Transcript

Well, welcome again, everybody, to this annual meeting 2024, reflecting back on the year 2023 to 2024. I'd like to ask if there are any apologies for absence, please. We've received apologies from Councillors Delaney, Legg and Prochak. Thank you. And joining us remotely. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Field and Councillor Mary Barnes and Councillor John Barnes, is that correct? Lovely. I think I think I know what to say to apologies, but please wouldn't be called. Yes. So item three on our agenda tonight. Could I have nominations for the appointment of Chair of the Council? Councillor Polygrave. I would like to nominate Richard Thomas. Thank you very much. Could I have a second, please? Yes. Councillor CUNY, I would like to second. Thank you very much. Are there any other nominations for the election of Chair of the Council? So in which case I put that nomination to the meeting and subsequently declare, Councillor Richard Thomas elected. Congratulations. Thank you very much. And thank you to Councillor. If you'll excuse us, we'll just retire to swap a change of office. Thank you. (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) (silence) I, Richard Thomas, have you been elected to the office of chair of council, of rothe district council, declare that I take that office upon myself, and will duly and faithfully, to feel the duties of it according to the best of my judgement and ability. (silence) Thank you very much, yes, could I have nominations please, for the appointment of the, yes, do say, of the deputy chair of the council. Thank you Chair, I want to nominate Councillor Andrew Meer, do I have the seconder to that please, Councillor Gray, are there any other nominations for the election of the vice chair of the council please. There have been none, I declare that a council mere has been elected to the vice chair of this council. (applause) Well thank you very much Chair, and thank you members, I shall do my best. Is that the choice? Thank you very much, I look forward to working with you very much indeed, and with you. (silence) I am, I and Reimere have been elected to the office of vice chair of council, of rothe district council, declare that I take that office upon myself and will duly and faithfully fulfill the duties of it according to the best of my judgement and ability. (silence) Do I have your approval to sign the minutes that the council meetings held on the 26th of February and the 22nd of April as correct records of the proceedings moved and seconded. All those in favour please, any against. That's unanimous. Right now I want to say very little actually, but I would just simply say this. Yes, I need to sign the minutes. (silence) Well thank you for your vote this evening. I will do my absolute best to uphold the traditions in this council of impartiality in the chair and respectful debate in the chamber. I hope to be accessible and appreciated as the chair and to extend a personal welcome to you all and to all members of the public. We now move to the vote of thanks and I will propose a vote of thanks to Councillor Dicky Cook myself. Vicki, it's a delight to oppose this vote of thanks to you on behalf of all councillors. I'm going to start by giving you a little insight into something that happens backstage. I thought at the time when I appear in public, Councillor Cook has managed to find ways of improving the way in which I dress. And so consequently I wish that it's very important to actually say this. She's been able to adjust my dress in public. And can I just say that it's typical of the person because Councillor Cook does the do everything right and there's no doubt that everything in connection with being chair of this council she has done in the right way. Working with you has been a great pleasure thanks to your strong sense of humour and your warm friendly character. I've watched you in public where your deep genuine interest in people has shown through where your talent for public speaking has enlightened what otherwise might have been slightly dry affairs. You have displayed so much commitment to charitable and dietary organisations, especially a difficult thumb for which you have helped to raise the enormous sum of over £2,000. Raise the call, you've got to use public transport as a matter of principle. Finally we all know and have appreciated your sharing of these meetings with outstanding fairness, fairness and efficiency. So I'm sure you will all join me in our appreciation of all you have done to this body, the Council and for all the residents of London. Thank you Vicki. (Applause) Do I have a seconder for the vote of thanks, please? I have many. Okay, Council stanker. Okay, so therefore we have the vote of thanks and so the Council has recorded its gratitude to Vicki Cook for conscientious and impartial discharge of the duties of the chair during the term of office, so thank you very much. Okay, we now go to Councillor Oliver, please. I'm 20. Thank you. I wasn't sure whether there was going to be any other vote. Oh, sorry, yes, my apologies. Councillor, this is an experience. Councillor Vicki Cook, I'd like you to respond to the vote of thanks, please. Thank you. I said if nobody said anything nice, I wouldn't say anything at all, but you have. That's right. So as I come to the end of my term as Chairman of Robodistric Council, I'd like to acknowledge my debt of gratitude to you for your support and encouragement as I've tried to carry out my roles, not just to the best of my ability, but for the benefit of those I've been elected to serve. As Chairman, some meetings have been easier than others, while others have been contentious and confrontational. But the help and advice I've received from Lisa, Louise, Julie and Eleanor, the Democratic Services has been invaluable, and their positive encouragement has been life-saving. I believe that as Councillors on the whole, we've all worked well together to become a council for the future that is both financially secure and fit for purpose. Although we can't please all the people all the time, I think we've done our best. As a civic leader, I've been humble to meet so many amazing people who have learned to live with a myriad of difficulties, as well as those whose life's mission has been to fight to ensure those living with difficulties I helped financially, physically, mentally and emotionally. I've met young people and older people whose caring nature for others is breathtaking. I don't intend to name any one particular personal group because they are all so selfless and generous with their gifts, time and or monies to make life better for someone else. I have been honoured to be presented to members of our royal family as a representative of this council and to attend a royal garden party. I've also had the pleasure to meet stars of stage and screen and to share my love of our district with them. But I would like to pay tribute to my Deputy Chairman who stood in for me and accompanied me to various receptions, services, concerts and events, and I thank him for his company and support and wish him and Andrew good luck in their new roles. But I would especially like to thank my