Agenda and minutes

The Mayor’s Chaplain, Father Philipp Ziomek, addressed council and gave a reading.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Allan and Pearson.

The Mayor confirmed she had undertaken many community events since the last meeting and noted how much she enjoyed the Netherfield senior citizens easter lunch and her introductory meeting with the new Lord Lieutenant, Professor Victoria Pickering.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the above meetings, having been circulated, be approved as correct records.

None.

None.

Question 1 – Received from Matthew Francis

On the 24 January, the Mayor was asked by Councillor Whiting why she had taken the decision to disallow motion one, regarding the conflict in Gaza. The Mayor stated one reason, in that she did not believe it complied with Paragraph 7.12 (e) of Section 4 of the Gedling Borough Council Constitution. It has since come to light, through an information request, that the Mayor also disallowed motion one, because she believed that it could cause untold damage to the reputation of the council amongst certain communities if voted on and reported in the press, and she also believed it held the possibility of threats to the personal security of members of the council or the public.

In the spirit of honesty and transparency, when asked by Councillor Whiting for the reasons behind the disallowing of motion one, why did you not make these other two reasons known to the council, and the public at large?

Question 2 – Received by Auvil Graham

I emailed Michael Payne, copying in John Clarke, on 31 January and received a reply on 8 April. The reply does not answer my question.

In my original email I noted of nearly 50 councillors, officers, and members of the public in attendance at the full council meeting of January 2024, apart from myself there was only one other person from a visible ethnic minority.

Given the deputy leader’s response to a constituent’s question at that meeting in which he said the council takes its responsibility for equality and diversity seriously and that all protected characteristics are equally important, I question the validity of that statement.

According to the most recent equality monitoring data (2021) only 4.4% of the council’s employees were from visible minorities against a population of about 10%. I don’t have the current figures even though the delay in answering my question was apparently to ensure up-to-date information. I am not aware of any non-white councillors on GBC.

I had asked that given the councils stated commitment to equality I would be very grateful to know how GBC intends to make the council more representative ethnically of the public it serves and efforts to engage the council’s minority ethnic population in all activities including local democracy. The reply from the leader and deputy leader does not, unfortunately, answer my question. Indeed, it does not specifically address under-representation of minority ethnic people at all. I would be grateful for a clear answer.

How does GBC intend to make the council more representative ethnically of the public it serves and engage the council’s minority ethnic population in all activities, including local democracy?

Two questions were received and both questioners were in attendance to ask their questions. The questions and answers are as follows:

Question 1 – Asked by Matthew Francis

On the 24 January, the Mayor was asked by Councillor Whiting why she had taken the decision to disallow motion one, regarding the conflict in Gaza. The Mayor stated one reason, in that she did not believe it complied with Paragraph 7.12 (e) of Section 4 of the Gedling Borough Council Constitution. It has since come to light, through an information request, that the Mayor also disallowed motion one, because she believed that it could cause untold damage to the reputation of the council amongst certain communities if voted on and reported in the press, and she also believed it held the possibility of threats to the personal security of members of the council or the public.

In the spirit of honesty and transparency, when asked by Councillor Whiting for the reasons behind the disallowing of motion one, why did you not make these other two reasons known to the council, and the public at large?

Answer 1 – given by the Mayor, Cllr Julie Najuk

When I was considering the motion from the independent members in relation to the conflict in Gaza, back in January, I did hold the view, as outlined in the question, that the motion could damage the Council’s reputation and cause a security risk to members, in addition to the view that it did not accord with the constitution. I emailed my views to the Chief Executive explaining the motion was disallowed.

I have authority as Mayor, to determine the validity of motions under para 7.12 (e) of the constitution. In exercise of that specific power, the constitutional grounds for refusal of the motion on which I relied, were that the motion did not, in my opinion, comply with para 7.12 (e) of section 4 of the Constitution, in that I did not consider it was relevant to a matter in relation to which the Council had powers and responsibilities or which affects the borough, as the motion related to national foreign policy.

Whilst I expressed wider reasons privately, I have exercised my mayoral authority, in line with paragraph 7.12 (e) of the constitution and that is the reason I gave, in line with that authority in a public meeting.

Question 2 – Asked by Auvil Graham

I emailed Michael Payne, copying in John Clarke, on 31 January and received a reply on 8 April. The reply does not answer my question.

In my original email I noted of nearly 50 councillors, officers, and members of the public in attendance at the full council meeting of January 2024, apart from myself there was only one other person from a visible ethnic minority.

Given the deputy leader’s response to a constituent’s question at that meeting in which he said the council takes its responsibility for equality and diversity seriously and that all protected characteristics are equally important, I  ...  view the full minutes text for item 110.

