Agenda, decisions and minutes

To confirm the minutes of the previous meeting of the council held on 27 September 2017.

The minutes of the meeting held on 27 September 2017 were agreed by the Members present and then signed by the Mayor.

The minutes of the meeting held on 27 September 2017 were agreed by the Members present and then signed by the Mayor.

To receive any declarations of interest

There were no declarations of interest.

There were no declarations of interest.

To consider questions (if any) by members of the public of which the appropriate notice has been given to the Solicitor to the Council.

There was no public participation.  

There was no public participation.  

To receive announcements and business brought forward by the Mayor, Leader, and Members of the Cabinet or the Chief Executive.

4.1       By the Mayor:

4.2       By the Chief Executive:

4.3       By the Group Leaders:  Any apologies for absence

4.4       Council Leader and Members of the Cabinet:

Councillor Williams                 Leader of the Council

Councillor Marshall                 Environmental, Sustainability and Regulatory Services

Councillor Elliot                       Finance & Resources

Councillor Mrs Griffiths           Housing

Councillor Harden                   Residents & Corporate Services

Councillor G Sutton                Planning and Regeneration

1.      By the Mayor:

There were no announcements from the Mayor.

2.      By the Chief Executive:

There were no announcements from the Chief Executive.

3.      By the Group Leaders:

Councillor Williams gave apologies on behalf of Councillors Bhinder, Griffiths, Guest, Imarni and S Hearn.

4.    By the  Leader and Members of the Cabinet:

(Full details are in the minutes under Announcements of the Leader and Cabinet).

1.      By the Mayor:

There were no announcements from the Mayor.

2.      By the Chief Executive:

There were no announcements from the Chief Executive.

3.      By the Group Leaders:

Councillor Williams gave apologies on behalf of Councillors Bhinder, Griffiths, Guest, Imarni and S Hearn.

4.    By the  Leader and Members of the Cabinet:

Councillor Williams, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Community Leadership

Councillor Williams advised that the demolition of the Civic Centre was due to commence the week commencing 20 November.

Councillor Fethney arrived at 7.32 pm.

Questions

Councillor Tindall expressed his concern on the new Arriva mini-buses. He said they were tiny and inadequate and he asked the Leader if he would consider writing to Arriva and Hertfordshire County Council to pass on the complaints he had received. Councillor Williams said he was happy to write to Arriva and Hertfordshire County Council as he understood the concerns but expected limited success. He said he understood that the smaller vehicles would be used outside of peak hours and were much more efficient.

There were no further questions for the Leader.

Councillor Mahmood arrived at 7.34 pm.

Councillor Marshall, Portfolio Holder for Environmental, Sustainability and Regulatory Services

• Thank you to the Mayor for officiating at this year’s Clean Safe & Green Community Champion Awards.  Individuals and residents’ groups are given awards for working selflessly to keep their neighbourhoods clean, safe and green.  Winners of the award were David Drew of Nash Mills and the Friends of Halsey Field.  Halsey Field is a wildlife site that has been developed by the Friends over the last few years on part of the site of Halsey School in Gadebridge.  Supporters of the Friends include the Chiltern Society, Hertfordshire Conservation Volunteers and the Osborne Property Group.  Well worth a visit, well worth joining in activities.  David Shaw is the Parish Warden for Nash Mills and, goes far beyond normal Warden duties, regularly working to improve the area in his spare time. 

• Environmental Health are developing a festive education programme to advise the public and food businesses about the risks of Christmas related food poisoning. This is intended to go out to the community through the Dacorum digital newsletter and with officers during food premises inspections.

• In October, the Dog Warden served three Community Protection warning letters to residents of a house in Tring, instructing them to clear up dog fouling outside the boundary of their property and prohibiting their dogs from straying, as it is causing fear and distress to local residents.  The results todate are promising but, should the issue not be resolved, then the next steps could be to issue Community Protection Notices – and should those Notices not be complied with, then prosecution in the Magistrates Court is an option.

• Communications followed Sarah Lewis around for a day to cover some of the jobs she does – this was fed in to Twitter and other Social Media as a “Day in the Life of the Dog Warden”  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

To consider questions (if any) by members of the Council of which the appropriate notice has been given to the Solicitor to the Council.

None.

None.

To consider any business referred from the previous meeting

None.

None.

To consider the following motion from Councillor Tindall:

Proposed Public Space Protection Order

1. This Council notes that the Cabinet is concerned about the level of anti-social behaviour and it is clear from the number of responses to public consultation (which ended 13^th October) that residents of Dacorum have been engaged both with the subject and the proposed remedy.

