Agenda and minutes
PDF 215 KBVenue: Woodhatch Place, 11 Cockshot Hill, Reigate, Surrey, RH2 8EF
Contact: Amelia Christopher Email: amelia.christopher@surreycc.gov.uk
Media
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
The Chair to report apologies for absence. Additional documents: Minutes: Apologies for absence were received from John Beckett, Amanda Boote, Liz Bowes, Will Forster, Rebecca Jennings-Evans (remote), Rachael Lake BEM (remote), David Lewis (Camberley West), Scott Lewis, Steven McCormick, Becky Rush, Mark Sugden (remote).
|
|
To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 4 February 2025.
Additional documents: Minutes: The minutes of the meeting of the County Council held on 4 February 2025 were submitted, confirmed and signed.
|
|
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
All Members present are required to declare, at this point in the meeting or as soon as possible thereafter (i) Any disclosable pecuniary interests and / or (ii) Other interests arising under the Code of Conduct in respect of any item(s) of business being considered at this meeting NOTES: · Members are reminded that they must not participate in any item where they have a disclosable pecuniary interest · As well as an interest of the Member, this includes any interest, of which the Member is aware, that relates to the Member’s spouse or civil partner (or any person with whom the Member is living as a spouse or civil partner) · Members with a significant personal interest may participate in the discussion and vote on that matter unless that interest could be reasonably regarded as prejudicial. Additional documents: Minutes: The Chair confirmed that the Audit and Governance Committee had approved a general dispensation for all Members on an ongoing basis to enable Members to participate and vote in the matters relating to Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) irrespective of them otherwise having a Statutory Disclosable Pecuniary Interest.
There were none.
|
|
|
CHAIR'S ANNOUNCEMENTS
Welcome Good morning everyone, and welcome to today’s Council meeting. The past few weeks have been exceptionally busy, with numerous visits across the council and a variety of civic ceremonies taking place throughout our districts and boroughs. February and early March have truly been a vibrant and engaging period for us all.
Chair’s Visits
Chinese Association of Woking: I was delighted to join the 2025 Chinese New Year Celebration in Woking town centre, on Saturday 8 February. There were two performances, and I had the honour of addressing the residents of Woking at the start of both. Citizenship Ceremonies: I have recently become more active in the county's Citizenship Ceremonies, delivering dignitary speeches and presenting certificates. I thoroughly enjoy these events and would like to thank Vice-Chair Tim Hall and past chair Helyn Clack for also serving as dignitaries. Thank you both. Stand With Ukraine: On 24 February, I stood with our community in a ceremony to mark the third anniversary of the war in Ukraine. It was a moving event where we paid heartfelt respect and sympathy to those who have suffered unimaginable loss and suffering. Surrey Youth Voice: Last year, I contributed to the Unheard Voices Project. With the project concluding, I visited Chief Executive Officer Cate Newnes-Smith to hear insights from children and young people about feeling included in their communities. We discussed raising awareness across Surrey about the importance of welcoming children and families with disabilities. Our work to foster change in our communities will continue. Knaphill Care: It was a joy to attend an afternoon of music for Knaphill Care clients. Listening to their stories and thanking those who tirelessly help others in greater need within the county was a pleasure. Surrey Armed Forces: This year's Covenant Conference, hosted by The Soldier Academy Pirbright, was an opportunity to celebrate and strengthen the partnership between Surrey's armed forces and civilian communities.
Chair’s Events
Community Champions Reception: Invitations have been sent to all worthy award winners. All invited guests must RSVP to the Chair’s Office via the online link by 28 February. Please remind your nominees if they have not yet replied – thank you.
As always – thank you! I would like to extend my gratitude to all our Members. It is an uncertain time for our residents, and we must continue to support them to the highest possible standard and continue committing to improving our community. Additional documents: Minutes: The Chair:
· Highlighted that the Chair's Community Champions' Reception should continue to be held annually to thank the nominated residents. · Noted that his full announcements could be found in the agenda.
|
|
The Leader to make a statement.
There will be an opportunity for Members to ask questions and/or make comments.
Additional documents: Minutes: John Robini arrived at 10.06 am.
The Leader of the Council made a detailed statement. A copy of the statement is attached as Appendix A.
