Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Brett Cooper and Elizabeth Scott.

To receive as a correct record the Minutes of the Meeting of the City Council held on 13 January 2016 (previously circulated). 

The minutes of the meeting held on 13 January 2016 were signed by the Mayor as a correct record.

To receive declarations by Members of interests in respect of items on this Agenda. 

Members are reminded that, in accordance with the Localism Act 2011, they are required to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests which have not already been declared in the Council’s Register of Interests. (It is a criminal offence not to declare a disclosable pecuniary interest either in the Register or at the meeting). 

Whilst not a legal requirement, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10 and in the interests of clarity and transparency, Members should declare any disclosable pecuniary interests which they have already declared in the Register, at this point in the meeting. 

In accordance with Part B Section 2 of the Code of Conduct, Members are required to declare the existence and nature of any other interests as defined in paragraphs 8(1) or 9(2) of the Code of Conduct. 

Members are further reminded that Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 applies to any meeting where consideration is given to matters relating to, or which might affect, the calculation of Council Tax.

Any member of a local authority, who is liable to pay Council Tax, and who has any unpaid Council Tax amount overdue for at least two months, even if there is an arrangement to pay off the arrears, must declare the fact that he/she is in arrears and must not vote on any recommendation or decision which might affect the budget or council tax calculation.  It is a criminal offence to fail to comply with this requirement.

Members advised of the following interests at this stage:

Councillor Novell declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in relation to Marsh Community Centre referred to in the Budget and Policy Framework update report, as the Manager of the Centre. (Minute 123 refers.)

Councillor Hamilton-Cox declared an interest (non-prejudicial) in relation to the Budget and Policy Framework update report as the owner of a property other than the one in which he resided.  (Minute 123 refers.)

Councillor Mace declared an interest (non-prejudicial) in relation to the motion regarding The Lancaster Museums as one of the Friends of the Lancaster City Museum. (Minute 119 refers.)

The Mayor declared an interest (non-prejudicial) as a Trustee of Marsh Community Centre. (Minute 123 refers.)

On behalf of the Council, the Mayor expressed congratulations to Honorary Alderman Jean Yates on being awarded the honour of Member of the Order of the British Empire (MBE) in the New Year’s Honours for her political service and service to the community in Lancashire.

The Mayor then announced that, in view of the number of addressers and questioners who had registered to speak at the meeting, he would be re-ordering the agenda to take item 12, the motion on Lancaster Museums, before item 10, the Leader’s report.

The Mayor advised that three questions for Councillor Janice Hanson had been received from members of the public, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11, and copies of all the questions were on Members’ tables.  He invited Ms Lucy Reynolds to put her question to the Council.

Ms Reynolds asked:

Aside from the space created for one or two more potential market stalls if the trees were removed, what evidence do you have that the felling will have a positive impact on Lancaster’s economy and visitor experience? If a cheaper and more environmentally sustainable solution that benefited the economy and visitor experience was proposed would you consider it?

Councillor Hanson indicated that she would make her response when all three questions had been asked.

The Mayor reported that the second questioner, Dr Rebecca Hibbin, was unable to attend and he had agreed to put her question (in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11.7).

The Mayor read Dr Hibbin’s question:

The academic literature on crime and environmental design is suggestive of a strong negative correlation between tree cover and indexes of crime, whereby vegetation abundance has been found to be significantly associated with lower rates of violent assault, robbery, and burglary. In addition, the magnitude of this association has been found to be stronger on public lands relative to private. In the light of such academic research to what extent does the council feel that it is sensible to be cutting down the lime trees in Market Square, particularly at a time when cuts to services may result in such outcomes as reduced monitoring of CCTV due to staffing constraints?

The Mayor then invited Ms Katherine Garrigan to ask her question. Ms Garrigan’s question was:

Evidence shows that having trees in our town and city centres has a positive impact on residents’ health and wellbeing. Specifically, the inclusion of trees impacts on cardio vascular and respiratory diseases, mental and physical health and social inclusion, all of which have been identified as local priorities for the Lancaster district by Public Health England. It has been shown that, the larger the trees, the greater their proportional value.

Given that since the Health and Social Care Act of 2012, local authorities and urban planners are required to take account of and support local strategies to improve public health, using health promotion, prevention and protection measures, can we really afford to ignore this wealth of evidence and fell the mature trees in Market Square?

