Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Bridgett, Cartie, Castle, Dunbar, Kennedy, Jackson, Mather, Nisbet, Purvis, Taylor. Towns and Waddell.

Minutes of the meeting of County Council held on Wednesday 21 September 2022, as circulated, to be confirmed as a true record, signed by the Business Chair and sealed with the Common Seal of the Council.

With regard to Minute No. 45 (Motion No.1), Councillor Reid queried whether the letter from the Leader had been sent to Newcastle City Council either before or after the announcement had been made that Newcastle had been unsuccessful, or whether it had ever been sent. The Leader replied that he had raised it with the Leader of the City Council before the decision had been made.

With regard to Minute No. 47 (Revised Executive Management Structure), Councillor Morphet reported that the first line of the final paragraph on pg 23 should read “…asked what the remaining…..”.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of County Council held on Wednesday 21 September 2022, as circulated, be confirmed as a true record, signed by the Business Chair and sealed with the Common Seal of the Council, subject to the above amendment.

Unless already entered in the Council’s Register of Members’ interests, members are required where a matter arises at a meeting;

a.         Which directly relates to Disclosable Pecuniary Interest (‘DPI’) as set out in Appendix B, Table 1 of the Code of Conduct, to disclose the interest, not participate in any discussion or vote and not to remain in room. Where members have a DPI or if the matter concerns an executive function and is being considered by a Cabinet Member with a DPI they must notify the Monitoring Officer and arrange for somebody else to deal with the matter.

b.         Which directly relates to the financial interest or well being of a Other Registrable Interest as set out in Appendix B, Table 2 of the Code of Conduct to disclose the interest and only speak on the matter if members of the public are also allowed to speak at the meeting but otherwise must not take part in any discussion or vote on the matter and must not remain the room.

c.         Which directly relates to their financial interest or well-being (and is not DPI) or the financial well being of a relative or close associate, to declare the interest and members may only speak on the matter if members of the public are also allowed to speak. Otherwise, the member must not take part in discussion or vote on the matter and must leave the room.

d.         Which affects the financial well-being of the member, a relative or close associate or a body included under the Other Registrable Interests column in Table 2, to disclose the interest and apply the test set out at paragraph 9 of Appendix B before deciding whether they may remain in the meeting.

e.         Where Members have or a Cabinet Member has an Other Registerable Interest or Non Registerable Interest in a matter being considered in exercise of their executive function, they must notify the Monitoring Officer and arrange for somebody else to deal with it.

NB Any member needing clarification must contact monitoringofficer@northumberland.gov.uk. Members are referred to the Code of Conduct which contains the matters above in full. Please refer to the guidance on disclosures at the rear of this agenda letter.

Councillor Cessford declared a non-pecuniary interest in item 11 on the agenda (Community Governance Reviews) as a parish councillor for Acomb Parish Council.

The Business Chair reminded members about the Service of Remembrance which would take place on Friday 11 November 2022.

The Leader gave a progress report on the Challenge Board and the Members Oversight Group (MOG). This consisted of the Group Leaders and key officers working on the Caller report recommendations. The Challenge Board felt that things were progressing well on the improvement plan and that excellent progress had been made. The Challenge Board was looking forward to more 1-1 sessions with senior members and further engagement with members and external partners. The MOG had recently met and there had been encouraging progress to report on delivery of the improvement plan. Any member could speak confidentially to the Challenge Board via the link already provided.

Regarding devolution, the Leader reported that there had been recent discussions regarding Durham CC joining the LA6. This was welcomed as long as there was no detriment to the current financial proposition. The Leaders had met with Michael Gove the previous evening. Whilst he had not given an indication of which model he preferred, he felt that an LA7 was probably preferable as the authorities worked well together. Relations with the other Leaders were cordial and he hoped if an LA7 was created, that Durham would bring the same level of co-operation. Members would be given access to the deal document when it was available.

QUESTIONS to be put to the Business Chair, a member of the Cabinet or the Chair of any Committee or Sub Committee, in accordance with the Constitution’s Rules of Procedure No.9.

Question 1 from Councillor Hill to Councillor Renner Thompson

The current consultation on school reorganisation within the Berwick partnership area is, as these things always are, complex and final decisions are simply incapable of pleasing everyone. Could I please have an assurance that this will not be used as an excuse for the Administration to row away?from the commitment to invest £40m in new school buildings for Berwick??

