The Lord Mayor asked Council if it would agree to the order of business being changed to take agenda item 11 – Governance Review, after the break for Council Tea.

Council agreed to change the order of business.

Minutes of:

(a)       The ordinary meeting of Council held on 18^th February 2013

(b)       The ordinary meeting of Council held on 25^th February 2013

(c)        The extraordinary meeting of Council held on 13^th March 2013.

Council agreed to approve:

(a)       The minutes of the ordinary meeting held on 18^th February 2013, subject to the following amendment;

            In minute 108 – Medium Term Financial Strategy 2013-14 to 2016-17 and 2013-14 Budget – in the fifteenth paragraph to delete the word “undertake” and insert the words “as a cycle safety measure” in the fourth line.

            In minute 132 – Questions on Notice from Members of Council, Question 1 – Councillor Jean Fooks said that she has not received a response from Councillor Steven Curran.

(b)       The minutes of the ordinary meeting held on 25^th February 2013;

(c)        The minutes of the extraordinary meeting held on 13^th March 2013.

Members are asked to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests they may have in any of the following agenda items.  Guidance on this is set out at the end of these agenda pages.

No declarations on interest were made.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Rae Humberstone, Mark Mills, Helen O’Hara and Ruth Wilkinson.

No appointments were made.

(a)       The Lord Mayor informed Council that he had met the Queen at the Maundy Thursday Service held on 20^th March 2013 at Christ Church Cathedral.

(b)       The Lord Mayor on behalf of himself and the Council wished those City Councillors who were standing in the County Council elections on 2^nd May 2013 good luck.

No announcements were made.

The Leader of the Council made the following announcements:

(a)       Two teams have been nominated for the Municipal Journal Awards which recognised innovation and best practice in local government.  The nominated teams were Law and Governance (under the Legal Services award) and Barton West Development (under Community Investment).  The winners will be announced at an awards ceremony in London on 20^th June 2013.

(b)       The Secretary of State has called in the planning appeal on the Lord Nuffield Club, which had previously been refused planning permission by the East Area Planning Committee on the grounds of traffic, parking, congestion and the loss of open space. 

No announcements were made.

To hear addresses from members of the public in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11.8 for which the required notice (1.00pm on Thursday 18^th April 2013) and the full wording of the address has been given to the Head of Law and Governance.

Council received five addresses to Council (the text of these addresses are attached to these minutes)

(1)       Ian Smith (Chair of the City of Oxford Swimming Club) – Temple Cowley Pools

(2)       Peggy Seeger – Temple Cowley Pools

(3)       Sushila Dhall – Campaign to Protect Port Meadow

            A note detailing comments by officers was also submitted

(4)       William Clark – Town Green Application Judicial Review

(5)       Sietske Boeles – Surplus Student Accommodation in East Oxford

To hear questions from the public in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11.09 to the Leader or other Members of the City Executive Board for which the required notice (1.00pm on Thursday 18^th April 2013) and the full wording of the question has been given to the Head of Law and Governance, and to hear responses from those Members.

Seven questions were submitted by members of the public as follows:

(1)       Question to the Board Member, City Development (Councillor Colin Cook) from Adrian Arbib

            Roger Dudman Way - Photomontages

            Can you please clarify which photomontages in relation to the controversial Roger Dudman Way development (11/02881/FUL) were first available on the City Council website? The briefing note by Michael Crofton-Briggs (April 2013) refers to photomontages dated November 21 2011.  However there are no photomontages up on the Council website for that date but only ones dated 21 December 2011 and referred to as additional information.

            Can you confirm that these 21 December 2011 photomontages were uploaded on the Council’s website at the time of consultation and determination of the planning application?

            Response: Adrian Arbib did not attend the Council meeting and received the following written response:

            “There were a number of images received on 21^st December not the 21^st November.  These are the ones from Port Meadow showing the general location of Phase 1 and the current proposal however, they are not the wirelines which were received later and loaded up on 8^th February.

(2)       Question to the Board Member, City Development (Councillor Colin Cook) from Sushila Dhall

            Roger Dudman Way – Officer advice

            Can Oxford City Council clarify it the West Area Planning Committee (WAPC) acted ultra vires when it instructed the Head of City Development to negotiate with Oxford University to ameliorate the height and mass of the Roger Dudman Way development? If WAPC has acted ultra vires, then who in the City Council has the executive power to take this forward?

