Agenda, decisions and draft minutes

Venue: John Meikle Room, The Deane House, Belvedere Road, Taunton TA1 1HE. View directions

Contact: Democratic Services Email: democraticservicesteam@somerset.gov.uk 

Media

Items
No. Item

45.

Apologies for Absence

To receive any apologies for absence.

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Tim Kerley, who was substituted by Cllr Henry Hobhouse.

 

Although apologies were received, Cllr Tim Kerley attended online.

 

46.

Minutes from the Previous Meeting on 9th September 2024 pdf icon PDF 144 KB

To approve the minutes from the previous meeting.

Minutes:

It was noted that there was a typo of the name ‘David’ under Agenda Item 6 on Page 4 of the minutes.

 

Resolved that the minutes of the Constitution and Governance Committee held on 9th September 2024 be confirmed as a correct record.

 

47.

Declarations of Interest

To receive and note any declarations of interests in respect of any matters included on the agenda for consideration at this meeting.

 

(The other registrable interests of Councillors of Somerset Council, arising from membership of City, Town or Parish Councils and other Local Authorities will automatically be recorded in the minutes: City, Town & Parish Twin Hatters - Somerset Councillors 2023 )

Minutes:

Councillors present at the meeting declared the following personal interests in their capacity as a Councillor of a Town or Parish Council or any other Local Authority:-

 

COUNCILLOR

TOWN AND/OR PARISH COUNCIL

Theo Butt Philip

Wells City Council

Simon Carswell

Street Parish Council

Peter Clayton

Burnham Highbridge Town Council

Ross Henley

Wellington Town Council

Andy Kendell

Yeovil Town Council

Tim Kerley

Somerton Town Council

Martin Lovell

Shepton Mallet Town Council

Sue Osbourne

Ilminster Town Council

Leigh Redman

Bridgwater Town Council

Brian Smedley

Bridgwater Town Council

 

48.

Public Question Time

The Chair to advise the Committee of any items on which members of the public have requested to speak and advise those members of the public present of the details of the Council’s public participation scheme.

 

For those members of the public who have submitted any questions or statements, please note, a three minute time limit applies to each speaker and you will be asked to speak before Councillors debate the issue.

 

We are now live webcasting most of our committee meetings and you are welcome to view and listen to the discussion. The link to each webcast will be available on the meeting webpage, please see details under ‘click here to join online meeting’.

Minutes:

No public questions were submitted.

 

49.

LGBCE Electoral Review - Somerset Council's Consultation on Division Arrangements pdf icon PDF 125 KB

To consider Somerset Council’s consultation arrangements for Stage 2 of the Local Government Boundary Commission’s Electoral Review.

Decision:

Resolved that the Constitution and Governance Committee:

 

1)    Agreed to the establishment of a Boundary Review Working Group of 10 Members to consider a Council-wide response for submission to the LGBCE.

2)    Agreed that the Working Group comprise 5 Members of the Committee and 5 individual representatives from the Council’s political groups.

3)    Noted the composition of the Working Group set out in the report.

4)    Noted that it will receive a report from the Working Group at the Extraordinary Meeting of the committee in January.

 

Minutes:

Steven Lake, Elections Manger, introduced the report presenting the proposal for Somerset Council’s consultation response to Phase 2 of the LGBCE Boundary Review.

 

During the ensuing discussion, the following points were raised:

 

  • The Chair advised the Committee that it was not guaranteed that the LGBCE would accept the Council’s scheme in its entirety, and that it would be considered alongside all the feedback the Commission received.

 

  • Councillors requested further information on the consultation deadline, the weight given to different submissions, and the timeline of the consultation.       

The Chair advised that the final divisional arrangements would be released at the end of 2025. The Monitoring Officer had contacted all councillors advising them of the process and had delivered a Members Briefing in November. The councillors were encouraged to submit their feedback to both the Working Group and the LGBCE directly. The Elections Manager advised that the consultation deadline was 20th January for all submissions, and that they would carry equal weight in the consultation.

 

  • Councillors raised the possibility of confusion between the LGBCE’s consultation deadline date of 20th January and the Working Groups feedback deadline of 13th December. Councillors requested an update on the progress of the Working Group to date.

The Elections Manager advised that the Working Group had begun by focusing on the county’s city and large towns, followed by the market towns. In some instances, the hinterland had been incorporated into divisions with urban areas. To date, approximately thirty electoral divisions had been agreed by the Group. However, these may be altered as time progressed to ensure the Commission’s guidelines were adhered to.

