Agenda and minutes

Theresa Hodgkinson declared an interest in agenda item 7b (Appointment of the Chief Executive and Head of the Paid Service) and advised that she would be leaving the room whilst the item of business was voted upon.

RESOLVED

that the minutes of the meetings of the Council held on 4 March and 20 May 2021, as now submitted, be received and approved.

No announcements were made.

(None received for this meeting)

No questions were received for consideration.

(None received for this meeting)

No petitions were submitted for consideration.

The Leader of the Council advised as follows:-

“In accordance with Rule 17.2 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules it

is necessary for me to inform the Council when an executive decision has

been taken pursuant to Rule 16 (Special Urgency Provisions.)

I can confirm to the Council that four such decisions have been taken as a matter of urgency since the last Council meeting in December 2020:

·       Leasing of Brook Street Offices, Sutton in Ashfield

·       Carbon Saving Works to Council Assets – Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme (Phase 2

·       Green Homes Grant Phase 2 –

·       Letting of Commercial Property - Grangemouth

The decisions were key and two contained exempt information but the full 28

days’ notice could not be given due to the need to proceed with the

transactions without delay.

The Rule 16 Notice and the non-exempt elements of the decisions have been

duly published.”

Council was requested to consider the appointment to the post of Chief Executive and Head of Paid Service.

(In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 30.1, Councillor Jason Zadrozny

moved suspension of Council Procedure Rule 16.4, in relation to the "Content

and Length of Speeches", to enable him to deliver a farewell speech to the outgoing Interim Chief Executive, Carol Cooper-Smith.  Having been seconded by Councillor Samantha Deakin, the motion was duly carried.)

Theresa Hodgkinson took the opportunity to express her thanks and gratitude to Carol Cooper-Smith for her commitment and exemplary service to Ashfield District Council, as Interim Chief Executive, over the past couple of years.

The Leader of the Council then delivered a farewell speech to Carol and presented her with some gifts from the Ashfield Independent Group. Many other Members also reiterated their appreciation and offered their best wishes for the future.

(At this point in the proceedings, Theresa Hodgkinson left the room whilst the vote was cast in relation to the Chief Executive appointment.)

RESOLVED

that the Council appoints Theresa Hodgkinson to the post of Chief Executive and Head of Paid Service with effect from 1 August 2021.

To conclude, Theresa Hodgkinson, as the new Chief Executive and Head of Paid Service, thanked Members for their votes and pledged her commitment to the Council, Members and the residents of Ashfield whilst looking forward to working with all concerned in the future.

(In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 30, it was moved by Councillor Jason Zadrozny and seconded by Councillor Samantha Deakin that Procedure Rules 10 (Duration of Meeting) and 23 (Conclusion of Proceedings) be suspended, for the duration of the meeting, to enable all matters on the agenda to be satisfactorily concluded. Having been put to the vote, the Council agreed with this course of action.)

The Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Councillor Andrew Harding, presented the Annual Scrutiny Report for 2021 with contributions from Councillors Dave Shaw, Christian Chapman and Jim Blagden as Chairman of the three appointed Scrutiny Panels.

RESOLVED

that the work undertaken by scrutiny from 2019 to 2021 as detailed within the Annual Scrutiny Report 2021, as presented, be received and noted.

Approval was sought from Council to add a £3m budget to the Capital Programme to facilitate the timely acquisition of in-District properties to support the regeneration of the District.

RESOLVED

that approval be given for the addition of a £3m budget to the General Fund Capital Programme for the potential acquisition of in-District properties for regeneration purposes.

Council was presented with proposals to carry out an interim review of polling places to consider issues highlighted during the elections in May 2021.

RESOLVED that

a)    the establishment of a Polling Places Review Working Party, be approved with a remit as outlined in the report and with the full scope being developed at the first meeting of this Working Party;

b)    it be agreed that the Working Party consists of 6 Members: 4 Ashfield Independents Members, 1 Conservative Member and 1 Labour Member;

c)    the membership of the Working Party to be as follows:

Samantha Deakin

Tom Hollis

Lauren Mitchell

Kevin Rostance

Helen-Ann Smith

Jason Zadrozny;

d)    the Leader of the Council, Councillor Jason Zadrozny, be appointed as Chairman of the Working Party;

e)    the timetable to complete the review, as outlined in the report, be approved.

e)

Council was provided with an overview of the Boundary Commission for England proposals for Parliamentary Boundaries and the consultation stage currently underway.

