Once the meeting had started, Councillor Birt raised a Point of Order.  He stated that the Monitoring Officer had received his complaint in terms of the correct procedure not being followed in calling this meeting. He had not received a summons and an agenda pack within the time scale specified in Schedule 12A Part 1 of the Local Government At 1972. An exception was specified in the Act but did not apply in this case.

The Monitoring Officer had stated in his response, that the Council’s Solicitor had found that there was nothing in the complaint that would render this meeting invalid, but no explanation had been provided.  

Councillor Birt asked the Monitoring Officer to explain the reasons why this meeting should continue and why Part 1 of the Act did not apply.

Rob Walker, the Council’s Monitoring Officer, stated that a formal complaint had been received from Councillor Birt the day before this meeting which would go through the formal complaints process.  He explained that he had taken advice from the Council’s Solicitor who had advised, ahead of this meeting, that nothing raised in the complaint submitted by Councillor Birt would render this meeting invalid or any of the resolutions made.   He did not propose to go into the detail, as the advice from the Solicitor had been clear and the complaint would be fully investigated accordingly.

To receive apologies for absence. 

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Brame, Gilbert and Harvey.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 8 December 2022.

The Chairman abstained from voting on the Minutes as he had not been present at this meeting and had sent his apologies.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 8 December 2022 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Vice-Chairman, Councillor Wilkinson.

The duties to register, disclose and not to participate for the entire consideration of the matter, in respect of any matter in which a Member has a disclosable pecuniary interest are set out in Chapter 7 of the Localism Act 2011.  Members are also required to withdraw from the meeting room as stated in the Standing Orders of this Council.

Firstly, February was an important month for the Pride of Breckland Cares Campaign. The LGBT community sought to raise further awareness of prejudice experienced by the LGBT community and specifically the history of the movement and some of the key events in the history that led to greater acceptance, rights and inclusion.

It was being celebrated to coincide with when the first LGBT history month was celebrated in February 2005, and followed a key point in history in 2003 when the Government removed Section 28 of the Local Government Act.  Prior to its removal that Section of the Act prohibited local authorities mainly in educational premises from intentionally promoting homosexuality and the teaching about the acceptability of homosexuality.

Breckland staff had several activities to promote LGBT History month during February as well as the main Pride Campaign later this year.  This authority had already created greater awareness and started conversations both in and outside the Council, and was indeed an inclusive employer.

Earlier this month the Chairman had the pleasure of awarding four residents with special recognition.  Sue Gattuso from Swaffham who had taken over the running of the Museum and had promoted Swaffham heritage and had also introduced the tribute to Howard Carter on the centenary of his discovery of Tutankhamun. The Museum was well worth a visit. 

Susan Douglas and Anne Harrison, both of whom had served their respective communities in Longham and Gressenhall for a very long time and had made really worthwhile contributions to their local communities, and finally, Mr Graham Jacobs, who had been running Studio Five in Thetford for 70 years. The Chairman said that he had started to buy his films and cameras from this shop in the 1970s, and the changes that Mr Jacobs had seen and had adapted to had been phenomenal.  There had been a tremendous response in respect of the award for Mr Jacobs, but all four had been truly deserving, and Members were thanked for their nominations. 

Councillor Atterwill wanted his thanks to the Chairman to be placed on record for what he had done for the unsung hero’s awards.  He felt that this was a great initiative and he knew that Sue Douglas and Ann Harrison both of whom were in his Ward had greatly appreciated the Chairman presenting their awards, and he hoped that more Members would look to do the same in their communities.   

Members were reminded of the Briefing that would take place immediately after the Full Council meeting.

To receive a verbal update from Councillor Sam Chapman-Allen, Leader of the Council.

The Leader, Councillor Sam Chapman-Allen, made the following announcements:

Watton Skate Park

The Leader was sure that a number of Members had been watching the amazing achievements of Sky Brown, the new World Skate-boarding champion at just 14 years of age.

Not only had Sky won the world championships, but she was Great Britain's youngest Olympic medal winner of all time after winning bronze at the Tokyo 2020 Games.

He was therefore delighted to announce that Breckland Council’s latest community investment of £107,000 would fund a new skatepark in Watton that had been warmly received by the community.