 

  • Councillors emphasised the importance of ensuring that rural parishes were given due consideration in the process and were not added to urban divisions if the communities were not closely aligned.

The Chair assured the committee that the Working Group would strive to adhere to the Commission’s guidelines to ensure that both urban and rural areas were allocated to suitable divisions. 

 

  • Councillors queried whether the Working Group had considered the use of dual-member divisions, particularly in larger rural areas, and what the criteria for their use would be.

The Chair advised the committee that the Council’s proposal submitted to the LGBCE In Phase 1 stated a preference for predominantly single-member divisions. However, dual-member divisions would be included in the scheme if deemed appropriate; for example, if a community boundary could not be identified or if the geography of the area meant it was difficult to split.

 

  • Councillors suggested that the use of single-member divisions may be pertinent in rural areas as the smaller geographical area would mean the councillor could dedicate more time to each parish in the division.

 

  • Councillors raised concerns that the limited time available would restrict the Working Group to creating divisions by joining existing polling districts together, and that the polling districts should be reviewed first. Furthermore, it was possible that the projected electorate figures for 2030, on which the electoral variance for the new divisions was based, could  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49.

50.

Results of the Review of Polling Districts and Polling Places pdf icon PDF 115 KB

To consider the results of the recent review of Somerset’s polling districts and polling places.

Decision:

Resolved that the Constitution and Governance Committee considered the report on the Review’s proposal that no changes are made to the existing Parliamentary Polling Districts and Polling Places.

 

Minutes:

Steven Lake, Elections Manger, introduced the report presenting the results of the statutory review of the parliamentary polling districts and polling places.

 

 

Resolved that the Constitution and Governance Committee considered the report on the Review’s proposal that no changes are made to the existing Parliamentary Polling Districts and Polling Places.

 

51.

Review of Part B of the Council's Constitution - Petition Scheme and Policy for Retention of Committee Meeting Recordings pdf icon PDF 140 KB

To consider the proposed review of Part B of the Council’s Constitution and the proposed amendments set out in Appendices 2 and 3 for recommendation to Full Council.

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved that the Constitution and Governance Committee considered the review of Part B of the Council’s Constitution and recommended the adoption of a Meeting Recording Retention Policy under points 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 by Full Council on 18th December 2024, and that the Petition Scheme remained unaltered at this time but would be kept under review.

 

Minutes:

Clare Rendell, Governance Specialist, introduced the report which set out the proposed amendments to Part B of the Constitution.

 

During the ensuing discussion, the following points were raised:

 

  • Councillors highlighted that one proposal was for the deadline date for the submission of a large petition to be amended to 10 working days before the meeting, and raised concerns about a possible contradiction, as the Report also stated the Council would have 20 working days to inform the petition owner that a petition was not valid.

The Governance Specialist advised that if a petition was submitted close to the next Full Council meeting, it was likely that the petition owner could be advised sooner as to whether the petition was valid, and that the 20-day response period was more applicable to the period in between Full Council meetings. This could be clarified in the Report if the proposed revisions were approved by the committee.

 

  • Councillors enquired into how the validity of a petition would be checked in terms of the numbers and ages of the signatories.

The Governance Specialist advised that the signatories would be checked against the electorate register, and that the longer response period which had been proposed would allow for this.

 

  • Councillors highlighted that petitions did not require signatories to provide their address or postcode.

The Governance Specialist advised that providing a postcode could be a requirement if requested by the committee. Petitions could only be signed by individuals residing in Somerset therefore the postcodes would need to be verified.

 

  • Councillors raised concerns over the age limit of signatories being raised to 18 and over, as it limited the opportunity for young people to petition the council. Councillors also suggested that verifying whether 5,000 signatories were on the electoral register and lived in Somerset would be a time-consuming activity. The requirement to provide more details than necessary could dissuade individuals from signing a petition. It was suggested there may also be GDPR implications.

The Governance Specialist advised that the report reviewed Somerset Council’s policies against those of its peers, and that the committee was not obliged to adopt the revisions.

 

  • Councillors agreed that the current deadline for a petition of three working days before the meeting was too close to the meeting to allow for an informed debate to take place. It was also suggested that a petition may lose momentum if it was debated at the following meeting instead.

