Agenda and draft minutes

Link to further information in the Council’s Constitution

There were no declarations of interest made.

To receive as a correct record the minutes of the Meeting of the Council held on 21 May 2026.

The minutes of the meeting held on Thursday, 21 May 2026 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Mayor.

The Mayor stated that his year had begun very busily attending 10 events. A particular highlight had been joining staff at the Municipal Journal (MJ) Awards in London, which had seen the Council’s Streetwise team win the Best Council Services Award. The Mayor felt very proud of the team and knew how much residents appreciated their hard work. The Mayor referred to his Civic Service on 19 July, and hoped people would be able to attend. He also mentioned Councillor Brown’s 24 hour bus tour, on behalf of the Mayor’s chosen charity, Guide Dogs, and encouraged everyone to sponsor Councillor Brown and watch his progress via the tracker on his phone. The Mayor advised Council of the funeral arrangements for former Mayor and Councillor, Mrs Christine Jeffreys.     

The Leader echoed the Mayor’s comments regarding the MJ Awards, reiterated what a fantastic job the Streetwise team did and advised that he would be visiting the team soon to congratulate them. The Leader stated that he was also expecting good news regarding Green Flag Awards and hoped to bring further details soon.  

The Chief Executive announced that Lorna Vertigan had been appointed to the Director of Development and Economic Growth and Deputy Chief Executive post. Ms Vertigan was currently working at Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, with extensive experience in the sector, and he felt that Rushcliffe was fortunate to have secured her in this role, and he looked forward to her starting work on 14 September.

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

No citizens’ questions were received for this meeting.

No petitions were presented at this meeting.

The report of the Chief Executive is to follow.

The Leader and Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Strategic and Borough-wide Leadership, Councillor Clarke MBE presented the report of the Chief Executive, updating the Council on the appointment to the role of the Council’s designated Monitoring Officer (Interim).

The Leader confirmed that following the departure of the previous Monitoring Officer, Mrs Charlotte Caven-Atack had covered the role in the interim, and he thanked her for doing so. The Leader advised that there had been a long and extensive recruitment process trying to secure a permanent replacement; however, it had not been possible to do that. To ensure that a designated officer was in place, a further interview process was undertaken and the Leader was pleased to announce that Mr Ifty Ali had been secured as the interim Monitoring Officer for an initial temporary period, as outlined in paragraph 7.1 of the report.

Councillor Brennan seconded the recommendation.

On behalf of the Labour Group, Councillor J Walker thanked Mrs Caven-Atack for her professionalism and commitment and referred to her impressive ability to work flexibly across the Council. On behalf of the Group, she also welcomed Mr Ali and stated that at a time when good governance and transparency were more important than ever, it was essential that this function was fully supported to ensure that work across the Chamber could continue constructively. 

Councillor Thomas reiterated thanks to Mrs Caven-Atack and expressed disappointment that the Council had been unable to employ a member of staff for this important role, and she felt that the additional costs incurred, as detailed in the report were not a good use of public money. Councillor Thomas asked the Leader if he believed that the difficulty in recruitment was related to uncertainties over Local Government Reorganisation (LGR), and if so, would Rushcliffe reconsider bonuses for staff remaining at Rushcliffe until April 2028, who did not obtain a position with the new council, and were not eligible for redundancy. 

The Leader agreed that there was uncertainty regarding LGR, with announcements expected soon, and he felt that the comments raised by Councillor Thomas were interesting and could be discussed going forward as LGR progressed.

It was RESOLVED that Mr Ifty Ali be designated as the Council’s Monitoring Officer (Interim) from Thursday, 2 July 2026.

Mr Ali came joined meeting and took over the role of Monitoring Officer.

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 MBE presented the report of the Director – Finance and Corporate Services providing a review of the work undertaken by the Council’s four Scrutiny Groups during 2025/26.

The Leader welcomed Mr Ali and wished him well. The Leader stated that scrutiny was an incredibly important operation of this Council and welcomed the report. Once Councillor Brennan had been given the opportunity to second the report, he asked the Mayor to invite the respective Scrutiny Chairs to summarise any highlights of the year.

Councillor Brennan seconded the motion and reserved the right to speak.