Members raised the following topics:
· Stressed that LGR was a once in a generation change, asked Members to respect one another, decisions should not be taken lightly or politically, but should be based on facts and supported by transparency across the twelve councils. · Expressed a view that the options for two unitary councils proposed by the Council under item 6 were not sustainable and ignored existing collaborations. · Noted that the total debt across the twelve councils was £5.5 billion, with Woking Borough Council having unserviceable debts and Spelthorne Borough Council under Government intervention. · Noted that the report outlined that one unitary council costs less and would be more efficient, but this does not acknowledge the layers in Surrey. · Noted that a minimum of two unitary councils would be required in order for a Mayoral Strategic Authority to be established. The report outlined that two unitary councils would reduce duplication and cost less, yet there was no indication of where the money would be spent. · Called for economic areas, areas of a manageable scale with a minimum number of management layers, to enable efficient and high value services, areas that recognise the needs and opportunities of the county, areas that councillors and residents can relate to. · Expressed a desire for three and a half economic areas, with three in Surrey and one that straddles Surrey and the Blackwater Valley in Hampshire. · Noted that a clear path forward was needed on the debt, and a clear indication of where Council Tax would be raised and spent, one unitary council would be too big with too few councillors and too many management layers and inefficiencies. · Noted the need to improve educational outcomes for children and young people with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND), preventing pupils dropping out of school to be home educated, or having to travel long distances at a high cost to the local authority. · Noted that issues with SEND communications continued, and that the end-to-end review has taken two years with no improvement. · Hoped stakeholders would work together, working out aggregation and disaggregation of roles and standardising Council Tax bills. · Stressed the need to remember that Members and officers serve residents. · Thanked officers for their work in compiling the interim plan. · Favoured three unitary councils as there was evidence to support that these would be more local. · Noted that there were risks in trying to undertake a process in weeks which has taken years in other areas. · Noted that the Leader’s support of two unitary councils covering large areas, and the abolition of hundreds of councillors and local councils did not constitute localism. · Noted that the current administration at Spelthorne Borough Council inherited the debt issues and it had tried to manage the situation. · Noted that none of the unitary proposals presented would be viable on the first day without resolution of the debt ... view the full minutes text for item 22/25 |
|
|
DEVOLUTION AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT REORGANISATION
That Council:
(Note: report to follow)
Additional documents: Minutes: The Chair noted that he had beenadvised by the Monitoring Officer that there had been correspondence between Members on the report’s recommendations and a request to put forward an amendment. He noted that it was his role to regulate and control the proceedings of the meeting in line with Standing Orders and the law. He explained that responsibility for devolution and LGR sits with the Cabinet as it is an Executive function, and therefore he would not be accepting amendments to the recommendations. Members were informed of alternative options regarding raising the matter at the Cabinet meeting.
The Leader noted that:
· The Cabinet has decision-making powers on the matter. · Referred to the collaborative work by the twelve councils to produce the single Part A document which sets the scene for reorganisation. · Noted that the Government was clear in the English Devolution White Paper and briefings that new unitary councils must be the right size to achieve efficiencies and withstand financial shocks. · Agreed that a unitary supporting 600,000 does not feel local and neither does a number less than that, as what feels local is the towns and villages that people live and work in, each with a distinct identity. The interim plan builds on that work. · Noted that residents do not have an affinity to councils of any size, they simply want their services to be delivered. · Noted that the unitary councils would drive forward efficiency and consistency of services across the county footprint, and would be a local forum bringing together key stakeholders, supported by the voluntary sector. · Noted that Members would use the towns and villages footprint that has been embedded in partnership working. A more formalised structure would be explored which must build on the work by the town and parish councils, voluntary and community sector, and the health system. · Noted that the Part B document from the district and borough councils does not address how they would engage with partners other than to lobby the Minister to retain civic mayors. · Noted that the unitary councils will oversee delivery at the strategic level, and as part of reorganisation more efficient and innovative ways of working will be required, consolidating and streamlining where appropriate and transferring appropriate assets to communities, having a strategic view of planning to meet the Government housing targets, and reducing back office costs. · Stressed that the demand on local government had changed and so there was a need to modernise the services and give local communities a say.