Chaplain, the very Reverend Lee Duckett Dean of Battle for his spiritual support, his prayers for me and for the role that the time he's given, but ultimately, I want to pay tribute to my rock. I consult my sounding board, provider of tea and wine, tolerating notes left on how to reheat his supper and requests to bring in the washing. Please, I'm ending support and love. Thank you Chair. Before I deal with this, I'd just like to make my thing, something half of every member here for the unique way that comes from a cook that discharged the duties as an ambassador for Robert. It's not been an easy task, I think you stepped into it wonderfully well, and I think she's an absolute natural as a chair. Right, I'd like to confirm that Councillors Bayless and Colleen have been appointed as Deputy Leaders of the Council. I'd like to confirm that the Cabinet will comprise the leader and the following eight members in the following portfolios as on page three. I would just like to add at this stage, if I may, and thank Terry Byrne, Councillor Terry Byrne, who stepped away at this moment in time for his services to Cabinet. He was Chair, I think, in the first year, back in 2019-20, I believe, and I wish you well, Terry, with everything else that's going on in the future for yourself. Thank you. Thank you. I'd also like to confirm that the Councillors field in Timpy have been appointed as the Council's representatives on the Joint Waste and Recycling Committee. The Council's project and Rathbone area was substitutes. The leader of the Council, that's me, to confirm Councillors Clark. I'm sorry about that. Councillors Clark and Gray have been reappointed as Cabinet spokespersons for older persons and promoting livable neighbourhoods that's recycling and walking respectively. And that Councillor Byrne remains the Armed Forces Champion and becomes a Cabinet spokespersons for the Armed Forces. I'd like to confirm that Councillors, Bayless, Byrne, J-1, Osborne and Thomas have been appointed as members of the property investment panel. I would like to move, is this my moving this or yes, okay, I'd like to move. I'd like to move, uh, appendix one. I'm trying to follow the appendix one, yes. Uh, setting out the committees and appointments there, there to be approved and adopted. Now, as the allocation of committee seats does not strictly accord with the political balance requirements, and then conduct would be required. In other words, no member serving against. I will now put it to the vote. All those in favor, this is voting in favor of the appointments. All those in favor, please. Thank you. I've just been informed. Thanks. Thank you. Any against, please. No. No, I've been informed the leader of the Labor Group has got some amendments to say in relation to this. Councillor VAYLOR. The clarification, brother. Is that correct? Chair, I'll update it. That's okay. So the leader of the Labor Group has confirmed that the Labor nominations for audit and standards committee are Councillors McGurk and Coleman, and on HR committee, Councillor LEG. Thank you very much. Okay, item 26 now. Are there any disclosures by members of disclosure of Q&A interest? Are there vegetable interest? No. Vegetable interest? It matters on the agenda and the nature of any interest and details of any dispensations contained. Thank you, Chairman, and congratulations on your elevation to, I'm sure, what will be a very interesting year for you. I'd like to declare a personal but not prejudicial interest in a gender item 34 as an executive member of East Sussex County Council. Councillor? Thank you. I would like to also declare an interest in item 34 as a member of East Sussex County Council. Thank you, Councillor Capri. Any others? Yes, Councillor Clarke? Councillor interjecting. Thank you. Any others? So just to check, are there any further disclosures, please? There are none. So, can I just remind members of the need to reiterate interest at the time each individual matter is discussed? Thank you. We now come on to item 27 to receive the report of the Cabinet on matters to the determination by full Council at its meetings held on the 4th of March, the 8th of April and the 13th of May. Councillor, I would like to move the report of the Cabinet meetings held on the 4th of March, 8th of April. And the 13th of May be approved and adopted. And a seconder for that, please. Thank you very much. Councillor KINNAN. I shall now call over the items. Firstly, CV 2373. Process of former City Highways Department site, all the way. Rexted in food waste collections, new burns, capital funding. No one. CB 2374, capital investment and treasury management strategy 2023 to 25. No one. CB 2387, temporary accommodation investment strategy and temporary accommodation purchases. No one again. CB 2388, long term plan for time standing for back sale 202 thought to 25. The same. The leathering up partnership, funding and projects, CB 2389. No one. And finally, CB 2394, High World AMB management plan. There are none. Right? As none of the minutes have been reserved for discussion and they have already been moved and seconded. I shall now put the motion to the vote. All those in favour, please show. And any against? That's its unanimous. Let me go to agenda item 28. Yes, we do. All right. So we now go on to the next one. 28, yes. Thank you. All right. So next we have cancer all of them again, please 28. Thank you, Chairman. To receive the report of head of paid service in accordance with paragraph 17A of the overview and scrutiny procedure rules and paragraph four of the budget and policy framework procedure rules of an urgent decision taken by cabinet meeting at the 19th of March. I just want to inform a council that this is an item for information only. And so there are no amendments, but this will be at this point. So I will now put the motion to the vote. Those in favour, please. Any against? That's unanimous. Thank you. Item number 29. To receive the report of the Audience Standards Committee. Thank you, Chair. I'd like to move the report of the Audience Standards Committee on the following matters for determination by full council considered its meetings held on the 28th of February and the 25th of March. I shall know. I shall know. Do the same, although the procedure is noted earlier. Besides, the second is that, please. Seconded, thank you very much. So now I will now call those over. First one. A.S. 2352. Amendment to the Constitution. Function of licensing and general services committee. No one. A.S. 2353. Amendment to the Constitution. Procurement environment thresholds. None again. A.S. 2361. Proposed change to the decision-making structure. Reduction of members appointed to the planning committee. Yes, Councillor Jason. Right. So. I move then that the whole of the report. I'm going to say yes. Yes, Councillor Gordon. I would also like to mention the change to the planning committee. I'd like to see more discussion on the subject. Thank you. Indeed, that's what we were doing now. All right. Okay. So. I move now the whole of the report with the exception of the reserve. With the exception of the reserve minutes, be approved and adopted. Is there a seconder to that