Link to homepage

Council Minutes    

Date: Tuesday 08 March 2022       Time: 06:00 PM       Location: Council Chamber       Contact: mpemberton@Mansfield.gov.uk

Attendance Details

PresentNames
Present:Executive Mayor Andy Abrahams, Councillor Sinead Anderson, Councillor Barry Answer, Councillor Debra Barlow, Councillor Mick Barton, Councillor Marion Bradshaw, Councillor Andrew Burgin, Councillor Terry Clay, Councillor John Coxhead, Councillor Bill Drewett, Councillor Robert Elliman, Councillor Mark Fretwell, Councillor Stephen N. Garner, Councillor Teresa Hanstock, Councillor Vaughan Hopewell, Councillor Brian Lohan, Councillor Ann Norman, Councillor Daniel Redfern, Councillor Stuart Richardson, Councillor Dave Saunders, Councillor Philip Shields, Councillor Andy Sissons, Councillor John Smart, Councillor David M Smith, Councillor June Stendall, Councillor Roger Sutcliffe, Councillor Sue Swinscoe, Councillor Sidney Walker, Councillor Stuart Wallace, Councillor Sonya Ward, Councillor Andy Wetton, Councillor Craig Whitby, Councillor Martin Wright
In AttendanceAttendees
In Attendance:Mike Robinson, Sarah Hall, Dawn Edwards, Mark Pemberton and Julie Grainger
ItemDescriptionBackground InformationDecision
 MINUTE SILENCE FOR RUSSIAN INVASION OF UKRAINEMINUTE SILENCE FOR RUSSIAN INVASION OF UKRAINE

The Chair and Mayor spoke about the recent Russian invasion of Ukraine and the humanitarian crisis that was engulfing not only Ukraine but the neighbouring countries too. This was followed by a minute's silence for those who had been killed or displaced due to the invasion.
 
22/08APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCEAPOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Fisher, Tristram, Bodle and Birchall.
 
22/09DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTDECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

The Monitoring Officer reminded Members that they would be recorded as having a non-disclosable pecuniary interest in those reports that related to the setting of Council Tax, but that a dispensation had been granted enabling Members to participate in the debate and vote upon those items.
 
22/10MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 25 JANUARY, 2022MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 25 JANUARY, 2022

Councillor Barton proposed and Councillor Burgin seconded that the Minutes of the Meeting held on 25 January, 2022 be confirmed as a correct record.

Minutes
RESOLVED - That the Minutes of the Meeting held on 25 January, 2022 be confirmed as a correct record.
22/11RECEIPT OF CORRESPONDENCE BY THE CHAIR OF THE COUNCIL, ELECTED MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE OR THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERRECEIPT OF CORRESPONDENCE BY THE CHAIR OF THE COUNCIL, ELECTED MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE OR THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

There was no correspondence to report.
 
22/12ADVANCE QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLICADVANCE QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

There were no advance questions from Members of the Public.
 
22/13ADVANCE QUESTIONS FROM ELECTED MEMBERSADVANCE QUESTIONS FROM ELECTED MEMBERS

Question to the Executive Mayor from Councillor Stendall

In Your Capacity as Mayor. With the exception of the letter sent on behalf of this Council to the Boundary Commission of England, setting out the opinion of this Council against the incorporation of Grange Farm Ward and Brick Kiln Ward into Ashfield Parliamentary constituency, which also outlined alternative suggestions of where the balancing of constituent numbers would better be taken from, have you submitted additional objections in your personal capacity or as Mayor of Mansfield?

Reply from Elected Mayor – Thank you Councillor Stendall for bringing this matter to full Council, it is a very important matter which needs to be brought to the public’s attention, so they can make their views heard on these changes to the boundaries. Yes, I also separately wrote to the Boundary Commission as Mayor of Mansfield setting out my objections to the proposal and delivered letters to all the residents in the Brick Kiln ward as you yourself did in Grange Farm to highlight that the proposed changes would divide established communities and saying that this is illogical. I have the full details in the letter should you require the specific points we raised which outlined that the criteria set out had not been met.

Supplementary Question from Councillor Stendall - Would you supply me with the BCE number of your letter please.

