MINUTES

Present

THE MAYOR – Councillor P Clark

Councillors Ali, Allcock, Armiger, Bainbridge, Briggs, Collinson, A Davison, J Davison, Ellerby, England, Evison, L Foster, T Foster, Glover, Godfrey, Gosling, Grant, Hannigan, Kataria, Longcake, Marper, Mumby-Croft, Ogg, Oldfield, O’Sullivan, Perry, Poole, Baroness Mrs Redfern, Reed, Robinson, Rose, Rowson, C Sherwood, N Sherwood, Swift, K Vickers, P Vickers and Waltham MBE.

The council met at the Civic Centre, Ashby Road, Scunthorpe.

2512 MAYOR'S REMARKS - The Mayor welcomed fellow councillors, officers and members of the public to the meeting.He informed the council that in his first four months he had attended many events including the recent Scampton Air Show where he was lucky enough to meet Johnny Johnston, the last surviving member of the Dam Busters crew. The Mayor also referred to the success of the Tour of Britain hosted by North Lincolnshire. He commented that during the event many of those he had met including visitors from far afield had stated that North Lincolnshire was a beautiful, pretty green place to live and work. He also congratulated all those who had participated in and organised the event. Similarly, the Mayor also congratulated all those involved in achieving the recent outstanding Ofsted report for children's services in North Lincolnshire, and the council achieving a Public Service Excellence Award.

2513 DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTERESTS AND PERSONAL OR PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS AND SIGNIFICANT LOBBYING - Declarations of personal interests were indicated as follows –

2514 The following members also declared that they had been lobbied significantly regarding the item 'Community Governance Review Report and Recommendations of the Governance and Standards Scrutiny Panel', minute 2521 refers -

Councillors Ali, Allcock, Armiger, Bainbridge, Briggs, Clark, Collinson, A Davison, J Davison, Ellerby, England, Evison, L Foster, T Foster, Glover, Godfrey, Gosling, Grant, Hannigan, Kataria, Longcake, Marper, Mumby-Croft, Ogg, Oldfield, O'Sullivan, Perry, Poole, Baroness Mrs Redfern, Reed, Robinson, Rose, Rowson, C Sherwood, N Sherwood, Swift, K Vickers, P Vickers and Waltham MBE.

2515 MINUTES - Resolved - That the minutes of the Ordinary Meetings of the Council held 15 December 2016 and 16 February 2017, and the Annual Meeting held on 18 May 2017, having been printed and circulated amongst the members, be taken as read and correctly recorded and be signed by the Mayor.

2516 COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULE D1.19 (0) - It was suggested to the Mayor to vary the order of the agenda and bring forward the item 'Questions from members of the public (including Town and Parish Councils)' It was then -

Resolved - That the item 'Questions from members of the public (including Town and Parish Councils) be brought forward and considered next by the Council.

2517 QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC (INCLUDING TOWN AND PARISH COUNCILS) - In accordance with Council Procedure Rule D1.14 (k and l), the following members of the public and representatives of Town Councils as listed, attended the meeting and asked a question of the Leader –

(i) Catherine Lydon, local resident.

Question 1 - Sandfield House.

As a former patient of Sandfield House, when I heard its doors would be closing on 31 December naturally I was concerned, as were many others within the community who rely on their services. It has been a beacon of hope for many who are suffering with mental health problems. My question today comes to you in two parts: firstly, will the patients' transition from Sandfield House, into a welcoming, accessible and user friendly environment be accommodated for with little disruption, as people suffering from mental health need continuity. Secondly; as Sandfield house is a jewel in the crown for our local mental health community, we would like to hear your reasoning behind the closure?

