Venue: The Guildhall, Westgate, Canterbury. View directions
\n\t\tContact: Graham Finch \n\t\t862 004\n\t\t\n\t\t
\n\t\t\nItems\n\t\t\nNo.\n\t\t\tItem\n\t\t\n\n\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\tPrayers
\nMinutes:
\nThe meeting was opened by prayers by the\nReverend Canon David Naumann on behalf of the Lord Mayor’s\nChaplain.
\nAudio Recording for the meeting
\nMinutes:
\nIt was proposed by Councillor Gilbey, seconded\nby Councillor Mrs Law, and
\n\n
RESOLVED – That the council agree to the\naudio recording of this meeting.
\nApologies for absence
\nMinutes:
\nApologies for absence were received from\nCouncillors Carnell, Eden-Green, Parry, Seath and Steed.
\nDeclaration of Members' interests
\nMinutes:
\nCouncillors Gilbey, A Perkins and\nWratten each made a statement on behalf of the Members of their\nrespective groups that any interests, which had been declared by\ntheir Members, as set out in previous meetings in so far as they\nrelated to the business for this meeting, were deemed to be\ndeclared again for this meeting.
\n\n
\nCouncillor Calvert-Mindell declared a personal\ninterest in the item regarding East Kent Joint Housing Landlord\nServices because of her position as a leasholder of council\naccommodation.
\nAnnouncements
\nTO RECEIVE any announcements from the Lord\nMayor, the Leader, members of the Executive or the Chief\nExecutive.
\nMinutes:
\n\n(a) \nThe Lord Mayor reported that his Chaplain, Reverend Canon Norman\nWoods, had a hip operation last week. The Lord Mayor mentioned that\nhe had visited him earlier today and that he was in good spirits\nand had indicated that should the council meeting go over to next\nThursday 25 February at 7pm, he hoped to attend. The Lord Mayor\nremarked how good his recovery had been since the operation.
\n\n
\n(b) \nThe Lord Mayor remarked that he was delighted to see so many people\nfrom the Canterbury District who were at the meeting to share and\nlisten to the debate at the meeting, although he emphasised that\napart from the petitioners, the public could not speak at the\nmeeting.
\n\n
\n(c) \nThe Lord Mayor drew attention to an email which had been sent by\nthe Chief Executive to Members advising them of the large Agenda\nfor the meeting and indicating that when the Budget had been dealt\nwith, the Lord Mayor would look at the remaining time for the\nmeeting. If at that time the council felt it could finish the\nagenda this evening, it would do so. If not the meeting would be\nadjourned to the 25 February.
\n\n
\n(d) \nThe Leader reported that the Planning Inspector had found the Herne\nBay Area Action Plan sound, meeting all the legal requirements of\nthe regulations.
\n\n
The Leader\nmentioned that the Inspector had supported the three main\ndevelopment sites - Central Development Area, Beach Street and the\nBus Depot. The Inspector had deemed that a formal hearing was not\nnecessary and any points of clarification could be dealt with by\nwritten representation.
\n\n
The Leader advised\nthat the Inspector’s report was binding and it would be\nreported to the Executive in April before publication. The report\nwould come to the council in April and would support the work being\ncarried out by the contractor in progressing our ideas.
\n\n
\n(e) \nThe Chief Executive reported that there were fewer people in\nattendance than expected, but if more people arrived he drew\nattention to the Fire Exits should it become necessary for everyone\nto leave the building in the event of an emergency.
\nPetitions
\n(a) Mr\nLong will present another petition at the meeting about the\nproposal for the closure of Westgate Hall, Canterbury.
\n\n
(b) \nMarjorie Lyle will present a petition calling on the Council to\nimmediately drop plans to close the Roman Pavement and the Westgate\nTowers museums as the museums are assets to our city and should be\nkept open for residents and visitors alike to enjoy.
\n\n
Any further\nnotifications about other petitions to be presented at the meeting,\nwhich are received within the prescribed time limit, will be\nreported at the meeting.
\nMinutes:
\nThe Lord Mayor advised the council that there\nwere three petitions to be presented at the meeting. The Lord Mayor\nmentioned that the petitions would be received without debate and\nthat they would be borne in mind when the council made its\ndecisions on the budget proposals later in the meeting.
\n\n
As the council had agreed earlier in the\nmeeting to an audio recording of the meeting, the Lord Mayor asked\neach petitioner, in turn, if they were happy to be recorded. Each\npetitioner indicated that they were happy for their comments to be\nincluded in the recording.
