Agenda Item
4
FULL COUNCIL
Minutes of a meeting of North Norfolk District Council held on 26 September 2012 at the
Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 6.00 pm.
Members Present:
Mr M J M Baker
Mrs L Brettle
Mrs A ClaussenReynolds
Mr N D Dixon
Mrs H Eales
Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett
Mr T FitzPatrick
Mrs A Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
Mr B J Hannah
Mr P W High
Mr T Ivory
Mr B Jarvis
Officers in
Attendance:
Also in
Attendance:
49.
Mr K E Johnson
Mr G Jones
Mr J H A Lee
Mr N Lloyd
Mrs B McGoun
Mrs A Moore
Mr P W Moore
Mr W J Northam
Mr R Oliver
Miss B Palmer
Mr R Reynolds
Mr E Seward
Mr R Shepherd
Mr B Smith
Mr R Smith
Mr R Stevens
Mrs A Sweeney
Mrs H Thompson
Mrs V Uprichard
Mrs L Walker
Mr S Ward
Mr P Williams
Mr R Wright
Mr J A Wyatt
The Chief Executive, the Corporate Directors, the Head of Financial
Services, the Monitoring Officer, the Democratic Services Team Leader
(MMH) and the Democratic Services Officer (ED)
The Public and Press
CHAIRMAN’S COMMUNICATIONS
The meeting was chaired by the Vice Chairman, Mr P W Moore. He invited the Chief
Executive to give an update on the Chairman’s health. The Chief Executive said that the
Chairman was due to be discharged from hospital and transferred to a nursing home. He
welcomed visitors.
The Vice Chairman told Members that the Tour of Britain event at Bewilderwood had been
excellent, as had the Chairman’s reception at Holkham Hall. He congratulated the Norfolk
Wherry Brass Band on their victory in the National Brass Band Championships of Great
Britain.
50.
TO RECEIVE DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS FROM MEMBERS
Member(s)
Minute
No.
Item
Interest
Mr M Baker
63 (c)
Notices of Motion, The National
Trust
Other interest members of the
National Trust
Mrs L Brettle
Mr N Dixon
Mr B Hannah
Full Council
1
26 September 2012
Member(s)
Minute
No.
Item
Interest
Mr K Johnson
Mr N Lloyd
Mrs B McGoun
Mr R Wright
Other interest –
volunteer for the
National Trust
Mrs A Sweeney
51.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Mr S A Arnold, Mr B Cabbell Manners, Ms V R
Gay, Mr J H Perry-Warnes, Mr R C Price, Mr J Punchard, Mr J D Savory, Mr N Smith, Mr P
Terrington, Mr G Williams and Mr D Young.
52.
MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of Full Council held on 25 July 2012 were approved as a correct
record.
53.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None
54.
PUBLIC QUESTIONS
None received.
55.
APPOINTMENTS
a) To appoint a Member to the Cabinet
The Leader announced that Mr R Oliver had been appointed to the Cabinet. He also
announced changes to the Cabinet structure as follows:
Leader: Mr K Johnson
Responsible for: Internal and External Affairs
Deputy Leader: Mr T FitzPatrick
Responsible for: Customer Services, Democratic Services, Electoral Services, ICT,
Business Enterprise and Economic Development
Portfolio Holder: Mrs A Fitch-Tillett
Responsible for: Coastal, Health and Wellbeing
Portfolio Holder: Mr T Ivory
Responsible for: Localism and the Big Society, Legal Services, Strategic Housing
Full Council
2
26 September 2012
APPOINTMENTS
(Continued)
Portfolio Holder: Mr J Lee
Responsible for: Environmental services, Tourism, Leisure and Cultural Services,
Licensing.
Portfolio Holder: Mr W Northam
Responsible for: Financial Services, Revenues and Benefits
Portfolio Holder: Mr R Oliver
Responsible for: Planning, Corporate Assets
b) To appoint Mr R Reynolds to replace Mr S Ward on the Audit Committee
RESOLVED
To appoint Mr R Reynolds to the Audit Committee.
c) To appoint a Member to replace Mr G R Jones on the Council Tax Support Working
Party
RESOLVED
To appoint Mr D Young to the Council Tax Support Working Party.
d) To appoint Mr N Smith to replace Mrs H Eales on the Joint Staff Consultative
Committee.
