Agenda and minutes

In accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct, councillors are reminded that it is a requirement to declare interests where appropriate.

The disclosures of interests made by Councillors are set out in Appendix A to these minutes.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Full Council held on 28 May 2021.

The minutes of the meeting of the Full Council held on 28 May 2021 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Mayor.

To receive and consider any announcements or communications, including any additional Cabinet Member announcements.

The Mayor has asked that the following statement be included under communications:

“I would like to make a short statement. This relates to my mayoral acceptance speech which I delivered at the Annual Meeting in May. At one point in my speech I made reference to the Palestine – Israel situation. I expressed my personal view which was based in sympathy for others. It was not my intention to cause offence or division. However, I realise that in my new role as Mayor, I should act in a non-partisan manner and in the interests of the whole Council. I therefore withdraw those particular comments. I acknowledge that they were not appropriate (coming from the Mayor) and confirm that they did not represent the Council’s position.”

The Mayor firstly highlighted that he had included a written statement for their information under the Communication Agenda item within the Supplementary Agenda – Order Paper. The Mayor informed the meeting that the ceremony for Member’s Long Service Badges and gifts to retired Councillors was currently scheduled to take place at the next ordinary meeting of the Full Council on 20 October 2021. The Mayor then commented that he would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the England Football Team on the tremendous progress they made in the recent Euro 2020 tournament. He hoped that they could go a step further at the World Cup next year. In particular, the Mayor stated he would like to pass the Council’s best wishes to Gareth Southgate who of course grew up and went to school in our Borough. Members would recall remember that he received a Pride of Crawley Award in 2019.

The Mayor also informed the Full Council that there will be an extraordinary Full Council meeting being held on Wednesday 15 September 2021.

To answer public questions under Full Council Procedure Rule 1.1-E.  The questions must be on matters which are relevant to the functions of the Council, and should not include statements.

One supplementary question from the questioner will be allowed.

Up to 30 minutes is allocated to Public Question Time.

There were no questions from the public.

The Chair of the Audit Committee Councillor Millar-Smith introduced to Full Council, Recommendation 1 – Confirmed Total Final External Audit Fees for 2019/20 which had previously been considered by the Audit Committee at its meeting held on 29 April 2021. Councillor Millar-Smith also moved an amendment to Recommendation 1 as detailed on page 19 of the Supplementary Agenda – Order Paper. In presenting the item it was noted the recommendation related to the unplanned and unexplained increase of over £40k to the audit fees by the Council’s external auditors Ernst and Young (EY). It was noted that the Councillor Millar-Smith had, with the Head of Corporate Finance, raised the increased audit fees with Public Sector Audit Appointments (PSAA), the body that oversees, appoints, and sets the scales of fees for Local Authorities’ External Auditors.

It was noted that EY and our dedicate auditor were invited to attend the Full Council meeting to address the concerns raised by the Audit Committee, but they declined the opportunity.   

Both the recommendation and the proposed amendment were seconded by Councillor Flack in her role as Vice Chair of the Audit Committee.

Councillor Crow also spoke on this item.

RESOLVED

That the Full Council

1)         considered and notes the justification presented by Ernst and Young and any further information or updates relevant to the matter.

2)         agrees that the Chair of the Audit Committee to write again to the PSAA and EY stating that the Council feel that they have failed to justify the substantial fee increase.

In advance of the next item when the Full Council Recommendation 2 – Further Deliberations of the Independent Remuneration Panel (Mayoral Allowances 2021/22 and 2022/23, the Mayor stated that he and the Deputy Mayor Councillor Flack have declared an interest for the next item and as such would be leaving the meeting for the discussion and vote on the Recommendation 2 and therefore, they would be relinquish the positions of Chair and Vice Chair of the meeting for the item.

The Mayor then sought a nomination to Chair the next item. Councillor Lanzer was nominated by Councillor Crow and seconded by Councillor McCarthy. With no other nominations it was agreed that Councillor Lanzer be appointed as the Chair for the next item.

Then having declared an Interest in the next item Recommendation 2 – Further Deliberations of the Independent Remuneration Panel (Mayoral Allowances 2021/22 and 2022/23) Councillors Flack, Lamb and Malik left the meeting for the remaining duration of the meeting and took no part in the discussion or voting on the Recommendation.

The Full Council considered report LDS/169 of the Chair of the Independent Remuneration Panel (IRP) which detailed the findings of the IRP and its independent recommendations regarding the Mayoral Allowances for 2021/22 and 2022/23.

The item had been previously considered at the Governance Committee on 22 June 2021. Councillor McCarthy moved the recommendation which was seconded and supported by Councillor Burrett.

Councillor Lunnon moved and presented the amendment to the Recommendation, namely:

That the Full Council be recommended to agree that the Mayor’s allowance be set at £6,361 per annum and the Deputy Mayor’s allowance be set at £954 per annum for 2022/23.

