| Time: | 7.30pm | Place: | Council Chamber, Council Offices, Gernon Road, Letchworth Garden City |
| PRESENT: | Councillor John Booth (Chairman), Councillor Alan Millard (Vice-Chairman), Councillor Ian Albert, Councillor Mrs A.G. Ashley, Councillor Clare Billing, Councillor Judi Billing, Councillor P.C.W. Burt, Councillor Paul Clark (until 8.55pm), Councillor Julian Cunningham, Councillor Steve Deakin - Davies, Councillor Elizabeth Dennis (from 7.55pm), Councillor Jane Gray, Councillor Gary Grindal, Councillor Nicola Harris (until 8.00pm), Councillor Steve Hemingway, Councillor Cathryn Henry (from 7.40pm), Councillor T.W. Hone (until 8.55pm), Councillor Tony Hunter, Councillor S.K. Jarvis, Councillor Lorna Kercher, Councillor David Levett, Councillor Ben Lewis (from 7.45pm), Councillor Bernard Lovewell, Councillor Sandra Lunn, Councillor Ian Mantle, Councillor Jim McNally, Councillor M.R.M. Muir, Councillor Mrs L.A. Needham, Councillor Janine Paterson, Councillor Frank Radcliffe, Councillor Mike Rice, Councillor Deepak Sangha, Councillor Valentine Shanley, Councillor Adrian Smith, Councillor Harry Spencer - Smith, Councillor Martin Stears - Handscomb, Councillor Mrs C.P.A. Strong, Councillor R.A.C. Thake and Councillor M.E. Weeks. |
| IN ATTENDANCE: | Chief Executive, Strategic Director of Finance, Policy and Governance, Head of Finance, Performance and Asset Management, Corporate Legal Manager & Monitoring Officer, Senior Lawyer & Deputy Monitoring Officer, Democratic Services Manager and Committee and Member Services Manager. |
| ALSO PRESENT: | Gavin Cansfield (Chief Executive, North Hertfordshire Homes) 4 members of the public. |
| Meeting attachments |
Agenda Front Pages Audio Recording of Meeting |
| Item | Description/Resolution | Status | Action | |
| PART I | ||||
| 64 |
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence were received from Councillors David Barnard, John Bishop, Bill Davidson, Faye S. Frost, Jean Green, Simon Harwood, Fiona Hill and Terry Tyler. |
Noted | ||
| 65 |
MINUTES Minutes It was moved by Councillor Mrs L.A. Needham, seconded by Councillor T.W. Hone, and RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the scheduled meeting of the Council held on 1 September 2016 be approved as a true record and signed by the Chairman. |
Agreed | ||
| 66 |
MINUTES Minutes It was moved by Councillor Mrs L.A. Needham, seconded by Councillor T.W. Hone, and RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the extraordinary meeting of the Council held on 19 September 2016 be approved as a true record and signed by the Chairman. |
Agreed | ||
| 67 |
NOTIFICATION OF OTHER BUSINESS No additional business was presented for consideration by the Council. |
Noted | ||
| 68 |
CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (1) Hitchin Oughton Ward By-Election The Chairman congratulated and welcomed back Councillor Martin Stears-Handscomb, following his recent success at the Hitchin Oughton Ward By-Election held on 10 November 2016. (2) Filming of Meeting The Chairman advised that the proceedings were being filmed by a reporter from the Comet newspaper. It was likely that anyone participating in the meeting would have their image captured. Any member of the public who did not wish to be filmed was asked to identify themselves to the Committee Clerk. (3) Declarations of Interest The Chairman reminded Members that, in line with the Code of Conduct, any Declarations of Interest needed to be declared immediately prior to the item in question. |
Noted | ||
| 69 |
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The Council was addressed by Mr David Leal-Bennett in respect of Item 9 - Item referred from Standards Sub-Committee: 24-26 February 2016 and Standards Committee consideration: 12 October 2016 - Former Councillor David Leal-Bennett. Mr Leal-Bennett began by questioning why the Council was discussing this item. He felt that the Council should not be debating the matter, and he considered it to be a travesty that it had come to this situation and was a poor indictment of the manner in which certain elected Members and officers (both past and present) had conducted themselves. Mr Leal-Bennett provided the Council with his brief synopsis of events. He had also written to most Members individually, with a copy of his appeal letter. There was also a summary of the 3 day disciplinary hearing in the papers for the meeting. Mr Leal-Bennett advised that, with others, he was involved with the Hitchin Town Hall Project, where a registered charity was set up and over £1million was raised through grants and loans. He stated that nobody had received any payment; there was no "pecuniary interest", indeed the Articles of the Charity forbade it. Unfortunately, all of this work has led to nothing but acrimony with NHDC, a disciplinary hearing and bad press coverage, which had reflected badly on NHDC and still prevailed. Mr Leal-Bennett stated that any Disclosable Pecuniary Interest (DPI) had to be declared on the Members' Register of Interests. He said that he was advised erroneously that he had a DPI and had to declare his interest and that, if not, he would be reported to the Police, as this was a criminal offence. He did not agree and sought the advice of his MP who referred the matter to the Minister