RESOLVED
To appoint Mr N Smith to the Joint Staff Consultative Committee.
e) To appoint substitutes to the Big Society Board
RESOLVED
To appoint Mr R Reynolds and Mrs P Grove-Jones as substitutes on the Big Society
Board.
f) To appoint 2 Members to the North Lodge Park Steering Group
RESOLVED
To appoint Mr T Ivory and Mr J Lee to the North Lodge Park Steering Group.
Mr E Seward announced that the Liberal Democrat Group had appointed Ms V R Gay as
Leader, with Mrs A Moore and Mrs B McGoun as Deputy Leaders.
Full Council
3
26 September 2012
56.
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CABINET 10 SEPTEMBER 2012 AND OVERVIEW AND
SCRUTINY COMMITTEE 25 SEPTEMBER 2012
a) MINUTE 41: PLANNING POLICY AND BUILT HERITAGE WORKING PARTY 23 JULY
2012.
MINUTE 12, RESPONSE TO NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK – CORE
STRATEGY POLICY HO3
RESOLVED
That in response to the NPPF, Council resolves to support the inclusion of elements of
market housing within rural exception schemes which otherwise comply with the provisions
of Policy HO3 subject to clear demonstration that the inclusion of market housing is
necessary to deliver affordable dwellings which otherwise would not be provided
MINUTE 19: RESPONSE TO NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK – CORE
STRATEGY POLICY HO9 and EC2
RESOLVED
The Council resolves to support the following revised policy approach to the re-use of rural
buildings in response to the NPPF, subject to considering the introduction of an affordable
housing tariff in respect of the enhanced value arising from conversion to permanent
residential use and further consideration of the potential impacts arising from the loss of
existing tourism and other business uses:
i.
The economic re-use of rural buildings will be supported and full weight will
continue to be applied to Policy EC2.
ii.
In relation to the application of Policy H09 and residential conversion that
weight be attached to the NPPF with the affect that:
• Proposals for the reuse of disused or redundant buildings will be subject to
compliance with criteria 2, 3, 4 and 5 but not criteria 1 which limits location.
• Proposals for the change of use/variation of occupancy of buildings in
holiday use to allow residential use will be subject to compliance with
criteria 2, 3, 4 and 5 and where applicable Policy EC8 but not criteria 1 in
relation to location.
• Proposals for the change of use of all other commercial buildings will be
subject to compliance with criteria 2, 3, 4 and 5 and a presumption that
those providing a significant number of jobs (three or more) should normally
be retained in employment uses.
b) MINUTE 42: DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH NORFOLK INTEGRATED APPROACH
TO COASTAL MANAGEMENT
The Portfolio Holder introduced this item. She said that the Council’s policy was to be proactive on coastal issues with the involvement of coastal communities. An excellent start
had been made by a Coastal Issues Forum held on 10 September, followed by a workshop
for the community including parish councils and representatives from Natural England, the
Environment Agency, National Trust and National Farmers’ Union.
Full Council
4
26 September 2012
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CABINET 10 SEPTEMBER 2012 AND OVERVIEW AND
SCRUTINY COMMITTEE 25 SEPTEMBER 2012
(Continued)
The Chair of Overview and Scrutiny said that his Committee had considered the report on
25 September 2012 and supported the recommendations.
RESOLVED
1. That the integrated approach to coastal management, in particular the work schemes
set out in Table 1 of the report be endorsed.
2. That the remaining unallocated coastal Pathfinder budget (approximately £65,000
revenue) and receipts including the Coastal Erosion Assistance Grant (£60,000 capital)
and any income from successful Pathfinder replacement housing are incorporated into a
new integrated coastal budget for the purpose of funding specific coastal projects and
resources in line with the integrated approach.
3. That the allocation of the integrated coastal budget is delegated to the Chief Executive
in consultation with the Coastal Portfolio Holder.
c) MINUTE 45: North Norfolk HOUSING STRATEGY 2012-15 (MAKING BEST USE OF
THE EXISTING HOUSING STOCK)
The Leader, in introducing the report, urged Members to attend a workshop scheduled for
4 October 2012.
The Chair of Overview and Scrutiny said that the Committee had unanimously agreed with
the recommendation but proposed an amendment that the Committee wished to make:
“and in addition the Overview and Scrutiny Committee looks forward to Cabinet’s
recommendation, at its November meeting, on financial incentives to bring empty homes
back into occupation.”
