Agenda, decisions and minutes

Martin Tett, Leader, Buckinghamshire Council, welcomed everyone to the inaugural meeting of the Buckinghamshire Council’s Cabinet.  M Tett advised that the elections, which were due to be held in May 2020, had been suspended until May 2021.  In the interim, the government had issued a Statutory Instrument which laid down rules under which the Council would operate for the next year. Those members who were part of the Shadow Authority had become the new councillors for Buckinghamshire Council.  M Tett stated that he would continue as Leader and would be appointing portfolio responsibilities to cabinet members as soon as possible but this meeting would be conducted on the basis of the responsibilities that members had as part of the transition shadow executive.

There were no apologies.

To agree that all previously declared interests were deemed carried forward for the purposes of this meeting.

RESOLVED:  It was NOTED that all previously declared 'Interests' were deemed 'carried forward' for the purposes of this meeting.

Martin Tett advised that all the members had previously declared any interests under the Shadow Executive during the transition and queried whether the declarations had to be re-registered.  Sarah Ashmead, Deputy Chief Executive and Monitoring Officer, confirmed that all previously declared interests were deemed carried forward for the purposes of this meeting but all Buckinghamshire Council members would be asked to review their declared interests for the year ahead; the information could be viewed on the Council and Democracy/Find your Councillor page of Buckinghamshire Council’s website. 

There were no declarations of interest. 

RESOLVED:  It was NOTED that all previously declared 'Interests' were deemed 'carried forward' for the purposes of this meeting.

Cllr Robin Stuchbury

“In light of the report from the Cabinet member on the agenda proposing the possibility of a new waste and recycling site within Buckingham:

After the decision and recommendation has been made by the Cabinet, will the decision be going to the community board to discuss and if the decision is positive to allocate an enhanced waste refuge site within Buckingham and recycling; will the local members be involved in the discussions of a future site allocation?

 If the decision of the cabinet is to meet the growth within Buckingham and the surrounding villages through delivering a new site and enhance facilities will there be consultation thereafter with the Buckingham town council, who will be drafting a new local plan very soon in corporation with Buckinghamshire Council, to ensure good working practices between both local representation and unitary representation. To be assured if it’s a positive decision to invest within the Buckingham catchment area, site allocation between the two councils is a partnership as the council will be aware there is a Buckingham plan which still carries legal planning weight, and the Vale of Aylesbury Plan was not agreed unfortunately before Buckinghamshire Council came into operation, and it could be suggested the Buckingham plan carries more weight than emerging plan.

In light of the new local authority inheriting the aspirations of the previous authorities to improve and lower the carbon footprint, I would ask that some consideration of enhanced site enabling recycling and exchange as was historically the case before the new contract was agreed by Buckinghamshire county council, whereby consideration of residents both take property to the recycle centre and purchase materials/furniture, thereby lowering the need for transport of such materials within the county and creating a green exchange of property in-house where recycling of properties within the community could take place again and lower the councils overall carbon footprint.”

Response provided by Councillor Bill Chapple OBE:

There were nine household recycling sites in Buckinghamshire and the site in Buckingham was important but was limited by its size.  However, the Council would be looking at options later in the year and would put a business case together to go into the medium term financial planning (MTFP) process this summer (as there was currently no funding to do a site search or review).  If the business case was supported then work would be undertaken during 2021 to pull together a feasibility study for a new site for the Buckingham area. Therefore the engagement strategy had not yet been established.  B Chapple saw no reason why some form of discussion with the Community Board and Town Council would not take place – the Town Council might even have land under their control which could feature in the site search process. 

Councillor Alex Collingwood

“Currently, approximately 70 percent of councillors were represented on the main committees of the Council.  Could we increase diversity and improve democracy by increased membership from 12 to 15 and 15 to 18 depending on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

RESOLVED: Cabinet NOTED the forward plan.

Martin Tett advised that the coronavirus emergency had struck just before the new Buckinghamshire Council had come into effect resulting in members and officers having the challenge of managing two huge tasks.  M Tett thanked all the people involved in the emergency planning team.  A ‘sit rep’ meeting was held daily between the Chief Executive, the NHS and other key players to discuss the developments across Buckinghamshire.  The Council was ensuring that government policies were implemented, particularly to help safeguard vulnerable members of the community.  Community hubs had been set up and were carrying out a valuable role across the county to support vulnerable residents who did not have friends and family nearby.

