Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies for absence were received from the following Councillors;

Ara;

Bambridge;

Bayford;

Braidwood;

Rattigan;

Smith;

Towning.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting of Council held on 10 October 2024, copy attached.

It was proposed by the Chair, seconded by the Vice-Chair and agreed that the minutes of the Council meeting held on 10 October 2024 be approved and signed by the Chair.

To receive any announcements from the Chairman, Leader, Members of the Cabinet or Chief Executive in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 2.2 (iv).

The Chair announced that former Councillor McCastree had recently passed away.

Councillors paused for a minute’s silence in respect of Councillor McCastree. Councillors gave tribute to former Councillor McCastree.

To receive any declarations of interest.  Members are advised to consider the advice contained within the Declaration of Interest advice attached to this Agenda.  If a Member declares an interest, they should complete the Declaration of Interest Form 

To receive petitions from the public in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12.

No new petitions were received in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12.

Ms Sabin Dawson asked Councillor Everitt the following question:

“As we know, nature is in crisis; with plummeting insect numbers, massive habitat loss and a changing climate we have many challenges ahead. The UK is one of the least biodiverse countries in the world and Thanet is a particularly challenged area. I would therefore like to ask the leader of the council if the council is fully prepared for the release of the Making Space for Nature report, the first ever Local Nature Recovery Strategy for Kent, when it is released in January and which department, member or officer will be responsible for taking any actions that are recommended?”

Councillor Everitt responsed:

·  The Kent & Medway Local Nature Recovery Strategy (LNRS) was due to be published in January will be a draft on which individuals and organisations across Kent can comment, before the Strategy is finalised.

·  KCC is the lead authority for the LNRS, and Council officers had been involved in a number of early engagement meetings with KCC, as part of the role of the Council as a “supporting authority” for the LNRS. The Council’s response to the consultation will involve a range of relevant departments.

Ms Brown asked Councillor Everitt the following question:

"Information source KCC:  ‘The birth rate has fallen in Thanet steadily since 2017 and continues to decrease. Kent Published Admission Number (PAN) for St Saviours school in Westgate on Sea to reduce from 96 to 64 from September 2025. PAN for St Crispin’s Community Primary Infant School to reduce from 90 to 60.

How can Thanet District Council continue to support Thanet’s high housing number targets with this clear evidence that Thanet’s population is shrinking instead of growing. Furthermore, if organizations like KCC are reducing services like education provision based on local population data, if Thanet District Council believes the population will grow from inward migration, how is KCC to provide adequate education provision for Thanet, when our local council is approving planning  applications for mass developments for residents outside our district?"

Councillor Everitt responded:

·  The Government methodology was based on total population change in the district over the whole Local Plan period to 2031. This included long-term trends in births, deaths, in-migration and out-migration. The figures were not based solely on Thanet birth-rates or just on natural population change within the district. It was not possible to make judgements about longer-term future population projections based on short-term trends, or single-year figures.

·  The annual KCC education commissioning plans were based on different statistics. Their place planning is dynamic and adjusted annually, meaning that it will change to reflect planning consents as and when they were granted and because children don’t enter school as soon as they are born they have time to make appropriate adjustments to the plan.

·  The Local Plan contained requirements for the provision of schools over the whole Plan period, and beyond, based on previous assessed requirements from KCC. The decisions on when to bring forward different elements of that provision are dependent to some extent on short-term changes in school cohorts.

·  The Council continued to liaise with service providers as part of the Local Plan process, and will be doing so again in relation to the new Local Plan, to seek to ensure that services are provided in a timely way, alongside new development.

Mr Grover was not present at the meeting. Therefore, a written response would be provided to the member of the public.

Mr Bell asked Councillor Everitt the following question:

“This summer, TDC threatened legal action against GRASS Cliftonville CIC and required us to remove railing banners promoting The Oval's charity events. These actions were taken under advertising restrictions that are poorly defined, selectively enforced by planning officers, and prohibitively expensive when applying for planning permission.

Community events are vital for tourism, community engagement, and venue sustainability. Can the Council confirm whether it plans to create and implement a policy establishing designated banner advertising spaces in high-footfall areas to support organisations promoting such events? If not, what measures will the Council take to ensure community and charitable events can be effectively promoted without incurring prohibitive costs or risking enforcement actions?

As a constructive suggestion, could the Council collaborate with organisations such as Visit Thanet to identify suitable locations and manage fair access to these spaces? This would provide an invaluable tool to support local cultural activities while reducing unsightly fly-posting.”