Answer

The provision of mental health services currently provided at Sandfield House has been examined recently. The council has been working closely with Rotherham, Doncaster and South Humberside NHS Foundation Trust (RDaSH) to transform and modernise services in order to increase accessibility to mental health provision right across North Lincolnshire. Although, the Council owns the property known as Sandfield House, there are no Council services currently based there or making use of the building. RDaSH provide mental health services as commissioned by the North Lincolnshire Clinical Commissioning Group (NLCCG). They are currently the only occupants of Sandfield House. RDaSH also occupy a number of other buildings across North Lincolnshire. The council recently served notice with a view to them vacating Sandfield House by the end of the year, but this has been relaxed to ensure that mental health services can be fully established in a range of alternative premises so providing greater accessibility and extended support. There are no services closing as a result of this action. All comments on the current and future provision of mental health services across North Lincolnshire are welcome.

(ii) On behalf of Broughton Town Council by Councillor John Kitwood, Mayor of Broughton Town Council.

Question 2 - Community Governance Review.

When Broughton Town Council responded to the original questionnaire suggesting that it was deeply flawed, why was no action taken to remedy this and why was this serious complaint left out of the review?

Answer

The council's Governance and Standards Scrutiny Panel at its meeting on 26 September 2017 recommended to council its final report and recommendations on the Community Governance Review following almost ten months of considerations and consultations. As part of its consultations the panel contacted all town councils on 22 March 2017 seeking their views. Broughton Town council responded on 28 March 2017, stating that 'the council believed the literature which went to every household in the parish should have stated that parish and town councillors were not paid because it may lead to people opting for less councillors when asked about the size of the council if they thought councillors were actually paid'. Broughton Town Council during a long consultation period did not suggest that the process of consultation was flawed, and therefore the final scrutiny report reflects the view received from the Town Council.

(iii) Councillor John Kitwood (Broughton Town Council).

Question 3 - Community Governance Review

When and who conducted a consultation into what would be an appropriate number of councillors for each parish and when did the panel contact Broughton Town Council to ask about the 'pattern of provision of services' in order to make an informed assessment?

Answer

With reference to the answer to Question 2, as part of the scrutiny panel's consultations the panel contacted all town councils on 22 March 2017 seeking their views, especially on electoral arrangements, with an emphasis on the number of councillors elected to councils and any relevant parish warding. Bottesford Town and Winterton Town Councils provided a comprehensive response including reference to services provided. Broughton Town council during the long consultation period provided a response which only criticised the consultation leaflet, and no other representation.

(iv) Councillor Paul Senior (Broughton Town Council).

Question 4 – Community Governance Review

In the review, Point 41, states: 'Each area would be considered on its own merits, having regard to its population, geography and the pattern of communities. In addition, the pattern of delivery of services by individual parish councils may affect the optimum number of parish councillors in any individual case.' Yet in Point 87, the review clearly shows that no consideration of the 'pattern of delivery of services' has been taken into account as this point shows a very simple algorithm has been used to work out councillor numbers. A simple comparison of Brigg and Broughton highlights this point. Why has the “delivery of services” and the councils own guidance not been taken into account?

Answer

With reference to the answers to questions 2 and 3, as part of the scrutiny panel's consultations the panel contacted all town councils on 22 March 2017 seeking their views and all had the opportunity to respond during a long consultation period. Bottesford Town and Winterton Town Council commented on the provision of services, but Broughton Town Council did not include this as part of their response.

(v) Councillor Joyce Ledger (Broughton Town Council).

Question 5 - Community Governance Review

Point 84 of the review states that 'particular weight was given to the views of the electorate'. With regards to Broughton only 63 people said they wanted less councillors, this is 1.46% of the electorate. How can you assign 'particular weight' to 1.46% and use this as a mandate to proceed?

Answer

Paragraph 84 clearly states that the committee gave particular weight to a number of factors when making its recommendations. Those parishioners who engaged and responded during the consultation period stated their preference. Taking this into consideration alongside other factors was reflected in the scrutiny report. The Town Council could have promoted the consultation to their parishioners and responded to this instead of just relating to the questionnaire. The scrutiny panel gave consideration to a number of factors before submitting its recommendations.

(vi) On behalf of Crowle and Ealand Town Council by Councillor Debra Middleton, Town Mayor.

