Meeting documents

Members are required to comply with the requirements of the Localism Act 2011 and the Council’s Code of Conduct regarding disclosable pecuniary and other interests.

·         Check if there is an item of business on this agenda in which the member or other relevant person has a disclosable pecuniary or other disclosable interest

·         Check that the interest has been notified to the Monitoring Officer (in writing) and entered in the Register (if not this must be done within 28 days)

·         Disclose the interest at the meeting (in accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct) and in the absence of dispensation to speak and/or vote, withdraw from any consideration of the item where appropriate.  If the interest is non-pecuniary you may be able to stay in the room, take part and vote.

For further advice please contact Stuart Caundle, Monitoring Officer, in advance of the meeting.

In respect of the report on the Dorchester Tourist Information Centre (TIC) and a representation received from the Dorchester Heritage Committee, Councillor Dunseith noted that she was a member of the Dorchester Heritage Committee.

Councillor Turner noted that he was a member of the scrutiny working group that had been involved in the scrutiny of the service review process for the Dorchester TIC.  He would take part in discussion and voting on this item.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 27 September 2016, as previously circulated to members.

The minutes of the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 27 September 2016 were agreed and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

To receive an update from the Chairman of the committee.

The Chairman noted that a very good scrutiny development session had been held.  Although turnout of scrutiny members had been disappointing, it was intended to move forward with ideas and new documents for scrutiny processes that had been discussed and received support at the session.

To consider a report of the scrutiny working group in respect of the Service Review of Dorchester Tourist Information Centre.

The committee received and considered the report of the scrutiny working group following the scrutiny exercise in relation to the Service Review of West Dorset tourist information centres (TICs) and with particular regard to the TIC in Dorchester.  In addition, members considered the Business Case for the Dorchester TIC and the associated Equality Impact Assessment.

Members noted that a petition had been received and referred to the committee by Full Council in respect of the Tourist Information Centre at Antelope Walk, Dorchester and this was considered alongside the report of the scrutiny working group as part of the scrutiny of the service review process.  As the principal petitioner, Councillor Bundy addressed the committee to express his support for the retention of the TIC service within the town.  He noted his disappointment that the service had to move out of its current location in Antelope Walk but accepted that the move had to take place.  In addition he raised points with regard to the need to monitor retail sales and the need to protect the valuable and knowledgeable staff working in the TIC.  Related to this, he asked that Job Evaluation for these staff be delayed for at least two years.  In response, the Chairman noted that the equality impact assessment addressed most of the staffing issues being raised.

The Chairman referred members to an email that had been sent to all members of the committee from Andy Canning as Chairman of the Dorchester Heritage Committee.

The committee considered the report of the scrutiny working group, the draft business case and draft equality impact assessment and during discussion the following points were made:

·                The preferred option proposed in the draft business case which had been supported by the scrutiny working group was seen as providing a viable solution to securing the service in the town long term;

·                A concern was raised with regard to negative comments that it was claimed had been made by a member of another council;

·                In response to a question raised, it was noted that a review of the service operating within the library should be undertaken by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee after one year of operation;

·                The committee agreed that reference should be made in the scrutiny working group report to the district council providing a capital contribution in the case that the tourist information centre moved out of the library into new premises in the future;

·                Members noted that the move to the library could be achieved in the current financial year;

·                The two petitions presented in connection with the service review had been taken into account by the scrutiny working group during their review of the service review process.

It was proposed by J Sewell seconded by J Haynes

Decision

(a)          That the committee note the petition regarding the Tourist Information Centre at Antelope Walk, Dorchester, referred from Full Council on 3 November 2016 and have considered it as part of the scrutiny of the service review process;

(b)          That the report of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

To consider a report of the Spatial Policy and Implementation Manager.

Members received and considered a report of the Spatial Policy and Implementation Manager, which sought the views of the committee on the West Dorset and Weymouth and Portland Local Plan Review: Issues and Options document, prior to it being agreed for the purposes of public consultation by the Executive Committee and Council.  Members considered the draft document attached at appendix 1 of the report.

In presenting the report, the Spatial Policy and Implementation Manager noted that members were being asked to agree the document in order that discussions could be started with the public.  The Chairman noted that members were being asked to look at the format of the document, the mapping included and the questions being asked to ensure that the document was fit for purpose for consultation.

On a point of clarity, it was noted that the reference to additional new homes in paragraph 12 of the covering report should read ‘4,520’.

