Agenda pack
North Lanarkshire Council · 9 June 2022
Back to Council — 9 June 2022 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Our Ref: Your Ref: Contact: Tel: Fax: E-Mail: Date: Mark Hamill 07811294702 hamillm@northlan.gov.uk 31 May 2022 Members of the Council Chief Executive’s Office Archie Aitken Head of Legal & Democratic Solutions Civic Centre, Windmillhill Street Motherwell ML1 1AB DX 571701, Motherwell 2 www.northlanarkshire.gov.uk Notice is given that a Hybrid Special Meeting of the COUNCIL is to be held via MS Teams on Thursday, 9 June 2022 at 4:00 pm which you are requested to attend. The agenda of business is attached. Chief Executive Members : Councillors: D Ashraf, A Ballinger, C Barclay, B Baudo, A Beveridge, M Boyd, H Brannan-McVey, G Brennan, B Burgess, A Bustard, J Cairns, A Campbell, T Carragher, C Costello, M Coyle, S Coyle, D Crichton, G Currie, P Di Mascio, K Docherty, K Duffy, A Duffy-Lawson, H Dunbar, T Fisher, F Fotheringham, W Goldie, M Hughes, J Hume, L Jarvie, D Johnston, T Johnston, J Jones, P Kelly, J Keltie, A Khan, K Larson, J Leckie, G Lennon, J Linden, J Logue, H Loughran, F MacGregor, A Magowan, A Masterton, M McBride, B McCluskey, B McCulloch, M McCulloch, P McDade, F McKay, R McKendrick, J McLaren, C McManus, F McNally, M McPake, J McPhilemy, A McVey, L Mitchell, L Nolan, P Patton, J Reddin, L Roarty, D Robb, G Robinson, N Shevlin, W Shields, A Smith, K Stevenson, A Stubbs, L Stubbs, R Sullivan, A Thomas, J Toner, S Watson, C Williams, N Wilson and G Woods. Page 1 of 64
Page 2
Page 2 of 64
Page 3
AGENDA (1) Declarations of Interest in terms of the Ethical Standards in Public Life Etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 (2) Council Governance (a) Composition of Committees and Scheme of Administration (b) Appointment of Conveners and Vice-Conveners (c) Membership of Committees, Sub- Committees, Panels and Working Groups (d) Timetable of Meetings (e) Designation and Remuneration of Posts of Senior Councillors (f) Appointment to Outside Bodies (page 5 - 8) Submit list of outside bodies (copy herewith) (3) Chryston Consultation (page 9 - 22) Submit report by the Deputy Chief Executive providing details of the outcome of the consultation process (copy herewith) (4) Naming of the New Amalgamated Primary School in Coatbridge (page 23 - 28) Submit report by the Head of Education (North) seeking approval to the name the new amalgamated School in Coatbridge "Riverbank Primary School" (copy herewith) (5) Covid-19 Employee Recognition (page 29 - 34) Submit report by the Head of People and Organisational Development setting out proposals to recognise and reward staff which was appropriate and affordable in the current climate (copy herewith) (6) Expenses Support for our Employees (page 35 - 50) Submit report by the Head of People and Organisational Development seeking consideration of a proposal provide support to critical frontline staff groups for a defined period of time. (copy herewith) (7) Proposed Change to Scheme of Delegation - Ground Based Telecoms Masts (page 51 - 56) Submit report by the Head of Planning and Regeneration seeking approval to amend the Scheme of Delegation which is considered necessary due to the amendment of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 which has established new and extended permitted development rights relating to digital telecommunications, most notably in respect of new ground-based telecoms masts (copy herewith) Page 3 of 64
Page 4
2 (8) Amendment to the Procedure for Considering Petitions (page 57 - 64) Submit report by the Head of Legal and Democratic Solutions seeking approval of an amendment to the procedure for considering petitions received by the Council. (copy herewith) Page 4 of 64
Page 5
OUTSIDE BODIES - NUMBER OF APPOINTMENTS PER ORGANISATION Organisation/Body Representative/ Member(s) Adoption, Fostering and Family Placement Panel 3 Amey Public Services LLP 1 Association for Public Service Excellence (APSE) 6 Children’s Services Partnership Board 3 Clyde and Loch Lomond Local District Joint Committee 2 Clyde Valley Learning and Development Joint Committee 1 COSLA – Convention 6 2 Substitutes COSLA - Executive Group – Community, and Wellbeing 1 COSLA - Executive Group – Children and Young People 1 COSLA - Executive Group – Environment and Economy 1 COSLA - Executive Group – Health and Social Care 1 Dunbartonshire Educational Trust 2 Environmental Key Fund Limited 1 Ethnic Minorities Law Centre 1 Fair Trade Steering Group 4 Fusion Assets Limited 3 Glasgow Airport Consultative Group 1 1 Substitute Glasgow and Clyde Valley City Deal Cabinet 1 1 Substitute Glasgow and Clyde Valley Strategic Development Planning Authority 2 Highland Reserve Forces and Cadet Association 1 Industrial Communities Alliance 2 Lanarkshire Business Gateway Steering Group (2 Elected Members) 2 Lanarkshire Educational Trust 3 AGENDA ITEM 2F Page 5 of 64