Members made the following comments:
· Welcomed the Leader’s remarks on local communities and engagement, and inclusion of town and parish councils which were the frontline of community engagement, those were protected in law and covered 30% of the county. · Noted that parish councillors were unpaid and non-political representatives of residents and so it was important to involve them in the future of localism. · Welcomed the idea of community boards under any future unitary structure. · Noted that the time to gather data had been short, and ... view the full minutes text for item 23/25 |
|
|
APPROVAL OF COUNTY COUNCILLOR ABSENCES
The purpose of this report is to request that the County Council considers whether to agree that County Councillors David Lewis (Camberley West) and Mark Sugden (Hinchley Wood, Claygate and Oxshott) continue to be absent from Council meetings by reason of ill health.
Additional documents: Minutes: The Chair introduced the report.
RESOLVED:
That Councillor David Lewis (Camberley West) and Councillor Mark Sugden (Claygate, Hinchley Wood and Oxshott) continue to be absent from meetings until May 2025 by reason of ill health. The Council looks forward to welcoming them back in due course.
|
|
|
APPOINTMENT OF THE MONITORING OFFICER
To appoint the Council’s Monitoring Officer.
Additional documents: Minutes: The Chair introduced the report.
RESOLVED:
Appointed Asmat Hussain as the Monitoring Officer of Surrey County Council, with a start date to be agreed.
|
|
|
SELECT COMMITTEES' REPORT TO COUNCIL
For Members to note the headline activity of the Council’s overview and scrutiny function in the period October 2024 to February 2025.
For Members to endorse the Executive Scrutiny Protocol at Annex 1 for adoption by the Council in line with statutory guidance on overview and scrutiny.
Additional documents: Minutes: The Chair of the Select Committee Chair and Vice-Chairs’ Group noted that:
· The adoption of an Executive Scrutiny Protocol is advocated in statutory guidance on overview and scrutiny, which emphasises the importance of a strong organisational culture that supports scrutiny to provide effective challenge. · The Protocol clarifies the expectations of scrutiny committee members, and the executive. Whilst intended to form the basis of new scrutiny member and committee chairs training and training across the Council following the elections - since postponed - the benefits remain of ensuring the clarity and consistency of approach, and aligning Surrey with governance best practice. · The Protocol had undergone consultation with the Select Committee Chair and Vice-Chairs’ Group, the Corporate Leadership Team and the Cabinet. · Noted that the Council has a busy and productive scrutiny function, which had scrutinised the performance and progress across a range of areas.
The Chair of the Adults and Health Select Committee informed Members that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care considered the information provided and rejected the request for a call-in, deciding that the decision to move the Children’s Cancer Principal Treatment Centre (PTC) to Evelina London Children’s Hospital would stand.The South West London and Surrey Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee had made the request as it felt that there had been insufficient consultation on the proposal to make the move, which disadvantaged families particularly those in rural areas and on low incomes.
RESOLVED:
1. Noted the headline activity of the Council’s overview and scrutiny function in the period October 2024 to February 2025. 2. Approved the Executive Scrutiny Protocol at Annex 1 for inclusion in the Codes and Protocols section of the Constitution.
|
|
|
ANNUAL REPORT TO COUNCIL - MEMBER DEVELOPMENT
This report provides an annual overview of the council’s approach to member development, to provide assurance that the current approach is effective and equitable.
Additional documents: Minutes: The Chairman of the Member Development Steering Group (MDSG) noted that:
· The report covered January to December 2024 and the average attendance at Member Development Sessions was 25% of all Members, it was recognised that the Monday morning sessions were not always convenient, so area-specific sessions school placement and evening sessions had been piloted. · The third in-person Member Development Day in October 2024 was attended by 27% of Members and there had been positive feedback, with sessions on Artificial Intelligence and public speaking, an invite had been sent for the next in-person day on 6 November 2025. · The Member Reference Library had been launched on Microsoft Teams, it was a repository of information and included recordings of Member Development Sessions. · The Centre for Governance and Scrutiny was commissioned to run bespoke training on budget-setting and financial scrutiny for the Select Committees in July 2024. The Member Development Strategy was refreshed in July, it aligns with the organisational priorities and supports the needs of elected Members. · The priorities for the year were outlined around LGR and member wellbeing, the MDSG sought as many sessions as necessary to ensure that Members are kept updated on the LGR process. · Thanked the members of the cross-party MDSG and officers involved.