2. The members of Dacorum Council, having debated the issue of anti-social behaviour and the proposed remedy, request that before the Cabinet makes its decision on the introduction of a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) in Dacorum they :-

a.    have regard to the opinions and comments of council members expressed in the debate on 15^th November, and

b.    take note that :-

i.              the proposed PSPO addresses some behaviours which are already covered by existing criminal legislation and as such fall under the proper remit of the police,

ii.             the PSPO plans would need to be evaluated based upon actual implementation plans for enforcement, including who will do the enforcement and what training will be given and what powers would be used,

iii.            In addition to enforcement of the PSPO, the practicality of using fines or court summonses to individuals with no means and no fixed abode, and the times of day when enforcement will take place

iv.           a PSPO should not be used when there are alternative steps that could be taken to address the behaviours disapproved of, some of which are clearly the result of seven years of austerity

3. The PSPO, when drafted, would need to identify the issues that it was aiming to restrict.  There is a general principle that where an Act criminalises an activity the scope of the activity must be clearly defined.  The proposals cannot therefore actually be judged on their proportionality and practicality until the draft PSPO is available.

4. Therefore, this council requests that a further consultation process is carried out once the draft PSPO is publicly available and that the outcomes of that consultation and the proposal to adopt the draft PSPO is brought to full Council for approval or otherwise.

The following motion from Councillor Tindall was lost:

Proposed Public Space Protection Order

1.    This Council notes that the Cabinet is concerned about the level of anti-social behaviour and it is clear from the number of responses to public consultation (which ended 13^th October) that residents of Dacorum have been engaged both with the subject and the proposed remedy.

2.    The members of Dacorum Council, having debated the issue of anti-social behaviour and the proposed remedy, request that before the Cabinet makes its decision on the introduction of a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) in Dacorum they :-

a.    have regard to the opinions and comments of council members expressed in the debate on 15^th November, and

b.    take note that :-

i.              the proposed PSPO addresses some behaviours which are already covered by existing criminal legislation and as such fall under the proper remit of the police,

ii.             the PSPO plans would need to be evaluated based upon actual implementation plans for enforcement, including who will do the enforcement and what training will be given and what powers would be used,

iii.            In addition to enforcement of the PSPO, the practicality of using fines or court summonses to individuals with no means and no fixed abode, and the times of day when enforcement will take place

iv.           a PSPO should not be used when there are alternative steps that could be taken to address the behaviours disapproved of, some of which are clearly the result of seven years of austerity

3.    The PSPO, when drafted, would need to identify the issues that it was aiming to restrict.  There is a general principle that where an Act criminalises an activity the scope of the activity must be clearly defined.  The proposals cannot therefore actually be judged on their proportionality and practicality until the draft PSPO is available.

4.    Therefore, this council requests that a further consultation process is carried out once the draft PSPO is publicly available and that the outcomes of that consultation and the proposal to adopt the draft PSPO is brought to full Council for approval or otherwise.

The following motion was proposed by Councillor Tindall and seconded by Councillor England:

Proposed Public Space Protection Order

1.    This Council notes that the Cabinet is concerned about the level of anti-social behaviour and it is clear from the number of responses to public consultation (which ended 13^th October) that residents of Dacorum have been engaged both with the subject and the proposed remedy.

2.    The members of Dacorum Council, having debated the issue of anti-social behaviour and the proposed remedy, request that before the Cabinet makes its decision on the introduction of a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) in Dacorum they :-

a.    have regard to the opinions and comments of council members expressed in the debate on 15^th November, and

b.    take note that :-

i.              the proposed PSPO addresses some behaviours which are already covered by existing criminal legislation and as such fall under the proper remit of the police,

ii.             the PSPO plans would need to be evaluated based upon actual implementation plans for enforcement, including who will do the enforcement and what training will be given and what powers would be used,

iii.            In addition to enforcement of the PSPO, the practicality of using fines or court summonses to individuals with no means and no fixed abode, and the times of day when enforcement will take place

iv.           a PSPO should not be used when there are alternative steps that could be taken to address the behaviours disapproved of, some of which are clearly the result of seven years of austerity

3.    The PSPO, when drafted, would need to identify the issues that it was aiming to restrict.  There is a general principle that where an Act criminalises an activity the scope of the activity must be clearly defined.  The proposals cannot therefore actually be judged on their proportionality and practicality until the draft PSPO is available.

4.    Therefore, this council requests that a further consultation process is carried out once the draft PSPO is publicly available and that the outcomes of that consultation and the proposal to adopt the draft PSPO is brought to full Council for approval or otherwise.