Rachael Shimmin, Chief Executive, Buckinghamshire Council, added her thanks to staff and partners who had carried out a commendable job, emphasising that the work undertaken collaboratively to form the new council had helped enormously.  R Shimmin highlighted the following points:

• There were strong partnerships in Buckinghamshire and meetings were being held with various organisations e.g. the NHS, Bucks Business First (BBF), the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) etc. to provide support.
• Eight community hubs had been set up to help vulnerable residents by delivering food parcels and prescriptions and checking that residents were safe and well. 
• Hundreds of volunteers had offered to help and the Council was working alongside, trying not to duplicate the work carried out by voluntary organisations. 
• Regular communications had been issued to staff, residents, town and parish councils to ensure people understood the work that the Council was carrying out. 
• Thousands of business grant applications had been processed and staff had worked during the weekend to ensure the money reached the businesses quickly. 
• The vast majority of Buckinghamshire Council staff were working in their ‘business as usual’ role but libraries, household recycling centres and leisure centres were closed and staff had been re-purposed where applicable.  Approximately 200 staff were supporting the social care team.
• The Council was working closely with the schools to provide care for the children of key workers. 
• There was a joint stock of personal protective equipment (PPE) for care workers, clinicians and hospital staff across the health and social care service.  There was clear guidance on when PPE was required.  There was difficulty in the PPE supply chain, nationally and internationally and the situation was reviewed daily to allocate supplies.  Care homes were encouraged to contact the Council if there was a problem accessing PPE.  Donations had been received from universities, business and schools.  Discussions were underway with NHS colleagues regarding the PPE specifications and whether local businesses could manufacture PPE.

Portfolio holders provided the following updates:

Councillor Gareth Williams, Cabinet Member for Health,  Culture and Communities:

• There were four main strands of work:

• G Williams  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

This report seeks approval to the proportionality arrangements for committees of

Buckinghamshire Council established in the constitution, and sets out next steps in

appointing members to individual committees.

RESOLVED:

Recommendations: That the Executive of Buckinghamshire Council: -

1. note the Regulations set out in Appendix 1;

2. Subject to these Regulations coming into force:

a. note the proportionality arrangements as set out at Appendix 2;

b. agree that, following discussion with the Group Leaders, the Executive should receive a further report at its next meeting to designate appointments to Council committees, and then confirm these on 11 May 2020;

c. note that the two Deputy Leaders on the Executive will be Cllr Katrina Wood and Cllr Angela Macpherson;

3. agree to delegate to the Monitoring Officer powers to vary the membership of a Committee at any point on a permanent or casual basis upon the written nomination of a Group Leader.

Martin Tett referred to the report which sought approval of the proportionality arrangements for the committees of Buckinghamshire Council established in the constitution, and the next steps in appointing members to individual committees.  Sarah Ashmead added that the regulation would come into force on 11 May 2020 (the Statutory Instrument stated 8 May 2020 but this was a bank holiday).  It was proposed that a report be provided at the additional Cabinet meeting the following week; after which member training would commence.  Since the report had been published there had been a further change to the membership of the political groups and the report for the additional Cabinet meeting would include the appointments and an updated version of the political proportionality arrangements.  M Tett stated that the Buckinghamshire Council constitution allowed for two deputies within the Cabinet; Cllr Katrina Wood would continue as deputy leader and Cllr Angela Macpherson would be the other deputy leader.

The following points were raised by members of the Cabinet:

• In response to a query on the potential number of members on the High Wycombe Town Committee being 36, S Ashmead clarified that the members would be from wards in the High Wycombe area and would not be as high as 36; a list would be circulated.
• The group leaders had not all been confirmed and would be reported at the additional Cabinet meeting.
• A member of the Cabinet queried why only 20 members were required for a full council meeting to be quorate.  S Ashmead advised that due to the coronavirus, an annual general meeting did not have to be held; this was an exception for one year.  If a full council meeting was required under the current extraordinary circumstances, a low bar had been set, to enable one to go ahead.

