Agenda and minutes

To sign the minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 2 March 2020

The minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 2 March 2020, were taken as read and signed by the Mayor as a correct record.

To receive apologies for absence.

No apologies for absence were received.

To receive communications (if any) from the Mayor and the Chief Executive.

There were no communications.

To answer any questions (if any) from elected members pursuant to Rule 11 of the Council’s Rules of Procedure (as amended by the Protocol and Procedure Rules for Remote Meetings).

Questions from members of the public must be received by 5pm two clear working days prior to the day of the meeting – the deadline for this meeting is 5pm Friday 5^th June 2020.

The Chief Executive reported there were questions from Councillors Tom Ashton, George Cornah, Jonathan Noble, Tracey Abbott and Judith Skinner.

Question asked by Councillor Tom Ashton pursuant to paragraph 11 of the Rules of Procedure as set out in the Constitution.

“Taking note of the County Council’s bid for a ‘devolution deal’ which envisages reorganizing the structures of local government in this County, would Councillor Welton update the Council on whether he would support the creation of a Boston Town Council in the event of such reorganization extinguishing this esteemed Borough Council?”

Response by Councillor Nigel Welton

“I thank Councillor Ashton for his question 

I wholeheartedly support the creation of a town council for Boston.

Protection of Boston as a town is of great importance to me and I will do whatever is in my power to protect the future status of our town.

Following the recent manoeuvres to reopen the debate on devolution in Lincolnshire our priority must be to protect Boston’s unique identity, history and heritage. 

We must all stand together to ensure Boston doesn’t become a forgotten corner of Lincolnshire in any future carve up of the county.”

Supplemental question asked by Councillor Ashton pursuant to paragraph 11.6 of the Rules of Procedure as set out in the Constitution:-

“Would you agree to work with me to bring forward a motion to this Council, which would secure a Town Council and safeguard the civic privileges and property, which rightfully belong to the people of Boston in the event of the Council’s demise?”

Response by Councillor Welton

“I will work you and any other person on this planet if it means we can protect the unique status of our town.”

Question asked by Councillor George Cornah pursuant to paragraph 11 of the Rules of Procedure as set out in the Constitution.

“At Cabinet on 20^th May it was agreed that the Council would purchase or lease a temporary replacement cremator while seeking a long-term solution.  Could the Portfolio Holder reassure this Council and our residents that Boston Crematorium remains fit for purpose, and the measures agreed at Cabinet are sufficient to prevent a major or prolonged failure of this vital local service?”

Response by Councillor Yvonne Stevens

“May I thank Councillor Cornah for his question concerning the crematorium.

Cabinet agreed to the purchase of a temporary cremator and I can confirm that the order has been placed with the supplier with delivery anticipated on 1^st August. The new cremator is a robust, efficient and modern design and will be supplied with a manufacturer’s warranty. The cremator will be installed immediately adjacent to the crematorium building, inside a weather-proof enclosure and the cremator will benefit from an all-inclusive maintenance contract.  

“Whilst we await delivery, our two existing cremators will continue to be managed as serviceable by the excellent team at the crematorium, as has indeed been the case since the previous maintenance company entered administration, albeit with necessary limitations being applied to capacity and concurrent use,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

To answer any questions (if any) from members of the public pursuant to Rule 10 of the Council’s Rules of Procedure (as amended by the Protocol and Procedure Rules for Remote Meetings).

Questions from members of the public must be received by 5pm two clear working days prior to the day of the meeting – the deadline for this meeting is 5pm Friday 5^th June 2020.

Question asked by Mr Darron Abbott pursuant to paragraph 10 of the Rules of Procedure as set out in the Constitution.  In accordance with the rules for remote meetings, this was read out by the Mayor.

“At a time when you are trying to save any penny you can combined with warnings from local water authorities that hose pipe bans and restrictions will soon be imposed how can you and the Council justify the watering of football pitches that have not been used since December for the last six weeks at a cost of approximately £1.50 per hour. And by my rough calculations around a total of £1400.”

