Decisions

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule No. 24.7, twelve Members had requested that the decision of the Full Council held on 12 October 2021 in relation to Minute No. 32 – London Road Car Park be subject to reconsideration.  Councillor K. Girling moved and Councillor R. White seconded the motion that:

‘At the meeting of Full Council held on 12 October 2021, it was agreed to proceed with the London Road car park extension scheme (referred to as Option B in the report). Following the receipt of an improved offer to the Council to buy the land on which the extension is proposed to be built, it is proposed that the previous decision taken by the Council on 12 October 2021 be rescinded. It is further proposed that the Council agrees to purchase the freehold of the land known as the London Road car park extension for the sum of £450,000, and to retain the land as green space.’

In debating the motion, the Council considered the accompanying report of the Chief Executive, which provided supporting information. The report advised that since the decision of the Full Council on 12 October 2021, to proceed with Option B, officers had made progress to implement the car park extension.  An updated ecology survey had been undertaken and fencing had been installed around the perimeter of the site.  This was in preparation for the removal of the trees and the implementation of planning permission.

In the periods before and after the last meeting of the Full Council, campaigners had continued to press for the trees to be protected and for the proposed car park extension to be abandoned.  An online petition “Stop the Chop and Save our Trees” had gathered 60,081 signatories.  The petition, which was presented to the Chairman, called for the Council to:

§    Pause the felling of the trees;

§    Undertake, and publish the findings of, the promised car parking review with stakeholders including the Newark Civic Trust and Protecting Newark’s Green Open Spaces;

§    Hold the promised consultation on the development of the site, given its high value to local people; and

§    Undertake a full bat survey next spring in May 2022 when the weather is warm enough for bats to fly at night.

The report further advised that on the day the Council’s ecologist visited the site, Friday 12 November 2021, the Council received a revised offer from Datch Properties Limited for the Council to purchase the freehold of the site earmarked for the extension. The site was shown in the plan at Appendix B to the report. The previous best and final offer which was reported to the Full Council at the 12 October 2021 meeting was a sum of £600,000 to purchase the site. The revised offer was a reduced price of £450,000 on the condition that the Council did not implement the planning permission to create the car park extension and retained the land as green space.

The total cost to the Council in purchasing the land was the asking price of £450,000 together with SDLT, legal costs and land registration fee totalling £467,540.  In addition to the costs of purchasing the land, the Council would not be receiving any future income from constructing the car park.  This lost income, net of the abortive and additional development costs was £115,139.  This future loss in anticipated income had not been incorporated into the medium term financial plan and therefore there would be no immediate impact on the financial plans of the Council.

It was noted that if the motion was agreed, the necessary changes would be made to the General Fund Capital Programme and in year General Fund expenditure.

On being put to the meeting, the motion was agreed with 28 votes for and 2 abstentions.

A recorded vote was taken as follows:

The Council considered the report of the Deputy Chief Executive, concerning the appointment of Stuart Turner as a non-voting independent member of the Audit & Accounts Committee, and to consider an additional meeting of the Committee in September 2021 to facilitate the approval of the Statement of Accounts for 2020/21.

The Audit & Accounts Committee had recommended the co-option of a non-voting independent member to the Full Council earlier in the year. Following a recruitment process, it was considered that Stuart Turner had the required knowledge and skills to provide the support and appropriate challenge when scrutinising reports that are considered by the Committee. It was noted that the position would be reviewed annually to ensure that both parties were content to continue with the arrangement.

AGREED (unanimously) that:

a)      the appointment of Stuart Turner to the position of non-voting independent member on the Audit & Accounts Committee be approved; and

b)      an extraordinary meeting of the Audit & Accounts meeting be scheduled for the 22September 2021.

The Council considered the report of the Chief Executive which proposed the appointment of Sue Bearman as the Council’s Monitoring Officer. Under Section 5 of the Local Government & Housing Act 1989, the Council had a duty to appoint a Monitoring Officer. The appointment was a matter reserved for Full Council and the Monitoring Officer had a number of statutory duties and responsibilities relating to the Council’s constitution and the arrangements for effective governance. The Council’s current Monitoring Officer, Karen White, was to retire from the authority at the end of July. Sue Bearman had recently been appointed to the new role of Assistant Director, Legal and Democratic Services and was a qualified solicitor and considered to have the appropriate skills, experience and ability to undertake the role of Monitoring Officer.

The Members expressed their thanks to Karen White for her service to the authority.

AGREED (unanimously) that Sue Bearman be appointed as the Council’s Monitoring Officer with effect from 1 August 2021.

(Sue Bearman left the meeting whilst this item was being considered).

The Council considered the report of the Director - Planning and Growth, which advised Members of the result of the Neighbourhood Plan  Referendum for Bulcote and sought to formally adopt the Plan. The referendum was held on 6 May 2021 with the question ‘Do you want Newark & Sherwood District Council to use the Neighbourhood Plan for Bulcote to help it decide planning applications in the neighbourhood area?’ In total 136 votes were cast, of which 122 were in favour and 14 against.

AGREED (unanimously) that the Council ‘make’ the Bulcote Neighbourhood Plan, confirming that it forms part of the Development Plan for Newark & Sherwood District.

The Council considered the report of the Director – Governance & Organisational Development and Monitoring Officer which invited Members to consider the adoption of the Local Government Association’s (LGA) Model Member Code of Conduct. The LGA had developed the Model Code, following consultation with the local government sector, as a template for Councils to consider adopting in whole and/or with local amendments. The LGA had undertaken to complete a review of the Code annually to ensure that it continues to be fit for purpose, particularly with respect to advances in technology, social media and any relevant changes to legislation.

