Agenda and minutes

Mr Woodcock addressed Council. A summary of his statement is appended to these minutes.

To receive any apologies and declarations of interest.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Criscione, Day, Luck and Freeman.

Councillor de Vries declared a non-pecuniary interest as a member of Saffron Walden Town Council in respect of Item 8.

To receive the minutes of the previous meeting held on 19 July 2022.

The minutes of the meetings on 19 July 2022 were approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record of the meeting.

In respect of C34, Councillor Sell asked whether the statement made by the Chief Executive was correct and whether all group leaders had been consulted on alternative speaking arrangements for the meeting.

In respect of C25, it was confirmed that Councillor Freeman had been in contact with Little Canfield Parish Council regarding parking issues in Prior Green. Councillor Lees confirmed that he had.

To receive any announcements from the Chair.

The Chair provided a brief update on appointments she had attended since the previous meeting including events to mark the passing of HM Queen Elizabeth II and a celebratory event in Great Dunmow.

To receive matters of report from the Leader and members of the Executive.

Three reports from the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Stansted Airport, Infrastructure Strategy and the Local Plan, the Portfolio Holder for Environment and Green Issues; Equalities and the Portfolio Holder for Sports, Leisure and the Arts were noted.

Councillor Sell said he was concerned by the paucity of Cabinet Member reports and asked that each portfolio submit a regular update to each Full Council meeting.

In response, the Leader said that there was eighteen pages of questions and answers to the executive and there was a large amount of information on the website.

To receive questions from members for the Executive and committee chairmen.

Councillor Khan asked, in reference to Question One, if the Leader of the Council still had confidence in Councillor Evans leading the Planning Portfolio, and whether it was appropriate for him to continue to draw the special allowance for that role, given his failure to oversee the work.

Councillor Lees responded that the Cabinet worked incredibly hard and diligently, and that she stood behind her Portfolio Holder.

In reference to Question Two, Councillor Barker noted that there was more work to be done in regards to improving the Energy Performance Certificate ratings of the Council’s housing. She looked forward to seeing the plans on how Uttlesford Norse intended to do this.

In reference to Question Three, Councillor Sell agreed that marking the 50^th anniversary of the first elections to Uttlesford District Council was a matter for the new Administration. He suggested that officers noted the date, and if deemed appropriate, looked to mark the occasion in 2024.

Councillor Caton asked, in reference to Question Four, what was the interest rate chargeable on the recent loan from the Public Works Loan Board and what would the resulting reduction in income to the Council be because of the increase in interest rates, if all £170million was borrowed at that rate.

Councillor Hargreaves responded that the interest rate from the Public Works Loan Board was about 4% and the Director of Finance and Corporate Services would confirm the precise figure.

He explained that it was difficult to predict where interest rates would go in the current political climate, but it would be considered as part of the budget planning as payments on some of the existing loans were scheduled to go into the next financial year. He offered no further predictions.

Councillor Smith asked, in reference to Question Five, for a breakdown of the figure provided of £5.9million which covered the last three withdrawn Local Plans. He asked how much of this was for the most recent withdrawn Local Plan in 2020.

Councillor Hargreaves responded that he would forward this information to Councillor Smith. He noted that the information is organised as year-by-year spending so the member would have to look at which years the plans were withdrawn to work out the costings. 

Councillor Light asked, in reference to Question Seven, for the reopening date of the Garden Room Community Centre.

Councillor Lees said that they expected the centre to reopen around November, however the Council were still negotiating to 10-year lease with Saffron Walden Town Council. She suggested that Councillor Light contact Councillor Gadd on the Town Council and the Town Clerk for more information on their timeframes. 

Councillor Light also asked, in reference to Question Eight, if Councillor Sutton could provide a progress update on the Youth Council and if re-establishing a working group would be of value.

Councillor Sutton said that schools had previously found it very difficult to involve their students in anything but their education due to the Covid-19 pandemic. However, they were now in a position  ...  view the full minutes text for item C41

To consider any reports referred from the Executive and the Council’s committees and receive questions and answers on any of those reports.

To consider any reports received from the Cabinet

To note the Code of Conduct Complaints summary report.

Councillor LeCount, Chair of the Standards Committee, presented the report regarding Code of Conduct Complaints.

In response to a question from Councillor Sell, Councillor LeCount said he would provide an answer in writing regarding the support available to the three parish councils referred to in paragraph 9.2 of the report. 

The report was noted.

To consider adopting the LGA new model Code of Conduct.

Councillor LeCount presented the report and proposed adoption of the Local Government Association’s New Model Code of Conduct. He said the new Model Code factored in modern ways of working, such as the use of social media, and thanked the Assistant Director of Governance and Legal, Deputy Monitoring Officer and the Independent Persons for their work.

Councillor Jones seconded the proposal and reserved his right to speak.

