To consider for approval the General Fund Budget for 2024/25 including the use of reserves, Medium Term Financial Strategy, Capital Programme and Strategy, Treasury Management Policy/Strategy, MRP Policy and Annual Investment Strategy and the Annual Delivery Plan.

N.B. A recorded vote was mandatory on the Annual Budget Report 2024/25 in line with the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014.

 

A report was presented to enable consideration of the Annual Budget Report 2024/25, Medium Term Financial Strategy, Capital Programme and Capital Strategy, Treasury Management Policy/Strategy and Annual Delivery Plan, pages 53 to 212 of the Agenda refer.

 

During his introduction Councillor Fry, Portfolio Holder for Finance wished to express his thanks in particular to Christine Marshall, Section 151 Officer, Colleen Warren, Head of Finance (Client) PSPS Limited and Stuart Leafe, Strategic Finance Manager, PSPS Limited for the time consuming and difficult work undertaken in the preparation of the budget whilst the economic environment remained complex and volatile and furthermore for the help and support from all Council service areas, officers and Portfolio Holders.

 

Members were advised that the 2024/25 Budget had now been embedded into the new financial system and in the future delivery would be expedited.  The success of the SELCP was also recognised for its ‘One Team’ approach in maintaining services, driving growth and most notably vitally bidding for £70m of capital funds.

 

Main points relating to the budget were explained in detail on pages 55 to 60 of the Agenda referred, as follows:

 

• Key Budget Pressures
• Council Tax and Business Rates
• Local Government Settlement
• Internal Drainage Boards
• Capital Programme 2024/25-2028/29 and Treasury Management/Investment Strategies
• Reserves
• Balancing the Budget
• Additional Considerations
• Areas for Priority Investment and Consultation

 

In summary, the Portfolio Holder for Finance considered that in very challengingtimes, the budget presented a positive picture, appropriately met the challenges the Council faced and mostimportantly that the team had delivered a balanced budget to be proud of.

 

Following which, it was Proposed and Seconded:

 

• That Recommendations 1 – 11 of the Annual Budget Report 2024/25, Medium Term Financial Strategy, Capital Programme and Capital Strategy, Treasury Management Policy/Strategy and Annual Delivery Plan proposed by Executive Board on the 14th February 2024 be approved.

 

An Amendment by the Labour Group was Proposed by Councillor Ros Jackson and Seconded by Councillor Claire Arnold as detailed below.

 

Labour budget amendment 2024/25:

 

Fair Mileage for Staff

The mileage rate paid to staff at 45p a mile hasn’t been altered by HMRC since 2011.  Since that time costs to motorists have risen, not only for fuel but in a host of other ways including car maintenance, insurance, and higher prices for purchase.

 

We propose to allocate £52,000 to supplement the 45p rate to 63p per mile for those employees who use their own car for work and claim through expenses, approximately 35% of employees.

 

This is a single-year plan, due to the current cost of living pressures, and will not impact on future years’ budgets.

 

Car Park Solar Panels

We propose to invest in improvements to the council’s car parks with solar canopies in order to create an increased ongoing revenue stream for the council, and to assist in the transition to net zero by 2040.  This may also include charging points for electric vehicles.  EV charging points will increase the capital costs but reduce the payback time for any installation.

 

A reserve of £330,000 will be created to draw on to begin work on installing solar panels over the most promising car parks in ELDC ownership.  The project will draw on experience from the solar installation at the Hub in Horncastle and should consider an extension to that in the first instance.

 

Supporting affordable homes

We will be putting £300,000 towards supporting the delivery of affordable rented homes in the district, whether those homes are via council housing or in collaboration with a social housing provider.  This money will be used to unlock more sites for affordable housing throughout the district, that would not otherwise be viable to be built.

 

Savings

We plan to fund these projects from the Corporate Priorities Reserve.  This would leave a projected £3,139,000 in that reserve by March 31^st 2025, for the delivery of other corporate priorities.

 

2024/25

Spending

 

Fair mileage supplement	£52,000
Solar panels over council car parks	£330,000
Affordable homes support	£300,000
Total	£682,000

 

Savings Plan

 

Corporate Priorities Reserve	£682,000
Total	£682,000

 

No changes to 2025/26, 2026/27, 2027/28 and 2028/29

 

Total Cost over 5 years

£682,000

 

During her introduction of the Amendment, Councillor Jackson acknowledged that it had been a difficult budget to set and paid tribute to officers for achieving a finalised budget.  It was highlighted to Members that certain items on the amendment were more strategic than specific to the budget plan but were incorporated in the corporate priority spending plans.  A correction to the figures was highlighted as updated figures had been provided which meant there would be £3,759,000 left in the corporate priorities reserve after the proposed measures which was a slight increase on the original figure.