The amendment was seconded and supported by Councillor Jhans.

A single debate occurred on both the recommendation and the proposed amendment. Councillors C Mullins, Crow, S. Mullins, Millar-Smith and Khan all spoke during the debate.

Following the conclusion of the debate, Councillor Lanzer in the Chair, following a request for a recorded on the proposed amendment, invited the Democratic Services Manager to commence the recorded voting process.

A recorded vote was then called on the Labour Amendment to Recommendation 1.

Votingin Favour: Councillors: Ayling, Buck, Fiveash, Irvine, Jhans, Khan, Jones, Lunnon, C Mullins, S Mullins, Nawaz, Pickett, Raja and P Smith (14)

VotingAgainst:Councillors: Ali, A Belben, T Belben, Bounds, B Burgess, R Burgess, Burrett, Crow, Eade, Jaggard, Lanzer, McCarthy, Millar-Smith, Morris, Mwagale, Peck, Pendlington and Piggott (18)

Abstentions:Councillors: None (0)

Councillor Lanzer in the Chair declared the Amendment had fallen– votes in favour 14, and votesagainst 18 with 0 abstention.

Councillor Lanzer in the Chair then called for a vote on the substantive Recommendation 2 – Further Deliberations of the Independent Remuneration Panel (Mayoral Allowances 2021/22 and 2022/23).

Councillor Lanzer in the Chair declared that the Recommendation 1 was approved – votes in favour18, votes against 13 and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED

That the Full Council approves that the Mayor’s Allowance be set at £6,361 per annum and the Deputy Mayor’s Allowance be set at £954 per annum for 2021/22 (to commence on 1 August 2021) and 2022/23.

The Full Council considered report FIN/526 of the Head of Corporate Finance which had been previously considered by the Cabinet on 30 June 2021 and Overview and Scrutiny Commission on 28 June 2021. Councillor Lamb, as the Leader of the Council, presented the report and recommendations, which sets out a summary of the Council’s actual revenue and capital spending for the financial year to March 2021. It identifies the main variations from the approved spending levels and any potential impact on future budgets. The report also gives an update of useable reserves.

Councillor Crow also spoke on the item and the recommendation.

Councillor Lamb moved the recommendation which was seconded by Councillor Fiveash.

RESOLVED

That Full Council approves:

a)         to increase the capital budget for purchase of temporary accommodation from £1.1m to £2.4m to be funded from specific homelessness grants, revenue and earmarked reserves for purchase of such properties.

b)         to the transfers of reserves as outlined in section 9 of this report FIN/526.

In line with the Call-In Procedure Rule 8.3, which is set out in the Council’s Constitution, the Council is required to be informed when the Chief Executive has protected a decision from Call-In.

The Chief Executive, under the Urgent Action decision making powers set out in the Constitution, took the following two decisions which were also protected from Call-In (in accordance with Call-In Procedure Rule 8).

The first decision, which was taken on 5 May 2021, was to agree the District Heat Network’s Heat Tariff.  The Heat Tariff was to come into force in May 2021 ahead of the occupation of Geraint Thomas House and is to be reviewed on an annual basis.  This decision was protected from Call-In to avoid the potential scenario of Geraint Thomas House being occupied without any Heat Tariff being in place. Given the election, taking this decision through normal routes would have led to a delay of a number of weeks making such a scenario likely.  The decision was reported in Councillors’ Information Bulletin IB/1080.

The second decision, which was taken on 13 May 2021, was to agree that an additional discretionary Council Tax discount of up to £150 per household may be provided for working age Council Tax reduction claimants. This discount will reduce Council Tax bills by up to £150 for vulnerable working age residents.  This decision was protected from Call-In to enable the Council to start implementing an additional discount to help reduce the impact of the pandemic on residents in receipt of Council Tax support as soon as possible.  The decision was reported in Councillors’ Information Bulletin IB/1080.

RECOMMENDATION 4

The Full Council is requested to note the use of the Protection from Call-In provision by the Chief Executive in respect of the decisions taken by the Chief Executive relating to the District Heat Network’s Heat Tariff and Additional Discretionary Council Tax Discount which were taken on 5 May 2021 and 13 May 2021 respectively.

The Leader, Councillor Lamb introduced the item, which was set out on page 3 of the Full Council agenda and on page 11 in the Supplementary Agenda Order Paper that the Chief Executive on three occasions has had to use under the Urgent Action decision making powers set out in the Constitution, and also protected from Call-In (in accordance with Call-In Procedure Rule 8).

The first decision, which was taken on 5 May 2021, was to agree the District Heat Network’s Heat Tariff. The second decision, which was taken on 13 May 2021, was to agree that an additional discretionary Council Tax discount of up to £150 per household may be provided for working age Council Tax reduction claimants. The third and most recent was taken on 10 July 2021 was to agree the allocation of Contain Outbreak Management Government Funding (COMF) of £642,362.

