This meeting of the full Council was scheduled to receive recommendations from three of the Council's committees, as well as to consider a notice of motion about cultural funding in the High Peak. The meeting was also scheduled to receive several questions, mostly about cultural projects and initiatives, that members of the public had submitted in advance.

Appointment of Mayor for 2025/26

A report from the Audit and Regulatory Committee stated that the Conservative Group was to be invited to make a nomination for the appointment of Mayor for the municipal year 2025/26. This was because the Conservative group had the most points in the Council's points system for allocating the mayoralty. The points system begins by giving each political group the same number of points as they have members on the council. Every year since 1980, points have been adjusted in line with the changes in the strengths of the different political groups. Finally, 10 points are deducted from a group's points total when that group nominates a mayor. Taking all of this into account, the points system for 2025/26 stood as follows:

Conservative - 22 Green - 4 Labour - 12 Councillor Capper - 1 Councillor Lomax - 1

The report stated that, in the event of two groups having the same number of points, the group that most recently nominated a Mayor would not be invited to nominate a Mayor.

Proposed Changes to Street Trading Policy

The Licensing Committee provided a report recommending that the council approve their proposed changes to the Street Trading Policy. The new policy would apply to anyone “selling, exposing, or offering for sale any article in a street”, which includes roads, footways, and other areas to which the public have access without payment. The proposed policy states that a person seeking to trade in these areas must obtain a street trading consent.

The proposed policy exempts a number of activities from this requirement, including trading by: roundsmen, such as milkmen; news vendors; pedlars with a pedlar’s certificate; people at petrol filling stations; and people selling goods from a shop onto an adjacent street.

The committee's report says that it received a number of responses to a consultation exercise on the new policy. It lists several of these responses, which mostly focused on a new clause in the proposed policy that is aimed at reducing emissions:

At first application - Vehicles must meet or exceed Euro 6 (Diesel) Euro 4 (Petrol) emissions standards are they will not be deemed suitable for licensing. At renewal - From 01/01/2025 Street trading licences will not be renewed in respect of any licensed vehicle that does not meet or exceed Euro 6 emissions standards (Diesel) Euro 4 (Petrol) emissions standards.

The policy states that traders who do not meet these standards could: modify their vehicles; switch to cleaner fuel, like bio-diesel; or replace their vehicle with one that meets the emissions standards.

The report includes representations from the operators of several ice-cream vans. Some of these operators say that meeting the proposed emissions standards would be prohibitively expensive, and one claims that they have classic vehicles that would be impossible to convert to run on bio-diesel.

Audit and Regulatory Committee

The Council was also scheduled to receive a report from its Audit and Regulatory Committee. The report recommended that the Council approve the committee's proposed new terms of reference.

The report also provided an update on the Council's Treasury Management position. The Bank of England Base Rate had decreased during the first half of the financial year, from 5.25% in January to 4.75% in November. The Council's investment portfolio was worth £23.9 million at the end of the second quarter. The average balance of the portfolio during the first half of the year was £20.3 million. The report says that these balances were lower than had been anticipated in the budget, and that there was a forecast shortfall in investment income of £100,410. It goes on to say that borrowing costs were likely to be overspent by £493,150 because external borrowing interest rates are higher than had been anticipated.

The Capital Financing Requirement (CFR) was also expected to be higher than had been anticipated at the start of the financial year. The CFR represents “the total outstanding capital expenditure which has not yet been paid for from either revenue or capital resources”. It is a measure of the extent to which the Council needs to borrow to finance its capital projects, and so is a useful indicator of the affordability of the capital programme. The report states that, despite the increase in the CFR, the council's capital investment plans are still affordable.

The Committee also reviewed its effectiveness by using a checklist and evaluation tool published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA).¹ The checklist asked a series of yes/no questions about the committee, such as:

Does the authority have a dedicated audit committee that is not combined with other functions (eg standards, ethics, scrutiny)? Has the committee maintained its advisory role by not taking on any decision-making powers? Do the terms of reference clearly set out the purpose of the committee in accordance with CIPFA’s 2022 Position Statement?

The evaluation tool encouraged the committee to identify its strengths and weaknesses in a number of different areas by considering what it had done to achieve impact, and then providing a list of key indicators of effective practice. For example, to evaluate whether it had effectively promoted good governance, the committee was asked to consider its performance in areas such as: reviewing the council's Annual Governance Statement (AGS)²; supporting reviews and audits of governance arrangements; participating in self-assessments of governance arrangements; and working with partner audit committees to review governance arrangements in partnerships.

Standards Committee Annual Report

Finally, the council was scheduled to receive the Standards Committee's annual report. The report summarised the committee's work during the year, which included: delivering training to councillors following the 2023 elections; reviewing the complaints received regarding alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct for Councillors; considering the grant of dispensations to Councillors; and reviewing the annual letter from the Local Government Ombudsman.

The training programme that was delivered after the election focused on the Council's priority areas, and included sessions on topics such as: delivery of Council Housing; effective overview and scrutiny; and the Council's approach to tackling climate change. All Councillors were also invited to attend sessions on the Code of Conduct and chairing skills.

The Committee granted dispensations to Councillors, allowing them to participate in decisions about which they would normally have been barred from participating because of a conflict of interest. These dispensations covered matters such as: Council tax premiums; allowing Councillors to participate in meetings remotely; and matters relating to allowances, Council Tax and housing matters.

The Committee also noted that the Local Government Ombudsman had upheld two complaints about the Council in the year 2022/23.

The report also provided a summary of all of the complaints alleging breaches of the Code of Conduct for Councillors that had been received by the Council in the past 10 years, including those relating to parish councillors.

Notice of Motion

A notice of motion, submitted by Councillor Linda Grooby and Councillor Paul Hardy, was scheduled to be discussed. It related to the withdrawal by the government of £5 million of funding for cultural projects in the High Peak. The notice states that the previous government had made a commitment in the 2024 Spring Budget to provide the funding, which could have been used for projects at the Partington Theatre, the Victoria Hall, and Buxton Opera House. However, this funding was withdrawn in the Autumn budget, despite an increase in annual government spending. The notice said that this funding would have been of “real value to local people”, and that the Council should campaign to protect it. It goes on to say that the Conservative group notes that the local MP, John Pearce, had promised to “fight for the High Peak”, and that the Councillors “would like to see some evidence of this”.