Councillor Williams, Chair of the Corporate Overview Group (COG) for 2025/26, agreed that scrutiny was a key function of the Council, and as the overarching group, COG looked both retrospectively and forwards to identify ways to improve services for residents. COG considered a range of reports and looked at all requests made by officers and Councillors, and he thanked everyone for those, and hoped that requests would continue to come forward. He thanked officers, in particular the Assistant Director – Corporate Services, the Democratic Services Team, officers who attended meetings to present reports and members of the Group, and he looked forward to the year ahead. 

Councillor Simms, Chair of the Governance Scrutiny Group, stated that this was his first year as Chair of the Group. He thanked the Director – Finance and Corporate Services, the Assistant Director – Finance and the Democratic Services Team for their support, officers and outside representatives who attended meetings to present reports, his Vice-chair Councillor Gaunt for his support and members of the Group. Councillor Simms stated that he saw good governance as the bedrock of the Council, Rushcliffe was an outstanding, well run Council, and as a governance professional, he was honoured to Chair this Group. The Group had been well attended, undertaking effective scrutiny, which he encouraged, to ensure that the Council continued to have effective governance, especially with Local Government Reorganisation on the horizon. Councillor Simms looked forward to 2026/27 and continuing to work together and improve.  

Councillor Parekh, Chair of the Communities Scrutiny Group, referred to the wide range of issues considered by the Group, as detailed in the report, which had directly impacted on residents’ lives, by providing constructive challenge, holding decision makers to account and supporting continuous service improvement. Councillor Parekh thanked all members of the Group for their thoughtful and constructive discussions, Cabinet members, officers and partner organisations who attended meetings, and her Vice-chair, Councillor Plant. She went onto thank the Director – Neighbourhoods, the Assistant Director – Corporate Services, the Assistant Director – Environment and Communities, and the Assistant Director – Public Protection for their guidance and professionalism throughout the year, and the Democratic Services Team for their excellent support.

Councillors Combellack, Chair of the Growth and Development Scrutiny Group, stated that it had been an interesting year for the Group, scrutinising various topics, as detailed in the report, despite  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

To receive Notices of Motion

Councillor Birch

This Council notes:

·                  That Councillors are entrusted with public money and must therefore be held to the highest standards of transparency and accountability.

·                  That recent information obtained through a Freedom of Information request has revealed a significant imbalance in the claiming of Councillor expenses at Rushcliffe Borough Council.

·                  That despite holding 23 of the Council’s 44 seats, Conservative Councillors account for approximately 97% of all expenses claimed.

·                  That claims have included attendance at Remembrance services, charity events, and other civic functions which, while permissible under current rules, may reasonably raise questions amongst residents regarding appropriateness and value for money.

·                  That public confidence in Local Government depends not only upon legality, but also upon openness, restraint, and sound judgement in the use of taxpayer funds.

This Council believes:

·                  Residents are entitled to full transparency regarding how elected members spend public money.

·                  Existing arrangements for oversight and scrutiny of member expenses appear insufficient.

·                  Greater transparency would strengthen public trust and protect the reputation of the Council.

·                  Councillors should always consider not merely whether an expense can be claimed, but whether it should be claimed.

This Council therefore resolves to:

1.               Publish quarterly reports detailing all Councillor expense claims, including:

o        claimant name;

o        event or purpose;

o        amount claimed; and

o        and category of expenditure;

2.               Require all expense claims to include sufficient explanatory detail to allow meaningful public scrutiny.

3.               Request the Governance Scrutiny Group or appropriate committee to undertake a review of the Council’s Expenses Scheme.

4.               Report back to Full Council within six months with recommendations to improve transparency, accountability, and public confidence.

Notice of motion to be proposed by Councillor Birch and seconded by Councillor Chewings.

The Mayor stated that he had been advised that Councillor Birch wished to alter his motion, and asked Councillor Birch to confirm that.

Councillor Birch confirmed that he wished to propose the following altered motion:

This Council therefore resolves to: 

1.               Publish quarterly reports detailing all Councillor expense claims, including:  

o        claimant name;  

o        event or purpose;  

o        amount claimed; and  

o        and category of expenditure;  

2.               Require all expense claims to include sufficient information to enable a reasonable member of the public to understand:

o       what expenditure was incurred;

o       why it was incurred; and

o       why it fell within the Council’s Members’ Allowances Scheme.