 

Debate ensued on the Amendment, and a Member queried whether the Labour Group had undertaken staff mileage comparisons in East Lindsey.

 

A further Member considered that it was timely to support an increase in mileage rates for staff, particularly as many people had been affected by the cost-of-living crisis and wanted to be part of a business that recognised this and appreciated its staff.

 

It was further queried in relation to solar panels why this had not been put forward for all buildings owned by the Council, including any new homes built.  A Member concurred with the comment and considered that it was important for solar panels to be fitted to all car parks now, and for wider consideration of where these were being installed particularly as the Council was working towards being net zero by 2040.

 

A Member commented that the mileage rate of 45p was the tax-free approved amount and queried whether the Labour Group had considered what tax implications there would be for staff if it was increased to 63p.

 

In response to the Amendment, the Leader stated that it was difficult to support this due to the individual elements and the requirement to have a discussion on each of them. 

 

He continued that with regards to the increase in mileage rates, this could not be supported as it affected and impacted on all three councils in the Partnership so could not be considered in isolation.  It was acknowledged that staff were under pressure financially, however it was highlighted that a process had been undertaken with the NJC pay award in 2023/24 and an allowance had been made in the 2024/25 budget of 3.5% until the NJC award had been announced.  It was further highlighted that the Council provided a pool car scheme with fuel cards and pool cars for staff in accessible locations.

 

In further response to the amendment, the Leader of the Council added that the other matters in the amendment were included in the budget and would be taken forward.  Therefore, as the amendment had been put forward with all three elements en bloc, he would not be supporting it.

 

In response, Councillor Jackson thanked Members for their comments to the Amendment.

 

In relation to other organisations, Councillor Jackson stated it was not known which other companies in the district had offered increased mileage rates, however, was certain that other local authorities had increased their mileage rates so there was a precedent for this.

 

Councillor Jackson acknowledged the Leader’s comments with regards to the pool cars, however stated that the figures calculated were based on those members of staff who did not use pool cars which was circa 35% and based on those claiming mileage and considered there were a small of number of staff disadvantaged in this way.

 

Councillor Jackson thanked the Leader for referring to the solar panels for car parks and affordable homes support in the budget and looked forward to seeing this progress.

 

In response to the tax implications for an increase in the mileage rate, Councillor Jackson stated that there would be tax implications that would affect certain employees, however still supported increasing the rate and considered that HMRC needed to change the basic mileage rates which were well out of step with the real cost of motoring.

 

In conclusion to the debate on the amendment, the Portfolio Holder for Finance informed Members that a reserve of £1.8m had been set aside for carbon reduction carbonisation and would ask officers to actively look at the proposal for solar panels on car parks to take this forward.

 

With regards to supporting affordable housing, the Portfolio Holder for Finance highlighted that there was no requirement for an additional recommendation as funding was already accessible in terms of this which was referred to in the introduction of the budget presentation.  The funding would be considered in respect of the initiatives taken forward to Executive Board to access the corporate priorities reserve and would recommend that the Labour Group proceeded in this manner.

 

Upon being put to the vote the Amendment was declared lost:

 

For the Proposal: Councillors Arnold, Danny Brookes, Jimmy Brookes, Cullen, Cunnington, Dawson, Hesketh, Jackson and Terry Knowles - 9

 

Against the Proposal: Councillors Aldridge, Ashton, Avison, Bowkett, Campbell-Wardman, Davie, Devereux, Dickinson, Edginton, Evans, Eyre, Foster, Fry, Gray, Grist, Grover, Alex Hall, Hobson, Horton, Jones, Sam Kemp, Tom Kemp, Kirk, James Knowles, Leyland, McMillan, McNally, Macey, Makinson-Sanders, Ellie Marsh, Graham Marsh, Martin, Simpson and Yarsley - 34

 

Abstentions: Councillor Bristow and Watson - 2

 

Absent: Councillors Billy Brookes, Dannatt, Dennis, David Hall, Leonard, Lyons, Marnoch, Mossop, Rickett and Taylor – 10

 

A further Amendment by the Skegness Urban District Society (SUDS) was Proposed by Councillor Danny Brookes and Seconded by Councillor Richard Cunnington as detailed below:

 

SUDS budget amendment 2024/25:

 

We request the following additions to the 2024/25 budget:

 

a)    To include funding of night streetlights estimated cost circa £250,000 in Skegness, due to the continuing fall of the night-time economy in the town because a lot of our tourists staying in caravans are now staying on their sites due to the fact of not wanting to walk home in the dark.  We were quoted £250,000 by the County Council up front to fund this which the town can't afford.  To be funded from the Corporate Priorities Reserve.