\n\n
The council then received petitions from the\nfollowing persons who each addressed the council about the issues\nspecified :-
\n\n
(a) from Mr B\nLong about the proposal for the closure of Westgate Hall,\nCanterbury;
\n\n
\n(b) \nfrom Professor D Birmingham, on behalf of the petitioner Marjorie\nLyle, about the budget proposals for the Roman and Westgate Towers\nmuseums;
\n\n
The Lord Mayor\ndeclared a personal interest in this item because he knew Professor\nBirmingham;
\n\n
(c) from\nMr B Buggins about the proposal for the closure of Westgate Hall,\nCanterbury.
\nBudget Proposals
\nMinutes:
\n\n(1) \nThe Leader delivered his priorities speech.
\n\n
\n(2) \nCouncillor A Perkins then replied, on behalf of the Liberal\nDemocrat Group, and during his reply he moved amendments to the\nBudget proposals. He requested that a separate vote be taken on\neach amendment.
\n\n
\n(3) \nIn the absence of the Leader of the Labour Group, the Lord Mayor\nallowed Councillor Wratten to reply on behalf of the Labour\nGroup.
\n\n
\n(4) \nThe Leader then replied to the speeches by the Leader of the\nLiberal Democrat Group and by Councillor Wratten for the Labour\nGroup.
\nGeneral Fund Revenue Budget
\n\n\n(a) That the\ncouncil approves the net revenue budget amount to
\n£22,549,200\nwhich incorporates the variations mentioned in sections 4 and 5 of\nthis report.
\n\n
\n\n\n(b) That the\ncouncil approves a Council Tax for Band D of £178.65
\n\n
\n\n(c) That the\ncouncil approves the projections for 2011/12 to 2013/14 as the\nbasis for the budget in each of those years with the projected\nCouncil Tax being limited to not more than 3% approximately.
\n\n
\n\n\n(d) That the\ncouncil agrees that the windfall income from H M Revenues and\nCustoms be transferred from its reserve to cover the currently\nassessed shortfall in the return of monies held in Icelandic\nbanks.
\n\n
\n\n\n(e) That, in\norder to demonstrate the necessary robustness in the\nprojections
\n\n
\ni) \nthe council commits to a further programme of budget prioritisation\nso as to make savings in 2011/12 and beyond and
\n\n\n
\nii) \nManagement Team deliver further efficiency savings with the\nintention that these measures be expected to achieve reductions in\nstaffing budgets of at least the equivalent of 5% per annum over\nthe projection period.
\n\n
\n\n(f) \nThat the charges set out in Appendix 7 of the report be\napproved.
\n\n
\n\n\n(g) That the\nasset disposals programme approved in February 2008 be revised in\nline with Management Team’s latest schedule (as at December\n2009).
\nMinutes:
\n\n(1) \nIt was proposed by Councillor\nA Perkins and seconded by Councillor Dixey that no parking\ncharge increases be introduced this year and that all on-street and\noff-street parking charges be frozen. (Revenue neutral).
\n\n
\n(2) \nFollowing a debate the\nforegoing amendment was then put and LOST
\n\n
\n(3) \nIt was proposed by Councillor\nA Perkins and seconded by Councillor Dixey that the council\ncancel the £20,000 contribution to the Open Golf at Sandwich\nand use that money to reinstate £20,000 of the funding\nwithdrawn from Age Concern and Northgate Over 60’s. (Revenue\nneutral).
\n\n
Following a\nrequest, pursuant to the Council Procedure Rules, a record of the\nvoting on the foregoing amendment was taken as follows
\n\n
For the amendment
\n\n
\n\nCouncillors Berridge, Bright, Calvert-Mindell, Dixey, Dye, M\nFlaherty,
\nR\nFlaherty, Flanagan, Hando, Linfield, MacCaul, Matthews,\nParsons,
\nA\nPerkins, Staley, Vickers, Vye and Wratten (18)
\n\n
\nAgainst the amendment
\n\n
\n\nCouncillors Anderson, Austin, Bissett, Davis, Doyle, Ellis, Fisher,\nGilbey, Harrison, Mrs Law, Lee, McCabe, McMahan, Patterson,
\nJ\nPerkins, Pickersgill, Samper, Sharp, Sonnex, A Taylor, H Taylor,\nThomas, Todd, Vickery-Jones and Windsor (25)
\n\n
\nAbstained from voting
\n\n
\nCouncillors Cragg\nand Reuby (2)
\n\n
\nAbsent from the\nmeeting
\n\n
\nCouncillors\nCarnell, Eden-Green, Parry, Seath and Steed (5)
\n\n
The foregoing\namendment was declared LOST.
