutes of the meetings of the Audit Committee held on 28 June and 27 September 2012 be received.

2145 STANDARDS COMMITTEE – Resolved – That the minutes of the meetings of the Standards Committee held on 12 July and 13 September 2012 be received.

2146 APPEALS COMMITTEE – Resolved – That the minutes of the meetings of the Appeals Committee held on 24 October 2012 be received.

2147 PLACES SCRUTINY PANEL – Resolved – That the minutes of the meetings of the Places Scrutiny Panel held on 11 July, 8 and 20 August, 3 September, 3 and 24 October, 2012 be received with the exception of minutes 171, 189 and 190.

2148 CABINET MEMBER AND SERVICE AREA PRIORITIES – With regard to excepted portion (a) it was –

Moved by Councillor T Foster and seconded by Councillor Davison –

That the minute be received.

Motion Carried

2149 CABINET MEMBER AND SERVICE AREA PRIORITIES – With regard to excepted portion (b) it was –

Moved by Councillor T Foster and seconded by Councillor Davison –

That the minute be received.

Motion Carried

2150 POLICE AND CRIME COMMISSIONER – With regard to excepted portion (c) it was –

Moved by Councillor T Foster and seconded by Councillor Davison –

That the minute be received.

Motion Carried

2151 QUESTIONS – PLACES SCRUTINY PANEL – In accordance with Procedure Rule D1.14(a), the following questions were asked of the Chairman of the Places Scrutiny Panel –

(a) Councillor S Bainbridge asked the following question –

“Given the importance of small businesses as an indication of how the local economy is coping in the economic recession, could council be updated on how many businesses have failed, how many new businesses have started to operate over the last 12 months and the specific initiatives the council is currently undertaking to ensure the sustainability of all small businesses in North Lincolnshire?”

Councillor Foster invited the Leader of the Council to respond to that question.

(b) Councillor Kirk asked the following question –

“Would the chair agree with me that after briefings from the cabinet member for regeneration that it was right and proper to follow through for a Humber LEP, which was widely supported by businesses in the Humber Region and the North Lincolnshire Labour Group even though it was not fully supported by the controlling Conservative Group?”

Councillor Foster responded to that question and also invited the Leader of the Council to respond to the question and to a related supplementary question.

“Can you give me an indication of how many redundancies there will be after the wholesale sell out of sport and leisure facilities currently being plotted?”

Councillor Foster responded to that question and also invited the relevant cabinet member Councillor C Sherwood to respond to the question and to a related supplementary question.

(d) Councillor S Swift asked the following question –

“Do you concur with the newly elected Police and Crime Commissioner for Humberside that the renaming and re branding of the police from “Humberside” to “Humber” is a top three priority and is this a good use of public money?”

Councillor Foster responded to that question and to a related supplementary question.

2152 PEOPLE SCRUTINY PANEL – Resolved – That the minutes of the meetings of the People Scrutiny Panel held on 4, 23, 25 July, 5 and 26 September and 18 October 2012 be received with the exception of minute 112.

2153 REVIEW OF ENSURING YOUNG PEOPLE HAVE THE RELEVANT SKILLS TO MOVE INTO EMPLOYMENT – With regard to excepted portion (a) it was –

Moved by Councillor Marper and seconded by Councillor Collinson –

That the minute be received.

Motion Carried

2154 QUESTIONS – PEOPLE SCRUTINY PANEL – In accordance with Procedure Rule D1.14(a), the following questions were asked of the chair of the People Scrutiny Panel.

(a) Councillor P Carlile asked the following question –

“What is the future for the Lilacs, is it true that there are plans to close both the Lilacs as well as De Lacy House and if so why when these facilities are very much needed?

Is this just another way of giving everything away to the private sector?”

Councillor Marper invited the relevant cabinet member Councillor Waltham to respond to that question.

(b) Councillor S Godfrey asked the following question –

“Given the fact that the full cost of the Academies Programme has been seriously underestimated by the Department for Education thus impacting on maintained schools budgets.

