Agenda and decisions

The Councillors will be asked to say if there are any items on the Agenda in which they have disclosable pecuniary interests, which would prevent them from participating in any discussion of the items or participating in any vote upon the items, or any other interests.

No interests declared.

Most debates take place in public. This only changes when there is a need to consider certain issues, for instance, commercially sensitive information or details concerning an individual. You will be told at this point whether there are any items on the Agenda which are to be discussed in private.

All items considered in public session.

The Board will receive any petitions and hear any deputations from members of the public. A deputation is where up to five people can attend the meeting and make a presentation on some particular issue of concern. A member of the public can also hand in a petition at the meeting but that petition should relate to something on which the body has powers and responsibilities.

None received.

The Panel will formally receive and note the notice of call-in and consider the issues raised in relation to the decision taken by Cabinet on the 20th October 2015, on the Mirfield Community Centre – Asset Transfer.

The Overview and Scrutiny Management Committeehas considered the notice of call-in respect of the decision made by Cabinet on the 20^th October 2015 in regarding of Mirfield Community Centre Asset Transfer.

The Committee heard from all parties both in person and in writing; evaluated all of the points raised in the call-in notice; and weighed up the evidence in respect of the decision. The Committee also studied all relevant background information to assist in determining the rationale behind the decision and to determine if it was made in accordance with the Council’s decision-making principles.

The Committee, whilst appreciating that this may be an emotive issue for those affected, has had to focus on the facts informing the decision made by Cabinet.

According to the Council’s Constitution, the Committee had three options available to it;

(1) To take no further action and free the decision for implementation.

(2) To refer it back to Cabinet with recommendations for amendment

(3) To refer it back to the next Council, if the Panel considered that the decision was not made in accordance with the budget or policy framework

The Committee had sought advice from the Assistant Director: Legal Governance and Monitoring and was satisfied that the third option did not apply in this instance.

It was therefore the Committee’s decision that, taking all factors into account:-

(1) The Cabinet’s decision to review the previous decision of Cabinet in 2002 in relation to Mirfield Community Centre and to demand new terms form the Mirfield Community Trust failed to take full account of the Asset Advancement Policy set by Cabinet on 08 Oct 2013. 

The Committee shared this concern.  The cabinet report of 20 October 2015 stated that the Current Asset Advancement Policy requires asset transfers to be approved with restrictive covenants for community use.  However, this was not a requirement which was specified in the Asset Advancement Policy. 

In addition, there were reasonable grounds to support the call-in, as the Committee found no evidence that principles 13.2 a and 13.2 i of the constitution were fully adhered to. There was no evidence that the flexibility of the policy was considered and that Cabinet explored all alternatives, and why those would be discounted.

(2) Other asset transfers have not been subject to covenants, which was said to be applied to all transfers, and is not reflected in the policy mentioned above.

The Committee was satisfied that other asset transfers had been subject to covenants.

(3) The decision made by Cabinet is a breach of Article 13.2 of the Council’s Constitution.

In addition to the concerns relating to 13.2 a and 13.2 i of the decision making principles, the Committee had further concerns relating to 13.2 b and 13.2 h with respect to the proportionality of the desired outcome, and the clarity of aims and desired outcomes. There was no evidence to show that the decision took into account whether it was feasible and desirable to enter into an agreement/arrangement that would enable the  ...  view the full decision text for item 4.