Minutes - Resources Overview Group - 9 February 2006

Minutes - Resources Overview Group - 9 February 2006

BOROUGH OF POOLE

RESOURCES OVERVIEW GROUP

9TH FEBRUARY 2006

The meeting commenced at 7.00pm and concluded at 9.25pm

Present:

CouncillorBelcham (Vice-Chairman) (In the Chair)

CouncillorsClements, Eades, Mrs Hives (substituting for Councillor Mrs Deas), Mrs Lavender (substituting for Councillor Gregory), Mason, Newell, Pethen, Sorton, Mrs Stribley and Wilson.

Also attending at the invitation of the Chairman for Item 4:

CouncillorsBrooke and Gillard

Members of the public present: 4

1.APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mrs Deas and Gregory (with the above substitutions).

2.MINUTES

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 24th November 2005 were submitted for approval.

M.2, p.1 – Declarations of Interest – delete Councillor Sorton’s declaration of interest and replace with the following “Councillor Sorton, M.6 – Local Government Pension Scheme proposed charges – as the Council’s representative on the Investment Committee of the Dorset County Pensions Fund.

M.4, p.2 – Borough Policy in relation to requests to install telecommunication equipment on Borough land – second paragraph, fourth line delete “production” and replace with “protection” and fifth line delete “Stuart” and replace with “Stewart”.

In relation to the above item, a Member questioned why the voting had not been recorded. Lee Baron Principal Democratic Support Officer, confirmed that in relation to this item, a vote had not been taken for this to happen.

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Meeting held on 24th November 2005, as amended, be approved and signed as a true record.

3.DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

The following personal interests were declared:

Councillor Belcham, M.4 – Borough Policy in relation to requests to install telecommunications equipment on Borough land, as a Member of the Planning Committee.

All Members, M.4 - Borough Policy in relation to requests to install telecommunications equipment on Borough land, as they had been lobbied by local residents.

4.BOROUGH POLICY IN RELATION TO REQUESTS TO INSTALL TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT ON BOROUGH LAND

The Chairman commenced by alerting Members to the amended Report that had been tabled this evening. Members’ attention was drawn to paragraph 3.4, which included the wording of the Motion presented to Council on 20th December 2005.

A Member expressed his disappointment that the Motion had not been referred to in the original Report stating that he felt the process had not been followed in that signatories right to speak to the Motion would have been denied at this meeting. Members were advised that for this very reason, the amended Report had been circulated this evening.

Arthur Green, Head of Property Services, reminded Members that at the meeting of the Resources Overview Group on 24th November 2005, it was recommended that officers report back to the Overview Group on the options for safeguards regarding land ownership and safeguards relating to planning issues, and also taking account of public concerns, prior to a formal recommendation being presented to Council for approval.

He then detailed the main areas contained within the Report that had been amended following the discussions that took place at the meeting of this Overview Group on 24th November 2005. Members were advised that Section 4 on “Current Planning Procedures” now included further detailed comments from the Head of Planning Design and Control Services with Section 5 “Proposed procedure for dealing with radio antennae mast applications” now incorporating views previously expressed by Members as well as including a more explicit clarification from the Head of Planning Design and Control Services regarding height implications and added information on health concerns.

On considering the proposed procedure for dealing with radio antennae mast applications, the following amendments were agreed:-

Para 5.3 – delete “desirability” and replace with “acceptability”.

Para 5.5 – after “Ward Members” add “and relevant Portfolio Holders” and delete “the views” and replace with “their representations”.

Para 5.7 – delete “omissions” and replace with “emissions”.

Richard Nicholson, Leisure Services, advised that they did not have a specific policy relating to this matter regarding land they managed. The main area of concern for Leisure Services would be related to whether any structures interfered with open space areas. In addition, Leisure Services were against the proliferation of phone masts. Therefore, in conclusion, he advised Members that the key concern for Leisure Services would be related to “visual intrusion”.

The Chairman advised Members that he had agreed to let representatives from Vodafone (Environmental Planning Specialist/Health Specialist) to address the Committee regarding this matter and there follows a summary of the key points raised during their presentation:-

  • Vodafone welcome the moves towards the Council considering, where appropriate, the use of Borough land for telecommunication installations
  • Mobile phone operators have continued to work with the Council regarding this issue
  • New technology requires phone masts to be installed near to phone users (PPG8)
  • Mobile operators need to look at all other structures before considering new ground sites
  • Mobile phone operators work to stringent guidelines (ICNA) with all evidence being taken into consideration.

Regarding concerns that had been expressed over the years, 26 reviews (bodies of evidence) had been undertaken nationally with no real evidence of adverse health effects being presented.