motion, please? There is. Councillor Gray. So, all those in favour, please? And all those against? That's unanimous again. And so now we go back to a debate on A.S. 2361. Proposed change to the decision-making structure. Reduction of members appointed to the planning committee. Councillor Jason, please. Thank you, Chair. It's with a view to trying to narrow down a view of full council. I would like to propose amendments to three of those recommendations. To give us a starting block from which to move forward with other plans. So the first one is that I would seek recommendation one to be amended so that it reads the number of members appointed to the planning committee be 10 to take effect from the first meeting in the new civic year 2024-25, brackets 30th of May. The second amendment, I would like to insert in recommendation two after regard to be given by, sorry, regard to be given, I would like to insert by group leaders when nominating committee members to the rural and urban balance of the planning committee. Members due to the varied topography of the district plus representation of the smaller towns. And the third amendment I'd like to make is to recommendation three, whereas I would like that to now read no member of the cabinet be appointed as either a substantive or substitute member of the planning committee. Thank you, Chair. [inaudible] I mean, we need a seconder. Seconder for that motion. Councillor Gordon. Thank you, Councillor Gordon. And I think, Councillor Green, you wish to start the debate. Yeah, I would just ask that we defer this because I feel that there are quite a few people who aren't here tonight. I think we're nine members of our aunt in the room. And I feel, I just feel that we need a longer discussion like this. I feel it's all being rushed through quite quickly. So I would just move that we defer it for further discussion. It's a low-to-date when more members are able to be in attendance. There is an amendment. There's a motion for the floor that we deserve this matter. Is there a seconder for that motion that we deserve? That's my mistake again. We do, first of all, Councillor Drason's motion, before we move to an amendment. Is there a speaker on Councillor Drason's amendments, please, Councillor? Yes, certainly. Thank you, Chairman. I feel, frankly, that I don't know of any good reason for reducing the number of members on the planning committee. If, as a stretch, I would agree to reduce it to 12, but I think 10 is no reason. I haven't yet to hear about the reason for reducing. The second point is that I do not believe that either the leader, the housing company members, or the planning portfolio holder should be a member of the planning committee. For me, it's pretty obvious that they should not be. Well, certainly the planning portfolio holder and members of the housing association. And I would suggest that substitutes could be from any party, regardless. Well, they should be regardless of which party they belong to. Planning is a non-political issue. And I would therefore suggest that anybody could substitute. I do believe that-- I do believe that-- The United States, members, please, Councillor, can we have the floor at the moment, please? And that's the only he should be speaking. I do believe that-- I do believe that the rural-- the rural urban balance is important. Thank you, Chairman. Councillor Gandy, Councillor Maynard. And thank you very much, Chairman. I mean, historically, I think it's fair to say that the planning committee, obviously, is a quasi-judicial committee, has huge responsibility. And I think that over the 25 years that I've been a member of this council, it's always been really pleasing and heartening to see that members of the planning committee, I spent eight years on it, really get stuck into the business that they have the training that's given to them, obviously, by the officer team. But they also work in a very collegiate way to take some-- at times some very difficult decisions. You know, one planning application that lasts several hours isn't that unusual. But the quality of the debate is always good. There's always areas for improvement. But I do think very fundamentally-- and it's cut across all the political divides. Of course, it does. I do think fundamentally that if members want to be on the planning committee, if they really have that interest, that they also be afforded that opportunity. Frankly, I don't really know why we're having this conversation this evening in terms of if it ain't broken, don't fix it. If there are issues with the planning committee, it's not the size of the planning committee that's the problem. If there are issues over public speaking, if there are issues over CJ, if there are issues over there, I say it, Kevin, the way that the committee is chaired. That can all be improved with training. That can all be improved by a collegiate approach, again, as I say before, across the political divide. I don't think the issue for the planning committee is one of its size. And I think if you do reduce it, you do lead yourself open to the fact that other members who might ordinarily be on that planning committee might be disengaged. You also, by making a much smaller committee, you run the risk, I think, especially for those of us that represent large areas who might not be a member of the planning committee, you want to have a situation where the members of the public at large, in 199 square miles of water, rather, think that they are adequately represented. If they haven't got a member either in their ward or in a neighboring ward, because that's not how we obviously apply members of the committee, aren't done on a wall-by-wall basis. I think it's really important for the democratic process to actually acknowledge that. And I don't think asking for obviously a delay in this is anything that's too difficult. I do think, quite frankly, if it isn't broken, don't try and fix that. I don't think that is the problem. And I have to say, I don't think there's anything wrong with the current size, but I think we all recognize whether we're, excuse me, Chairman, but I think we all recognize genuinely that there's always room for improvement, but I don't think reducing the committee is that tall. Thank you. Thank you very much. Chairman. I can say yes, Councillor Barnes is waiting. So I was going to call you next, Councillor. Can I just remind speakers that we just had the three minutes for each speaker at this stage of the debate, please? Councillor Barnes. I think there is much more of Councillor GRACE than said, Chairman. [inaudible] Councillors, we're having difficulty in hearing you. There are breaks possibly in the transmission. I don't know whether you're pausing because of the echo. I think it is. Oh, thank you. That should be all right now. Thank you, Chairman. There's much more Councillor GRACE than said, with which I agree. And there are changes which I think do need to be made. Councillor Gailley has already alluded to one. I think it's right. The cabinet members in general should not serve. I think you might need to give it a dispensation with a smaller group. Because they might be in problems if they have a cabinet