Reply from Elected Mayor – Absolutely no problem, I will copy you into that letter. As I say it covers extensively the points of objection relating to what they set out and how it doesn’t meet their objectives.

Question to the Executive Mayor from Councillor Stendall

In your capacity as Mayor. Are you aware that we are now in the second round of the Boundary Commissions for England, Parliamentary Boundary consultations, and there was a public face to face consultation session at County House yesterday the 7th March and today the 8th March?

Reply from Elected Mayor - Thank you for that question. I attended the public consultation today where I outlined all the point set out in our letter of 2 August, 2021, again highlighting all the concerns about splitting communities, the historic ties of Ladybrook and obviously you will have that letter, but what I also did was point out that 15 or so responses we had from members of the public that were consistent with the general message that they belonged to Mansfield, it is illogical that part of our wards are being cut off from their connection with Mansfield when it comes to Parliamentary elections. I will be writing again to the Boundary Commission following today’s meeting with the additional points that I will reinforce and so it will continue. The consultation is until 4 April we can still make additional points.

Supplementary Question from Councillor Stendall – I suppose I am a little sad because I have been through every one of these Midlands responses and I can assure you that there are well over 300 for Grange Farm and Brick Kiln Wards, there’s only four that are supporting the recommendations of the Boundary Commission and all the others are actually opposed to this, so if I may ask you if you would meet with me so that I can go through some of these points that I’ve picked up during this consultation in working with you to put this letter to the Boundary Commission in the future please.

Reply from Elected Mayor – I would welcome that Councillor Stendall, we all want to work together to make sure that the residents in both Grange Farm and Brick Kiln wards remain part of the Mansfield Parliamentary Constituency for which we do all their services as a district.

Questions to the Executive Mayor from Councillor Stendall

In your Capacity as Mayor. The Conservative Group at Notts. County Council, the Leader of that Group who is also Mansfield’s MP, agrees to the inclusion of Grange Farm Ward and Brick Kiln Ward being incorporated into Ashfield Parliamentary Constituency?

To demonstrate your support to the residents of Grange Farm Ward and Brick Kiln Ward what lobbying have you undertaken with the Leader of Notts County Council, Mansfield’s MP to set out the public’s strong opposition to these changes, against them being included into the Ashfield Parliament Constituency?

Reply from Elected Mayor - I’ve been lobbying right from the beginning so at the time of writing to the Boundary Commission during the first round of consultation, a letter was also sent to the MP setting out the Council’s objections to the proposal to move Brick Kiln and Grange Farm wards into the Ashfield Parliamentary constituency. I have spoken to him directly to communicate our concerns giving him the reasoning, and he has privately agreed that the proposals are illogical. As you will know the second round of public consultation closes on the 4 April 2022. I have been spent some time reviewing all of the public comments, and we have spoken about this, but I will be writing again directly to the MP, perhaps after we have had our meeting together, to reinforce and ask for his support to keep the boundaries in place so our residents remain within the Mansfield Parliamentary constituency.

Question to Councillor Burgin from Councillor Stendall

The Hermitage Nature Reserve is in my Ward. Would you give me an update on how this Council is progressing as to when we are likely to see some positive outcomes and improvements to the Nature Reserve?

Reply from Councillor Burgin – Thank you Councillor Stendall. The Hermitage Nature Reserve footpath has been included in the joint project with Ashfield District Council and Nottinghamshire County Council to improve Kings Mill Reservoir and the adjacent viaduct, through external funding from Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF). Unfortunately the latest position is that this element of the project is currently on hold. Only one quote was received for footpath repair works, but the price for the resin bound footpath alone is a lot higher than the remaining HLF budget. It may be possible to consider cheaper options but given the current level of disrepair it isn’t possible to carry out the planned works to the footpath adjacent to the Hermitage Ponds at this moment.

The latest advice is that the retaining wall is in need of repairs and must be reinstated as in some areas the footpath is collapsing towards the ponds, therefore the original proposal to repair the existing surface would not be sufficient, alongside additional works which have been identified to trees which are causing damage to the site.

Our Officers intend to work closely with Ashfield District Council partners to develop plans to provide a suitable solution to ensure The Hermitage LNR remains sustainable and benefits from the related reservoir project in the long term.