Given the fact that local authorities retain responsibility for academies can we be assured that we as an authority are still comfortable with our ability to provide all North Lincolnshire primary pupils with the start to education which they need and deserve?”

Councillor Marper invited the relevant cabinet member Councillor Waltham to respond to that question.

“What progress has been made with the Youth Service review and are any activities being delivered by other providers?”

Councillor Marper invited the relevant cabinet member Councillor Waltham to respond to that question.

2155 CORPORATE SCRUTINY PANEL – Resolved – That the minutes of the meetings of the Corporate Scrutiny Panel held on 12 July, 2 August, 13 September and 4 and 25 October 2012 be received with the exception of minutes 106 and 115.

2156 ITEM REQUESTED FOR CALL-IN – MINUTE 11 OF THE POLICY AND RESOURCES CABINET MEMBER MEETING HELD ON 31 JULY 2012 – COMMUNITY LED PLANS – With regard to excepted portion (a) it was –

Moved by Councillor Robinson and seconded by Councillor Wilson –

That the minute be received.

Moved by Councillor O’Sullivan and seconded by Councillor Ali as an amendment –

“That the minute be received with regret at the decision arrived at by the panel”.

It was then moved by Councillor England and seconded by Councillor N Sherwood –

“That the council proceed to the other business of the day.”

Motion Carried

2157 CABINET MEMBER AND SERVICE AREA PRIORITIES – With regard to excepted portion (b) it was –

Moved by Councillor Robinson and seconded by Councillor Collinson –

That the minute be received.

Motion Carried

2158 HEALTH SCRUTINY PANEL – Resolved – That the minutes of the meetings of the Health Scrutiny Panel held on 3 and 24 July and 4 September 2012 be received with the exception of minutes 19 and 23.

2159 THE STRATEGIC RESPONSE TO HEALTH INEQUALITIES IN NORTH LINCOLNSHIRE – With regard to excepted portion (a) it was –

Moved by Councillor Mrs Bromby and seconded by Councillor Barker –

That the minute be received.

Motion Carried

2160 WORK PROGRAMME AND FUTURE PRIORITIES – With regard to excepted portion (b) it was –

Moved by Councillor Mrs Bromby and seconded by Councillor Barker –

That the minute be received.

Motion Carried

2161 QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC (INCLUDING TOWN AND PARISH COUNCILLORS) – The Leader of the Council referred to the format for full council meetings which enabled members of the public to ask questions. The following members of the public attended the meeting and asked a question of the Leader.

Jurate Klusaite
Question

The recent process run by the council to decide on the distribution of public money to the voluntary and community sector was overseen by the Citizen Advice Bureau (CAB) and Voluntary Action North Lincolnshire (VANL). At the conclusion of the process the only two charities successful in securing funds were Citizen Advice Bureau and Voluntary Action North Lincolnshire. The same two organisations who have run the process for the provision of funds and overseen its process, judgement and administration. It is clear from the minutes of this council on 22 November 2011 (2069). Page 40 in a response to a public question the council already commission long term services from CAB so have a requirement for them to remain available to provide services. Using these organisations to govern the process is at very best a naive decision to allow this to happen. Can the leader of the council therefore explain what parts of the process she feels are fair and transparent, and which parts she feels are not?

Answer
The process has not concluded. The council is awaiting the recommendations of the Independent Panel.

This process has been designed and implemented in conjunction with the voluntary sector. Maintaining the status quo was not an option. By applying, the organisations have signed up to the new process.

Surely it is only right and proper that the voluntary sector convinces itself of the most appropriate use of spending rather than high handed decisions being made by council officers.

Jonathan Beighton
Question

Over 400 residents of Scunthorpe have signed the following petition in 7 working days.

