Apologies for absence were received from Cllrs Chilvers, Mrs Cohen, Mrs Davies, also Chris Potter and Philip Ruck.

The Mayor recounted some of the engagements he had undertaken since the last Ordinary Council meeting then invited the Leader of the Council, Cllr Mrs McKinlay, to make a statement regarding the current refugee crisis, as she had requested.

Declarations of Interest were made by Cllr Reed in regard to his employment at Brentwood Theatre and being an unpaid Trustee of Brentwood Leisure Trust; by Cllr Aspinell in relation to Essex Fire Authority;  and Cllr Morrissey in view of her employment as a local estate agent in relation to any planning related issues.

The minutes of the Ordinary Council meeting held on 10 June 2015 were

approved as a true record.

Two public questions had been received at the time of publication of the agenda.

Two Public Questions had been received.

Question1:    “At one Ordinary Council meeting, the Deputy Mayor, Councillor Mark Reed chaired the meeting. He told the meeting that the Mayor, Councillor Madeline Henwood was unwell and was therefore unable to be present.

Would it be possible for a reason to always be given at the beginning of meetings and recorded in the minutes for the absence of councillors at committee meetings?”

Response on behalf of Monitoring Officer.  ‘ No.  At first sight (in the popular spirit of increased openness and transparency of the modern world) it would seem only right and proper for a reason for a councillor’s absence to be always given at the beginning of meetings and recorded in the minutes. There are many reasons why a councillor might be absent from the Chamber and it might well be thought that the public have a right to know why a councillor is absent. Absence cannot be equated with neglect of duty so giving a reason for absence would no doubt let the public judge. However, giving reasons cannot and should not be done without further thought of the implications. Some matters are rightly private (such as, for example, being in hospital receiving treatment for terminal illness or being on a fortnight’s family holiday abroad recuperating from illness). Some matters are public but there might be unintended consequences if reasons were given to be publically given (such as a break-in whilst away attending a conference). Refusal to give a reason by some but not all might inadvertently create suspicion so to keep things straightforward and simple, reasons for absence are not demanded to be given under the Council’s Constitution. The Council does however comply with the requirement to record those present and such attendance is recorded in the minutes’.

Question 2:  In the past, councillors were paid only when they attended the meetings of the committees on which they had elected to sit.

If a nominated member of a committee was absent, was his/her substitute paid instead?

Response on behalf of Monitoring Officer:  Before statutory changes introduced in 1989, Members did in the last century receive an attendance allowance if they attended a formal meeting of a committee as a substitute member. In modern times Members are not incentivised to attend a meeting except to attend to discharge their public duties in the public interest. The Members Allowance Scheme is set out in Part 6 of the Council’s Constitution”.

Would always be possible to say why a Cllr or Officer is not in attendance at a meeting ?

The report provided details of the 2015/16 work plan for the Audit, Scrutiny and Transformation Committee and the previous year’s scrutiny work.  The Constitution required that Council received an annual report from the Audit, Scrutiny and Transformation Committee on the scrutiny work programme.

Cllr Kerslake MOVED and Cllr Murphy SECONDED the recommendation within the report at it was

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY:

That the Annual Report of the Audit, Scrutiny and Transformation Committee detailing the 2014/15 scrutiny work undertaken at paragraph 4 and the 2015/16 work programme at Appendix A be noted.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION

To enact the provisions of Article 6 paragraph 6.3.3 of the Constitution that the Council received an annual report on the scrutiny work programme.

No Memorials or Petitions had been received at the time of publication of the agenda.

No notices had been received regarding Memorials or Petitions but Cllr Mrs Hones advised she intended to present a petition in relation to the Notice of Motion she would propose later in the meeting.

Chairs’ reports were before Members and no written questions had been

received.

Oral questions were put and responded to by relevant Chairs.

Report to follow.

Brentwood Borough Council had invited the Local Government Association to conduct a follow up Peer Review in November 2013.

The full details of the report of the Peer Review team were detailed in a report to Council on 7 April 2014. The purpose of this report was to advise of the current status of the action plan contained within that report

Cllr  McKinlay  MOVED and Cllr Hirst SECONDED  the recommendations within the report and following a full discussion a vote was taken on a show of hands. Cllr Kerslake had left the meeting during the discussion and did not vote.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY

1.    That progress of the action plan (attached as Appendix A) be monitored by the Audit, Scrutiny and Transformation committee over the next 18 months.

2.    To agree that a full transformation agenda be prepared by the Head of Paid Service and be presented to the November Policy, Finance and Resources committee for approval then monitored by the Audit, Scrutiny and Transformation committee.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION

The Peer Review action plan had been implemented where actions could be completed.  However, many of the actions were such that they needed regular review/attention.

The on-going work should be monitored as part of the Council’s Transformation agenda by the Audit, Scrutiny and Transformation Committee.

Report to follow.

The report provided a background to the discussions being held in relation to achieving greater economic growth across the Greater Essex area (comprising the twelve district/borough/city councils, Essex County Council and Southend and Thurrock unitary councils).

