The Mayor apologised on behalf of Councillor Kelly, who was running late to the meeting.

Councillor Ojetola arrived at the meeting at 7.02 pm and Councillor Holloway arrived at 7.04 pm.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of the Council, held on 24 June 2015.

The Minutes of Council, held on 24 June 2015, were approved as a correct record.

Councillor S. Little requested that the transcript of Public and Members questions be included in the printed agenda alongside the minutes in future, as she had requested at earlier meetings.

Councillor J. Kent observed that he could see no problem with the transcript of Public and Members questions being included alongside the minutes within future agendas, to which it was subsequently agreed.

To receive additional items that the Mayor is of the opinion should be considered as a matter of urgency, in accordance with Section 100B (4) (b) of the Local Government Act 1972.

The Mayor informed the Council that she had not agreed to the consideration of any items of urgent business.

To receive any declaration of interests from Members.

There were no interests declared.

The Mayor advised that since the last meeting of Council she had the pleasure of attending a variety of events, which included the unveiling of Thurrock’s latest Heritage Plaque at the London Cruise Terminal in Tilbury and visiting schools and having afternoon tea.

The Mayor informed Members that Coalhouse Fort would be hosting a World War One Commemorative Sports Day on 24 August 2015 from 11.00 am to 3.00 pm and that visitors would have the opportunity to participate in sporting tournaments throughout the day as the solders did at Coalhouse Fort in 1915, in addition to interactive tours by Creative Blast where visitors could learn about stories from the Fort and re-enactments by the Great War Society.

The Mayor informed the Chamber that at the event the Engine Room Café would also be launched, which was completed as part of the Heritage Lottery Fund at Coalhouse Fort.

The Mayor further reported that the 7th Big Lunch event would be held the following week on Wednesday 29 July 2015 from 11.00 am to 3.00 pm in Grays Town Park and that she hoped as many members as possible would be able to attend.

The Mayor informed Members that she had put St Luke’s Hospice donation boxes in each of the group offices and that the total money donated would be announced at the Council meeting in September.

The Mayor advised that the extraordinary meeting of Council to discuss matters relating to the Frost Estate and the proposal to create a parish council would be held on Wednesday 26 August from 7.00 pm in the main hall at Hassenbrook School.

Members were informed that residents of the Frost Estate would be receiving letters in the post the following week inviting them to the meeting and a formal notification and diary invitation to Members would be circulated following the meeting.

The Mayor further advised that a revised political balance calculation would also be ratified at the extraordinary Council meeting in August.

The Leader of the Council, Councillor J. Kent, made the following announcement:

As everyone will know, yesterday we announced that the contract with our strategic partner, Serco, will end in November.

Also, as everyone will understand, the negotiations to end such a large and complicated contract have been long and detailed; the negotiations also include what can and what should not be said publicly. So tonight’s statement is worded very carefully.

The contract costs Thurrock Council around £20 million every year – Serco admit that.

We have agreed to pay just under £10 million to end the contract – a lot of money, but only half what we have paid Serco – and before that Vertex – since 2005, and would pay them for the next five years too.

Obviously it’s not quite that simple, but we know that in these times of austerity we would rather any profits, so to speak, went direct on services to local people rather than Serco’s shareholders.

That money is not simply a pay-off, but  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

In accordance with Chapter 2, Part 2 (Rule 14) of the Council’s Constitution.

A copy of the transcript of questions and answers can be viewed under the relevant meeting date at http://democracy.thurrock.gov.uk/thurrock

In accordance with Chapter 2, Part 2(Rule 14) of the Council’s Constitution.

The Mayor informed Members that, in accordance with the Council’s Petition Scheme, the requisite notice had been given by two members of the public and one Councillor who wished to present a petition at the meeting.

Mr Coleman presented a petition on behalf of 1084 residents of Chafford Hundred, which called on the Council to immediately review the service it provides to the residents of Chafford Hundred, particularly in regards to the environment, public protection, road safety and traffic.

Councillor Redsell presented a petition on behalf of residents of Parkside, Grays, which called on the Council to introduce a one-way system between King Edward Drive and Woodview.

Mrs Harper presented a petition on behalf of residents of Baker Street and Woolings Row in Orsett, which objected to the proposed traffic regulation order to make Baker Street (Woolings Row) a no waiting area from Woolings Row and up to and including Foxhound Riding School.

Members received a report on the status of those petitions handed in at Council Meetings and Council Offices over the past six months.

The Council are asked to agree any changes to the appointments made to committees and outside bodies, statutory and other panels, as requested by Group Leaders.