and obtained his written response. Mr Leal-Bennett commented that, following his refusal, NHDC spent thousands of pounds in obtaining a Queens Counsel's advice, but in his opinion omitted to provide critical information. Fortunately, the prolonged Police investigation resulted in the matter being closed, with no action taken. Once he had resigned from HTH Ltd, Mr Leal-Bennett no longer had any responsibility yet officers and the Leader of the Council claimed that he retained a "close association" and treated him differently to other councillors who, when they had changed role, were able to remain in debates. Mr Leal-Bennett commented that he was barred from taking part in meetings which led to his public refusal to leave the Chamber, following which the Chairman made a formal complaint. He alleged that, having been unsuccessful with the Police, NHDC decided to instigate a full scale personal attack on him. The Council accumulated a file of over 1,000 pages going back many years even before he was a councillor; appointed a firm of solicitors to investigate; and held a three day hearing. Mr Leal-Bennett considered that this response was totally disproportionate and must have cost over £100,000. He felt he had been treated appallingly badly by senior officers and by the Leader of the Council, who endorsed what he believed to be a personal attack. Mr Leal-Bennett advised that the Standards Sub-Committee commented that "they considered him to be a very good councillor for Hitchin who was dedicated to the residents of Hitchin", and the Independent Person reiterated those comments. In their findings the Sub-Committee also stated that it may "warrant a potential censure or reprimand by Council" but that he had the right to appeal their decision. He appealed and requested "details of the appeal process and its operation." He never received a response from the Deputy External Monitoring Officer (Mr Miles of Broxbourne Borough Council), other than "I do not consider there is any benefit to anyone in prolonging this matter". Mr Leal-Bennett did not agree with that opinion. This was contrary to what he was advised at the hearing. He wished to clear his name and was being barred from so doing. The first opportunity he had was when the Standards Committee met on 12 October 2016 when he presented his case to them. Mr Leal-Bennett concluded by referring to the fact that, before the February 2016 hearing, the Independent Person produced a draft compromise agreement for discussion. A meeting was arranged for 10.00am on 11 February 2016 to find a way forward, but he received a communication from the Independent Person at 7:50am that morning stating: "Late last night I received a message from NHDC that, from their point of view, they do not consider any progress is likely to come from pursuing the approach in the draft document that I sent to you and to NHDC on February 9th." Mr Leal-Bennett stated that his lawyer summed it up when he stated: "It is disgraceful that the Chief Executive of a public authority should refuse a proposal of mediation made by a neutral party (whose role is specifically to provide an independent, non-aligned view in matters such as this) and you are right to point to the potential cost to the taxpayer of his intransigence." Mr Leal-Bennett was of the view that it was inconceivable that the Chief Executive did not discuss this with the Leader of the Council. Residents would expect a Group Leader to discuss with the Chief Executive, when one of their group members had a complaint made against them from an officer, so perhaps it was time that copies of the notes made by the Chief Executive should be made available for examination to understand how the Leader was being briefed and her involvement. He felt that Members should now be requesting a copy of any contemporaneous confidential notes made at the time to get to the real truth (ie. full disclosure). Mr Leal-Bennett considered that this refusal to mediate was costly and under the process was something that NHDC were obliged to undertake. He held the Leader of the Council (Councillor Lynda Needham) fully responsible for what he believed to be a waste of time, money and the grief it had caused him and others. He believed she should consider her position. Mr Leal-Bennett repeated his opening comment "Why was the Council discussing this item?". Had sense prevailed and the Leader endorsed a pragmatic solution, with an apology for any perceived offence that may have taken place, and the charges withdrawn, then a huge amount of public money could have been saved. This was still an option. The Chairman thanked Mr Leal-Bennett for his presentation. |
Noted | ||
| 70 |
ITEM REFERRED FROM CABINET: 22 NOVEMBER 2016 - UPDATED CONTRACT PROCUREMENT RULES Referral Appendix A - Draft amended Contract Procurement Rules Appendix B - Summary of Changes The Council considered the Minute of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 22 November 2016, in respect of the updated Contract Procurement Rules (Minute 80 refers). A copy of the report considered by the Cabinet was included with the agenda, as were the following appendices: Appendix A - Draft amended Contract Procurement Rules; and Appendix B - Summary of Changes. It was moved by Councillor T.W. Hone, seconded by Councillor Mrs L.A. Needham, and following debate and upon being put to the vote, it was RESOLVED: That the proposed changes to the Contract Procurement Rules, as described in Section 7 of the report and as set out in Appendix A to the report, be approved. REASON FOR DECISION: To contribute towards effective organisational control, as part of the Council's Financial Management and Procurement review processes. |
