Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Chicken, Daley, Dunbar, Dunn, Foster, Hutchinson, Jackson, Murphy, Oliver and Swinbank.

Minutes of the meeting of County Council held on Wednesday 2 November 2022, as circulated, to be confirmed as a true record, signed by the Business Chair and sealed with the Common Seal of the Council (see pages 11-28).

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of County Council held on Wednesday 2 November 2022, as circulated, be confirmed as a true record, signed by the Business Chair and sealed with the Common Seal of the Council.

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.

The Business Chair reported that the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers 5th Battalion had requested having their St George’s Parade through Morpeth Town Centre on the morning of Saturday 22 April 2023. The last time they marched through Morpeth was in April 2010 to mark the granting of the Freedom of Northumberland. He asked members to confirm at they agreed with this request, which they did.

He then reported that the following following people, particularly connected with Northumberland, had received honors in HM the King’s New Years Honours list:-

Officers of the Order of the British Empire (OBE)

1.       Dr Philip Frank Souter. Senior Director, Research and Development, Procter and Gamble. For services to Medical Research. (Morpeth, Northumberland)

2.       Simon Taylor. Chief Executive Officer with the Three Rivers Learning Trust, which runs a number of schools in the county.

Members of the Order of the British Empire (MBE)

1.       Scott Dickinson . Community Worker, Hadston House, Morpeth. For services to the community in Northumberland. (Morpeth, Northumberland)

2.       Dr Ingrid Pollard. Artist. For services to Art. (Hexham, Northumberland)

3.       Lucia Roberta Tough Bronze. For services to Association Football. (Manchester, Greater Manchester). Grew up in Northumberland.

4.       Susan Ghulum. Works for the council. Is the Registered Manager of Barndale Short Break in Alnwick - which offers families throughout Northumberland respite care and support for children with additional needs.

5.       Angus Lunn. for services to education and to peatland conservation.

6.       Geoff Hodgson OBE Chair of Port of Blyth for services to the Port.

The Civic Head's Charity Race Night was planned for 10 February at Ponteland Social Club at 7.00 p.m. Tickets were £10 per person and included food. Susan Taylor could be contacted for tickets.

The Leader then gave an update on the position with British Volt. This was very disappointing for all involved but the Council would do all it could to support those who had lost their jobs. It was unfortunate that recent takeover talks had not come to fruition but he stood by the Administration’s decision to take the opportunity which had presented itself. The Council had not lost any money, in fact it had made some, and the buyback clause was in place to get the land back if a gigafactory was not built on the site by the end of 2024. Efforts continued to find a solution.

Regarding devolution, he reported that Cabinet had agreed to move to the next stage of the “minded to” deal and five authorities involved had now formally done the same. The next stage involved public consultation and a member briefing was planned.

The Business Chair then reminded members that this was the final meeting for both Rick O’Farrell and Liz Morgan and he placed on record his thanks on behalf of the whole Council for their service to the Authority. Mr O’Farrell briefly addressed members in response.

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 the Leader

There will not be a referendum on establishing a North East Mayoral Combined Authority and a North East Mayor. Who made that decision, and do you agree with it?

The Leader responded that there was no provision in the legislation for a public referendum. He was personally in favour of a referendum when there was an important decision to make but in this case, neither Conservative nor Labour had included it in their manifestos. However, a significant amount of consultation was planned.

Councillor Hill responded that this was not the same as a vote and she asked how the Leader expected to take people along on this when there was no referendum and it had not been put to Council. This was a democratic deficit. She asked if the consultation showed that Northumberland residents didn’t want this, would the Leader roll back from his position?

The Leader was confident that the public would support this once they knew what was involved. He would be listening to what people said and it was important that all members were fully aware of the detail. Again, he was confident that members would be supportive, once they were fully briefed.

Question 2 from Councillor Swinburn to the Leader

Is there a process or procedure that can be followed where elected members can receive different treatment to that of residents when it comes to getting work carried out in their area, or in their own street. For example, ‘preferential’ treatment?