The Mayor enquired whether Group Leaders wished for any changes to be made to the appointments previously made to Committees and outside bodies, statutory and other panels.

The Leader of the Council apologised that Councillor Brookes was not in attendance to present his Communities and Public Protection Cabinet Member Report and answer the questions that had been submitted. The Leader of the Council remarked that this, combined with his non-attendance at the previous meeting, was unacceptable and as a result declared that Councillor Pothecary would replace Councillor Brookes as Cabinet Member for Communities and Public Protection.

As a result of the appointment of Councillor Pothecary to the Cabinet, the Leader of the Council informed the Chamber that he wished to make the following changes:

·         for Councillor Kerin to be appointed as a member of the Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee to replace Councillor Pothecary.

·         for Councillor Liddiard to be appointed as a member of the Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee to replace Councillor Pothecary.

·         for Councillor Pothecary to be removed from the membership of the Licensing Committee, and for the appointment to the Labour vacancy created to be confirmed at a later date.

As a result of the appointment of Councillor Kerin to the membership of the Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee, he would thereby cease to be a substitute for that Committee.

The Leader of the Conservative Group confirmed that he did not wish to make any changes to appointments that had previously been made.

The Leader of the UKIP group informed the Chamber that he wished to make the following change, in light of the resignation of Councillor Churchman from the UKIP group:

·         for Councillor Churchman to be removed from the membership of the Planning Committee, and for the appointment to the UKIP vacancy created to be confirmed at a later date.

At 7.27 pm there was a disturbance from the Public Gallery, during which the Mayor warned the person concerned not to interrupt, when the individual continued to do so he was removed from the meeting.

Councillor Ray, Independent Member, confirmed that he did not wish to make any changes to appointments that had previously been made but advised that changes would be made at the next Council meeting.

The Mayor advised that she had accepted a request from Councillor Churchman to make a short statement.

Councillor Churchman thanked the Mayor for allowing him to make a short statement in light of his recent resignation from the UKIP group. Councillor Churchman explained the reason for his resignation was because he felt that the leader of the group had tried to use his influence and position to interfere with his work and as a result advised that he had decided to resign in order to maintain his integrity.

The Mayor permitted Councillor Snell, Leader of the UKIP Group the right to reply.

In response Councillor Snell, Leader of the UKIP Group, stated that he had consulted with the Monitoring Officer and was confident that he had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42.

The Mayor advised Members that the report introduced the Overview and Scrutiny Annual Report for 2014-15, which in accordance with the Council’s Constitution, should be presented to Council each year in order to detail the work of the six Overview and Scrutiny Committees and their main achievements.

Upon being put to the vote, Members voted unanimously in favour of the recommendation, whereupon the Mayor declared this to be carried.

RESOLVED:

That the contents of the Overview and Scrutiny Annual Report 2014-15 be noted.

The Mayor advised that the Monitoring Officer had received and accepted proposed amendments for the recommendations contained within the report from Councillor J. Kent and Councillor Gledhill, details of which had been circulated electronically to all members in advance and tabled at the meeting.

Prior to the meeting a typographical error in the printed report was brought to the attention of Members, as there were two recommendations numbered as 1.2. For clarification the second recommendation 1.2 in the printed report was subsequently referred to as 1.2.1.

The Mayor advised Members on the process for dealing with both amendments at the meeting.

Councillor J. Kent, the Leader of the Council first proposed his amendments to the recommendations contained within the report which included:

·         To insert ‘i) Portfolio Holders’ at recommendation 1.2.1

·         To delete recommendation 1.4 in the printed report, which was ‘The SRA for portfolio holders is increased to 130% of the Basic Allowance or £11,275.’

Upon being put to the vote, Members voted unanimously in favour of the proposed amendments detailed above, whereupon the Mayor declared these to be carried.

Councillor J. Kent, the Leader of the Council, then introduced the report which set out the recommendations of the Joint Independent Remuneration Panel following its review of Members Allowances, which was undertaken every 4 years.

Councillor J. Kent remarked that although the increased allowance for Cabinet Members would be welcome, it was not reasonable for the additional allowance to be accepted in light of the budget savings faced and the impact on public services. He further observed that he felt it was appropriate the Leader of the UKIP group, as a group that had more than 4 members but was not the main opposition group, should be paid a Special Responsibility Allowance (SRA) of 25% of the Basic Allowance for the time dedicated.

Councillor Gledhill agreed that no Members needed an increase to their allowances during a time when the authority needed to deliver budget savings but remarked that he found the report to be contradictory. He further advised that he was unhappy how the remuneration had been calculated and that he wanted a full review of the support provided to Members to be undertaken in order to demonstrate value for money and provide clarity to Members, which included the supply of laptops, printers, paper, ink cartridges and support from back office Member Services staff.