Councillor Everitt responded:

·  The Council would investigate unauthorised advertisement posting, which is a criminal offence, irrespective of who carried out the breach.

·  Notwithstanding this, the Council recognised the contribution made by community organisations and local business to social and economic wellbeing, and would consider the need for a policy/strategy to cover advertisements and the potential for approved areas for posting events.

·  The Council had local plan policy, QD06 covering the advertising. Any potential locations would need to be considered within the context of this policy.

·  Policy QD06 reads as follows:

·  Applications for advertisements will be considered in relation to their effects upon amenity and public safety. Regard will be paid to the surrounding location, manner of illumination (if proposed), material composition, design and relationship to the land, building or structure to which they are to be affixed. Advertisements should not dominate but should be in balance with the character, townscape and architecture of

the buildings on which they are situated. Regard should be paid to the proximity of any listed buildings or structures, and any impact to their setting.

Mr Giddens asked Councillor Everitt the following question:

“As a consequence of implementing the current Local Plan, Thanet is becoming a vast urban sprawl. It's the size of a city but unplanned and without essential infrastructure and services to support it. You are reviewing that Plan. This will inevitably result in more agricultural land being allocated for development. Please can you outline the strategic approach you are taking, particularly the criteria for allocating sites and when residents will be informed of your proposals. Thank you.”

Councillor Everitt responded:

·  In assessing sites for potential allocation in the Local Plan, a range of issues would need to be considered in line with Government guidance – namely, suitability; availability; and achievability.

·  Government guidance on how land and sites should be assessed is set out in the Planning Practice Guidance Note on “Housing and economic land availability assessment”. Sites are also assessed under separate criteria as part of the Sustainability Appraisal process.

·  It is unlikely that  the Council would be in a position to consult on these matters until the end of next year.

Mr Murray asked Councillor Everitt the following question:

“Of those councillors who sit on TDC’s Planning Committee how many have had any external training on planning, e.g. by bodies such as the Planning Advisory Service (PAS) or the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI), as recommended by the LGA, Probity in Planning, Dec 2019.”

Councillor Everitt responded:

·  None of the members of Planning Committee have had training from PAS or the RTPI arranged by the Council.

·  However, all Planning Committee members have received planning training delivered internally within the last year.

·  It is set out in the Council’s constitution that all Councillors must have this planning training before they can sit on the Committee.

·  The Council always seeks to ensure that members of its Committees have the relevant training in order to make sound and cogent decisions.

·  Notably PAS’s own guidance cites as best practice named authorities who appear to carry out their own training. Within this, Thanet’s planning committee arrangements were identified by PAS as providing best practice in another aspect of their guidance.

Mr Solly asked Councillor Everitt the following question:

“Regarding Councillors Wings comments on the planning committee on November 26th where affordable housing was in debate and some answers was not available from officers.

Can the council answer the question to how much affordable housing has been approved and delivered in the local plan period so far, as a percentage? And how many affordable houses are planned in the local plan period?”

Councillor Everitt responded:

·  The Local Plan had a policy that seeks 30% affordable housing to be delivered on qualifying sites, sites of more than ten dwellings subject to viability, in line with Government guidance.

·  During the Local Plan period, to the end of the 2023-24 monitoring year, 1,182 affordable units had been delivered in the district, either via s106 agreements or directly by social housing providers, including the council itself.

·  Housing completions over the same period total 5,398, which would mean that affordable dwellings comprise 22% of the total completions.

Councillor Wing asked Councillor Yates the following question:

“The recent budget presented by the government will see the following changes from April 2025:

1. The rate of employer's NI contributions (NICs), will increased by 1.2% points to 15%,

2. The lowering of the secondary threshold (ST), which will mean employers will start to pay NICs on employees earnings from £5,000 instead of the current £9,100 threshold and

3. An increase of 6.7% in the national minimum wage from £11.44 to £12.21.

What will be the financial impact of each of these changes for Thanet District Council in the next financial year in terms of the amount of additional money to be found and where will this money come from?”

Councillor Yates responded:

·  The impact of Employers NI increasing to 15% would lead to a £175k impact to the Council. The government had fully committed to fund local authorities for any additional direct staff costs in relation to this.

·  The impact of lowering the secondary threshold would be a 323k impact to the Council. Again, the government has fully committed to fund local authorities in relation to this.

·  In relation to the National Living Wage increase, this would result in a £98k increase in staff costs. The council was actively addressing this as part of the overall cost of its staff pay for next year’s budget setting.