Councillor Dean said he had abstained from voting at the Standards Committee meeting on the New Model Code as he felt insufficient time had been spent developing members understanding of the new Code and further work was required before adoption.

Councillor Hargreaves said the Nolan principles could not be incorporated wholesale into the Code as they were subjective, such as the principle of leadership.

Councillor Gregory said training and diligence would be required but it was incorrect to say that this should occur before the Code was adopted.

Councillor Jones said anything that strengthened the current Code was a positive development and endorsed adoption of the new Model Code of Conduct.

RESOLVED to adopt the Model Code (Appendix 1) and associated LGA Guidance.

To consider the report regarding the Scheme of Delegation.

Councillor Oliver, the Chair of the Governance, Audit and Performance Committee, presented the report. He said that amendments were required to the scheme due to changes to personnel and staffing structures.

He proposed that members adopt the revised Scheme of Delegation and commended the report.

Councillor Barker seconded the proposal. She asked that the £3000 figure relating to New Homes’ Bonus was corrected to reflect the £2000 agreed in the Budget.

In response to a question from Councillor Caton regarding the delegated authority of the Director of Planning to manage “all appeal activity”, the Chief Executive said the constitutional changes before members needed to be agreed first before further amendments were applied in line with the recommendations of the Stansted Airport Scrutiny Review. 

            RESOLVED to adopt the revised Scheme of Delegation (Appendix A)

To consider the Procurement Strategy 2022-26.

Councillor Hargreaves presented the report regarding the Procurement Strategy 2022-26. He said the new strategy would enshrine national principles into the Council’s working practices and a manager would be employed to monitor contract procurement.

He proposed that members approve the Procurement Strategy 2022 – 2026.

Councillor Evans seconded the proposal.

Councillor Khan commended the report and was pleased to see a strong theme of project management running through the proposed Strategy.

RESOLVED to approve the Procurement Strategy 2022-2026, as attached at Appendix A.

To consider matters concerning joint arrangements and external organisations.

There were no matters to report.

To consider the report regarding the Saffron Walden Neighbourhood Plan.

Councillor Evans, the Portfolio Holder for Planning, Stansted Airport, Infrastructure Strategy and the Local Plan, presented the report on the Saffron Walden Neighbourhood Plan, which had been approved at referendum on 15 September 2022.

He endorsed the report and proposed that the Saffron Walden Neighbourhood Plan be formally made as part of the statutory development plan for the District.

Councillor de Vries seconded the proposal and reserved his right to speak.

In response to a question from Councillor Isham, Councillor Evans said locations had not been allocated for housing in the Plan but it had met the necessary criteria and the Examiner’s modifications had been included.

In response to a question from Councillor Light, Councillors Evans and Merifield both said that this neighbourhood plan would carry “weight” in planning terms.

Councillor de Vries said the referendum result clearly demonstrated that this was the wish of the community. He urged members to support the proposal.

RESOLVED that the Saffron Walden Neighbourhood Plan (Appendix 1) be formally made as part of the statutory development plan for the District.

To exclude the public and press due to consideration of reports containing exempt information within the meaning of section 100I and paragraphs 1, 3 and 5 part 1 Schedule 12A Local Government Act 1972.

The Chair reordered proceedings to deal with time constraints. The meeting agreed to take Items 11 and 12 next, and would reconvene on Thursday, 13 October at 7.00pm to allow a full debate on Items 9 and 10.

The Chair moved to exclude the public and press to allow members to receive a confidential report.

RESOLVED to exclude the public and press due to consideration of reports containing exempt information within the meaning of section 100I and paragraphs 1, 3 and 5 part 1 Schedule 12A Local Government Act 1972.  

To receive the report regarding the Ombudsman Complaint.

The Chief Executive presented the report for information.

He took questions on the matter and recommended that members note the actions taken by officers in response to the findings of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, both directly related to the individual complainant, but also to the neighbouring homes.

The report was noted.

The meeting was adjourned at 8.50pm and would reconvene at 7.00pm on 13 October 2022.

The meeting was reconvened at 7.00pm on Thursday, 13 October 2022.

Councillor Driscoll, Vice-Chair of the Council, took the Chair in Councillor Asker’s absence. He welcomed those present to the meeting and said he would be abstaining from voting this evening unless a casting vote was required.

Apologies were received for the reconvened session from Councillors Asker, Barker, Day, Lemon, Luck, de Vries, Criscione, Foley and Freeman.

Councillor Pepper declared a non-pecuniary interest as a former member of Stop Easton Park.

Councillors Isham and Dean declared non-pecuniary interests as members of Stansted Airport Watch (SAW).

Councillor Merifield declared a non-pecuniary interest as a former member of Save our Stebbing Group.

Councillor Sutton declared a non-pecuniary interest as a former member of Stop Stansted Expansion (now known as Stansted Airport Watch).