 

b)    A sum of £300,000 be earmarked from the Corporate Priorities reserve for the refurbishment of the toilets around the district with a view to then seeking transfer of those assets where appropriate to Town and Parish Councils.

 

During his introduction to the Amendment, Councillor Danny Brookes thanked the Portfolio Holder for Finance and his team for providing an exceptional budget.

 

Debate ensued on the Amendment and a Member commented that whilst he appreciated the ethics behind the amendment relating to street lighting, he did not see why Skegness should be highlighted against the other coastal or inland towns.  It was queried what evidence there was to support the increase in footfall and the economy by lighting the streets during the night.  It was further highlighted that Lincolnshire County Council were replacing streetlights with solar lights which would reduce overall costs.

 

With regards to the refurbishment of toilets a Member commented that he had used the toilets in Skegness many times and had found them to be exceptional and was aware that the contractors DANFO had received an award for its work.  Therefore, he would not be supporting the amendment.  In response, Councillor Brookes confirmed that his amendment did not include the toilets that were contracted out.

 

A Member concurred with the comment in relation to the night lighting being proposed for Skegness rather than Mablethorpe or Sutton on Sea which was frustrating.  However, on reflection it was considered that Skegness was the largest and better-known resort and one of the highest revenue tourist areas within the district which needed to be recognised.  It was further considered that Lincolnshire County Council should be responsible for the lighting and reiterated the frustrations that it did not provide what was required in the coastal areas.

 

With regards to the toilets, it was highlighted that not all were in an ‘exceptional’ condition as previously highlighted, therefore was happy to support the Amendment.

 

A Member considered that if the night-time street lighting for Skegness was a priority for Skegness, the Town Council had at its own disposal the means to solve this problem as it had a significant budget.

 

A Member highlighted that a scrutiny panel had recently looked at public convenience provision in East Lindsey and believed that there was a recommendation for the amount of £300k put forward in the Amendment to be spent on toilet facilities around the district.  Therefore, it was queried that if Council had noted the report and it had been approved by the relevant Portfolio Holder this amount may be contained within the current budget.  It was queried whether clarification could be provided on this as the toilet provision was very important to the visitor economy.

 

In response to the Amendment for night-time street lighting, the Leader of the Council highlighted that there was a facility in the budget for the Council to make loans to town and parish councils and suggested that Skegness Town Council might be minded to apply for a loan at an advantageous rate.  Therefore, he could not support this Amendment.

 

With regards to the refurbishment of toilet facilities, the Leader of the Council confirmed that the Council had a facility in the budget to asset transfer and that the scrutiny panel’s recommendation did make an allowance for a sum of money being available to the Council and the budget allowed for this to be taken forward.  However, he could not support the Amendment as it stood.

 

Councillor Stef Bristow advised Members that she was appointed Chairman of the Public Convenience Scrutiny Panel and was pleased to hear that Members were supportive of spending money on toilets.  Members were advised that the draft report was being presented to Overview Committee on 5 March 2024.  Councillor Fiona Martin, Chairman of Overview Committee clarified that the report was going to Overview Committee for quality checking before being presented to Council at its AGM on 22 May 2024 and hoped that it received a full debate.

 

With regards to the street lighting further concerns were expressed on future continued funding.

 

N.B.  Councillors Jimmy Brookes and Sandra Campbell-Wardman left the Meeting at 3.59pm.

 

In response to the comments made to the Amendment, the Portfolio Holder for Finance clarified that if the budget and treasury management strategy was approved, the allowance for loans to town and parish councils would be available.  With regards to the proposed £300k refurbishment for toilets, there was a programme of works for this in the capital programme, however he would like to see moving forward more town and parish councils taking ownership of these assets.

 

Upon being put to the vote the Amendment was declared lost.