\n\n
\n(4) \nIt was proposed by Councillor\nA Perkins and seconded by Councillor Dixey that the council\ncancel the closure of the Westgate Hall. Set up a trust formed from\nthe hall users to manage the building. (Capital:) Provide\n£450,000 for hall refurbishment by cancelling the proposed\n£600,000 move of Canterbury market - return the remaining\n£150,000 to balances. (Revenue:) Provide year on year revenue\nfunding for the Westgate Hall by way of grant using the\n£56,000 currently being added to reserves from the surplus\nrent from a High Street property.
\n\n
This proposal\naffected both revenue and capital budgets and the Lord Mayor\nallowed a vote to be taken on the amendment at this point.
\n\n
Following a\nrequest, pursuant to the Council Procedure Rules, a record of the\nvoting on the foregoing amendment was taken as follows
\n\n
For the amendment
\n\n
\n\nCouncillors Berridge, Bright, Calvert-Mindell, Dixey, Dye, M\nFlaherty,
\nR\nFlaherty, Flanagan, Hando, Linfield, MacCaul, Matthews,\nParsons,
\nA\nPerkins, Staley, Vickers, Vye and Wratten (18)
\n\n
\nAgainst the amendment
\n\n
\n\nCouncillors Anderson, Austin, Bissett, Davis, Doyle, Ellis, Fisher,\nGilbey, Harrison, Mrs Law, Lee, McCabe, McMahan, Patterson,
\nJ\nPerkins, Pickersgill, Reuby, Samper, Sharp, Sonnex, A Taylor,
\nH\nTaylor, Thomas, Todd, Vickery-Jones and Windsor (26)
\n\n
\nAbstained from voting
\n\n
\nCouncillor\nCragg
\n\n
\nAbsent from the\nmeeting
\n\n
\nCouncillors\nCarnell, Eden-Green, Parry, Seath and Steed (5)
\n\n
The foregoing\namendment was declared LOST.
\n\n
\n(5) \nIt was proposed by Councillor\nA Perkins and seconded by Councillor Dixey that the council\ncancel the closure/transfer of ALL 3 Museums. (Roman, Westgate and\nHerne Bay). Seek to set up a trust from the Friends of the Museums,\nThe Archaeological Trust, The Guild of Guides and the two local\nUniversities to run the district’s smaller\nmuseums. Fund this\nyear from the £74,600 museums transfer fund already set up by\nthe Executive on 4th ... \nview the full minutes text for item 619a
\nGeneral Fund Capital Budget
\n\n(a) \nThat the Capital Programme and Strategy presented in the report be\napproved.
\n\n
\n\n(b) \nThat authority be given to officers by\nsection 2.6 of financial regulations (previously minute\n871(a)(iv)1997/98) to incur expenditure on schemes brought into the\n2010/11 and 2011/12 programme since the council meeting in February\n2009.
\n\n
\n\n\n(c) \nThat for those major schemes listed in\nsection 3, expenditure on each new stage of these may only proceed\nwith the express approval of the council.
\n\n
\n\n\n(d) \nThat the capital strategy set out at Appendix 2 be adopted.
\nMinutes:
\n(1) See\nMinute No. 619(a) (4) regarding an amendment to both the capital\nand revenue budgets, which was proposed by Councillor A Perkins and\nseconded by Councillor Dixey, and when put to a vote was LOST.
\n\n
(2) It was\nproposed by Councillor Gilbey, seconded by Councillor Mrs Law,\nand
\n\n
\nRESOLVED –\nThat the council approve the following recommendations at Minute\nNo. E193 of the Executive meeting held on 21 January 2010-
\n\n
\n(a) \nThat the Capital Programme and Strategy presented in the report be\napproved.
\n\n
\n\n(b) \n That authority be given to officers by section 2.6 of\nfinancial regulations (previously minute 871(a)(iv)1997/98) to\nincur expenditure on schemes brought into the 2010/11 and 2011/12\nprogramme since the council meeting in February 2009.
\n\n
\n\n\n(c) \nThat for those major schemes listed in\nsection 3, expenditure on each new stage of these may only proceed\nwith the express approval of the council.
\n\n
\n\n\n(d) That the\ncapital strategy set out at Appendix 2 be adopted.
\nDraft Housing Revenue and Capital Budget
\n(a) That\nthe proposals set out in Appendix A of the report be approved\nsubject to the assumptions set out in the body of the report.
\n\n
\n(b) That\nthe draft and revised revenue and capital budgets and programme of\nworks set out at Appendices B – H be approved.
\nMinutes:
\nIt was proposed by Councillor Gilbey, seconded\nby Councillor Mrs Law, and
\n\n
\nRESOLVED – That the council approve the\nfollowing recommendations at Minute No. E191 of the Executive\nmeeting held on 21 January 2010 -
\n\n
(a) That\nthe proposals set out in Appendix A of the report be approved\nsubject to the assumptions set out in the body of the report.