This was just the latest investment in the communities made by this Council that would mean a new generation of Breckland skateboarders could enjoy the positive physical, wellbeing and social effects associated with skating and skateboarding, whilst also potentially enabling them to follow in Sky’s footsteps and possibly even bringing back gold to Breckland from a future Olympics!

The Leader acknowledged all the hard work in bringing this project to fruition, including the support of the local Watton Ward Members.  He knew that Councillor Kiddell in particular had been very passionate about making this project happen for the community for a number of years and Councillor Wilkinson for his work with Breckland Youth Advisory Board (YAB) who had helped develop this project.

Barnham Broom

As Member’s were aware, this Council had faced repeated calls for information relating to one of its proposed commercial transactions to be made public, that had been resisted.

Not, as some had regrettably suggested, to stop a full examination of this investment. 

Rather, in dealing with this matter appropriately and confidentially, all this Council had sought to do, was to protect the sensitive commercial interests of a third-party business operating in Norfolk. 

It was, therefore, unfortunate that a Member of this Council felt it necessary to challenge this stance through the Information Commissioner’s Office.

It was also unfortunate that a significant amount of Officer time and resource had been taken away from the important work of the Council to deal with this matter, and more unfortunate that this Council had incurred over £15,000 in legal costs.  Money that could have been better spent elsewhere in further supporting local businesses.

It was regrettable that Breckland Council had found itself in this position, fighting to protect the interests of a local business.

The Leader was pleased to inform Members however, that following a first-tier tribunal in the General Regulatory Chamber, the Council’s stance had been fully scrutinised and found to be correct.

A quote directly from the findings was read aloud, the “tribunal had been persuaded without reservation” that the Council had acted appropriately.

The Leader was pleased that the Council’s stance had been declared sound, and he hoped that this now drew a line beneath this issue, and that it provided residents with reassurance that this Council continued to operate appropriately, as well as providing reassurance to the tenants and organisations with whom this authority worked with.

Royal visit  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5/23

The questions on notice including the responses had been published prior to this meeting.  No further questions could be asked under this item.

Councillor Jermy, the Leader of the Labour Group, asked the Leader a question about Devolution.  He had been interested to notice in the local newspaper that Breckland Council would be joining the pre-action protocol to potentially legally challenge the Devolution proposals.  He was aware that according to Cabinet procedures, all Members did not have to be consulted but he hoped that the Leader had consulted with the Conservative Group Members before any decision had been made. He was interested to hear, given the Leader’s previous comments and his reluctance to spend money on legal costs, how much money had been set aside by this Council to support such costs in relation to challenging Devolution.

The Leader stated that to date this Council had incurred no costs in the pre-action protocol but as Members could ascertain from the emerging budget there were existing allocations for legal fees and if this Council was minded taking anyone to judicial review, this would be a Council decision and the budget allocations for such a matter would be included in the report.

Councillor Atterwill, the Leader of the Independent Group, directed his question to Councillor Crane, the Executive Member for Environmental Health, Licensing & Sustainability.  He had noticed that it had been reported in the local newspaper that Serco employees had voted for strike action and asked what contingencies Breckland Council had put in place to mitigate any disruption for residents.

Councillor Crane stated that the Council’s priority was to maintain the service for residents, and she hoped that such industrial action could be avoided.  However, in case the strike did go ahead, the contractor had contingency plans in place to help to mitigate the impact including drafting in staff from other Serco services.

Councillor Birt, the Leader of the Green Party, directed his question to the Leader but framed his question first.

He stated that previously he had dared to claim that certain activities and actions made by this Council had been mediocre which had resulted in a standards complaint being raised against him. He had been lied to by the previous Chief Executive, he had documented evidence of false statements made by other Senior Officers, and his microphone had been stopped multiple times in meetings, despite not breaking any rules and having a constitutional right to speak.  He had been repeatedly denied asking any questions when committee minutes were presented; this had been formally investigated twice where on both occasions it had been found that the Constitution had been breached by not allowing questions. Councillor Birt said that he had a very long list of other examples, but it seemed that his questions should not be heard.  He had recently been reading part of the Daniel Morgan public inquiry and the problem had been defined as ‘placing the protection of reputation above fidelity to the truth’, especially in public bodies.