Question 6 – Community Governance Review

Last week we held our full Council meeting. One of our speakers was an officer from NLC who gave a presentation on Neighbourhood Planning. If our Council is reduced from 15 Councillors to 9 we: a) Won't be able to implement these new changes, let alone consider starting new improvements; b) It will be difficult to have Councillors with full time jobs, due to the high work load left for the limited remaining number of Councillors; c) We won't be able to give our community what a quality Council should be all about, a proactive and hardworking set of Councillors that do their utmost for the community they serve. So, as we strive to improve our service (i.e. move towards the quality council standard) where will we find the resources to do this after losing six Councillors?

Answer

Assumptions are being made of the impact of a reduction of councillors. As the chairman of Brigg Town Council we have and always encourage community participation in town council activities. These are not just carried out by its members. The council also reduced its number of committees and now continues to fulfil its democratic functions, responsibilities and operations in an effective and inclusive manner. All parish and town councils are committed to their role and want to make a difference, and this will still be achieved. A reduction in the number of councillors will not see a reduction in the high level of service that Crowle and Ealand Town Council provides its parishioners, and indeed their involvement and participation could be greater. Similarly, a reduction would not be a barrier to those in full time employment standing for election and fulfilling the role of a town councillor.

(vii) Councillor Eric Dinsdale, as a resident of Crowle, and also a Town Councillor.

Question 7 – Community Governance Review.

On the basis of Crowle and Ealand Town Council currently allocated 15 councillors, it takes an average of three full council meetings to achieve an issue resolution. Should this number drop to 9 councillors? then a resolution accordingly will take around 9 months to reach a resolution because of the drop in human resource. Is this not unfair to residents to impose even further delay on sometimes critical issues, because the local council will not have the same response time to achieve a good result. The resident loses again.

Answer

With reference to the answer to question 6, an assumption is being made. From experience meetings can become more productive, business-like and with focussed outcomes achieved much more quickly. Public participation and involvement can also be encouraged.

(viii) Councillor Gary Johnson - Epworth Town Council.

Question 8 - Community Governance Review.

The Government and Standards Scrutiny Panel is recommending that as a result of the Community Governance Review the number of councillors is reduced dramatically in all eight of the town councils within North Lincolnshire. This raises a number of concerns given that some of the neighbouring / nearby parish councils will then have even more councillors than the town councils themselves. For example, Haxey Parish Council will then have more councillors than Epworth Town Council, and Messingham Parish Council will have more than Kirton-in-Lindsey Town Council. a) Is it fair that some parish councils will have significantly more councillors than the town councils? b) Is this inconsistency then likely to lead to the numbers of councillors on parish councils also being looked at and reduced? c) Is there a real danger that electors will ultimately be less represented as a result of such changes and therefore it will cause a democratic deficit? d) Are such moves simply a power grab to reduce the majorities on town councils to make them easier for political manipulation and abuse and should this be seen as a threat to the independence of local town and parish councils and therefore simply an attack on local democracy?

Answer

With reference to the answers to question 6 and 7, emphasis on making operational improvements will deliver effectiveness, which has been experienced at Brigg Town Council. Local democracy can therefore be enhanced especially through contested elections. Paragraph 48 of the report identifies the number of candidates contesting the previous elections at each of the Town Councils. In 2015, only Barton Bridge Parish and Brigg Parish were contested at an election. All other councillors were elected unopposed (uncontested). Local residents within their parishes had no say in who represented them. The East Riding and Northern Lincolnshire Local Councils Association (ERNNLCA), the local organisation which supports town and parish councils in the region, has made it very clear in that the ideal objective for them is to have every town and parish councillor elected by local residents, not elected unopposed. Should the scrutiny panel's recommendations be approved, and residents during a contested election elect who represents them, then local democracy is only improved.

(ix) On behalf of Kirton-in-Lindsey Town Council by the Mayor, Councillor Kathy Cooper.

Question 9 - Community Governance Review.

Regarding the Governance and Standards Scrutiny Panel recommendations within its Community Governance Review Report - Please can you explain: a) the inaccuracy of statistics used in the Community Governance Review; b) the attack on the democratic process of Town Councils, and c) the inadequacy of the consultation process?