Two plans were circulated to Members outlining proposals for an initial response from the Council.

During the discussion Councillors Chris Baron, Lauren Mitchell and Keir Morrison stated that they did not want their names being included with any formal response from the Council in respect of the parliamentary boundary proposals and wished this to be noted in the minutes.

In addition, and in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 18.4 [Recorded Vote], Councillor Lauren Mitchell moved that the vote in relation to this item be formally recorded in the minutes.  Having been duly seconded by Councillor Keir Morrison and put to the vote, Members agreed to this course of action.)

RESOLVED that

a)    the Boundary Commission for England proposals for Parliamentary Boundaries and the consultation stage currently underway, be received and noted;

b)    it be agreed that the Council makes a formal representation to the Boundary Commission for England, as part of the consultation stage, based on the suggested alternative boundaries detailed within the report and the two plans further circulated at the meeting.

In accordance with the Council Procedure Rule 2(ix), Council considered the

following recommendations:-

Minute No. CA.12

Cabinet – 19 July 2021

Draft Outturn Report 2021

RESOLVED

that approval be given to carry-forward the £5.455m underspend on the Capital Programme to 2021/22, due to slippage (delays to schemes) included in the Programme and as outlined in Section 4 of the Cabinet report.

Minute No. CA.13

Cabinet – 19 July 2021

Addition to Capital Programme - S106 Funding

RESOLVED

approval be given to the additions to the Capital Programme of a number of green space improvement projects, funded through Section 106 public open space contributions and as outlined in the Cabinet report.

The meeting was adjourned at 9.16pm and reconvened at 9.30pm.

(During the adjournment, Councillors Chris Baron and Melanie Darrington left the meeting at 9.18pm.)

Councillor Samantha Deakin - Portfolio Holder for Parks, Town Centres and Neighbourhood Services

·         Officers have been busy administering the Welcome Back Fund and the Senior Covid Information Officer is with the Council until the end of September

·         The organisation of events is well underway with a planned Food Festival and Tabletop Sales.

·         Footfall is increasing at all town centres with Kirkby making a slow start but increasing steadily

·         Projects continue with £550k being spent on the Council’s parks and open spaces and a further £500k investment imminent

·         Replanting of 1000 trees

·         The success of the 2021 Spring Clean, Bag It and Flying Skip Campaigns and a thank you to all staff involved

·         New proposals for the Big Spring Clean 2022

·         Recent works being carried out at Kings Mill Reservoir by a Youth Voluntary Charity

·         The installation of a rapid electric charger at the Depot and plans to replace the diesel fleet with new hybrid vehicles.

Councillor Matthew Relf – Portfolio Holder for Place, Planning and

Regeneration

·         Work well underway to purchase vacant High Street properties as part of the Towns Fund programme

·         The imminent opening of the new Moor Market at Kirkby in Ashfield

·         Proposals for walking and cycling improvements within Ashfield

·         Creation of a Centre of Excellence for disabled people in Sport and Theatre, at Portland College

·         The recent award of £62.6 million for investment in Kirkby and Sutton Town Centre with 17 projects being included in the business plan

·         Members’ meeting arranged to discuss further ideas for Towns Fund investment

·         The Discover Ashfield Board continued to meet monthly with the Graduate Officer doing an excellent job supporting the Members

·         Work continuing on the Railways Bid for the Maid Marion Line.

Councillor Daniel Williamson - Portfolio Holder for Customer Services, Corporate Change and Digital Transformation

·         The Risk and Emergency Planning Team continued to work hard to keep the Council safe following relaxation of the Covid distancing rules

·         Improvements continued to be made to the Council’s online payment facilities with the provision of a user-friendly website

·         60,000 online payments made in 2020/21 which showed a 16% increase on the previous year resulting in a 23% reduction in pay point and post office transactions

·         Digital transformation was continuing with the Office 365 rollout to employees and installation of a new telephone system resulting in a £37,000 saving

·         Work was now focussing on improvements to the Central Customer Portal.