Councillor Hanson thanked those who had submitted questions and gave the following response:

The City Council has stewardship of a significant amount of public land in this District. By way of context the Council is responsible for the management and maintenance of about 7000 trees in the District, (some are ours some belong to the County Council).  With regard to your questions I would very much agree that the location of properly managed and maintained trees on public land can provide an enormous range of benefits and as you state in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 116.

To receive a petition and address to Council, notification of which has been received by the Chief Executive in accordance with the Council’s Constitution.

Members are advised that the petition has in excess of 200 signatures and relates to a local matter which affects one ward. It has therefore been scheduled for debate at this meeting and a report of the Chief Officer (Governance) is attached, in accordance with the Council’s Petition Scheme.

Ms Cherry Canovan had presented a petition to save the trees in Market Square, Lancaster to Councillor Hanson immediately prior to the meeting. The petition contained more than 1600 signatures and, in accordance with the Petition Scheme in the Council’s Constitution, a report had been prepared to allow debate by the full Council.

The petition was worded:

"We, the undersigned people of Lancaster, oppose cutting down the mature lime trees in Market Square. We call upon Lancaster City Council to reject this proposal.”

Ms Canovan had registered to address Council in accordance with the provisions of the Council’s Petition Scheme and Council Procedure Rule 13. However, in view of Councillor Hanson’s answer to questions from the public, Ms Canovan withdrew her request to speak. Mr Barry Lloyd and Mr Alan Hutchison had also registered to address Council about the trees. Mr Lloyd chose to make his address, Mr Hutchison withdrew his request, for the same reason as Ms Canovan.

The Mayor thanked those who had registered to speak on the item for attending the Council meeting. 

Acknowledging that Councillor Hanson’s statement about retaining the trees had changed matters (minute 116 refers), Councillor Brookes put forward a proposition he had submitted in advance:

“Council values the lime trees in Market Square and does not want to see them removed. Council also recognises that there can be problems with the paving in Market Square and elsewhere, particularly when it is wet.

Council therefore further recommends that Cabinet asks officers to:

·        Carry out more detailed research over the course of a calendar year to identify the extent of any additional slipperiness in the vicinity of trees, including the area affected and any seasonality of the effect.

·        Trial the use of an environmentally friendly residual algicide product as an alternative to frequent pressure washing.

·        Investigate potential methods of treating paving stones to make them less slippery in identified areas.

·        Explore how local businesses and/or the Friends of the Limes group can help the City Council to achieve its aims.”

Councillor Brookes withdrew his motion and it was agreed that the recommendation to Cabinet would be as set out in Councillor Hanson’s reply to the questioner with the addition of Councillor Brookes’ suggestion to involve local businesses and/or the Friends of the Limes. The full recommendation to Cabinet would, therefore, be worded as follows:-

Recommendations to Cabinet:-

Council recommends to Cabinet that:

1)               The trees be retained and that a realistic and affordable management and maintenance regime be put in place in the Square.

2)               Officers be asked to do some further trials of different cleansing methods and products, further research into best practice and so forth.

3)               Once completed, Officers be asked to report back to Cabinet in Autumn 2017 with costed recommendations for Cabinet to consider.

4)               That Officers explore how local businesses and/or the Friends of the Limes group can help the City Council to achieve its aims.

To receive a petition and address from Mr Allan Denham, notification of which has been received by the Chief Executive in accordance with the Council’s Constitution.

Members are advised that the petition has in excess of 200 signatures and relates to a local matter which affects one ward. It has therefore been scheduled for debate at this meeting and a report of the Chief Officer (Regeneration and Planning) is attached, in accordance with the Council’s Petition Scheme.

The Mayor invited Mr Allan Denham to present a petition and address Council in accordance with the provisions of the Council’s Petition Scheme and Council Procedure Rule 13. The petition read as follows:

"We, the undersigned support the campaign to urge Lancaster City Council not to build on green belt land GB4 (land between Manor Lane, Slyne-with-Hest and Greenwood Avenue, Greenwood Drive, Greenwood Crescent and Pinewood Avenue, Bolton-le-Sands) as outlined in the recent leaflet ‘Developing a Local Plan for Lancaster District 2011-2031’.”