In conclusion, Members were urged to support the recommendations being presented, including the revocation of the previous Council decision on 16 May 2000 not to allow the use of Borough land for telecommunication equipment unless it had been considered by Council.

A Member stated that he remained perplexed at the fact that mobile phone operators continued to mislead the public regarding the non-existent moratorium. He added that whilst he felt the report being presented this evening did form a good basis for a “Code of Practice”, he did not feel it dealt with all options of “decision making” regarding this issue. These included:-

  • Full Council
  • Area Committee
  • Elected Member (Cabinet/Portfolio Holder)
  • Authorised delegation to Officers.

A Member stated that he felt these decisions should be made through the Cabinet/Portfolio Holder process as this would enable relatively quick decisions to be made which would then be publicised/scrutinised and if appropriate, dealt with through the “Call-in” process which he felt would give an added safeguard together with displaying transparency. He concluded by stating that, in his view, “accountability” and “transparency” were both crucial within this decision making process.

A Member concurred with this view, stating that he would not want to see a decision delegated to Officers as this would not form part of the Scrutiny Call-in process which he felt would be crucial in appropriately determining the suitability/acceptability of sites.

A Member stated that local residents had growing concerns regarding the positioning of masts and there was therefore a need to “lessen the impact” of such sites and seek for sites that were deemed to be the most appropriately.

In response to a question raised regarding the level of Member involvement regarding the suitability of proposed sites, Arthur Green, Head of Property Services, stated that Ward Members would be fully consulted as outlined in the Draft Policy/Code of Practice.

On considering the production of a “Code of Practice” Members felt that there should be an “assumption” contained within the Code of Practice that masts were not to be placed near to schools. In addition, any rent that was acquired should be ring-fenced for improvements within the area where the mass were sited. Officers undertook to investigate this and, if deemed appropriate, include this within the Code of Practice.

On considering the Motion that had been presented to Council on 20 December 2005, Members considered possible recommendations that could be presented to Council regarding this matter.

With regard to the second paragraph contained within the Motion,

it was proposed and seconded that the following wording be deleted before being presented to Council as a recommendation: “Council therefore resolves to delegate such decisions to Cabinet or a Portfolio Holder”. On being put to the vote, this was CARRIED.

For – Councillors Belcham, Mrs Hives, Mrs Lavender, Newell, Pethen, Sorton and Mrs Stribley

Against – Councillors Clements, Eades, Mason and Wilson.

Abstentions – none

It was proposed and seconded that the following be recommended to Council for approval:-

“That Council recognises that there are occasions when it would be more appropriate for mobile phone masts to be located on Council property rather than private property or highway land, and acknowledges that delays do occur to the existing requirement for Full Council approval which can result in that option not being pursued.

That Council adopts a Code of Practice (in line with Section 5 of this Report) to ensure consistency in decision making, taking account of precautionary principles, particularly regarding the proximity of schools or residential properties, visual amenity and the merit of potential alternatives and amends the Scheme of Delegation to Officers to incorporate this as a delegation to the Head of Property Services”.

On being put to the vote, this was CARRIED.

For – Councillors Belcham, Clements, Mrs Hives, Mrs Lavender, Newell, Pethen, Sorton and Mrs Stribley

Against – Councillors Mason and Wilson.

Abstention – Councillor Eades.

It was proposed and seconded that a recommendation be presented to Council “that the Council decision on 16 May 2000, not to allow the use of Borough land for the siting of Telecommunication equipment unless it had been considered by the Council, be revoked.”

On being put to the vote, this was unanimously CARRIED.

For – ALL

RECOMMENDED that Council be requested to approve the above mentioned recommendations.

5.REGISTRATION MODERNISATION – A POSITION AND CONSULTATION PAPER ON THE DELIVERY OF THE LOCAL REGISTRATION SERVICES IN ENGLAND AND WALES

Paul Morris, Registration Services Manager, presented a report which informed Members of the receipt of a consultation paper issued by the Registrar General concerning the proposed modernisation of the local Registration Services.

Modernisation of the Civil Registration Service was long overdue and in 2002, the Government published a White Paper entitled “Civil Registration: Vital Change” which set out an Agenda for a modern, effective and high quality registration service. Members were then provided with information on the key elements contained within the White Paper.

The Registrar General has now issued the consultation document which set out those aspects of the proposed modernisation programme which can still be taken forward and has also developed proposals for a revised Governance Framework for the delivery of local registration service. To assist the consultation process, five specific questions have been posed to local authorities and these were detailed to members of the Group. Accordingly, all local authorities who provided local registration services were now being encouraged to respond to this consultation document. Members were provided with a copy of the proposed response which had been prepared by the Registration Team.