Answer

With reference to the answers in previous questions, especially in relation to supporting and improving local democracy, all town councils were given the opportunity to respond during a long consultation period. Comprehensive responses were only received from Bottesford Town and Winterton Town Councils. The scrutiny panel considered the responses received from all those who took time to participate in the consultation, and the statistics in the report accurately reflect and summarise the representations received. This includes the consultation leaflet delivered to 23,000 households in the relevant parishes, consultation events held in all town council areas, and through an online survey all interested stakeholders could complete.

2518 (3) ELECTION OF COUNCILLOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND HOUSING ACT 1989 - POLITICAL BALANCE - The Director: Governance and Standards submitted a report informing members that following the sad death of Councillor Pauline Carlile, a by-election in the Brumby Ward was held on Thursday 8 June 2017. As a result of the by-election Steve Swift (Labour Party) of 85 Valley Drive, Bottesford, Scunthorpe DN16 3SY was elected to North Lincolnshire Council.

The result of the by election meant that the political composition of the council was 26 Conservative and 17 Labour, the same as before the vacancy. The current allocation of seats on the council's panel/seats was agreed at the annual meeting on 18 May 2017 (minute 2507 refers), and was in accordance with the political balance principles of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. (see appendix A of the report). The result of the by-election had no overall impact on the political balance of the council since the Annual Meeting, based upon the seats available to groups on current size of committees/panels.

Councillors welcomed back Councillor Swift as a member of North Lincolnshire Council.

Resolved - (a) That the report be noted, and (b) that the current representation of the different political groups on each committee/panel as set out in appendix A of the report, as agreed by Council at its Annual Meeting (minute 2597 refers) be re-affirmed in accordance with the political balance principles of the Local Government Act 1989.

2519 (4) TREASURY MANAGEMENT AND INVESTMENT STRATEGY ANNUAL REPORT 2016/17 – The Director: Governance and Partnerships submitted a report on the council's treasury performance in 2016/17. The benchmark for measuring performance was the treasury strategy which the council set at its meeting on 22 February 2016.

The report explained that the annual treasury management and investment strategy was prepared in line with –

• The CIPFA (Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy) Code of Practice in the Public Service Fully Revised 2011;
• CIPFA The Prudential Code Fully Revised Second Edition 2011;
• The Local Government Finance Act 2003, and
• Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) Guidance

The code of practice required that full Council received a report on treasury management strategy at the start of the financial year, at mid-year and at year end. The Audit Committee received progress reports quarterly to provide it with assurance on the effectiveness of treasury management arrangements. The high level objectives of the council's treasury management activities were also set out in a Treasury Management Policy Statement (appendix 4 of the report refers).

The Code also required the Council to maintain suitable Treasury Management Practices (TMPs), setting out the manner in which the organisation would seek to achieve its Treasury Management policies and objectives, and prescribing how it would manage and control those activities. The TMPs had been revised and these were approved by the Audit Committee at its meeting in July 2017.

The Director in her report outlined the annual strategy under headings which covered – the Strategy for 2016/17, the Investment Strategy; the Borrowing Strategy, and how the Council Performed, including key investment and borrowing statistics.

Resolved - (a) That the Treasury Management performance for the 2016/17 financial year be noted, and (b) that the Director, as the council's 'Section 151 Officer' and her staff be thanked for the associated hard work carried out.

2520 (5) STANDARDS COMMITTEE - ANNUAL REPORT 2016/17– The Director: Governance and Partnerships submitted a report whichattached as an appendix the fifth annual report of the Standards Committee under its standards regime and associated published Standards Arrangements following the Localism Act 2011. The report covered the period 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017, and detailed the work and activities of the Standards Committee throughout that time.

The report was presented to Council in accordance with the requirements of the Council’s Annual Governance Statement. It was approved by the Standards Committee at its meeting on 12 July 2017 with a request that the Monitoring Officer provide a copy to all Town and Parish Councils in the area.

Following receipt of this report by council, the Monitoring Officer would provide the annual training sessions to town and parish members using the report to inform the itinerary.