Page 6
2 Organisation/Body Representative/ Member(s) Lanarkshire Valuation Joint Board 8 5 Substitutes Lowland Reserve Forces’ and Cadets’ Association 1 Morrisons (Scotland) LLP/Mears 1 National Association of Councillors (also Scottish Branch) (up to 3 Members) 3 National Society for Clean Air and Environmental Protection – Executive Committee 1 NHS Board of Lanarkshire 1 NL Property Investments Limited and North Lanarkshire Properties LLP 5 North Lanarkshire Access Forum 2 North Lanarkshire Area Support Team 2 North Lanarkshire Health and Social Care Integration Joint Board 4 North Lanarkshire Municipal Bank 7 Nuclear Free Local Authorities (Scotland) 1 Road Safety West of Scotland 2 Routes to Work Limited 1 Scotland Excel Joint Committee 2 1 Substitute Scottish Council’s Committee on Radioactive Substances 1 Scottish National Federation for the Welfare of the Blind 1 Seven Lochs Partnership Board 1 Stirlingshire Educational Trust 1 Strategic Leadership Board 1 Strathclyde Concessionary Travel Scheme Joint Committee 2 Strathclyde Partnership for Transport 3 3 Substitutes Strathclyde Pension Fund 1 Page 6 of 64
Page 7
3 Organisation/Body Representative/ Member(s) Supplier Development Programme Limited 1 West of Scotland European Forum 1 1 Substitute Woodland Trust Scotland 1 Champions Organisation/Body Representative/ Member(s) Armed Forces Veterans Champion 1 Carbon Management Champion 1 Care Experienced Young People Champion 1 Early Years and Older People 1 Equalities Champion 1 Tree Champion 1 Young People Champion 1 Page 7 of 64
Page 8
Page 8 of 64
Page 9
North Lanarkshire Council Report North Lanarkshire Council Does this report require to be approved? ☐ Yes ☒ No Ref DB Date 07/06/22 Chryston Consultation From Derek Brown, Depute Chief Executive E-mail brownd@northlan.gov.uk Telephone 01236 812269 Executive Summary In May 2020, the Education and Families Committee approved the development of an Executive Headship approach (now known as a Multi-Establishment Leaderships model (MELM) to be considered in some North Lanarkshire schools subject to a range of tests being met. This model seeks to align with The Plan for North Lanarkshire in terms of improving outcomes for learners and strengthening leadership pathways while addressing local and national recruitment challenges. The development of Executive Headships also draws on the lessons learned during the COVID-19 emergency phase, where head teachers collaborated to establish successful integrated community hubs. When the head teacher arrangements at Chryston Primary and Secondary Schools changed, with both posts becoming vacant, an opportunity for an Executive Headship to be considered presented itself. In considering the tests for an Executive Headship, the community case, improvement case, leadership case, change case and business case must be taken into account by the Senior Leadership Team of Education and Families. The development of the rationale includes consultation with staff, parents, pupils and stakeholders. This report sets out the conclusion of that consideration with a specific focus on the business case phase. Recommendations It is recommended that Council: 1. Note the decision that the Chryston consultation proposal is rejected on business case grounds. The Plan for North Lanarkshire Priority All priorities AGENDA ITEM 3 Page 9 of 64
Page 10
1. Background 1.1.1 Several reports have been developed and approved during the last three years pertinent to MELM (see appendix 1). 1.2 In March 2019, the council outlined its transformational change plan to Policy and Strategy Committee through the Plan for North Lanarkshire and associated programme of work. In September 2019 the Scottish Negotiating Committee for Teachers (SNCT) Working Group produced a report entitled Headship & Beyond. This report references the development of new and developing career pathways for head teachers, including the potential benefits in relation to MELMs. 1.3 In May 2020, the Developing Executive Headships paper was presented to the Education and Families committee. This outlined changes to current educational leadership models and the rationale behind these changes. Executive Headships were identified as a potentially effective and efficient model for strengthening educational leadership progressions pathways, maximising staff expertise, and improving outcomes for learners. 