RESOLVED:  Cabinet AGREED that the Executive of Buckinghamshire Council: -

1. NOTED the Regulations set out in Appendix 1.

2. Subject to these Regulations coming into force:

a. NOTED the proportionality arrangements as set out at Appendix 2.

b. AGREED that, following discussion with the Group Leaders, the Executive

would receive a further report at its next meeting to designate appointments to Council committees, and then confirm these on 11 May 2020.

c. NOTED that the two Deputy Leaders on the Executive would be Cllr Katrina Wood and Cllr Angela Macpherson.

This item has been deferred.

This item was deferred.

The old authorities in Buckinghamshire did not issue fixed penalty notices against flytipping offences. This was mainly due to the two tier system, the Waste Collection

Authorities (District) had the legal power whilst the Waste Disposal Authority

(County) conducted the investigations into Fly-Tipping but didn’t have the power.

The new Buckinghamshire Council now has full powers and therefore it is proposed

that the new Council should utilise these and make arrangements to issue FPNs for

fly-tipping offences at the earliest opportunity. This policy would enable that to

happen and would also generate between £10,000 and £20,000 of additional income

annually. Also enforcement officers would be enabled to deal with more investigations in a more streamlined manner.

RESOLVED:

Members of the Cabinet AGREED the revised wording to recommendation number three.  The following recommendations were AGREED for the Fly-Tipping Enforcement Policy.

1. To sign-off agreed Enforcement Policy regarding enforcement against fly-tipping attached as per Appendix A.

2. To utilise powers to serve fixed penalty notices in response to low level dumping offences and failures in duty of care by householders.

3. To finalise agreed level of FPN issued for fly-tipping offences to be £400 with an early payment discount rate of £100 resulting in a fine of £300.

Bill Chapple, OBE, Cabinet Member for the Environment, introduced the updated fly tipping enforcement policy report which detailed what the residents and businesses of Buckinghamshire could expect from Buckinghamshire Council when carrying out its regulatory and enforcement functions.  The Council was committed to the principles of good enforcement as set out in legislation of the Regulatory Reform Act 2006.  The Council believed the majority of businesses and residents wished to comply with the law and the aim of the policy was to protect individuals and target areas causing concern and detriment to the county.  There was a wide range of advice, guidance and enforcement actions available to the Council which ranged from those intended to inform and support those it regulated through to formal legal proceedings depending on the severity of the case.

The proposed use of Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) against fly-tipping offences was intended to both compliment and replace (where appropriate) the issuing of simple cautions against first-time or low grade fly tipping offenders.  It was not intended to replace cases where prosecutions were considered an appropriate response.    Failure to pay the FPN would result in formal prosecution against the individual concerned.  Prosecutions for more serious offences would result in a criminal record with a fine, or in more serious cases, a prison sentence.  [Clarification was provided after the meeting that the policy document would be updated to reflect that the only method of appeal was to a Magistrate’s court hearing and that it was incorrectly stated during the meeting that “Businesses/people in receipt of a FPN would be given a period to appeal”].  The Council would always seek to prosecute offenders with a ‘zero-tolerance’ approach.  The maximum FPN fine would be £400 with an early payment discounted rate of £300 (25% discount).

The following points were raised by members of the Cabinet:

• Gary Slee, Enforcement Team Leader, confirmed that the council would deal with fly-tipping on public and private land and would always prosecute where possible in order to accrue costs back to the landowner.  The FPN would only be used if proportionate to do so.  Landowners would cover the cost of removing waste from private land; but the council would look to prosecute offenders for fly-tipping on private land to recover their costs back.
• A member of the Cabinet highlighted that the information in the policy under paragraph 3, Guiding Principles of Legislative and Regulatory Enforcement (page 45 of the complete pack) did not contain as much detail under the ‘Accountable’ section as the overarching enforcement policy for the Council.  It did not explain that there was an appeals process, although the fact that there was a period of appeal was mentioned under Formal Enforcement Actions.  G Slee advised that the policies had been aligned as much as possible and been kept concise; the operational detail of each service was slightly different but the approach had to be consistent.  M Tett stressed the importance of the public being aware it was possible to appeal against  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

This item is being taken as an urgent decision due to the serious impact of Regulations postponing the local government elections to be held 7 May 2020 until 6 May 2021, on the ability of the newly established Kingsbrook Parish Council to function when the Aylesbury Vale (Reorganisation of Community Governance) Order 2020 comes into force on 7 May 2020.