Agreed | ||
| 71 |
ITEM REFERRED FROM CABINET: 22 NOVEMBER 2016 - APPOINTMENT OF EXTERNAL AUDITORS FOR 2018/19 ONWARDS Referral The Council considered the Minute of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 22 November 2016, in respect of the appointment of External Auditors for 2018/19 onwards (Minute 81 refers). A copy of the report considered by the Cabinet was included with the agenda. It was moved by Councillor T.W. Hone, seconded by Councillor Mrs L.A. Needham, and following debate and upon being put to the vote, it was RESOLVED: That the Council opts in to the appointing person arrangements made by Public Sector Audit Appointments Ltd (PSAA) for the appointment of external auditors, for a period of 5 years from the 2018/19 audit. REASON FOR DECISION: To comply with the requirement under Regulation 19 of the Local Audit (Appointing Person) Regulations 2015 to appoint an external auditor; and to take forward the option that is most likely to provide the best value for money, both in terms of cost and time taken to deliver. |
Agreed | ||
| 72 |
ITEM REFERRED FROM STANDARDS SUB-COMMITTEE: 24-26 FEBRUARY 2016 AND STANDARDS COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION: 12 OCTOBER 2016 - FORMER COUNCILLOR DAVID LEAL-BENNETT Referral Appendix A - Standards Sub-Committee Minutes: 24-26 February 2016 Appendix B - Standards Sub-Committee Decision Notice Appendix C - Standards Commitee Minutes: 12 October 2016 [Prior to the commencement of this item, both the Chief Executive and Corporate Legal Manager & Monitoring Officer withdrew from the meeting for the duration of the debate and vote on the matter.] The Chairman of the Standards Committee (and Sub-Committee), Councillor Mike Rice, stated that before Members was a referral from the Standards Sub-Committee and the Standards Committee relating to former Councillor David Leal-Bennett. The referral from the Sub-Committee was on page 59 of the agenda papers and the referral from the full Committee was on page 62. As Chairman of the Standards Committee, he explained why this matter was before Members. The Chairman of the Standards Committee advised that, as Members would be aware, the Council received two complaints about the behaviour of then Councillor David Leal-Bennett. The complainants were former Councillor Tricia Cowley (who was Chairman of the Council at the time of making the complaint) and David Scholes, Chief Executive of the Council. The complaints alleged a number of breaches of the NHDC Member Code of Conduct. The Council noted that the complaints were considered by the Council's external Deputy Monitoring Officer, Gavin Miles of Broxbourne Borough Council, who determined (having consulted the Independent Person) that the complaints should be investigated. The complaints were investigated by Olwyn Dutton, then of Bevan Brittan solicitors. The Investigating Officer concluded that, based on the evidence she had seen, there had been nine breaches of the Member Code of Conduct. The Chairman of the Standards Committee explained that the alleged breaches were considered by the Standards Sub-Committee during a three day hearing from Wednesday, 24 February to Friday, 26 February 2016. He chaired that Sub-Committee. The Sub-Committee upheld five of the nine breaches, as set out in the minutes at Appendix A on page 65 of the agenda papers and in the Decision Notice at Appendix B on page 77. The five breaches upheld were: (1) in respect of the allegation that Councillor Leal-Bennett had failed to show respect, contrary to Paragraph 3.2 (b) of the NHDC Code of Conduct "You must show respect and consideration for others"; (2) in respect of the allegation that Councillor Leal-Bennett had bullied and harassed Officers contrary to Paragraph 3.2 (c) of the NHDC Code of Conduct "You must not use bullying behaviour or harass any person"; (3) in respect of the allegation that Councillor Leal-Bennett had brought his office or the reputation of the Council into disrepute contrary to Paragraph 3.4(a) of the NHDC Code of Conduct "You must not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or the authority into disrepute"; (4) in respect of the allegation that Councillor Leal-Bennett had failed to comply with an investigation conducted by the Monitoring Officer contrary to Paragraph 3.4(c) of the NHDC Code of Conduct "You must comply with any request of the authority's Monitoring Officer or Section 151 Officer, in connection with an investigation conducted in accordance with their respective statutory powers"; (5) in respect of the allegation that Councillor Leal-Bennett had failed to comply with the Member/Officer Protocol, a breach of 3.7(c) of the NHDC Code of Conduct. The Standards Sub-Committee then made the following resolutions on sanctions: (1) That the Sub-Committee's findings in respect of Councillor Leal-Bennett's conduct be published; (2) That