Mr Denham made his address to Council and was thanked by the Mayor, who noted that the petition related to one ward and contained more than 1,100 signatures. Therefore, in accordance with the Petition Scheme in the Council’s Constitution, a report had been prepared to allow debate by the full Council.

Regeneration and Planning Officers responded to questions from Members about the report.

Councillor Hanson responded on behalf of the Council as the relevant Cabinet Member and thanked Mr Denham for attending Council.  She then proposed:

“That full consideration of the issue be deferred until a draft Local Plan is debated in due course.”

Councillor Blamire seconded the proposition.

There was a short debate before a vote was taken on the proposition, which was clearly carried.

Resolved:

That full consideration of the issue be deferred until a draft Local Plan is debated in due course.

The Mayor informed Council that two members of the public, Dr Michael Winstanley and Mr David Redmore, had registered to address Council about the Lancaster Museums and the Judges Lodgings. A copy of each address was on Members’ tables.

Dr Michael Winstanley addressed Council first and Councillors listened to his address.

The Mayor thanked Dr Winstanley and invited Mr Redmore to speak.

Councillors listened to Mr Redmore’s address.

The Mayor thanked Mr Redmore, and advised that the motion which the speakers had referred to in their addresses would be debated next (minute 120 refers).

To consider the following motion submitted by Cllrs Nick Wilkinson Councillors, June Ashworth, Dave Brookes, Susie Charles, Tim Hamilton-Cox, Caroline Jackson, and Roger Mace:

That;

1)    The Council asks the Chief Executive to write to the County Council by 12^th February 2016 to request the following:

a)     that the County Council review the option of supporting the creation of a financially sustainable Lancaster-wide museum organisation of some kind (for example a charitable Trust). This review should include appropriate consultation with partner organisations (including the City Council, the Duchy of Lancaster and existing Friends Groups) and a full review of the service model for the museums

b)     to not dispose of the Judges Lodgings building or relocate its contents until this option has been fully investigated

2)  The City Council supports the principle of investigating the creation of a financially sustainable Lancaster-wide museums organisation, initially to include the Judges Lodgings with the Maritime, City Museum and the Cottage Museum and to include when practicable such access to Lancaster Castle as may be negotiated with the Duchy.

Letter of support (appended to this motion):

Professor Mark E. Smith, Vice-Chancellor, Lancaster University

Professor Peter Strike, Vice-Chancellor, University of Cumbria

Ruth Connor, Chief Executive, Marketing Lancashire

John Regan, Chair, Chamber of Commerce

Paul Cusimano, Chair, Lancaster Business Improvement District

Ivan Wadeson, Executive Director, the Dukes

Jacqueline Greaves, Chair, Litfest

Di Cumming, Chief Executive, ludusdance

1.     Introduction

1.1.  The museums of Lancaster are all currently run by Lancashire County Council and comprise of the following museums:

·        The City Museum (Lancaster City Council owned) - attracts circa 50,000 visitors per annum

·        The Maritime Museum (Lancaster City Council owned)- attracts circa 12,000 visitors per annum

·        The Cottage Museum (Lancaster City Council owned) - attracts circa 7,000 visitors per annum

·        Lancaster Castle (Duchy owned but leased to Lancashire County Council)- attracts circa 50,000 visitors per annum

·        The Judges Lodgings (Lancashire County Council owned) - attracts circa 12,000 visitors per annum

1.2.  The City Council entered into an agreement with the County Council to run the City Council's museums (City, Maritime and Cottage museums) from 31^st March 2003. The contract currently has a value of around £500K per annum. Previous to this date the City Council had run its museums in house.  It is understood that the aim of moving the City owned museums to the County Council was to ensure continued professional museums services are maintained (e.g. curator and conservation services etc.) at an affordable cost.

1.3.  The County Council is having to make further budget cuts of £262m and has identified that, amongst others, the Judges Lodgings museum in Lancaster will need to close by 31^st March 2016 and large cuts are planned in the County museums service which will impact on the other Lancaster museums.Essentially the County Council are stating that they will no longer be providing a comprehensive museum service.

1.4.  These planned museum cuts will have a direct impact on the quality of the visitor experience in the District  ...  view the full agenda text for item 120.