·  One reason the Council had delayed presenting a draft budget in December 2024 was due to the financial settlement that the Council would receive is still yet to be finalised. In January 2025, the Council would be presenting the budget, which would show in detail exactly how our funding pressures will be met.

Councillor Wing followed up her question by asking a supplementary question. The question asked whether the council had looked at the impact to local businesses, and whether the council had looked into how many job losses would be a consequence?

Councillor Yates would respond to the supplementary question in writing.

Councillor Worrow asked Councillor Everitt the following question:

"Can the leader please confirm that all residents in my ward who are affected by the proposal to use council owned farmland for non-farming purposes have been properly notified by letter as part of the consultation process?"

Councillor Everitt responed with the following points:

·  It was confirmed that the council had posted letters directly to 1,370 households in proximity to the proposed site on land between Shottendane Road and Caxton Road, in Garlinge. Letters were posted on Thursday 10 October 2024.

·  Addresses were drawn from a significantly larger area than that covered by a statutory planning consultation and included all addresses in the area between High Street, Garlinge and Hartsdown Road and between George V Avenue and Shottendane Road. Addresses to the south of Shottendane Road were also included.

·  Details of the consultation were posted on Your Voice Thanet on 9 October and supported by an article posted on the council’s website.

·  In addition, the Council posted a link on the council’s FaceBook page on 9 October and again on 24 October. It also was included in the council’s The Wave newsletter, which is read by more than 4,000 residents, on 3 October and again on 7 November.

·  The consultation was live and closed on 17 December 2024.

Councillor Worrow followed up this question by asking why certain residents had not received a letter?

Councillor Everitt responded that the Council had used its best efforts and attempted to contact all those affected.

Councillor Austin asked Councillor Everitt the following question:

“Green & Independent Group members wholeheartedly welcome the Government's current consultation on enabling remote attendance and proxy voting at local authority meetings.

We know from our experience during the pandemic that greater flexibility in modes of attendance helps us all fulfil our duties more easily, enabling better use of our time, making participation easier for members juggling work and family commitments and reducing our carbon emissions.

Enabling remote attendance and proxy voting for appropriate meetings would, in the longer term, also make it easier for us to recruit a wider and more representative range of Councillor candidates, to the benefit of this Council and the communities we serve.

Can the Leader assure us that the Council will be responding positively to the consultation, and that if the measures are approved, we will give full consideration to how we might best use the new flexibilities here in Thanet?”

Councillor Everitt responded:

·  The council would be responding positively to the consultation regarding remote attendance at meetings. It had been agreed that councils should have the flexibility to make their own arrangements to best suit their individual circumstances. This didn’t mean that the council would necessarily embrace complete flexibility, because there could be challenges in running fully hybrid meetings. It will also need to reflect the technology that is available to the council.

·  However, the council was not in favour of proxy voting. There were a host of potential issues with proxy voting, particularly regarding predetermination at regulatory committees.

·  The council would look carefully at any new legislation and any subsequent best practice guidance and consider what arrangements suit TDC best.

·  Assuming there was flexibility in the legislation this would ultimately be decisions for all councillors to make as they will need to be incorporated into the constitution.

Councillor Austin had no supplementary question present at the meeting, but would send a supplementary question to Councillor Everitt in due course after the meeting had concluded.

Councillor Pressland asked Councillor Everitt the following question:

“As members may be aware, Biodiversity Net Gain on all new builds is now a legal requirement from 12th February 2024 for major projects and April 2024 for small new builds. Please can planning confirm how many developments so far in Thanet are now having to adhere to that criteria and how planning are monitoring this practically on the ground, so the developers honour ongoing aftercare/management to genuinely achieve the 10% higher level of biodiversity under these new legal obligations.”

Councillor Everitt responded:

·  Since the changes to regulations were enacted for major and minor applications, 194 applications have been received which could have been required to provide the 10% statutory net gain.

·  However, the majority of these applications were exempt due to being either de minimis, as the area of habitat on the site is less than 25sqm, retrospective or self build development.

·  36 planning applications of those submitted are required to provide 10% net gain, with the BNG metric submitted.

·  Only 4 have so far had been approved, which would be subject to requirement for a Biodiversity net gain plan to be submitted, outlining whether the BNG is provided on site, off site or whether statutory credits are purchased.

·  The Council is yet to receive any BNG plans as developments on those applications are yet to progress.

