Outstanding questions following a deputation submission
***For further info on constitutional changes to Kingston's democracy and KRA's original Deputation Submission please Read our Kingston's Democracy Page ***
Notes of meeting Friday 25th September 2015, Guildhall, 12 noon.
Present:
Cllr. Kevin Davis [KD]
Tessa Kind [TK]
Lynne Finnerty [LF]
Background - The purpose of the meeting was to clarify points and outstanding questions
following a deputation submission re changes introduced at full Council in July. In a subsequent
email exchange KD had offered to meet any resident to discuss this (or any other) matter.
KD agreed to a request that notes be taken and forwarded to him for confirmation that a true
record.
LF asked why changes had not been included in forward plan. Constitution states residents have
right to find in forward plan any major decisions to be discussed. KD had stated changes were
significant. Other previous changes relating to Constitution had been referred to by Head of
Governance as relatively minor but had been included in forward plan and discussed at
committee stage. Inconsistency.
KD said thought forward plan might not be legal requirement.
LF said Govt. guidance accessed had included it.
KD said would check. Update 14th Oct. – When Council went back to a committee system the
move removed the obligation to publish the forward plan but it was decided to continue
with it as good practice.
LF asked why KD had advised a resident association no committee had been bypassed.
Constitutional issues lay within remit of Policy of Finance [now Treasury]. Head of Governance
had confirmed some changes had previously bypassed committee stage but not norm for future.
Concern expressed that information transferring from a personal blog directly to full Council.
KD said Council consisted of 48 councillors. Those councillors could choose to make changes.
LD said at odds with aim to renew democracy and put residents in power if not given
opportunity for input. Didn’t need public consultation as cost attached but could have
approached resident associations. Could avoid need to tweak and change in future. Also applied
to opposition parties. Should be more collaborative. Perception administration pushing changes
through.
KD agreed final point was case. Reiterated 48 Councillors made decision. Changes will open up
more opportunities for resident participation.
Discussion around scrutiny. KD gave history of Executive and cross-party committee systems.
Scrutiny had not sat often.
TK said existence of Scrutiny Panel better system for community call-ins. Gave example of
Fairfield. New process was less open.
KD said may seem opaque but allowed greater flexibility.
LF said little use did not mean it should not exist. Asked about task & finish groups in event of
any community call-ins [by 100 residents].
KD said residents would have to be included in task & finish group for a community call-in,
together with councillors and officers. Example given - if decision made at neighbourhood,
potential to set up a group to include three other neighbourhood chairs.
Result and decision to be given to relevant neighbourhood committee.
LF said call-in could be of a strategic committee decision. Referred to a Scrutiny Panel held
which related to home care charges.
KD said major issues would need more of an inquiry. This allowed for by flexibility of process.
Head of Governance, Andrew Bessant, currently re-writing the Constitution.
LF concerned a resident association was given misleading information by KD re major planning
applications and neighbourhood consultations. KD had incorrectly informed there to be no
change.
KD unable to clarify. On production of email KD advised information related to 10 units. KD
acknowledged email was open to confusion.
KD said changes would avoid unnecessary, lengthy discussions at neighbourhood on applications
with fewer objections. Gave example of bin store.
LF acquainted with application. Was different since retrospective plus subject of complaint as
environmental issue due to vermin.
Discussion around newly introduced developer presentations.
KD said needed tweaking. Wants less formality and less like usual committee layout. Possibility
of short adjournment after initial developer speech to allow residents time to arrange
speakers/questions/comments.
LF said neighbourhoods other than Kingston Town would now have to travel to Guildhall.
KD expressed desire to hold them in relevant neighbourhoods.
LF said it had been confirmed at Council that changes would entail no further cost. Asked if any
increase planned for new lead member posts.
KD said councillor allowances are to be subject of review.
LF said portfolio holders & lead members were previously one and same. Relevant lead member
roles held statutory responsibilities for adult and children’s services. Do statutory
responsibilities fall to current portfolio holders rather than lead members? Needs clarification.
KD thought had changed and responsibility now with Council leader.
KD said would check. Update 14th Oct. With the move to a committee system all powers were
restored to Full Council and delegated to committees. There is therefore no statutory nature to
the role of Portfolio holders.
TK said, with 3 month wait before next KT Neighbourhood meeting, Grove ward residents had
needed information on operation of committees/neighbourhood/ward forums. With this still
unavailable in early September, took it upon themselves to organise ward meeting/forum
with KT neighbourhood manager and local councillors to obtain information and address growth
& night time economy concerns.
TK requested Council continue to facilitate this for now.
KD said neighbourhood chairs should have details of new working arrangements. Opportunity to
co-opt residents onto committees.
LF said hoped would be successful. A previous M&C Community panel had been ineffective.
Athough pressed successfully for different terms of reference with intent for themes, it had not
happened. Street stalls and meets had been successfully initiated and held in Coombe Vale ward
during her term of office.
TK & LF both welcomed some of changes regarding intent to reach more residents and hoped
methods proved more effective and efficient.
LF asked if presentations now permitted from organisations at full Council. Thought public
participation only by petition or deputation but presentation given on safer neighbourhoods in
July.
KD said not intention. Mayor had allowed request for presentation as board chair had changed.
LF asked if Council had plan for tall building supplementary planning document [spd].
KD advised no further spds as Govt. changing local development plans. Reverting to UDPs. New
plan to be drawn up.
Meeting ended with general discussion around neighbourhood forums and development plans.
TK had attended workshops. KD in favour of plans. All agreed easier for villages/areas with
natural boundaries. Even if plan funded & drawn up, unlikely to achieve votes in referendum
required by Govt. given low voter turnout – as well as transient population in some areas.