The Leader responded that he was not aware of any preferential treatment being given to councillors. The usual process was to look at the urgency or merits of an issue. The expected process was that residents could raise matters with their local councillor, who would then raise it with officers and then it would be dealt with, but he was not aware of members receiving preferential treatment.

Councillor Swinburn sought clarity that no elected member could get things done in their own areas other than by following the standard reporting process, and that all members received the same treatment as residents, with issues being dealt with on a priority basis. The Leader reiterated what he had previously said. 

Question 3 from Councillor Taylor to the Leader

As the 4th largest Market Town in Northumberland how much revenue in the form of Council Tax has been paid by Bedlington residents over the last 10 years and what investment from that revenue has been made into the town?

Can you provide a comparison with Berwick, Hexham, Ashington and Ponteland?

Councillor Wearmouth replied that he may need to provide a written response given the level of detail to the question. However, on tax receipts, he could provide the following figures:-

West Bedlington - £59m

East Bedlington - £37.8m

Berwick - £62.8m

Hexham - £87.2m

Ponteland - £102.9m

Ashington - £135m

He sought clarification from Councillor Taylor regarding what kind of expenditure detail she was looking for specifically around revenue or  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Electoral Review of Northumberland Phase 2 Submission

To update Council on phase two of the Electoral Review of Northumberland County Council being undertaken by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) and to present the Council’s proposed submission on divisional patterns.

Electoral Review of Northumberland Phase 2 Submission

The report updated Council on phase two of the Electoral Review of Northumberland County Council being undertaken by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) and presented the Council’s proposed submission on divisional patterns.

The Leader reported that staff had worked hard on this with all Groups to secure cross party agreement. The result was testament to the staff and to the good will of members and group leaders in finding something everyone could agree on. If there were any last minute changes required before submission, these would be looked at. The Boundary Commission were not bound to accept the Council’s submission but having cross party support gave it strength. He moved the report’s recommendations, which was seconded by Councillor Bridgett.

Councillor Hill asked if individual members would be consulted if they were affected by any last minute tweaks, and the Leader agreed this would be done.

Councillor Bridgett thanked Phil Hunter and the team for their work on this and asked if the Council was prepared for the Boundary Commission to not accept the Council’s proposals, which would require extensive consultation with local parish councils to ensure they were able to make the case on behalf of their communities. Phil Hunter confirmed this was the case.

Councillor Dale asked how Parish Councils had been informed about the review as she had received an email from a parish council about it. Members were informed that all parish councillors had been invited to a briefing on 12 December and all parish clerks had received an email the day before from the Boundary Commission reminding them about the need to respond.

Councillor Dickinson felt that the process had been as inclusive as it could be. The staff had tried their best to please everyone which he knew was very difficult. A broad consensus had been reached but he cautioned of the need to be aware going forward of where communities could be having their needs cancelled out by being moved into a more affluent area. This could be about available funding or the organisations which serviced those areas.

Councillor Kennedy agreed that there had been good joint working on this between the Group Leaders. He referred to a number of electoral divisions in the old Tynedale area which were below the average number and which had been determined by the Boundary Commission based on the justification they had provided at the time. He felt there may be some challenges to meet if it was all about numbers going forward, rather than communities.

Councillor Reid agree that officers had done a fantastic job in the timescales involved and the criteria which had been set for them. He felt this needed to be accepted now because ultimately, the Council would need to consider in detail what the Boundary Commission came back with in April. He would not be surprised if the Boundary Commission did not accept any of the Council’s proposals and members would need to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Response to the Challenge Board Interim Report 1 for the Member Oversight Group

To consider and respond to the first interim report of the Challenge Board, provided to the Member Oversight Group on the 23.12.22 (see pages 29-46).

Response to the Challenge Board Interim Report 1 for the Member Oversight Group

Members were asked to consider and respond to the first interim report of the Challenge Board, provided to the Member Oversight Group on the 23.12.22.

The Leader briefly introduced the report and was grateful to the Challenge Board for providing the necessary challenge and highlighting the areas being done well and where improvement was needed. Good progress was being made.