\n\n
\n(b) That\nthe draft and revised revenue and capital budgets and programme of\nworks set out at Appendices B – H be approved.
\nTO CONSIDER the recommendations to Full\nCouncil at Minute No. E207 of the Executive meeting on 4 February\n2010 (see attached details) and the report of the Director of\nCorporate Services (to follow).
\nAdditional documents:
\n\t\t\t\t\t\nMinutes:
\nThe Director of Corporate Services circulated\nat the meeting a report, which advised on the decision by the\ncounty council earlier today regarding its precept for the Council\nTax for 2010/11. The paper set out an amended resolution, which the council was\nnow asked to approve for the Council Tax for 2010/11.
\n\n
The council considered the report.
\n\n
It was then proposed by Councillor Gilbey,\nseconded by Councillor Mrs Law, and
\n\n
\nRESOLVED – That the council approve the\nfollowing recommendations in the report of the Director of\nCorporate Services -
\n\n
1 \nThat the following amounts be now calculated by the Council for the\nyear 2010/11 in accordance with Sections 32 to 36 of the Local\nGovernment Finance Act 1992:
\n\n
a) \n£93,262,798 being the aggregate of the amounts which the\nCouncil estimates for the items set out in Section 32(2) (a) to (e)\nof the Act.
\n\n
b) \n£70,146,100 being the aggregate of the amounts which the\nCouncil estimates for the items set out in Section 32(3) (a) to (c)\nof the Act.
\n\n
c) \n£23,116,698 being the amount by which the aggregate 1(a)\nabove exceeds the aggregate at 1(b) above, calculated by the\nCouncil, in accordance with Section 32(4) of the Act, as its budget\nrequirement for the year.
\n\n
2 \n£13,270,036 being the aggregate of the sums which the Council\nestimates will be payable for the year into its general fund in\nrespect of re-distributed non-domestic rates and revenue support\ngrant adjusted by the amount of the sums which the Council\nestimates will be transferred in the year to/from its general fund\nfrom/to its collection fund in accordance with Section 97(3) and\nSection 98(4) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988.
\n\n
3 \n£189.58 being the amount at 1(c) above less the amount at (2)\nabove, all divided by the Council Tax base (51,938) calculated by\nthe Council, in accordance with Section 33(1) of the Act, as the\nbasic amount of its council tax for the year.
\n\n
4 \n£567,898 being the aggregate amount of all special items\nreferred to in Section 34(1) of the Act.
\n\n
5 \n£178.65 being the amount at (3) above less the result given\nby dividing the amount at (4) above by the Council Tax base\n(51,938) calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section\n34(2) of the Act, as the basic amount of its council tax for the\nyear for dwellings in those parts of its area to which no special\nitem relates.
\n\n
6 \nPart of the Council’s area
\n\n\n\n\n
Adisham
\n\n\n\n\n\n
26.73
\n\n\n\n\n\n
Hardres\nUpper
\n\n\n20.16
\n\n\n\n\nBarham
\n\n\n\n\n\n
35.64
\n\n\n\n\n\n
Herne &\nBroomfield
\n\n\n28.35
\n\n\n\n\nBekesbourne with\nPatrixbourne
\n\n\n\n\n\n
14.67
\n\n\n\n\n\n
Hoath
\n\n\n\n\n\n
21.96
\n\n\n\n\nBishopsbourne
\n\n\n\n\n\n
26.73
\n\n\n\n\n\n
Ickham
\n\n\n\n\n\n
19.89
\n\n\n\n\nBlean
\n\n\n\n\n\n
23.13
\n\n\n\n\n\n
Kingston
\n\n\n\n\n\n
18.99
\n\n\n\n\nBridge
\n\n\n\n\n\n
36.45
\n\n\n\n\n\n
Littlebourne
\n\n\n41.40
\n\n\n\n\nChartham
\n\n\n\n\n\n
50.67
\n\n\n\n\n\n
Petham
\n\n\n\n\n\n
30.60
\n\n\n\n\nChestfield
\n\n\n\n\n\n
39.24
\n\n\n\n\n\n
Sturry
\n\n\n\n\n\n
46.80
\n\n\n\n\nChislet
\n\n\n\n\n\n
28.71
\n\n\n\n\n\n
Thanington\nWithout
\n\n\n29.25
\n\n\n\n\nFordwich
\n\n\n\n\n\n
33.12
\n\n\n\n\n\n
Waltham
\n\n\n\n\n\n
19.17
\n\n\n\n\nHackington
\n\n\n\n\n\n
16.56
\n\n\n\n\n\n
Westbere
\n\n\n\n\n\n
47.97
\n\n\n\n\nHarbledown and\nRough Common
\n\n\n\n\n\n
34.83
\n\n\n\n\n\n
Wickhambreaux
\n\n\n20.07
\n\n\n\n\nHardres\nLower
\n\n\n\n\n\n
17.01
\n\n\n\n\n\n
Womenswold
\n\n\n23.22
\n\n\n\n\n
being the amounts\ngiven by adding to the amount at (5) above the amounts of the\nspecial item of items relating to dwellings in these parts of the\nCity Council’s ... \nview the full minutes text for item 619d
\nAdjournment of meeting
\nMinutes:
\nAt this point, the Lord Mayor asked Members to\nconsider whether an extension of time should be considered to\ncomplete the remaining business for the meeting
\n\n
Some Members commented on the issue and\nindicated that they did not wish to support an extension of time\nfor the meeting.