Councillor Kier Barsby - Portfolio Holder for Environmental Improvements, Corporate Communications and Cross Portfolio Support

·         Democratic Services and Scrutiny were now back to normal and facilitating face to face meetings with their Mod.Gov office software being upgraded and shifted to a cloud-based system

·         Members were due to have their IPads updated to facilitate the new improvements

·         The Legal Team were busy with Community Safety enforcement work and Freedom of Information requests were still being processed at a high level

·         Elections were currently delivering the 2021 annual canvass and were making preparations for the imminent Polling Places review

·         The Communications Team continued to keep  ...  view the full minutes text for item C.27

Motion 1

To consider a notice of motion proposed by Councillor Keir Morrison and seconded by Councillor Lauren Mitchell, as follows:-

“On the 29th 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, the Government has 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.  The Government failed to conduct due diligence during the 1994 negotiations and was negligent by not taking actuarial advice. There was no empirical analysis or evaluation to inform or support the 50:50 split, and it therefore remains arbitrary.

Tens of thousands of former mineworkers and their families reside within our district. Ashfield 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 should relinquish its entitlement to the Investment Reserve and transfer the £1.2bn fund to the Mineworkers’ Pension Fund.

• The 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 entitlement to 50% of surpluses is not proportionate to the degree of financial risk it actually faces and therefore should not take any further surpluses out of the scheme until such a time that the Government has supported losses to the scheme equalling that that they have already taken out of the scheme.

• The Government has potentially accrued £6.3bn from the Mineworker’s Pension Scheme and should use this windfall to cover any future losses to the scheme. In supporting these findings Ashfield 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 their recommendations.”

Motion 2

To consider a notice of motion proposed by Councillor David Martin and seconded by Councillor Helen-Ann Smith, as follows:-

“Ashfield District Council notes that the Government is currently consulting on increasing the free prescription age to 66 and that of thousands of residents in Nottinghamshire aged 60-65 will be adversely impacted.

This Council further notes that residents aged between 60 and 65 receive free prescriptions when they turn 60 in England, whereas the State Pension Age is now 66.

This  ...  view the full agenda text for item C.28

The Council received a notice of motion moved by Councillor Keir Morrison and seconded by Councillor Lauren Mitchell as follows:-

“On the 29th 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, the Government has 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. The Government failed to conduct due diligence during the 1994 negotiations and was negligent by not taking actuarial advice.  There was no empirical analysis or evaluation to inform or support the 50:50 split, and it therefore remains arbitrary.

Tens of thousands of former mineworkers and their families reside within our district. Ashfield 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 should relinquish its entitlement to the Investment Reserve and transfer the £1.2bn fund to the Mineworkers’ Pension Fund.

• The 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 entitlement to 50% of surpluses is not proportionate to the degree of financial risk it actually faces and therefore should not take any further surpluses out of the scheme until such a time that the Government has supported losses to the scheme equalling that that they have already taken out of the scheme.

• The Government has potentially accrued £6.3bn from the Mineworker’s Pension Scheme and should use this windfall to cover any future losses to the scheme. In supporting these findings Ashfield 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 their recommendations.”

Councillor David Hennigan moved an amendment to the motion (shown in italics), seconded by Councillor John Baird as follows:-

”Ashfield District Council notes the historical contribution that mining has played across Ashfield. 

Annesley, Bentinck, Bottom Pit, Hucknall, Top Pit Hucknall, Summit, Linby, Newstead, Sillverhill and Sutton and other local collieries played a pivotal part in shaping the Ashfield District. 