member. However, that can be handled by a dispensation. What I'm less happy about and the more I've thought about it, the less happier I've got is the reduction in numbers. It will be a very small saving money and it will make the committee much less representative of the whole area. It will also make the balance between urban and rural, which happens almost naturally at the moment. Rather more difficult to accomplish. So on balance, I think really, rather like other members, I think we need to think harder about whether there is a real case for reduction. In terms of saving debating time, I think reforms to public question time would actually save a lot more time. And might actually speed up our deliberations in particular question time seems to me not to elicit very much new information. But I'm therefore in favour of taking this away again, at least the recommendation one. I think the others are quite acceptable. Councillor Bands, Councillor Coleman, please. Thank you, Chair, and forgive me for staying seated to do the alternator to my knee. I'll just question, really, to Councillor Jason, possibly if he's able to clarify. I believe this is coming from an LGA or a review into how our planning system works. I think that's where all this has come from, is that correct? Councillor SRI. Yes, Chair, there was a review done at the behest of the Chief Executive and comment was made there about the size of the committee. Do I have any further contributions to debate, please, at this stage? Councillor SRI, please. Yes, and could I say, I have difficulty with the proposed amendment in that it does shut down the discussion, and it comes to a decision. I feel prematurely, I, for personal reasons, may have come to this a little late. But I think we do need to consider these issues in some more depth, particularly the reduction in numbers. I'm concerned that it will, particularly with taking cabinet members out, it will weaken the status and the standing of the committee. And make it much more difficult for the committee to be robust and have the full debates which it has had. So, those are my reservations. Thank you, Councillor. Any further contributions, please? Okay, so I think the correct thing to hear is to first of all take it, Councillor Jason's amendment. Because each of them is quite distinctive, I'm supposed to take it a separate date on each of the suggestions you've made the amendment there. Could you just read out the first one, please, Councillor Jason? Thank you, Chair. That the number of members appointed to the planning committee be 10 to take effect from the first meeting in the new civic year 2024-25, brackets 30th of May. Right, I shall now put that to the vote. Those in favour, please, Councillor. Thank you. It's against, please, so. Any abstentions? It's now caved and becomes part of the substantive notion. Would you like now to tell us the second amendment, please, Councillor Jason? Thank you, Chair, that with regard given by group leaders when nominating committee members to the rural urban balance of the planning committee, members due to the varied topography of the district, plus representation of the smaller towns. Right, I shall now put that to the vote. Will those in favour please show? I think that's carried over well, mainly. Any against us or the record? No. Councillor Jason, can you please read out your third amendment? Thank you, that no member of the cabinet be appointed as either a substantive or substitute member of the planning committee. And again, the same procedure. Those in favour, please, sir. Thank you. I haven't finished counting, they're sorry. It's up the gun. And again, that's carried. So those three amendments become part of the substantive motion. And at this point, sir, the amendments to... Yes, yes, Gandy? You did not ask if anybody opposed or abstain from that. No, apologies. Thank you. Those who are against, could you please show? And those abstaining, please, if you could also show. Thank you. All right, now, those three amendments become part of the substantive motion to which the other amendments can now be raised. So, if anybody wishes to oppose the further amendment, you may now do so. Do I have any further amendments to this new substantive motion, please? Yes, you can follow me. So, sorry, may I now come back to mind to defer it? Yes, the motion to... Do you have to... Do I have the second death of the motion to defer, please? I do. Thank you. Okay, so, do you wish to say something in favour with your amendment, please? No, more than I've said already. Thank you. Okay, we now move to a debate on the question of deferring. What contributions would members like to make on this subject, please? Is it two to three or two or three recommendations? Yes. Okay. Oh, thanks for that. I'll do that. I'll do it again. I just can sort of dare to see whether or not that was a kind of something cancelling a previous amendment, but apparently it is allowed. So, by all means, do I have contributions then on the question of the third? What would members like to say about that? So, Councillor... I just concur with everything that's been set up to now that it's quite a big decision with a lot of implications. It's one of the most important committees here. It affects a lot of people's lives, so even length of the base, I have personal sort of feelings about that they should not be limited just for the sake of administrative expediency because ultimately we represent people. And I think some of the reasons do seem opaque and I'd love to get to the very heart of why this is being sought. And, as Councillor Maynard said, then address those issues as they come. Thank you. Who else would like to speak on the special Councillor, please? Thank you, Chair. I think the last three amendments were carried by quite clear majorities. And so, as far as I can see, it's quite clear that the majority of this Council who are present agree with these changes inside. I don't see a reason, therefore, to defer it when it's clear where the majority is. I also think we have had a members' session on teams not too long ago where all of these changes were discussed at quite some length. And I know Brian's also discussed it with members of the Planning Committee through email and in-person several times. I think discussion has been had on this, and I think it's clear where the majority lies, and so I don't see any reason to defer. Thank you, Chair. Councillor Colman. Yes, Councillor, thank you. Councillor Gough. That's Councillor Gordon. Yeah, I think the rural communities need to be represented a bit better here as well, possibly. I may look at possibly agreed to 12 in number being reduced, but I think 10 is too low a figure. I think it's quite a major change and I think a lot more discussion is required by the Council on this matter. It's quite a major issue, in my opinion, particularly. Yeah, thank you, Chair. Could I just ask the MGA report, did it actually say what size the committee should be? No, it commented that ours was a middle to large committee and commented that more efficient committees have less than 10 members. Sorry, I didn't hear less than 10. Yeah. Oh, gosh. Okay, thank you. What