Response by Councillor Martin Howard

“The annual licence fee paid by each of the two clubs that are licensed by the Council to use Garfits Playing Field are deemed to include the cost of utilities, such as water. The utilities charge for water usage for the site for 2019/20 was £457.58. If and when water restrictions are imposed by the water company, the clubs will be responsible for abiding by the restrictions.”

Supplemental question asked by Mr Darron Abbott pursuant to paragraph 10.8 of the Rules of Procedure as set out in the Constitution:-

“Is this expenditure justified, please could you just answer yes or no?”

Response by the Councillor Howard

“No, we cannot justify this spend.  It is something that I am looking at it very closely.  I have actually asked for meter readings to be taken so we can confirm the cost of the water that has been used against last year’s and then we can take action regarding that. We need to do some investigations to find out what the cost is.”

To receive declarations by Members of any interests in respect of items on the agenda.

Councillor Tom Ashton declared that, with respect to the item on the Boston Borough Council and East Lindsey District Council Strategic Alliance that he was a Member of East Lindsey District Council.  However, he had sought advice from the Monitoring Officer in respect of this item and could confirm that, as he approached this issue as a Member of Boston Borough Council and his mind was entirely on what was best of Boston Borough Council, he was able to take part in this item and take part in the debate and vote. 

In response to a Member’s questions, the Monitoring Officer confirmed that Councillor Ashton did not have two votes on the matter.  He was attending the Boston Borough Council meeting, not the East Lindsey meeting.  East Lindsey District Council was meeting simultaneously with Boston Borough Council; therefore Councillor Ashton was only exercising one vote on this item. 

The Chief Executive declared that he and the other two Statutory Officers, the Monitoring Officer and Section 151 Officer, had an interest in the report, Boston Borough Council and East Lindsey District Council Strategic Alliance, as it affected their employment.  They all confirmed that they had not provided any professional advice to the Council in respect of the matters contained within the report and they would leave the meeting prior to that item’s consideration. 

(To receive the confirmed minutes of the meeting of the Audit and Governance Committee held on 27^th January 2020)

Councillor Jonathan Noble introduced the confirmed minutes of the Audit and Governance Committee held on 27 January 2020, highlighting the key matters considered by the Committee. 

It was moved by Councillor Jonathan Noble and seconded by Councillor Tom Ashton and

(Report by the Chief Executive)

The Chief Executive presented a report seeking consideration of not holding an Annual General Meeting in the municipal year 2020/21 in accordance with the provisions of the Local Authorities Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Crime Panel Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020.

The report stated that the Regulations applied to local authority meetings that were required to be held, or held, before 7 May 20201, and drafted to enable local authorities to properly function during the coronavirus crisis.

The Local Government Act 1972 required local authorities to hold their AGM’s in either March, April or May of each year.  Part 6 of the Regulations enabled authorities to dis-apply that requirement which meant that the Council had no obligation to hold an AGM until May 2021.

It was not considered feasible, or entirely fair to the incoming Mayor, to hold the AGM remotely as it was a ceremonial meeting involving a number of persons required to be in close contact.

Similarly, holding the meeting date in abeyance until the crisis was over was not considered to be an ideal arrangement as the incoming Mayor’s year of office would be considerably shorter than expected and, due to Covvid-19 restrictions, it was unlikely that he would be able to undertake the expected range of duties and attendance at events.

The incoming Mayor had confirmed his agreement to defer his Mayoralty for one year and the current Mayor’s appointment would continue until May 2021.

The report also proposed to review the appointments of Chairmen, Vice-Chairmen and constitution of committees in September 2020.

It was proposed by Councillor Paul Skinner, and seconded by Councillor Nigel Welton

1.    That the Council determines not to hold the Annual General Meeting in the municipal year 202/21 and for the Mayor to continue in office until the AGM May 2021.

2.    That all current appointments of Chairmen and constitution of Committees be reviewed in September 2020.

Members expressed sympathy for the existing Mayor and the Mayor Elect for the interruption of their tenure of office. However, there was a difference of opinion as to whether the AGM should be delayed until May 2021.