RESOLVED:
Endorsed the current approach to member development and agreed that it is equitable and effective.
|
|
|
REVISED FINANCIAL REGULATIONS
The Financial Regulations provide the framework of control, responsibility and accountability for the proper administration of the Council's financial affairs. The Council’s current processes and procedures are reflected within the Financial Regulations.
The Financial Regulations are part of the Constitution. Any changes to the Financial Regulations require Council to approve any amendments.
Additional documents: Minutes: The Chair noted that he had been advised that Council would not be taking a decision on this item today. It would be directed through to the Audit and Governance Committee first as the committee charged with governance and would then come back to Council for approval in due course.
|
|
|
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO PROCUREMENT AND CONTRACT STANDING ORDERS
The current Procurement and Contract Standing Orders (PCSOs) require updating to reflect the impending legislative changes and improve the overall effectiveness of the PCSOs.
The PCSOs are part of the Constitution. Any changes to the PCSOs require Council to approve any amendments.
Additional documents: Minutes: The Chair introduced the report.
RESOLVED:
Approved the proposed changes to the Council’s Procurement and Contract Standing Orders attached in Annex 1 (and associated Appendices attached in Annex 2) which will form part of the Council's Constitution.
The meeting was adjourned for lunch at 12.34 pm.
Angela Goodwin, Jeffrey Gray, Jonathan Hulley, Riasat Khan, Andy Lynch, Julia McShane, Carla Morson, Joanne Sexton, Lance Spencer left the meeting during lunch.
The meeting was resumed at 13.00 pm.
|
|
|
MEMBERS' QUESTION TIME
1. The Leader of the Council, the Deputy Leader or the appropriate Member of the Cabinet or the chairman of a committee to answer any questions on any matter relating to the powers and duties of the County Council, or which affects the county.
(Note: Notice of questions in respect of the above item on the agenda must be given in writing, preferably by e-mail, to Democratic Services by 12 noon on Wednesday 12 March 2025).
2. Cabinet Member and Deputy Cabinet Member Briefings on their portfolios.
These will be circulated by email to all Members prior to the County Council meeting, together with the Members’ questions and responses.
There will be an opportunity for Members to ask questions.
Additional documents: Minutes: Questions:
Notice of twenty-one questions had been received.
The questions and replies were published in the third supplementary agenda (items 13 and 15) on 17 March 2025.
A number of supplementary questions were asked and a summary of the main points is set out below:
(Q1) Mark Sugden had given apologies and his supplementary question was asked by John O’Reilly on his behalf, he noted that the answer recognised the terrible state of Hare Lane, Claygate confirmed by a site history report for the last two years which included 625 resident complaints/enquiries on potholes. He asked whether the Cabinet Member could explain how it makes financial sense to continue to take reactive repairs or to suggest that the Member utilise their allocation to carry out patching works to the most deteriorated sections rather than prioritising the road for Horizon in 2025/26. The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth noted that he would organise the highways engagement officer to speak to the Member on how best to use his allocation to deliver the patching work. (Q2) Tim Hall (Vice-Chair) asked the Cabinet Member whether she was confident that the improved performance could continue and get to 100% in the timescale.
The Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learningnoted that part of the £15 million investment of additional money to the recovery plan was to right-size the service. She was confident that a good level of performance in timeliness could be sustained, achieving the objective of as close to 100% timeliness in the twenty weeks.
(Q3) Fiona Davidson referred to Alternative Provision and noted that if a child had been absent more than 15 days in a school year and the school feels unable to meet the needs of child principally because of their medical condition, that it was the school’s responsibility to request the Council to provide support. The Council’s responsibility is to ensure that the support is provided. In terms of monitoring whether a child was receiving Alternative Provision, it is the school’s responsibility. She asked whether the Cabinet Member could confirm if her understanding is correct.
Catherine Powell noted that as it appeared to be the Council’s responsibility to ensure sufficient alternative capacity is provided, could the Cabinet Member commit to meeting with her to create capacity for children with emotionally-based school non-attendance issues, most of those appear to have autism and those children seemed to be dropping out of school because the lack of available provision.
The Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning agreed to ask officers to provide a clear explanation of the Council’s Section 19 duties for the Member (Fiona Davidson). She noted that she was happy to meet the Member (Catherine Powell) alongside officers.