To consider the report regarding Stansted Airport costs.

The Chair asked members whether they were content to discuss the general principles of the report in public session, or whether there was any need to exclude the public and press in order to debate the legally privileged information contained in the Part 2 report.

The meeting was content to remain in public session.

Councillor Evans presented the report. He said the purpose of the proposal was to reach a settlement with Stansted Airport Ltd (STAL) regarding the appeal costs, which the authority has been ordered to pay, and included a recommendation that further offers, including a Part 36 Offer under the Civil Procedure Rules, be made by the authority to STAL in full and final settlement of those planning appeal costs.

Councillor Hargreaves seconded the proposal. He commended the Chief Executive, Assistant Director of Governance and Legal and the Costs Lawyer for reducing the cost of the settlement. He said it was time to move on and make peace with the Airport, the district’s largest employer.

Councillor Fairhurst said the Council had behaved unreasonably at the appeal hearing by changing the Planning Committee’s decision from ‘refusal’ to ‘approval with conditions’. He said the Resident’s administration had paid the price for losing control of the process.

Councillor Reeve said he regretted the lost appeal but not for taking a stand against the Airport’s expansion, which was in line with what the majority of residents wanted.  

Councillor Isham said the Council had acted unreasonably in legal terms, as demonstrated by the Inspector’s unhappiness with the Council’s approach to the appeal, and punishment was to be expected. The defence strategy should have been in line with that of SAW and someone needed to take responsibility for this bungle.

Councillor Sell said the outcome of the appeal was not inevitable and the money could have been put to better use elsewhere. He said that responsibility could not be delegated and this was a failure of oversight.

Councillor Jones said this was a serious situation but the Council needed to learn from the process.

Councillor Smith said the Council had been misguided to overturn the original decision of the Planning Committee regarding Stansted Airport.

Councillor Pepper said central Government’s stance on climate change and aviation had let residents down. She said climate change was already here and economic growth had to be sustainable.

Councillor Merifield said there was a risk of costs being awarded against the council on all applications and the process remained the same.

Councillor Loughlin said it was not the Planning Committee’s decision to refuse the application that was taken to appeal, but rather approval with “Condition 15”. This was a mistake in the Council’s defence strategy.

Councillor Bagnall said he agreed that the Council needed to be clear on its defence strategy but it was time to finalise this process in the most cost effective way possible and move on.

Councillor Light said there were warnings that the defence strategy would fail and those with a clear conscience should abstain  ...  view the full minutes text for item C52

To consider the member motion regarding the mishandling of the Local Plan process.

CouncillorIsham presented his motion regarding the mishandling of the Local Plan process. He said there had been a lack of leadership and good governance at the Council and the administration had to be held to account. A further delay to the emerging Local Plan was not an acceptable outcome for the district and yet still no one would take responsibility He urged members to support his censure motion in light of this failure.

Councillor Caton seconded the proposal. He reserved his right to speak.

Councillor Loughlin criticised the process and said it had been shrouded in secrecy.

CouncillorCoote said the Local Plan was not really a local process as the Council was constrained by national legislation and guidance. He said the Administration were doing their utmost to produce a sound plan and local members needed to stick together.

Councillor Fairhurst questioned the governance surrounding the Local Plan and why it had been deemed “unfit” and delayed at such short notice.  He said he trusted the Chairs of LPLG and Scrutiny; the failure was of the Administration as “no one had been at the wheel”.

Councillor Reeve said he was disappointed with the pause although it would allow time to develop policies in respect of infrastructure and the local economy.

Councillor Smith said it was hypocritical of the Residents’ Administration to not take responsibility for the failures of this process, considering their criticism of previous Local Plans. He said the district was exposed to development without a Plan in place and the Government would intervene if appropriate progress was not being made. 

Councillor Pepper said the new Local Plan faced huge challenges in terms of infrastructure and sustainable economic development. However, she had faith that the new planning team would deliver a sound Local Plan.

Councillor Sell asked whether Scrutiny Committee had been misled as the reality of the situation did not mirror reports given at Committee. He also said that he felt “more in the dark” than he had during previous Local Plans. The Council did a lot right but this issue was also demonstrating a lack of leadership from the Administration.

Councillor Evans said no one wanted to see a delay in the process but he had been informed by the recently appointed Local Plan and New Communities Manager that the draft Plan was not ready for the Regulation 18 Consultation stage and therefore the timetable had been paused. He refuted criticism that this represented a failure of governance as he met with officers bi-weekly and had been told that the Plan was on track. The Local Plan process was extremely technical and it was for professional planning officers to quality check proposals. He thanked the Local Plan and New Communities Manager for bringing the issue to the Council’s attention.

Councillor Khan said it was a failure of the Portfolio Holder for Planning and the Local Plan as the delay was due to a lack of strategy and forward planning. He said no one wanted to take  ...  view the full minutes text for item C53