The Chairman took members through the key parts of the draft consultation document and comments were made as follows:

·                Concerns were raised with regard to the methods used to establish figures for the objectively assessed need for housing in the current local plan and a number of the assumptions made by the consultants assessing the need.  Reference was made to recent research undertaken that challenged these figures.  Members questioned whether these figures should be used to inform the review and it was felt that this should be looked at in more detail.  The Spatial Policy and Implementation Manager referred members to section 4 of the document which dealt with these issues and also reminded members of the concerns that had been raised by the Local Plan Inspector.  He required further work to be undertaken by the council to provide an up to date assessment of need, which resulted in the figure of 775 dwellings per annum (dpa) being included in the current Local Plan.  Initial feedback from the council’s consultants was that the Local Plan proposals allowed head room for economic growth and therefore the figure of 775 dpa was a reasonable figure to move forward with in the review;

·                A point was raised that there was a need for this number of new houses and that there was a need for affordable housing and provision for key workers;

·                There would be two rounds of consultation before the review was submitted for examination and it was anticipated that the issue of housing numbers would receive lots of responses.  In general members felt that the document should be put out to consultation with the figures currently included and then the council could see the responses received;

·                A concern was raised with regard to the clarity of some of the maps contained within the document and a request was made that all of the maps should be on Ordnance Survey base maps;

·                Members supported the proposed single vision being used to develop objectives and guide the strategy for development within the Local Plan area;

·                As a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

To consider a report of the Strategic Director.

Members considered a report of the Strategic Director which provided the committee with the opportunity to comment on the process for the development of the Budget and 2017/18 proposals.  Members noted the appendices attached to the report which included budget options that required member approval, those budget options that required management approval and those budget options already approved.

The Strategic Director noted that a member briefing on the Budget would be held on 15 December 2016 where further information would be available to members.

In respect of the budget options for member approval, a concern was expressed with regard to the charge being made to the Dorchester BID for levy collection.  A comment was made that the charge could have been higher and that there was a difficult balance to achieve.  These comments would be reported to the Executive Committee when they met to consider the Budget in December 2016.

To review the draft Code of Conduct for members and officers dealing with planning matters further to the resolution of Full Council on 3 November 2016.

At Council on 3 November 2016, members had considered a number of changes to the Constitution, many of which would help to deliver a standardised position across all three partner councils.  These changes were agreed by Council with the exception of an update to align the existing Code of Conduct for members and officers dealing with planning matters.  At the meeting a number of concerns were raised with regard to this document and it was agreed that the draft document should be referred to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for re-examination and to provide comments and make a recommendation to the Executive Committee.

Members considered the draft Code of Conduct for members and officers dealing with planning matters which was attached at Appendix 1 to the report.  The Corporate Manager, Legal Services and Land Charges noted that the draft document had been subject to an extensive consultation process including planning committee chairs, relevant portfolio holders and group leaders.

Members considered the contents of the draft code of conduct and during discussion the following points were raised:

·                In line 2 of paragraph 2.2, reference should be to ‘pre-application’ and not ‘pre-determination’;

·                In respect of the section of ‘Lobbying’, a number of members expressed concern that the document would place unnecessary restrictions on the freedom of members to attend meetings or presentations associated with developments.  The view was expressed that members of the public would expect elected councillors to attend these meetings in order to listen to the information and views being given and that they would be criticised for not attending;

·                The Corporate Manager clarified that the provision in the code of conduct at paragraph 3.1 (c) related to members of the Planning Committee only.  The code of conduct sought to protect members and the council from questions of bias and to reduce the likelihood of pre-determination;

·                In respect of single member wards, the point was made that arrangements could be made for another member to attend a meeting or for the member to have a meeting with an officer;

·                The key point was that members of the decision making body had access to the same information in order to take the decision on a planning application;

·                Members felt that there needed to be clarity within the document between the parts that applied to members of the Planning Committee and which parts applied to all members;

·                Points were made that members were there to represent the residents in their ward and that ward members needed the freedom to be able to attend relevant meetings or presentations;

·                The Corporate Manager noted that the document encouraged members to consider their actions in respect of planning matters but was not prescriptive in what they could or could not do;

·                If a member received a representation in connection with a development or planning application, this should be passed on to the relevant planning case officer;

·                In response to a question raised, the Corporate Manager confirmed that references in paragraph 3.1 (c) and the paragraph immediately  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

To consider the Overview and Scrutiny Committee work plan.

To consider the Executive Committee Forward Plan and decisions taken at recent meetings.

Overview and Scrutiny Committee work plan

Members received and considered the work plan for the committee and the Chairman ran through items coming up at future meetings.

Executive Committee Forward Plan and decisions

Members noted the items included on the Executive Committee Forward Plan and decision lists.  In respect of the Executive Committee meeting on 1 November 2016 and the decision in respect of ‘Annual progress report for Dorchester Sports Centre’, an update would be sought on the current situation and circulated to members by email.  In addition, related to the decision on ‘Property Asset Management Plan update report’, members noted that a list of council assets had been circulated to all members.

To receive questions submitted by members in writing to the Chief Executive and in respect of which appropriate notice has been given.

There were no questions.

To receive any oral updates from members of the committee relating to their appointments to outside bodies.

Reports from councillor representatives on the Dorset Health Scrutiny Committee and Dorset’s Best Kept Village were circulated.

To consider any other items that the Chairman decides are urgent.

There were no urgent items.