Councillor Castle commented that the last couple of years had been very difficult, but things were improving with signs of more consensual behaviour emerging. He commended the Leader for how he had led the Council through this and welcomed the fact that things were now going in the right direction.

With reference to page 31, point no.3 (…a clear three year financial plan..), Councillor Morphet asked whether this was the MTFP, or if not, what was the difference. Mr O’Farrell responded that this was the MTFP and this point was being discussed with the Challenge Board but the thinking was to link this more closely to the Corporate Plan and the strategic change programme to provide a more comprehensive picture.

Councillor Reid asked how the Council could provide a three year plan when the Government would only provide a one year financial settlement. Mr O’Farrell responded that the Council was obliged to provide a three year financial plan using best estimates available at that point in time.

Councillor Dickinson commented that the Challenge Board report was a snapshot in time and recognised that the Council was on a three year journey which members were working on together. The need for cross party integration and design should be strengthened. It emphasised that the Council needed to engage with the process, but he wasn’t sure what was meant by this. There was still a lot of work to do on member behaviour. He also hoped the report would reflect more how his Group felt in the next version, after the Board had met his Group. He acknowledged the progress which had been achieved so far and hoped that the areas identified for improvement would be taken on board.

Councillor Reid commented that until members were able to work with each other properly on the budget from the start of the process with officers then no real progress in working together and moving forward had been achieved.

The Leader thanked members for their positive comments. Progress had been encouraging in the last couple of months and his Group was keen to be able to get along with all Groups in the Council. If the level of trust continued he did not see why the Administration should not share more when it came to the budget next year. He thanked officers for their work and was keen to see the pace continue.

RESOLVED that the initial findings and suggested next steps proposed in the Challenge Board’s first interim report be noted.

Independent Remuneration Panel Members

In September 2021, Council agreed the re-establishment of an Independent Remuneration Panel of three members for the duration of four years. This report recommends endorsement of the appointment of a fourth Member (see pages 47-52).

Independent Remuneration Panel Members

In September 2021, Council agreed the re-establishment of an Independent Remuneration Panel of three members for the duration of four years. The report recommended endorsement of the appointment of a fourth Member.

Councillor Wearmouth introduced the report highlighting the key issues. He moved the recommendations which was seconded by Councillor Sanderson.

Councillor Dickinson sought assurance that the Monitoring Officer was satisfied that proper recruitment processes had been followed. The Monitoring Officer confirmed this was the case. The report had been brought back to members as the delegation had been to appoint a third member. However, when interviews had taken place, a potential fourth member had been identified and Group Leaders advised at the time that they would be appointed, subject to ratification by full Council.

Councillor Reid queried whether the decision had in fact already been made. Councillor Wearmouth referred to the explanation provided by the Monitoring Officer and the alternative (appointment of a fourth member) being put to members today.

The Monitoring Officer explained the delegation to appoint three members from September 2021 and the potential to appoint a fourth member which had emerged. This had been agreed via email with the Group Leaders, subject to ratification by full Council. The applicants had been told that their appointments would be subject to Council agreeing them.

On the report’s recommendations being put to the vote there voted FOR: a substantial majority; AGAINST: 0; ABSTENTIONS: 2.

It was therefore RESOLVED that:-

(a)      the appointment of a fourth member of the Panel be ratified; and

(b)      the appointments of Eric Richards and Hayley Hall as Independent Remuneration Panel Members for a period of four years from 18 January 2023 until 17 January 2027 be endorsed.

Community Governance Review – Hepscott Parish

To consider the outcome of a community governance review in the County (see pages 53-66).

Community Governance Review – Hepscott Parish

Council was asked to consider the outcome of a community governance review in the County.

RESOLVED that:-

(a )     the number of Parish Councillors on Hepscott Parish Council be increased from seven to nine;

(b )     Hepscott Parish Council should not be divided into wards for the purpose of electing Councillors; and

(c )     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 2000.

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             Paragraph of Part I of Schedule 12A

12?                               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.?

?

Independent Remuneration Panel Members

To consider the attached Appendix A under Agenda item 9 in Part 1 of this agenda (see pages 67-84).