·  The Council was also considering the need for a monitoring fee through planning obligations to ensure that the Council has sufficient resources to monitor when significant on-site biodiversity net gain is proposed, as well as monitoring new developments through the enforcement of planning conditions.

Councillor Pressland followed up his question by asking a supplementary question. The questioning asked whether cabinet could look at using software tools, like nature metrics or greenly, to ascertain a more balanced and mitigated approach of biodiversity and Co2 values?

Councillor Everitt would respond to this question in writing.

Councillor W.Scobie asked Councillor Everitt the following question:

"Does the Leader believe that a change should be made to the Minutes of Full Council meetings to record when a Councillor leaves early?"

Councillor Everitt responded:

·  Council minutes usually reflect this information and consequently no change is required to current practice in this regard.

·  If this suggestion has arisen as a result of a failure to record such information at any earlier council meetings, it was recommended that an approach be made to Democratic Services requesting an amendment to the relevant minutes.

·  It was evident that  a large number of councillors left well before the end of the last meeting, even though it finished before 10pm.

·  The council was understanding to personal circumstances which sometimes require individual councillors to leave early, but when half or even the whole of a political group goes missing it would seem appropriate that a public record was kept in the interests of transparency.

Councillor W.Scobie followed up this question with a supplementary question asking whether the meeting would still be in quorate?

Councillor Everitt responded that the Labour majority would make the Council Meeting quorate, and quorums are taken into consideration at all points of the meeting.

Councillor Manners asked Councillor Duckworth the following question:

“May I have an update on progress (or future plan) to let the sports pavilion in Northdown Park to a suitable community organisation. If no tenant with agreed terms has been identified to date what is TDC doing to make the offering more attractive, ie asking rental, term and assisting with refurb costs?”

Councillor Duckworth responded:

·  The council had marketed the sports pavilion at Northdown Park and had received interest from potential tenants.

·  The council had progressed with a preferred tenant and were in the process of agreeing the terms for the lease.

·  Officers would provide an update to the ward members once the negotiation and agreement process has been completed. Regarding the rent, there was no need to discuss adjustments to attract more tenants, as we currently have a tenant lined up for the sports pavilion.

There was no supplementary question asked.

Councillor Kup asked Councillor Everitt the following question:

'"TDC fell short of meeting housing targets by 4%; 71% of housing applications had been 'achieved' within the Government's cut-off deadline.  Can you confirm whether or not developments, such as the 200 properties earmarked for the Deaf School site (which is seen as a windfall), go towards reducing our housing target figure of 17,140 houses?  The council was short by 4% - how many houses was that figure?"

Councillor Everitt responded:

·  All Local Plan allocations, and new developments with planning permission (including “windfall” permissions),  count towards meeting the Councils’ housing requirements. The 4% shortfall against the HDT 75% threshold represents 83 units.

·  The housing delivery target was taken as an average over the previous three years.

·  No HDT results for 2023 have been published by the government.

·  The local plan includes a step change increase in the annual housing target after 2021, which was introduced during examination, so the bar will be higher for later years.

·  However, there were many factors that affect housing delivery, including market conditions,  and most of them are not within the council’s control.

·  The council’s own ambitious housing programme is helping to boost supply, including building new homes on council land, but the rate of delivery is largely determined by the appetite of developers.

There was no supplementary question asked.

Councillor Davis asked Councillor Everitt the following question:

"The current TDC Local Plan includes an objective that new developments include 30% affordable housing, yet even massive development projects regularly claim that they cannot achieve this figure, despite huge economies of scale. These residences are meant to be for the benefit of the local population, and to offset the effects of a vastly inflated housing market that bears no relationship to local income levels.

The Planning Committee on 26/11/24 approved a huge development of 1600 houses which will destroy the fields surrounding Birchington, whilst allowing the developer to offer only approximately 50% of TDC's stated policy objective. At said meeting, an officer stated they didn't how many developments had achieved the 30% target, so my question to Cllr Whitehead is, "How many developments have been approved since January 2022 which actually achieve our stated objective of 30%, and how many have been approved which do not?"

Councillor Everitt responded:

·  Policy SP23 stated that housing applications for more than 10 dwellings were required to provide 30% affordable housing unless meeting that requirement would demonstrably make the proposed development unviable.

·  The council did not simply accept the viability claims of the developer, it commissioned an independent assessment of their calculation and uses that as a basis for decision-making.