3.               Request the Governance Scrutiny Group to undertake a comprehensive review of the Council’s Members’ Expenses Scheme, including formal consideration of:

a)       the adequacy of the current arrangements for verifying and auditing Members' expense claims;

b)       whether the categories of reimbursable duties remain appropriate and reflect public expectations, including claims relating to attendance at Remembrance services, charity events, civic functions and other ceremonial or voluntary community events;

c)       whether the information published alongside expense claims is sufficient to enable meaningful public scrutiny;

d)       whether additional safeguards, declarations, audit arrangements or reporting requirements should be introduced to strengthen transparency, accountability and value for money; and

e)       any other amendments the Committee considers necessary to improve public confidence in the Council's Members' Expenses Scheme.

4.               Report back to Full Council within six months with recommendations to improve transparency, accountability, and public confidence.  

On being put to the vote to accept the alteration, the vote was lost.

Councillor Birch proposed his original motion as follows:

This Council therefore resolves to:

1.               Publish quarterly reports detailing all Councillor expense claims, including:

o        claimant name;

o        event or purpose;

o        amount claimed; and

o        and category of expenditure;

2.               Require all expense claims to include sufficient explanatory detail to allow meaningful public scrutiny.

3.               Request the Governance Scrutiny Group or appropriate committee to undertake a review of the Council’s Expenses Scheme.

4.               Report back to Full Council within six months with recommendations to improve transparency, accountability, and public confidence.

Councillor Birch stated that this motion was not an allegation of misconduct against any Councillor, or that anyone had broken any rules, nor was it about naming and shaming individuals, as throughout his discussions with colleagues and officers over the past six months, he had been concerned if the current rules still commanded public confidence. He believed that there was a difference between something being allowed and something being appropriate, and referred to the Parliamentary expenses scandal in 2009, which had highlighted that the vast majority of claims made had been within the rules. Councillor Birch clarified that he was not comparing Rushcliffe with Westminster; however, some parallels existed, with the Council writing its own Councillor Expenses Scheme, just as Parliament had then, and despite having an independent advisory board, the Council was not obliged to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

To answer questions submitted by Councillors

a)              Question from Councillor Birch to The Leader, Councillor Clarke MBE.

“Do the Conservative Group agree that parish and town councils play an important role in local democracy by providing highly local representation, supporting community initiatives and giving residents a dedicated voice on matters affecting their area?”

The Leader said yes.

The Mayor asked Councillor Birch if he had a supplementary question.

The Mayor ruled on the supplementary question by Councillor Birch and it was rephrased and put as:

“Councillor Clarke, you answered 'yes' to my question. Does that extend to the provision of a council in West Bridgford?”

The Leader stated that the original question asked if parish and town councils played an important role in local democracy, and as West Bridgford did not have a town council at the moment; his answer was therefore related to the original question, not to whether there was any potential that West Bridgford had a town council or not.

b)              Question from Councillor Polenta to Councillor J Wheeler.

“I recognise that, in granting the 25-year lease of part of West Park to Nottinghamshire County Cricket Club, and the consultation process that preceded it, the Council complied with its statutory obligations under Section 123(2A) of the Local Government Act 1972. I also acknowledge that a planning-style consultation was not legally required and that no formal objections were received during the statutory consultation period. However, since the lease commenced, I have received a number of representations from residents, particularly regular dog walkers, who are concerned about the enclosure of an area that had previously been open and accessible. Many describe this space as more than just a recreational area, highlighting its role in supporting daily routines, informal social contact, and longstanding community networks. A consistent theme in these responses is surprise that they were unaware of the consultation process and therefore felt unable to comment before the decision was made.

Given the apparent disconnect between the lack of formal objections during the consultation process and the concerns now being raised, I wonder if the Council considers whether the practical implications of the lease were communicated clearly enough. For example, perhaps it could have been made more explicit that the area would become enclosed and managed as a dedicated sporting facility, alongside clearer guidance on how residents could make formal representations. While I recognise that statutory requirements were met, does the Council accept that there are lessons to be learned about how proposals affecting public open space are communicated, and will the Council consider a more proactive approach to ensure residents feel informed and able to engage in future consultations?”

Councillor Wheeler advised that the Council followed necessary processes, including public notices, press articles and a site meeting, which had included Ward Councillors. He believed that the changes at West Park had maximised site usage, whilst ensuring that the open space remained open to the public. A balance had to be struck, with lots of available green provision close by, and he confirmed that no  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.