Agenda and draft minutes

Link to further information in the Council’s Constitution

There were no declarations off interest made.

To receive as a correct record the minutes of the Meeting of the Council held on Thursday, 5 December 2024.

The minutes of the meeting held on Thursday, 5 December 2024 were approved as a true record and signed by the Mayor.

The Mayor welcomed Adam Hill as the new Chief Executive and informed Council that he had attended 20 events since the last meeting, including many Christmas events, and he thanked Councillors for attending his Carol Service. He had enjoyed visiting staff and helping to serve Christmas dinner at the Friary on Christmas Day. The Mayor referred to his visit to Rainbows Hospice with Councillor Brennan, where they presented a cheque for £11,600, which had been collected by Rushcliffe Oaks Crematorium, with the kind permission of relatives from the proceeds of recycling metal. He concluded by thanking Kerie Mooney for her successful skydive in aid of his charity last weekend.  

The Leader also welcomed Adam Hill and confirmed that discussions on Local Government Reorganisation continued, with an Extraordinary Council meeting scheduled for 20 March 2025 to consider an interim list of proposals, with work then continuing to produce the main submission by the end of November 2025. 

The Chief Executive thanked everyone for the warm welcome he had received and stated that he was looking forward to working with Councillors going forward.

To answer questions submitted by Citizens on the Council or its services.

The Mayor invited Mr Bear to read his question as submitted:

“Please will the Council review their decision to reduce the period from two years to one year before empty properties become assessable to double Council Tax from 1 April 2024, and exclude properties which have been or are genuinely being marketed for sale or are being repaired following, for example fire or flood?”

Councillor Virdi thanked Mr Bear for his question and advised that in November 2024 a new statutory instrument was approved, which would be active from 1 April 2025, updating previous legislation and the policy approved by Full Council last year. The updated legislation related to exceptions when the premium should only be applied after 12 months, which included actively marketing a property for sale or let, following probate, or if a property was deemed uninhabitable. In the case of a property being uninhabitable, it was feasible a property that had a severe fire or flood could have the exception applied. Furthermore, if properties were severely damaged, an individual could ask the Valuation Office to remove the property from Council Tax, and Councillor Virdi advised that this avenue had been available before 1 April 2024. Regarding properties for sale, the Government had introduced the exception for 12 months, which was considered reasonable to sell properties, and the premium applied thereafter. This was effectively the same policy the Council had in place from 1 April 2024, was consistent with current Government legislation and perfectly reasonable. The legislation was one of the ways that the Council could encourage properties to be occupied rather than empty, and this was endorsed by the Communities Scrutiny Group on 20 July 2023. Councillor Virdi confirmed that for the reasons stated, the Council would not be increasing the period to apply the empty homes premium from one year to two years from 1 April 2024.

No petitions were presented at this meeting.

Question from Councillor Gaunt.

Question from Councillor Gaunt to Councillor Combellack.

“Please can I find out the total number of scrutiny matrices that were submitted by Councillors in the past 12 months for the consideration of the scrutiny panel, versus the number of scrutiny matrices that actually made it to the Corporate Overview Group meetings for consideration?

Councillor Combellack advised that a full breakdown of requests was provided to the Corporate Overview Group last week and this question could have been avoided being asked. Councillor Combellack confirmed that 17 requests were made, of which six were taken forward, seven rejected by the Group and four responded to separately, having either been considered previously, or not requiring full scrutiny, by being addressed by another forum. She stated that one of her requests had not been accepted, if any proof was needed regarding the objectivity of the process.

Councillor Gaunt asked a supplementary question to Councillor Combellack.

“Could training be provided on how to fill in the paperwork correctly to ensure that the criteria is met?”….

Councillor Combellack stated that the breakdown of requests and actions was a matter of record and she and officers would be happy to discuss the matter further, and Councillors could request to attend Corporate Overview Group.

The report of the Director – Finance and Corporate Services is attached.

The Mayor advised that it was proposed that the speaking times be extended to permit the mover of the report 15 minutes to speak on the matter, and to allow 7 ½ minutes for the seconder and other Group Leaders and this was agreed by Council. 

The Leader and Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Strategic and Borough-wide Leadership, Councillor Clarke MBE presented the report of the Director – Finance and Corporate Services outlining the Council’s Budget and Financial Strategy for 2025/26.

