Agenda and draft minutes

Minutes of meeting held on 18^th June, 2009 (previously circulated). 

The Minutes of the meeting held 18^th June, 2009, were agreed as a true and accurate record.

There were none.

There were none.

The Monitoring Officer reported that at its meeting on 18^th June, 2009, the Committee reviewed its complaints procedure documentation, including the Assessment Criteria.

At that time, minute 10 refers, the Committee, resolved:

1)                  That a statement be included in the introduction of the complaints form indicating that guidance on completing the form was attached

2)                  That the section on “other action” in the guidance be amended to emphasise that a referral for “other action” is not a finding of breach of the Code of Conduct.

3)                  That the Monitoring Officer be requested to consider an amendment  to B1 of the Assessment Criteria, removing the reference to “cost”, and to report back to a future meeting of the Committee.

4)                  That the complaints documentation and procedure be kept under review from time to time.

In relation to 3 above the Monitoring Officer had reviewed the Assessment Criteria  adopted by a number of local authorities and whilst some had adopted a criteria similar to B1 the reference to cost was by no means uniform and was not a Standards for England requirement. She suggested the following amendment:

“Where the allegation discloses a potential breach of the Code of Conduct sufficiently serious, if proven, to warrant a sanction, and where it would be in the public interest to investigate.”

Resolved:

That the proposed amendment to paragraph B1 of the Assessment Criteria for referring an allegation to the Monitoring Officer for investigation, as set out above, be approved.

The Monitoring Officer reported that the Committee’s work programme provided for the Committee to receive information about the number of complaints received and their outcome at six monthly intervals.

Attached to the report was a table summarising the situation since April which indicated one complaint that had not been finalised at the time of the April meeting and one further complaint received since.

Resolved:

That the report be noted.

The Committee considered the report of the Monitoring Officer which indicated that at its meeting on 18^th June, 2009, the Committee had received a report on the Standards Committee (Further Provisions) (England) Regulations 2009, which included new provisions clarifying the grounds on which standards committees may grant dispensations to local authority members.

If a member acts in accordance with a dispensation, any participation in business prohibited by the mandatory provisions of the Code of Conduct will not constitute a failure to comply with the Code.

The circumstances where a standards committee may grant a dispensation to a member or co-opted member were:

·         Where more than 50% of the members who would, but for the granting of any dispensations in relation to that business, be entitled to vote at a meeting, are prohibited from voting; or

·         Where the number of members that are prohibited from voting at the meeting would, but for the granting of any dispensation in relation to that business, upset the political balance of the meeting to the extent that the outcome of voting would be prejudiced.

A request for dispensation must be submitted in writing to the standards committee. A dispensation can only be granted in respect of business arising in the period of four years following the grant of the dispensation.

The Standards Board had now published guidance for standards committees on dispensations and a copy of the Guidance was appended to the report. It was recommended that whenever a request was received for dispensation it should be considered by the Committee on its own merits taking account of the Standards for England Guidance.

The Guidance also indicated that standards committees should consider if a member submitting a written request should be allowed to make oral representations to the committee or whether the application would be dealt with only through written representation.  The Committee was requested to consider this matter.

Furthermore the standards committees may, if they so choose, set up a sub-committee to consider requests for dispensations.

Resolved:

1)                  That the Committee agree that each request for dispensation be considered on its merits, taking account of the Standards Board Guidance.

2)                  That the Committee delegate to an ad hoc sub-committee of three members, chaired by an independent member, the authority to determine applications for dispensations, and that such sub-committees be convened by the Head of Democratic Services in the same way as Assessment Sub-Committee.

3)                  That applications for dispensations be submitted in writing and that the applicant be permitted to attend before the Sub-Committee to make representations and be required to attend if so requested by the committee to provide further information.

The Monitoring Officer submitted a report detailing progress on the Committee’s work programme for 2009. The Committee were advised that there had been no further consultation on the proposed revised Code of Conduct and that the internal ethical governance survey was due to commence shortly. The remaining items had either been completed and reported previously or were on the agenda for the meeting.

The Chairman made reference to the training undertaken by the Monitoring Officer for the new Morecambe Town Council which he had also attended for part of the session. The meeting had been well attended by members of the Town Council.

Resolved:

That the work programme be noted.

The Committee considered a report from the Monitoring Officer on a review of the Planning Protocol, to which she had made some minor amendments, mainly to reflect the fact that Code of Conduct complaints were now made to the Standards Committee rather than to Standards for England.

A copy of the Protocol, with the proposed amendments highlighted, was attached to the report.

The proposed amendments to the Protocol also included those suggested by the Head of Planning and the Head of Democratic Services.

The Protocol had worked well in the past, and officers were satisfied that, with the proposed amendments, it reflected current good practice.

In considering the report the Committee recommended further minor amendments to the protocol.

Concern was expressed regarding the addition of potential meetings with applicants of major strategic developments and the danger this presented to Planning Committee members in inadvertently breaching the Code of Conduct.

Following consideration by the Standards Committee amendments to the Protocol would be forwarded to the Council Business Committee for approval.

Resolved:

1)                  That the proposed amendments to the Planning Protocol, as now outlined, and as appended to the minutes, be forwarded to the Council Business Committee for approval and inclusion in the Council’s Constitution.

2)                  That officers be requested to arrange additional awareness training for Planning Committee members and their substitutes on the amendments to the Protocol, and in particular the new arrangements for members involvement in major planning applications.