Agenda item

Report of the Town Clerk.

The Committee considered a report of the Town Clerk relative to their terms of reference and frequency of meetings.

In response to questions, the Town Clerk reminded the Committee that appointments to and the terms of reference for their various Sub-Committees would be considered at their first meeting of the municipal year, after the April Court of Common Council meeting – on 14 May 2020. The Town Clerk went on to report that whilst the grand Committee’s terms of reference were reported upwards to the Court of Common Council, the way in which its Sub-Committees operated and the matters delegated to those Sub-Committees was very much for the grand Committee to determine. Members were informed that, should the grand Committee be of the view that any one issue, project or scheme was sufficiently important or controversial for example, they were able to call that matter in from any Sub-Committee and request that only the grand Committee be able to take a final decision on it. Equally, Sub-Committees could refer matters of sufficient importance upwards to grand Committees. The Town Clerk provided the Committee with some examples of where this had already happened in the past.

A Member made a request for the start time of these meetings to remain consistent going forward. He also suggested that two meetings per annum might be held in the evening and dedicated to matters of residential interest, affording local residents a better opportunity of also being in attendance.

Another Member suggested that the meetings could be held in the afternoon going forward.

A third Member asked that consideration be given to live streaming future meetings in the way that some other local authorities already did.

The Chair commented that he had already met on a one to one basis with many members of the Committee regarding the format of these meetings but added that he now intended to consult on this in a more formal manner, consider feedback and request that the Committee  then meet informally to discuss this in more detail in the coming months.

A Member stated that she felt that the status and accountability of this Committee as a Ward Committee was diminished by delegating powers to the Streets and Walkways Sub-Committee(where not all Wards were represented) to take decisions on major projects. She added that the advantage of a Committee having all Wards represented was to make it more difficult for a group of influential Members to dominate decision making in the Corporation. She explained that this protection was very limited, because only 20% of members represented residential wards, whose interests were typically different from those of other wards, but she believed it was better than nothing, and without it she would not now be addressing this Committee. With this in mind, she proposed a motion as follows:

MOTION: That paragraph (q) of the terms of reference be amended to read as follows:

“The appointment of such Sub-Committees as is considered necessary for the better performance of its duties including a Streets and Walkways Sub-Committee, but in order to respect the status of the Planning and Transportation Committee as a Ward Committee, the Streets and Walkways Sub-Committee will not have delegated power to make decisions on delegated major projects”.

The motion was seconded.

Members debated the motion before them.

A Member spoke in favour of the motion underlining that any decision on a major project going forward ought to be referred to the grand Committee on which all Wards were represented.

A Member spoke to disagree with the narrative that the City Corporation was undemocratic. He added that other local authorities such as Islington did not operate a ward committee system for Planning matters. In this respect, the City Corporation was the anomaly. He went on to report that any elected member was able to attend and, with the permission of the Chairman, contribute to meetings of the Streets and Walkways Sub Committee. He added that stakeholders went beyond residents and that it was, as the Town Clerk had already articulated, for this Committee to take control of any major or contentious projects as necessary.

Another Member spoke to agree with the previous speaker and stated that she found the motion problematic, particularly the reference to ‘major projects’ and how these were to be practically defined.

An Alderman also spoke against the motion, agreeing that there were no democratic deficiencies in the way in which this grand Committee and its Sub-Committees operated. He added that the proper role of ward Committees was not to ensure that all Wards were represented – if that were the case, all Committees would be Ward Committees. He added that the purpose of ward Committees it was to ensure a spread of power amongst ward members.

Another Member spoke to disagree with the motion. He added that several Ward Committees successfully operated a Sub-Committee system and delegated certain decisions to them – the Community and Children’s Services Committee had similar arrangements with its Housing Sub-Committee for example. He concluded by stating that the proposed amendment made the operation of the Streets and Walkways Sub-Committee difficult in practice and he, too, underlined that the grand Committee had the ability to call in individual issues/projects as it saw fit.

