Rugby Borough Council Meeting – Tuesday 24 February – Eight decisions but only one argument

When it next meets at 7pm on Tuesday 24 February Rugby Borough Council will be asked to take eight decisions. We predict only one of these will be controversial.

The argument

This is the official Council meeting to set the Council Tax for the coming year. In the past Council Tax meetings have provided big arguments between the parties about the level of Council Tax. During the period of the coalition government these rows have been reduced because the government has provided an extra grant to every local authority which freezes or reduces its Council Tax. This means that in most councils the argument is not about how much money should be levied in Council Tax but rather on how the money raised by the Council Tax is spent.

We predict that all three parties on Rugby Borough Council will support keeping the Council Tax frozen and the argument will be about how it should be spent.

The meeting is open to the public so turn up to see if our prediction is correct.

For the background on Council Tax see - http://rugby.lib.dm/a5T6M .

The seven other decisions

The Council is being asked to approve some tinkering with the budgets for its capital programme. This includes news of a welcome underspend of £422,000 on its Pettiver Crescent housing scheme.

The Council is being asked to approve a Treasury Management Policy for 2015-16.

The Council is being asked to approve a food premises inspection plan for 2015-16. We are not expecting this to be controversial but the report does have some interesting facts. For example there are 955 "food premises" in the Rugby Borough area including 75 takeaways; 140 pubs and 75 schools and colleges.

The Council is being asked to stop using Bawnmore Infants and Bilton Infants schools as polling stations.

The Council is being asked not to take a decision about Cawston Parish Council and its own ward boundaries.

The Council is being asked to approve a new code of practice which aims to stop councillors inadvertently breaking the law when considering planning applications. The code of practice distinguishes the role of ward councillors (who may speak out on planning applications but then not sit on the planning committee whilst the planning application is considered) and councillors who will take the decision on planning committee (who should keep quiet about planning applications). The code of practice sets out just how carefully councillors should speak. For example saying "Many people find wind farms ugly and noisy and I will need a lot of persuading that any more wind farms should be allowed in our area" is apparently OK whereas saying ""Wind farms are blots on the landscape and I will oppose each and every wind farm application that comes before the committee" is said to be wrong. (There is a difference but many people may think it very subtle). Sadly the code of practice does not assist any councillor who wants to say something like "Wind farms can make a useful contribution to reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, reducing carbon dioxide emissions and helping prevent climate change" but not break the law.

Finally the Council is being asked to approve some tinkering with which officers are allowed to make some decisions.