the Sub-Committee's findings be reported to Council for information; and (3) That Council be recommended to issue Councillor Leal-Bennett with a formal censure or reprimand. The Chairman of the Standards Committee advised that, whilst still a Councillor, David Leal-Bennett submitted an appeal against the findings of the Sub-Committee by letter to the external Deputy Monitoring Officer during the run up to the May 2016 election. The external Monitoring Deputy Officer agreed to hold this in abeyance until after the election. At the election held on 5 May 2016 Mr Leal-Bennett lost his seat. The Chairman of the Standards Committee explained that, subsequent to the election, Mr Leal-Bennett indicated that he wished to continue with the appeal. This request was considered by the external Deputy Monitoring Officer and the Independent Person and they concluded that there was no avenue for him to take that process forward. This was communicated to Mr Leal-Bennett in writing in June 2016. The basis for this decision was their view that it was not possible under the Localism Act 2011 and the Council's procedures to proceed with an appeal when the appellant was no longer a Councillor. The Chairman of the Standards Committee commented that no legal challenge to that decision to end the appeal process had been forthcoming and it was considered that any such challenge by way of judicial review would now be out of time, notwithstanding the remarks made by David Leal-Bennett to the Standards Committee on 12 October 2016. The Chairman of the Standards Committee reported that two of the resolutions in the Sub-Committee's findings (on page 61 of the agenda papers) remained unresolved. Firstly, to report to Council for information, and secondly, the recommendation for a motion of censure. This was the purpose of the referral now before Members. The Council noted that the Standards Committee, at its meeting held on 12 October 2016, whilst discussing its regular update on Standards Matters, requested that it be made clear to Members that the Council may wish to decide not to censure the former Councillor, due to the passage of time, the loss of his seat and as he was not allowed to pursue the appeal he had lodged prior to the election. The minutes of the Committee were set out in Appendix C on page 83 of the agenda papers. It should be noted that, whilst it was considered that any challenge to the decision not to allow the appeal was out of time, a Council decision to pass a motion of censure was a further decision that could potentially be challenged by Mr Leal-Bennett. The Chairman of the Standards Committee advised that it was for the Council to consider how it wished to proceed. As set out on page 63 of the agenda papers, the Council could decide to take no further action by not supporting the motion of censure, or could pass the motion of censure as recommended by the Standards Sub-Committee. The Chairman of the Standards Committee stated that this was clearly an unusual position to be in. Normally, a motion of censure was considered against sitting councillors. However, due to the circumstances the Council found itself in, Members were being asked to consider whether former Councillor David Leal-Bennett should be censured for five breaches of the North Hertfordshire District Council Member Code of Conduct, relating to his behaviour whilst he was in office. To be clear, this was in effect backdating the censure and did not relate to him in his current capacity as a private citizen, over which the Council had no influence. As the Chairman of the Standards Committee, with its remit of promoting and maintaining high standards of conduct, he thought it was important that the Council recognised the findings of the Sub-Committee, in particular given the very serious findings in relation to his behaviour towards officers. It could not be right that, if re-elected, Mr Leal-Bennett would effectively have a clean slate by virtue of having lost his seat. It was therefore moved by Councillor Rice and seconded by Councillor Julian Cunningham that: 1. Full Council notes the findings of the Sub-Committee; and 2. Former Councillor David Leal-Bennett is censured for five breaches of the North Hertfordshire District Council Member Code of Conduct, relating to his behaviour whilst he was in office. The Chairman of the Standards Committee advised that the reason for the above motion was that it was important that the Council promoted and maintained high standards of Member conduct and, in light of the serious findings of the Sub-Committee, it was appropriate to censure the former Councillor. The Council debated the matter. It was generally considered that the Standards Sub-Committee had been very thorough in its deliberations. Members were content to note the Sub-Committee's findings. In respect of the motion to censure, a number of Members expressed their support to the Standards Sub-Committee recommendation. Some had no pleasure in so doing, but considered that it was important that Members upheld high standards of behaviour by paying proper regard to the NHDC Code of Conduct and Protocol for Member/Officer Relations. It was felt that to not agree a motion of censure would be a disservice to Council officers, as many of the findings related to the behaviour