The reason for the amendment was that legislative changes had been brought in which
made it easier for empty homes to be brought back into use. The Leader explained that
NNDC was working on a countywide approach with other councils in Norfolk. Mr T Ivory
expressed concern that the proposal from Overview and Scrutiny was not an amendment,
but a suggestion for Cabinet to take into consideration. The substantive recommendation,
therefore, was voted on.
RESOLVED
That Council adopts the North Norfolk Housing Strategy (Making Best Use of the existing
Housing Stock) document.
d) MINUTE 46 (b): PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT – DELIVERY OF ANNUAL ACTION
PLAN QUARTER 1 (Cabinet Agenda, 10 September 2012 page 77)
The Chair of Overview and Scrutiny told Council that the Committee had considered the
report on 25 September 2012 and supported the recommendation.
Full Council
5
26 September 2012
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CABINET 10 SEPTEMBER 2012 AND OVERVIEW AND
SCRUTINY COMMITTEE 25 SEPTEMBER 2012
(Continued)
RESOLVED
That two additional planning assistants be recruited on a temporary basis for a 12 month
period pending the outcome for the peer challenge, to be funded from a combination of the
HPDG earmarked reserve and the proposed national fee increase from October 2012.
That additional support for planning enforcement, is progressed with the Borough Council
of Kings Lynn & West Norfolk.
Mr M J M Baker said that he did not support the recommendation, considering that there
were already enough staff if the workload was reorganised.
57.
58.
RECOMMENDATION FROM THE AUDIT COMMITTEE 18 SEPTEMBER 2012
2011/12 STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS
These items were taken together and introduced by the Chair of Audit.
The Audit Committee had received training prior to consideration of the Statement of
Accounts. The Committee had examined the accounts thoroughly and was satisfied that there
were no material adjustments, the level of movements and reserves was appropriate, the
Balance Sheet showed prudential treasury management and there was clarity regarding the
Council’s stewardship of its resources. The ISA 260 report from the external auditor suggested
that improvement was needed over some technical processes but there were no significant
issues. The impact of International Financial Reporting Standards had been less than on last
year.
The Chair of Audit commended the work of the Finance Team. The Audit Committee had
gained a good overview of the accounts and recommended their approval to Full Council.
The Portfolio Holder proposed approval, thanking the staff for their work. He was seconded by
Mr R Reynolds.
RESOLVED
To approve the 2011/12 Statement of Accounts.
59.
TO RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE UNDERMENTIONED COMMITTEES
RESOLVED
to receive the approved minutes of the undermentioned committees:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
Full Council
Standards Committee – 8 May 2012
Cabinet 11 June 2012
Overview and Scrutiny Committee 26 June 2012
Cabinet 16 July 2012
Standards Committee 17 July 2012
Development Committee – 26 July 2012
Development Committee – 23 August 2012
6
26 September 2012
60.
REPORTS FROM THE CABINET OR MEMBERS OF THE CABINET
a)
b)
61.
Mr T FitzPatrick had attended the launch of the County’s apprenticeship Scheme. Mr M
J M Baker expressed concern that bureaucracy in the scheme discouraged prospective
employers. Mr FitzPatrick offered to put him in touch with County Councillor Ann
Steward who was running the scheme, so that he could discuss his concerns.
Mr T Ivory informed Council that he, together with Mr K Johnson and Mr J Lee, had
attended a very productive meeting regarding North Lodge Park. The meeting had
been attended by representatives of Cromer Town Council and officers. There was a
real willingness to explore the formation of a trust.
QUESTIONS RECEIVED FROM MEMBERS
The following questions had been received from Mr N Lloyd and were answered by Mr J H A
Lee (responses in bold):
1.
What are the terms of reference for the business review of the North Walsham Dual
Use Sports Centre, what is the time scale for the conduct of the review, will the full
outcome be shared with members? What were the contractor selection criterion for
the consultants (it would be helpful to see their full scope of work), what is the
anticipated cost and was there a transparent competitive tendering process to ensure
value for money?