\n\n
In these circumstances the meeting was\nadjourned until Thursday 25 February at 7pm at The Guildhall.
\n![\"pdf](\"mgimages/logo-pdf-1.gif\"){kind=logo}
PDF 92 KB \n\t\t \n\t\t\t PDF 995 KB PDF 44 KB PDF 104 KB \n\t\t Venue: The Guildhall, Westgate, Canterbury. View directions
\n\t\tContact: Graham Finch \n\t\t862 004\n\t\t\n\t\t
\n\t\t| No. | \n\t\t\tItem | \n\t\t|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Prayers \nMinutes: \n\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\n \nThe meeting was opened by prayers by the\nReverend Canon David Naumann on behalf of the Lord Mayor’s\nChaplain. \n | \n\t\t|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Audio Recording for the meeting \nMinutes: \n\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\n \nIt was proposed by Councillor Gilbey, seconded\nby Councillor Mrs Law, and \n\n RESOLVED – That the council agree to the\naudio recording of this meeting. \n | \n\t\t|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Apologies for absence \nMinutes: \n\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\n \nApologies for absence were received from\nCouncillors Carnell, Eden-Green, Parry, Seath and Steed. \n | \n\t\t|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Declaration of Members' interests \nMinutes: \n\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\n \nCouncillors Gilbey, A Perkins and\nWratten each made a statement on behalf of the Members of their\nrespective groups that any interests, which had been declared by\ntheir Members, as set out in previous meetings in so far as they\nrelated to the business for this meeting, were deemed to be\ndeclared again for this meeting. \n\n \nCouncillor Calvert-Mindell declared a personal\ninterest in the item regarding East Kent Joint Housing Landlord\nServices because of her position as a leasholder of council\naccommodation. \n | \n\t\t|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Announcements \n\n \n\n \nTO RECEIVE any announcements from the Lord\nMayor, the Leader, members of the Executive or the Chief\nExecutive. \nMinutes: \n\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\n \n\n(a) \nThe Lord Mayor reported that his Chaplain, Reverend Canon Norman\nWoods, had a hip operation last week. The Lord Mayor mentioned that\nhe had visited him earlier today and that he was in good spirits\nand had indicated that should the council meeting go over to next\nThursday 25 February at 7pm, he hoped to attend. The Lord Mayor\nremarked how good his recovery had been since the operation. \n\n \n(b) \nThe Lord Mayor remarked that he was delighted to see so many people\nfrom the Canterbury District who were at the meeting to share and\nlisten to the debate at the meeting, although he emphasised that\napart from the petitioners, the public could not speak at the\nmeeting. \n\n \n(c) \nThe Lord Mayor drew attention to an email which had been sent by\nthe Chief Executive to Members advising them of the large Agenda\nfor the meeting and indicating that when the Budget had been dealt\nwith, the Lord Mayor would look at the remaining time for the\nmeeting. If at that time the council felt it could finish the\nagenda this evening, it would do so. If not the meeting would be\nadjourned to the 25 February. \n\n \n(d) \nThe Leader reported that the Planning Inspector had found the Herne\nBay Area Action Plan sound, meeting all the legal requirements of\nthe regulations. \n\n The Leader\nmentioned that the Inspector had supported the three main\ndevelopment sites - Central Development Area, Beach Street and the\nBus Depot. The Inspector had deemed that a formal hearing was not\nnecessary and any points of clarification could be dealt with by\nwritten representation. \n\n The Leader advised\nthat the Inspector’s report was binding and it would be\nreported to the Executive in April before publication. The report\nwould come to the council in April and would support the work being\ncarried out by the contractor in progressing our ideas. \n\n \n(e) \nThe Chief Executive reported that there were fewer people in\nattendance than expected, but if more people arrived he drew\nattention to the Fire Exits should it become necessary for everyone\nto leave the building in the event of an emergency. \n | \n\t\t|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Petitions \n\n \n\n \n(a) Mr\nLong will present another petition at the meeting about the\nproposal for the closure of Westgate Hall, Canterbury. \n\n (b) \nMarjorie Lyle will present a petition calling on the Council to\nimmediately drop plans to close the Roman