A Member reminded the Committee that an overarching Governance Review was also forthcoming and individual Members could also submit any particular concerns they might have as to the way that grand/Sub-Committees operated to the Town Clerk as requested. He added that, in his view, the real problem was in the Planning and Transportation Committee operating as a Ward Committee. He suggested that it should, instead, be constituted in a similar way to the Licensing Committee going forward. He concluded by stating that ward Members were required to take decisions on planning applications without prejudice and that there was a strong case for appeal if that were not the case and members were predetermining matters based on their Ward representations.

Several other Members spoke to raise concerns over how major projects would be defined under the proposed amendment.

A Member stated that he was unaware of any other local authority that had such a large Planning Committee membership. He added that he felt that the Sub-Committee model as it currently stood operated successfully.

A Member spoke to state that, in the past, there had been no issue with the management of major projects, with the grand Committee presented with an overview of them and then delegating the detail of these to relevant Sub-Committees. Relevant Ward Members would also be engaged and kept informed by Officers, regardless of whether or not they served on the Planning and Transportation Committee. She suggested that this approach needed to be reinstated. She added that this Committee received the minutes of the Streets and Walkways Sub-Committee as a matter of course and could interject on any matters if necessary. She questioned whether the ability to call in matters as the grand Committee saw fit could be explicitly referenced within the Sub-Committee terms of reference going forward.

A Member spoke to note that other authorities, such as Islington, that did not operate Ward Committees, had 100% of Councillors voted for by residents. In the City of London, that figure was just 20%. He referred to the motion proposed and suggested that definition of the term ‘major’ would require a common-sense approach. This proposal was too late to address concerns around the Beech Street project where a decision had already been taken by the Streets and Walkways Sub-Committee, but it was hoped that it would be a means of preventing other major decisions from being made without relevant Ward input. With reference to the Governance Review, the Member stated that he believed that this was likely to be delay this decision unnecessarily and that the simplicity of this proposal would mean that it could be made now. In response to the Alderman who suggested that all Committees would be Ward Committees if all wards were to be represented, the Member pointed out that ward representation was only important on Committees that had the most important functions, which the Ward Committees generally had. In response to the Member who advocated that the Planning Committee should cease to be a Ward Committee because of prejudice and predetermination on the part of resident councillors, the Member pointed out that this could equally, or more so, be said of councillors representing business wards.

Another Member spoke to suggest that approving this motion could set a horrendous precedent. He added that any alteration to a grand Committee’s terms of reference ultimately required the approval of the Policy and Resources Committee and the Court of Common Council. He stated that, although he represented a ‘business ward’, his recent ward list showed a 25% increase in electors, the majority of whom were residents. The Member went on to express concern around the fact that the term Ward Committee seemed to be being conflated here and underlined that it was not intended as a means for members to solely represent their own ward issues.

Another Member stated that, whilst he represented what was classed as a ‘business Ward’ he had approximately 400 residents on the electoral roll for his Ward and added that they accounted for 95% of his casework. He reiterated that the Beech Street project was an experimental scheme that had yet to be implemented. It could therefore be ‘called in’ by this Committee at any point going forward.

A Member spoke to suggest that this motion was not now proposed in relation to Beech Street given that the decision on this matter had already been taken. Rather, it was intended as a safeguard against similar decisions on major projects being taken out of the hands of the grand Committee. He added that the few residents in his business Ward accounted for 100% of his casework and that this, alongside the comments made by previous speakers, supported his view that the disengagement of business voters was immense.

An Alderman spoke to say that he did not support the motion for the same reasons already outlined by others, He went on to question why paragraph (q) as currently drafted made specific reference to the Streets and Walkways Sub-Committee which seemed unnecessary.

The Chair spoke to underline that the Beech Street project was very far from a closed book and would remain open for consultation – any impression otherwise was false. He reiterated that, as well as relevant Officers, he and the Deputy Chairman would be happy to receive feedback on the scheme and were approaching this with genuinely open minds. He recognised that it was important for Ward members to remain on top of relevant Ward issues and to address/appear in front of Committees on these however, whilst Planning and Transportation was a Ward Committee, its role was to have full oversight of relevant matters and to consider these strategically.

The Committee proceeded to vote on the Motion before them. Votes were cast as follows:

            IN FAVOUR – 4

            OPPOSED – 18

            ABSTENTIONS – 1

The Motion was therefore not carried.