Councillor Renner Thompson advised that the commitment from the Administration remained a key Cabinet priority as it had with other major school projects, and the money was in the MTFP.

Councillor Hill sought assurance that £40m would be ringfenced in the next budget for the Berwick school investment programme. Councillor Renner Thompson replied that he had not seen the exact details, but confirmed that was the case. 

Question 2 from Councillor Hill to Councillor Horncastle

How many fixed penalty notices have been issued in Northumberland for dog fouling over the last 12 months?

Councillor Riddle replied that eleven fixed penalty notices had been issued for breaches of the current Public Space Protection Order (PSPO). Councillor Hill asked if Councillor Riddle accepted that residents would say that this was a very low number and had the Council given up trying to tackle this problem, along with many others. Councillor Riddle replied that the Authority had not given up and he didn’t agree that the Council had become complacent. The Public Protection, Environmental Enforcement Team undertook regular patrols of "hot spot" areas, focusing on those areas where high levels of complaints had been received and continued to actively promote the Green Dog Walkers Scheme, which had led to a reduction of dog fouling complaints and improved responsible dog ownership. During covid, there had been a massive increase in dog ownership.

Councillor Horncastle commented that dog fouling was an issue across the County and there was only a very small team to deal with a vast geographical area. It would really help the wardens if they had the benefit of some local intelligence.

Question 3 from Councillor Swinbank to the Leader

It is understood that Northumberland County Council has submitted a list of potential Investment Zone sites via the North of Tyne Mayoral Authority to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.? In the interests of transparency for all Councillors and the communities they represent, please could the Council be updated today on the details of this Expression of Interest.

The Leader responded that Investment Zones, which could boost economic growth through tax incentives and “accelerated” planning, were in the early stages of development and the Council, with the North of Tyne Combined Authority, was in early discussion with Government to inform this.

The North of Tyne Expression of Interest was focussed on two existing economic corridors which spanned all three local authority areas. The Arc of Energy Innovation focused on development sites and existing businesses where there were real opportunities to create thousands of green jobs; increase UK growth and exports; accelerate  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Appointment of the Preferred Candidate for the Position of Head of Paid Service, Chief Executive & Returning Officer

The purpose of this report is to advise Council that due to the timings of the recruitment process for the Head of Paid Service & Chief Executive, it is not possible to submit a full report for consideration by Full Council with the agenda papers for the meeting.

The agenda papers for the StAC to be held on Wednesday 2nd November 2022 have been published and are available on the Council’s website, if Members wish to view them beforehand.

Appointment of the Preferred Candidate for the Position of Head of Paid Service, Chief Executive & Returning Officer

The purpose of this report was to advise Council that due to the timings of the recruitment process for the Head of Paid Service & Chief Executive, it had not been possible to submit a full report for consideration by Full Council with the agenda papers for the meeting. The agenda papers for the StAC to be held on Wednesday 2nd November 2022 had been published and were available on the Council’s website for members to view beforehand.

The Business Chair advised that the recommendations from Staff and Appointments Committee that morning had been emailed to all members before the meeting and copies were available in the Chamber for those who required a paper copy (copy attached to the sealed minutes).  

The Leader proposed the recommendations, which were seconded by Councillor Watson.

Councillor Dale asked if the Council would apologise for not including the Independent Group in the selection process for the HOPS as required by the Constitution. She had received an apology at 12.45 am by email.

The Interim Chief Executive replied that he had apologised following his return from holiday for the error, and he repeated that in the meeting. He had mistakenly indicated that it wasn’t appropriate for Councillor Dale to attend the interview panels, but that it was appropriate for her to attend the StAC that morning. The Independent Group had not been excluded from the selection process however, and Councillor Kennedy had been invited to nominate a deputy in his stead, but had not done so.

Councillor Dale commented that the whole process had been conducted incorrectly and that Councillor Kennedy had not been invited until very late into the process.

The Interim Chief Executive responded that it had been a fast-moving situation and the lessons learned would be applied through the next stages of recruitment.