other contributions to debate do we have on this subject on the tenant? Yes, I must say, I'm quite astounded by what the LGA said without any reasoning. They appear to think an efficient committee is a small committee. The problem with planning in a rural. Like ours is that the topography is really very, very, very, we have two small towns. We have half the population in Mexico. You have also quite large settlements. You really need a very representative body, not simply an efficient body. And it seems to me we're rushing into a decision on size when actually we should be considering what is the size that best represents our community. And not simply a consideration of efficiency. If there were any great saving in money, given our financial problems, I might think differently, but given the saving will be very small. I think the gain efficiency. I haven't noticed the committee itself has been that inefficient over the years, and we've had the size of 40 for as long as I can remember. And I suspect other members will think we had it for the lifetime of the Council. Thank you, Councillor. Just some information for the Council. It was not the LGA, actually, which produced the report. It was a consultant who worked for them. And the actual recommendation comes from the planning advisory service. That's just the Council information. Are there further speakers, please? The committee. The planning advisory service did not explain why he thought smaller Councils were planning committees were more efficient. He simply made a bold statement that they are. I tend to disagree. I fully agree with Council Barnes. I have not seen inefficiency in the planning committee in the years that I've been a member of. Thank you, gentlemen. Are there any further contributions? Yes, I have. I know they Councillor GROAN. Sorry, I don't know if I missed something, but I just asked, why was that opinion sought outside of this Council? Can I just point out that you have spoken, but you are allowed to ask a question, which would be to Councillor Drason. So I should put it to him. Councillor Drason, please. I like the hope that I might be able to answer. I'll refer back if I may to the Chief Executive, as to what prompted the review. Thank you, Chair. In terms of what prompted the review, so it was observations from myself and the monitoring officer that there had been some quite difficult planning meetings. And there have been a number of complaints as well that have come in following several planning committees. And this took us to kind of consider how our planning committee was working. I was particularly interested in understanding how other places dealt with public speaking at the planning committee. So we asked somebody who is a consultant, a very experienced person who also works for planning advisory service to come in and observe and review. I think a couple of committees, but also look back on the recordings and a number of recommendations. I think there are about 28, 29 recommendations came out of that that were quite operational and the ones that have kind of come up here this evening about the recommendation around the planning size. And public speaking rights, those are the two areas that we really need to kind of focus on now. And as Councillor Coleman mentioned, a couple of months last week, we had an informal meeting. All Councillors were invited to that to debate those issues, and that's how we've arrived. In terms of the committee size itself, it was her observation from the work that she's done with PAS, and she's been planning, I think, for over 30 years. She's been involved in planning that it tends to be more effective planning committees or smaller committees. And that was her observation that she fed back. Thank you, Lorna. Yes, Councillor. Please. Thank you, Chair. I've just been hearing public speaking, public speaking. So are you saying that the 10 committee members, or planning members, are going to be picked because they're good public speakers? Why are you going to pick because of their knowledge? If that's the case in, I don't see why you keep mentioning public speaking. It's purely your experience, sure. No, no. I've been told about public speaking. Just to clarify, I'm talking about the procedures around public speaking at committee, not how effective council or public speech. Is there any further information on this subject? Yes, Councillor Stanger says, please. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, no, I think in the last year, since I've been on the planning committee, I think it's some meetings have been very long. I think that's mainly to do with the applications, and sometimes there's two big applications that are very complex on one agenda. And I think that's a contributing factor. Obviously, the public speaker has a role in it, but that's a decision for the committee when it's formed. But I do think that when you've got a highly contentious application that we've had different areas in, and that's what causes the level of time more than the inefficiency of the committee. That's just my view. Can I just remain, Councillor, that we are at the moment discussing to Thurmond as a specific motion? Do I have further contributions on that subject, please? I have no further ones. Sorry. Can I come back before the vote as I moved it? Yes, you can. You have the right to apply. I just wanted to say, I think I would agree with Councillor Stanger. I mean, I think my perception of the planning committee at the moment, the last year or so, I think it's really good. I think the level of debate is really good, and I think all the people on it really take the job seriously, and they know what they're talking about. And I think that's always been the case, but I think it's a really strong committee at the moment. And I'm really struggling to be keeping that inefficient, and I don't think there's any evidence that the planning committee is inefficient because of the numbers on it. I think there is definitely a case to answer about the public speaking. I mean, that can go on an awfully long time, and there are planted questions from the members of the planning committee which don't get anywhere, and you don't actually elicit any new information. So I think that that's definitely should be looked at. I agree with that entirely. I still don't think reducing the numbers is answering. I don't think there's a problem to solve that is being answered by reducing numbers on the committee. And that's why, I mean, I would like to vote against it, but I just feel that if we can't do that, I think that there are a number of people here that are on the planning committee. We did have the informal discussion, but I noticed on the chat, lots and lots of people were saying, This is very rushed. This is very rushed. This is very rushed. So it wasn't just me thinking, This is very rushed. I just feel that it's a very big decision to make. I think it's been 14 as long as I've been on the council. And I think we're doing it awfully quickly on the back of the fact packet, basically, because someone's decided the meetings need to be less inefficient. And I don't think that resolves that problem. Thank you. Thank you. Can I