Venue: The Leaders Office, Aylesbury Vale District Council, The Gateway, Gatehouse Road, Aylesbury, HP19 8FF
Contact: Bill Ashton; Email: firstname.lastname@example.org;
To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 21 November 2016, copy attached as an appendix.
That the Minutes of 21 November, 2017 be approved as a correct record.
To consider the attached report.
Contact Officer: Alison Caldwell-Nichols (01296) 585017
The Localism Act, 2011 required local authority pay policies to be openly approved annually by Members at a formal Council meeting. The first pay policy of this Council had been published in 2012. The associated guidance, “Openness and Accountability in Local Pay” set out the requirement for councils to publish their remuneration arrangements, including for chief officers and approve large salary packages in an open session of Council. A copy of the Pay Policy for 2017 was submitted.
Ministers had said in the 2013 Supplementary Guidance, that the pay vote ceiling should be set at £100,000. This included publicly justifying any big bonuses and above inflation annual pay rises, or hiring a person already in receipt of retirement or severance money. Authorities had to have an explicit policy in their pay statement on whether or not they permitted such practices.
At a time when the public were tightening their belts and all parts of the public sector were looking to make savings, Ministers were of the view that tax payers should have the opportunity to see whether value for money had been considered when setting pay policies. The guidance stated that tax payers should rightly expect that their interests were being protected, including when senior staff moved posts within the public sector, particularly when those moves could be seen to have the effect of driving up average pay levels across the sector.
The guidance did not specify that a council must establish a pay ratio or pay multiple between the highest to lowest paid or highest to median salary. Even where it did so, the Hutton Review of Fair Pay, published in March 2011, did not recommend a single ratio between highest and lowest paid, or highest and median salary, as there were too many differences in sizes and roles within public sector organisations, so a single ratio did not make sense. Hutton had recommended that authorities should be required to publish pay multiples between top pay and median pay and this was published annually, together with senior pay information as part of AVDC's data transparency obligations. In 2015/16, the multiple between top pay and median pay had been 5.47.
The pay policy statement had to include the authority’s policies relating to:-
· The level and elements of remuneration for each chief officer.
· Remuneration of chief officers on recruitment.
· Increases and additions to remuneration for each chief officer.
· The use of performance related pay for chief officers.
· The use of bonuses for chief officers.
· The approach to the payment of chief officers on their ceasing to hold office under or to be employed by the authority.
· The publication of and access to information relating to remuneration of chief officers.
The term “remuneration” covered:-
· The chief officer’s salary, or in the case of a chief officer engaged by the authority under a contract for services, payments made by the authority to the chief officer for those services.
· Any bonuses payable by the authority to the chief officer.
· Any charges, fees or allowances ... view the full minutes text for item 2.
To consider the attached report.
Contact Officer: Susan Kitchen (01296) 585436
Members were reminded of the current arrangements for the operation of delegated powers given by full Council on 27 February, 2016 to the Development Management Manager in relation to HS2 (London – West Midlands), known as HS2 Schedule 17 submissions. The Committee received a report dealing with proposed prior approval under Part 2, Schedule 17 (Conditions of Deemed Consent) and how this would be dealt with in relation to the Council’s Scheme of Delegated Powers given to the Development Management Manager.
In order to remove any doubt about such prior approval submissions, Members were invited to note that the exclusions set out in (a) and (b) of the “exceptions” section of the Development Management Manager’s delegations would not apply, because Schedule 17 prior approvals were not regarded as planning applications, given that planning permission for HS2 would be granted under the Act. This meant that the “Member call in” to Committee and the “Parish Council Comments trigger” would not apply.
It was reported that the current Scheme of delegation had been amended on 27 February, 2016. This determined which applications were referred to the relevant Development Management Committee for decision, having regard to the resourcing implications for the Committee and the cost of dealing with applications referred to Committee. A copy of the relevant extract from the Scheme of Officer Delegations was submitted.
The HS2 Bill was currently progressing through Parliament and was at the House of Lords Select Committee stage. It was expected that the Bill would receive Royal Assent early in 2017. The Bill, when enacted would give deemed planning permission for the project. However, the HS2 contractors would be required to seek prior approval from AVDC as the Local Planning Authority for details specified in the Act.
The Council had agreed to become a “Qualified Authority” (QA), and sign up to the Planning Memorandum, which gave greater controls over what the Council could consider under the Schedule 17 process, in the event of Royal Assent. A schedule setting out the scope of the powers of a QA under Part 2, Schedule 17 was submitted.
Draft statutory planning guidance made it clear that planning authorities should not through the exercise of the Schedule seek to:-
· Revisit matters settled through the HS2 Bill process.
· Seek to extend or alter the scope of the project.
· Modify or replicate controls already in place, either specific to HS2 such as the Environmental Minimum Requirements, or existing legislation such as the Control of Pollution Act or the regulatory requirements that applied to railways.
The prescribed time period for the Local Planning Authority to determine Schedule 17 applications was proposed in the Bill to be eight weeks from receipt. There was no validation process, so the clock started on receipt. If the Local Planning Authority failed to determine the application within this period, it would be deemed to be approved, unless an agreed extension of time was in place. Failure to meet these targets would affect its qualifying status, as the Secretary of State ... view the full minutes text for item 3.