Councillor Hill was disappointed that there had not been an Independent Group member involved but she accepted that it was an honest mistake. She asked if the proposed candidate had scored the highest during the process and were there any questions asked of the candidate about her time as Head of Children’s Services at Sunderland, and if so, could a summary of the response be given.

The Interim Chief Executive responded that the process had been very robust and there had been 0.01 of a point difference between the first and second candidate. There had been no questions asked that Councillor Hill had referred to but four different panels had asked their own questions and taken scores.

On the recommendations being put to the vote there voted FOR: 50; AGAINST: 3, ABSTENTIONS: 2. It was therefore RESOLVED that the recommendations from the Staff and Appointments Committee held on 2nd November 2022 be approved as follows;

(a)  To appoint Dr Helen Paterson as the full-time permanent Head of Paid Service, Chief Executive and Returning Officer;

(b)  To note Staff and Appointments has agreed the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Council Tax Support Scheme for 2023-24

The purpose of this report is to seek approval for the local Council Tax Support Scheme for 2023-24 to continue to provide support at a maximum level of 92% of council tax liability.

Council Tax Support Scheme for 2023-24

The report sought approval for the local Council Tax Support Scheme for 2023-24 to continue to provide support at a maximum level of 92% of council tax liability.

The report was presented by Councillor Wearmouth, detailing the key points. He proposed the recommendations which was seconded by the Leader.

The S151 Officer reminded members that this scheme had been in place since 2019-20. If members were not minded to accept Cabinet’s recommendation that it be accepted, there would be a requirement to undertake a full equality impact assessment and then formal consultation. The scheme had to be agreed by 31 January so the timetable would be very tight.

There had been extensive discussion at Scrutiny about other means of financial assistance and it was agreed that officers would look to continue the hardship scheme which had benefitted more low-income households. There was a current claimant caseload of just under 25,000 of which about 10,000 were pensioner households who would automatically get 100% relief, leaving around 15,000 working age claimants. The hardship scheme would assist all of these, but returning to 100% council tax support would not, and the latter would cost roughly double.

A number of member comments were made including:-

•         Councillor Dickinson commented that his group had tried unsuccessfully to have this scheme changed back for three years. The S151 Officer had referred to the rising number of claimants which was worsening with the cost of living crisis and it was very uncertain what the Government was going to do next. He stressed that the report’s recommendations had only be endorsed at Scrutiny on the Chair’s vote which showed that members felt it needed to be rectified.

•         Councillor Dunn advised that she would continue to advocate that the support scheme be returned to 100% and felt the Council should be lobbying Government to fund it. A simpler and easier manage system was essential which didn’t need to rely on emergency funding support. The Council should be supporting its residents as much as possible if it was truly committed to tackling inequalities. Scrutiny members had raised many concerns including a temporary 100% support option. 92% was not enough and she couldn’t support the recommendation but would note vote against it either as she did not want to jeopardise those receiving support who needed it.

•         Councillor Grimshaw reiterated her longstanding concerns about this and agreed with her colleagues that support should be at 100% given the existing pressures on low income families, in line with what Durham County Council provided.

•         Councillor Oliver commented that the support being planned would be more generous and would include more people than if the 100% council tax support was returned.

•         Councillor Foster asked why the planned support could not be provided alongside the 100% council tax support. It was very sad that so many people now had to reply on foodbanks to feed their children. Even those families who were working were struggling to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Electoral Review – Part One Council Size Submission

To update Council on the Electoral Review of Northumberland County being undertaken by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) and to present for agreement the Council’s Council Size Submission on part one of the Electoral Review.

Electoral Review – Part One Council Size Submission

The report updated Council on the Electoral Review of Northumberland County being undertaken by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) and to present for agreement the Council’s Council Size Submission on part one of the Electoral Review.

The Leader thanked Group Leaders for their input on this. Members felt that 67 was about the right number but it was felt that the Boundary Commission should be asked to consider 70 as well in view of the increasing population and housing numbers. They were also to be asked to look at the Alnwick ED to see whether it should be two, not one. He proposed the recommendations, which was seconded by Councillor Dickinson.

Councillor Cessford pointed out that on page 76, there was an error in the number of councillors listed for Tynedale LAC.

Councillor Morphet asked how many members had responded to the questionnaire. Mr Hunter understood that it was around 36, but he would check.