 

For the Proposal: Councillors Arnold, Bristow, Danny Brookes, Cullen, Cunnington, Dawson, Hesketh, Hobson, Jackson, Terry Knowles and Watson - 11

 

Against the Proposal: Councillors Aldridge, Ashton, Avison, Bowkett, Davie, Devereux, Dickinson, Edginton, Evans, Eyre, Foster, Fry, Gray, Grist, Grover, Alex Hall, Horton, Jones, Sam Kemp, Tom Kemp, Kirk, James Knowles, Leyland, McMillan, McNally, Macey, Makinson-Sanders, Ellie Marsh, Graham Marsh, Martin and Yarsley - 31

 

Abstentions: Councillor Simpson - 1

 

Absent: Councillors Billy Brookes, Jimmy Brookes, Campbell-Wardman, Dannatt, Dennis, David Hall, Leonard, Lyons, Marnoch, Mossop, Rickett and Taylor – 12

 

Debate returned to the original proposition.

 

N.B.  Councillor Sandra Campbell-Wardman re-joined the Meeting at 4.07pm.

 

Councillor Jackson highlighted the proposed Constitutional Limits/Financial Amendment set out at Appendix 7, page 211 of the Agenda refers and was strongly against the increase to Executive Board sign off limits increasing from £300k to £500k to align this limit across the Partnership and was disappointed that this had not gone to Audit and Governance Committee for consideration.  It was further queried why the Partner Councils could not reduce their limits in line with ELDC.

 

A Member concurred with this and considered that this increase should not have been included in the budget and was worthy of scrutiny on its own merits and would not be supporting the budget if this remained as a recommendation.  It was highlighted that there needed to be the relevant checks and balances when spending money and if Executive Board was delegated to sign off amounts up to £500k it was queried whether Members would be made aware in good time in case they wished to call in a decision that was going to consume such a large sum of money.

 

Councillor Danny Brookes, Leader of the SUDS Group agreed that the increase to the sign off limit for Executive Board should not be included in the budget, but on a separate matter wished to thank the Portfolio Holder for Finance for his hard work over the last few years and in conjunction with the Finance Team for producing a balanced budget for 2024/25.

 

A further Member echoed her concerns over the vast increase in the sign off limit for Executive Board without consultation or scrutiny although acknowledged the will to align such areas across the Partnership.

 

Councillor Jackson further requested that a focus be placed on Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) factors in the capital strategy as soon as it was available.

 

N.B.  At this point in the Meeting, Councillor George Horton asked it be noted that he wished to declare an interest in relation to the Table of Fees and Charges at Appendix 4.

 

Councillor Horton congratulated the Portfolio Holder for Finance and his team for the difficult job of producing the 2024/25 budget.  However, having previously recognised that tourism was one of the biggest industries in the district was dismayed to see that the fees for caravan site licences had more than doubled.

 

A Member commented that the fee for fixed penalty notice for dog fouling was too low and stated that if a higher penalty was imposed more enforcement officers could be employed.

 

A further concern was raised with regards to Council Tax Premiums set out in Additional Considerations, Section 9.1, page 59 of the Agenda refers, where a premium up to 100% was charged penalising homeowners for properties unoccupied periodically (second homes).  It was highlighted that East Lindsey could not be compared to Cornwall, or London where many houses had been bought as a second home or for letting.  It was queried with regards to the fully vacant properties whether the uplifting of the Council Tax had caused any of those properties to be sold or returned for letting.

 

The Portfolio Holder for Planning commended the Portfolio Holder for Finance and the Finance Team for a good budget and the work undertaken to address the long-standing challenge caused by Internal Drainage Board Funding and the special levy arrangements.  The incredible work undertaken by those during the storm events over the winter was also appreciated.  He stated that the budgets in recent years was a tribute to the Portfolio Holder for Finance and why the Council was in the position as a well-funded district through the good long-term management of the finances and he wholeheartedly supported the recommendations as set out in the report.

 

Councillor Claire Arnold stated on behalf of the Labour Group that they were not happy with the proposed increase to the sign off limit for Executive Board, following which it was Proposed that Recommendation 10 be removed from the report, page 54 of the Agenda refers.

 

The Chief Executive advised Members that a recommendation could not be removed but could seek to amend it and take a recorded vote after the debate.

 

Following which, it was Proposed and Seconded that Recommendation 10 be amended to read ‘That the sign off limits for the Executive Board remain at £300,000’.

