Contact: David Jellings/Joanna Pyke

Direct Dial: 01275 884219/01934 634911

E-mail: david.jellings@n-somerset.gov.uk/joanna.pyke@n-somerset.gov.uk

Date: 4th April 2003

Dear Sir or Madam

Standards Committee

Monday 14th April 2003, 4.30 p.m., Rickford Room, TOWN HALL

A meeting of the Committee will take place as indicated above. The agenda is set out overleaf.

Yours faithfully

Solicitor to the Council

To: Members of the Committee

Councillors:

John Clark (Chairman), Nicholas Brown (Vice-Chairman), Michael Lyall, John Wiltshire

Independent Members:

Mr. P.W. Barrett, Mr. C.R. Williams

Parish/Town Council Member:

Parish Councillor A. Horry

All other Members of the Council (for information)

AGENDA

1 Public Participation Time, Presentations of Petitions by the Public and Deputations by the Public (Standing Order 17)

The Committee will be receive and hear any person who wishes to address it under the Public Participation Procedure and receive petitions by the public and deputations by the public. The Chairman will select the order of the matters to be heard. Each person will be limited to a period of five minutes for public participation and deputations and three minutes for petitions. The total time must not exceed 30 minutes.

2 Apologies for Absence

3 Declarations of Interest by Members

4 Minutes

4.1 Committee Meeting – 4th December 2002, (page 4)

5 Matters referred To The Committee And Not Dealt With Elsewhere On This Agenda

Executive Meeting – 11th March 2003

5.1 Review of Scrutiny Activity (EXE 176) (page 8)

6 Internet and E-mail Use

6.1 Report of the Information Communications Technology Manager (page 17)

7 Report on the Committee’s Activities Since It’s Inception

7.1 Report of the Solicitor to the Council (page 25)

8 Role of Independent Members

8.1 Report of the Solicitor to the Council (page 31)

9 Work Programme

9.1 Report of the Solicitor to the Council (page 39)

10 Update on Section 66 Regulations

10.1 Report of the Solicitor to the Council (page 42)

11 Members’ Training

11.1 Report of the Solicitor to the Council (page 44)

12 Guidance to parish councillors on compliance with the Code of Conduct – (EXEMPT ITEM IN PART)

12.1 Report of a member of the Standards Committee (page 51) and (red page 53)

13 Other Business Permitted by the Local Government Act 1972 (if any)

For a matter to be considered as an urgent item, the following question must be addressed:

“What harm to the public interest would flow from leaving it until the next meeting?” If harm can be demonstrated, then it is open to the Chairman to rule that it be considered as urgent. Otherwise the matter cannot be considered urgent within the statutory provisions.

____________________________________

EXEMPT ITEMS

Should the Committee wish to consider a matter as an Exempt Item, the following resolution should be passed –

“(1) That the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items of business on the ground that their consideration will involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in Section 100I of the Local Government Act 1972.”

Also, if appropriate, the following resolution should be passed –

“(2) That members of the Council who are not members of this Committee be invited to remain.”

MOBILE PHONES, PAGERS AND SIMILAR CALLING DEVICES

All persons attending this meeting are requested to turn off these devices in accordance with the Council’s statement concerning disturbance caused by such apparatus. The Chairman may approve an exception to this request in special circumstances.

EMERGENCY EVACUATION PROCEDURE

ON HEARING THE ALARM – (a continuous two tone siren)

Leave the room by the nearest exit door. Ensure that windows are closed.

Last person out to close the door.

DO NOT stop to collect personal belongings.

DO NOT use the lifts.

FOLLOW the green and white exit signs and make your way to the assembly point.

DO NOT re-enter the building until authorised to do so by the Fire Authority.

GO TO ASSEMBLY POINT D – THE CAR PARK OPPOSITE MAIN RECEPTION

MINUTES

OF THE MEETING OF THE

Standards Committee

Wednesday 4th December 2002

HELD AT THE TOWN HALL, WESTON-SUPER-MARE, SOMERSET.

Meeting Commenced: 6.30 p.m. Meeting Concluded: 8.35 p.m.

PRESENT:

District Councillors

John Clark (Chairman), Nicholas Brown, Michael Lyall, John Wiltshire.

Independent Members

Mr. C.R. Williams and Mr. P.W. Barrett.