Councillor Reid agreed that Group Leaders had worked well on this and thanked officers for their efforts. The next part would be more difficult due to the County’s unique population distribution. He hoped there would be some flexibility on this and that members could work constructively together on it.

Councillor Dickinson agreed that this had been a very good piece of cross-party work which had shaped the report. It was very important that communities were recognised in the next stage.

RESOLVED that:-

(a)      Council note the update on the Electoral Review currently being undertaken by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE);

(b)      Council agree the Council Submission on Council Size on part one of the Electoral Review; and

(c)      authority be delegated to the Interim Senior Service Director in consultation with Leader of Council, to make necessary, final amendments to the submission document prior submitting this to the LGBCE.

Treasury Management Annual Report for the Financial Year 2021-22

This report provides details of performance against the Treasury Management Strategy Statement (TMSS) 2021-22, approved by the County Council on 24 February 2021. The report provides a review of borrowing and investment performance for 2021-22, set in the context of the general economic conditions prevailing during the year. It also reviews specific Treasury Management prudential indicators defined by the (CIPFA) Treasury Management Code of Practice and CIPFA Prudential Code for Capital Finance in Local Authorities, (the Prudential Code), and approved by the Authority in the TMSS.

Treasury Management Annual Report for the Financial Year 2021-22

The report provided details of performance against the Treasury Management Strategy Statement (TMSS) 2021-22, approved by the County Council on 24 February 2021. The report provided a review of borrowing and investment performance for 2021-22, set in the context of the general economic conditions prevailing during the year. It also reviewed specific Treasury Management prudential indicators defined by the (CIPFA) Treasury Management Code of Practice and CIPFA Prudential Code for Capital Finance in Local Authorities, (the Prudential Code), and approved by the Authority in the TMSS.

The report was presented by the S151 Officer. She reported that PWLB rates were now at 4.69% which was significantly higher than six months ago. It was not clear which way interest rates would continue and this was why the Autumn Statement from the Chancellor was very important. Regarding current borrowing, the weighted average rate would increase significantly as the Authority continued to borrow externally, instead of using internal borrowing. This would probably happen sooner than expected because of interest rates rising. Given the size of the capital programme, even a modest increase in the cost of borrowing had a significant impact on the revenue budget and she advised members that consideration would need to be given to the size of the capital programme going forward. She felt there would be an impact both on the current capital programme and sustaining the levels of investment in future years.

The report was proposed by Councillor Wearmouth and seconded by Councillor Sanderson.

A number of member comments were made:-

•         Councillor Dickinson hoped for some stability within the Government so the Authority could work with them in confidence. He felt it was important to nail down the capital programme to a level which was affordable because of the impact on the revenue budget. He asked the S151 Officer if she could provide a figure for the covid grants which were fraudulently claimed, how much was recovered and how this would be reported back.  The S151 Officer replied that a report had been made to Scrutiny on the outcome of the business grants which reported that a very low level of fraud had been detected and reported through the normal channels. A much wider national exercise was ongoing – the post payment assurance process – and she had just signed off the returns on the various grant schemes. It was expected that results would be published by the Government across the whole programme and they would feedback to the Authority if they detected anything suspicious.

•         Councillor Reid thanked officers for their work on this very important report and asked if a simple member briefing could be delivered on it. Councillor Wearmouth agreed this could be arranged. The Leader suggested that training opportunities with neighbouring authorities should be investigated, or possibly a policy conference in January which would allow people to have a dialogue.

RESOLVED that the report be received and the performance of the Treasury Management function  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

Community Governance Reviews

To consider the outcome of three community governance reviews in the County.

Community Governance Reviews

Council was asked to consider the outcome of three community governance reviews in the County.

The report was proposed by the Leader and seconded by Councillor Wearmouth.

Councillor Morphet asked why the request from Allendale Parish Council to reduce the number of Parish Councillors had been rejected and an explanation was provided by Councillor Horncastle.

RESOLVED that:-

(a)      Council note the outcome of the Community Governance Review for Allendale Parish and agrees that the status quo be retained;?

(b)      Council agree that Tarset with Greystead Parish is no longer subdivided into wards and resolves to make an Order to this effect;

(c)      Council agrees that the number of Councillors on Acomb Parish Council be increased from seven to nine; and 

(d)      the Monitoring Officer be authorised to make, sign and seal the appropriate Orders by virtue of the powers contained in the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007.  