            Response: Council asked the Head of City Development (HoDC) to bring forward as soon as possible in the New Year, a report to WAPC, setting out any general lessons that need to be learned from the handling of this application and an assessment of the scope for further measures that are legally possible and that would contribute in the long and the short term to mitigate the impact on the views looking south from Port Meadow.  The HoDC submitted a report to the 7^th February 2013 meeting of the WAPC.  The meeting resolved to:

(1)       instruct the HoDC to negotiate with the University of Oxford in order to ameliorate the size and impact of the development;

(2)       instruct the HoDC to report back on the progress of those negotiations (by the April 2013 meeting at the latest);

(3)       establish a Working Party to recommend to the Council any changes to policies or procedure which the process of handling and determination of the application (including the pre-application and consultation stages) might suggest would be desirable.

(1) and (2) are intrinsic to assessing the scope for further measures as referred to in the resolution of Council.  (3) is intrinsic to establishing general lessons to be learned as referred to in the resolution of Council.  Officers are therefore content that the WAPC did not exceed the scope of its authority.

(3)       Question  ...  view the full minutes text for item 153.

The Head of Law and Governance and has submitted a report which presents the outcome of the review of the Council’s governance arrangements, and makes recommendations for changes.

This report was presented to the City Executive Board on 10^th April 2013.  An extract from the minutes of this meeting is also attached.

Council is asked:

(a)       As from the start of the Council Year 2013/14, that:-

(1)       The single executive member arrangements for decision-making be discontinued and to note that the responsibilities of single members have been re-allocated by the City Executive Board as set out in Annex 1 to this report and the Constitution be amended accordingly.

(2)       City Executive Board agenda should contain an additional item relating to addresses by councillors to the Board and that Constitution be altered as set out in Annex 3 to this report.

            (3)       One Scrutiny Committee (and not two scrutiny committees) is   appointed as follows:-

(a)       To be responsible for co-ordinating the scrutiny work programme and  for commissioning a range of review and standing panels;

(b)       To consist of 12 members appointed in accordance with political balance requirements.

(4)       The changes in Council procedures set out in Annex 6A to this report and contained in the updated Section 11 of the Constitution that forms Annex 6B to this report be introduced.

(b)       That the programme of Council and committee meetings for 2013/14 and 2014/15 be approved as set out in Annex 2A and 2B to this report, noting:-

(i)         that the 2013/14 programme replaces that agreed by Council on 20^th February 2012; 

(ii)        that the programme for May and June 2014 may need to be adjusted depending upon the date set for the European Elections (22 May or 5 June) and any adjustment to the date of the local government elections (1^st May at present);

(iii)       that 10 City Executive Board and 10 Scrutiny Committee meetings have been programmed for 2013/14 with no such meetings programmed for May 2014 (the month when City Council elections are at present programmed), and that 11 City Executive Board and 11 Scrutiny Committee meetings have been programmed for 2014/15 with meetings programmed for May 2015 (the month when a General Election could occur).

(c)        To note that monthly Board member briefings on current issues, open to all members, will be arranged and conducted by officers, and that dates for these briefings are contained in the programme of Council and committee meetings that forms Annex 2A.

(d)       To note that officers will present an updated Member/Officer Protocol to Council in June and in the meantime to note that officers will refresh staff awareness of its provisions in particular as far as Ward references are concerned (the present version of the Protocol forms Annex 4).

(e)       To note that the City Executive Board on 5^th December 2012 agreed the recommendations in Annex 5 to this report that relate to public engagement and that officers are working on their implementation.

(f)         To agree  ...  view the full agenda text for item 154.

Council had before it the following (previously circulated, now appended):

(1)       Report of the Head of Law and Governance which was submitted to the City Executive Board on 10^th April 2013.  The report presented the outcome of the review of the Council’s governance arrangements.

(2)       Extract from the minutes of the City Executive Board held on 10^th April 2013;

(3)       A note detailing proposed Green Group amendments to the recommendations listed in the main report.

Councillor Price moved the report.

Councillor Williams thanked Councillor Price and the Liberal Democrat Group Members who came to the Cross Party Working Group throughout the year and for their work in connection to the Governance Review.  He also wished to thank Officers, especially William Reed (Democratic Services Manager) and Mathew Metcalfe (Democratic and Electoral Services Officer) for their support and advice.