Councillor Birt then asked the Leader why his experiences fitted in so well with the inquiry’s definition of institutional corruption.

The Leader was not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7/23

Motion proposed by Councillor Philip Morton

Standing up for Responsible Tax Conduct

This model motion is provided by the Fair Tax Campaign which is encouraging all councils to support their Fair Tax declaration.

Full Council notes that:

1.               Around 17.5% of public contracts in the UK have been won by companies with links to tax havens. (Source https://datlab.eu/blog/eu-tenders-to-tax-havens/

2       It has been conservatively estimated that losses from multinational profit-shifting (just one form of tax avoidance) could be costing the UK some £7bn per annum in lost corporation tax revenues.

Source https://missingprofits.world/

3.               The Fair Tax Mark offers a means for business to demonstrate good tax conduct and has been secured by organisations with a combined annual income of £50bn and more than 6,500 outlets and premises, including many social enterprises and co-operatives.

Full Council believes that:

1.           As recipients of significant public funding, local authorities should take the lead in the promotion of exemplary tax conduct; be that by ensuring contractors are paying their proper share of tax, or by refusing to go along with offshore tax dodging when buying land and property.

2.           Where substantive stakes are held in private enterprises, then influence should be wielded to ensure that such businesses are exemplars of tax transparency and tax avoidance is shunned - e.g., no use of marketed schemes requiring disclosure under DOTAS regulations (Disclosure of Tax Avoidance Schemes) or arrangements that might fall foul of the General Anti-Abuse Rule.

3.           More action is needed, however current law significantly restricts councils’ ability to either penalise poor tax conduct or reward good tax conduct, when buying goods or services.

4.           UK cities, counties and towns can and should stand up for responsible tax conduct -doing what they can within existing frameworks and pledging to do more given the opportunity, as active supporters of international tax justice.

Full Council resolves to:

1. Approve the Councils for Fair Tax Declaration.

2. Lead by example and demonstrate good practice in our tax conduct, right across our activities.

3. Include in council standard terms and conditions. Ensure contractors implement IR35 robustly and pay a fair share of employment taxes.

4. The Council will not use offshore vehicles for the purchase of land and property, especially where this leads to reduced payments of stamp duty.

5.Undertake due diligence to ensure that not-for-profit structures are not being used inappropriately as an artificial device to reduce the payment of tax and business rates.

6. Demand clarity on the ultimate beneficial ownership of suppliers and their consolidated profit & loss position.

7. Promote Fair Tax Mark certification for any business in which we have a significant stake and where corporation tax is due.

8. Support calls for urgent reform of UK law to enable local authorities to better penalise poor tax conduct and reward good tax conduct through their procurement policies.

In accordance with the Constitution, Councillor Morton was given the opportunity to
explain the reasoning behind his Notice of Motion.

Firstly, Councillor Morton thanked the Officers who helped prepare what was a modified but hopefully practical version of the Fair Tax declaration.  Paying tax was often presented as a burden but should not be especially by recipients of public funding. Tax helped pay for a huge array of critical public services such as policing, defence, education, health, social care and much more.  The fair tax mark provides a way to demonstrate good tax conduct to residents and inform suppliers of the standards that were expected from them. 

He proposed that Full Council noted that around 17.5% of public contracts in the UK had been won by companies with links to tax havens and losses from multi-international profit shifting could be costing the UK in the region of £7billion per annum in lost revenue.   This Fair Tax mark then offered the means for businesses to demonstrate good tax conduct and had been secured by organisations with a combined annual income of £50billion and more than 6,500 outlets.

He felt that the proposal should really be that Full Council resolves to approve the Council’s Fair Tax declaration, to lead by example and demonstrate good practice in its tax conduct across all activities and ensure that contractors implement an IR35 robustly to pay a fair share of employment taxes.

Also, he felt that this Council should not use offshore vehicles for the purchase of land and property particularly where this leads to reduced payments of stamp duty, and undertake due diligence to ensure that not for profits structures were not being used inappropriately.

This Council should demand clarity on ultimate beneficial ownership of suppliers and their consolidated profit and loss position and promote Fair Tax mark for any business that this Council had any significant stake and where corporation tax was due. Also, calls for urgent reform should be supported to enable local authorities to better penalise poor tax conduct  and reward good tax conduct through its procurement policies.