As a result, Councillor Gledhill proposed his amendment to recommendation 1.2 in the printed report, which was seconded by Councillor Hebb, which read as follows:

“That the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Committee carries out a full review of support to members to ensure more open and transparent use of public funds.”

Councillor J. Kent opposed the suggested amendment, which if agreed would overturn the independent panel’s recommendations, as he felt it was inappropriate for the Council to instruct an independent panel to undertake a review and determine recommendations, which could then be disregarded and subjected to an internal Overview and Scrutiny process led by Members.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

Councillor B. Rice, Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Health, introduced the report which requested changes to Membership of the Thurrock Health and Wellbeing Board and set out the revised Terms of Reference.

Councillor Key observed that the board had grown in size over recent years, but that it was important to ensure it could still function on a strategic level in future.

Councillor B. Rice explained that it was important the board worked with partners but agreed that it was imperative the board functioned on a strategic level and noted the concern expressed.

Upon being put to the vote, Members voted unanimously in favour of the recommendations, whereupon the Mayor declared these to be carried.

RESOLVED:

1.         That Council agree to NHS Providers NELFT, SEPT, and BTUH becoming members of Thurrock Health and Wellbeing Board;

2.         That Council agree to Thurrock CVS becoming a member of Thurrock Health and Wellbeing Board;

3.         That Council agree to Thurrock CCG’s Executive Nurse becoming a member of Thurrock Health and Wellbeing Board; and

4.         That subject to agreement to recommendations 1.1 – 1.3, Council agrees the amended Terms of Reference for the Health and Wellbeing Board.

Councillor Okunade, Cabinet Member for Children’s Social Care, introduced the report and, in doing so, highlighted some of the key achievements of the Portfolio, which included:

·         That the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) had produced some positive media headlines and that it was expanding its role to include the piloting of the First Response Team to increase capacity to focus cases appropriately towards early intervention, where appropriate to the levels of need and risk.

·         That the MASH  brought together a variety of agencies into an integrated co-located multi agency team where information was shared appropriately and securely on children, families and adults to prevent the escalation of problems.

·         That the Troubled Families programme focused on families with worklessness, poor school attendance and anti-social behaviour and officers continued to work closely with partners.

·         That the Thurrock Local Safeguarding Children’s Board had continued to be proactive within the community, in order to raise awareness on safeguarding, promote online safety and prevent sexual exploitation and grooming.

·         That the numbers of Looked After Children in Thurrock had risen over recent years but the service was committed to supporting families to enable children and young people to stay safely in their own home wherever possible and appropriate.

The Cabinet Member thanked all the staff, Children in Care Council, Young Peoples groups and foster carers for their hard work and congratulated the Youth Offending Service for their achievements.

Members questioned the Cabinet Member and received responses as follows:

·         Councillor S. Little questioned why Looked After Children in therapeutic foster care placements experienced significantly better life outcomes than those in Thurrock placements and what the Cabinet Member was doing to close the gap.

The Cabinet Member advised that it was difficult to make comparisons and that all Thurrock Looked After Children had the same level of care, with many children were doing well and had good outcomes later in life.

·         Councillor Halden highlighted that the report identified that spending on agency staff remained a high risk area for the budget. Whilst he appreciated the service was demand led, he observed that the spending on Thurrock’s own staff was not, and questioned what the Cabinet Member was doing to ensure that spending on agency staff did not pose a risk to the budget.

The Cabinet Member advised that the retention of staff was a national issue and that Thurrock competed with London Borough’s in the recruitment of staff.

·         Councillor MacPherson highlighted that there were only seven lines in the report regarding the support provided to care leavers and argued that more work needed to be dedicated to care leavers in order to help them achieve improved outcomes, such as in securing and holding down tenancies. She further reported that the figure of those care leavers being recorded in employment, education and training was very poor – with a documented increase from 35% to only 42% – that was well below the 70% aspirational target. She questioned what plans and timescales the Cabinet Member had to improve the figures  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.

The Mayor advised that the item would be withdrawn following the Leader of the Council’s earlier announcement, and that the report would be rescheduled for debate at a later date.

In accordance with Chapter 2, Part 2 (Rule 14) of the Council’s Constitution.

The Mayor informed the Chamber that one question had been submitted to the Leader and a further three questions to Cabinet Members, Committee Chairs and Member appointed to represent the Council on a Joint Committee.

Councillor Redsell confirmed that she wished to withdraw her two questions submitted to the Cabinet Member of Communities and Public Protection, in light of Councillor J. Kent’s earlier announcement, and that she would resubmit for the following meeting.