Green Group amendment 1

Councillor Williams seconded by Councillor Goddard moved his first amendment.

Following a debate, Council voted and the amendment was not adopted.

Green Group amendment 2

Councillor Williams seconded by Councillor Simmons moved his second amendment.

Following a debate, Council voted and the amendment was not adopted.

Green Group amendment 3

Councillor Williams seconded by Councillor Fooks moved his third amendment.

Following a debate, Council voted and the amendment was not adopted.

Green Group amendment 4

Councillor Williams seconded by Councillor Fooks moved his fourth amendment.

Following a debate, Council voted and the amendment was not adopted.

Green Group amendments 5(a), 5(b) 5(c) and 5(d)

Councillor Williams moved amendment 5(a).

Following a debate, Council voted and the amendment was not adopted.

Councillor Williams moved amendment 5(b)

Following a debate, Council voted and the amendment was adopted as follows:

With regard to Motions on Notice:

·        Substantive amendment to Motions must be submitted no later that 1.5 working days before the meeting so that they may be circulated with the briefing note.

·        Minor technical or limited wording amendments may be submitted during the meeting but must be written down and circulated.

Councillor Williams moved amendment 5(c)

Following a debate, Council voted and the amendment was adopted as follows:

With regard to Members reporting to Council to replace the proposed wording on Procedure Rule 11.14 and replace with the following wording:

Members who are Council representatives on external bodies or Chairs of Council Committees who consider that a significant decision or event has taken place, will give notice of up to 1.5 working days prior to the Council meeting to present a written or oral report on the event of a significant decision and how it may influence future events.  All Council members will be able to ask for a report to be given at Council by the Council representative on a significant change or important event if they lodge their request up to 4.5 working days prior to the Council meeting.

Councillor Williams moved amendment 5(d)

Following a debate, Council voted and the amendment was not adopted.

Green Group amendment 6

Councillor Williams seconded by Councillor Simmons moved his sixth  ...  view the full minutes text for item 154.

The Head of Housing has submitted a report which presents for approval the proposed percentage targets for the allocation of social housing in 2013/14.

This report was submitted to the City Executive Board on 10^th April 2013.  An extract from the minutes of this meeting are also attached.

Council is asked to approve the proposed Annual Lettings Plan for 2013/14 as detailed in the report.

Council had before it the following (previously circulated, now appended):

(1)       Report of the Head of Housing which was submitted to the City Executive Board on 10^th April 2013.  The report presented for approval the proposed percentage targets for the allocation of social housing in 2013/14;

(2)       Extract from the minutes of the City Executive Board held on 10^th April 2013

Councillor Scott Seamons moved and spoke to the report.

Council agreed:

(a)       To note the performance against the Annual Lettings Plan for 2012/13 (1^st April 2012 to 31^st January 2013);

(b)       To approve the Annual Lettings Plan for 2013/14.

This item has a time limit of 15 minutes

City Executive Board decisions (Minutes)

(a)       Minutes of the meeting held on 21^st March 2013

(b)       Minutes of the meeting held on 10^th April 2013

Single Executive Member decisions (Minutes)

No meeting held since the last ordinary meeting of Council.

Council had before it minutes (previously circulation, now appended) of the City Executive Board and Single Executive Member meetings held since the last meeting of Full Council.

(a)       City Executive Board decisions – 21^st March 2013 (Minutes)

(1)       Minute 102 – Finance, Performance and Risk – Quarter 3 Progress 2012/13.  In response to Councillor Fooks, Councillor Turner said that he was angry at the welfare cuts and that budget for Local Government from the Department for Communities and Local Government was to be further reduced.  He acknowledged that the processing of smaller planning applications under the proposed changes to planning would be yet another burden on Local Authorities.  He added that the Council was committed to tackling poverty.

(b)       City Executive Board decisions – 10^th April 2013 (Minutes)

(1)       Minute 113 – Draft affordable housing and planning obligations supplementary planning document.  In response to questions Councillor Turner supported by Councillor Simmons expressed disappointment that the document was being challenged by Merton College.

No reports were submitted from Scrutiny and other Committees.

Questions on notice under Council Procedure Rule 11.10(b) may be asked of the Lord Mayor, a Member of the City Executive Board or the Chair of a Committee.

Questions on notice must, by the Constitution, be notified to the Head of Law and Governance by no later that 9.30am on Friday 19^th April 2013.