This would go towards demonstrating to residents the equality and fairness of the system that he felt was vital to the Council’s democratic structures.  

Councillor Dowling seconded the proposal.  She stated that the size of the global economy had quadrupled over the past 30 years, yet the gap between rich and poor was getting wider with a massive increase in wealth at the top, whilst the total wealth owned by those at the bottom was failing.  Since 2015, the richest 1% have more wealth than the rest of the world combined and such extreme economic inequality was fuelled by an epidemic of tax evasion and avoidance that had reached an unprecedented scale.  Whilst millions across the world lived in poverty, rich individuals and companies exploiting the secrecy in terms of tax havens continued to avoid paying their taxes preventing better services being provided.

Since 2014, a large number of documents have been leaked unveiling  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8/23

To note the following Minutes:

The Minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on 9 January 2023 were noted.

The Minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on 6 February 2023 were noted.

The recommendations under Minute No. 24/23 would be discussed under agenda item 12.

Councillor Atterwill drew attention to the extensive discussions that had taken place by the Overview & Scrutiny Commission at that meeting in respect of fuel poverty and credit unions.  There was a whole list of items on page 43 of the agenda pack that were recommended to Cabinet and asked for an update on these matters as he had not seen any responses as yet.  

In response the Deputy Chief Executive & Monitoring Officer said that his understanding was that these matters were due to be heard at the next Cabinet meeting in March.

The Minutes of the Overview & Scrutiny Commission meeting held on 1 December 2022 were noted.

The Minutes of the Overview & Scrutiny Commission meeting held on 26 January 2023 were noted.

The Minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 29 November 2022 were noted.

The Minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 13 December 2022 were noted.

The Minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 17 January 2023 were noted.

The Minutes of the General Purposes Committee meeting held on 24 November 2022 were noted.

The Minutes of the General Purposes Committee meeting held on 12 January 2023 were noted.

Councillor Birt referred to the CO2 reduction plan that only achieved half of the Council’s objectives (see page 102 of the agenda pack) and yet the risk of failure had not changed since established. It had been claimed that this was a long-term risk until 2035 but until the assessment had been made, the time scale was unknown. He asked how and when the risk of failure of the Council’s pledge on climate emergency be made.

Stephen James, the Executive Director, explained that there were a number of actions confirmed within the Sustainability Plan and agreed that there was a gap, but Officers continued to assess new ways to fill that gap as new technology came on board.  He confirmed that the risk assessments were constantly being reviewed and refreshed. 

The Minutes of the Governance & Audit Committee meeting held on 2 February 2023 were noted.

The recommendations under Minute No. 11/23 would be discussed under agenda item 11 and the recommendations under Minute No. 15/23 would be discussed under agenda item 14.

The Minutes of the Committee of the Licensing Authority meeting held on 11 January 2023 were noted.

The Minutes of the Licensing Committee meeting held on 11 January 2023 were noted

Report of Councillor Gordon Bambridge, Executive Member for Housing & Homelessness.

Councillor Gordon Bambridge, the Executive Member for Housing & Homelessness presented the report.  Members were being asked to agree Breckland Council’s approach to the 2023 Local Authority Housing Fund and the recommendations were highlighted and explained.

Councillor Bambridge then proposed the recommendations which were seconded by Councillor Borrett.

Councillor Atterwill referred to the second recommendation.  He felt that it was absolutely imperative that this Council did what it could in supporting Ukrainian residents and those that were coming from Afghanistan.  It was being suggested that available S106 funding should be allocated towards this effort and asked Councillor Bambridge if he had any idea how much of this S106 money would be allocated as the residents of Breckland would probably have a different opinion and put towards affordable housing.  He also asked if such monies were being taken from one pot to be put in another.

Councillor Bambridge explained that this Council had a legal duty to provide housing for displaced persons living in the district, should they become homeless.  This requirement was already in place. The Government had recognised that a burden would be placed on local authorities, and the money that was spent on this project could well be from S106 monies but the amount, at this moment in time, was unknown. 

Councillor Borrett whole heartedly supported the recommendations.  Breckland Council had been allocated £1,274,000 from Central Government and therefore felt that Breckland Council should accept that as it was about providing homes for people who otherwise would not have one.