 

In response to the amendment to Recommendation 10, the Leader of the Council considered that some of the comments made had been said in haste, referring to Executive Board making decisions in isolation and not being transparent.  The Leader added that the proposed increase to the limit was on the back of the Council’s experience over the last few years having to deal with significant financial issues that were hindered in decision making and the timeliness of those decisions because the Council did not have the limit that the Partner Councils had.

 

With regards to the comment made in relation to the Partner Councils equalising their limit to £300k, the Leader of the Council considered this to be a retrogressive statement and in terms of a mindset was worrying about the direction in which the Council travelled.

 

In response to the comment with regards to checks and balances, the Leader of the Council highlighted that checks and balances were carried out during the decision-making process, including call-in and Member briefings and other various elements for disseminating information.  It was further highlighted that having a limit of £300k had been limiting and considered that it was important to join the Partner Councils to have that ability, therefore would not support the amendment to the recommendation.

 

A Member commented that every year Councillors were given lesser responsibility and that decisions were not made by having a wide debate but controlled by Executive Board and agreed that the sign off limits for the Executive Board remained at £300k.  A further Member concurred with this statement and highlighted that the Executive Board was homogeneous by not being diverse and politically proportioned as the Council’s Committees were and would be supporting the amendment to the recommendation.

 

A Member acknowledged that the recommendation to increase the sign off by £200k was large and there should have been a debate, however for a Council of its size, and as part of the Partnership it did not seem excessive and would not like to see East Lindsey left behind.

 

A Member stated that he had not heard of any examples of decisions that had gone awry at the current level of £300k and there had not been any clear reasons put forward as to why the level should be increased to £500k, therefore would not be supporting the amendment to the recommendation.

 

A Member queried why the proposed increase to the sign off limits had not been considered by the Constitutional Working Group in the first instance and stated that it was bad for democracy and governance if the proper process was not followed.

 

A Member queried whether this set a ‘green light’ for amendments to be made to the Constitution.

 

In response to the comments made to the proposed amendment to the recommendation, the Section 151 Officer advised Members in her opinion that for a local authority the size of East Lindsey, a limit of £300k was quite modest.  Over the past 2 years, there had been instances where sign off limits were exceeding the £300k limit and the decision had to go to Full Council for a decision.  It was highlighted to Members that a mechanism was already built into the Constitution for call in of decisions.  It was further highlighted that alignment of the sign off limits made it easier for those shared officers across the Partnership, however fully respected the points that had been made.

 

In conclusion to the amendment, Councillor Arnold thanked Members for their support and reiterated the need to involve all Councillors in decision making.

 

In response to the amendment to the recommendation the Portfolio Holder for Finance stated that he had nothing further to say and would not be supporting the amendment.

 

The Monitoring Officer clarified to Members that the Audit and Governance Committee’s role was to monitor and review the operation of the Council’s Constitution to ensure that the full aims and principles were given full effect.  There was also a Constitutional Working Group that worked with the MO to keep the Constitution under review to ensure it remained fit for purpose and met and reported back to the Audit and Governance Committee as required with recommendations to Full Council.  However, this did not preclude other matters that changed the Constitution, for example Item 15 ‘Members Allowances Scheme and Independent Remuneration Panel Report’ which depending on how this was determined could result in a change to detail within the Constitution so did not preclude Full Council from considering that matter.

 

As a Point of Order, a Member asked for clarification on putting forward an amendment as he understood this should be formally tabled and debated on and not added in during the debate.

 

In response, the MO advised that it was custom and practice for political groups to provide amendments in advance on the budget, however there was nothing in the Constitution that precluded a further amendment coming forward.

 

No further comments on the amendment were received.

 

Upon being put to the vote, the Amendment that Recommendation 10 be amended to read ‘That the sign off limits for the Executive Board to remain at £300,000’ was declared lost.

 

For the Proposal: Councillors Arnold, Bristow, Cullen, Cunnington, Dawson, Hobson, Horton, Jackson, Terry Knowles, Simpson and Watson - 11

 

Against the Proposal: Councillors Aldridge, Ashton, Avison, Bowkett, Danny Brookes, Campbell-Wardman, Davie, Devereux, Edginton, Evans, Foster, Fry, Gray, Grist, Grover, Alex Hall, Hesketh, Jones, Sam Kemp, Tom Kemp, Kirk, James Knowles, Leyland, McMillan, McNally, Macey, Ellie Marsh, Graham Marsh, Martin and Yarsley - 30

 

Abstentions: Councillors Dickinson, Eyre and Makinson-Sanders - 3

 

Absent: Councillors Billy Brookes, Jimmy Brookes, Dannatt, Dennis, David Hall, Leonard, Lyons, Marnoch, Mossop, Rickett and Taylor – 11

 

Debate returned to the original proposition.