Appointment of Additional Independent Persons

The purpose of this report is to update Members on the recruitment process for two additional Independent Persons.

Appointment of Additional Independent Persons

The report updated members on the recruitment process for two additional Independent Persons.

The report was introduced by the Business Chair. He thanked the Chair of Standards, Mr Joe Jackson and Councillor Liz Dunn and the MO for their support on this. He proposed the recommendations which was seconded by Councillor Dunn.

Councillor Hill welcomed the report and, with regard to the second recommendation about the delegation on renewal of the appointments, asked if there were any concerns would those identified make the decision in any case as only one of them was a councillor. The MO advised that this would be a delegation to the MO, in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair. If there was some question over the appropriateness of the independent person, then that delegation would not be exercised. Contracts were specified in such a way to say that they were renewable after two years but would not happen automatically. Two years term of office was also was a best practice recommendation.

Councillor Hill asked if the delegation could include Group Leaders. The Leader agreed that this could be discussed at the Group Leaders meeting and if supported could come back to the next Council meeting.

RESOLVED that:-

(a)      the appointment of Mr Simon Openshaw and Mr Arne Beswick as Independent Persons for a two-year period until 1st November 2024, be approved, renewable for a further two-year period maximum thereafter; and

(b)      the renewal of the appointments for a two-year period from the 1st November 2024 be delegated to the Monitoring Officer in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of Standards Committee.

(1)      Wednesday 21 September 2022

(1)      Wednesday 21 September 2022

RESOLVED that the minutes be received.

(1)      Corporate Services and Economic Growth OSC

(2)      Family and Children’s Services OSC

(3)      Communities and Place OSC

(4)      Health and Wellbeing OSC

(5)      Health and Wellbeing Board

(6)      Audit Committee

(1)      Corporate Services and Economic Growth OSC

These were presented by Councillor Bawn.

RESOLVED that the minutes be received.

(2)      Family and Children’s Services OSC

These were presented by Councillors Dodd and Daley.

With regard to Minute No. 30 (Family Hubs Development), Councillor Ball did not feel that the minute fully reflected the discussion on this matter. Councillor Dodd advised that he would look at this.

With regard to Minute No. 41 (Northumberland Strategic Inclusion Plan 2022-26), it was noted that Councillor Swinbank should have referred to Councillor Swinburn).

RESOLVED that the minutes be received.

(3)      Communities and Place OSC

These were presented by Councillor Reid. He referred to the remarks he had made at the last meeting regarding the purpose of the minutes being on the agenda and apologised that he had been incorrect. The Constitution referred to reports from Committees being on the agenda and Council could not verify the minutes of other Committees. The MO confirmed to members that the Constitution did not match current practice and needed to be changed.

With regard to Storm Arwen, Councillor Dodd urged members to look at trees in their patches for the effects of Ash die back which was affecting many trees in the County making them vulnerable to creating further damage in any future storms.  The Leader supported this and commended Scrutiny for the ongoing work on this.

RESOLVED that the minutes be received.

(4)      Health and Wellbeing OSC

These were presented by Councillors Jones and Dodd.

RESOLVED that the minutes be received.

(5)      Health and Wellbeing Board

These were presented by Councillor Ezhilchelvan.

RESOLVED that the minutes be received.

(6)      Audit Committee

These were presented by Councillor Oliver.

With regard to Minute No.34 (Consideration of Going Concern Status for the Statement of Accounts for the Year Ended 21 March 2022), Councillor Dickinson commented that he had concerns about the settlement delays and the potential push into January. The Business Chair advised that he was taking comments only on the accuracy of the minutes.  

Council is invited to consider passing the following resolution:

(a)      That under Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items on the agenda as they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of Schedule 12A of the 1972 Act, and 

b.       That the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure for the following reasons-

 Agenda Item  - 16

Paragraph of Part I of Schedule 12A  - 1 (Information relating to any individual). 

AND   The public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the interest in disclosure because disclosure would adversely affect the Authority’s interests.

Appointment of Additional Independent Persons

To consider the attached Appendix A under Agenda item 12 in Part 1 of this agenda.