Resolved - That the report of the Standards Committee for the period 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017 be received.

2521 (6) COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE REVIEW - Further to minute 2449 and following minute 2517, the Director: Governance and Partnerships submitted a report requesting the council to receive the report of the Governance and Standards Scrutiny Panel on the Community Governance Review (CGR) attached as an appendix, and to consider for approval the recommendations of the scrutiny panel as set out in its report.

The report explained that council at its meeting on 29 September 2016 (minute 2449 refers) authorised the Governance and Scrutiny Panel (now the Governance and Standards Scrutiny Panel, as from the Annual Meeting of the Council in May 2017) to carry out a community governance review of electoral arrangements for the parishes of Barton, Bottesford, Brigg, Broughton, Crowle and Ealand, Epworth, Kirton in Lindsey and Winterton, as town councils, and also for the parish of Holme, as a parish meeting which had given notice to cease operating - in accordance with agreed and published terms of reference. Part 4 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act2007 (the 2007 Act), relevant parts of the Local Government Act 1972 and guidance issued in 2010 by the Department of Communities and Local Government and the Local Government Boundary Commission for England allowed for, placed a responsibility on and guided principal councils on undertaking Community Governance Reviews (CGR) of parishes (town/parish councils) within their district boundary. The 2007 Act enabled the council through its cross-party Governance and Standards Scrutiny Panel to carry out the review in accordance with its responsibilities and relevant guidance above.

The review commenced on 20 October 2016 and it was required to be completed in 12 months. The Governance and Standards Scrutiny Panel met on several occasions over 10 months to carry out the review, and on 6 September 2017 met to approve its report and recommendations. (The minutes of that meeting were also attached as an appendix). The council was now requested to consider for approval, or vary the recommendations of the scrutiny panel. Its decision would then be published, and Community Governance (Reorganisation) Orders made to give effect to the decision, and relevant government offices and organisations informed. Any changes would come into effect on the date specified within the CGR's recommendations, which would become part of the Community Governance (Reorganisation) Orders.

Moved by Councillor Waltham MBE and seconded by Councillor Hannigan -

That this council resolves that the recommendations of the Governance and Standards Scrutiny Panel listed below, be approved and adopted -

Recommendation 1 - That the ordinary election of parish councils continue to be held every fourth year, alongside North Lincolnshire Council local government elections.

Recommendation 2a - That the electorate of Holme join Messingham Parish.

Recommendation 2b - That the Director: Governance and Partnerships be requested to publish a Reorganisation Order for the new Holme Community Governance arrangements to be implemented from 1 April 2018.

Recommendation 2c - That the Reorganisation Order cover any consequential matters that appear to the council to be necessary or proper to give effect to the order. In these matters, the council will follow the regulations that have been issued under the 2007 Act.

Recommendation 3a - That the number of parish councillors on Barton-upon-Humber Town Council be reduced to 12.

Recommendation 3b - That the number of parish councillors on Bottesford Town Council be reduced to 12.

Recommendation 3c - That the number of parish councillors on Brigg Town Council be reduced to 9.

Recommendation 3d - That the number of parish councillors on Broughton Town Council be reduced to 9.

Recommendation 3e - That the number of parish councillors on Crowle and Ealand Town Council be reduced to 9.

Recommendation 3f - That the number of parish councillors on Epworth Town Council be reduced to 9.

Recommendation 3g - That the number of parish councillors on Kirton-in-Lindsey Town Council be reduced to 9.

Recommendation 3h - That the number of parish councillors on WintertonTown Council be reduced to 9.

Recommendation 4a - That the parish warding arrangements in the Barton-upon-Humber Town Council area be deleted, with the town Council becoming one council for the purposes of electing parish councillors.

Recommendation 4b - That the existing Bottesford Town Council parish warding arrangements continue.

Recommendation 4c - That the existing Bottesford Town council parish warding arrangements, including the boundary and names of the wards continue to operate.

Recommendation 4d - That Bottesford East, Bottesford Central and Bottesford West wards contain four parish councillors each.