Nottinghamshire was a major supplier of coal for industry and home consumption, particularly during the 19th and 20th century.  At one time, Nottinghamshire,  ...  view the full minutes text for item C.28

The Council received a notice of motion moved by Councillor David Martin and seconded by Councillor Helen-Ann Smith as follows:-

”Ashfield District Council notes that the Government is currently consulting on increasing the free prescription age to 66 and that of thousands of residents in Nottinghamshire aged 60-65 will be adversely impacted.

This Council further notes that residents aged between 60 and 65 receive free prescriptions when they turn 60 in England, whereas the State Pension Age is now 66.

This Council also notes the comments made by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society (RPS) who said it was "deeply concerned" by the plan - and warned it could leave people without the important medications that they need.

This Council acknowledges that according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies - among older workers, 37% reported that their household income was now lower because of the impact of successive coronavirus lockdowns. These are the very residents who will be impacted if the age for free prescriptions is raised.

This Council therefore resolves to write a formal submission to the consultation opposing any plans to raise to free prescription age to 66. This Council further resolves to send a letter to Secretary of State for Health and Social Care - The Rt Hon Sajid Javid MP from the leaders of Ashfield District Council formally opposing these plans on behalf of all councillors.”

Having been fully considered, the motion was put to the vote and it was

RESOLVED that

a)    the Council writes a formal submission to the consultation opposing any plans to raise the free prescription age to 66;

a letter be sent to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, The Rt Hon Sajid Javid MP, from the leaders of Ashfield District Council formally opposing these plans on behalf of all councillors.

The Council received a notice of motion moved by Councillor Matthew Relf and seconded by Councillor David Shaw as follows:-

”Ashfield District Council notes the Government’s White Paper ‘Planning for the Future: planning policy changes in England in 2020 and future reforms’

This Council believes that proposals made in this Planning Bill would make the biggest changes to the planning in decades, to increase the speed with which developers can start building on land but at the expense of valuable local scrutiny and would substantially repeal safeguards in the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act.

The legislation was outlined at the Queen's Speech in May, with detailed plans expected to be published later this year.

Much of the rhetoric from the government surrounding these proposed changes has painted the current planning system as a blocker to progress. This council does not recognise this depiction of the planning system. This council believes that while improvements can always be found, the current

planning system does well at balancing the requirement for new developments with the need for those new developments to not detrimentally impact existing residents.

This Council believes the outlined proposals set out in the White Paper would:

• Curtail the ability of Ashfield residents to comment on individual applications.

• Lead to a planning ‘free for all’ with developers able to prioritise profit above all other concerns.

• Remove the power of local councillors to make planning decisions on behalf of the residents who elected them.

• Abandon section 106 and community infrastructure levy payments and replace them with a national levy that will favour affluent areas of the UK and leave places like Ashfield further behind.

• Remove the statutory requirement for local authorities to publish planning notices in local newspapers – thus eroding transparency.

• Offers nothing to deal with the affordable housing crisis.

• Would increase the housing targets for Nottinghamshire by 48%.

Our Council believes planning works best when developers and the local community work together to shape the District of Ashfield and deliver necessary new homes. We therefore call on the Government to protect the right of residents, communities and councillors to object to individual

planning applications.

That the Leader of Ashfield District Council writes to the MPs for Ashfield and Sherwood – Lee Anderson and Mark Spencer on behalf of all councillors asking for a commitment to voting against this bill when it comes before the House, to issue a public statement opposing the bill and for a guarantee that they will use any influence they have to persuade their colleagues in the House of Commons to do the same.”

Having been fully considered, the motion was put to the vote and it was

RESOLVED

that the Leader of Ashfield District Council writes to the MPs for Ashfield and Sherwood, Lee Anderson and Mark Spencer, on behalf of all councillors asking for a commitment to voting against this bill when it comes before the House, to issue a public statement opposing the bill and  ...  view the full minutes text for item C.30

The Council received a notice of motion moved by Councillor Samantha Deakin and seconded by Councillor Jason Zadrozny as follows:-

”This Council notes the catastrophic problems caused by Severn Trent Water for residents in Kirkby-in-Ashfield and Sutton-in-Ashfield.  Thousands of residents were left without water on Sunday 18 July, Monday 19 July and Tuesday 20 July this year.  These were the hottest days of the year with temperatures reaching 91.4 degrees Fahrenheit in parts of Kirkby and Sutton.