Following a vote it was,

RESOLVED that:

1. the Council accepts and spends all funding available through the Local Authority Housing Fund 2023, in order to continue to provide housing support to vulnerable groups.

2. the Council releases the required match funding, and any S106 available funding for affordable housing, and adds this to the capital programme.

3. the Council delegates to the Deputy Chief Executive, in consultation with the Executive Member for Housing & Homelessness, the development of the approach and the acquisition of the required properties.

Report of Councillor Phil Cowen, Executive Member for Finance, Revenue & Benefits.

Councillor Cowen, the Executive Member for Finance, Revenue & Benefits presented the report.

The Council was obliged to review and agree its Treasury Management Strategy each year and reflect any changes that might be required as a consequence of guidance received from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance & Accountancy (CIPFA.  He advised that the CIPFA guidance was not actually ‘guidance’ but a requirement placed upon authorities.

The report outlined the Council’s Prudential Indicators for 2023-24 to 2025-26 and set out the expected treasury operations for this period and approval was being requested for the Treasury Management Policy, Strategy and Prudential Indicators for 2023-24 to 2025-26.

Councillor Birt asked if the low cost of the funding provided by the Public Loans Works Board (PLWB) could be investigated further to assist with the Council’s carbon reduction plans. He pointed out that the charges on these loans were lower than inflation and such loans could help to assist with the Council’s vision to be carbon neutral by 2035.

Councillor Cowen understood exactly what Councillor Birt was saying but Alison Chubbock, the Assistant Director of Finance & S151 Officer would, if asked, advise Members of the rules and regulations of local authority borrowing.

Councillor Kybird pointed out that this matter had been discussed at the Governance & Audit Committee meeting and in regard to PLWB, this Council did not have a need for external funding as the net borrowing requirement could be met through its own resources.

Councillor Cowen then read aloud and proposed the four recommendations which were seconded by Councillor Kybird.

Following a vote which was unanimous, it was:

RESOLVED that:

1)         the Treasury Management Strategy 2023-24 to 2025-26 at Appendix A be approved;

2)         the Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) statement contained within Appendix A which sets out the Council’s policy on MRP be approved;

3)         the Prudential & Local Indicators and limits contained within Appendix A (Tables 1-11) be approved;

4)         the Investment Strategy 2023-24 (Appendix B) and the detailed criteria included in Appendix B1 be approved; and

5)      the Treasury Management Policy at Appendix B2 be approved.

The Chairman read aloud the following statements that applied to both the Budget report at Agenda item 12 and the Council Tax report at Agenda item 13:

In accordance with The Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014, a recorded vote is now required at budget meetings.

Members are reminded that if they are two months or more in arrears, they must disclose the fact and not vote on any item to set tax or any decision which may affect its calculation.

Report of Councillor Phil Cowen, Executive Member for Finance, Revenue & Benefits.

Councillor Cowen the Executive Member for Finance, Revenue & Benefits presented the report.

The papers set out before Members contained this Council’s proposals for the Budget, Medium Term Financial Plan and Capital Strategy for the financial year 2023-2024. This was the culmination of a process and had been reviewed in accordance with the standing orders of the Council.  Following that review, the final proposals had been tabled at the Cabinet meeting on 6 February 2023.

The proposals had been consulted upon, had been debated and discussed at both Cabinet and the Overview and Scrutiny Commission and during this rigorous and transparent process no amendments had been forthcoming.

As a result, the proposals had been unchanged from those that had been drafted at the end of 2022 with the exception of changes to Settlement and Business Rates income as previously reported.

Budgeting was an exercise in balancing known and assumed, or sometimes unknown or anticipated, variables against a set of choices that this Council made. It was the ‘choices’ element within the equation over which this Council had discretionary control and that, in turn, sets it on a course of action to establish the balanced budget.

Breckland Council had established key overriding priorities (choices) in addition to statutory services, against which its budget must provide funding. These were:

·         Inspiring communities

·         Thriving places

·         Breckland 2035

·         Working smarter

·         Breckland cares

Many authorities around the country had found themselves in challenging positions, and, in some cases, their finances had been compromised but as a result of the detailed work undertaken by Team Breckland, this Council, could propose a balanced budget that allowed it to support both the statutory services that it was tasked with and provide the discretionary services that it had determined as essential for the residents and businesses who lived and worked in Breckland . This budget was not only balanced for the year ahead but also for the following year and was an achievement of which all Members could be proud of.