Recommendation 4e - That the Director: Governance and partnerships be requested to publish a Reorganisation Order for the new Community Governance electoral arrangements for the eight Town councils, to come into effect on 2 May 2019.

Moved by Councillor Gosling and seconded by Councillor Swift as an amendment -

That this council resolves that the recommendations of the Governance and Standards Scrutiny Panel as stated and/or varied below be approved and adopted -

Recommendation 1 - That the ordinary election of parish councils continue to be held every fourth year, alongside North Lincolnshire Council local government elections.

Recommendation 2a - That the electorate of Holme join Messingham Parish.
Recommendation 2b - That the Director: Governance and Partnerships be requested to publish a Reorganisation Order for the new Holme Community Governance arrangements to be implemented from 1 April 2018.

Recommendation 2c - That the Reorganisation Order cover any consequential matters that appear to the council to be necessary or proper to give effect to the order. In these matters, the council will follow the regulations that have been issued under the 2007 Act.

Recommendation 3a - That the number of parish councillors on Barton-upon-Humber Town Council be retained at 22.

Recommendation 3b - That the number of parish councillors on Bottesford Town Council be retained at 24.

Recommendation 3c - That the number of parish councillors on Brigg Town Council be retained at 19.

Recommendation 3d - That the number of parish councillors on Broughton Town Council be retained at 18.

Recommendation 3e - That the number of parish councillors on Crowle and Ealand Town Council be retained at 15.

Recommendation 3f - That the number of parish councillors on Epworth Town Council be retained at 15.

Recommendation 3g - That the number of parish councillors on Kirton-in-Lindsey Town Council be retained at 14.

Recommendation 3h - That the number of parish councillors on Winterton Town Council be retained at 18.

Recommendation 4a - That the parish warding arrangements in the Barton-upon-Humber Town Council area be deleted, with the town Council becoming one council for the purposes of electing parish councillors.

Recommendation 4b - That the existing Bottesford Town Council parish warding arrangements be retained.

Recommendation 4c - That the existing Bottesford Town council parish warding arrangements, including the boundary and names of the wards be retained.

Recommendation 4d - That Bottesford East, Bottesford Central and Bottesford West wards retain eight parish councillors each.

Recommendation 4e - That the Director: Governance and partnerships be requested to publish a Reorganisation Order for the new Community Governance electoral arrangements for the eight Town councils, to come into effect on 2 May 2019
Furthermore, this council acknowledges and pays tribute to Town Clerks and Town Councillors both past and present on the contribution that they make to their communities on a voluntary basis.

At the request of members and in accordance with Procedure Rule 1.22(d) the names of members voting for, against and abstaining from the amendment are as follows -

FOR: Councillors Ali, Bainbridge, Collinson, A Davison, Ellerby, L Foster, Godfrey, Gosling, Grant, Kataria, Oldfield, O'Sullivan, Perry and Swift

AGAINST: CouncillorsAllcock, Armiger, Briggs, Clark, J Davison, England, Evison, T Foster, Glover, Hannigan, Longcake, Marper, Mumby-Croft, Ogg, Poole, Baroness Mrs Redfern, Reed, Robinson, Rose, Rowson, C Sherwood, N Sherwood, K Vickers, P Vickers and Waltham MBE.

ABSTAINING: Nil

Amendment Lost.

At the request of members and in accordance with Procedure Rule 1.22(d) the names of members voting for, against and abstaining from the motion are as follows -

FOR: Councillors Allcock, Armiger, Briggs, Clark, J Davison, England, Evison, T Foster, Glover, Hannigan, Longcake, Marper, Mumby-Croft, Ogg, Poole, Baroness Mrs Redfern, Reed, Robinson, Rose, Rowson, C Sherwood, N Sherwood, K Vickers, P Vickers and Waltham MBE.

AGAINST: CouncillorsAli, Bainbridge, Collinson, A Davison, Ellerby, L Foster, Godfrey, Gosling, Grant, Kataria, Oldfield, O'Sullivan, Perry and Swift

ABSTAINING: Nil

Motion Carried.