of former Councillor Leal-Bennett in dealing with officers, particularly with regard to bullying. Whilst an internal appeal process had been denied to Mr Leal-Bennett once he had lost his seat, he was not denied due process, as he had been free to exercise an opportunity to apply for a Judicial Review of the Sub-Committee's decision or report the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman. A number of other Members agreed that Members should uphold the highest standards of conduct, and that there was no justification for bullying behaviour. Whilst they had no difficulty in noting the Sub-Committee's findings, they were concerned that "natural justice" had been denied to Mr Leal-Bennett, due to the lack of an internal appeal process. They felt that the option of a Judicial Review would be costly and an inappropriate use of time and resources. In response to a Member's question, the Deputy Monitoring Officer confirmed that the total cost of the investigation and three day hearing was £52,585.56 plus VAT for Bevan Brittan and £4,000 plus VAT for the external Deputy Monitoring Officer, giving an inclusive of VAT figure of £67,902.67. In summing up and addressing a number of issues raised during the debate, the Chairman of the Standards Committee confirmed that, should it so desire, the Council would be fully entitled to vote against the motion to censure and that would be the end of the matter. However, the minutes of the meeting would need to be clear on the reasons why Council had reached this decision. In respect of the question about the fairness of pursuing censure when Mr Leal-Bennett was denied the ability to appeal, the Chairman of the Standards Committee felt that this was a valid point identified by the Committee, who had asked that it be included in the information presented to Council and, as requested, he had raised that point in his earlier remarks. Personally, he considered that this was outweighed by the importance of promoting and maintaining high standards of Member conduct. The Chairman of the Standards Committee stated that he was aware of a number of other authorities who had censured former councillors. He had not looked at the detail of those cases, but was aware from media reports of those censures. He was not aware that any of those decisions to censure had been overturned. Upon the Chairman putting each part of the motion to the vote separately, it was RESOLVED: (1) That the findings of the Standards Sub-Committee be noted; and (2) That former Councillor David Leal-Bennett is censured for five breaches of the North Hertfordshire District Council Member Code of Conduct, relating to his behaviour whilst he was in office. REASON FOR DECISION: It was important that the Council promoted and maintained high standards of Member conduct and, in light of the serious findings of the Sub-Committee, it was appropriate to censure the former councillor. |
Agreed | ||
| 73 |
NORTH HERTS HOMES' BOARD COMPOSITION Report and Appendices A and B Appendix C - Letter from NHH Chief Executive [Prior to the consideration of this item, the following interests were declared: (1) Councillor Jane Gray declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest, as she was one of the Council's nominated representatives on the Board of North Hertfordshire Homes (NHH). She would remain in the meeting during the NHH Chief Executive's presentation and subsequent Members' questions, but would leave the meeting prior to the debate and vote on the matter; and (2) Councillors David Levett and Sandra Lunn made declarable interests as they were tenants of properties owned by North Hertfordshire Homes. However, both chose to remain in the meeting for the duration of the item.] The Chief Executive of NHH (Gavin Cansfield) gave a presentation to the Council on the proposed changes to the composition of the NHH Board. The Chief Executive of NHH advised that NHH owned and managed around 8,000 homes, 80% of which were in North Hertfordshire. NHH was formed in 2003 and was a housing association regulated by the Homes and Communities Agency. In respect of the proposed governance changes, the Chief Executive of NHH explained that NHH had used expert consultants Campbell Tickell to undertake a governance review. The completed review was considered by the NHH Board in January 2016. Some of the review's recommendations were: - A reduction in the overall size of the Board from 12 to 10; - A reduction in the number of Council nominees from 3 to 2; - An increase in the number of Independent Board members from 6 to 8; - And a corresponding reduction in the number of tenant representatives, which would effectively remove tenant representation from the Board. The Chief Executive of NHH stated that, in making these changes, the Board was seeking to remove tenant representatives, but were not seeking to remove Board members who were tenants. The aim was to ensure that the Board had the appropriate skills and abilities to carry out the tasks it was charged with. NHH still had a tenant on its Board (Christine Anthony), who was a very able individual who, it was hoped, would continue to serve on the Board. The Chief Executive of NHH explained that the proposals also included a customer panel that would ensure that the Board understood the