Agenda, decisions and minutes

There were no declarations of interest.

There were no declarations of interest.

Decisions of the Cabinet meeting on 19 March 2013 relating to the New Deeside Partnership Structure and Streetlighting Policy have been called in.  Attached is a copy of the procedure for dealing with a called in item.

The Democracy & Governance Manager explained the procedure for the call in of a Cabinet decision.

To assist Members, the following documents are attached:-

·                     Copy of the report of the Director of Environment - Portfolio of the Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Enterprise & Leisure

·                     Copy of the Record of Decision

·                     Copy of the Call In Letter

That having considered the decision, the Committee was satisfied with the explanation received and so the decision could be implemented.

The Chairman referred to the call in of the decision of the Cabinet, from its meeting held on 19 March 2013 on the New Deeside Partnership Structure.  A call in notice had been received signed by five Members of the Council.  To assist Members with their deliberations on the issue, the following documents had been circulated with the agenda:

(a)    A copy of the report considered by the Cabinet on 19 March 2013.

(b)    A copy of the Cabinet Record of Decision, Record No. 2817

(c)     A copy of the call in notice signed by Councillors P.G. Heesom, R.J.T. Guest, R.B. Jones, M.J. Peers and C.S. Carver

(d)    A copy of the Procedure for dealing with a called in item.

The Chairman invited the call in signatories to address the Committee via a spokesperson or individually to which the decision makers could respond.

Councillor R.B. Jones described the report as flawed and said that it did not consider the implications for Flintshire County Council as a whole, in concentrating on the Deeside area alone.  He thought that there was not sufficient detail about financial implications, anti-poverty, environmental impact nor equalities impact on Flintshire and said that concentrating resources in one area would lead to a lack of resources elsewhere within the county.

Councillor P.G. Heesom stressed that the call in was not driven by anti-Deeside sentiments.  He said that problems faced in the Deeside area were not unique to that area and that the whole county suffered similar issues.  He said that the report contained little evidence to back up claims and that there were wider issues to address in Deeside such as the road Access to North Wales from England and the importance of new job opportunities for Flintshire residents.  He felt that a holistic approach was needed to re-generation.

Councillor M.J. Peers said that the report was not specific about how much funding would be available to the Deeside partnership, where it would come from and for how long funds would be available.  He was concerned about extra demands on officer time and resources, and commented that the report only focussed on structures and that Cabinet needed to step back and re-visit the report from a Flintshire wide perspective.

Councillor R.J.T. Guest said that the proposed structure was misleading in suggesting that existing groups were not going to continue to be involved.  He said that there was no detail of any Welsh Government funding in the report and felt that many areas of Flintshire encountered difficulties and that this report was divisive.

When asked by the Leader to go through the main points of the Cabinet report, the Economic Development Manager said that the new structure would remove unnecessary tiers and was not an additional group but merely a rationalisation of what currently happened.  He reported that certain issues needed to be discussed across a wider area such as congestion issues, and therefore needed a wider partnership.

The Director of Environment said that the report built upon an  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.

To assist Members, the following documents are attached:-

·                     Copy of the report of the Director of Environment - Portfolio of the Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Environment

·                     Copy of the Record of Decision

·                     Copy of the Call In Letter

That the explanation be accepted but not endorsed by the Overview & Scrutiny Committee (Option 2).

The Chairman referred to the call in of the decision of the Cabinet, from its meeting held on 19 March 2013 on the Street Lighting Policy.  A call in notice had been received signed by five Members of the Council.  To assist Members with their deliberations on the issue, the following documents had been circulated with the agenda:

(a)    A copy of the report considered by the Cabinet on 19 March 2013.

(b)    A copy of the Cabinet Record of Decision, Record No. 2826

(c)     A copy of the call in notice signed by Councillors R.J.T. Guest, R.B. Jones, M.J. Peers, C.S. Carver and H.D. Hutchinson

(d)    A copy of the Procedure for dealing with a called in item

The Chairman invited the call in signatories to address the Committee via a spokesperson or individually to which the decision makers could respond.

Councillor M.J. Peers said that he understood the proposal to employ part night lighting (part 3.10 of the Street lighting report) and the estimated savings, but felt that there was no criteria in the Policy (point 5.9) nor in the report (point 3.10) to identify which lights would be affected.  He asked if the 3000 illuminated signs maintained by the Council would be suited to part lighting.  Councillor Peers then referred to point 3.12 in the report which referred to unadopted lights on adopted roads or footways which should be considered to be adopted by the Council and voiced his concern at the consequent costs that would be incurred (Financial implications 5.03 of the report ‘The cost of adopting the unadopted lights will be from current maintenance budgets’.) and sought clarification on this matter.

Councillor R.J.T. Guest voiced concerns about the process around the development of the Policy and report and felt it was wrong that the matter went from the Overview & Scrutiny workshop to Cabinet, without first going to an Overview & Scrutiny Committee meeting.  Councillor Guest advised the Members of the Committee to opt for Option 3 and to refer the Policy and report back to Cabinet.

Councillor C.S. Carver pointed out that section 3.08 of the report stated that the most appropriate lighting system to be installed on the Council’s highway network was the white light Cosmopolis option and that this should be specified in future on all new developments and utilised during any replacement or upgrade work carried out by the Council.  He pointed out that the lower energy lights could not be replaced in isolation, in order to maximise the savings of part lighting/dimming.  All Council lights would have to be changed which would incur additional costs.  Councillor Carver said that point 3.04 of the report which related to Town and Community Council Footway lighting was in conflict with 3.12 of the report which stated that unadopted lights on adopted roads should be adopted.

Councillor R.B. Jones asked for clarification on point 5.9 of the Policy in relation to part night installations as to which roads/areas would be affected.  He advised the Members of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 85.

There were one member of the press in attendance.

There was one member of the press in attendance.