Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils
Democratic Services

Mobile menu icon

Issue - meetings

Meeting: 21/11/2017 - Babergh Council (Item 53)

53 BC/17/20 FUTURE OPTIONS FOR 'WORKING TOGETHER' BETWEEN BABERGH AND MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCILS pdf icon PDF 269 KB

Leader of the Council – Jennie Jenkins

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Prior to inviting the Leader of the Council, Jennie Jenkins, to introduce Paper BC/17/20, the Chairman advised that initially, because of the anticipated level of interest in this item, he would let Members ask one question.  If there was sufficient time, or if a completely separate point was being made, he would allow a further opportunity to speak.

         

Councillor Jenkins began by thanking the Overview and Scrutiny Committee for its careful consideration of the Cabinet decision on the original report, and referred Members to the financial case as set out in the revised Appendix C with tracked changes [circulated prior to the meeting] and details of the proposed engagement programme added as Appendix D.

 

Councillor Jenkins outlined the reasons behind the proposal to explore the merger option and emphasised the importance of the suggested public engagement process and the current debate.  She also referred to what would happen, following the Council meeting, including the timetable for progressing public engagement and the business case, if Cabinet gave its approval to proceed.  Members were advised by the Chairman that there was no recommendation for Council to vote on.

 

As a result of questions about whether Cabinet or Council should make decisions regarding merger, the Monitoring Officer advised that any decision around the option to dissolve a council and re-establish a new council were executive functions and were therefore reserved to Cabinet to make.

 

The Chief Executive added that the DCLG was very clear that the decision was for Council (ie not the electorate via a poll as was the case in 2011) but to be distinct in relation to that, not a full council decision but an executive cabinet decision and that was also the external legal advice that had been received.

 

A Motion without Notice was moved (a) to obtain external legal advice in writing from an independent firm as to whether Council or Cabinet should make the above decisions, and (b) to refer the legal advice for consideration by a Committee set up for that purpose.  After discussion and further advice from the Monitoring Officer and the Chief Executive, the Motion was re-worded with the consent of the proposer and seconder, taking into account that Counsel’s oral advice had been received, and that the matter could not be referred to another Committee as the appropriate body in this case was the Cabinet.

 

Further queries were put to the officers in relation to the 2011 poll, the effectiveness of the proposed process of engagement, whether a unitary authority might be a future option and the effect of the ‘sunset clause’ in the Devolution Cities Act.  Members were reassured that the telephone poll which had commenced in Mid Suffolk had been halted, once the Babergh call-in was made.

 

The re-worded Motion was carried on being put to the vote.

 

RESOLVED

 

That the independent legal advice received by the Chief Executive as to whether Council or Cabinet should make decisions around merger be obtained in writing and made available to all Babergh  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53


Meeting: 31/10/2017 - Babergh Overview and Scrutiny Committee (Item 47)

47 Call In of the Decision from the meeting of the Babergh Cabinet held on 13 October 2017. Report BCa/17/22. pdf icon PDF 402 KB

Call In of the Babergh Cabinet Decision from the meeting held on 13 October 2017.

 

Decisions made by the Cabinet on 13 October 2017 in respect of the following report was called in for consideration by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee in accordance with Scrutiny Procedure Rules as detailed on pages 141 and 142 of the Constitution.

 

BCa/17/22 - FUTURE OPTIONS FOR ‘WORKING TOGETHER’ BETWEEN BABERGH AND MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCILS

 

The reasons for Call In are:

 

1.     The decision notice states that no alternative options have been considered and rejected.  Clearly, however, there are many other options which should be considered before any decision to proceed with merger is made, even provisionally.  For example, Suffolk County Council have not been consulted over a unitary option, even though we now share their building.

2.     The decision does not appear to be listed as a Key Decision yet there could not be anything more key than an existential threat to Babergh planned by its own cabinet, not only with no mandate to do so but with a mandate from the 2011 local referendum not to do so.

3.     This appears to be a decision to consult on merging with inadequate preparation and information release.

4.     We are concerned about the likely bias of any consultation.  Without a published business case, it is difficult to see what can and will be consulted on, other than an argument constructed to meet the wishes of the Administration.

5.     We believe there should be an opportunity to scrutinise the even-handedness of the consultation/surveys.  Should feedback be positive from such a consultation, the Administration may seek to remove the need to challenge the business case developed thereafter, or to hold a poll. A business case published in advance of consultation would certainly ensure it builds the argument to proceed.

6.     The financial appendix to the report is far from a full and unbiased picture of the current and projected situation.  It reads more like a sketch of what the Administration wants us to hear.

7.     Paragraphs 4.2 through 4.6 of the Chief Executive’s report appear to be written about an entirely hypothetical divorce in which the weakness of Babergh’s General Fund is emphasised.  Yet it is quite clear that decisions already taken, for example over the Boundary Review, would make it probable that a merged council would increase Babergh’s Council Tax more than halfway towards Mid Suffolk’s and spend some of Babergh’s much healthier Housing Revenue Account on housing in Mid Suffolk.

8.     Paragraph 4.3 suggests such a divorce would be ‘reputationally damaging’, implying that Babergh District Council would get the blame for it in the public mind, yet there could not be anything more reputationally damaging for Babergh District Council than to go ahead with merger in defiance of the will of its own electorate clearly expressed in the 2011 referendum.