2522 PLANNING COMMITTEE - Resolved – That the minutes of the meetings of the Planning Committee held on 14 December 2016, 11 and 18 January, 8 February, 8 March, 5 and 26 April, 24 May, 21 June, 3 and 26 July 2017 be received with the exception of minute 1800 (i).

2523 APPLICATION PA/2015/1369 – With regard to the excepted portion it was –

Moved by Councillor N Sherwood and seconded by Councillor Ogg –

That the minute be received.
Motion Carried

2524 LICENSING COMMITTEE - Resolved – That the minutes of the meetings of the Licensing Committee held on 8 December 2016, 19, 24, 25, and 26 January, 21 and 23 February, 9, 15 and 23 March, 24 May, 22 June, 6, 24, 25, 27 and 28 July and 3 August 2017 be received, approved and adopted.

2525 AUDIT COMMITTEE - Resolved - That the minutes of the meeting of the Audit Committee held on 17 January, 11 April and 5 July 2017 be received, approved and adopted.

2526 STANDARDS COMMITTEE - Resolved - That the minutes of the meetings of the Standards Committee held on 1 December 2016, 9 and 18 January, and 27 February and 12 July 2017 be received.

2527 PEOPLE SCRUTINY PANEL - Resolved - That the minutes of the meetings of the People Scrutiny Panel held on 13 December 2016, 3 January, 14 February, 7 March, 6 April, and 27 June 2017 be received.

2528 HEALTH SCRUTINY PANEL - Resolved - That the minutes of the meetings of the Health Scrutiny Panel held on 13 December 2016, 9 February, 6 and 15 March and 10, 12 and 27 April 2017 be received.

2529 GOVERNANCE SCRUTINY PANEL - Resolved - That the minutes of the meetings of the Governance Scrutiny Panel held on 1 and 13 December 2016, 12 January, 22 and 23 February, 16 March, 5 and 6 Aprilbe received with the exception of minutes 67 and 83.

2530 CALL-IN, REVIEW OF MOBILE PARK KEEPERSAND PARK ATTENDANTS - With regard to excepted portion (a) it was -

Moved by Councillor Robinson and seconded by Councillor Gosling -

That the minute be received.

Moved by Councillor A Davison and seconded by Councillor Gosling as an amendment-

That the minute be received with regret at the decision arrived at by the panel.

Amendment Lost
Motion Carried

2531 CALL-IN, NEW RIDDINGS LIBRARY PROPOSALS AT RIDDINGS POOL -

With regard to excepted portion (b) it was -

Moved by Councillor Robinson and seconded by Councillor Gosling -

That the minute be received.

Moved by Councillor Swift and seconded by Councillor L Foster as an amendment-
That the minute be received with regret at the decision arrived at by the panel.

Amendment Lost

Motion Carried

2532 GOVERNANCE AND STANDARDS SCRUTINY PANEL - Resolved - That the minutes of the meetings of the Governance and Standards Scrutiny Panel held on 29 June, 7 and 20 July 2017be received with the exception of minute 14.

2533 CALL-IN, PROPERTY TRADING ACCOUNT - With regard to excepted portion (a) it was -

Moved by Councillor Robinson and seconded by Councillor Gosling -

That the minute be received.

Moved by Councillor O'Sullivan and seconded by Councillor Godfrey as an amendment-

That the minute be received with regret at the decision arrived at by the panel.

Amendment Lost
Motion Carried

2534 JOINT COMMITTEE ON SHARED SERVICES - Resolved - That the minutes of the meetings of the Joint Committee on Shared Services held on 25 April 2017 be received.

2535 HEALTH AND WELLBEING BOARD - Resolved - That the minutes of the meetings of the Health and Wellbeing Board held on 9 December 2016 and 30 June 2017 be received.

2536 APPOINTMENT AND EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE – Resolved - That the minutes of the meetings of the Appointment and Employment Committee held on 18 November, 5 December 2016, 6 January, 23 and 24 January be received.