Agenda

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?

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?

Report of the Interim Corporate Director

Report of the Housing and Welfare Manager

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