Full details of any questions for which the required notice has been given will be circulated to Members of Council before the meeting.

(a)       Questions notified in time for replies to be provided before the Council meeting

(1)       Question to the Board Member City Development (Councillor Colin Cook) from Councillor Jean Fooks

Dial-a-Ride bus service

When will the City Council contract with the County Council Integrated Transport Unit for the provision of a second Dial-a-Ride bus for the elderly and less mobile citizens of Oxford?

Response: We are currently reviewing usage statistics for dial a ride and are looking at alternative community transport methods to ensure that any additional monies committed add usefully to services in the city.  I expect that we will have come to a conclusion within a month from now.  I am more than happy to share the data with Councillor Fooks.

Councillor Fooks in a supplementary question asked if the elderly users had been consulted.  In response Councillor Cook said that they could continue to use the existing service and it was important that any change to the service was done right.

(2)       Question to the Leader of the Council (Councillor Bob Price) from Councillor Graham Jones

Break the bag habit campaign

Will the Leader kindly inform us if replies have been received from our MPs Andrew Smith and Nicola Blackwood in response to the Council's unanimous motion on the issue of plastic bags?

Response: As of the date of this meeting a response had been received from Andrew Smith MP, but not from Nicola Blackwood MP.

            (3)       Question to the Leader of the Council (Councillor Bob Price) from Councillor Jean Fooks

                        Town Hall café

The story of the Town Hall café has been an embarrassment to the City Council.  How much has been spent on the several refurbishments to date, how many months has it actually been operational since it first opened?

Response: The Town Hall Café first opened in 2006 and was fully operational until November 2011. In October 2011, the contract with the caterers (Fosters) came to an end which provided an opportunity to look at the café provision. A procurement exercise was undertaken and this resulted in the appointment of a new caterer (Ambassador) to run the café. Ambassador proposed changes to the café offer, with an increased space, longer opening hours, higher quality food and a desire to host evening events. A refurbishment was agreed as part of this exercise (£37k allocated from the budgeted Town Hall repairs and maintenance programme) which would give a return on investment based on new rental figures within 3 years.

The café was closed in November 2011 whilst the procurement exercise and refurbishments were being progressed. A pop-up café operated in the space for 6 months in 2012. The refurbished café opened in October 2012. This long period of closure arose because of contractual, design and construction issues.

Unfortunately the new café suffered operating difficulties and was closed for a month in March 2013 whilst another contractor was identified. Lemon Zest now operate the facility successfully on behalf of the Council.

Councillor Fooks in a supplementary  ...  view the full minutes text for item 158.

Statements on Notice under Council Procedure Rule 11.10(b) may be made.  Statements do not need to be directed to the specific Councillor.

Statements on notice must, by the Constitution, be notified to the Head of Law and Governance by no later that 9.30am on Friday 19^th April 2013.

Full details of any statements for which the required notice has been given will be circulated to Members of Council before the meeting.

Councillor Oscar Van Nooijen at the instruction of the West Area Planning Committee in respect of the business it had been dealing with on the Roger Dudman Way development by Oxford University for student accommodation, made the following statement.

“Council will recall it asked in December 2012 for the Committee to receive a report from officers firstly to consider whether or not the development was in compliance with the planning permission that had been granted, and secondly, whether to consider if there were other matters which needed to be looked at.  This report came to the February 2013 meeting of the Committee.  

The Committee considered the report and noted it and did a number of other things, the most important of which was to instruct Planning Officers to open negotiations with the University to ameliorate the size and impact of the development.  The Committee took that decision because it felt that the emerging size and impact of the development were not acceptable and in line with what it expected to see.  In taking that decision the Committee also noted that what was being constructed as it was advised by officers, was in compliance with the planning permission which had been granted, none the less, it still wished to see some changes.

The Committee did a third thing which was to set up a working party which it intended to include representatives of the Civic Society, other amenity societies and the Protect Port Meadow Campaign to learn general lessons about the way in which the application had been handled, and more generally the way in which consultation should be done on applications of that sort.

In respect of that action point, no further action has been taken.  The reason for this was that the Council soon afterwards received notice of a legal challenge and the advice to both the Protect Port Meadow Campaign and the City Council was that it should refrain from a meeting of a working group of that sort until after the matter had been dispatched.