sit on it though, please? Can we have to go? I don't know, because that's the end of the debate on the amendment. I'm glad we are. Okay, so, those in favor of the amendment to decide, can you please show? That's the motion to third please, sir. Okay. No. Right, the result is 14 to 14. So, this is my baptism of fire, as per chair, to cast my casting vote. And I propose to cast my vote in favor of the third. So, that means that it's 15 to 14, so this motion is to third. So, at this point, at this point, that becomes a substantive motion. And so, that now has to be put to the vote separately, okay? So, those in favor of that, as the substantive motion, please show. [inaudible] Again, please, sir. [inaudible] [inaudible] Can you just show a hand for the committee, please? [inaudible] We have a casting vote. And I'm going to cast my vote on the basis that I feel there is a substantial feeling amongst Councillors that third of discussion is desirable. And on that basis, I think that a Thurmond would be the right decision. So, my casting vote is the determinant. I know not all Councillors were pleased with that, but I think there is a substantial feeling in this wall that that is the right way to get. Okay, yeah. So, next we go to item 30. Yeah. Item 30, Councillor Olythe, please. Thank you, Chair. I would like to move the whole report of the Chief Executive here. Prove and adopt it, including the proposed nominations as of the dependencies one and two being the report to on outside representatives. There's just one amendment I would like just to make on this one if I may. And that's with regard to the position of police and can't read my writing. Can you just help me out on that? Please, please, please, please. The nomination was for Councillor Bailiss who, sorry, for the Councillor Jason, who unfortunately isn't able to continue with that position. I'd like to nominate Councillor Bailiss as the alternative position with the substitute being Councillor Jaiwan and Councillor Byrne. Seconded, a third motion, please. Councillor Gray. And I put the motion, no, sorry. Councillor, are there any other nominations to serve on the outside bodies that are listed on the appendices, or can these all be taken on luck? Debate on that, please. Any opinions on that? Any other nominations to serve on the outside bodies other than those already listed? And subject to the multiplication in which Councillor Oliver has introduced? No, they're not. Okay. No, put the motion to the vote. All those in favour, please. And all those against? And no, they're the nominations. So we now move to item 31, which is to receive the annual report of the Member Development Trust Group and its Councillor Kidine, I believe. This was just a thank. Everybody who's taken part in the development, sorry. Having to read them all, please. Member training has gone very well over the civic year. It's been a challenging time for member training and development. But everybody has responded very well to the development that it required. It was extremely well done and started by the stewardship of Councillor Projak up until her current period of absence. We will carry on in this next year with identifying training needs. In fact, we'll be doing this in the future. This is just to be noted. Is there a seconder for that motion, please? Councillor Oliver? Can I just say that I think it's been one of the glories of this council, the extent to which members have engaged in training and have continued to do so during their period of office. So thank you very much to you, Councillor Colleen, and looking forward to your contributions, Councillor Gorman. Councillor? If I could just echo that. When you think there were 17 new members last May and the amount of training that's been put together by the member development task group with the support of officers, Lisa and Julie. I think that an excellent job and I think that all members here would acknowledge the fact that they've gained an awful lot of insight into the running of the Council. And I think we should extend a sincere thanks for the officer team that was supporting the committee. Thank you, Councillor. I'm sure that all the members here echo that thanks to Julie and Lisa for the work they've done in that regard. We now move to item 32 to receive the annual report of the overview and security committee. So, Mr. McConcillor, six of the Constitution. Councillor Osborne, please. Thank you, Chairman. I will start by congratulating yourself on your elevated position and thanking Councillor Cook, who not only was Chairman of Council, but also my Vice-Chairman on this committee. So, that's very good. I hope you enjoyed our day and ride literally throwing money out the window. So, it's a weird thing we do over there. Once a year, I haven't been for a few years, but that was a nice one. Back to this. Yep. Officer recommendation resolve that this report being noted. I won't say too much more to it than I said at scrutiny. We've been busy as usual. I hope we can't afford to reduce the size of this committee. We have too much work to do. So, with that, what I want to do, I just reiterate my thanks to Louise and Julie and Lisa, to the officers who attend and spend many hours, some evenings, answering questions. And thanks to the work of the members of the committee over the year and all those on the task and finish groups as well, where a lot of the sort of bones of the work is done. So, I just recommend it to the council and hopefully get a second from Councillor COOK. Thank you. And a seconder, please. Councillor COOK. I'm sure that members of the public think that throwing money out of the window is the regular practice of rather district council, but that is, of course, a totally erroneous opinion. So, we now move to the vote on that. All those in favour, please, for the report. And thank you very much. All those against. Thank you very much, Chair. Could I actually thank Councillor Osborn for his chairmanship of this committee throughout the years. He is an amazingly good chairman, keeps it all in order. He's extremely fair and I commend him for his chairmanship. In fact, that's probably where I learned it from. Thank you. It's a very important function within the council and I'm sure it's been done extremely well. Not all councils, I think, are quite as scrupulous about it as we are. So, thank you very much, Councillor Ganny and the members of your committee for the excellent work you do. So, next we come to... Oh, I'll say that. No, goodness me. I'm so sorry. I think that's an almost unforgivable error in relation to both individuals. Okay. So, no, thank you. So, no need for that item 33, please. This time, to receive a report on the Director of Placing Climate Change on the delegations to our system with respect to the planning service. Councillor Dress again, please. You've caught me by surprise. Yeah. I thought this was the right name. I thought this was Mr Hooke addressing this. The report is there. The delegations that we previously adopted were actually the wrong ones and it's in there now as the right ones. And could we please adopt the correct ones? I have a seconder for the motion, please. Thank you, Councillor