Pavement and the Westgate\nTowers museums as the museums are assets to our city and should be\nkept open for residents and visitors alike to enjoy. \n\n Any further\nnotifications about other petitions to be presented at the meeting,\nwhich are received within the prescribed time limit, will be\nreported at the meeting. \nMinutes: \n\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\n \nThe Lord Mayor advised the council that there\nwere three petitions to be presented at the meeting. The Lord Mayor\nmentioned that the petitions would be received without debate and\nthat they would be borne in mind when the council made its\ndecisions on the budget proposals later in the meeting. \n\n As the council had agreed earlier in the\nmeeting to an audio recording of the meeting, the Lord Mayor asked\neach petitioner, in turn, if they were happy to be recorded. Each\npetitioner indicated that they were happy for their comments to be\nincluded in the recording. \n\n The council then received petitions from the\nfollowing persons who each addressed the council about the issues\nspecified :- \n\n (a) from Mr B\nLong about the proposal for the closure of Westgate Hall,\nCanterbury; \n\n \n(b) \nfrom Professor D Birmingham, on behalf of the petitioner Marjorie\nLyle, about the budget proposals for the Roman and Westgate Towers\nmuseums; \n\n The Lord Mayor\ndeclared a personal interest in this item because he knew Professor\nBirmingham; \n\n (c) from\nMr B Buggins about the proposal for the closure of Westgate Hall,\nCanterbury. \n | \n\t\t|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Budget Proposals \nMinutes: \n\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\n \n\n(1) \nThe Leader delivered his priorities speech. \n\n \n(2) \nCouncillor A Perkins then replied, on behalf of the Liberal\nDemocrat Group, and during his reply he moved amendments to the\nBudget proposals. He requested that a separate vote be taken on\neach amendment. \n\n \n(3) \nIn the absence of the Leader of the Labour Group, the Lord Mayor\nallowed Councillor Wratten to reply on behalf of the Labour\nGroup. \n\n \n(4) \nThe Leader then replied to the speeches by the Leader of the\nLiberal Democrat Group and by Councillor Wratten for the Labour\nGroup. \n | \n\t\t|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t General Fund Revenue Budget \n\n \n\n \n\n\n(a) That the\ncouncil approves the net revenue budget amount to \n£22,549,200\nwhich incorporates the variations mentioned in sections 4 and 5 of\nthis report. \n\n \n\n\n(b) That the\ncouncil approves a Council Tax for Band D of £178.65 \n\n \n\n(c) That the\ncouncil approves the projections for 2011/12 to 2013/14 as the\nbasis for the budget in each of those years with the projected\nCouncil Tax being limited to not more than 3% approximately. \n\n \n\n\n(d) That the\ncouncil agrees that the windfall income from H M Revenues and\nCustoms be transferred from its reserve to cover the currently\nassessed shortfall in the return of monies held in Icelandic\nbanks. \n\n \n\n\n(e) That, in\norder to demonstrate the necessary robustness in the\nprojections \n\n \ni) \nthe council commits to a further programme of budget prioritisation\nso as to make savings in 2011/12 and beyond and \n\n\n \nii) \nManagement Team deliver further efficiency savings with the\nintention that these measures be expected to achieve reductions in\nstaffing budgets of at least the equivalent of 5% per annum over\nthe projection period. \n\n \n\n(f) \nThat the charges set out in Appendix 7 of the report be\napproved. \n\n \n\n\n(g) That the\nasset disposals programme approved in February 2008 be revised in\nline with Management Team’s latest schedule (as at December\n2009). \nMinutes: \n\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\n \n\n(1) \nIt was proposed by Councillor\nA Perkins and seconded by Councillor Dixey that no parking\ncharge increases be introduced this year and that all on-street and\noff-street parking charges be frozen. (Revenue neutral). \n\n \n(2) \nFollowing a debate the\nforegoing amendment was then put and LOST \n\n \n(3) \nIt was proposed by Councillor\nA Perkins and seconded by Councillor Dixey that the council\ncancel the £20,000 contribution to the Open Golf at Sandwich\nand use that money to reinstate £20,000 of the funding\nwithdrawn from Age Concern and Northgate Over 60’s. (Revenue\nneutral). \n\n Following a\nrequest, pursuant to the Council Procedure Rules, a record of the\nvoting on the foregoing amendment was taken as follows \n\n For the amendment \n\n \n\nCouncillors