“We the undersigned wish to petition NLC in respect of its decision to appoint a VCS Custodian and subsequently make significant alterations to the method by which the VCS Organisations apply for local authority funding. We believe the methodology was flawed, as the needs analysis wasn’t representative of the needs of the needs of deprived areas in North Lincolnshire such as Crosby. We wish to show our unity in objecting against the decision not to award funding for the next three years to SHREC and CCA. This will undoubtedly have a significant effect on the ability of SHREC and CCA to survive without core funding from the local authority. It will also impact on these two organisations ability to attract alternative funding without core funding in place.”

It seems the local public have spoken and the most disadvantaged and impoverished are angry at the decision you have made.

Given only 106 people responded to your needs analysis which underpins the decision to award funds and services, 21 days, are you prepared to accept superficial research as the basis of investing public funds in one organisation, and when the real needy step forward your arrangements will ensure there is sufficient capacity to give them one to one help?

Answer
Let’s be clear about this. The decisions on who receive funding have not been made as yet. When they are those decisions will be made by an independent panel of community members and they will be based on the applications that best meet the service delivery needs of their communities on a value for money basis.

Mr Abid Khan
Question

The purpose of the Localism Act was to improve people’s lives by not imposing decisions, setting targets but allowing for adaptation to reflect local circumstances and innovation, and at a lower cost. It goes on to say in the guidance, the best councils are constantly on the lookout for new and better ways to design and deliver services. Can the leader explain what parts of the decision to award council funds for the provision of advice in the voluntary sector to one nationally controlled charity meets the expectations of this act and how this decision has given local people and communities the power to be heard, influence decisions in the future as well as how a single organisation can truly meet the delivery of services to such a diverse community across North Lincolnshire?

Answer
No decision has yet been made by the independent panel. But yes, in terms of the localism act what could be more local and more grass roots than the voluntary sector itself working collaboratively to decide where funding is best placed. Gone are the days where those who shout the loudest attract the funding. The decisions will now be made by the voluntary sector itself that’s far more local than high handed decisions being taken by elected members or council officers based on those who shout the loudest.

Jewel Ahmed
Question

There is emerging evidence that the process for the allocation of public money was unfair and lacks transparency. My question to the council leader is, when do you intend to take responsibility for suspending the process and having it properly re run with a properly constructed needs assessment, independent process and one which listens to the needy across local communities across North Lincolnshire?

Answer
I don’t recollect any fall out or call in of the decision back in April when the process was agreed. But irrespective of that we have listened.

We have taken into account the opinions expressed by organisations since the independent panel first met and it is our opinion that the process is objective and fair, and transparent within the bounds of commercial confidentiality.

Despite this, we have asked the independent panel to look again at some of the applications where some of the answers are unclear. And we have gone further, we have asked a council auditor to independently verify the process, one of our auditors will observe the panel.

Ussate Encola
Question

Comparing the VCS process to that of a compromised jury in a court of law, a judge will relieve that jury and appoint a new one? Does the leader not think that there should be a decision to suspend the so-called independent panel that is looking at voluntary sector funding and replace it with a new independent panel? It has already been indicated that the independent panel was flawed.

Answer
I believe I have covered that with my answer to Mr Ahmed.

Miss Agneta Gustaite
Question

Is the leader aware that this year alone, 4000 people have been through the doors of SHREC, and also 7000 people through the doors of the CCA? Therefore does the leader believe that one organisation will have the capacity to not only advise, but take on case work for some of the most vulnerable people in North Lincolnshire? Does the Leader not believe that these organisations give good value to the taxpayers of North Lincolnshire?

Answer
It’s not for me to advise on the capacity of value for money of organisations in the bidding process. That’s a job for the independent panel based on the quality of bids that each organisation has been able to submit. I would say though I wholly support the voluntary sector.

Sue Bulmer
Question

Is the leader of the council aware that for every £1 of tax payer’s money through the CCA grant, we generate £131? This then goes back to the people of the community and the local economy.

Would you then agree that tax payer’s money is put to good use?

Answer
Yes that’s why, at a time when the council has been faced with 20% saving targets, we’ve protected the voluntary sector funding by only passing on 3% of those savings to the voluntary sector.