Supplementary Question from Councillor Stendall – It’s welcoming to know that you’ve got some points there in your answer on the issues we are suffering on the Hermitage Nature Reserve, as you mention we have Ash Dieback up the trees, we have many of them that are Ash, and we need a plan for the funding to replace them, we have one large mature tree by the viaduct that has lost a large lid in these recent high winds leaving half a tree that requires attention. We have this Avian influenza, this bird flu, that for people who don’t realise, if they walk in it they can transfer it to their own birds at home, so I would ask you to make sure there are some signs up. Also to the part of the footpath that doesn’t belong to MDC I was wondering if we could consider having a notice to alert people to the fact that it doesn’t belong to MDC. We know that at the time there I no funding available for the Hermitage Nature Reserve and although this sounds that it may have gone to the Berry Hill Park, when are we in Grange Farm ward going to be given funding to address the issues? And if work is planned to address the above as you’ve spoke about, do you have a date when we might get some completion on this please?

Response from Councillor Burgin – Thank you for your supplementary question Councillor Stendall. I believe the signs are up around the reservoir regarding the Avian Flu and I will ask Officers to make enquiries with Ashfield District Council as they are the authority that manage the reservoir, to make sure that is put in place if they aren’t but I believe they are already up. With regard to dates, unfortunately Councillor Stendall our Officers are going to have a meeting with Officers at ADC as I said, so once that meeting has taken place then hopefully we will have a timeline for that plan, but I will ask the officers to keep you informed once that is put in place.

Councillor Stendall – Chairman may I just clarify I am referring to the Hermitage Nature Reserve with the notices, not the reservoir itself. Thank you.

Question to Councillor Whitby from Councillor Shields

As you are the Portfolio Holder who looks after the interests of our Local Parks and Open Spaces and are ultimately responsible for the Budget in your Portfolio duties, do you think it was right for you to allocate £150,000 in the 22/23 budget year and £100,000 in the 2023/2024 budget year, for investment in Berry Hill Park when Berry Hill Park is set to receive circa £3 million for this purpose? As this is a closed question a simple Yes or No will do.

Reply from Councillor Whitby. Thank you for your question Councillor Shields. The short answer is Yes but I will explain why. When this Council agreed to become the Trustees of Berry Hill Park, the first task was to commission an asset condition survey. This was completed in November 2019, if you haven’t already read this I would urge you to do so as the survey illustrates the very poor condition of the park and identifies remedial and future maintenance costs of over half a million pounds. Since becoming Trustees of the Park the running costs have been added to the base budget as have the costs of the remedial and Planned Preventative works. The £3m also going to the Park is because of our successful bid to the Government’s Town’s Fund, and as such was predominately capital expenditure for enhancing the park and cannot be used for remedial works as previously identified. Such a significant investment would also mean an uplift in revenue in the area which can then be used for future maintenance of the entire park and relieve the base budget.

Question to Councillor Richardson from Councillor Shields

Can you tell Council how many meetings you have had with the BID since you took up your post of Portfolio Holder for Regeneration and the Town Centre?

Reply from Cllr Richardson – Can I thank Councillor Shields for his question and showing an interest in my role as former member for the Mansfield Business Improvement District. In answer to your question, I have attended a number of meetings, the majority of the meetings, however I do not have an exact number and if you require that then I would happily confirm that number in a written reply within seven working days.

Question to the Executive Mayor from Councillor Elliman

Mayor, the brown bin service over the past year has been nothing short of atrocious at times. To offer a reduced fee is right but the £5 discount does not anywhere near reflect the multiple missed collections that residents had to suffer. Can you please confirm if you think this is fair and reflects the poor service that residents received?

Reply from Elected Mayor - Thank you for your question Councillor Elliman, but your question is not an accurate reflection of the excellent job that our Waste Operatives have done in what have been the most challenging times during the Covid pandemic. Here are the actual fact:

Over the entire garden waste season, there are 496 individual garden waste rounds scheduled to be delivered. From 1st April 2021 to date, we have not been able to deploy 47 garden waste rounds (9.5%). However we were able to return to 15 of these (through providing Saturday collections with staff on overtime), meaning that we were not able to deliver 6.5% of rounds at all. Garden waste costs £30 per year with residents scheduled to receive 19 collections across the season. This equates to each collection costing £1.58. Whilst it is true that some rounds were impacted more than others (some will have missed no collections at all, and others a maximum of 3), on average 6.5% of missed collections equates to every property missing one collection (costing £1.58). Of the 24 different collection routes, only two rounds missed 3 of their 19 collections, six rounds them missed 2 collections and 15 rounds missed 1 collection only. The £5 reduction actually gives all customers the equivalent discount of having missed 3 collections, (even though only 12.5% actually did miss that many) (the breakdown of the proportional ‘charge’ of 3 missed collections is £4.74).