(Q4)Catherine Powell welcomed that the detailed breakdown of costs associated with social care, SEND and Home to School Transport would be provided by district and borough, she sought confirmation from the Cabinet Member that it would be done with full engagement with the ... view the full minutes text for item 30/25 |
|
|
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Any Member may make a statement at the meeting on a local issue of current or future concern.
(Note: Notice of statements must be given in writing, preferably by e-mail, to Democratic Services by 12 noon on Monday 17 March 2025).
Additional documents: Minutes: Nick Harrison noted that Children’s Services focus was on young people with the highest needs and it had exited from universal open access youth work. Youth clubs positively impact young people. Leases were agreed with community groups willing to take over youth services operating under a Service Level Agreement. The Phoenix Youth Centre in Preston was operated by YMCA East Surrey and offers youth work and specialist sessions; it was also a host to other youth groups and antisocial behaviour had decreased. Children’s Services was looking at the future management of the sites and as the Cabinet established the arrangements, it should consider potential closures.
|
|
|
ORIGINAL MOTIONS
Item 15 (i)
Eber Kington (Ewell Court, Auriol & Cuddington) to move under standing order 11 asfollows:
This Council recognises that:
Community Asset Transfer is a legal power, established by the General Disposal Consent (England) 2003, which allows local authorities such as Surrey County Council (SCC) to set up of the community ownership and management of publicly owned land and buildings at less than full market value where they can demonstrate that doing so will result in local improvements to social, economic or environmental well-being.
Most local authorities have experience of Community Asset Transfer and nearly 75% of councils are now estimated to be actively engaged in the transfer of assets to communities.
The aim of Community Asset Transfer is community empowerment – to ensure that land and buildings are retained or transformed and operated for public benefit through community asset ownership and management.
The adoption of a Community Asset Transfer Policy by SCC, and its use and application, will add to the Council’s options for the disposal of assets, including land, and show a commitment to the preservation of important community sites for generations to come.
This Council resolves to call upon the Cabinet as a priority to:
I. Develop and adopt a Community Asset Transfer Policy.
II. Actively review its assets for potential Community Asset Transfer arrangements.
III. Widely publicise the Community Asset Transfer Policy to encourage application from Surrey’s communities.
Item 15 (ii)
Catherine Powell (Farnham North) to move under standing order 11 asfollows:
This Council recognises that:
If Local Government Reorganisation is to work for all residents it must acknowledge the communities that residents themselves recognise, and decision-making structures must ensure that decisions are made at the most local level by locally elected representatives and key stakeholder representatives, wherever possible.
It is not Surrey County Council’s place to determine what those local structures might be, as that will be a decision for the newly formed Unitary Authorities. It is important that options, are set out clearly and unambiguously to assist the work of those charged with creating new democratic decision-making structures in Unitary areas. These options must include structures that are working well in Surrey now, as well as those that operated in the past.
This Council resolves to call upon the Leader and Cabinet to:
I. Include, as part of the Interim Plan to the Secretary of State in March, an annex or section on options for local community-based governance and decision making that stresses the importance of truly local community empowerment.
II. The options within the annex must include but not be limited to:
a. Town and Parish Councils b. New Local Committees (comprising all Unitary councillors representing communities within previous borough/district boundaries or smaller areas as appropriate) c. Community Area Partnerships d. Any structures involving local elected representatives associated with the current SCC Delivering in Partnership Strategy (Towns and Villages).
Additional documents: Minutes: Item 15 (i)
Under Standing Order 12.3 the Council agreed to debate this motion.
Under Standing Order 20.3 (a) Eber Kington (Ewell Court, Auriol & Cuddington) moved a proposed alteration to the original motion standing in his own name, which had been published in the third supplementary agenda on 17 March 2025.
The proposed alteration to the motion was as follows (with additional words in bold/underlined and deletions crossed through):
This Council recognises that:
Community Asset Transfer is a legal power, established by the General Disposal Consent (England) 2003, which allows local authorities such as Surrey County Council (SCC) to set up of the community ownership and management of publicly owned land and buildings at less than full market value where they can demonstrate that doing so will result in local improvements to social, economic or environmental well-being.
Most local authorities have experience of Community Asset Transfer and nearly 75% of councils are now estimated to be actively engaged in the transfer of assets to communities.