Berridge, Bright, Calvert-Mindell, Dixey, Dye, M\nFlaherty, \nR\nFlaherty, Flanagan, Hando, Linfield, MacCaul, Matthews,\nParsons, \nA\nPerkins, Staley, Vickers, Vye and Wratten (18) \n\n \nAgainst the amendment \n\n \n\nCouncillors Anderson, Austin, Bissett, Davis, Doyle, Ellis, Fisher,\nGilbey, Harrison, Mrs Law, Lee, McCabe, McMahan, Patterson, \nJ\nPerkins, Pickersgill, Samper, Sharp, Sonnex, A Taylor, H Taylor,\nThomas, Todd, Vickery-Jones and Windsor (25) \n\n \nAbstained from voting \n\n \nCouncillors Cragg\nand Reuby (2) \n\n \nAbsent from the\nmeeting \n\n \nCouncillors\nCarnell, Eden-Green, Parry, Seath and Steed (5) \n\n The foregoing\namendment was declared LOST. \n\n \n(4) \nIt was proposed by Councillor\nA Perkins and seconded by Councillor Dixey that the council\ncancel the closure of the Westgate Hall. Set up a trust formed from\nthe hall users to manage the building. (Capital:) Provide\n£450,000 for hall refurbishment by cancelling the proposed\n£600,000 move of Canterbury market - return the remaining\n£150,000 to balances. (Revenue:) Provide year on year revenue\nfunding for the Westgate Hall by way of grant using the\n£56,000 currently being added to reserves from the surplus\nrent from a High Street property. \n\n This proposal\naffected both revenue and capital budgets and the Lord Mayor\nallowed a vote to be taken on the amendment at this point. \n\n Following a\nrequest, pursuant to the Council Procedure Rules, a record of the\nvoting on the foregoing amendment was taken as follows \n\n For the amendment \n\n \n\nCouncillors Berridge, Bright, Calvert-Mindell, Dixey, Dye, M\nFlaherty, \nR\nFlaherty, Flanagan, Hando, Linfield, MacCaul, Matthews,\nParsons, \nA\nPerkins, Staley, Vickers, Vye and Wratten (18) \n\n \nAgainst the amendment \n\n \n\nCouncillors Anderson, Austin, Bissett, Davis, Doyle, Ellis, Fisher,\nGilbey, Harrison, Mrs Law, Lee, McCabe, McMahan, Patterson, \nJ\nPerkins, Pickersgill, Reuby, Samper, Sharp, Sonnex, A Taylor, \nH\nTaylor, Thomas, Todd, Vickery-Jones and Windsor (26) \n\n \nAbstained from voting \n\n \nCouncillor\nCragg \n\n \nAbsent from the\nmeeting \n\n \nCouncillors\nCarnell, Eden-Green, Parry, Seath and Steed (5) \n\n The foregoing\namendment was declared LOST. \n\n \n(5) \nIt was proposed by Councillor\nA Perkins and seconded by Councillor Dixey that the council\ncancel the closure/transfer of ALL 3 Museums. (Roman, Westgate and\nHerne Bay). Seek to set up a trust from the Friends of the Museums,\nThe Archaeological Trust, The Guild of Guides and the two local\nUniversities to run the district’s smaller\nmuseums. Fund this\nyear from the £74,600 museums transfer fund already set up by\nthe Executive on 4th ... \nview the full minutes text for item 619a \n | \n\t\t|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t General Fund Capital Budget \n\n \n\n \n\n(a) \nThat the Capital Programme and Strategy presented in the report be\napproved. \n\n \n\n(b) \nThat authority be given to officers by\nsection 2.6 of financial regulations (previously minute\n871(a)(iv)1997/98) to incur expenditure on schemes brought into the\n2010/11 and 2011/12 programme since the council meeting in February\n2009. \n\n \n\n\n(c) \nThat for those major schemes listed in\nsection 3, expenditure on each new stage of these may only proceed\nwith the express approval of the council. \n\n \n\n\n(d) \nThat the capital strategy set out at Appendix 2 be adopted. \nMinutes: \n\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\n \n(1) See\nMinute No. 619(a) (4) regarding an amendment to both the capital\nand revenue budgets, which was proposed by Councillor A Perkins and\nseconded by Councillor Dixey, and when put to a vote was LOST. \n\n (2) It was\nproposed by Councillor Gilbey, seconded by Councillor Mrs Law,\nand \n\n \nRESOLVED –\nThat the council approve the following recommendations at Minute\nNo. E193 of the Executive meeting held on 21 January 2010- \n\n \n(a) \nThat the Capital Programme and Strategy presented in the report be\napproved. \n\n \n\n(b) \n That authority be given to officers by section 2.6 of\nfinancial regulations (previously minute 871(a)(iv)1997/98) to\nincur expenditure on schemes brought into the 2010/11 and 2011/12\nprogramme since the council meeting in February 2009. \n\n \n\n\n(c) \nThat for those major schemes listed in\nsection 3, expenditure on each new stage of these may only proceed\nwith the express approval of the council. \n\n \n\n\n(d) That the\ncapital strategy set out at Appendix 2 be adopted. \n | \n\t\t|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Draft Housing Revenue and