Agenda item

To receive any questions from members of the public and replies thereto.

 

 

Public questions were received from:

 

Mr Nick Quinn

 

The Council Constitution is the most important policy in the Council. It is the bedrock for how the Council operates and affects all Members, Officers and the Public. It is based on legislation, but also contains good practice and specific local arrangements.

 

Because it is so central to the operation of the Council, changes to the Constitution must come through this Committee, and must be properly justified.

 

Some of the proposed changes will have a negative impact on the public’s ability to know about, query, or inform the discussion of draft policies or decisions, which may affect them - either as individuals or as part of the District.

 

The changes I refer to are:

The complete removal of public Statements and Questions at Planning Committee. The major changes to procedures and timescales for public questions in general. The Internet only posting the Notices of Meetings and Notice of Key Decisions. There is no proper justification given for why these changes are needed, or any consideration of possible side-effects.

No Equality Impact Statement;

No evidence of the real impact of public questions on meetings;

No assessment of any potential impact on Member/Officer workload;

No reference to the legislation allowing the changes to the publication of Notices.

 

Question 1:

Please will you tell me what specific piece of legislation allows Meeting, and Key Decision, Notices not to be published at Phoenix House?

 

Response from the Leader of the Council:

Following the amendments that will be proposed at this item one being that the notices will continued to be published at Phoenix House.

 

Question 2:

(through the Chair) will the Committee, for all the reasons given, please refuse to approve the proposed changes to the Constitution covering: “Public Questions Rules”; the “Procedure for speaking at Committee in the Protocol of Good Practice for Councillors Dealing in Planning Matters” and the “Access to Information Procedure Rules”?

 

Response from the Leader of the Council:

Following the amendments that will be proposed at this item it will seek to not have the removal of public question time. 

 

Supplementary question:

I came to the meeting to expect answers to the published agenda item, when I arrived I receive a revised agenda item surely this should have been published five days in advanced of the meeting not five minutes. Why was this done?

 

Response from the Monitoring Officers:

The reason why it had been submitted in advance was to give everybody the opportunity to read it before the meeting. Instead of Cllr Taylor making those amendments at the meeting. The document was published to make it transparent.

 

Robert Furmedge

 

Question 1:

Does the committee agree that the proposed change to remove Public Questions Time from the Planning Committee meetings will further reduce public confidence and trust in the planning system within Mid Devon and if not why not ?

 

Response from the Leader of the Council:

Following the amendments that will be proposed at this item it will seek to not have the removal of public question time at Planning Committees. 

 

Question 2:

Disturbance by the Public - should the proposed changes be labelled a) and b) not c) and d)?

 

Response from the Leader of the Council:

Yes within the amendments it seeks to changes c) and d) to a) and b).

 

Roger Cashmore:

I take a keen interest in local government and have been following MDDC for some years.  Over the years I have seen MDDC increasingly make more of its decisions behind locked doors and away from the public gaze and scrutiny.  This fact was also recognised by the new incoming administration who promised to improve transparency.

I also strongly believe that there is a direct correlation between this deterioration in transparency and the quality of services and value for money being delivered to the ratepayers of Mid Devon. 

 

What ever happened to the tenets of the Nolan Principles regarding Local Government behaviour?   Rather than attempting to further close down public engagement, one would have thought a well-run council would be keen to discover new ways of working together with its rate paying public.

 

Question 1:

Does this committee agree with me that this latest attempt by Mid Devon District Council to further close down public engagement is undemocratic, - against the core values and tenets of local government behaviour (the Nolan Principles) as well as the publically stated values of the newly elected administration?

 

I urge all committee members to reject this proposal, as if this attempt to amend the Constitution is passed, - it will surely place MDDC (and the new administration) at serious risk of considerable damage to their public reputations.

 

Response from the Leader of the Council:

Following the amendments that will be proposed at this item to the published document. Many discussion and decisions had are in part 1 not part 2 and continue in part 1 and a recurring feature with the current administration and proud of that to avoid having decision making behind closed doors and I am an advocate for that.

 

 

Goff Welchman

I understand this meeting intends to introduce new rules to restrict and or prohibit public questions and statements at future Council meetings.

After the 3rivers disasters that led to a large number of questions and deliberate attempt to avoid scrutiny makes me suspicious as to who is behind this proposal.

The last AGM the new leader made a great play of ensuring a new era of openness and transparent. These proposal are the opposite and therefore further engage growing the public view that Mid Devon District Council cannot be trusted in what has been said.     

Question 1:

Who was the original source of these proposals?

Question 2:

Will the committee reject the proposals or has Vladimir Putin invaded Phoenix House?

Response of Leader of Council:

Definitely no invasion here.

In the document there are reference to the planning advisory service part of the Local Government Association who do make recommendation, and those recommendation were some of what were put forward of the Planning Committee. Some of the questions may be answered once the committee has the debate.

Barry Warren:

A few months ago some residents received letters from the Chief Executive relevant to the Scrutiny working group on 3 Rivers. The letters set out to restrict details of response and then further advised that the Monitoring Officer would be checking the responses.  I recall raising the issue as an attempt at censorship which a committee chair took exception to. There have been other instances at attempting to restrict what members of the public could say or do.