Supplementary Question from Councillor Elliman – I would be appreciate if you could just send me the details around that please as is certainly doesn’t reflect some of the issues I’ve had reported to me. My supplementary question is can you confirm how Ashfield manage to not miss any collections yet we’ve obviously missed collections.

Reply from Elected Mayor – I don’t have that information to hand on the Ashfield collections but what I would say is that the general public have a better idea of the service that they have received and what’s more, our refuse collectors have been the link through lockdown with many of our communities and they have actually done more than just be refuse collectors so I don’t think they delivered a poor service, they also delivered a community service.

Question to the Executive Mayor from Councillor Elliman

Mayor, can you please confirm how much was spent on the aborted CEO search with recruitment agencies?

Reply from Elected Mayor - Thanks again Councillor Elliman, but I think you should consider the language you are using in the phrasing of your questions. In our quest for the search for a new Chief Executive, we went out to tender. Solace, a well recognised and respected organisation were successful but due to a number of factors including Christmas, New Year and the Omicron variant, there was not sufficient capable candidates, so we decided not to proceed after the agency ranking report, but the cost of that was £5,600.

Supplementary question from Councillor Elliman – The former CEO only had a notice period of 3 months, can you confirm whether the new CEO would have a longer period for such key position in the Council?

Reply from Elected Mayor – I don’t know the actual conditions but I presume it will still be 3 months, I can check that and get back to you on that one.

Question to the Executive Mayor from Councillor Elliman

Mayor, In Overview and Scrutiny on 15 February 2022, an Officer spoke about a much improved cleaning machine that was hired in to use across the district, for approximately 3 weeks allowing them to catch up due to sickness, absence etc. It would appear sensible that a business case could easily be put together for this machine to be purchased for use across the county sharing with other districts.

We have seen the legal function that was a shared service with Ashfield split up and we have gone back to our own legal function and the loss of synergies and benefits that a shared function brings.

Do you think there is a protectionist attitude running through the Council driven by yourself that the winding back of shared service functions ultimately to the detriment of residents?

Reply from Elected Mayor – Thank you for your question.

Whilst I do not think that there is a protectionist attitude running through this council, I do think that Officers and Members are protective of our assets, and rightly so. This is public money and we need to ensure that it is spent to achieve best value and in the best way possible for the benefit of the council and our communities. Officers regularly review working arrangements, including shared services to ensure that those arrangements remain fit for purpose, provide value for money and meet the needs and priorities of the Council. With this approach Officers are ensuring that public money is spent appropriately for the benefit of the residents.

Question to Councillor Whitby from Councillor Barton

In recent times after COVID, some Churches and community hubs have been struggling with finances and running costs. Unlike Leisure, private businesses and Councils etc they have been unable to access grants given and made available by the Government etc. I already have one church closing in my Ward and I have another which is struggling financially. This is because of a number of reasons, one being the regular congregations are not back yet like they were before lockdown. These places are community hubs, they hold many clubs for all ages, including the U3A, cubs, scouts and Boys Brigade as well as holding coffee mornings and community events. Also the Royal British Legions Parade and Service as well as holding Weddings, Christenings, Funerals, which they are obviously known for.

Until they get back on their feet we should try and help as an Authority if we can, because if places like St Albans, Forest Town has to close it will be a disaster for the local community. Myself and fellow Councillors and residents are trying and have helped in many ways but they need more help, especially in the near future.

Can you please as Portfolio Holder for Finance investigate and look to see if we as a Council can provide any Grants, financial support packages, or even help with service costs to help any Church or Community hub in our District who needs help in these difficult times? Once these places are gone they are gone forever and they offer something that communities rely on and bring Communities together.