1.4 The proposed introduction of a new multi-establishment headship would see a ‘cluster’ of local education facilities from age 3-18 years overseen by a Multi Establishment Leadership Model (MELM). This model would provide another vehicle to nurture children and young people from early years through to adulthood with hands-on support to develop their full potential, strengthen collaboration between schools and other integrated services and, crucially, place the local community at the heart of education. Although there are several multi-establishment headships already in place, this proposal outlined a more systematic and planned approach to introducing further MELMs, overseeing both primary, secondary and, possibly, early years establishments. 1.5 Due to a reduction in applicants for head teacher posts, this model can provide new opportunities to recruit highly experienced head teachers who would lead and manage more than one establishment. This would enable existing head teachers to extend and utilise their skills to develop a MELM in a community. As part of the MELM, management points would be allocated as appropriate to increase management structures across each of the associated sectors, with appropriate recruitment to senior manager positions. The approach requires a thorough planning process including robust consultation with parents, carers, staff, unions, and the wider community. There are five key principles for consideration: - Community Case: There should be alignment of schools within clusters as far as possible, or at least on the basis of geographical proximity, to allow head teachers to provide a real and visible presence in affected schools and build community relationship. - Improvement Case: The opportunity should strengthen overall the leadership of the schools involved and realise important benefits by allowing practitioners in schools to Ambition statement (10) Engage with children, young people, parents, carers, and families to help all children and young people reach their full potential Page 10 of 64
Page 11
work more collaboratively with a wider group of colleagues, as part of an enhanced staff team. - Leadership Case: There should be resultant model leadership and management development opportunities for leaders and aspiring leaders of schools, with natural opportunities created to realise and recognise their strengths. - Business Case: There should be a clear business case for each model developed to ensure a clear contribution to the overall financial burden faced by North Lanarkshire Council is made. - Change Case: There should be an opportunity to devolve increased powers and responsibilities to Executive Heads and in doing so help realise the ambitions of the Plan for North Lanarkshire. This could include the realisation of other council priorities within that plan. In addition, future policies, such as the Review of the Devolved School Management Scheme, should align to any such developments 2. Report 2.1 Stakeholder engagement and consultation 2.1.1 The formal consultation process was carried out as outlined below (further details from consultation results are included at appendix 2). As can be seen from the appendix, the MELM proposal was considered not to be appropriate for Chryston by the majority of parents, pupils and staff who responded (it should be noted that there was a relatively low base of respondents within the parent and pupil groups). Table 1 – Stakeholders engaged with Stakeholder No of responses Consultation opened Consultation closed SWOT Analysis - 22nd October 2021 22nd October 2021 Staff 40 27th January 2022 28th February 2022 Parent/Carer 178 23rd February 3rd April 2022 Pupil 160 18th April 2022 29th April 2022 Community 59 18th April 2022 29th April 2022 Cluster Parent Council Reps 4 (1 per primary school) 18th April 2022 29th April 2022 2.1.2 As part of North Lanarkshire Council’s LNCT mechanism, referred to as the Joint Negotiating Committee for Teachers (JNCT), a subgroup, made up of both Trade Union and Management, have had a number of meetings to develop and agree appropriate policy, procedures, and approach to support the introduction of the proposed multi- establishment leadership models (including cross sector). The work has been ongoing since early September 2021, and by the end of February 2022 the Sub-Group brought Page 11 of 64
Page 12