services that tents were happy with; how they felt about the services provided; and that the Board took into account the issues and concerns raised by the panel. The Chief Executive of NHH referred to issues which had changed since NHH was established in 2003. In 2003, NHH had received Government Grants for the building of new homes. Currently, no Government Grants were received for rented housing, which had meant that NHH had developed the provision of market sale housing, in order to subsidise affordable homes. Banks had largely withdrawn from lending to the housing market, and so increasingly Housing Associations had to go to the Bond market. This would impact on the type of skills required to be Board members. The Chief Executive of NHH advised that NHH had also experienced a series of threats to its income. Last year there was a 1% rent reduction over 4 years (over that period, NHH would receive £17million less in income). In addition, welfare reform had also threatened income streams. The Chief Executive of NHH commented that the perception of Housing Associations by the current Government was that they were often inefficient. There had been a number of high profile failures where public assets had been put at risk due to poor governance. In some of these cases, the regulator had found that Governing Boards did not fully understand the liabilities they had taken on, which in turn had put at risk the viability of those organisations. The Chief Executive of NHH considered that the role of Governing Boards had changed, in that duties were increasingly about risk management, treasury management, stress testing and ensuring business and financial viability. Failure to act meant that Housing Associations faced a governance downgrade for placing tenants' homes at risk. The Chief Executive of NHH explained that LSVT (Large Scale Voluntary Transfer) Housing Associations were formed at a rate of a third pre-2000; a third 2002-2005; and a final third post-2005. 3 out of 4 Housing Associations had changed their Board make up within the first 10 years; 3 out of 5 had either one or no tenant on their Board; and 3 out of 4 had either one or no Council Board member. So what NHH was proposing was in line with what had happened in the rest of the Housing Association sector. The Chief Executive of NHH stated that NHH was genuinely interested in the views of its tenants. In 2016, NHH had visited 2,500 tenants in their homes to hear their views. Feedback had been received from 1,600 tenants in respect of the services provided by NHH. In-depth interviews had been carried out with over 60 tenants in focus groups. NHH was in the process of finalising its annual Residents Report, using groups of tenants. The Chief Executive of NHH advised that NHH was also using new technology in contacting residents to better inform decisions. However, it was acknowledged that a large percentage of tenants were getting older - 52% were aged 60 or above and 21% were aged 70 or above. The Chief Executive of NHH concluded by reiterating that NHH required governance arrangements that were fit for purpose. NHH also needed to ensure that mechanisms were in place so that the Board could hear tenant' voices and act accordingly and in an appropriate way. The Chairman thanked the Chief Executive of NHH for his presentation. There ensued a question and answer session, with the Chief Executive of NHH answering a number of Members' questions. The Council considered a report of the Chief Executive seeking the Council's view on the proposal from North Hertfordshire Homes (NHH) to change the size and composition of its Board, including reducing the number of NHDC nominees from three to two and reducing the overall size of the Board from 12 to ten. The following appendices were submitted with the report: Appendix A - Overview of Governance; Appendix B - Voice of the Customer; and Appendix C - NHH's letter to the Council. The Executive Member for Housing and Environmental Health (Councillor Bernard Lovewell) commented that the reason he was not going to be move the recommendations contained in the Chief Executive's report, was that he wished Members to express their views on the proposed revised governance arrangements before the Council made a final decision on the matter. Therefore, it was moved by Councillor Bernard Lovewell, and seconded by Councillor Julian Cunningham, "that Council notes the report and presentation by the Chief Executive of North Herts Homes (NHH), and requests that the comments to be made by Members during the debate be actively considered by NHH prior to the submission of a revised report on NHH Board proposals to the 19 January 2017 Council Meeting." Members of the Council made a number of comments for the Chief Executive of NHH to take back to NHH for consideration, including: - there was a widespread opinion that there should be continued tenant representation on the NHH Board; - further tenant consultation might be required on the proposed governance arrangements (only 33 responses from 8,800 tenants was not very representative); - how would the existing 33% shareholding arrangement work in respect of the proposed revised governance arrangements; - should there be no tenants on the Board, there was a danger that NHH would lose connection with