And it’s also partly the reason why the funding must go to those organisations that can evidence to the independent panel value for money in the services they provide.

Paula Gravel
Question

Please can you tell us what is going to happen to the vulnerable, disabled and isolated constituents of North Lincolnshire without the Crosby Community Association outreach service that we provide?

Can you guarantee to help those who are unable to access services if the CCA is no longer available?

Answer
The council will continue to operate its outreach local link service and the organisations who bid successfully for funding through the independent panel will continue to serve those people.

Adam Doncaster
Question

It is our understanding that the Government is in full support of providing a face to face service to people who cannot access online services, how will this be followed through if the CCA is no longer available?

Answer
As an employee of the CCA you will probably be aware that it is not the only organisation that provides face to face services.

Applicants organisations have been asked to look at other ways of providing services so that those who cannot access office based services can still get help.

Dave Askew
Question

Many clients, especially those in rural areas and those that do not own or are unable to use technology are going to be excluded from information and support if our services are removed, surely this is discriminatory and has the potential to increase vulnerability and isolation?

Answer
Up skilling communities on the use of technologies is a key aim of this conservative administration. That’s one of the reasons why we have successfully run our Broadband campaign. Nevertheless these communities you refer to will be served by the voluntary sector organisations that can best convince the independent panel of service delivery for all whilst providing value for money.

In addition are people in rural areas disadvantaged at present by the fact that they would have to come into Scunthorpe or to one of a small number of outreach surgeries to access help?

We have challenged applicants to show how they would use other methods to provide help for those who can’t get to office based services broadening the opportunity for people to access help.

Ann Cook
Question

When authorising the setting up of the Custodian process was it not considered that many local third sector groups would be excluded.

Answer
No. The third sector groups were included in the design and agreed the process whereby they would determine the most appropriate use of funding rather than the council.

All of the groups were encouraged to work collaboratively to overcome some of the capacity issues some groups may have. There were some groups who took on board this approach; unfortunately not all groups did.

Question
Duplication, No the third sector complements council services by providing personal support to some of the most vulnerable people in North Lincolnshire. Are we to understand that local is being abandoned for National.

Answer
No decision by the independent panel has yet been made. Without wishing to break any commercially confidential information all of the applications were submitted by local groups and based on local delivery.

John Carney
Question

When is North Lincolnshire Council going to carry out its statutory duty and add all Highways set out on the ground before 1835 to the list of streets maintained at public expense.

Answer
North Lincolnshire Council is well aware that highways that were in existence at the enactment of the Highways Act 1835 in 1836 were already maintainable at the public expense by virtue of common law and are almost certain to continue to be so if they have remained highways ever since. (They were subject to adoption thereafter in the case of vehicular highways and post-1949 in the case of footpaths and bridleways.)

The list of streets is the record of highways maintainable at the public expense compiled and held under Section 36(6) of the Highways Act 1980. The law intends that this public record be kept under review with the aim of reflecting as accurately as possible the current situation at any one time. North Lincolnshire Council is not knowingly withholding entry on the list of streets of any publicly maintainable highway, whether the origins of that highway be pre-1836 or otherwise.

If therefore Mr Carney thinks he knows of any such highway, we should be pleased to give it consideration. But highway status would have to be demonstrable on the balance of probability (the pertinent test at common law), as would the highway’s age (if this is pivotal to whether the highway is maintained by the highway authority).

2162 NOTICE OF MOTION – YOUNG PEOPLE –

Moved by Councillor Mrs Redfern and seconded by Councillor Briggs –

“This council welcomes the 25% reduction in our young people not in Education or Employment.

This council should continue to develop the innovative Apprenticeship Programme which aims to deliver training and future job opportunities for our young people, this coupled with exciting plans for a University Technical College in North Lincolnshire.

In addition the council should continue with its vision to support raising the ambitions of our young people, ensuring that they are able to seize the opportunities available to them.”