Cressy. Thank you. Okay. Is there any debate on that subject? No, in which case can we read the vote? Okay, those in favour of the report being accepted, please show and those against, please. That's obviously accepted, thank you very much indeed. And now we come to item 34. In accordance with Councillor procedure all 13, consideration be given to the motion to cancel, which has been submitted by Councillor Gray as detailed in your agenda. Councillor Gray, please. Thank you, Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Can I declare a result? I am a political consultant for the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any solid declarations that are, yes, Councillor Klein? Thank you very much. Thank you for those declarations. Okay. Councillor Gray. Thank you very much, Chair. The aim of this motion is to prevent the environmental disaster that claimed a young life and from ever happening again. The current UK regulations were regarded toxic waste disposal and the danger to human life, to our environment and to the planet as a whole, from historic landfill sites that were dangerously inadequate, especially so in the face of climate breakdown with rising sea levels increased rainfall and widespread flooding. In 2014, a 70-year-old Zane Gumburgola died and his father was paralysed with diagnosis of hydrogen cyanide poisoning due to catastrophic flooding in his home, which is in chirtsy on the banks of the River Thames, which does flood quite regularly. There were high levels of the cyanide detected in the water. It is the subject of some dispute and it's going to be the subject of an independent paneling query. This law, called Zane's law, seeks to address the crisis of contaminated land in the UK, reinstating the legislative provisions removed by successive governments from the 1990 Environment Protection Act and recognised in the human right to a healthy environment, approved by UN General Assembly in July 2022. According to my research, East Sussex County Council currently monitors 17 landfill sites in the county. We have only one in mother, Mountfield, and the closest one is in Hastings, which is Coon Valley. It used to be a valley, but I think it's known locally as Table Mountain because it's become so huge. So, therefore, Zane's law proposes various measures which are listed in the motion which I won't go through because they are all before you. And I would just like to change the wording at the end where it says this Council therefore resolves, and I would like to remove the name of Baroness Natalie Bennett so that that we, these ministers, support by all possible means in the efforts to advance Zane's law through the House of Lords and that the government provides necessary funds for local authorities and others to meet the requirement of any new legislation. I do hope you will be able to support this. Thank you very much. Can I just check this? The Council is willing to accept the amendment to the motion, don't have the murder of the motion, which Councillor Gray has offered. Is that okay with the Council? Take it. I would also say for your information that whether or not the factual statements in the preamble are relevant or not is not relevant to the actual debate we should be having and the vote will be taking on it. So, it's the substantial motion itself which we're going to vote upon and not anything which is in the preamble to it. That's an important point, okay? Because I know that there has been factual challenges to what is said at the beginning of the motion. Councillor Maynard, sorry, I thought that. Sorry. I'm going to take to ten. Councillor Rathburn, there's your second in the motion. Yes. Do you know all of them now? Would you speak better? Councillor Maynard can speak now. Okay. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you to Councillor Gray for bringing this motion to the Council. I think that I'm really pleased that Councillor Gray has alluded to the fact that in my introduction I should have re-declared my interest. But there are 18 sites, actually, that the County Council currently inspect. And this can vary between weekly monitoring and in annual walkover inspection. Factors include the age, composition, and location of the site, previous readings for methane within and around the site and any other relevant risks. And it's important to say that already the County Council works with the relevant districts and boroughs and on land contamination, sometimes in conjunction with the environment agency. And that local planning authorities may seek remediation as part of any planning application process. I think whilst in principle I think that what's on the table is entirely worthy of consideration indeed support. We on this side of the Chamber won't vote for the proposals purely and simply because there isn't enough information that's been afforded to Councillors this evening. Firstly, in terms of the actual cost involved, and I think that were you to ask any government to fully fund this, I think you might end up getting a situation where you were creating a bureaucratic situation whereby Councillors have been putting extra steps in terms of any subsequent act of Parliament that it actually cost local taxpayers more money when in fact already the relevant districts and boroughs, County, and DDA are doing that piece of work. The other really worrying thing for me about this actually becoming an act of Parliament would be the possible effect on a local authorities local plan because were you to have a register that said this is a clear and you need a clear definition obviously contaminated land, but you could end up not just with former landfill sites and gas works etc. You could end up with farmland and areas that are already identified within a local plan that could be deemed contaminated land. And I have to say that I could foresee a situation whereby residence groups were using this act of Parliament to prevent development. Even if they're, you know, because quite clearly it would be a way of pushing against certain planning applications, certain planning applications in their division or ward or whatever, but the fact of the matter remains that the local plan could be adversely affected. So I'd like to see more information and perhaps we could support a subsequent motion in this matter, but thank you very much indeed. And for me another contribution to debate please. Yes. Thank you, Chairman. Similarly, I'm sort of, I have a concern over this. Obviously, you know, ex-landfield sites, current landfill sites, whatever sites, which are known to be bad news. You know, Councilman, as I mentioned, there's 19 or so across the county and they're looked after. My concern would be, you know, how far does this go? How far does this not go? You know, do you have, you know, if you go on to say, you know, if you've got an ex-industrial site, does that then make that impossible for redevelopment? I don't know. You know, years and years ago, if you sort of redeveloped an old industrial site, the idea was dig less, so you don't stir everything up. Then they changed a few years back, clear everything. And my argument was, well, so you put in all this poison