·  Since the 1st January 2022, the Council had approved 21 applications for more than 10 dwellings either in outline or full planning permission where the affordable housing requirement was triggered. Of these, 12 provided 30% on-site affordable housing, 3 provided a reduced amount of affordable housing,  4 provided a contribution to affordable housing in the area, and 2 did not provide affordable housing as it was demonstrated with evidence that the developments would be un-viable if it was provided. In the same period, the planning inspectorate approved 3 applications refused by the Council for more than 10 dwellings, one with 30% affordable, one with 15% affordable housing, and one with a contribution to affordable housing.

There was no supplementary question asked.

Councillor Fellows asked Councillor Duckworth the following question:

“With all the regeneration taking place in Thanet, can you tell us when this council will ever tackle or deal with the long standing blight on Margate that is Arlington Arcade?”

Councillor Duckworth responded:

·  The council owned the freehold of Arlington Arcade, with the head lease held by Metropolitan Property Realisations Ltd. In the same way as Arlington House itself, the council’s ability to take any action under the lease is extremely limited. The council did have a power to inspect, but it is for the leaseholder to decide about the use of the space and the lease includes no powers for the council to force the leaseholder to take action to bring the arcade back into use.

·  The council also had enforcement powers related to both Building Control and Planning Enforcement. However neither regime provides the council with the power to compel the redevelopment of the site. We will continue to monitor the site to ensure that it remains properly hoarded and that it doesn’t pose a risk to the public.

·  The government has introduced new regulations linked to the Levelling Up Act 2023 to introduce High Street Retail Auctions. We will be investigating these new powers to see if it gives us the ability to take any

meaningful action to bring disused retail space back into use. The extent to which these new powers may or may not be appropriate for Arlington Arcade is not yet known.

Councillor Fellows followed up this question by asking a supplementary question, noting that parts of Margate would make a great creative corner, with the suggestion that Councillor Duckworth should bring this idea to the land trust and report back with any responses.

Councillor Duckworth agreed this was a good idea and would be followed up.

To receive any Notices of Motion from Members of Council in accordance with the Council Procedure Rule 3.

It was proposed by Councillor Pressland and seconded by Councillor Garner that:

“The Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is a system that puts a market price on

carbon emissions. It currently applies to the aviation industry, and the last

Government proposed to expand it to the incineration of waste from 2028.

New analysis by the Local Government Association shows that the proposals could cost councils as much as £747 million in 2028 and could rise to £1.1 billion in 2036, with a total cumulative cost over this period as high as £6.5 billion.

In response to a consultation on the scheme, the LGA is calling on the Government to ensure the costs are passed on to the industries creating fossil-based material in the first place – such as found in packaging, textiles, electricals and furniture.

By placing this cost on industry, the Government will incentivise producers to reduce the level of fossil-based material created in the first place while also raising funding for alternative solutions.

This motion calls on the council to:

Agree with the LGA’s approach and write to the relevant Government minister calling on them to introduce a tax on the industries creating fossil based material in the first place.”

In accordance with council procedure rule 3.7 Councillor Albon provided a response to the motion.

It was proposed by Councillor Garner, seconded by Councillor Wing and Councillors agreed to debate the motion.

Councillors debated the motion, Councillors agreed and the motion was carried.

It was proposed by Councillor Everitt and seconded by Councillor Albon that:

“Council notes that it does not have the power to revoke the Local Plan; recognises that revocation of the Local Plan would not protect agricultural land in Thanet currently allocated for housing in any event and would also have other unintended consequences; and endorses the approach on these matters contained in the response submitted by this council to the new government's consultation on changes to the National Planning Policy Framework.”

It was agreed that the opposition Leader in accordance with council procedure rule 3.7 would provide a response to the motion. Councillor Pugh provided a response to the motion.

It was proposed by Councillor Albon, seconded by Councillor K.Bright and Councillors agreed to debate the motion.

Councillor Pugh made an amendment to the motion, Councillor Kup seconded the amended motion:

“Council notes that it does not have the power to revoke the Local Plan but can, if it chooses to do so, write to the Secretary of State to ask for the Local Plan to be revoked. It also recognises that revocation of the Local Plan might not protect agricultural land in Thanet currently allocated for housing could also have other unintended consequences; and endorses the approach on these matters contained in the response submitted by this council to the new government's consultation on changes to the National Planning Policy Framework.”

Councillors voted on the amended motion, and the amended motion was lost.

Councillors voted on the original motion, and the motion was carried. The motion carried read:

“Council notes that it does not have the power to revoke the Local Plan; recognises that revocation of the Local Plan would not protect agricultural land in Thanet currently allocated for housing in any event and would also have other unintended consequences; and endorses the approach on these matters contained in the response submitted by this council to the new government's consultation on changes to the National Planning Policy Framework.”