their residents; - surely there should be a more rigorous process in place to identify tenants who had the right skills to serve on the Board; - training opportunities for potential tenant Board members should be encouraged; - the proposed governance changes were not due to any statutory requirement - so there was no need to dilute tenant representation on the Board at the current time; - there should be a maximum (not minimum) number of tenants on the Board (and if prospective independent and tenant Board members had similar skill sets, then priority should be given to appointing tenant candidates); and - there had not been sufficient evidence or justification as to why the existing governance arrangements were not working. Upon the motion being put to the vote, it was RESOLVED: That Council notes the report and presentation by the Chief Executive of North Herts Homes (NHH), and requests that the comments to be made by Members during the debate be actively considered by NHH prior to the submission of a revised report on NHH Board proposals to the 19 January 2017 Council Meeting. REASON FOR DECISION: To provide the views of the Council in respect of the proposed future governance arrangements for North Hertfordshire Homes. |
Agreed | ||
| 74 |
QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS Report (A) Churchgate, Hitchin In accordance with Standing Order 4.8.11(b), the following question had been submitted by Councillor Paul Clark to Councillor Mrs L.A. Needham (Leader of the Council): "Given this Council's decision to take no further action on the development of Churchgate in Hitchin, can the leader advise the Council what action the Council is taking to ensure that the essential maintenance and repair work is being carried out, as required by the lease, by the tenant?" Councillor Needham replied that, whilst there were known ongoing proposals for the redevelopment of the site by Hammersmatch, any correspondence in relation to repairs was unlikely to be effective. She reminded Members that, in his presentation to the Council meeting on 11 February 2016, Mr Graham Payne had stated that Hammersmatch were asking for a few months grace to present the new proposal more fully. Council resolved that work on the Churchgate project cease and comments were made that it was hoped that at some point in the future, a suitable and viable scheme would be progressed. Councillor Needham stated that the Council remained open to any further proposals from Hammersmatch in relation to the Churchgate site. It was likely that any current shortfalls in repairs would be superseded by any new proposal. The Council had contacted Hammersmatch's managing agent to remind them of their obligations in relation to repairs and maintenance under the lease and they had responded that a programme of redecoration was being planned for the spring. The agent did, however, indicate that any costs incurred may be passed on to the tenants of the centre through their service charges. As a supplementary question, Councillor Clark asked: "Due to his concerns about soil and surface water drains in the area needing to be looked at, and that leaving them to the Spring of 2017 would be difficult, would the Leader of the Council speak to NHDC Property Services to push for that to be rectified?" Councillor Needham replied that she was more than happy to take that issue back to Property Services. However, she pointed out that, if the soil and surface water drains were on the part of the highway that was the responsibility of Hammersmatch, then it would be them that would need to be chased up for a solution. (B) Proposed changes to Train Services in North Hertfordshire In Councillor Terry Tyler's absence through illness, and in accordance with Standing Order 4.8.11(b), the following question was asked by Councillor S.K. Jarvis to Councillor Julian Cunningham (Executive Member for Policy, Transport and Green Issues): "How is the Council responding to the consultation on proposed changes to train services to stations in the District from 2018?" Councillor Cunningham replied that a Note was placed in Members' Information Service (MIS) on 4 November 2016 informing Members about the proposed changes to the Govia Thameslink (GTR) 2018 Timetable. The Note advised Members where they could view the consultation document and that Members could forward any comments they wished to make to the Principal Transport Policy Officer, who would be preparing a response in consultation with himself (Executive Member for Policy, Transport and Green Issues) on behalf of the Council. Members were asked to forward any comments to the Principal Transport Policy Officer (Naima Ihsan) by 11 November 2016, affording time for officers to co-ordinate any comments to be included in the Council's response as the consultation closed on 8 December 2016. Councillor Cunningham advised that the Principal Transport Officer would also be forwarding comments from NHDC to be included in the response being prepared by the Rail Strategy and Liaison Team at Hertfordshire County Council. A copy of the Council's repose would be appended to the Strategic Planning Matters report to be reported to Cabinet in December 2016. |
Noted | ||
| 75 |
NOTICE OF MOTIONS Report There were no notices of motions. |
Noted | ||