This Council recognises that this is the second time in just 15 months that thousands of residents in the Ashfield District have been left without water.    

This Council believes that lives were put in danger by the failures of Severn Trent Water and thanks residents including councillors for helping with the relief effort – delivering water to the elderly, young families, those isolating and other vulnerable residents.

This Council further notes the monopoly that Severn Trent have on providing water services to domestic households in the Ashfield District and calls on the Government to review this.

This Council therefore agrees to write to the Chief Executive of Severn Trent Water asking for a full investigation that is published online, for an assurance that Severn Trent Water will take all appropriate action to ensure that this never happens again, for a review of emergency processes for residents whose water supply fails and invites her to the next State of Ashfield debate to answer questions from members and local residents about the continual failure of Severn Trent Ltd.”

Having been fully considered, the motion was put to the vote and it was

RESOLVED

that the Council agrees to write to the Chief Executive of Severn Trent Water asking for a full investigation that is published online, for an assurance that Severn Trent Water will take all appropriate action to ensure that this never happens again, for a review of emergency processes for residents whose water supply fails and to invite her to the next State of Ashfield debate to answer questions from Members and local residents about the continual failure of Severn Trent Ltd.

Question 1

Question from Councillor Keir Morrison to the Leader of the Council:

“Will ADC formally recognise the change petition that's been signed by almost 6,000 Ashfield residents (at 13/7/21) to retract Hucknall Sports FC's eviction notice from the Papplewick Green playing fields, in line with the council's petition scheme policy?”

Question from Councillor Keir Morrison to the Leader of the Council:

“Will ADC formally recognise the change petition that's been signed

by almost 6,000 Ashfield residents (at 13/7/21) to retract Hucknall

Sports FC's eviction notice from the Papplewick Green playing fields,

in line with the council's petition scheme policy?”

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Jason Zadrozny, responded and advised that Ashfield District Council did not accept Change.org petitions as it did not comply with the Council’s approved Petition Scheme requirements.  Petitions submitted through Change.org provided no evidence that people signing the petition lived, worked or studied in Ashfield.  The e-Petitions submitted through the Council’s website required a name, address and email address of those signing the petition.

The Council reviewed its petition scheme in February last year to provide reassurance regarding the validity of petitions and ensuring that those petitions being considered were done so by the Council with the reassurance that they were the views of Ashfield constituents and not of those people who did not live, work or study in Ashfield.  Change.org did not provide this reassurance.

The Scheme was very clear that only e-Petitions submitted through the Council’s website would be considered and the Council’s e-Petition function was readily available through the Council’s website and was easy to use.

However, there was also an additional point to consider regarding the fact that the Council would not consider petitions that were factually inaccurate.   An eviction notice was never handed to Hucknall Sports and as people would have seen in the press, Hucknall Sports confirmed that they had been offered not only their preferred times and site of Papplewick Green but sites at the Merlin pitch and Titchfield Park as well which they had decided to take up.  They opted themselves not to take the Papplewick Green site which was the cause of the original issue.

The Leader went on to state that he was personally willing to accept the petition to ascertain if there was a way of contacting back the people who raised concerns and to try to allay their fears.  The primary aim of everything the Council does was simply getting people playing sports including football and particularly for young people and for disabled youngsters.

Councillor Morrison would recognise that events had taken place since he submitted the question and that Hucknall Sports had submitted their own statements which reiterated this.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 13.5, Councillor Morrison was

invited to ask a supplementary question as follows:

“The Leader is quite right that events have developed since submitting the question although I have got a supplementary question that I hope he can answer.

Given that Hucknall Sports have appeared to concede in leaving Papplewick Green playing field, can the Leader explain when the lease agreement was made with Sports Gateway, by whom and why no consultation with the Club or due diligence was carried out beforehand?”

The Leader responded again by stating that there wasn’t a lease agreement that had been signed and  ...  view the full minutes text for item C.32

(None received for this meeting)

There were no questions submitted by Members.