Reply from Cllr Whitby – Thank you for your question Councillor Barton. I will be more than happy to look at this and since receiving your question I have already start doing so. Councillors need to ensure that all avenues are explored when community groups are involved and struggling with funding.

I think the key thing we can do as community representatives is collaborate. I have spoken to Democratic Services who have agreed to hold a meeting where we can all come together and discuss the issues you have raised.

I have also spoken to the CVS and they have agreed to come along to such a session and provide guidance and advice to ensure opportunities are not being missed.

I don’t think it would be fair to say that we can prevent organisations from closing completely, but if we can share some best practices and be better sign posters, we might be able to help in some way.

Councillor Barton – Thank you for your reply.

Questions
 
22/14EXECUTIVE DECISION BY EXECUTIVE MAYOR - MANSFIELD HOMES LIMITED UPDATEEXECUTIVE DECISION BY EXECUTIVE MAYOR - MANSFIELD HOMES LIMITED UPDATE

It was proposed by the Executive Mayor and seconded by Councillor Whitby that the recommendations from the Executive decision on Mansfield Homes Limited up date taken on 24 February, 2022 be noted.

Council was updated that with respect to the marketing of the homes on Wildflower Rise, since October 2021 an additional property had been sold which meant that 13 properties in total had been sold. At the time of the Executive Decision taken on 24 February 2022, three properties had been reserved and another property sale was being negotiated. Since that decision, five properties in total have now been reserved which left five properties to sell.

The company had repaid just under £5.3m of the original loan which was just over £8.6m and the company continued to make loan repayments as and when property sales were complete.

Based on the remaining properties being sold by the end of June 2022, the projected profit was estimated to be around £389,000 but could be subject to change should sales not achieve the June target.

On the motion being put to the vote the Chair announced that the motion had been carried unanimously.

Decision Notice

Report of Head of Planning and Regeneration
RESOLVED - That the update on Mansfield Homes Limited be noted.
22/15DELEGATED DECISION BY THE PORTFOLIO HOLDER FOR CORPORATE AND FINANCE - COUNCIL TAX REDUCTION SCHEME (CTRS) 2022/23DELEGATED DECISION BY THE PORTFOLIO HOLDER FOR CORPORATE AND FINANCE - COUNCIL TAX REDUCTION SCHEME (CTRS) 2022/23

It was proposed by the Portfolio Holder for Corporate and Finance and seconded by the Executive Mayor that the recommendation to Council from the Delegated Decision relating to the approval of the Hardship Fund and the approval of the Council Tax Reduction Scheme 2022/23 be approved.

Members were advised that the scheme was unchanged from the one approved for the current financial year.

The Council had operated a Hardship Fund since 2013/14 which was designed to assist CTRS recipients who had financial difficulties by giving short term additional help with Council Tax liability. The fund had previously operated at a value of £20,000 but as part of the budget process for 2022/23, an additional £10,000 was allocated to this fund to make a total of £30,000.

Members were pleased that the authority was still able to continue to operate the Hardship Fund.

On the motion being put to the vote, the Chair announced that the motion had been carried unanimously.

Decision Notice

Report of Head of Finance

Appendix
RESOLVED - That the Policy Document detailed as Appendix 1 in the report, be the Council's approved Council Tax Reduction Scheme for the financial year 2022/23.
22/16DELEGATED DECISION BY PORTFOLIO HOLDER FOR CORPORATE AND FINANCE - ALLOCATION OF FUNDS WARSOP HEALTH HUBDELEGATED DECISION BY PORTFOLIO HOLDER FOR CORPORATE AND FINANCE - ALLOCATION OF FUNDS WARSOP HEALTH HUB

It was proposed by the Portfolio Holder for Corporate and Finance and seconded by the Elected Mayor that the recommendations to Council from the Delegated Decision relating to Allocation of Funds for the Warsop Health Hub Project be approved.

Council was advised that the origins of the Warsop Health Hub project date back to 2019 when, following the closure of the Meden Sports Centre, Strategic Leisure were commissioned to undertake insight led research looking into leisure and community provision in Warsop. The outcome of the research was to identify a series of recommendations, one of which was focused on the need for improved leisure and community facilities to support health and wellbeing activities and the co-location of local services. Sport England then visited Warsop in February 2020 and identified the need for a feasibility study to explore the potential for investment in a new health and wellbeing hub facility in-line with their emerging Leisure Local initiative and new approach to facility development.

