Agenda and draft minutes

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting.  He stated that there were two new members on the Committee – Councillor Tim Warren (present) and Councillor George Leach (sent apologies).

The Democratic Services Officer read out the emergency evacuation procedure.

Apologies were received from Councillor George Leach and Kate Skelton (Parish Councillor).

Sophie Sidonio (Independent Member) had resigned from the Committee due to volunteering commitments.  The Monitoring Officer informed the meeting that recruitment would be undertaken for Independent Members in the autumn.

At this point in the meeting declarations of interest are received from Members in any of the agenda items under consideration at the meeting.

(a) The agenda item number in which they have an interest to declare.

(b) The nature of their interest.

(c) Whether their interest is a disclosable pecuniary interest or an other interest (as defined in Part 4.4 Appendix B of the Code of Conduct and Rules for Registration of Interests).

Any Member who needs to clarify any matters relating to the declaration of interests is recommended to seek advice from the Council’s Monitoring Officer or a member of his staff before the meeting to expedite dealing with the item during the meeting.

There were no declarations of interest.

There was no urgent business.

There was a statement from Alex Hansen in respect of the multi use games area recently constructed by the University of Bath.  He referred to sports floodlighting which was operational that had no planning permission and other irregularities in planning applications in university developments.  Some of these developments were close to special areas of conservation (SAC) where it is known that bats are found.  He went on to discuss a boundary wall between the university and National Trust land and a field station that the university was preparing to give away to the National Trust. 

There were no questions.

The Chair of the Committee explained that the Standards Committee was responsible for maintaining standards of conduct for Councillors and Parish Councillors in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct.  There was also a published process for making a complaint about planning.

The full statement was provided to the Democratic Services Officer and would be attached to the minutes.

There were none.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 23^rd April 2024 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

David Langman (Customer Feedback & Standards Manager) presented the report and explained that some of the jurisdiction of the LGSCO was changing because of their new Complaint Handling Code and so new ways of engaging with councillors through scrutiny was being prescribed.  He reminded the Committee that the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) was the last resort for residents and service users to make complaints against the Council, having already exhausted the Council’s complaints process.  He proceeded to take members through the report.

During question the following points were made:-

·  There was no significant difference in procedures or criteria for managing complaints under the new Complaint Handling Code, in comparison with the Council’s existing approach.  The services always explained the outcomes and set out the lessons learned to ensure transparency.

·  When receiving an escalated complaint, the LGO assessed the complaint first to consider if it was valid, prudent, effective and timely.  From that they decided if it would be dismissed or there would be further investigation to see if there was any finding of fault.  The initial assessment was quick but the investigation could be up to a year sometimes.  In all cases the customer would be informed by the LGO of their timescales.

·  In comparison to neighbouring local authorities annual outcome rankings, B&NES was second or third.

·  The LGO set out standards of how they expect a Council to operate and they have Good Practice Guides about their Complaint Handling Code.  The final implementation should be April 2026.  Currently there was a pilot running and B&NES was part of this.  The Monitoring Officer stated that a report would be submitted to the Executive Member and from that point this report would go to Corporate Scrutiny not Standards Committee.

RESOLVED that the Annual Review and the determinations made by the Ombudsman be noted.

The Monitoring Officer presented the report which summarised the work of the Standards Committee for the last year.  He outlined the complaints process and explained that it covered B&NES and parish councillors.  He stated that the lack of sanction was a problem for many local authorities which had happened in 2011 with the Localism Act.  It was hoped that this would change to bring back sanctions but the new government’s latest bill was silent on this.

During discussion the following matters were raised:

·  It was noted that the parish councillors had been omitted from the membership section on the report.

·  Though several meetings of Standards had been cancelled some had been used for training.

·  If councillors needed legal advice they should contact their political association who were a source of advice.

·  There was no statutory obligation to have an annual report but it was good practice.  It was not necessary to have the work plan and case tracker of complaints within it as it was already on the agenda, or the arrangements for dealing with complaints, so a more concise version was suggested for transparency.

RESOLVED to note the work of the Standards Committee as set out in the Annual Report.

The Monitoring Office presented the report.

RESOLVED to note the report on the assessment of complaints.

The Monitoring Officer reported that there was nothing on the horizon currently.  If there was no business for future meetings then they would be vacated and the complaints tracker would be circulated on a quarterly basis.

RESOLVED to note the workplan.