This report seeks approval to a Procedure setting out how Buckinghamshire Council

will carry out its powers to appoint temporary members to inquorate parish councils

and authority for the Deputy Chief Executive to make such an Order for Kingsbrook

Parish Council.

RESOLVED: 

Recommendations: That Buckinghamshire Council :-

1. Approve the procedure set out in Appendix 1 for making appointments to inquorate parish councils under section 91 of the Local Government Act 1972

2. Authorise the Deputy Chief Executive in consultation with the Group Leaders to

make the Order attached at Appendix 2 to appoint Parish Councillors to Kingsbrook

Parish Council to enable it to operate.

Joanna Swift, Head of Legal Services (CSB Team), introduced the report which related to the Council's powers in the Local Government Act 1972 to appoint temporary members to parish councils which could become inquorate.  The report was being considered as an urgent decision and the proposed Order for the newly established Kingsbrook Parish Council would enable it to operate following the postponement of the local elections on 7 May 2020.  The report sought approval to a Procedure setting out how Buckinghamshire Council would carry out its powers to appoint temporary members to inquorate parish councils and authority for the Deputy Chief Executive to make such an Order for Kingsbrook Parish Council.

The following point was raised by members of the Cabinet:

• A cabinet member highlighted that there were six ward members eligible to be members of Kingsbrook Parish Council who should be approached before the local group members.  Members of the community should also be involved.   J Swift confirmed that the first stage would be to consult with ward members who had experience of the locality and the community; if there was a need to seek more interest the Service Director would work closely with local members.

RESOLVED: Cabinet APPROVED the procedure set out in Appendix 1 for making appointments to inquorate parish councils under section 91 of the Local Government Act 1972.  Cabinet AUTHORISED the Deputy Chief Executive in consultation with the Group Leaders to make the Order attached at Appendix 2 to appoint Parish Councillors to Kingsbrook Parish Council to enable it to operate.

The HRC Service is not only business critical but a legal duty to undertake. This

report seeks to ensure the Council makes decisions enabling the continuity of that

duty. An options appraisal has been undertaken and considered a high level

assessment of the benefits/risks associated with providing the HRC service,

including betterment and policy changes, as a result an outsourced contract with a

third party provider compared to an in-house service is the recommended option.

RESOLVED:

Recommendations:

1. To agree to proceed with Option C and to carry out a procurement process for the

provision of a Household Recycling Centre service.

2. That authority be delegated to the Service Director for Neighbourhood Services,

following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Environment, to take all

necessary actions to agree the procurement strategy for the future Household

Recycling Centre Service contract.

Martin Tett advised that this item would be in two parts; an introduction for the public and a private session to discuss the options.

Bill Chapple, OBE, Cabinet Member for the Environment introduced the report which was being brought before the Cabinet to seek a decision on the options for service delivery of the household recycling centre (HRC) service from April 2022.  Changes were made to the service in April 2019 and customer satisfaction had remained high at 98 percent.  The current operational contract had been extended and could not be legally extended any further. 

There were no questions from the Cabinet and the meeting went into confidential session.

Following the confidential discussion the Leader advised that the members of the Cabinet had held a robust discussion.  Warren Whyte stated that he supported the recommendation and stressed that the Buckingham HRC site covered a large area and was a small site but received very few complaints.  W Whyte also highlighted Table 4: Betterment and policy change options for the HRC Service, and welcomed the detailed work and betterment options paper which would cover the whole county and be provided at a later date.

RESOLVED:  Cabinet AGREED to proceed with Option C and to carry out a procurement process for the provision of a Household Recycling Centre service.  Cabinet AGREED that authority be delegated to the Service Director for Neighbourhood Services, following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Environment, to take all necessary actions to agree the procurement strategy for the future Household Recycling Centre Service contract.

To resolve that under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item(s) of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of Schedule 12A of the Act.

RESOLVED:  That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of Schedule 12A of the Act.

Paragraph 3 – Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).

To consider confidential appendix.

Tuesday 26  May 2020 at 10.00 am.

26 May 2020