The aim of Community Asset Transfer is community empowerment – to ensure that land and buildings are retained or transformed and operated for public benefit through community asset ownership and management.
The adoption of a Community Asset Transfer Policy by SCC, and its use and application, will add to the Council’s options for the disposal of assets, including land, and show a commitment to the preservation of important community sites for generations to come.
This Council resolves to call upon the
Cabinet
I. Develop and adopt a Community Asset Transfer Policy.
II. Actively review its assets for potential Community Asset Transfer arrangements.
III.
Under Standing Order 20.3, the proposed alteration to the original motion was put to the vote and Council agreed to the proposed alteration and it was therefore open for debate.
Eber Kington made the following points:
· Noted that Your Fund Surrey (YFS) has provided many opportunities for residents to promote and deliver schemes such as upgrading facilities and adding to the range of facilities, and improving access. YFS has contributed to the social, economic and environmental wellbeing of communities. · Noted however that YFS had come at a cost, with the continuing cost of interest payments for borrowing. · Emphasised that the Council could continue its YFS principles of community empowerment and support for local community projects and facilities via Community Asset Transfer (CAT). · Noted that CAT does not require borrowing, reduces the costs to the Council of retained assets and ensures that transferred assets remain in communities, run by communities. · Noted that local authorities have a legal obligation to obtain Best Value for disposed sites, governments have recognised that a council’s locally based assets are not just for cashing in. Many assets are held for and belong to residents, it is right that they know that ... view the full minutes text for item 32/25 |
|
Under Standing Order 12.6 for Council to note the feedback from the Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture Select Committee on the referred Council motion.
(Note: report to follow)
Additional documents: Minutes: The Chair of the Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture Select Committee noted that at the select committee the proposer of the motion suggested a different way forward of ‘scrutiny in a day’ in June. The Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Lifelong Learning had welcomed that proposal agreed by the select committee.
The proposer of the motion thanked all those involved in the change.
RESOLVED:
Noted the report.
Matt Furniss left the meeting at 13.56 pm.
|
|
Under Standing Order 12.6 for Council to note what was resolved by the Audit and Governance Committee having considered the referred Council motion.
(Note: report to follow)
Additional documents: Minutes: The Chairman of the Audit and Governance Committee noted that the motion suggested a need to validate the information for the 2025/26 budget by reviewing the Council’s finance and governance processes. The committee agreed that was how the Council already operated with oversight from the committee, the Resources and Performance Select Committee, and the Cabinet. The committee noted the rigorous internal and external audit programme, EY had issued an unqualified opinion on the Statement of Accounts 2023/24, demonstrating its confidence in the Council’s finance and governance processes. He stressed that the Council has no such failings as those identified by the SOLACE review at Guildford Borough Council. The committee considered the issues and rejected the motion.
The proposer of the motion noted that EY had clarified that it did not review the Council’s transformation projects in detail.
RESOLVED:
Noted that the Audit and Governance Committee resolved that the motion was lost.
Chris Townsend left the meeting at 13.58 pm.
|
|
|
REPORT OF THE CABINET
To receive the report of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 25 February 2025. Additional documents: Minutes: The Leader presented the report of the Cabinet meeting held on 25 February 2025.
Recommendations on Policy Framework Documents:
There were no reports with recommendations for Council.
Reports for Information/Discussion:
25 February 2025:
A. The Council’s Economic Growth Leadership Role and Refreshing Surrey's Economic Strategy B. A Land Management Framework and Policy For Surrey County Council Owned Land C. Surrey Materials Recycling Facility, Trumps Farm
D. Quarterly Report on Decisions Taken Under Special Urgency Arrangements: 1 February 2025 - 10 March 2025
RESOLVED:
1. Noted that there had been no urgent decisions since the last Cabinet report to Council. 2. Adopted the report of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 25 February 2025.
|
|
|
MINUTES OF CABINET MEETINGS
Any matters within the minutes of the Cabinet’s meetings, and not otherwise brought to the Council’s attention in the Cabinet’s report, may be the subject of questions and statements by Members upon notice being given to Democratic Services by 12 noon on Monday 17 March 2025.
Additional documents: Minutes: No notification had been received by the deadline from Members wishing to raise a question or make a statement on any matters in the minutes.
|