The Terms of Reference for the Consultant’s work in terms of developing a
financially sustainable business plan for the future running of the centre are as
follows:
•
•
•
•
•
Prepare a business plan covering the costs of operation, outlining
relevant scenarios
Consider the pros and cons of different operating models
Meet a cross-section of key players: school representatives, Council
officers, voluntary management committee and local members.
Visually assess potential options for small-scale capital investment to
optimise the revenue generation potential of the facility moving forward
Presentation of findings and recommendations
A hard copy of these has been provided for Councillor Lloyd.
The Consultants were appointed on 10th September and started work
immediately, to enable it’s discussion with the school representatives as soon
as practicable.
The Consultant’s report will be shared with all members in due course.
With regards to the consultant’s selection criteria, officers took advice from the
Regional Facilities Director at Sport England, who supplied a list of potential
consultants. These had already gone through procurement with Sport England
and have a proven track record in this area. On this basis, officers appointed
KKP consultants, who were the only one of the three who confirmed that they
could meet the timescale required.
The anticipated cost was around £5,000 and once the specification was agreed
this raised to £6,500.
2.
Full Council
What is the envisaged process for NNDC to arrive at a decision on future funding of
the Sports centre along with the associated time scale?
7
26 September 2012
QUESTIONS RECEIVED FROM MEMBERS
(Continued)
The process and timescale very much depends on discussions with school
representatives regarding the operating models proposed by the consultant.
We will of course, keep local members fully informed as matters progress.
3.
At a meeting with the Centre Sports Committee on September 6th at which I attended
along with NNDC officers it was stated that it was not NNDC's intention for the Sports
centre to close. Instead NNDC were seeking to find a more workable solution. Does
this commitment still stand and does it include the acceptance in principle that for the
current level of sports provision to continue, that a level of public funding is required?
We are committed to finding a sustainable financial model for the centre to
remain open. This would build on the opportunity for a locally managed,
community based sports facility at minimal net costs to the Council.
4.
More generally what is the NNDC current revenue budget for supporting leisure
activities and sport in North Walsham, Cromer, Sheringham, Fakenham and Stalham.
North Walsham
DU Sports Centre = £117k
Victory S&FC = £240k
Bacton Woods = £3k
Sub Total = £360k
Cromer
Pavilion Theatre= £112k
Pier Fabric R&M = £29k
North Lodge Park – £76
DU Sports Centre = £95k
Cromer Lawn Tennis Club = £29,670
Sub Total = £341,670
Sheringham
Splash = £346k
Sheringham Little Theatre = £59k
Sub Total = £405k
Fakenham
Sports & Fitness Centre = £123k
Sub Total = £123k
Stalham
DU Sports Centre = £123k
Sub Total = £123k
Holt
Country Park = £156k
Sub Total = £156k
Total = £1,479,000
5.
Full Council
The North Norfolk Sports and Leisure Strategy 2010 - 2015 has not been withdrawn,
reviewed or replaced. The proposal for NNDC to cut all funding for the NWDUSC in 2
8
26 September 2012
QUESTIONS RECEIVED FROM MEMBERS
(Continued)
year’s time is a major deviation from the terms set out in this document. What is the
future strategy for Sport and Leisure proposed by NNDC for North Norfolk?
The Sports and Active Leisure Strategy was approved by Cabinet in November
2010.
The strategy accepted the financial difficulties in continuing to provide the
same level of Council subsidy across its sports facilities in the future.
We are considering the opportunities presented by a more local, community
based management model which we believe will allow the North Walsham Dual
Use Sports Centre to remain open. This also accords with the objectives in the
Strategy.
With regards to the wider strategy for the future provision of sport and active
leisure, we believe that our ongoing work with local sports clubs, governing
bodies and Active Norfolk, will continue to ensure that a good level of provision
is maintained and enabled by the Council.
6.
You may have heard that Lord Moynihan, chairman of the British Olympic
Committee, is petitioning the Government to look at legislating to force councils to
protect their sports facilities and to change the status of sports provision from
'discretionary' to a "statutory requirement." Does the administration feel their proposal
to cut funding for sport in North Norfolk is appropriate bearing in mind the huge public
support for sport at this particular time?
