Agenda and draft minutes

Public Speaking: To register your intention to speak at a Council, Cabinet or Committee meeting, please contact Democratic Services on committee@uttlesford.gov.uk or 01799 510410, 510548, 510369 or 510467. Panel, Forum and Working Group meetings do not generally permit public speaking. Please refer to a specific meeting's pdf agenda pack for further information and registration deadlines.

Live Broadcast: For Council, Cabinet and Committee meetings the video player will be available on this page under the Media banner a few minutes before the meeting is due to begin. Please note that Panel, Board, Forum and Working Group meetings are not generally broadcast on the website. The Council uses Zoom and Youtube to broadcast its meetings. Please note that Zoom and YouTube have their own privacy and data security policies, which can be accessed at www.zoom.us and www.youtube.com.

Venue: Zoom - https://zoom.us/. View directions

Contact: Democratic Services  Email: committee@uttlesford.gov.uk

Media

Items
No. Item

SC1

Apologies for Absence and Declarations of Interest

To receive any apologies for absence and declarations of interest.

Minutes:

Apologies were received from Councillors R Jones and P Lavelle.  

 

SC2

Call in of the Cabinet decision to approve the Corporate Plan Delivery Plan 2021/22 pdf icon PDF 92 KB

To consider the Cabinet decision to approve the Corporate Plan Delivery Plan 2021/22.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Chair introduced the item and invited Members to address their questions to Councillor Reeve as the Portfolio Holder for the Economy and Investment.

 

Councillor Dean referred to the last four pages of the corporate plan delivery plan (CPDP) in respect of being the “Champion for our District”. He highlighted the lack of identified activities and outputs/ milestones on many of the actions and questioned whether these pages were necessary at all. He also referred to “Putting Residents First 1b. Be a council that listens and acts for residents” and noted that no activities and outputs/milestones were shown and he highlighted the use of the phrase “business as usual (BAU) throughout the document. He also said that references to “new settlements” were out of place as there were currently none and there were no ideas for commercial delivery. In summary he said that he considered the document was not fit for purpose and required more work to be done.

 

Councillor Reeve said that he had listened to points made by Councillor Dean over the past year. He said that the items listed in the left-hand column of the document had all been approved as the Corporate Plan by the Council in February 2021 and that the intention was to monitor progress over four years of the Administration through the CPDP. He also referred to his written response to the Chair and Vice-Chair following the Cabinet meeting.

 

Councillor Dean said that he had no recollection of having seen the written response and the Chair said that he would follow this up.

 

Councillor Sell explained the reason for the call-in. He said that he considered that the views expressed by Scrutiny Committee had not been given a fair hearing at Cabinet. He said that Councillor Reeve had appeared to be suggesting that all problems revolved around the presentational format of the document but that this was not the case.

 

Councillor Reeve said that he had taken the comments seriously as shown in his written response. He referred to the view expressed by Scrutiny Committee to strip out the BAU elements but said that a decision had been taken to retain these elements as part of one document.

 

Councillor Dean left the meeting at 7.30pm

 

Councillor Sell said that he considered that targets and performance indicator measurements had not been sufficiently discussed at Cabinet, whereas there had been much talk by Councillor Reeve of the presentational format.

 

Councillor Reeve said that he had listened but disagreed on the presentational concerns that had been raised. He also stated that there had been specific references within the CPDP to other significant documents in order to avoid duplication e.g. specific plans.

 

The Chair said that his major concern in respect of the CPDP was in terms of specificity and granularity, rather than of presentational issues.

 

Councillor Driscoll suggested some amended wording to the item referring to Locally Led Development Corporations, but the Chief Executive confirmed that as this reference was in the first column of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item SC2