The differences between the existing Code of Conduct and the new model Code were detailed in the report. There were three obligations in the current code which the Councillors’ Commission had recommended be included in the new code. These were set out in the report and incorporated into the proposed new Code. Otherwise the Councillors’ Commission had recommended the adoption of the model code as set out.

AGREED (unanimously) that Members approve the adoption of the Member Code of Conduct for the Council, as set out in Appendix A of the report, to apply with immediate effect.

The Council considered the report of the Chief Executive concerning Council Procedure Rule No. 4.8, which required Council to appoint a panel of at least four Members in order to be in a position to call an Extraordinary Meeting of the Council should the offices of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Council be vacant, or if both the Chairman and Vice-Chairman were unable to act for any reason.

AGREED (unanimously) that the Leader of the Council, Deputy Leader of the Council, together with the Leaders of the Labour and Liberal Democrat Groups be appointed to the Panel established in accordance with Council Procedure Rule No. 4.8.

The Council considered the report of the Chief Executive which sought to make appointments to outside bodies for the 2021/22 municipal year. The Municipal General Charity, and the Patient and Public Engagement Committee for the two mid Nottinghamshire Clinical Commissioning Groups had been removed from the schedule as representation on these bodies was no longer required.

AGREED (unanimously) that the appointments of representatives on outside bodies for 2021/22, as set out in the schedule at Appendix C to these minutes, be approved.

The Council considered the report of the Chief Executive which sought to make  the appointments of the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Council, Chairmen and Vice Chairmen of Committees, Major Opposition Spokespersons, Members and Substitute Members to Committees. 

AGREED (unanimously) that the appointments as set out in the schedule, at Appendix B to these minutes, be approved.

The Council considered the report of the Chief Executive concerning the allocation of seats on Committees to Political Groups, as required by Council Procedure Rule No. 17.6, following the recent by-elections for Boughton and Bridge Wards.

Section 15 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 required the Council to consider the political composition of the Council.  This Act, together with the Local Government (Committees and Political Groups) Regulations 1990, required the Council to allocate seats on committees on a proportional basis in accordance with the number of seats held on the Council by each political group.  The political composition and allocation of seats was effectively deferred at the Annual Meeting held on 4 May 2021 given the vacancies on the Council at that time. The proposed allocation of seats was set out in Appendix A to the report.

AGREED (unanimously) that the allocation of seats to Political Groups (as set out in Appendix A to these minutes) be approved.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule No. 13.1, Councillor P. Peacock moved and Councillor D. Lloyd seconded a motion to the following effect:

“On the 29^th of April 2021 the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee published their investigation into the surplus sharing arrangements between the UK Government and the Mineworkers Pension Scheme.

Since privatisation of the Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme in 1994, successive Governments have received 50% of surpluses in the Scheme’s value, in return for providing a guarantee that the value of pensions will not decrease. At the time it was expected that the Government would receive approximately £4bn from the arrangement in today’s money. However, to date, the Government has received £4.4bn, and is also due to receive at least another £1.9bn, on top of 50% off any future surpluses. The Government has not paid any funds into the Scheme in return.

Whether or not the Government knew in 1994 that it would disproportionately benefit from the arrangement, and whether all parties thought it was fair at the time, is irrelevant. It is patently clear today that the arrangements have unduly benefited the Government, and it is untenable for the Government to continue to argue that the arrangements remain fair.

Tens of thousands of former mineworkers and their families reside within our district. Newark and Sherwood District Council support their calls for the Government to take seriously and act on the following findings of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee:

• “The Government hands the £1.2bn it is due to receive from the Investment Reserve back to miners, and sets out its proposals for how and when this will be administered in response to this report”.

•  “Governments should not be in the business of profiting from mineworkers’ pensions. We are therefore disappointed by the Government’s argument that the 1994 agreement is a success because the public purse has had strong returns from it. The Government is not a corporate entity driven by profit-motives and should not view the miners’ pensions as an opportunity to derive income”.
• “The Government’s guarantee is important, has contributed to the success of the Scheme, and has benefitted Scheme members. However, we are not convinced by the Government’s argument that its entitlement to 50% of surpluses is proportionate to the relatively low degree of risk it actually faces in practice. The number of Scheme members and the relative size of the fund has fallen significantly since 1994. Yet, the Government’s ‘price’ for the guarantee has not been adjusted to reflect that fact. With no formal period review mechanism built into the agreement, pension members remain tied to an expensive arrangement”.
• “With the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that the Government has already profited greatly from the Scheme. The Government must acknowledge that continuation of the arrangements in their current form deserves a review and a better outcome for pensions should be found. The current arrangements should be replaced with a revised agreement in which the Government is only entitled to a share of surpluses if the Scheme falls into deficit, and the Government has to provide funds. In that event, the Government should be entitled to 50% of future surpluses up to the total value of the funds it has provided to make up any shortfall. Such an arrangement takes account of the vast funds the Government has received thus far and the significant reduction in the risk it faces, and would ensure that neither party will be out of pocket in future”.
• “Given that the Scheme has continued to produce strong returns despite the 2008 Financial Crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, there is little reason to believe the Government will be required to pay into the Scheme before it is wound-up. Even if, in extremis, the Government is required to financially contribute at some point in the future, realistically its contribution will not come close to the (at least) £6.3bn it is currently due to receive in total”.

In supporting these findings Newark and Sherwood District Council will write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking him to act immediately to the findings of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee and implement/respond to their recommendations.”

The motion, on being put to the meeting was declared carried unanimously.