Moved by Councillor Kirk and seconded by Councillor Gosling as an amendment –

“This council, whilst appreciating the work for young people not in education and training, should express concern regarding the unprecedented rise in unemployment for the under 24 age group.

This council should continue to develop the innovative apprenticeship programme which aims to deliver training and future job opportunities for our young people, this coupled with exciting plans for a University Technical College in North Lincolnshire, whilst working in partnership with existing education providers.

In addition the council should continue with its vision to support raising the ambitions of our young people, ensuring that they are able to cease the opportunities available to them.”

Moved by Councillor England and seconded by Councillor N Sherwood –

That in accordance with Procedure Rule D.1.18(m) the question be now put.

Motion Carried

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 amendment moved by Councillor Kirk are as follows –

FOR: Councillors Ali, Armitage, Bainbridge, Barker, Carlile, Collinson, Davison, L Foster, Godfrey, Gosling, Grant, Jawaid, Kataria, Kirk, Oldfield, O’Sullivan, Swift, Whiteley and Wilson

AGAINST: Councillors Allcock, Briggs, Mrs Bromby, Bunyan, Clark, Eckhardt, England, Evison, T Foster, Glover, Marper, Ogg, Poole, Mrs Redfern, Robinson, Rowson, C Sherwood, N Sherwood, K Vickers, P Vickers, Waltham and Wells

ABSTAINING: Nil

Amendment Lost

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 moved by Councillor Mrs Redfern are as follows –

FOR: Councillors Allcock, Briggs, Mrs Bromby, Bunyan, Clark, Eckhardt, England, Evison, T Foster, Glover, Marper, Ogg, Poole, Mrs Redfern, Robinson, Rowson, C Sherwood, N Sherwood, K Vickers, P Vickers, Waltham and Wells

AGAINST: Nil

ABSTAINING: Councillors Ali, Armitage, Bainbridge, Barker, Carlile, Collinson, Davison, L Foster, Godfrey, Gosling, Grant, Jawaid, Kataria, Kirk, Oldfield, O’Sullivan, Swift, Whiteley and Wilson

Motion Carried

2163 NOTICE OF MOTION – PUBLIC HEALTH

Moved by Councillor T Barker and seconded by Councillor S Bainbridge –

“This council welcomes the transfer of Public Health responsibilities, including commissioning, its Director and all staff to within this authority. The acquiring of Public Health will enable elected members the opportunity to develop and deliver high quality services to improve the health and well-being of their wards.

Support for this motion will show the residents of North Lincolnshire that we, the council, are fully committed to giving Public Health the priority it deserves.”

Moved by Councillor Mrs Redfern and seconded by Councillor Briggs as an amendment –

“This council welcomes the transfer of all public health responsibilities to the local authority from 1 April 2013, a policy instigated by the Conservative led government.

The council is committed to ensuring that public health is given the priority it deserves for the benefit of the residents of North Lincolnshire.

In addition, the council welcomes the increasing number of adults that are benefiting from public health interventions including cancer and AAA screening, smoking cessation, support with weight management and health checks and values, this is an important area of work as we seek to reduce the number of avoidable deaths.

Furthermore, this council aims to ensure that more older people and people with disabilities are being helped to live independently in their own homes and help to regain independence post hospital discharge. This work is further supported by North Lincolnshire Council’s creation of integrated health and social care teams and a commitment to develop health and social care hubs.”

Moved by Councillor England and seconded by Councillor Waltham –

That in accordance with Procedure Rule 1.18(m) the question be now put.

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 amendment moved by Councillor Mrs Redfern are as follows –

AGAINST: Councillors Ali, Armitage, Bainbridge, Barker, Carlile, Collinson, Davison, L Foster, Godfrey, Gosling, Grant, Jawaid, Kataria, Kirk, Oldfield, O’Sullivan, Swift, Whiteley and Wilson

ABSTAINING: Nil

Amendment Carried

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 –

ABSTAINING: Nil

Substantive Motion Carried