Councillor Lamb moved the recommendation, which was seconded by the Councillor Fiveash.

RESOLVED

The Full Council is requested to note the use of the Protection from Call-In provision by the Chief Executive in respect of the decisions taken by the Chief Executive relating to the District Heat Network’s Heat Tariff and Additional Discretionary Council Tax Discount and Contain Outbreak Management Funding which were taken on 5 May 2021, 13 May 2021, and 10 July 2021 respectively.

To consider, in accordance with Full Council Procedure Rule 1.1-H, the following Notice of Motion to be moved by Councillor Lamb and seconded by Councillor Peter Smith.

The proposed Notice of Motion 1 (Labour) - Motion amending the requirements of a Procedural Motion, was withdrawn in advance of the meeting and therefore the proposal was not discussed.

To consider, in accordance with Full Council Procedure Rule 1.1-H, the following Notice of Motion to be moved by Councillor Lamb and seconded by Councillor Lunnon.

The Council considered the Notice of Motion 2 - ‘The Council’s response to the Boundary Commission for England’ as set out on 89 of the Full Council’s agenda. The Motion was moved and presented by Councillor Lamb in do so gave further explanation behind the reasoning behind the Notice of Motion. Councillor P Smith then seconded it and spoke in support.

Councillors Crow and McCarthy also spoke in support of the Motion.

The Mayor then called for the vote on the Notice of Motion, which was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED

On 8 June, the Boundary Commission for England set out their draft boundary proposals for Parliamentary constituencies at the next General Election.

The draft proposals would see Crawley's Parliamentary constituency boundaries remain coterminous with those of the local authority. This is something the commission actively seeks to achieve, where population sizes make it possible, as it is recognised that local authority areas represent established communities and coterminosity enables better coordination and representation to address residents' issues between the tiers.

District and Borough Councils are responsible for administering all elections held within their areas, meaning reviews of other tiers of government relate to the business of this Council.

With a deadline to respond of the 2 August, this is the Council's last opportunity to comment before the deadline.

Crawley Borough Council approve and requests that the Electoral Services Manager submits a report to the commission expressing the council's support for the proposed boundaries for Crawley and setting out a case for their continued adoption.

There will be a maximum of 30 minutes for Councillors’ Question Time (CQT). Councillors may ask questions relating to either a portfolio issue or with regard to the functions delegated to a Committee.

There are two methods for Councillors asking questions:

1.     Councillors can submit written questions in advance of the meeting and written answers will be provided on the evening of the Full Council.

2.     Councillors can also verbally ask questions during the CQT.

Councillors have the opportunity to ask oral supplementary questions in relation to either of the methods above.

To receive the minutes of the meetings of the Cabinet, Overview and Scrutiny Commission and Committees, as listed on page 23, and set out in the appendices to this item and to debate any Reserved Items contained within those Minutes.

NB:  In advance of the meeting Political Groups can identify any items they wish to debate as a Reserved Item.  These Reserved Items will then be the only matters to be the subject of debate.

Moved by Councillor Flack (as the Deputy Mayor):-

RESOLVED

That the following reports be received:

Planning Committee – 6 April 2021

Planning Committee – 26 April 2021

Audit Committee – 29 April 2021

Overview and Scrutiny Commission – 7 June 2021

Governance Committee – 22 June 2021

Overview and Scrutiny Commission – 28 June 2021

Planning Committee – 29 June 2021

Cabinet – 30 June 2021

The following item which was not Full Council Recommendations was selected as

Items for Debate:

Councillor Burrett explained the rationale for bringing this item for debate.  It was felt it was important to bring the matter forward as it was not specifically concerning this site.  The discussion held at the Overview and Scrutiny Commission had addressed the important issue of suggested inadequate parking on the site and whilst it was acknowledged the matter would be fully considered by the Planning Committee and no application had yet come forward, it was noted that there seemed to be developments being approved where the parking provision was not as high as would be expected and there was an assumption that due to the demographics that a lower parking provision may be required.

It was felt that public transport and different modes of transport were not currently realistic, and the Overview and Scrutiny discussion had led to a unanimous recommendation which whilst accepted by the Cabinet for this particular site, now raised a much larger issue of the council’s parking standards.  It was commented that regrettably the council had previously cut its residential improvement programme and it was hoped that future decisions would not have to be made to combat current decisions involving parking.

Councillors Lanzer, McCarthy, P Smith, T Belben also spoke on the item.

Councillor Irvine responded on this item.  The planning process was driven by the Local Plan and applications would be considered by the Planning committee. However, what was deemed more important than that parking provision discussions was that there were benefits for the site for providing much needed housing in the town centre, bringing people into the town and helping out local businesses.