forward several recommendations for approval. On 15 March 2022, all recommendations undertaken by the sub-group were formally approved by the JNCT. 2.2 Governance Considerations 2.2.1 In addition to JNCT consideration, local authorities are empowered to develop local agreements, subject to several national and statutory policy considerations. Following an initial (SWOT) analysis and subsequent wider consultation process, findings have been organised against the key principles outlined above. 2.2.2 Recapping the Key Principles 1. Community Case The MELM aligns with the Empowering Cluster model. There are no geographical barriers. 2. Improvement Case This model could potentially strengthen transitions and provide increased opportunities to share practice across the sectors This was expressed explicitly by secondary colleagues. Some concerns were noted across all consultation groups that there was no clear improvement agenda associated with the introduction of the proposed model. 3. Leadership Case While recognising some key opportunities provided by this model in terms of strengthening leadership pathways feedback from stakeholders highlighted several areas of concern requiring further consideration including impact on the senior leadership team, further detail required around roles and remits and overall reduction in head teacher positions. 4. Service Change Case Appropriate recruitment and selection, and remuneration to attract the best candidate available, will future proof the leadership model moving forward, including succession planning. There is a risk around the feasibility of suitable applicants applying for the post, given the national shortage in head teacher recruitment. 2.2.3 Business Case As part of the development of the phases to consider a rationale for a MELM, data has been gathered about projections for future population and household growth in the catchment area of the schools. The information in the table below concerns the significant impact of a projected increase in roll over the next five years, including additional congestion on and around the campus. With increased housebuilding planned within the area there is a risk of a negative impact on access to services and, ultimately, learning and teaching. A report setting out the options to deal with this projected increase will be submitted to a future meeting of the Education and Families Committee. However, it is considered inappropriate to implement a MELM in Chryston while the school rolls are projected to grow to such an extent. It is considered particularly Page 12 of 64
Page 13
important that head teachers are fully focussed on these potential impacts within an individual school setting. School 2022 Roll 2022 Capacity New build Capacity (5 year) Chryston High School 946 976 1422 Chryston Primary School 359 367 509 Early Years 54 66 *66 Total 1359 1,409 1997 • Early Years maximum capacity as agreed with the care inspectorate (birth to 5) 2.2.4 The council will now proceed to recruit head teachers for both Chryston Primary and Chryston Secondary in line with existing policy. 3. Measures of success 3.1 N/A 4. Supporting documentation 4.1.1 Education and Families Committee in 2019- create leaders who oversee complex establishments and services. 4.2.1 Policy and Strategy Committee Paper March 2019- Commitment to more integrated service delivery through the Community Investment Fund. 4.2.2 Education and Families Committee- Developing Executive Headships (May 2020) 4.2.3 JNCT- (June- Sept 2021)- Proposed Interim Executive Headship Model 4.2.4 Management Model for Future Campuses 4.2.5 The Plan for North Lanarkshire- Linked to the Ambition Statement (7)- Enhance collaborative working to maximize support and ensure all our children and young people are included, supported and safe Derek Brown Depute Chief Executive Page 13 of 64
Page 14
5. Impacts ( http://connect/report-template-guidance ) Any financial information / Communications impact to be included here 5.1 Public Sector Equality Duty and Fairer Scotland Duty Does the report contain information that has an impact as a result of the Public Sector Equality Duty and/or Fairer Scotland Duty? Yes ☒ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? If Yes, has an assessment been carried out and published on the council’s website? https://www.northlanarkshire.gov.uk/your-community/equalities/equality-and-fairer- scotland-duty-impact-assessments Yes ☐ No ☒ 5.2 Financial impact Does the report contain any financial impacts? Yes ☒ No ☒ If Yes, have all relevant financial impacts have been discussed and agreed with Financial Solutions? Yes ☒ No ☒ The proposed recommendation assumes a status quo position with regards to the existing school budgets. 5.3 HR policy impact Does the report contain any HR policy or procedure impacts? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, have all relevant HR impacts have been discussed and agreed with People and Organisational Development? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.4 Legal impact Does the report contain any legal impacts (such as general legal matters, statutory considerations (including employment law considerations), or new legislation)? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, have all relevant legal impacts have been discussed and agreed with Legal and Democratic Solutions? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.5 Data protection impact Does the report / project / practice contain or involve the processing of personal data? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, is the processing of this personal data likely to result in a high risk to the data subject? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, has a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) been carried out and e- mailed to dataprotection@northlan.gov.uk Yes ☐ No ☐ Page 14 of 64