 

Some of the proposals for amendment to the Constitution before you in the original document circulated for today’s meeting attempt to place further restrictions on public participation at meetings including submitting questions in advance of meetings so that answers can be ready at the meeting.  It is also used by way of ‘vetting’ questions which is evidenced by a member of the public being told at another meeting held earlier today that a certain question could not be asked as it was not considered relevant

 

Question 1:

Is there not a pattern developing with this council of censorship and control of anything which may be seen as questioning or criticising advice given to members or proposed actions to be agreed by them? 

 

At 11.31 this morning an email was sent out on behalf of the Leader of the Council which contained an amended appendix 1.

 

Question 2:

Is that legal and can it be discussed tonight?

 

Question 3:

Does this not make a nonsense of having to submit questions 3 working days in advance as the ‘goal posts’ have been moved?

 

Question 4:

Could this be construed as predetermining or directing the outcome from the meeting?

 

No mention is made as to the recording of answers.

 

Question 5:

Will they be recorded verbatim in the minutes?

 

Question 6:

It is noted that the sections have been removed in relation to Notices of Meetings and Publication of the Notice of Key Decisions.

 

Why has this been done and who made the decision?

 

Paul Elstone:

 

Question 1:

 

Over the last few years there have been many and various very poor even disastrous decisions taken by this Council and under various Administrations.  Disastrous decisions that the residents of Mid Devon will pay for and for years to come.

 

Namely:

 

The full circumstances involving the formation of 3 Rivers Development

 

The massive financial losses incurred with St Georges Court – which the Council is having to buy back, using the Housing Revenue Account, this to help reduce the apparent loss to the General Fund.

 

The substantial financial losses involving the land purchase at Post Hill.

 

The substantial financial losses involving the land purchase at Knowle Lane Cullompton.

 

Paying nearly twice the amount for the land at Haddon Heights than the maximum land valuation stated.

 

A failure to conduct a proper due diligence on the modular housing supplier plus protential conflicts of interest.

 

A failure to get best value when awarding contracts for much needed social housing in Mid Devon.

 

A failure to fully interrogate modular home fire risk potentials ahead of awarding contracts.

 

I could mention others, but I will refrain given the nature of the content.

 

Given these failings the residents of Mid Devon have every right to ask questions of this Councils Officers and Elected Members. Also to ask questions in an attempt to prevent a reoccurrence.  Instead, what is proposed by this change to the Constitution is nothing other than attempted suppression, of the General Public from asking the questions that are needed and censorship of those questions which are submitted.

 

Will this majority Liberal Democrat Committee and the Council Leader in particular fully commit to honouring the Liberal Democrat Core Values in respect of Democracy.

 

“That every citizen is empowered to make their voice heard” also “That no individual or organisation is deterred from speaking the truth”This without suppression or censorship provided they are not offensive to individuals concerned?

 

Response from the Leader of the Council:

I do stick by the Liberal Democrat values and what you asked around democracy and a regular contributor to the Council meetings under democracy where the council consider your points raised exactly how you have at the meeting this evening.

 

Supplementary Question:

The last sentence of my statement was to honour those Liberal Democrat commitments without suppression or censorship that what the public are looking to receive.

 

 

Andy Perris

 

Question 1:

The council voted to change to a Committee system at the annual meeting of 2023 and seems to be airbrushed out of the report. Why?

 

Tim Bridger

 

Note from the evidence in the report you have looked at relevant Council in the area to choose to remove and restrict heavily the rights for people to ask questions

 

Question 1:

Why haven’t you come to the Town Council?

 

The experience of turning up to meeting is very different compared to Mid Devon District Council. When you submit a request you get a notice that make you feel unwelcome and putting on you standards that shouldn’t be. When you come to the Town Council your welcomed, list of names and a positive experience.

 

25 years ago I completed a project of public trust and all the research showed that even if you do not give the answers at the meeting the fact they have been allowed raises public engagement.

 

At the moment what the Council does is suppress legitimate questions about things that have happened and now questions may be vetted on the ground of scurrilous and repetitive.

 

In regards to the 3 Rivers incident made this Council listen and take action the lessons learnt report would not of happen if it hadn’t been for the work of Paul Elstone and Barry Warren.

 

The committee to take an evidence based approach you would reject the idea of questions to be submitted in advance and in May last year the Leader open up discussion and doesn’t like the fact that awkward questions are being asked.

 

Response from the Leader of the Council:

I’m also on a Town Council and engage public question time. To be clear there is no change in stopping members of the public from asking questions the only change is that if you would like a response at the meeting you are asked to submit your question in advance of the meeting.

 

Louise Doyle

The department of level up in the guidance entitled best values and standards requires authorities to secure continuous improvements in the arena of openness to challenge and Scrutiny including from members of the public.

Any proposal makes it in anyway make it intimidating, difficult or demanding or time sensitive for members of the public to engage in the democratic process at Local Authority should be avoided. Why would we choice to do anything that take the Council backwards, why follow the herd why not be more innovative and forward leaning and positive to engage more people to participate. 

It is intimidating and new to this process of public speaking it is not simple or easy. If changes are made it would be more about being accessible and accountable. 

Cllr L Taylor will propose the amendments about the public question time at Planning Committee. East Devon District Council allow 11 people on major applications and 5 on a minor at Planning Committee.

Let’s find ways to way to engage with the public the work is invaluable as we have seen from 3 rivers and aid the democratic process.