Parish/Town Council Member

Parish Councillor Tony Horry.

STD

Election of Vice-Chair (Agenda Item 3)

RESOLVED: that Councillor Nicholas Brown be elected Vice-Chair of the Committee for the current year.

STD

Minutes of the Meeting held on 2nd October 2002 (Agenda Item 5)

RESOLVED: that the minutes of the meeting be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

STD

Model Code of Local Government Conduct

The Committee referred to the report to the last meeting regarding the unwillingness of Puxton Parish Council to adopt the Model Code, and to decisions made at that meeting.

The Solicitor to the Council confirmed that as Monitoring Officer, he had written to Puxton Parish Council requesting confirmation as to whether or not it intended to adopt the Model Code. A response was awaited.

The Committee reiterated its concern at this failure to adopt the Model Code.

The Solicitor to the Council reported that he had arranged with the Electoral Services Manager for information on the Code to be included with the nomination forms to be issued in connection with the May 2003 Local Government Elections.

RESOLVED:

(1) that the Solicitor to the Council, as Monitoring Officer, (i) invite the Chairman and the Clerk of Puxton Parish Council to the next meeting to explain the Parish Council’s position, (ii) write to the Standards Board to obtain their advice on what should be done in this situation;

(2) that the proposed action of including information on the Code of Local Government Conduct with the nomination forms to be issued for the May 2003 Local Government Elections be endorsed.

STD

Probity of Planning (Agenda Item 7)

The Solicitor to the Council informed the Committee that the Local Government Association had published revised guidance on the local code of conduct for Members dealing with planning applications. It was emphasised that given the importance of planning issues to applicants and neighbours, and the effect it could have on land values it was vital that institutional structures were in place to ensure and demonstrate probity in planning.

The Council had already demonstrated its commitment to general probity in various ways, and the report addressed issues raised specifically in relation to planning control.

The Solicitor to the Council commented that planning was being highlighted, because it was regarded by the Local Government Association as an area that was causing disquiet, and required guidance.

Councillor Wiltshire expressed concern at the way North Somerset conducted site meetings, which he perceived as debates between applicants and objectors.

The Committee did not consider there was significant corruption. Councillor Brown commented that for many members of the public, it was not clear that because the Council was considering a planning application, it was acting impartially. There was a perception that the Council was partial. The same Member commented that it would be helpful to issue guidance explaining what is and what is not a valid planning objection. He added that when decisions were made, there were no indications as to how objections were dealt with. This gave the perception that objections were ignored.

The Development Control Manager commented that because of the large number of objections, it would not be practical to reply to each objector in detail. Hence a “bespoke” reply was given.

Mr. Williams expressed his unease at the involvement of officers in pre-application discussions.

The Committee noted that the Planning Department received approximately 2,500 applications per year, most of which were uncontroversial. Hence, the logic of delegating decisions on the majority of applications to officers.

It was pointed out by Councillor Wiltshire, that no single officer made a decision on a planning application, and that if any objections were received, the local Ward Councillor(s) were notified automatically.

The Assistant Director, Planning and Environment, said that whole lobbying did occur to some extent, it was important that Members and officers were seen to be above undue influence. He suggested, based on previous experience, that prior to receiving a report on a planning application, it may be appropriate for the relevant Committee to receive a report setting out the issues involved.

The Development Control Manager highlighted the importance of the Local Plan, and commented that Area Committees should have regard to the Local Plan when making decisions. He commented also that pre-application discussions helped to break the cycle of negotiations that often delayed planning decisions. It was pointed out that the current Green Paper made it clear that pre-application discussions would continue.

In response to a query by the Chairman, the Solicitor to the Council confirmed that the Officers’ Hospitality Book was not open for public inspection. Officers’ status differed from that of Councillors, having regard to their employment relationship and human rights. The Committee was advised that it could look at the Officers’ Hospitality Book to satisfy itself from a probity standpoint.

The Chairman considered that a key issue, was a regular or annual review of planning decisions, to assess the quality of the decision making process.

1. Public Participation – The right of the public to speak on planning applications at Area Committees was being introduced on a limited basis by North Somerset Council from 1st January 2003.