The following motion of which notice had been given to the Chief Executive in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 15 was moved by Councillor Wilkinson and seconded by Councillor Mace:-

“That;

1)    The Council asks the Chief Executive to write to the County Council by 12^th February 2016 to request the following:

a)       that the County Council review the option of supporting the creation of a financially sustainable Lancaster-wide museum organisation of some kind (for example a charitable Trust). This review should include appropriate consultation with partner organisations (including the City Council, the Duchy of Lancaster and existing Friends Groups) and a full review of the service model for the museums

b)       to not dispose of the Judges Lodgings building or relocate its contents until this option has been fully investigated

2)   The City Council supports the principle of investigating the creation of a financially sustainable Lancaster-wide museums organisation, initially to include the Judges Lodgings with the Maritime, City Museum and the Cottage Museum and to include when practicable such access to Lancaster Castle as may be negotiated with the Duchy.

Supporting information was supplied with the motion and letters of support were appended from:-

Professor Mark E. Smith, Vice-Chancellor, Lancaster University

Professor Peter Strike, Vice-Chancellor, University of Cumbria

Ruth Connor, Chief Executive, Marketing Lancashire

John Regan, Chair, Chamber of Commerce

Paul Cusimano, Chair, Lancaster Business Improvement District

Ivan Wadeson, Executive Director, the Dukes

Jacqueline Greaves, Chair, Litfest

Di Cumming, Chief Executive, ludusdance

An officer briefing note accompanied the motion on the agenda and the Chief Executive responded to Members’ questions on the briefing note.

An amendment to the motion was moved by Councillor Clifford, seconded by Councillor Blamire:

“That

1)           Council asks the Chief Executive to write to Lancashire County Council by 12th February 2016 to request the following:

a)           That the county council support in principle the option of the creation of a financially sustainable museum organisation of some kind (for example a charitable trust) to run the Judges Lodgings.

b)           Council welcomes the stated position of Lancashire County Council to not dispose of the Judges Lodgings building or relocate its contents until this option has been fully investigated.

2)             The future of the Maritime and Cottage museums will be reviewed, alongside moves to encourage the County Council to explore community running of its museums provision, with the aim of securing the museums future in this district. Council will therefore await the findings of the Aitken, Pearce & Prince report prior to any decision.

3)                           The City Council supports in principle that future marketing strategies should include the entire museums offer for Lancaster to ensure we capitalise on our heritage.

4)                           Although any work undertaken by the county council will be valuable, the city council will be required to directly consider any proposals that may arise from a review of its own museums on its own behalf, in order to evaluate financial, legal, service delivery implications, risk and opportunities in detail. This should also normally include an  ...  view the full minutes text for item 120.

The Leader presented her report updating Members on various issues since her last report to Council. She then responded to a number of questions from Councillors.

Resolved:

That the report be noted. 

Report of the Chief Executive

Report to follow

The Mayor informed Council that, since it was approaching the two hour point for an adjournment, and the next item was likely to take some time, he would take agenda item 18 before the break.

(The Democratic Services Manager left the meeting at this point, having an interest in the following report.)

The Chief Executive submitted a report seeking approval to designate a Monitoring Officer with effect from 1 March 2016, due to the retirement of the current Monitoring Officer on 29 February 2016. 

Members asked a number of questions, which the Chief Executive responded to.

Councillor Blamire seconded by Councillor Leyshon proposed:

“(1)    That the Democratic Services Manager, Debbie Chambers, be designated as the Council’s Monitoring Officer with effect from 1 March 2016.”

A vote was then taken on the proposition, which was clearly carried.

Resolved:

(1)     That the Democratic Services Manager, Debbie Chambers, be designated as the Council’s Monitoring Officer with effect from 1 March 2016.

(The Democratic Services Manager returned to the meeting at this point.)

 The meeting adjourned at 8pm, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10.1, reconvening at 8.10pm)

Report of Cabinet.

(Councillor Novell, having previously declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in the Marsh Community Centre, left the Chamber at several points during the following item when funding for the Centre was discussed.)

Councillor Newman-Thompson, the Cabinet Member for Finance, presented a report of Cabinet updating Council on the latest position regarding the development of the budget and policy framework for 2016/17 to 2019/20 and, in that context, seeking approval of the level of council tax increase for 2016/17 together with targets for subsequent years, subject to local referendum thresholds.