The details of how this budget had been established were explained.

This was a positive budget statement and placed Breckland Council in an enviable position. The budget proposed that the band D tax level increased to £108.63 per year (just over £2 per week) but some 76% of Breckland homes were within bands A-C and thus the majority of Breckland households who paid the full amount of Council Tax would pay less than £1.86 per week for the statutory services and importantly, the discretionary services that this Council provided.

Councillor Cowen pointed out that when he addressed the Overview and Scrutiny Commission on 26 January to present the draft budget, he had advised that additional Business Rates funding to the value of 500k would be received in the coming year and £1m in the following year 2024-2025. This Council faced significant risks to its budget as a result of the likely business rates reset and the fair funding review but this additional funding had been confirmed after the statutory consultation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12/23

Report of Councillor Phil Cowen, Executive Member for Finance, Revenue & Benefits.

Councillor Cowen, the Executive Member for Finance, Revenue & Benefits presented the report.

The report reflected on the decisions reached by the Police and Crime Commissioner and Norfolk County Council in setting their precept and council tax level respectively and Breckland Cabinet’s resolution at the 6 February Cabinet meeting.

In addition, the commentary sets out the special expenses and the resolutions that were utilised in the various calculations behind the council tax setting process.  The Appendices to the report were highlighted and the recommendations were read aloud.

The recommendations were seconded by Councillor Kybird.

Councillor Birt stated that he would be voting against these recommendations.

Subject to 26 votes in favour, 10 against and no abstentions, it was:

RESOLVED that:

1.    the special expenses for 2023-24 (at paragraph 1.3 of the report) be approved; and

2.    the formal Council Tax resolutions for 2023-24 (at paragraph 1.4.1 to 1.4.5 of the report as set out below) be approved.

1.4.1    It is to be noted that on 22 February 2023 the Council has calculated: -

a)    the Council Tax Base 2023-24 for the whole Council area as 45,925.2 (item T in the regulations made under Section 33(5) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, as amended) and

b) for dwellings in those parts of its area to which a Parish precept relates as in the attached Appendix A of the report.

1.4.2    Calculate that the Council Tax requirement for the Council’s own purposes for 2023-24 (excluding Parish precepts and special expenses) is £4,988,887.

1.4.3    That the following amounts be calculated by the Council for the year 2023-24 in accordance with Sections 31 to 36 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 as amended (the Act):-

Report of Rob Walker, Deputy Chief Executive & Monitoring Officer.

Sarah Wolstenholme-Smy, the Legal Services Manager presented the report. 

The report had been discussed at the Governance & Audit Committee meeting on 8 February 2023 and recommended to Full Council accordingly. 

The Council’s current Code of Conduct had been in place since March 2017, and it was being proposed to adopt the Local Government Associations Model Code of Conduct.  This had been based on a number of reasons as it was well set out, was reasonably straight forward, easier to follow and put this Council in line with other authorities in Norfolk.

The recommendations were proposed by Councillor James and seconded by Councillor Borrett.

Councillor Birt felt that this Code was not perfect but supported it as it was far better than the existing one and should be approved and adopted into the Council’s Constitution forthwith.

 Following a unanimous vote, it was:

RESOLVED that:

1.    the new/revised Code of Conduct be adopted;

2.    the new Code of Conduct to come into effect from 9 May 2023; and

3.    the Council’s Constitution be amended accordingly from 9 May 2023.

To receive nominations for any changes to Committee and other seats from political groups.

The Deputy Leader, Councillor Claussen announced the following changes to the membership of the General Purposes Committee.

Councillor Tristan Ashby – Vice-Chairman

Councillor Duigan – Member

Councillor Taila Taylor – Substitute Member

There were no further nominations.

None.

NOTE: No other business is permitted unless by reason of special circumstances, which shall be specified in the minutes, the Chairman is of the opinion that the items(s) should be considered as a matter of urgency.

To consider passing the following resolution:

“That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Schedule 12A to the Act”

Not required.

The following Minutes were not discussed.

Not discussed.

Not discussed.