The Leader stated that all councils continued to face financial pressures; however, Rushcliffe continued improving its services, with a virtually balanced budget over five years, including up to date, signed off Financial Statements, with excellent governance, which was the backbone of any well run local authority. The Leader referred to the hard work undertaken to produce the budget, ensuring that the Council had a commercial culture, generated financial efficiencies and was forward looking. Council noted that Government funding this year was much lower, with Core Spending Power only increasing by 0.9% compared to 6.8% nationally, and with inflation running at 2%, this was a cut in overall funding, resulting in the Council having to raise revenue to fund services. The Leader expressed pride that Rushcliffe continued to have the lowest Council Tax in Nottinghamshire and remained amongst the lowest 25% in the country and felt that the Special Expenses precept for West Bridgford, compared to other areas remained excellent value.

The Leader referred to the Council’s Transformation and Efficiency Plan, which would deliver £1.7m over five years and whilst acknowledging some charges were increasing, he felt that they remained competitive. The Capital Programme remained substantial with £27.1m budgeted over five years, including a continued range of investments across the Borough as detailed in Section 9.2 of the Capital Programme, and he confirmed that reserves remained sound.

The Leader referred to the Commentary of the S151 Officer, which confirmed that the Council was not at risk of requiring exceptional financial support. The Leader advised that going forward significant challenges lay ahead, including Local Government Reorganisation (LGR), together with the impending comprehensive review on local government finances, and uncertainty regarding  various Government grants. The Leader confirmed that Rushcliffe was in a relatively healthy financial position compared to many other councils and continued to provide excellent value for money to its residents. The Leader concluded by thanking Councillors, in particular Councillor Virdi and the Director – Finance and Corporate Services and the Finance Team for their continued hard work during such challenging times.

Councillor Virdi seconded the recommendation and reserved the right to speak.

Councillor J Walker thanked officers for their continued support and stated that being a successful council was more than just having a balanced budget, it was an opportunity to act with confidence to future proof the organisation. As demands for funding increased, she was concerned that with the Council now looking to identify major assets for disposal, they could be lost to future generations. Councillor Walker stated that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

The report of the Director – Finance and Corporate Services is attached.

The Leader and Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Strategic and Borough-wide Leadership, Councillor Clarke presented the report of the Director – Finance and Corporate Services outlining the Council’s position on Council Tax for the year 2025/26.

The Leader advised that this was a technical process to set the Council Tax and moved the recommendation as detailed in the report.

Councillor Virdi seconded the recommendation and reserved the right to speak.

Councillor Polenta reiterated that the Labour Group’s priority was to provide public services to meet social needs, rather than balancing the books, and she felt that Council Tax was outdated, punishing those on the lowest income, as it failed to reflect the housing market and needed reform. The system punished areas with low property values, forcing Councils to set higher rates to fund basic services, and she believed that a fairer model of local taxation was required, and at the very least Council Tax bands should be revalued to challenge this injustice.   

Councillor Birch was concerned about tax communication to residents and felt that Rushcliffe should be communicating more clearly what each council was responsible for and requested that his vote against this be recorded. 

In seconding the recommendation, Councillor Virdi confirmed that he was in favour of positive communications and that officers would continue to consider communications. 

It was RESOLVED that the Council Tax Resolution for 2025/26 as detailed in Appendix A to the report be approved.

Councillor Birch voted against the recommendation.

The report of the Director – Development and Economic Growth is attached.

The Portfolio Holder for Planning & Housing, Councillor Roger Upton, presented the report of the Director – Development and Economic Growth regarding Greater Nottingham Strategic Plan.

Councillor Upton stated that since the Council meeting in September 2024, some important issues had required changes to be made, including the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the deadline for publishing the revised draft Plan with the updated housing targets, and the removal of all reference to Gedling Borough Council, following its decision to withdraw from the Partnership.

Councillor Upton explained that transitional arrangements were published on 12 December, which meant that the Plan could not be taken forward without making revisions to its proposed housing targets. The Council would now need to meet 80% of the Government’s annual housing target, resulting in an increase of 600 homes over the time period, as set out in Table 1 of the report, with Table 2 confirming that the new target would not exceed the Council’s existing housing supply, which Councillor Upton believed still provided sufficient protection to maintain a five year land supply. Council noted that if the 12 March deadline for publication was not met then a substantially revised or a new local Plan would need to be prepared. Councillor Upton referred to the revised Plan, as detailed in Appendix 1 to the report, confirming that it had been prepared following significant public consultation, and considered by the cross party Local Development Forum (LDF) Group, which had recently unanimously supported it. Councillor Upton reiterated that if the Plan was not supported, it would be unable to proceed in its current form, and the Council would be without a Plan and at risk of speculative, unplanned housing development. If approved, the Plan would be subject to a further six week public consultation, followed by a public examination, with potential adoption in the autumn of 2026.

Councillor Butler seconded the recommendation and reserved the right to speak.