There was a view that there was no reason to defer the AGM and that it should be held in September, at the same time that the current appointments of Chairmen and constitution of committees were to be reviewed. Other larger authorities had managed to continue to hold their AGMs as normal and the technology to hold meetings virtually was working well.

However, there was another view that a virtual meeting would not be appropriate to the dignity of the installation of the new Mayor, who would then have a short term of office, and that it would be both safer and fairer to delay the AGM until May 2021.

An amendment was moved by Councillor Anne Dorrian and seconded by Councillor Neill Hastie, that the Mayor and Deputy Mayor redirect the Mayoral Allowances for 2020/21 to the Mayor’s nominated charities.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

(Report by the Monitoring Officer)

The Monitoring Officer presented a report, which asked Members to consider the granting of an extension to the six-month attendance rule to prevent Councillors ceasing to be a Member of the authority under section 85 at the Local Government Act 1972. The rule meant that a Member who had not attended a meeting for a six-month consecutive period was disqualified from holding office as a Member of the Council.

An extension of three months would prevent any Member losing their seat through failure to attend a meeting because of the coronavirus pandemic. This would extend the attendance rule to nine months, with any further requests for dispensation to be delegated to the Monitoring Officer in consultation with the Group Leaders. 

Members commented that virtual meetings had proved to be easily accessible, even allowing Members to participate by telephone, therefore there was no need for a three-month extension.

It was moved by Councillor Paul Skinner, seconded by Councillor Nigel Welton and

[The three Statutory Officers left the meeting at this point and a short comfort break followed.]

It was then moved by the Mayor, seconded by Councillor Anne Dorrian and

(Report by the Joint Strategic Officers)

Councillor Nigel Welton presented a report, which set out the case for the creation of a strategic alliance between Boston Borough Council and East Lindsey district Council, including the sharing of statutory officers, the Chief Executive, Monitoring Officer and Section 151 Officer, and set out the substantial benefits that would accrue from an alliance.

Each council would retain its distinct and special identity, decision-making powers and accountability.  The talent and experience of each authority’s officers would be combined to build capacity and deploy resources necessary to transform service quality across the board.

The goal was to deliver better outcomes for local people at a significantly lower cost than that which could be achieved if the authorities were to continue to operate separately.  Joint working on the planning and delivery of services would also mitigate pressure on the Council’s budgets and command greater influence in the allocation of resources from Central Government, the Lincolnshire Enterprise Partnership and others.

Joint working would also give the councils a stronger voice in any process to reshape local government in Lincolnshire, promoting a common agenda with a single voice. They would gain experience of managing strategic change quickly and effectively and there could also be a longer term possibility for the strategic alliance to grow in numbers, giving rise to promote a significant part of Lincolnshire, should the future bring consideration of alternative structures.

Both councils had a relatively small officer corps with limited revenue and capital resources to tackle the multitude of challenges each faced.  The financial pressures facing local government were significant, with cuts in Central Government Grants and limited opportunities to offset pressures, combined with increased demands for key services.  This pressure was likely to become more acute in the short-term due to the loss of revenue and additional unplanned expenditure caused by the need to tackle the Covid-19 pandemic.

One of the consequences of the financial structure imposed on councils was the pressure from Government to scale up by adopting countywide unitary and mayoral structures.  Past experience in Lincolnshire suggested this would be difficult to achieve, and a better approach would be to build alliances from the ‘bottom up’. This would allow resources to be shared quickly and effectively, reducing pressure on budgets, and giving those partners a stronger voice in the allocation of scarce resources from central government and the shaping of new unitary structures.

The proposal was set out clearly within the report and the details of how it would work were set out in the memorandum of understanding.  The proposals had been subject to in-depth discussions in which Councillor Welton had been involved since May 2019.  The Leader and Deputy Leader of both authorities had met to discuss the finer points of the proposal and draft the report, which had been extensively amended to suit both authorities.

The finances of the proposal were set out in the appendix, indicating prudent figures of year-on-year savings. There was total confidence that exit costs would be contained within the figures given.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.