Page 15
5.6 Technology / Digital impact Does the report contain information that has an impact on either technology, digital transformation, service redesign / business change processes, data management, or connectivity / broadband / Wi-Fi? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? Where the impact identifies a requirement for technology, has an assessment been carried out (or scheduled) by the Enterprise Architecture Governance Group (EAGG)? Yes ☐ No ☒ 5.7 Environmental / Carbon impact Does the report / project / practice contain information that has an impact on any environmental or carbon matters? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? Improved ait quality within all learning, teaching and play areas across the school estate 5.8 Communications impact Does the report contain any information that has an impact on the council’s communications activities? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.9 Risk impact Is there a risk impact? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the key risks and potential impacts, highlighting where the risk(s) are assessed and recorded (e.g. Corporate or Service or Project Risk Registers), and how they are managed? Page 15 of 64
Page 16
8 Appendix 1 No Date Committee/Prof Body Report Name 1 21/03/2019 Policy & Strategy Committee The Plan for NL-Programme of Work 2 26/09/2019 SNCT SNCT Working Group Report on Headship & Beyond 3 24/02/2020 Special Committee Savings Proposals 4 19/05/2020 E&F Committee Developing Executive Headships 5 19/05/2020 E&F Committee Empowering Clusters to Achieve Change 6 19/05/2020 E&F Committee List of Committee Report Recommendations approved via Delegated Authorisation 7 Full Council Full Council Meeting (covers May 2020 E&F Committee Reports) 8 24/11/2020 E&F Committee Reconfiguring Intensive ASN Systems and Services 9 07/06/2021 E&F Committee Reconfiguring Intensive ASN Systems and Services- We Aspire College (Fallside Sec School) 10 02/12/2021 CMT Multi Establishment Headships 11 15/03/2022 JNCT Management Circular F20 12 15/03/2022 JNCT Agreed procedures for the Redeployment of Promoted Teachers, including Head Teachers. Page 16 of 64
Page 17
9 Appendix 2 – Summary of responses SWOT Analysis The diagram below is a summary of the feedback highlighting strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of the proposed Multi Establishment Leadership Model. An overview indicated 15 positive opinions and 23 highlighted negative/challenging opinions. Staff Consultation In January 2022, presentations were delivered to teaching and non-teaching staff at Chryston Primary and Chryston Secondary schools. Following the delivery of the presentations on the proposed Multi-Establishment Leadership Model (MELM) and Question & Answer sessions, a consultation was carried out with staff. There was a total of 40 responses, 20 from Chryston Primary (95.23% of total staffing) and 20 from Chryston High school (30.30% of total staffing). Of the 113 staff who responded, 95 (84.07%) indicated they did not agree the model was beneficial for all pupils across the two schools as shown in table 2. Table 2 – Do you agree with the Shared/MELM? Response No of staff who responded % of those who responded Yes 4 3.54 No 95 84.07 Don't know 14 12.39 Page 17 of 64
Page 18
10 It should be noted that more than 25% of primary staff could see advantages with the model, and more than 40% of secondary staff could see advantages of the model. Parent/Carer consultation A total of 178 responses were received. 12.23% of Chryston HS parents responded and 25.87% of Chryston PS parents responded. Of those who responded 67.05% indicated they now have a clear understanding of the proposed integrated model as shown in table 3. When asked if they can see some advantages of the proposed model 80.89% indicated no. Table 3 – Do you have a clear understanding on the MELM? Response No of Parent/carers % of those who responded Yes 118 67.05 No 42 23.86 Don't know 15 8.52 Parent/carers were then asked if they could see any advantages of the proposed integrated model, table 4 highlights 81.82% indicated no. Table 4 – Do you see any advantages of MELM? Response No of Parent/carers % of those who responded Yes 14 7.95 No 144 81.82 Don't know 15 8.52 Advantages Disadvantages Only effective if strong leadership structure underneath HT Additional layer of management could be beneficial to teachers Not suitable for size of school (examples used are smaller communities) Not advantages or benefits to children Cost cutting exercise Too much responsibility for one person Page 18 of 64