Cllr McKinlay MOVED and Cllr Hirst SECONDED the recommendations within the report and following a full discussion a vote was taken on a show of hands.  Cllr Faragher had left  the meeting during the discussion and did not vote.

RESOLVEDUNANIMOUSLY:

1.    That the Council continues to participate in discussions with the Greater Essex area Councils;

2.    That a further contribution of £10,000 to support the devolution programme be agreed (to be met from the Organisational Transformation Reserve);

3.    That the Head of Paid Service and Leader of the Council be granted delegated authority (after first consulting with opposition Group Leaders) to sign off the submission to Government in October as the start of the negotiations, including developing an appropriate governance model. A full report of the outcome of those discussions with Government will come back to Full Council in due course.

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION

Economic growth and prosperity which promotes inclusive growth for the benefit of all of the current and future residents of the Borough will continue to be the focus of the Council’s policies and strategies for the remainder of the decade. The Government’s approach to devolution to accelerate and assure delivery of economic growth, in principle, is entirely compatible with the Council’s aspirations for the Borough. The detail of any specific devolution deal will be carefully evaluated to ensure that it in the best interests of the residents and businesses within the Borough of Brentwood, including the governance model to support delivery. Discussions around the country are moving at a pace and it is important that Greater Essex maintain pace in exploring the opportunities in this agenda and it is essential that Brentwood Borough Council remains engaged in the debate and design of any potential deal. Such engagement does not commit the Council to any particular outcome but not being a party to the discussion could exclude the Council from later being a party to a combined authority ‘scheme’.

Further reports will be provided to the Council, as appropriate, as the work progresses.

The Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill currently proceeding through Parliament will provide the statutory framework for one of the potential strategic collaboration models in the form of combined authorities.

Section 2 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 sets out the process by which the Secretary of State may issue an invitation to the council to form a single tier of local government.

Discussions about opportunities to enhance economic growth are consistent with the Council’s corporate plan to create opportunity.

Five Notices of Motion have been received.

Five Notices of Motion had been submitted in accordance with the Council’s procedure rules.

1.    Cllr Barrett had submitted the following motion:

‘The Council believes that the children of this Borough have the right to be educated in a Brentwood School of their preference, within the appropriate catchment areas and admission rules.  It further believes that transport costs should be supported to give parental choice to select a school that is appropriate for their child’s abilities, aspirations and development within the Borough.’

‘That the Council (1) recognises the new Education Transport policy from Essex County Council which will reduce parental choice by putting an extra financial cost on attending schools in the Borough (2) expresses its disappointment that parental choice could be limited by financial concerns with some residents forced to educate their children outside of the Borough.’

‘That the Council will seek reassurance from Essex County that the children of Brentwood will not be forced to choose a school outside of the Borough due to transport costs and encourage Essex County Council to make open all of the town’s secondary schools, within appropriate catchment and admission rules, options for our children’.

Cllr Kendall SECONDED the motion and following a full discussion a recorded vote was requested  in accordance with Rule 9.5 of the Council’s Procedure Rules.  Cllr Poppy left the meeting during the discussion and therefore did not vote. Members voted as follows:

FOR:  Cllrs Aspinell, Barrett, Carter, Clark, Mrs Hubbard, Keeble, Kendall, Morrissey, Mynott, Newberry and Mrs Squirrell (11)

AGAINST: Cllrs Barrell, Cloke, Mrs Coe, Faragher, Hirst, Mrs Hones, Hossack, Kerslake, McCheyne, Mrs McKinlay, Parker, Reed, Mrs Rowlands, Russell, Ms Sanders, Mrs Slade, Sleep, Tee, Trump and Wiles (20)

ABSTAIN:  Cllrs Mrs Henwood and Mrs Murphy (2)

The Motion was LOST.

(Cllr Kendall declared a non-pecuniary interest in accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct by virtue of living in Blackmore).

2.    Cllr  Hones had submitted the following motion:

‘That Members of Brentwood Borough Council being very concerned to hear that the last remaining bank in Ingatestone is set to close on Friday 16^th October 2015 and because Brentwood Borough believes High Street banks have a social responsibility to not close the last remaining branch in town, a letter be written to the local MP, Sire Eric Pickles , and Mr Andy Fletcher, Barclays Bank Community Leader for Essex, to urge Barclays Bank to reconsider their decision’.

Cllr Cloke SECONDED the motion.

Cllr Mrs Hones presented to the Mayor a petition which included 685 signatures in support of the Motion.

Cllr Aspinell proposed an amendment to the Motion to add  ‘or to provide a mobile Bank’ at the end of it.

Cllr Hones accepted the  amendment  and following a full discussion a vote was taken by a show of hands on the substantive motion which was CARRIED.

3.    Cllr Tee had submitted the following motion:

‘That  following Cllr Olivia Sanders’ appointment as the Lead Mental Health Champion the Council reaffirms its ongoing commitment to mental health  ...  view the full minutes text for item 161.

An item of business may only be considered where the Chair is of the opinion that, by reason of special circumstances, which shall be specified in the Minutes, the item should be considered as a matter of urgency.

There were no items of urgent business.