The Mayor advised Members that, in accordance with the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014 and Council Procedure Rule 19.7, a recorded vote would need to be taken in respect of the second part of the recommendation in the report, as this would be a ‘budget decision’ within the terms of the regulations.

Members asked a number of questions, which Councillor Newman-Thompson and the Chief Officer (Resources) responded to.

Councillor Newman-Thompson, seconded by Councillor Clifford, proposed:

“That the revised 2015/16 budget be approved, with the net underspending of £503K reducing the in-year call on balances from £1M to £470K.”

During the course of debate on the proposition, four issues were raised to provide feedback to Cabinet. These were suggestions to:

·        amend the Medium Term Financial Strategy to allow a zero based budgeting approach

·        grant fund the Marsh Community Centre from the Housing Revenue Account budget instead of the General Fund

·        fund the £100k for ICT (digital workplace) from the invest-to-save reserve to allow PCSO funding for another year

·        review the periods of discretionary discount and exemption from council tax currently provided for empty homes.

At the end of debate, a vote was taken and the proposition was carried.

Councillor Newman-Thompson, seconded by Councillor Leyshon, then proposed:

“That a City Council tax increase of 1.99% for 2016/17, together with a year on year target of 1.99% for future years, be approved, subject to local referendum thresholds.”

Councillor Edwards proposed, by way of amendment:

“That there be a freeze on council tax for this year.”

Councillor Wild seconded the amendment.

The Mayor called for a recorded vote on the amendment. The amendment was lost, with the votes recorded as follows:

19 Members voted for the amendment (Councillors Ashworth, Askew, Bateson, Charles, Edwards, Gardiner, Goodrich, Guilding, Helme, Joan Jackson, Mace, Parkinson, Rogerson, Sykes, Thomas, Wild, Peter Williamson, Phillippa Williamson and Yates.

37 Members voted against the amendment (Councillors Armstrong, Atkinson, Barry, Biddulph, Blamire, Brayshaw, Brookes, Brown, Bryning, Clifford, Cozler, Denwood, Devey, Hall, Hamilton-Cox, Hanson, Hartley, Hughes, Caroline Jackson, Kay, Kershaw, Leyshon, Leytham, Mann, Metcalfe, Mills, Novell, Newman-Thompson, Pattison, Redfern, Sands, Sherlock, Smith, Warriner, Whitaker, Whitehead, Wilkinson).

There were no abstentions.

The Mayor then called for a recorded vote on the substantive proposition, which was carried, with the votes recorded as follows:

37 Members voted for the proposition (Councillors Armstrong, Atkinson, Barry, Biddulph, Blamire, Brayshaw, Brookes, Brown, Bryning, Clifford, Cozler, Denwood, Devey, Hall, Hamilton-Cox, Hanson, Hartley, Hughes, Caroline Jackson, Kay, Kershaw, Leyshon,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 123.

Report of the Chief Executive.

The Chief Executive submitted a report advising Council of the calculations relating to the allocation of seats in accordance with the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and the Council’s agreed protocol, following a Member’s change of political affiliation.

Members asked a number of questions, which the Chief Officer (Governance) responded to.

Councillor Blamire, seconded by Councillor Leyshon proposed:

“(1)   That in accordance with Section 15 of the Local Government and Housing Act, 1989 and Part 4 of the Local Government (Committees and Political Groups) Regulations, 1990, the City Council approves the calculations and allocation of seats set out in Appendices B and C of the report.

(2)     That Councillor Hamilton-Cox be removed from, and Councillor Armstrong be added to, the Budget and Performance Panel and that Councillor Novell be removed from, and Councillor Denwood added to the Licensing Regulatory Committee.

(3)     That Councillor Mills be appointed to the vacant Green Group place on the Council Business Committee and that the substitute members for the Green Group for the Budget and Performance Panel and the Licensing Regulatory Committee be Councillor Hamilton-Cox and Councillor Novell, respectively.”

A vote was then taken on the proposition, which was clearly carried.