Page 19
11 Pupil consultation(s) A total of 47 pupils (13.78% of primary population) responded from Chryston primary school and 113 pupils (12.68% of secondary population) responded from Chryston secondary school as shown in table 5. Table 5: No of pupils who responded per school Pupil survey No of pupils responded School Roll % of school community who responded Chryston Primary school 47 341 13.78% Chryston Secondary school 113 891 12.68% Table 6: Do you agree with the proposed MELM? Response Pupils % of those who responded No 95 84% Yes 4 3.52% Don't know 15 12.38 Advantages Disadvantages It allows for a good connection between the two schools It helps with primary transition from P7 to S1 Education more consistent Familiar face when going to high school Won’t see Head Teacher very often / Less time in establishment Head Teacher can’t focus on issues – Too stretched Lack of focus on quality leadership only saving money Pupils will suffer – Head Teacher crucial to child education Community consultation Consultation took place with community stakeholders via community matters and a total of 59 responses were received. Of those who responded 100% indicated they did not think Chryston Primary and secondary school were suitable for MELM as shown in table 7. Page 19 of 64
Page 20
12 Table 7: Do you think Chryston PS and HS are suitable for MELM? Response Stakeholders % of stakeholders who responded No 59 100% Yes 0 0.00% Don't know 0 0.00% Advantages Disadvantages Potential for smoother transition Disadvantage to the children – detrimental effect No unions support this Reduction in the support for children School won’t be on the same site Different skillset for Primary and secondary Head Teachers Not effective given the size of the schools and potential increase over next four years A further four responses were received from Parent Council of the following cluster primary schools. 100% responded they did not think Chryston Primary School and Chryston High School are suitable for a MELM as shown in table 8. • Stepps Primary • Auchinloch Primary • Gartcosh Primary • Glenmanor Primary NB: A further written response was provided by Stepps Parent Council outlining their concerns. Table 8: Do you think Chryston PS and HS are suitable for MELM? Response Stakeholders % of stakeholders who responded No 4 100% Yes 0 0.00% Don't know 0 0.00% Page 20 of 64
Page 21
13 Advantages Disadvantages Continuity of care for pupils with greater joined up thinking through all the years due to shared vision Other cluster primaries disadvantaged. Perceived lack of contact with leadership by parents No education rationale Leaders of school be stretched A petition was received in opposition to the Chryston MELM. The petition signatures total 1505 and will be addressed via the agreed Council governance arrangements in place for petitions. Page 21 of 64
Page 22
Page 22 of 64
Page 23
North Lanarkshire Council Report Full Council Does this report require to be approved? ☒ Yes ☐ No Ref: GMcL Date 09/06/22 Naming of the new amalgamated primary school in Coatbridge From Gerard McLaughlin, Head of Education (North), Education and Families E-mail mclaughling@northlan.gov.uk Telephone 01236 812269 1. Background 1.1 Pupils, parents/carers and staff at both Carnbroe and Sikeside Primary schools were consulted on potential names for the new school. 1.2 Five initial options were suggested: • Calderside Primary School • Calder Waters Primary School • New Calder Primary School • North Calder Primary School • Riverbank Primary School Executive Summary The council is delivering a new amalgamated primary school to replace Carnbroe Primary and Sikeside Primary schools in Coatbridge. This new school with nursery provision will adopt the community hub model on a new purpose-built campus. The new school is scheduled to open in the summer of 2023 under the new name of Riverbank Primary School. Recommendations It is recommended that council: (1) Note the outcome of the school community voting process on naming the new school (2) Approve the name of the new school in line with the result of the vote. The Plan for North Lanarkshire Priority Support all children and young people to realise their full potential Ambition statement (7) Enhance collaborative working to maximise support and ensure all our children and young people are included, supported, and safe AGENDA ITEM 4 Page 23 of 64
