Issue - meetings

Councillor M F L Durham referred to Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) and the independent evidence regarding four or five unitary authorities not being viable, he asked the Leader of the Council why the Leader was not providing everyone with all the information so they could review and make their own judgement. Councillor Durham explained that he felt Members should be able to see and read the information for all options. In response the Leader advised that he hadn’t been sent that information, but as soon as any information was available it would be shared.

Councillor A S Fluker sought confirmation as to why Agenda Item 7 (Maldon District Five Year Housing Land Supply 2025 / 26) had been withdrawn. In response the Leader explained that the report was withdrawn as it was felt at this time there wouldn’t be consensus in the chamber, and it would go back to the Member Working Group for further consultation with them and Members as a whole.

In response to a question from Councillor Fluker regarding whether the Planning Policy Working Group had agreed recommendation (ii) in Agenda Item 8 – Maldon District Growth Options the Leader advised he would respond to this outside of the meeting.

Councillor W Stamp questioned why a written report on Devolution and LGR had not been brought forward rather than a verbal update. In response the Chairperson advised that he had requested a verbal update which is what Officers had delivered.

In response to a further question from Councillor Stamp regarding the five model for LGR the Leader detailed the Councils that were developing a draft business case for the five unitary model along with other organisations who were working on elements such as social care analysis. Once brought together the business case would be presented to Members. There had been recent discussions regarding the number of Members involved in a potential new unitary authority and at this time it was felt to be around 60 – 90 across the five unitary model with around 19 Members in Maldon. As soon as any further information was available it would be shared with Members and the Leader advised that the Member Working Group was due to meet the following week.

Councillor E L Stephens asked the Leader of the Council how he felt about the opening of the Splash Park being delayed again. She commented that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee having reviewed the Splash Park and referred to the conclusions drawn. The Leader agreed he was extremely disappointed and asked for the Corporate Leadership Team and Officers to come back with a reason as to why this did not happened and to ensure promises made were met.

At this point the Chairperson advised that he was closing questions to the Leader of the Council as the Council’s Constitution advised that such questions were for a period of 15 minutes only and this time had now expired.