Resolved:

(1)     That in accordance with Section 15 of the Local Government and Housing Act, 1989 and Part 4 of the Local Government (Committees and Political Groups) Regulations, 1990, the City Council approves the calculations and allocation of seats set out in Appendices B and C of the report.

(2)     That Councillor Hamilton-Cox be removed from, and Councillor Armstrong be added to, the Budget and Performance Panel and that Councillor Novell be removed from, and Councillor Denwood added to the Licensing Regulatory Committee.

(3)     That Councillor Mills be appointed to the vacant Green Group place on the Council Business Committee and that the substitute members for the Green Group for the Budget and Performance Panel and the Licensing Regulatory Committee be Councillor Hamilton-Cox and Councillor Novell, respectively.

(The Chief Officer (Resources) left the meeting at this point, having an interest in the following report.)

The Chief Officer (Resources) left the Chamber The Chief Officer (Governance) submitted a report asking Council to consider a request to change the date of the Cabinet meeting scheduled for 22 March 2016 to 29 March 2016. The report also recommended that an additional Council meeting be held on 23 March 2016 to enable Council to consider the recommendations of the Chief Executive’s Recruitment Committee on the appointment of a new Chief Executive.

Councillor Blamire, seconded by Councillor Leyshon, proposed:

“(1)    That the recommendation, as set out in the report, be approved.”

A vote was then taken on the proposition, which was clearly carried.

Resolved:

(1)     That the date of the Cabinet meeting currently scheduled for Tuesday 22 March 2016 be changed to Tuesday 29 March 2016 and that an additional Council meeting be scheduled for Wednesday 23 March 2016.

(The Chief Officer (Resources) returned to the meeting.)

To receive the Minutes of Meeting of Cabinet held on 19 January 2016. 

Council considered the Cabinet minutes of the meeting held on 19 January 2016. The Leader responded to Members’ questions.

Resolved:

That the minutes be noted.

Council is recommended to pass the following recommendation in relation to the following item:- 

“That, in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act, 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item(s) of business, on the grounds that they could involve the possible disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 5 of Schedule 12A of that Act.” 

Members are reminded that, whilst the following item has been marked as exempt, it is for Council itself to decide whether or not to consider it in private or in public. In making the decision, Members should consider the relevant paragraph of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, and also whether the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. In considering their discretion, Members should also be mindful of the advice of Council officers.

The Mayor reminded Council that it had been recommended to exclude the press and public from the meeting for the following item on the grounds that it could involve the possible disclosure of exempt information.

Councillor Newman-Thompson moved, seconded by Councillor Clifford:

“That, in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act, 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business, on the grounds that it could involve the possible disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 5 of Schedule 12A of that Act.” 

A vote was taken and the motion was carried.

Resolved:

That, in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act, 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business, on the grounds that it could involve the possible disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 5 of Schedule 12A of that Act. 

(Members of the press and public left the Council Chamber at this point.)

Report of the Chief Officer (Regeneration and Planning) and Chief Officer (Governance).

Council considered a report of the Chief Officer (Regeneration and Planning) and Chief Officer (Governance), providing legal advice on the local plan housing requirements study.

Councillor Hanson proposed, seconded by Councillor Warriner:

“That Council accepts the Turley work as establishing the objectively assessed need for the evidence base, withdraws the most recent instructions and moves to complete a draft Local Plan for examination.”

Councillor Mace, seconded by Councillor Gardiner, proposed:

“That Council withdraws the most recent instructions, accepts the Turley work as establishing the objectively assessed need for the evidence base, and moves to complete a draft Local Plan for examination, subject to the outcome of an audit from and organisation of repute which is well versed in this area and is commissioned to take place contemporaneously with continuing work, so that such audit does not delay the production of a draft Local Plan.”

There was a short debate on the amendment before it was put the vote and clearly lost.

The Mayor then called for a vote on the substantive motion, which was clearly carried.

Resolved:

“That Council accepts the Turley work as establishing the objectively assessed need for the evidence base, withdraws the most recent instructions and moves to complete a draft Local Plan for examination.”

The Mayor noted that the items on the agenda which there had not been time to consider (items 13, 14 and 17) would be deferred to the next meeting of Council on 2 March 2016, and that written answers to Councillors’ questions submitted under Council Procedure Rule 13.2 would be circulated by Democratic Services (item 19 refers).