Issue - meetings

This matter is the responsibility of the Leader of the Council, Councillor Federica Smith-Roberts.

The matters set out in this report amount to modest changes to the SWT Constitution. This is to achieve, better clarity, the updating of minor changes and procedural refinement. This will ease the interpretation and effectiveness of the Constitution.

Councillor M Kravis returned to the room.

During the discussion, the following points were raised:-

·       Councillors queried why the report had not been taken to a Scrutiny Committee for debate.

The Governance Specialist advised the correct democratic pathway for any changes to the Constitution, was the Audit and Governance Committee followed by Full Council.  The report was taken to the Audit and Governance Committee on 13 December 2021.

·       Councillors queried why the number of signatures for a petition needed to be raised.  Concern was raised that it would lead to fewer petitions being submitted and exclude certain groups from making contact with Full Council.

The Deputy Leader advised that a balance needed to be struck with the figures used.  He also advised that it would be good practice to align with the figures used by the other councils in Somerset.  However, at this time, he was happy to keep the figure at 200 signatures.

·       Councillors queried a section of the Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Phosphates Sub-Committee, which related to who could be a member of the sub-committee.  The current ToR stated that only members of the Planning Committee could be a member of the sub-committee, however, they knew of members of the sub-committee that were not members of the Planning Committee.

The Deputy Leader advised that it was not good practice to have non Planning Committee members on the sub-committee but was happy to have a discussion to resolve the matter.

·       Councillors requested clarification on the term ‘Motion’ used in different sections of the Constitution and what was the difference between a Motion submitted in advance and a Motion proposed during a debate.

Clarification was given.

·       Councillors queried what the asterix meant in some of the titles of the Constitution.

The Governance Specialist advised that those rules marked with an asterix applied to Council and to the Committees.

·       Councillors highlighted what they believed to be an error in the section on Petitions on page 318 of the agenda, which related to forwarding on some petitions to the County Council.

This was an error and would be removed.

·       Some concern was raised on why the Constitution was being amended in the last year of the Council.

Councillors advised that the Constitution was a ‘living’ document and could be updated at any point to ensure the smooth running of council business.

·       The Chair agreed a 10-minute adjournment to allow for a resolution on the query raised on members of the Phosphate Sub-Committee.

The meeting adjourned at 7.05pm.

The meeting restarted at 7.15pm.

The Chair confirmed the following corrections that would be included in the amendments to the Constitution:-

·       The number of signatures required for a petition to be valid, would remain at 200.

·       The time for a proposer of a motion would remain at 10 minutes.

·       Two slight revisions were made in respect of Appendix C1 and C2 pertaining to the Council Procedure Rules. The first was in respect of 26.5 and the language inserted around  ...  view the full minutes text for item 88

The matters set out in this report amount to modest changes to the SWT Constitution. This is to achieve, better clarity, the updating of minor changes and procedural refinement. This will ease the interpretation and effectiveness of the Constitution.

The Governance Specialist introduced the report: 

·                     It was raised that the purpose of this report was to update some of the wording and job titles in the Constitution to ensure the Council can work effectively and carry out its functions. The report had been drafted with the two deputy monitoring officers and with the involvement of officers from other areas within the Council such as planning.  

·                     The changes included the threshold for key decisions being reduced to £500,000. 

·                     The updates to the terms of reference of the Planning Committee included the insertion of the planning phosphates sub-committee into the constitution.  

·                     The Council Procedure Rules had been updated with changes around procedures for substitutions and motions.  

·                     Regulations and procedures for petitions, including e-petitions, had also been added. The report sought to amend the threshold for the number of signatures on a petition to be 1600 signatures, an increase from the current 200 signatures required, to align more closely with the surrounding districts.  

·                     The reason for decreasing the key decision threshold was likewise to align with surrounding local authorities.  

·                     It was proposed that there be some changes to the Contract and Financial Procedure Rules which reflected the legislation changes as a result of leaving the European Union.  

·                     The Chairs of Scrutiny were briefed on the report this morning. 

·                     The report would proceed to Full Council in February.   

During the debate the following points were raised: 

·                     Regarding the planning committee terms of reference and the criteria for a planning application being controversial, it was suggested that changing the need to have four individuals and also a member of one of the subsequent local authorities support the objection be changed so that the member was needed but more individuals, perhaps twelve, be needed to support the objection.  

·                     It was suggested that for planning applications having a ward member or parish councillor and four individuals where it was contrary to the officer's recommendation worked well and that increasing the number needed to support above four would likely result in very few objections being brought to the Planning Committee by that method. Officers noted that in the next four months there would be a need to look at adding a section on planning to the new authority's constitution. The existing authorities would need to create this. Any further changes could therefore be looked at as part of that drafting process. 

·                     A query was raised in relation to motions to Council and a motion previously made at Full Council. It was responded by officers that there would be a further discussion in the new year regarding how the proposed amendments to motions would have impacted previous events. This would be through a meeting with the group leaders and alternative amendment options would also be discussed.  

·                     It was raised that inevitably as local government reorganisation moved towards the new unitary authority being formed, a county wide local plan would be needed and there would need to be a common set of standards created.  

·                     It  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52