Strategic Leisure were then further commissioned to develop the feasibility study as requested by Sport England, which was completed in March 2021. At this time, the council was also preparing its Town Fund submission to Government, and as consequence, the decision was taken to include Warsop Health Hub as part of its proposals. Completion of the feasibility study identified a capital scheme with a mix of facilities to be located on the preferred site of Carr Lane Park.

To date, £3m has been allocated to the project from the Towns Fund and a further £1m-£1.5m will be applied for from Sport England who have remained involved in the development of the project throughout. The scheme had been developed to RIBA Stage 2 which indicates a capital scheme costing approximately £7.7m. This represents an increase of £1.7m from the initial feasibility study completed in 2021 as a result of increased costs.

With £3.0m of the total project cost having been secured to date, and a further £1.0m-£1.5m to be requested from Sport England, consideration has been given by the Section 151 Officer as to how the shortfall will be covered. This has concluded that further funding totalling £1.5m is available to be allocated from the Council's earmarked reserves. Furthermore, any resulting shortfall would need to be covered by borrowing. The level of borrowing required is anticipated to be £2.0m-£3.5m depending on the amount of funding secured from Sport England and the cost of which would be included in future budget setting. Alternative funding sources would continue to be sought to minimise the extent of potential borrowing.

Members were advised that a council contribution to the capital cost of the project was an expectation and requirement of the Sport England funding process. The allocation of reserves and the approval to borrow was necessary in order to ensure that the bid process could commence. Failure to do so would be a significant risk to the council’s success in securing Sport England funding.

In addition, Council was informed that failure to allocate council funds and approve potential borrowing would also jeopardise the £3m Towns Fund allocation for this project. Further it would compromise the viability of the Towns Fund business case and would prevent the Council’s Section 151 Officer from signing it off. Should this happen, deadlines for the completion of the Towns Fund business case would be missed with the potential loss of £3m of investment in the district.

Councillor Barton proposed and Councillor Wright seconded the following amendment:

That the Warsop Health Hub project be submitted for consideration to Overview and Scrutiny Committee (Communities and Services) at the earliest possible date and regular updates issued to the committee as the project progress stage by stage. All suggestions and input recommended by Overview and Scrutiny (Communities) to be considered by the relevant decision makers.

On the amendment being put to the vote, the Chair announced that the amendment had been carried unanimously.

Councillor Burgin proposed and Councillor Barton seconded that the recorded vote be held for the substantive motion. More than ten members indicated their support for a recorded vote.

On the substantive motion being put to the vote the following votes were recorded:

For - Elected Mayor, Councillors Anderson, Answer, Barlow, Barton, Bradshaw, Burgin, Clay, Coxhead, Drewett, Elliman, Fretwell, Garner, Hanstock, Hopewell, Lohan, Norman, Redfern, Richardson, Saunders, Shields, Sissons, Smart, Smith, Stendall, Sutcliffe, Swinscoe, Walker, Wallace, Ward, Wetton, Whitby and Wright.

The Chair confirmed that the substantive motion had been approved unanimously.

Decision Notice

Report of Head of Health and Communities
RESOLVED -

(i) That the ongoing revenue costs associated with the additional borrowing be added to revenue budgets.

(ii) That the capital programme be amended to reflect the cost of the project.

(iii) That the Warsop Health Hub project be submitted for consideration to Overview and Scrutiny Committee (Communities and Services) at the earliest possible date and regular updates issued to the committee as the project progress stage by stage. All suggestions and input recommended by Overview and Scrutiny (Communities) to be considered by the relevant decision makers.
22/17EXTRACT MINUTE FROM GOVERNANCE AND STANDARDS COMMITTEE - INVESTMENT STRATEGIES 2022/23EXTRACT MINUTE FROM GOVERNANCE AND STANDARDS COMMITTEE - INVESTMENT STRATEGIES 2022/23

It was proposed by Councillor Fretwell and seconded by Councillor Norman that the recommendations from the Governance and Standards Committee relating to Investment Strategies 2022/23 be approved.