At its April meeting last week the Committee received an interim report from the Head of City Development.  This report outlined the negotiations that had taken place with the University up to that point, which were nugatory.  An exchange of letters were shown to the Committee which showed that the University was resisting any attempts to negotiate a reduction in the size of the buildings of any sort, but that it was open to considering cosmetic measures to reduce the visual impact of the development.  However no details of those measures were provided.

The Committee was dissatisfied with this interim report and resolved to receive a full report as soon as possible.  Resolved to send the Leader of the Council to negotiate with the Vice-Chancellor directly, resolved to report back to the full Council and resolved that the Chair of the Committee should write to the Vice-Chancellor to explain the position and to remind the University of Oxford that the authority retained  ...  view the full minutes text for item 159.

The Head of Law and Governance has submitted a report which advises on the procedure that Council needs to follow under the Council’s Petitions Scheme in respect of large petitions, and to provide information specifically on the petition entitled “To benefit the people of Oxford”.

Council is being recommended to follow the procedure for large petitions by hearing the head petitioner and to then debate the petition and decide how to advise the Executive.

The Head of Law and Governance submitted a report (previously circulated, now appended) which advised on the procedure that Council needed to follow under the Council’s Petitions Scheme in respect of large petitions and provided information specifically on the petition concerning “To benefit the people of Oxford”.

Nigel Gibson the head petitioner presented the petition and spoke on its contents.

Following Nigel Gibson’s presentation, Council debated the contents of the petition.

Councillor Coulter seconded by Councillor Price proposed the following motion:

“This Council acknowledges the petition before it, but resolves that the City Executive Board should not introduce further delay and that the City Council needs to move towards construction of a new and fit for purpose pool at the earliest possible date”

Council agreed:

(a)       To thank Nigel Gibson for presenting the “To benefit the people of Oxford” petition;

(b)       That this Council acknowledged the petition before it, but resolved that the City Executive Board should not introduce further delay and that the City Council needed to move towards construction of a new and fit for purpose pool at the earliest possible date.

The Head of Law and Governance has submitted a report which advises on the procedure that Council needs to follow under the Council’s Petitions Scheme in respect of large petitions, and to provide information specifically on the petition entitled “Save R&R Dance Studios – Home of Dance Connection”.

Council is being recommended to follow the procedure for large petitions by hearing the head petitioner and to then debate the petition and decide how to advise the Executive.

The Head of Law and Governance submitted a report (previously circulated, now appended) which advised on the procedure that Council needed to follow under the Council’s Petitions Scheme in respect of large petitions and provided information specifically on the petition concerning “Save R&R Dance Studios – Home of Dance Connection”.

Sam Clifton and William Rodwell as Head Petitioners presented the petition and spoke on its contents.

Following the presentation from Sam Clifton and William Rodwell, Council debated the contents of the petition.

Councillor Price seconded by Councillor Turner proposed the following motion:

“Council welcomes the petition on the retention of the Dance Studios at the Oxford Stadium.  Council notes that the petition provides a strong endorsement of the City Council’s planning policy which retains the Stadium site for leisure provision and does not identify it as suitable for housing development.  Council further notes that the planning application for the site from Galliard Homes will be considered in the near future by the East Area Planning Committee and draws the attention of Officers and the Members of the Committee to the terms of the petition”.

Council agreed:

(a)       To thank Sam Clifton and William Rodwell for presenting the petition “Save R&R Dance Studios – Home of Dance Connection”

(b)       To welcome the petition on the retention of the Dance Studios at the Oxford Stadium.  To note that the petition provided a strong endorsement of the City Council’s planning policy which retained the Stadium site for leisure provision and did not identify it as suitable for housing development.  To further note that the planning application for the site from Galliard Homes would be considered in the near future by the East Area Planning Committees and the attention of Officers and the Members of the Committee is drawn to the terms of the petition.

Council Procedure Rule 11.14 refers.  The Motions (listed in the order received) that have been notified to the Head of Law and Governance by the deadline of 1.00pm on Monday 8^th April 2013 are attached to this agenda.

(1)       Expansion of powers of the Planning Inspectorate – (Proposer Councillor Ed Turner) 

Council opposes the proposal of September 2012 to remove from local authorities who fail to meet centrally set targets the ability to determine planning applications in their areas, and believes that such a move is an unwarranted assault on local democracy.

            Following a debate, Council voted and the Motion was adopted.