Page 24
2. Report 2.1 Three options were short-listed for final vote with the following results: North Calder Primary School 124 votes 22% Calder Waters Primary School 152 votes 27% Riverbank Primary School 258 votes 51% 2.2 The total votes received from pupils, parents and staff was 564 with 51% voting in favour of naming the new school Riverbank Primary School. 3. Measures of success 3.1 The newly built amalgamated primary school in the catchment areas of Carnbroe and Sikeside primary schools will open in the summer of 2023 under the new name of Riverbank Primary School. 4. Supporting documentation Name Appendix 1 Title Arrangements for ballot of naming / renaming schools Name: Gerard McLaughlin Title: Head of Education (North) Page 24 of 64
Page 25
5. Impacts ( http://connect/report-template-guidance ) 5.1 Public Sector Equality Duty and Fairer Scotland Duty Does the report contain information that has an impact as a result of the Public Sector Equality Duty and/or Fairer Scotland Duty? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? If Yes, has an assessment been carried out and published on the council’s website? https://www.northlanarkshire.gov.uk/your-community/equalities/equality-and-fairer- scotland-duty-impact-assessments Yes ☐ No ☐ 5.2 Financial impact Does the report contain any financial impacts? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, have all relevant financial impacts have been discussed and agreed with Financial Solutions? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.3 HR policy impact Does the report contain any HR policy or procedure impacts? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, have all relevant HR impacts have been discussed and agreed with People and Organisational Development? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.4 Legal impact Does the report contain any legal impacts (such as general legal matters, statutory considerations (including employment law considerations), or new legislation)? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, have all relevant legal impacts have been discussed and agreed with Legal and Democratic Solutions? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.5 Data protection impact Does the report / project / practice contain or involve the processing of personal data? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, is the processing of this personal data likely to result in a high risk to the data subject? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, has a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) been carried out and e- mailed to dataprotection@northlan.gov.uk Yes ☐ No ☐ 5.6 Technology / Digital impact Does the report contain information that has an impact on either technology, digital transformation, service redesign / business change processes, data management, or connectivity / broadband / Wi-Fi? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? Page 25 of 64
Page 26
Where the impact identifies a requirement for technology, has an assessment been carried out (or scheduled) by the Enterprise Architecture Governance Group (EAGG)? Yes ☐ No ☐ 5.7 Environmental / Carbon impact Does the report / project / practice contain information that has an impact on any environmental or carbon matters? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.8 Communications impact Does the report contain any information that has an impact on the council’s communications activities? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.9 Risk impact Is there a risk impact? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the key risks and potential impacts, highlighting where the risk(s) are assessed and recorded (e.g. Corporate or Service or Project Risk Registers), and how they are managed? Page 26 of 64
Page 27
APPENDIX 1 Arrangements for ballot of naming/renaming schools The procedures will be as follows: 1.1 The parent council will submit up to four possible names for approval. The parent council will be asked to outline the rationale for the proposals, for example a geographical, historical or social association with the school or area. The existing school name will require to be one of the possible names. 1.2 In selecting the possible names, the parent council may invite suggestions from the school community, including parents, staff, local members, other interested bodies (for example the parent/teacher association) and in the case of Roman Catholic schools, the church representative on the Learning and Leisure Services committee. 