Council was advised that there had been little or no change to these strategies since their last approval in March 2021. There were six individual Strategies contained within the report: The Treasury Management Strategy; The Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) Strategy; The Capital Strategy; The Asset Investment Strategy; The Commercial Property Investment Strategy and The Service Investment Strategy which the Governance and Standards Committee had scrutinised of as part of its work programme.

The motion being put to the vote, the Chair announced that the motion had been carried unanimously.

Extract Minute from Governance & Standards Committee

Report of Head of Finance
RESOLVED -

(i) That the Treasury Management Strategy for the 2022/23 to 2024/25 financial year be approved, as per Appendix 1, including the Prudential Indicators which are set out within the Strategy

(ii) That the Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) Strategy for the 2022/23 financial year be approved, as per Appendix 2 and the Council adopts the Regulatory Method for Supported Borrowing (Option 1) taken out by the Council prior to 1 April 2008 and the Asset Life Method for unsupported borrowing (Option 3) taken out after 1 April 2021 (if any new borrowing is taken on by the council).

Where the Council takes on additional borrowing in order to purchase land and property assets for regeneration or housing purposes (in line with the Asset Investment Policy for non-commercial assets) or to provide a Service Investment the business case will set out whether a MRP charge is appropriate.

(iii) That the Capital Strategy for the 2022/23 to 2042/43 financial year be approved, as per Appendix 3

(iv) That the Asset Investment Strategy for the 2022/23 financial year be approved, as per Appendix 4

(v) That the Commercial Property Investment Strategy for the 2022/23 financial year be approved, as per Appendix 5.

(vi) That the Service Investment Strategy for the 2022/23 financial year be approved, as per Appendix 6.
22/18EXTRACT MINUTE FROM GOVERNANCE AND STANDARDS COMMITTEE - APPOINTMENT OF EXTERNAL AUDITORSEXTRACT MINUTE FROM GOVERNANCE AND STANDARDS COMMITTEE - APPOINTMENT OF EXTERNAL AUDITORS

Councillor Fretwell proposed and Councillor Norman seconded that the recommendations from the Governance and Standards Committee relating to Appointment of External Auditors be approved.

Council was reminded that it was required to appoint new external auditors every five years. The Council had two options, to enter into a procurement exercise alone or to join the Public Sector Audit Appointments (PSAA).

Having reviewed the report, the Governance and Standards Committee recommend to Council that the Council participate in the PSAA national scheme for the reasons identified within the report submitted.

The motion being put to the vote, the Chair announced that the motion had been carried unanimously.

Extract Minute from Governance & Standards Committee

Report of Head of Finance
RESOLVED -

(i) That the Public Sector Audit Appointments’ invitation to opt in to the national scheme for the appointment of external auditors for five consecutive financial years commencing April 2023 be accepted.

(ii) That the Section 151 Officer (or deputy in their absence) be authorised to accept The PSAA invitation to become an opted-in authority.
22/19SCHEME OF MEMBERS ALLOWANCESSCHEME OF MEMBERS ALLOWANCES

Council was requested to approve the Scheme of Allowances for 2022/23, which included a further years reduction in the the level of Special Responsibility Allowances, as agreed as part of the budget setting process.

It was proposed by Councillor Barton and seconded by Councillor Burgin that the Scheme of Allowances for 2022/23 be approved.

On the motion being put to the vote, the Chair announced that the motion had been carried unanimously.

Report of Chief Executive Officer

Appendix
RESOLVED - That the Scheme of Allowances effective from 1 April 2022 at Appendix 1 be approved.
22/20PAY POLICY STATEMENT FOR 2022PAY POLICY STATEMENT FOR 2022

The Head of Paid Service presented the Council's Pay Policy Statement for 2022-2023. The purpose of the statement was in increase accountability in relation to payments made to senior members of the authority by enabling public scrutiny.

Members were advised that it was a legal responsibility to set out the payments that were currently made to senior members of the authority and the difference between that and the lowest paid member of the authority, including the average paid employees of the authority.

Councillor Barton proposed and Councillor Wright seconded that the Pay Policy Statement be approved.

The motion being put to the vote, the Chair announced that the motion had been carried unanimously.