We feel that it is absolutely appropriate to balance the leisure needs of our
residents against the available budget. As part of this, we have to look at
alternative, locally based management models. If this enables all of our
facilities to remain open, we would see it as a very positive outcome.
In thanking Mr Lee, Mr Lloyd expressed disappointment that there had been delay in getting
the answers. He expressed concern that the project was being progressed too hastily and
asked if savings could not be realised by other means.
Mr G Jones asked to speak. The Vice Chairman explained that the Council’s Constitution did
not allow for debate on this item. However local Members would be consulted on the project.
The Chief Executive said that the business plan wasn’t complete yet. When Cabinet had seen
it there would be a meeting for local Members and Members for surrounding parishes. Mr
Jones would be included.
62.
OPPOSITION BUSINESS
None received.
63.
NOTICE(S) OF MOTION
a)
Localisation of Council Tax
Proposed by Mr R Oliver and seconded by Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds:
“To call on Norman Lamb and Keith Simpson to achieve variation on the localisation of council
tax policy implemented by the government finance bill in order to lessen its adverse effects on
the people of North Norfolk.
Full Council
9
26 September 2012
NOTICE(S) OF MOTION
(Continued)
It is our belief that the policy of localisation of Council Tax and the subsequent cut in funding
for Council Tax benefits in this district is unfair. North Norfolk has a high ratio of pensioners to
working age receivers of benefits. We welcome the decision of the Government to protect the
relief on Council Tax benefits which pensioners on low income receive. As a result, for the
working age receiver of Council Tax benefits in this district there will be a disproportionately
large cut in the support they presently receive. This means that those people of working age in
this district will be worse off than similarly affected people in other districts with smaller
pensioner populations. As our representatives in Parliament, Norman Lamb and Keith
Simpson represent the only way that this district can request reform of this policy. As a
minister in this government this council believes that Norman Lamb will be able to drive
changes in this policy. We therefore request that Norman Lamb and Keith Simpson do
everything in their power to achieve a fairer outcome for this council and the people of North
Norfolk by highlighting these problems and achieving the implementation of appropriate
changes at a national level.”
The motion was debated:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
Mr R Oliver said that the policy was unfair to claimants of working age. He urged for
cross party support of the motion.
Mr E Seward said that the Liberal Democrat Group shared Mr Oliver’s concerns but he
believed that Norman Lamb MP had already written to Eric Pickles, on 14 September
2012.
Mr M J M Baker did not accept the need for government cuts to benefits, believing that
spending on overseas aid should be reviewed.
The policy did not hit working people equally across the country. There was greater
impact in North Norfolk. The Chief Executive agreed with Mr R Wright that there was
approximately 14% variance from the national figure.
A political discussion followed. Mr T FitzPatrick expressed concern at this discussion
and reminded Members that the motion asked for action from both MPs who
represented the District.
In response to a question from Mr G R Jones the Chief Executive said that she had
not, at that point, received a letter from Norman Lamb MP.
RESOLVED
To support the motion.
b)
Localisation of Council Tax
Proposed by Mr G Jones and seconded by Mrs L Walker:
The Chief Executive informed Members of an amendment to the motion which had been
agreed with the proposer. The last sentence “in return for the District Council agreeing to
reduce second home discounts to 05%.which would produce some £1/2million for the county”
had been removed because Members could not be asked to make a determination on the
Council Tax in advance of the Head of Financial Service’s report in December. The motion
now read as follows:
North Norfolk District Council is concerned about the impact of the council tax legislation on
the economy of North Norfolk and on the lives of more than 4,000 of its poorest residents. In
particular, it recognises that the last Labour government left the economy in a financial
meltdown and applauds the action of the coalition government in trying to recover from this
position.
However the District Council takes the view that this legislation is neither proportionate nor fair
for two reasons:
Full Council
10
26 September 2012
NOTICE(S) OF MOTION
(Continued)
1. It hits at the poorest members of the community whether or not they have the ability to
pay.
2. It impacts particularly on the rural community where costs are already very high in such
matters as transport.
3. It does not take into account the position of North Norfolk, in demographic terms, with
over 62% of the benefit recipients of pensionable age and excluded from cuts.