In supporting the recommendation, Councillor Calvert reminded Council that the Labour Group had previously voted in favour of the publication of the draft Plan, and not its wholesale approval, and as part of the consultation, whilst it supported the partnership approach, it was disappointed that some areas had not participated. The Group also supported having closer coordination to pool expertise and having the design and layout of the site for the Gamston and North of Tollerton allocation determined by a Master Plan and Design Code. There was support for the Policy regarding housing mix, together with a suggestion for a new policy to increase the percentage of affordable homes in the Borough and the Group recommended some transport infrastructure schemes.

Councillor Way thanked officers, stating that the Plan needed to be adopted, to avoid having to start again, and that it was incumbent on the Council to do as much as it could to ensure that the Borough remained a good place to live.

Councillor Chewings thanked officers and clarified that the LDF Group had endorsed the Plan to come  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.

The report of the Monitoring Officer is attached.

The Portfolio Holder for Business & Growth, Councillor Abby Brennan, presented the report of the Monitoring Officer regarding Amendments to the Constitution.

Councillor Brennan, advised that it was a statutory duty to keep the Constitution up to date and review it annually, with the recommendations considered by the Governance Scrutiny Group and relevant officers, with the proposed amendments set out in red in the Appendix, together with changes from the Governance Scrutiny Group in blue. The amendments were designed to support the efficient running of Full Council meetings and the conduct of business and it was for each council to determine its own constitution to meet its own business needs.

Councillor Edyvean seconded the recommendation and reserved the right to speak.

Councillor Polenta felt that the Constitution should provide a framework through which Councillors could challenge policy, rigorously scrutinise decisions and ensure that all voices were heard. Councillor Polenta stated that any Councillor should have the right to call for a recorded vote without needing other Councillors support, that questions should be heard in public, rather than receiving a written response and that the scope of motions should not be restricted, as they should be used to send messages on broader economic and political matters that impacted residents.

Councillor Thomas felt there was a role for debate about important issues outside the direct responsibility of the Council, to allow Councillors to come to a joint view and agree to put pressure on other agencies regarding issues that concerned residents. She felt that more work was required on the proposed amendments and that it should be considered again by the Governance Scrutiny Group.

Councillor Birch expressed concern about limiting the scope of motions as he felt that this helped Councillors represent their constituents better, was educational and allowed democratic debate. He thought that the number of supporters for a recorded vote should be equivalent to membership of the smallest political party, as recorded votes played an important role in holding power to account and was a tool for opposition Councillors to use.

Councillor R Mallender echoed comments regarding the scope of motions and felt that discussing matters beyond the remit of the Council helped with sound decisions making.

In seconding the recommendation, Councillor Edyvean confirmed that the Governance Scrutiny Group had considered each amendment, and whilst not everyone agreed with them, the recommendations had been agreed and he felt that the Council was here to serve and deliver for residents, rather than discussing matters outside the Council’s remit.

Councillor Brennan felt that questions to Council were often timely, with a written reply providing a prompter response. She referred to the wording of the amendment regarding the scope of motions and did not agree that it was restrictive, as it still allowed the Council to discuss and focus on matters that impacted or affected residents. Councillor Brennan also referred to comments that had previously been made by Councillors and members of the public asking why the Council was debating matters that it could  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59.

The report of the Director – Finance and Corporate Services is attached.

The Portfolio Holder for Finance, Transformation and Governance, Councillor Virdi presented the report of the Director – Finance and Corporate Services regarding Appointment of Independent Person to Governance Scrutiny Group.

Councillor Virdi stated that the report highlighted factors of good practice and governance as set out in the Redmond Review and advised that Government was looking at making this mandatory. The Governance Scrutiny Group supported having an independent member and Councillor Virdi clarified that it would be a non-voting role. He referred to the job description and person specification as set out in Appendix A to the report, with remuneration for the role set against comparable benchmarks.

Councillor J Wheeler seconded the recommendation.

It was RESOLVED that Council:

a)           approved the appointment of an Independent Person to Governance Scrutiny Group;

b)           approved the role description, skills and competencies and person specification at Appendix A;

c)           authorised the Section 151 Officer, in consultation with the Chair of the Governance Scrutiny Group, to undertake the recruitment process and appoint to the position of Independent Person on the basis of a two-year appointment;

d)           approved an allowance of £800 per annum for this appointment; and

e)           delegated authority to the Monitoring Officer to amend the Terms of Reference of the Governance Scrutiny Group and the Councillor’s Allowance Scheme accordingly.

To receive Notices of Motion

No motions had been submitted.

To answer questions submitted by Councillors

The questions from Councillors were not considered. A written response would be provided after the meeting.