LF & TK thanked KD for meeting.
Notes of meeting Friday 25th September 2015, Guildhall, 12 noon.
Present:
Cllr. Kevin Davis [KD]
Tessa Kind [TK]
Lynne Finnerty [LF]
Background - The purpose of the meeting was to clarify points and outstanding questions
following a deputation submission re changes introduced at full Council in July. In a subsequent
email exchange KD had offered to meet any resident to discuss this (or any other) matter.
KD agreed to a request that notes be taken and forwarded to him for confirmation that a true
record.
LF asked why changes had not been included in forward plan. Constitution states residents have
right to find in forward plan any major decisions to be discussed. KD had stated changes were
significant. Other previous changes relating to Constitution had been referred to by Head of
Governance as relatively minor but had been included in forward plan and discussed at
committee stage. Inconsistency.
KD said thought forward plan might not be legal requirement.
LF said Govt. guidance accessed had included it.
KD said would check. Update 14th Oct. – When Council went back to a committee system the
move removed the obligation to publish the forward plan but it was decided to continue
with it as good practice.
LF asked why KD had advised a resident association no committee had been bypassed.
Constitutional issues lay within remit of Policy of Finance [now Treasury]. Head of Governance
had confirmed some changes had previously bypassed committee stage but not norm for future.
Concern expressed that information transferring from a personal blog directly to full Council.
KD said Council consisted of 48 councillors. Those councillors could choose to make changes.
LD said at odds with aim to renew democracy and put residents in power if not given
opportunity for input. Didn’t need public consultation as cost attached but could have
approached resident associations. Could avoid need to tweak and change in future. Also applied
to opposition parties. Should be more collaborative. Perception administration pushing changes
through.
KD agreed final point was case. Reiterated 48 Councillors made decision. Changes will open up
more opportunities for resident participation.
Discussion around scrutiny. KD gave history of Executive and cross-party committee systems.
Scrutiny had not sat often.
TK said existence of Scrutiny Panel better system for community call-ins. Gave example of
Fairfield. New process was less open.
KD said may seem opaque but allowed greater flexibility.
LF said little use did not mean it should not exist. Asked about task & finish groups in event of
any community call-ins [by 100 residents].
KD said residents would have to be included in task & finish group for a community call-in,
together with councillors and officers. Example given - if decision made at neighbourhood,
potential to set up a group to include three other neighbourhood chairs.
Result and decision to be given to relevant neighbourhood committee.
LF said call-in could be of a strategic committee decision. Referred to a Scrutiny Panel held
which related to home care charges.
KD said major issues would need more of an inquiry. This allowed for by flexibility of process.
Head of Governance, Andrew Bessant, currently re-writing the Constitution.
LF concerned a resident association was given misleading information by KD re major planning
applications and neighbourhood consultations. KD had incorrectly informed there to be no
change.
KD unable to clarify. On production of email KD advised information related to 10 units. KD
acknowledged email was open to confusion.
KD said changes would avoid unnecessary, lengthy discussions at neighbourhood on applications
with fewer objections. Gave example of bin store.
LF acquainted with application. Was different since retrospective plus subject of complaint as
environmental issue due to vermin.
Discussion around newly introduced developer presentations.
KD said needed tweaking. Wants less formality and less like usual committee layout. Possibility
of short adjournment after initial developer speech to allow residents time to arrange
speakers/questions/comments.
LF said neighbourhoods other than Kingston Town would now have to travel to Guildhall.
KD expressed desire to hold them in relevant neighbourhoods.
LF said it had been confirmed at Council that changes would entail no further cost. Asked if any
increase planned for new lead member posts.
KD said councillor allowances are to be subject of review.
LF said portfolio holders & lead members were previously one and same. Relevant lead member
roles held statutory responsibilities for adult and children’s services. Do statutory
responsibilities fall to current portfolio holders rather than lead members? Needs clarification.
KD thought had changed and responsibility now with Council leader.
KD said would check. Update 14th Oct. With the move to a committee system all powers were
restored to Full Council and delegated to committees. There is therefore no statutory nature to
the role of Portfolio holders.
TK said, with 3 month wait before next KT Neighbourhood meeting, Grove ward residents had
needed information on operation of committees/neighbourhood/ward forums. With this still
unavailable in early September, took it upon themselves to organise ward meeting/forum
with KT neighbourhood manager and local councillors to obtain information and address growth
& night time economy concerns.
TK requested Council continue to facilitate this for now.
KD said neighbourhood chairs should have details of new working arrangements. Opportunity to
co-opt residents onto committees.
LF said hoped would be successful. A previous M&C Community panel had been ineffective.
Athough pressed successfully for different terms of reference with intent for themes, it had not
happened. Street stalls and meets had been successfully initiated and held in Coombe Vale ward
during her term of office.
TK & LF both welcomed some of changes regarding intent to reach more residents and hoped
methods proved more effective and efficient.
LF asked if presentations now permitted from organisations at full Council. Thought public
participation only by petition or deputation but presentation given on safer neighbourhoods in
July.
KD said not intention. Mayor had allowed request for presentation as board chair had changed.
LF asked if Council had plan for tall building supplementary planning document [spd].
KD advised no further spds as Govt. changing local development plans. Reverting to UDPs. New
plan to be drawn up.
Meeting ended with general discussion around neighbourhood forums and development plans.
TK had attended workshops. KD in favour of plans. All agreed easier for villages/areas with
natural boundaries. Even if plan funded & drawn up, unlikely to achieve votes in referendum
required by Govt. given low voter turnout – as well as transient population in some areas.
LF & TK thanked KD for meeting.