 

Councillor Makinson-Sanders, on behalf of the Independent Group thanked Christine Marshall, Deputy Chief Executive (Corporate Development)/Section 151 Officer, Councillor Richard Fry, Portfolio Holder for Finance and officers in the Finance Team for their hard work in delivering a balanced budget. 

 

The Leader of the Council thanked Members for their comments of appreciation for the work that had gone into the budget and those persons involved.  He added that he acknowledged the concerns raised in the debate on the third amendment and wanted to assure Members that the Executive Board acted with the best interests of the Council and considered that the executive function and structure of the Council had worked well for a number of years.

 

In conclusion, the Leader of the Council referred to a recent commitment of the Council’s ambition to its communities and highlighted the success of the Towns Funding and other Levelling Up monies from government.  It was however, considered important that all communities were recognised and Members were advised that Portfolio Holders and officers were developing a £9m investment programme for market towns, villages and parishes to be delivered over the next 3 to 4 years.  This would be funded from the corporate priorities reserve and there would be six themes to this work ‘Civic Pride, Health and Security, Community Assets and Community Development, Culture and Heritage, Regeneration and Business Support and Employment’.  Appropriate engagement would be convened with Councillors and communities as this was developed for delivery.

 

No further comments on the original proposition were received.

 

Upon being put to the vote, it was

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the following recommendations proposed by Executive Board on 14th February 2024 be approved:

 

1.          That the Revenue Estimates for the General Fund and Medium-Term Financial Strategy for the period 2024/25 – 2028/29 (Appendices 1, 1a and 1b) be approved.

2.         That the Council Tax for a band D property in 2024/25 be set at £166.59 (a £4.95 per   annum increase on 2023/24 levels) be approved.

3.         The additions to and use of reserves (as detailed at Appendix 1) be approved.

4.         The Medium-Term Financial Strategy (at Appendix 1) be approved.

5.         The Capital Programme and Capital Strategy (Appendices 1, 1c and 2) be approved.

6.         The Treasury Management Policy 2024/25 (Appendix 3a) and Treasury Management Strategy, including the Minimum Revenue Provision Policy and Annual Investment Strategy 2024/25 (Appendix 3b) be approved.

7.         The Fees and Charges Schedule 2024/25 (Appendix 4) be approved, and Council approve the application of annual RPI uplifts for all fees and charges where applicable.

8.         The Annual Delivery Plan for 2024/25 (Appendix 5) be approved.

9.         That Council notes the results of the Budget Consultation process at Appendix 6

10.      That the alignment of constitutional financial limits across the partnership (Appendix 7) be approved.

11.      That Council reaffirms its previous decision in respect of long-term empty properties determined in Appendix 1, para 4.10, and makes a determination for the introduction of the premium for substantially furnished with no residents (second homes), to be introduced at the earliest point, 1^st April 2025.

 

Upon being put to the vote the original proposition was carried.

 

For the Proposal: Councillors Aldridge, Ashton, Avison, Bowkett, Danny Brookes, Campbell-Wardman, Cunnington, Davie, Devereux, Dickinson, Edginton, Evans, Eyre, Foster, Fry, Gray, Grist, Grover, Alex Hall, Hesketh, Hobson, Jones, Sam Kemp, Tom Kemp, Kirk, James Knowles, Terry Knowles, Leyland, McMillan, McNally, Macey, Makinson-Sanders, Ellie Marsh, Graham Marsh, Martin, Simpson, Watson and Yarsley – 38

 

Against the Proposal: Councillor Bristow - 1

 

Abstentions: Councillors Arnold, Cullen, Dawson, Horton and Jackson - 5

 

Absent: Councillors Billy Brookes, Jimmy Brookes, Dannatt, Dennis, David Hall, Leonard, Lyons, Marnoch, Mossop, Rickett and Taylor – 11

 

N.B.  The Meeting adjourned for a comfort break at 4.49pm and reconvened at 5.03pm.