The Modern Local Government Group considered a report outlining proposals for a new Code of Conduct and new arrangements for dealing with Member complaints following implementation of the relevant provisions of the Localism Act 2011, the Localism Act 2011 (Commencement No.6 and Transitional, Savings and Transitory Provisions) Order 2012 and the Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012.  The Localism Act 2011 made fundamental changes to the system of regulation of standards of conduct for elected and co-opted Councillors.  The existing Standards regime ceased to operate on 30^th June 2012 with transitional arrangements being limited and not allowing for the old arrangements to continue.  From 1^st July, the Council was required to adopt a new Code of Conduct and put in place arrangements  for investigating allegations of breaches and for making decisions in respect of those allegations.

A Task Group was set up from Members of the existing Standards Committee and met on six occasions to give guidance to Officers on implementation of the new regime.  The last meeting of the Group took place on 28^th June 2012 when this report, including the appendices, was considered in draft.  The comments of the Group on the draft documentation were attached at Appendix 1 to the report.

The Chairman thanked Officers and the Members of the Task and Finish Group for the time and work that had been devoted to developing the new code of conduct processes and procedures.

The Monitoring Officer provided an overview of the report and highlighted that what was being proposed was a completely new Standards regime.  The two key differences required by statute were a change in the definition of interests and  that Local Authorities now had to chose their own Code of Conduct.  The favoured option of the Task and Finish Group was the Code that had been developed by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) which was also known as the “Bob Neill Code”, this Code was set out on Page 17 of the agenda.  The Monitoring Officer highlighted that the DCLG Code did not include specific provisions for bullying, disrespect and acting in a way to bring the Authority into disrepute, although it had been suggested that the Code could cover these issues by implication.  The Monitoring Officer did not believe this to be the case and stressed the dangers of relying on implied terms which could ultimately result in a costly legal challenge.  In light of this, the Monitoring Officer sought a clear steer from the Modern Local Government Group in order to provide clarity surrounding these issues.

The Portfolio Holder for Safer Communities (the Portfolio Holder), who had also been Chairman of the Task Group, reported that under the Localism Act 2011, Council’s had a duty to promote and maintain a Code of Conduct which needed to comply with the Nolan Principles.  The arrangements and procedures for handling complaints made under the Code of Conduct would have to apply to Town and Parish Council as well  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1.

The Group considered a report outlining two amendments to the Council’s Constitution: one relating to the number of meetings of the Select Committees and one relating to the delegated powers of the Community and Planning Director.

Part 1, paragraph 2.4 of the Council’s constitution requires that except for changes required by statute, changes to the Constitution will only be approved by the full Council after consideration of the proposal by the Modern Local Government Group. The amendments to the Constitution outlined in Appendix A to the report would bring the number of meetings referred to in the Constitution in line with the new working practice of the Leader of the Council Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Select Committees at the Annual Council meeting.

The amendment outlined in Appendix B to the report related to specific circumstances where planning permission had been refused under delegated powers, an appeal lodged and new information being received that led Officers to conclude that refusal of permission could not be substantiated at appeal.  Under these circumstances the matter would be referred back to Members to enable the original delegated refusal to be reviewed.

Resolved: that full Council be recommended to agree the amendments outlined in the report.