With regard to the major changes proposed within the White Paper, a Member commented on the statement that it “should be possible to register births and deaths on line or by phone”. A Member stated that the proposal for development in this way saddened him. Members were reassured that the option to register “in person” would remain. Tim Martin, Head of Legal and Democratic Services, reiterated this point by stating that it was important to keep choice options open in that the “face to face” contact would continue but there was also a need to look to advance new technology methods of registration as well.

In response to a question raised regarding how malicious registering on-line could be prevented, the Group were advised that this would be protected through safeguards such as barcodes/passwords/pin codes.

RECOMMENDED that the Head of Legal and Democratic Services be authorised to respond to the consultation document in accordance with the outline responses prepared by the Registration Team.

6.“357” – UPDATE REPORT ON PLANNING FOR THE BOROUGH COUNCIL ELECTIONS TO BE HELD ON 3 MAY 2007

Paul Morris, Electoral Registration and Returning Officer, presented a Report updating Members on the planning for the May 2007 Council elections and the impact that the provisions of the Electoral Administration Bill would have on the election and Electoral Registration Service.

Following a review of the Council’s Electoral boundaries, the Council made a recommendation to the Electoral Commission that elections to the Council should be “all out” every four years as oppose to “annual elections” and this was approved. Accordingly, the next Borough Council elections would take place in all 16 wards on Thursday 3 May 2007. These elections would be the first to be held with the new rules and regulations being proposed in the Electoral Administration Bill currently progressing through parliament. Members were then provided with a summary of the key provisions set out within the Electoral Administration Bill. This was currently before Parliament and, subject to Parliamentary time, was expected to become law in summer 2006.

The Government have acknowledged that the provisions contained within the Bill would cost local authorities a considerable amount of extra money to administer and accordingly, a financial package of £19.9M has been allocated across England. For Poole, this would mean an allocation in the sum of £43,000 a year which, initially, would be split between the Electoral Registration and the Elections budget.

Members were then provided with further detailed information regarding:

  • Election 2007
  • Postal votes
  • Voter education

RECOMMENDED that the Update Report be noted.

7.DRAFT CORPORATE EQUALITIES POLICY

Sue Newell, Improvement and Policy Officer – Equalities, presented a report on the Draft Corporate Equalities Policy. She advised Members that she was attending all meetings of the Overview Groups in this round in order to seek feedback as part of the process of consultation on the Policy.

Members were advised that the Corporate Equalities Policy would support the Council’s value of “Equality – we believe in equality of opportunity for all”. The Policy has been developed in order to provide a steer clear to the organisation on the whole Equalities Agenda and also to provide a strategic framework for existing Equalities Policies. This Policy would replace the existing Managing Diversity Policy as this related to employment practice and did not consider the Council’s responsibilities as a community leader and service provider.

Development of a Corporate Equality Policy would enable the Council to meet its target of achieving level 2 of the Equalities Standard as stated in “Striving for Excellence”. The Policy and its implementation would also enable the Council to respond better to legislation and external assessment processes. The Audit Commission was placing a much greater emphasis on user focus and diversity in this and all future service inspections. Cabinet approved the draft for consultation at its meeting on 24 January 2006 and would be requested to approve the final document in March 2006.

A Member stated that the Council needed to avoid positive discrimination and sighted white middle aged men as an example.

RECOMMENDED that the Resources Overview Group supports the Draft Corporate Equalities Policy for submission to Cabinet on 28 March 2006.

  1. PEOPLE MATTER SURVEY 2005 – FEEDBACK

Colin Hague, Head of Personnel and Training Services, presented a Report which outlined the background to the People Matter Survey 2005 and the principle findings of the survey.

The People Matter Survey was the Borough of Poole’s employee survey which was issued to every employee (excluding schools and Poole Housing Partnership) and was designed to assess what it was like working for the Borough of Poole. This survey was a follow-up to the first employee survey undertaken in October 2003. A Working Group was set up from members of the People Strategy Group to prepare a survey for implementation during October 2005. The survey was officially launched on 17 October 2005 and final responses were received by 18 November 2005. The full survey results have been shared with Management Team on 31 January 2006.

Members were then provided with a summary of the key findings of the People Matter Survey 2005. Further information was also provided on the areas of notable improvement between the 2003 and 2005 surveys.

The Research and Intelligence Team were currently in the process of analysing the data of the People Matter Survey 2005 by Service Units. This data would be presented to Management Team and then circulated to Service Unit Heads to enable Units to identify their current good practice and generate Action Plans around their development areas. Personnel and Training Services would provide guidance to Service Units to support these Action Plans. It was expected that Service Unit Heads would share their results with all employees within their Unit and corporate messages relating to the Borough-wide data would be communicated to employees through the LOOP, a Splash article, Service Unit Heads and People Strategy Group representatives.

Top View