The District Council notes:
•
That about £1.175 million pounds will be lost to the local economy each year and this
will impact on local trades and businesses and will consequently have a negative effect
on employment.
•
2,441 residents who receive council tax benefit will lose £30 or more a month. These
are the poorest members of the community and they will not be able to find this money.
It is likely that the collection rate will fall sharply and important services will be
drastically cut as a result.
•
Such drastic cuts to the poorest, at such short notice, could possibly lead to a
breakdown of social cohesion.
•
The impact on families with children could adversely affect the lives of children.
•
There are implications of up to an estimated £28,000 for the major precepting
authorities in respect of parish and town councils.
The District Council urges the relevant Ministers - Secretary of State for Communities and
Local Government, Eric Pickles and Secretary of State for Works and Pensions, Ian Duncan
Smith to urgently review the impact of this legislation - in particular we ask them to review its
impact on largely rural authorities with the demography of North Norfolk. The District Council
urges the two Ministers to postpone the implementation of this legislation for twelve months
and to include any proposals in the Universal Credit legislation.
The District Council further urges MPs Norman Lamb and Keith Simpson to advocate on
behalf of the District Council in this matter.
Finally the District Council urges the County Council to join it in advancing the proposals set
out above and to agree short term measures from its extensive resources to mitigate against
the impact of this legislation, for one year,
In introducing the motion, Mr Jones said that the policy would affect the poorest people,
particularly in rural areas. He said there were already difficulties being experienced with the
Benefits system which needed to be addressed.
A political discussion followed. Mr T FitzPatrick and Mrs P Grove-Jones expressed concern at
this discussion. They believed that Members should be considering what was best for people
in North Norfolk, especially the most vulnerable.
A vote was taken and the motion was not supported.
Full Council
11
26 September 2012
NOTICE(S) OF MOTION
c)
(Continued)
The National Trust
Proposed by Mrs L Brettle and seconded by Mrs A Sweeney:
The Council is asked to endorse the sensible and constructive attitude taken by the National
Trust over Marine Conservation Zones. Whilst supporting the general good purpose of the
zones, the National Trust has clearly defined its objections to the Blakeney Reserve - lack of
consultation and scientific rigour. We at NNDC can envisage the results lack of access could
entail - problems for tourism, local businesses, fishing, birdwatching, etc., but the National
Trust offers an alternative site and any help or advice they can give. This motion asks that
NNDC supports the National Trust in their response to the Government's proposals for Marine
Conservation Zones.
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett explained that the Marine Conservation Zone would affect an area from
Stiffkey to Kelling and would have the greatest impact between Blakeney and Morston.
RESOLVED
To support the motion.
d)
The Ambulance Service – proposed by Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, seconded by Mrs A
Green
We welcome the recent announcement that the East of England Ambulance service is to
increase the level of rapid response resources in the North Norfolk area after concerns were
issued in both Cromer and North Walsham over ambulance provision in these towns.
However, there remains concern over whether there will cuts in Fakenham’s rapid response
service and as to how the performance figures for emergency 999 calls are improved in the
North Norfolk area. Therefore, to this end, I would like to call on this District Council to request
an audience with a responsible member of the East of England Ambulance Service, or
relevant Health Authority, and give a full and complete report on this matter, as soon as
reasonably possible, to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to which Council members
could be invited to attend.
The Chief Executive had been in contact with the East of England Ambulance Trust. They had
given assurance that they would send a representative to Overview and Scrutiny on 23
October, or to a special meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. The Chair of
Overview and Scrutiny said that all Members could attend meetings of the Committee and
were welcome to ask questions.
Concern was expressed by Members that targets intended for urban areas and impractical
deployment of vehicles were preventing good response rates in North Norfolk. It was proposed
by Mr M J M Baker, seconded by Mr E Seward and
RESOLVED
To add to the motion “The Council should write to the East of England Ambulance Trust
expressing disappointment at the way the District is being treated.”
RESOLVED
to support the amended motion.
Full Council
12
26 September 2012
64.
LIST OF SEALED DOCUMENTS
RESOLVED that
the list of sealed documents be received.
The meeting concluded at 7.30pm
____
Chairman
Full Council
13
26 September 2012