Capital Budget \n\n \n\n \n(a) That\nthe proposals set out in Appendix A of the report be approved\nsubject to the assumptions set out in the body of the report. \n\n \n(b) That\nthe draft and revised revenue and capital budgets and programme of\nworks set out at Appendices B – H be approved. \nMinutes: \n\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\n \nIt was proposed by Councillor Gilbey, seconded\nby Councillor Mrs Law, and \n\n \nRESOLVED – That the council approve the\nfollowing recommendations at Minute No. E191 of the Executive\nmeeting held on 21 January 2010 - \n\n (a) That\nthe proposals set out in Appendix A of the report be approved\nsubject to the assumptions set out in the body of the report. \n\n \n(b) That\nthe draft and revised revenue and capital budgets and programme of\nworks set out at Appendices B – H be approved. \n | \n\t\t|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n \n \n\n \nTO CONSIDER the recommendations to Full\nCouncil at Minute No. E207 of the Executive meeting on 4 February\n2010 (see attached details) and the report of the Director of\nCorporate Services (to follow). \nAdditional documents: \n\t\t\t\t\t\n
Minutes: \n\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\n \nThe Director of Corporate Services circulated\nat the meeting a report, which advised on the decision by the\ncounty council earlier today regarding its precept for the Council\nTax for 2010/11. The paper set out an amended resolution, which the council was\nnow asked to approve for the Council Tax for 2010/11. \n\n The council considered the report. \n\n It was then proposed by Councillor Gilbey,\nseconded by Councillor Mrs Law, and \n\n \nRESOLVED – That the council approve the\nfollowing recommendations in the report of the Director of\nCorporate Services - \n\n 1 \nThat the following amounts be now calculated by the Council for the\nyear 2010/11 in accordance with Sections 32 to 36 of the Local\nGovernment Finance Act 1992: \n\n a) \n£93,262,798 being the aggregate of the amounts which the\nCouncil estimates for the items set out in Section 32(2) (a) to (e)\nof the Act. \n\n b) \n£70,146,100 being the aggregate of the amounts which the\nCouncil estimates for the items set out in Section 32(3) (a) to (c)\nof the Act. \n\n c) \n£23,116,698 being the amount by which the aggregate 1(a)\nabove exceeds the aggregate at 1(b) above, calculated by the\nCouncil, in accordance with Section 32(4) of the Act, as its budget\nrequirement for the year. \n\n 2 \n£13,270,036 being the aggregate of the sums which the Council\nestimates will be payable for the year into its general fund in\nrespect of re-distributed non-domestic rates and revenue support\ngrant adjusted by the amount of the sums which the Council\nestimates will be transferred in the year to/from its general fund\nfrom/to its collection fund in accordance with Section 97(3) and\nSection 98(4) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. \n\n 3 \n£189.58 being the amount at 1(c) above less the amount at (2)\nabove, all divided by the Council Tax base (51,938) calculated by\nthe Council, in accordance with Section 33(1) of the Act, as the\nbasic amount of its council tax for the year. \n\n 4 \n£567,898 being the aggregate amount of all special items\nreferred to in Section 34(1) of the Act. \n\n 5 \n£178.65 being the amount at (3) above less the result given\nby dividing the amount at (4) above by the Council Tax base\n(51,938) calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section\n34(2) of the Act, as the basic amount of its council tax for the\nyear for dwellings in those parts of its area to which no special\nitem relates. \n\n 6 \nPart of the Council’s area \n\n
\n being the amounts\ngiven by adding to the amount at (5) above the amounts of the\nspecial item of items relating to dwellings in these parts of the\nCity Council’s ... \nview the full minutes text for item 619d \n | \n\t\t|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| \n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t | \t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Adjournment of meeting \nMinutes: \n\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\n \nAt this point, the Lord Mayor asked Members to\nconsider whether an extension of time should be considered to\ncomplete the remaining business for the meeting \n\n Some Members commented on the issue and\nindicated that they did not wish to support an extension of time\nfor the meeting. \n\n In these circumstances the meeting was\nadjourned until Thursday 25 February at 7pm at The Guildhall. \n | \n\t\t