9.     Paragraphs 10.1 through 10.7 of the Chief Executive’s report and his Appendix 1 make the truly bizarre claim that the  ...  view the full agenda text for item 47

Additional documents:

Minutes:

47.1 The Chairman read out the Decision notice of Report BCA/17/22 from the meeting held on 13October 2017 and the valid point from the Call In notice as follows:-

 

1.     The decision notice states that no alternative options have been considered and rejected.

2.     The decision does not appear to be listed as a key decision.

3.     There appears to be a decision to consult on merging with inadequate preparation and information release.

6.  The financial appendix to the report is far from a full and unbiased picture of the current and projected situation.

 

47.2 On the PROPOSAL of Councillor Simon Barrett and SECONDED by Councillor Alan Ferguson the scope of the Call-In was AGREED as the four points above.

 

47.3 When PUT to the meeting the Motion was CARRIED unanimously.

 

It was RESOLVED:-

 

(i)              That the Scope of the Call – in be based on the following points :-

 

1.     The decision notice states that no alternative options have been considered and rejected.

2.     The decision does not appear to be listed as a key decision.

3.     There appears to be a decision to consult on merging with inadequate preparation and information release.

4.     The financial appendix to the report is far from a full and unbiased picture of the current and projected situation.

 

47.4 Councillor Tony Bavington, the lead signatory of the Call In, read out the following statement:

 

47.5 In your report to Council on 24th October, Mr Chairman, you said that you aim to undertake pre-scrutiny in order to improve the quality of the scrutiny process and to provide the opportunity to introduce a topic where there is a concern, in a timely fashion. I have attended three of five cabinet meetings so far and looked up the forthcoming decisions list for all of them, including the one online last Wednesday – that is a period from July 2017- February 2018 – and not one of them list formally dissolving the two District Council’s and creating a new larger District Council as a decision, let alone a Key Decision. Several of them do, however, list the future use of the public toilets in Cordell Road, Long Melford, as a Key Decision. As you know, Scrutiny Committee agendas now routinely feature the Cabinet’s Forthcoming Decisions list followed by a Scrutiny Committee Forward Plan. How can you formulate your forward plan or undertake pre-scrutiny of a decision which not only is not flagged as to its existential significance but not even listed as going to be taken?

 

Yet no one could credibly argue that the dissolution of Babergh itself is not a Key Decision in the meaning of its new Constitution. This is a decision that, under the Constitution, Part 1, para 12.7.1b, would have a significant effect on the communities living or working in an area made up of two or more wards. If this decision were pushed through to the merger of the two districts, then almost certainly Babergh District Council Tax would rise  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47


Meeting: 13/10/2017 - Babergh Cabinet (Item 48)

48 BCa/17/22 Future Options for "Working Together" between Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils pdf icon PDF 343 KB

Chief Executive

Additional documents:

Decision:

Decisions Made by Cabinet:

 

1.1   To provisionally endorse the approach of formally dissolving the two district Council’s and creating a new larger District Council.

 

1.2   To utilise Transformation Funding to jointly conduct stakeholder, public and staff engagement during Autumn 2017.

 

1.2a Subject to the outcome of the public engagement a draft (DCLG compliant) business case for the dissolution of BMSDCs and creation of a new single district council for the area could be considered by each Council.

 

Reason for decisions: In order to ensure that the two districts were in the best possible position to respond to, and take advantage of, the emerging opportunities and challenges within Local Government and Suffolk.

 

Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:  Other options considered as per the report.

 

Any Declarations of Interest declared: None

 

Any Dispensation Granted: None

 

Minutes:

The Chief Executive gave an introduction to report BCa/17/22 which gave a balance of positive and negative reasons for merging into one Council.  In order to ensure the two districts were in the best possible position to respond to, and take advantage of, the emerging opportunities and challenges within Local Government and Suffolk both Council Leaders had requested the Chief Executive to investigate the various options available to further evolve the Councils partnership working.

 

It was stressed no formal decision would be made but the recommendation was to endorse the approach of creating one new, larger District Council and to conduct stakeholder, public and staff engagement.

 

Councillor Jenkins moved the recommendations which were seconded by Councillor Osbourne.

 

The Chairman, Councillor Jenkins, pointed out Cabinet were in listening mode.  The next steps, if approved, would be to move the process forward.  There would be no change to services but the Council were committed to working with other partners.  The budget had been scrutinised and cut as much as possible but there was a compelling case for delivering savings and service by merging into one Council.

 

The Chairman, Councillor Jenkins, then invited questions from Councillors Ridley, Carpendale, Cresswell, McCraw and Arthey to which Cabinet members responded in relation to the timing of the decision, the high level financial aspect of the proposal, the cost of public consultation and the lack of business case.  The first step would be to conduct public consultation, there was no control over the Boundary Committee timing and that the Business Case would be developed at the same time as the consultation.  A formal decision would then be made from the Business Case which would go before Overview and Scrutiny Committee as well as Full Council.  The Chief Executive also explained a comparison had been completed with Suffolk Coastal in respect of a similar exercise and their telephone poll cost had come to around £20,000.

 

Concern expressed at the amount of public consultations already taking place.  In response Councillor Jenkins explained the Chief Executive had outlined reasons but was happy to amend the recommendation so it included as 2.1b:

 

“Subject to the outcome of public engagement a draft (DCLG compliant) business case for the dissolution of BMSDC’s and creation of a new single district council for the area could be considered by each Council.”

 

This amendment was moved by Councillor Jenkins and seconded by Councillor Osborne.

 

Cabinet members recognised doing nothing was not an option, the overriding factor would be the savings made and the delivery of a service.

 

By a unanimous vote:

 

RESOLUTION 1

 

That the approach of formally dissolving the two district councils; and creating a new larger District Council be provisionally endorsed.

 

RESOLUTION 2

 

That the council’s utilise the Transformation Funding to jointly conduct stakeholder, public and staff engagement during Autumn 2017.

 

RESOLUTION 3

 

That subject to the outcome of the public engagement a draft (DCLG compliant) business case for the dissolution of BMSDC’s and creation of a new single district council for the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48