(2)       Practicality of monthly payments – The Universal Credit - (Proposer Councillor Mike Rowley)

This Council notes the serious concerns that have been raised about monthly direct payments of "universal credit" by many charities and professional organisations, with Crisis warning the Government that the system of monthly payments "fails to recognise that many employees are paid on a weekly or fortnightly basis, especially in low paid work.  People used to receiving more regular payments may struggle to manage their finances across a month long period".

This Council deplores the potentially seriously damaging effect on gender equality and child poverty, as the Women's Resource and Development Agency have pointed out: "It is estimated that in 80 per cent of cases Universal Credit will be paid to the male partner in the household.  This is a hugely retrograde step in terms of progressing gender equality and, we would contend, tackling child poverty.  We are very concerned about the transfer of resources from the purse to the wallet and the backward step in terms of enabling women’s financial autonomy."

This Council, further notes that Citizens' Advice have calculated that 8.5 million people in Britain have never used the internet and a further 14.5 million people have limited computer skills.  We are deeply concerned therefore that some 37% of the population, almost certainly including a disproportionate percentage of benefit claimants, will find it difficult to obtain what they are entitled to if they have to apply online, and help in person is not easily accessible.

This Council believes that, at the very least, the category of "vulnerable" claimants, to be awarded exceptions from this regime of payment, should be drawn broadly, and include residents with problematic credit and debt problems as well as those with health problems or a disability making money management difficult.

This Council urges the Government to think again about the practicality of monthly payments and of online benefit claims; and requests the Leader and the Chief Executive write to the Prime Minister making our views known.

            Following a debate, Council voted and the Motion was carried.

(3)       Local Housing Allowance rates in Oxford – (Proposer Councillor Mike Rowley)
 

Council notes that Oxford is in the centre of a “Broad Rental Market Area” including substantial parts of Oxfordshire for the purposes of calculating Local Housing Allowance rates, despite the fact that rent Oxford within the city boundaries one of the most expensive places to live in the Country, and income here is relatively low.  Consequently, for those renting privately, rents take up 55% of average income in Oxford, and this has been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 162.

Councillors Fooks asked if a written update on the City Deal could be provided.  In response Councillor Price said he was happy to do this and informed Council that workshops would be taking place and information from these would be brought forward for Members information.

The Head of Human Resources and Facilities has submitted a report which details the collective agreement on pay and the Pay Policy Statement.

Council is asked:

(1)       To note and approve the Collective Agreement on Pay dated February 2013, including its non-pay elements;

(2)       To note and approve the amendments to the Council’s annual Pay Policy Statement 2013;

(3)       To authorise the Head of Human Resources and Facilities make any changes other than pay to collective terms and conditions and Council employment policies in accordance with the collective agreement.

The Head of Human Resources and Facilities submitted a report (previously circulated, now appended) which detailed the collective agreement on pay and the Pay Policy Statement.

Councillor Bob Price, seconded by Councillor Ed Turner moved and spoke to the report.

Council agreed:

(a)       To note and approve the Collective Agreement on pay dated February 2013, including its non-pay elements;

(b)       To note and approve the amendments to the Council’s Annual Pay Policy Statement 2013;

(c)        To authorise the Head of Human Resources and Facilities to make any changes other than pay to collective terms and conditions and Council employment policies in accordance with the collective agreement.

The Head of Law and Governance has submitted a report which details the Council’s application of its powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

Council is asked to note the use of the powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) for the period 1^st April 2012 to 31^st March 2013 and to note the recent amendments to RIPA relating to judicial approval and custody thresholds. 

The Head of Law and Governance submitted a report (previously circulated, now appended) which detailed the Council’s application of its powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

Councillor Bob Price, seconded by Councillor Ed Turner, moved and spoke to the report.

Council agreed to note the use of the powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) for the period 1^st April 2012 to 31^st March 2013 and to note the recent amendments to RIPA relating to judicial approval and custody thresholds.

If Council wishes to exclude the press and the public from the meeting during consideration of any aspects of the preceding agenda items it will be necessary for Council to pass a resolution in accordance with the provisions of Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 specifying the grounds on which their presence could involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as described in specific paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act if and so long as, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

(The Access to Information Procedure Rules – Section 15 of the Council’s Constitution – sets out the conditions under which the public can be excluded from meetings of the Council).

There were not matters exempt from publication.