Agenda and minutes

1.1 Apologies from members of the panel were received from:

 Cllr Sophie Conway; and

Cllr Clare Joseph.

1.2 Apologies were also received from:

Cllr Carole Williams, Cabinet member for employment, human Resources and equalities; and

Cllr Clayeon McKenzie, Cabinet member for housing services and resident participation.

2.1 The Chair noted that there was an exempt Appendix in the main item (item 4) should members choose to discuss this we would enter into a closed session under agenda item 6, after the exclusion of public and press.  The Chair emphasised that the decision of the Scrutiny Panel would however be made in public.

2.2 There were no other urgent items and the agenda was as previously published.

3.1 There were no declarations of interest.

4.1 A key element of the scrutiny function is to consider the call-in of a decision of the Executive. A call-in was requested on 18th December 2023, by Councillor Zoë Garbett and supported by four other Councillors:

·  Councillor Alastair Binnie-Lubbock;

·  Councillor Simche Steinberger;

·  Councillor Hershy Lisser;

·  Councillor Grace Adebayo.

4.2 The call-in related to the Executive Key Decision taken by Cabinet 11th December 2023 on Key Decision CE S283 - Schools Sufficiency and Estate Strategy. The basis of the call-in was that:

- The decision maker did not make the decision in accordance with the principles of decision making, namely (as set out in Council’s constitution under Part 4 Section E 1.2 (a)).

§  Proportionality (i.e. the action must be proportionate to the desired outcome).

§  Due consultation and the taking of professional advice from officers.

§  Respect for human rights.

§  A presumption in favour of openness.

§  Clarity of aims and desired outcomes.

§  Relevant matters have been ignored.

§  Consideration and evaluation of alternatives and reasons for decisions.

§  Due regard to the statutory framework, guidance and Codes of Conduct.

-  In making its decision Cabinet failed to consider relevant evidence (as set out in Part 4 Section E 1.2 (d)); and

-  That the decision taken was not in the interests of the Borough’s residents and a preferable alternative decision could be adopted (as set out in Part 4 Section E 1.2 (e))

4.3 The Chair reminded the lead Call-in Councillor may not seek to introduce any new additional explanations and the presentation needs to be based on the grounds stated in the call-in papers;

- Due consultation and the taking of professional advice from officers;

- Clarity of aims and desired outcomes;

- Consideration and evaluation of alternatives and reasons for decisions.

Lead Member Call-In Presentation - Cllr Zoe Garbett

4.4 It was acknowledged that the decision to close or merge schools was difficult for all those involved.  Cllr Garbett and other call-in members had spoken to school heads and understood the impact that this decision would have on children and families and therefore welcomed this opportunity to further reflect on this process.  Cllr Garbett also thanked officers for all their work in the preparation of papers and for the support they have provided to schools, teachers, families and of course those children involved.  Cllr Garbett also thanked parents for their ongoing input, reviewing the papers and contributing to this call-in process.

4.5 It is recognised that the call-in process is not to be used lightly, but this decision has been called-in to reflect the deeply held concerns of local residents around school closures and mergers.  The meeting is a further opportunity to ensure that residents' views are represented in this decision, which is important to maintain trust in wider decision making processes.

4.6 This was not a call-in of the full decision as the consultation process has impacted schools differently.  The call-in therefore focused on those decisions:

-  (3.1.3.) To close (discontinue) Colvestone Primary  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Item 6 allows for the consideration of exempt information.

Scrutiny Panel did not have any questions on the exempt item, so there was no need to exclude the press or public.

Scrutiny Panel did not have any questions on the exempt item.

There were no urgent items.

The meeting concluded at 10.00pm