A copy of the transcript of questions and answers can be found at Appendix A to these Minutes.

There were no reports from Members representing the Council on outside bodies.

The Minutes of Committees, as set out in the Agenda, were received.

Members received an information report updating them on progress in respect of Motions resolved at Council over the past year.

In accordance with Chapter 2, Part 2 (Rule 15) of the Council’s Constitution.

The Motion, as printed in the Agenda, was proposed by Councillor Ojetola and seconded by Councillor Gledhill. The Motion read as follows:

"Radicalisation of youths seems to be quite rampant, doing nothing is not an option as parents are losing their children to extremism. We call on Thurrock Council to create a member led committee to co-ordinate a multi-agency approach to tackle the threat of extremism and radicalisation in line with our Duty to Prevent".

Councillor Ojetola introduced the motion, and in doing so explained that it was vital Thurrock did not become complacent as young people from all backgrounds could be radicalised online and through the use of social media.

Councillor J. Kent welcomed the motion and explained a lot of work was being undertaken to ensure this was not an issue in Thurrock, however recognised that it was important not to be complacent. He proposed that the Constitution Working Group draft the Terms of Reference for the Member led group so that it could be referred and adopted by Council in September, which was agreed by all Members.

Councillor Gledhill welcomed the fact that there was political consensus and felt that the Member led group would be able to take a considered approach to prevent young people from being radicalised in Thurrock, stating that even one person would be one person too many.

Councillor Okunade expressed her support for the motion in order to be vigilant.

Councillor Gupta commented that there were excellent community relationships in Thurrock to prevent such issues and that it was important all strands of the community worked together.

Councillor Hebb stated that Civic Leadership on such issues was important.

Councillor Ojetola remarked that he was pleased there were no reported cases in Thurrock, welcomed the proposal for the Constitution Working Group to draft the Terms of Reference and stated that learning about such issues – and atrocities of the Holocaust – were important so that young people could learn lessons from history.

Upon being put to the vote, Members voted unanimously in favour of the Motion, whereupon the Mayor declared the motion was carried.

RESOLVED:

Radicalisation of youths seems to be quite rampant, doing nothing is not an option as parents are losing their children to extremism. We call on Thurrock Council to create a member led committee to co-ordinate a multi-agency approach to tackle the threat of extremism and radicalisation in line with our Duty to Prevent.

At 8.32 pm Councillor Gupta left the meeting.

The Motion, as printed in the agenda, was proposed by Councillor Aker and seconded by Councillor Smith. The Motion read as follows:

“The Council calls on the Cabinet to initiate a local referendum for the residents of Greenwood House, Butler House and Davall House in Grays, to ask whether they accept demolition of the three blocks and the Council's proposals so far to re-house the residents. The Council calls for this referendum to be held before further consultation is carried out.”

Councillor Aker introduced the motion and in doing so reported that residents of the three blocks affected had attended surgeries to ask questions regarding the proposals. He expressed concerns that those who wanted to leave were being offered a reported sum of £4,000 and would be placed on a higher priority band of the Council’s Housing Waiting List, thereby disadvantaging other residents in need of Council housing. He further felt that residents should be given an opportunity to have their views heard and to be able to petition the Council in order to trigger a local referendum.

Councillor S. Little observed that she had worked alongside a previous Councillor on similar proposals in the past where extensive consultations had been undertaken, during which concerns had been highlighted regarding where the residents would be housed, how long the process would take, and the loss of Council properties. She reported that there were similar high rise blocks in Grays and Chadwell-St-Mary but also recognised that if the Council was committed to the regeneration of Grays a brave decision would need to be taken. She further explained that she felt a strong business plan needed to be developed so that a clear decision could be made, and that she did not think the considerable cost of a referendum would help the Council deliver the strong vision.

Councillor Worrall explained that Thurrock had a long and proud history of consulting with residents and did not think that a referendum would be beneficial in this case. She reported that a referendum would cost the Council a considerable sum of money and would not be able to deliver what the residents wanted, as a referendum by its virtue implied that whatever vote won would prevail. She explained that if a vote was won to demolish the blocks this may not be possible to deliver as the proposals had not yet been developed enough at this stage to identify all possible outcomes.

Councillor Worrall further reported that if the motion was agreed and a referendum undertaken, this would require the Council to cease all consultation and stop talking with local residents, and that this would an undesirable outcome for all concerned. As a result she felt the motion was ill thought through and poorly timed, following a substantial consultation period with local residents that included:

·         In October 2014 the first residents meeting of the steering group had been held, which had met each month since in order to communicate and consult on the proposals.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.