2. Training for Councillors (including the conduct of Area Committees).

3. Improve the communication of reasons for decisions.

The Development Control Manager reported that Members’ training was programmed to take place early after the May 2003 elections. Other matters to be addressed included a better definition of the delegation arrangements (Sections 1 and 2 on the reports of the Director of Planning and Environment to Area Committees), and between definitions of employee applications and Councillor applications.

Parish Councillor Horry said that Parish Councils often made comments on planning applications which were not valid on planning grounds, how could the public be expected to understand the planning process.

The Chairman pointed out that the revised guidance advised Ward Councillors against lobbying other Councillors.

The Development Control Manager considered that by and large, objectors were not cut off from the planning process. This was indicated by the large volume of objections to planning applications that planning officers received promptly either in writing or by telephone or by e-mail.

RESOLVED

(1) that the officer’s summary of the revised guidance on the local code of conduct for Members dealing with planning applications headed “Probity in Planning” be drawn to the attention of the Executive;

(2) that the Executive be recommended to support as best practice, a regular annual review of planning decisions, to assess the quality of the decision making process;

(3) that the commitment to the need for training on planning issues to be offered to all Councillors early in the life of the new Council be endorsed;

(4) that the Executive be requested to provide the Standards Committee with a small budget of £500 to enable it when necessary to purchase publications (such as the revised guidance on the local code of conduct for Members dealing with planning applications which would assist the Committee in its discussions.

STD

Membership of the Standards Committee:

Independent Members and Town and Parish Council Representative (Agenda Item 8)

The Committee considered a report which outlined the position of the Independent Members and Town and Parish Council representative and arrangements used previously for selection and appointment.

The Independent Members and the Parish Council commented that generally, they were satisfied with the selection and appointment process.

The Committee asked the Solicitor to the Council to:

1. investigate the logic of using a system of a single transferable vote but which specified voting for up to three candidates, marking, one, two or three in order of preference

2. the means of an Independent Member being Chairman of the Committee

3 amend the wording of clause 2 of the person specification for an Independent Member, so that the emphasis on direct experience of local government is reduced.

RESOLVED: that a simple procedure be prepared on arrangements for the selection and appointment of Independent Members and the Town and Parish Council representative on the Standards Committee, subject to clarification of Items 2 and 3 in the preamble to this minute.

________________________________

Chairman

________________________________

FINANCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY SELECT COMMITTEE

3RD MARCH 2003

D R A F T E X T R A C T

STD

Review of Scrutiny Activity (Agenda Item 6.2)

Councillor Kehoe presented the report of the working group, which comprised Councillors Blatchford, Cook, Kehoe and Stevens. The report provided a basis for improving the effectiveness of scrutiny and identified five areas which should be addressed –

1. Establishing a structure for overview and scrutiny that is clear and simple.

2. Establishing a workload for the Committee that is focused on priorities and within its capacity.

3. Assisting Members to understand their role in overview and scrutiny and build their ability to fulfil this role.

4. Generating a Chairmanship structure, which supports the delivery of outcomes from the overview and scrutiny process.

5. Developing and supporting committee behaviours that encourages in depth discussion of the agenda item and its purpose.

The report detailed a number of options that could be considered to achieve improvement in these areas. It was recommended that the report be forwarded to the Leader and the other members of the Executive for a response on how best, and when, to agree and implement an improved overview and scrutiny process.

Members discussed the suggested improvements in some detail, making particular reference to chairmanship, research resources and the scrutiny role. It was noted that political balance did apply to Select Committees and therefore a committee, which had been greatly reduced in size, would effectively exclude individual members who were not part of a group.

Members believed that the report should be referred to the other Select Committees, for consideration.

CONCLUDED: that the report be accepted and the contents be forwarded to the Leader, the Executive members, the other three Select Committees and appropriate officers, in its entirety, for comments and that the analysis be incorporated on this committee’s work plan for the new administration.

Review of Scrutiny Activity

Topic: Working Group's report on improving the effectiveness of scrutiny

Reason: The report results from the recognised difficulties encountered by scrutiny committees to deliver financial or service improvements.

Objective: The committee is asked to decide …
a) whether to accept the recommendation that the report be forwarded the Executive as it stands, with agreed amendments, or not at all.
b) what further action is needed or appropriate within the Financial Accountability Select Committee.

Suggested approach: Members are asked to read and assess the report before the meeting and be prepared to develop the options it contains.

Suggested time: 20 - 30 minutes