R Tindall made the following statement to support the Motion:

We have brought this motion before Council in order to allow Councillors to fully debate what is a new approach to Community cohesion that I am not particularly in favour of.  Although we have not seen the ‘Order’ in all its glory, we have heard enough to understand that the Administration is proposing to turn our council officials into enforcement officers and send them on to the streets to do what police officers should do.  Indeed, is this proposal coming before us simply because the police cannot cope – that they have too much to do – or is is about plugging the gaps left after the Police Commissioner’s cuts.

It is my understanding that there has been over 800 contributions to the Consultation and I am very interested to find out  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

To consider the following referrals from Cabinet:

That the following be approved:

8.1       CA/104/17       BROWNFIELD LAND REGISTER

1.    To approve the sites listed in Part 1 of the Brownfield Land Register (BLR) as drafted in Appendix 1 of the report to Cabinet and delegate authority to the Assistant Director (Planning, Development and Regeneration) to finalise the site specific information before publication noting that there will be no sites in Part 2 on first publication.

2.    Delegate authority to the Solicitor to the Council to amend the constitution to give effect to the following procedures and authorisations for administering the BLR:

(a)  “That the Assistant Director (Planning, Development and Regeneration) will be responsible for considering which sites go onto the BLR (Part 1 and 2)  for consultation, carrying out required consultation, and reporting the BLR to Cabinet and Council for final approval.

(b)  That applications for Technical Details Consent be dealt with in accordance with the existing scheme of delegation for all planning applications.”

8.2       CA/105/17       MEMBER EMPLOYEE CODE OF PRACTICE AND PLANNING CODE OF PRACTICE

1. to approve the Planning Code of Practice.

2.    to approve the Protocol for Member Officer Relations.

That the following be approved:

17 October 2017

8.1       CA/104/17       BROWNFIELD LAND REGISTER

1. To approve the sites listed in Part 1 of the Brownfield Land Register (BLR) as drafted in Appendix 1 of the report to Cabinet and delegate authority to the Assistant Director (Planning, Development and Regeneration) to finalise the site specific information before publication noting that there will be no sites in Part 2 on first publication.
2. Delegate authority to the Solicitor to the Council to amend the constitution to give effect to the following procedures and authorisations for administering the BLR:

(a)  “That the Assistant Director (Planning, Development and Regeneration) will be responsible for considering which sites go onto the BLR (Part 1 and 2)  for consultation, carrying out required consultation, and reporting the BLR to Cabinet and Council for final approval.

(b)  That applications for Technical Details Consent be dealt with in accordance with the existing scheme of delegation for all planning applications.”

8.2       CA/105/17       MEMBER EMPLOYEE CODE OF PRACTICE AND PLANNING CODE OF PRACTICE

1. to approve the Planning Code of Practice.

2.    to approve the Protocol for Member Officer Relations.

There were no overview and scrutiny committee referrals.

There were no overview and scrutiny committee referrals.

To consider any proposals for changes to committee membership

There were no changes to committee membership

There were no changes to committee membership.

To consider any proposals for changes to committee dates

There were no changes to committee dates.

There were no changes to committee dates.

To consider passing a resolution in the following terms:

That, under s.100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972 Schedule 12A Part 1 as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006 the public be excluded during the items in Part 2 of the Agenda for this meeting, because it is likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted, that, if members of the public were present during those items, there would be disclosure to them of exempt information relating to the financial and business affairs of the Council and third party companies/organisations.

Local Government Act 1972, Schedule 12A, Part 1, paragraph 3.

To consider passing a resolution in the following terms:

That, under section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded during the item in Part II of the Agenda for this meeting, because it is likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted, that if members of the public were present during this item there would be disclosure to them of exempt information relating to the financial and business affairs of the Council or of any particular person,

(including the authority holding that information) and also contains legal advice which may be subject to a claim for legal privilege.

Local Government Act 1972, Schedule 12A, Part 1, paragraph 3 and 5.

To consider passing a resolution in the following terms:

That, under section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded during the item in Part II of the Agenda for this meeting, because it is likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted, that if members of the public were present during this item there would be disclosure to them of exempt information relating to the financial and business affairs of the Council or of any particular person,

(including the authority holding that information) and also contains legal advice which may be subject to a claim for legal privilege.

Local Government Act 1972, Schedule 12A, Part 1, paragraph 3 and 5.

Full details can be found in the Part 2 Decision sheet and Minutes.

Full details can be found in the Part 2 Minutes.