 

  • Councillors queried the value of a proforma to the debate process.

 

The Governance Specialist advised that the proforma would help to guide the debate and assist the councillors in making an informed decision by providing information on financial and legal implications. The 10-working day deadline would help to facilitate this.

 

  • Councillors asked whether a petition would be considered at the following meeting if it only reached 5,000 signatories within 10-working days of the upcoming meeting.

The Governance Specialist advised that this policy could be included in the revised scheme if requested.

 

52.

Response to the Government Consultation: Enabling remote attendance and proxy voting at local authority meetings pdf icon PDF 210 KB

To consider the draft consultation response as set out in Appendix 1 ahead of submission to the Government consultation.

Decision:

Resolved that the Constitution and Governance Committee considered and approved the draft consultation response as set out in Appendix 1 for the proposal for remote attendance but excluding the proposal for the use of proxy votes.

 

 

Minutes:

Mike Bryant, Service Manager for Governance and Democratic Services, introduced the report setting out Somerset Council’s draft response to the government’s consultation on remote attendance at meetings and the use of proxy votes.

 

During the ensuing discussion, the following points were raised:

 

  • Councillors highlighted that similar legislation had recently permitted licensing hearings to be held remotely, and that it would improve schedule flexibility for councillors residing across a wide geographical area.  It was suggested that although attending to vote was preferable, the use of proxy votes could also improve schedule flexibility.

 

  • Councillors raised concerns that attendance at council meetings would decrease if proxy voting was introduced and questioned whether the reasons given for its use should be limited.

The Interim Head of Governance and Democratic Services advised that the government currently took the view that proxy votes should be used for exceptional circumstances, such as illness dispensations or being unable to arrange a substitute.

 

  • Councillors suggested that proxy votes could be beneficial for governance and scrutiny committees, but their use at Planning committees was questioned. Councillors also suggested the number of proxy votes entrusted to a single councillor could be limited.

 

  • Councillors highlighted that the current use of substitutes worked well. If substitution was not an option, as was the case for Full Council, the use of proxy votes could be useful. 

 

  • Councillors queried whether named votes would be required if proxy voting was introduced to ensure clarity during the voting process.

 

  • Councillors emphasised that, as councillors, they were encouraged to fully engage with a debate before deciding how to vote, therefore concerns were raised about the principle of using proxy votes.

 

  • Councillors raised concerns that the answers to Questions 3, 6, and 7 in the draft consultation response were contradictory, and requested clarification.

The Service Manager for Governance and Democratic Services advised that the response could be altered if it was contradictory as it was currently in draft form. The Committee was advised that it could put forward a minimum specified percentage of committee members that were required to physically attend a meeting allowing remote attendance. The Interim Head of Governance and Democratic Services advised that the specified figure could be the same as the quorum for the meeting.

 

  • Councillors emphasised that remote attendance reduced the number of individuals travelling to meetings and was therefore the eco-friendly option.

 

  • Councillors highlighted that the councillor attendance criteria in terms of what counted as attendance would need to be reviewed if the proposals relating to remote attendance were adopted.

 

  • Councillors praised the use of in person, remote and hybrid meetings, highlighting that the format could be determined on a case-by-case basis. The use of remote attendance at Full Council, however, was called into question.

The Interim Head of Governance and Democratic Services advised that not every resident in Somerset had sufficient access to broadband to join a meeting online, therefore fully remote meetings could risk excluding individuals. It was for each local council to determine the best fit for their local area.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

53.

Update to the Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education (SACRE) Constitution pdf icon PDF 128 KB

To consider the amendments to the SACRE Constitution and recommend adoption by Full Council.

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved that the Constitution and Governance Committee considered and approved the revised SACRE Constitution.

 

Minutes:

Scott Wooldridge, Interim Head of Governance and Democratic Services, introduced the report setting out the proposed revisions to the SACRE Constitution.

 

 

Resolved that the Constitution and Governance Committee considered and approved the revised SACRE Constitution.

 

54.

Constitution and Governance Committee Work Programme pdf icon PDF 79 KB

To consider the work programme and identify any changes.

Decision:

Resolved that the Constitution and Governance Committee considered and commented on the work programme.

Minutes:

During the discussion, the following items were requested to be added to the work programme:

 

  • Rights of way/traffic regulation orders

 

 

Resolved that the Constitution and Governance Committee considered and commented on the work programme.