To receive a report from the Leader of the Council in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 2.4.

The Leader, Councillor Everitt, presented his report to Council, covering the following  key points:

·  Well wishes for Christmas and New Year were given. Additionally, with congratulations to Councillor Pugh on the birth of his second child.

·  The council had important work ahead before the Christmas break, including decisions regarding temporary accommodation. The council proposed acquiring 170 properties for temporary accommodation, a project involving significant financial modelling and external advice. If approved, the necessary borrowing will be included in the 2025/26 budget, with each acquisition needing further viability assessments.

·  The council housed 300 households in temporary accommodation in December 2024, many of which are placed outside the area. Efforts were underway to reduce out-of-area placements by acquiring new properties and using them for temporary housing.

·  This initiative aimed to address the spiralling costs of temporary accommodation, a burden on local taxpayers. Though the scheme would not eliminate the need for temporary accommodation, it was seen as a step in the right direction.

·  There had been ongoing efforts for more affordable housing.

·  It was noted that there was an upcoming White Paper for the local government. While supportive of a unitary model for East Kent, it was stressed that there was importance of maintaining control over local services and addressing challenges from Kent County Council, which was argued to often leaves Thanet residents without sufficient influence.

·  The council continued to work on significant regeneration projects in Margate and Ramsgate, and recent developments such as a virtual reality tour of Ramsgate projects showcase how technology can engage residents.

·  Tourism remained a central part of the economy, with a marked increase in visitors, and the council is working on strategies to balance tourism and the needs of local residents.

·  There had been progress made in resolving longstanding issues, including parking strategy, small grants for community organizations, and the success of the second Teenage Market.

·  Thanks were given to all staff who work outside during the winter, and acknowledgements were given to the contributions of all council workers in 2024, concluding that the temporary accommodation project marks a strong finish to the year.

Councillor Pugh, as Leader of the Conservative Group, made the following points:

·  Thanks were given to the housing team for their work on the temporary accommodation acquisition policy, acknowledging the comprehensive presentation but expressed reservations about loan agreements and the process of paying them off.

·  Regarding local government reorganization, the need for real detail in the upcoming white paper was emphasised, noting that change is necessary.

·  It was welcomed that tourism had seen the return of numbers to pre-Covid levels and there was expressed support for the success of Margate's market and the town in general.

·  However, concerns were raised about vacancy rates in Ramsgate, which have reached an all-time high, with 1 in 4 properties empty, asking when real changes and updates would be seen.

·  The parking review brought forward by K. Bright to the OSP was welcomed, recalling that a former cabinet member had attempted to address this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Councillor Fellows, Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel, presented the report. It was noted that the panel had been busy, with big issues being scrutinised. Scrutiny reviews had been passed by Cabinet on the negative impacts of tourism and another on the external grant funding and interactions with voluntary organisations.

Councillors noted the report.

Councillor Yates proposed, Councillor Keen seconded, Councillors agreed the

recommendations as set out in the report be adopted namely:

“The recommended option (to ensure regulatory compliance as set out in section 1 of this report) is that Council: Makes comments on this report and annexes as appropriate; Approves this report and annexes (including the prudential and treasury indicators that are shown and the proposed changes to the 2024/25 Treasury Management Strategy Statement). Alternatively, Council may decide not to do this and advise the reason(s) why.

Councillor Everitt proposed, Councillor W.Scobie seconded and Councillors agreed that Councillor J.Bright was to be added to the River Stour Board, a Non-Executive Outside Body. Additionally, that Councillor Keen was removed from the Multiple Sclerosis Society.

The Chair proposed, the Vice-Chair seconded, and Councillors agreed the

recommendations as set out in the report be adopted namely:

“It is recommended that the Full Council agree:

1. To amend the Council’s constitution to include the Council’s Licensing Policy Statement and Statement of Gambling Principles in the Policy Framework as matters that must be decided by Full Council.”

The Chair proposed, the Vice-Chair seconded, and Councillors agreed the

recommendations as set out in the report be adopted namely:

“It is recommended that Full Council agree the following amendments to the Councillor’s Code of Conduct:

1. To amend the Councillors Code of Conduct to include as a general obligation the requirement to treat Councillors, officers and members of the public with respect

2. To amend the Councillors Code of Conduct to include as a general obligation the requirement to promote equalities and not to discriminate unlawfully against any person.”