Question from Cllr Whiting to the Portfolio Holder for Climate Change and Natural Habitat:

-        Football at Colwick Rec is contributing to parking chaos in local roads every Saturday morning. With more pitches being used than advertised and insufficient facilities for players, what steps are being taken to reduce the number of pitches in use at Colwick and find suitable facilities elsewhere for the teams?

A question was asked of the Portfolio Holder for Climate Change and Natural Habitat from Councillor Whiting as follows:

 “Football at Colwick Rec is contributing to parking chaos in local roads every Saturday morning. With more pitches being used than advertised and insufficient facilities for players, what steps are being taken to reduce the number of pitches in use at Colwick and find suitable facilities elsewhere for the teams?”

Response from Councillor V McCrossen:

Thank you for your question and your keen interest around getting a resolution for Colick. As you are aware, I met with the parish council and with the football team – we were there on Saturday morning when the teams were playing, and we had discussions in regard to the situation.

Colwick recreation ground has three football pitches and a changing pavilion which has been used for over 30 years for the purpose of training and matches and the current incumbent team, Mapperley Allstars, are indeed a very popular team. During the season, 2 of the 3 pitches are used on a Saturday with each pitch hosting 2 junior clubs – 1 for 5 a side and 1 for 9 a side games – and there is an occasional Sunday game too.

Such activities are part of our Gedling plan of health and wellbeing and our objectives in terms of improving health and wellbeing for young people and we would want to continue to encourage our young people in borough to keep healthy and active and improve their mental health. In one sense it is really positive that so many young people are playing football and that Mapperley Allstars have such a large group of children. The parking situation on a Saturday morning when there is heightened use of that facility isn’t good – we do know that since covid and the pandemic the percentage of use decreased so it is good that people are using open spaces and getting out and again is a good thing, but we know that it has increased some of the use of Colwick which is a very popular spot in our borough. We also know that the city introduced car parking charges into Colwick park which is adjacent to the Colwick recreational grounds and of course we as the borough don’t charge for our car parking so it makes our car park looks very attractive and we know that’s a decision that the city council have taken, and we know that our officers have has discussion with the city council and that will remain. We also know that park runs, which also fit in with our health and wellbeing strategy, are very well attended and these unfortunately clash with the children’s football teams.

Our officers have had discussions with them about this to see whether it is possible to put the park run on a different day, but we have been unable to negotiate that. All of these things attract people, so it is a bit of a hotspot  ...  view the full minutes text for item 111.

No comments were made.

Report of the Interim Corporate Director

Consideration was given to a report of the Interim Corporate Director and Monitoring Officer which sought approval of the amended councils’ procedural rules.

A revised set of recommendations than those printed in the agenda pack were proposed by Councillor John Clarke and seconded by Councillor Payne, in the following terms:

That Council:

1.              Agrees the amended procedure rules at Appendix 1 to this report, with the additional amendment of amending the words 'three Members' to 'five Members' in clause 7.12 paras f and g.

2.              Authorises the Monitoring Office to update the Constitution and any minor amendment to formatting or typographical errors.

RESOLVED that Council:

1.              Agrees the amended procedure rules at Appendix 1 to this report, with the additional amendment of amending the words 'three Members' to 'five Members' in clause 7.12 paras f and g.

2.              Authorises the Monitoring Office to update the Constitution and any minor amendment to formatting or typographical errors.

Report of the Housing and Welfare Manager

Consideration was given to a report of the Housing and Welfare Manager which sought approval to reconfirm the 100% discretionary disregard applied without revision in the calculation of Housing Benefit for all War Widows (Widowers)/War Disablement Scheme and the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme income received.

A revised set of recommendations than those printed in the agenda pack were proposed by Councillor John Clarke and seconded by Councillor Payne, in the following terms:

That:

·       All income from War Widows (Widowers)/War Disablement Scheme and the Armed Forces Compensation Schemes be fully disregard when assessing entitlement to Housing Benefit, and by extension Discretionary Housing Payments.

RESOLVED that:

·       All income from War Widows (Widowers)/War Disablement Scheme and the Armed Forces Compensation Schemes be fully disregard when assessing entitlement to Housing Benefit, and by extension Discretionary Housing Payments.

None.

Motion 1

The council notes the obligations it owes to the Armed Forces community within

Gedling Borough as enshrined in the Armed Forces Covenant; that the Armed Forces community should not face disadvantage in the provision of services and that special consideration is appropriate in some cases, especially for those who have given the most. Gedling Borough Council along with all other local authorities in Great Britain, has proudly signed the Armed Forces Covenant.