Report of Head of Paid Service

Appendix 1

Appendix 2

Pay Policy
RESOLVED - That the Pay Policy Statement be approved.
22/21POLITICAL BALANCE - MEMBERSHIP OF COMMITTEESPOLITICAL BALANCE - MEMBERSHIP OF COMMITTEES

The Head of Law and Governance presented a report on the proposed political balance of the Council's Committee, following the recent resignation of a member from the Labour Group.

As the Member had chosen to become an independent Member and not aligned to a political group it was necessary in accordance with S15 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, to recalculate the allocation of seats to Members on the Council’s committees.

Councillor Barton proposed and Councillor Elliman seconded that the proposed political balance of the Council's Committees be approved.

On the motion being put to the vote, the Chair announced that the motion had been carried unanimously.

Report of Chief Executive Officer

Appendix
RESOLVED -

(i) The political balance of the Committees of the Council be agreed as set out in paragraph 3.4 and Appendix 1.

(ii) In accordance with S17 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, appointments to committees shall not be in accordance with S15 and S16 of that act but in accordance with paragraph 3.4 and Appendix 1 of this report.
22/22COUNCIL TAX RESOLUTIONCOUNCIL TAX RESOLUTION

The Portfolio Holder for Corporate and Finance advised members that the Council Tax Resolution Report sought to formally set the Council Tax banding for Mansfield District Council for the 2022/23 financial year based on a band D equivalent property. The report also brought together the total Council Tax to be levied to residents of the district based on amounts also set by Nottinghamshire County Council, Nottinghamshire Police and Crime Commissioner, Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service and Warsop Parish Council (where applicable).

The Council had calculated a council tax base for the 2022/2023 financial year of 30,557.3 for Band D equivalent properties for the whole of the district, of which 3,057.4 were within the Warsop boundary. The council tax base was approved on the 19 December 2021 by the Head of Finance.

For the 2022/23 Mansfield District Council would not increase its precepts to residents for the Mansfield element of the Council Tax bill.

The County Council had increased their element by 1% on their general precept and 3% on the adult social care precept, Nottinghamshire Police and Crime Commissioner by 4.09% and Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service by 1.95%.

Warsop Parish Council had precepted £104,808 against the Council for 2022/23, this represented a nil increase in the Warsop Parish Council element of the Council Tax bill for those residents of the Parish Council.

Councillor Whitby proposed and the Elected Mayor seconded that the Council Tax Resolution set out at Appendix A be approved.

On the recommendation being put to the vote the following votes were recorded:

For Elected Mayor, Councillors Anderson, Answer, Barlow, Barton, Bradshaw, Burgin, Clay, Coxhead, Drewett, Elliman, Fretwell, Garner, Hanstock, Hopewell, Lohan, Norman, Redfern, Richardson, Saunders, Shields, Sissons, Smart, Smith, Stendall, Sutcliffe, Swinscoe, Walker, Wallace, Wetton, Whitby and Wright.

Report of Portfolio Holder for Corporate and Finance
RESOLVED - That the Council Tax Resolution set out at Appendix A be approved.
22/23MOTIONSMOTIONS

It was proposed by Councillor Shields and seconded by Councillor Stendall that Council task the Constitution Working Group (a working group of the Governance and Standards Committee) to review the current structure and operation of the Council’s overview and scrutiny function, to ensure a strong and effective function.

In proposing the motion Councillor Shields explained that strong and effective Overview and Scrutiny was essential, in order to hold the decision makers at the Council to account and for Non-Executive members to have a constructive voice in developing future policies and the direction of the Council. The Council had operated its Overview and Scrutiny function with three committees since 2001 and he believed it was time to review and restructure the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny function. It was suggested that recommendations or an update be submitted to the Annual Council in May 2022 by the Chair of the Governance and Standards Committee and any recommendations approved by Council be implemented immediately.

On the motion being put to the vote the Chair announced that the motion had been carried unanimously.

Motion
RESOLVED -

(i) That the Constitution Working Group review the current structure and operation of the Council's Overview and Scrutiny function to ensure a strong and effective function.

(ii) That recommendations/updates be submitted to the Annual Council in May 2022 by the Chair of Governance and Standards Committee and any recommendations approved by Council be implemented immediately.
Published 05/05/2022 14:34:08