ground, poured poison dirt and everything else onto the back of a truck and drive them 300 miles up country to somewhere else to dump it. My concern is that, you know, ex-farm yards could be seen as contaminated land with the slurry, ex-garage sites, and everything else can be seen as contaminated land, which could well be in our local plan for redevelopment. And that would take them off the scale and not available. Yeah, and then you've got a blight. So, you know, I support this, and I get the idea, but it is a bit too much willingness in it for my liking, I'm afraid. Thank you. Can you ask one? Does it contributions, please? Can it advance online, please? Yes, Joe. The problem with this kind of motion is one is always totally in favor of the Britain sport. And clearly, this is an important problem, should be addressed by government. And we need to have that done. But working out what the legislation should look like and what the budget should be and who should pay for it. I don't want to see the Environment Agency, which is understaffed and underfunded, then used as government agency to affect this legislation. County and districts work together on the existing sites. And indeed, we see Springfield at East Desert County Council back at the turn of the century. We have much sooner than many authorities, and we put an incinerator in because we reckon that was a very much more green and cost effective way of dealing with waste. But we are now face to face with rising sea levels, and there will be one or two sites that are going to be possibly threatened by that. We have the Coom Valley site. Again, I'm not sure how toxic that is in terms of the definition in the proposed same floor. I would really like to have seen this much more as a scrutiny item where we actually consider what is the best way of tackling this. Rather than rush and even favor in principle of doing something about it. The question is we're very vague on what and the cost is simply going to be born by central government. The chance that the Treasury will take that on in the foreseeable future, given the state of the public finances and what is happening on care and health is very rudimentary indeed. I don't think it will happen. So I think we are actually, it's sort of tackling the problem. We are simply once again expressing goodwill. And in the end, that doesn't solve problems. Thank you, Councillor Barnes, Councillor Colman. Thank you, Chair. I know that the actual text of the motion talks about supporting the legislation on the proposed principles of Zane's law. And to me, that means exactly that. That we're supporting the principle of the law and that there are not some thoughts of that law on how it comes to pass and what measures are put into place to mediate any issues that are foreseen. It's a responsibility for Westerners doing what we say. We as a Council shouldn't be telling them exactly how to pass a law on what the exact wording of that law is, et cetera. However, we can agree that we support the principles of that law. And indeed, I think back to when we built the skate park and BMX track in Sydney, which, of course, I always enjoy talking about. And the Council underestimated the cost of that and the design had to be changed because we were put away on the scale of contaminated land on Sydney recreation ground. And that had to be changed. That added additional money to the budget because of the occurrences that were needed, et cetera. And if we'd known about that in advance, those costs could have been factored in. We could have got a bigger grant from Sports England and the Council could have saved money. So I think it is useful to have a register of these lands. And I appreciate that every member that spoke so far has agreed with the principles of this. But I don't think this motion clarifies that we are supporting those principles, not the particular nuts and belts. So I'll be supporting this for what I've heard so far. Cheers, chair. Thank you, Councillor BAN. I agree with Councillor Colman that what we're being asked, if you look at the wording of the motion, we're not being asked to dictate central government policy. And hopefully all the issues that Councillor BAN has raised will be debated before this policy into any sort of law. I'm not normally a fan of using a motion to signal. Certainly not signal virtue as some of the motions that we're asked to support are. But I think this one, it's quite reasonable for what a district council like ours to signal to the government, yes, this is important. And there won't be just us that will be presumably many councils sending that same signal. And hopefully with the same flexibility within the motion that says we want you to look at it. We want you to look at these principles. We want you to look at the practicality or otherwise and its impact on future planning. But I don't see anything in this motion that precludes me personally from supporting it. And as I say, I don't think it's in any way trying to commit a council to supporting anything that we wouldn't like in future. And I think it's a good signal to central government. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor BAN. Councillor BAN, please. Thank you, Chair. So just to, yes, this is a principle. And on some of the points raised in point four of these laws, this is mainly for landfill sites. And there was, as mentioned, there are some sites in rather which are known to be dangerous. So things can't happen there. Things can't be built on. There's even sites nearby nature reserve where you can't be buried there because of contaminated load. As we ever build up the built environment, and now see levels rise as Councillor BANs say, as flooding occurs, these sites won't be left intact. So another thing could happen. There could be more instances of this because it's happening whether we like it or not to just sit down and think it will happen. And that contaminated land will stay where it is, is policy won't happen. It will move. It has moved. And as we build more and more, we'll all see impacts on that. So that's why I'm seconding this and I hope we pass it tonight. Thank you. Thank you. And Councillor Gray are going to access a ratchet flight at this point. Thank you very much, Chair. Thank you, everyone, for your very interesting comments. I just wanted to add that following on from Councillor BAN, this motion, as it stands, has been approved by many other Councillors, including Lewis. Thank you very much. We now move to the vote. Those in favour please show. And those against, please, so. And the abstentions, please. So I declare that motion carried. We've now come to the end of the ordinary agenda of our Thought Council meeting. I'd like to thank members of the Council for the way in which you have conducted yourselves from the course of today's debate. They've been two very controversial subjects on the agenda today. And both of them, I think, have been debated in absolutely exemplary session. I'd like to thank members of the way in which you have done that. So thank you very much indeed. And that is the conclusion of this. And the time now is seven minutes to eight. I declare the meeting closed at 7.54.