That in the course of their service in His Majesty’s Armed Forces, some members of the Armed Forces Community, by virtue of the often dangerous and risky nature of their work, or environments in which they are required to operate, become wounded, injured, or sick in such a way that affects their life in a permanent or significant way.

That a number of military compensation schemes exist to recognise and compensate

Service Personnel and sometimes their families, for the hardship, inconvenience or

ongoing impact conditions such as PTSD, limb loss, hearing loss etc. Military compensation can be awarded through the War Pension Scheme (WPS), Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS) or through a veteran’s occupational Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS), known as Service Invaliding Pensions (SIPs) or Service Attributable Pensions (SAPs). Compensation awards under these schemes may also include supplementary payments. This compensation often interacts with benefits issued through Local Authorities and may impact a veteran’s entitlement to such benefits.

That whilst some benefits such as Universal Credit rightly disregard military

compensation as income, others administered by or subject to the discretion of Local

Authorities, do not always do so, meaning that some veterans must give up their compensation in order to access essential financial support.

A 2022 Freedom of Information request by the Royal British Legion showed that only

one in five (19%) of Local Authorities in Great Britain rightly disregarded all military

compensation when assessing local benefits claims for Housing Benefit, Council Tax

Support, Discretionary Housing Payments and Disabled Facilities Grants.

In light of the above, this council resolves;

1.     That no member of the Armed Forces Community should be forced to give up their military compensation to access the same welfare support as their civilian counterparts.

2.     To support the Royal British Legion’s call for all forms of military compensation to be disregarded as income in the assessment and administration of locally administered benefits over which this council exercises discretion; Council Tax Reductions, Housing benefit, discretionary housing payments and Disabled Facilities grants.

3.     To ask the executive to review relevant local policies, to reflect such a position and report back to an appropriate meeting of this Council.

Proposer: Cllr Mike Adams

Seconder: Cllr Boyd Elliott

Motion 2

This Council resolves to review the approach to Strategic and Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy allocation, to ensure it is expended effectively in local communities where development has or will take place and in consultation with those local communities and ward members.

Proposer: Cllr Sam Smith

Seconder: Cllr Mike Adams

Motion 1

Councillor Adams, seconded by Councillor Elliot, proposed a motion in the following terms:

The council notes the obligations it owes to the Armed Forces community within Gedling Borough as enshrined in the Armed Forces Covenant; that the Armed Forces community should not face disadvantage in the provision of services and that special consideration is appropriate in some cases, especially for those who have given the most. Gedling Borough Council along with all other local authorities in Great Britain, has proudly signed the Armed Forces Covenant.

That in the course of their service in His Majesty’s Armed Forces, some members of the Armed Forces Community, by virtue of the often dangerous and risky nature of their work, or environments in which they are required to operate, become wounded, injured, or sick in such a way that affects their life in a permanent or significant way.

That a number of military compensation schemes exist to recognise and compensate Service Personnel and sometimes their families, for the hardship, inconvenience or ongoing impact conditions such as PTSD, limb loss, hearing loss etc. Military compensation can be awarded through the War Pension Scheme (WPS), Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS) or through a veteran’s occupational Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS), known as Service Invaliding Pensions (SIPs) or Service Attributable Pensions (SAPs). Compensation awards under these schemes may also include supplementary payments. This compensation often interacts with benefits issued through Local Authorities and may impact a veteran’s entitlement to such benefits.

That whilst some benefits such as Universal Credit rightly disregard military compensation as income, others administered by or subject to the discretion of Local Authorities, do not always do so, meaning that some veterans must give up their compensation in order to access essential financial support.

A 2022 Freedom of Information request by the Royal British Legion showed that only

one in five (19%) of Local Authorities in Great Britain rightly disregarded all military compensation when assessing local benefits claims for Housing Benefit, Council Tax Support, Discretionary Housing Payments and Disabled Facilities Grants.

 In light of the above, this council resolves:

1.        That no member of the Armed Forces Community should be forced to give up their military compensation to access the same welfare support as their civilian counterparts.

2.        To support the Royal British Legion’s call for all forms of military compensation to be disregarded as income in the assessment and administration of locally administered benefits over which this council exercises discretion; Council Tax Reductions, Housing benefit, discretionary housing payments and Disabled Facilities grants.

3.        To ask the executive to review relevant local policies, to reflect such a position and report back to an appropriate meeting of this Council.

Proposer: Councillor Mike Adams

Seconder: Councillor Boyd Elliott

An amended motion was proposed and seconded by Councillor Payne and Clarke, in the following terms:

The council notes the obligations it owes to the Armed Forces community within Gedling Borough as enshrined in the Armed Forces Covenant; that the Armed Forces community should not face  ...  view the full minutes text for item 116.