1.3 The parent council, in consultation with the head teacher, will normally approve these and arrange for a ballot. If the head of resources, convener or local members have any reservations about any of the names put forward, discussions will be arranged with the parent council to agree a final list of names. The final decision on the ballot list to be put forward will be taken by the head of resources. 1.4 The ballot should involve parents, and permanent staff employed in the school. 1.5 The parent council, in consultation with the head teacher, the head of resources and local elected members, will consider the result and normally accept the name winning the highest vote. Thereafter, the head of resources will prepare a brief report for committee, recommending the approval of the chosen name. 1.6 Where there is a tie there should be a further ballot involving the names attracting equal support. 1.7 The outcome of the ballot should then be reported to committee to allow a final decision on the naming of the school to be taken. 1.8 Where a parent council has not been formed, the above procedures will be managed by the head of resources in consultation with the head teacher(s). Page 27 of 64
Page 28
Page 28 of 64
Page 29
North Lanarkshire Council Report North Lanarkshire Council Does this report require to be approved? ☒ Yes ☐ No Ref FW/ LC Date 09/06/22 Covid –19 Employee Recognition From Fiona Whittaker, Head of People & Organisational Development E-mail whittakerf@northlan.gov.uk Telephone 07973 728628 Executive Summary Over the last two years, we know that there have been significant challenges experienced by all Council staff working in a Covid-19 environment, and that these same staff have worked tirelessly through these challenges, playing a vital role in keeping our services running in unprecedented circumstances. This includes the significant flexibility, commitment and effort shown by staff who were required deliver services through the most difficult periods of the pandemic, or were needed support to vulnerable residents and contribute to wider regional public health and NHS efforts to minimise and manage the impact of Covid- 19 in our communities. With all of this in mind, the Council has explored ways in which we could potentially recognise our staff for these efforts. Elected Members will be aware that health and social care staff and teachers were both awarded national recognition payments in the last 2 years, and whilst this has been welcomed by the relevant staff within those services, there are still many more staff who were critical during this time, who we have not been able to recognise appropriately across the Council. As we move into a more stable operating phase, it is felt that the timing is now right to consider a proposal which would be seen to adequately recognise our staff at a local level for their efforts during the pandemic. It should be noted that some other Local Authorities have now moved to directly recognise their staff in a similar way, including Scottish Borders Council and most recently West Lothian Council. Set out in this report is a proposal to recognise and reward staff that is believed to be appropriate and affordable in the current climate. This proposal has been fully discussed with our joint SJC and SNCT trade unions who are fully supportive, and we are now seeking the endorsement and approval of Elected Members to proceed. Recommendations It is recommended that Council: • agree the proposal set out in section 2 of this report to recognise all of our staff for their efforts during the covid-19 pandemic AGENDA ITEM 5 Page 29 of 64
Page 30
1. Background 1.1 Throughout the pandemic period, the Council has regularly sought to consider ways in which staff could be supported and recognised for their significant efforts. 1.2 This is in context of a general agreement that the Council’s workforce went above and beyond through all phases of the pandemic, showing significant commitment, flexibility, and service delivery performance, even during the most difficult periods when our rates of Covid-19 community transmission were some of the highest in Scotland. 1.3 As the pandemic evolved, and due to ongoing restrictions and other barriers, including shielding for vulnerable staff, it became an increasingly complex matter to fairly establish which staff should in fact be eligible for recognition and which not, and for this reason, no detailed staff recognition proposals were progressed at that time. 1.4 Under the direction of Gold Command, positive actions were taken by officers to support staff during the most difficult periods, such as providing key workers with access to lunch during periods of lockdown and heavy restrictions. These initiatives were widely welcomed by both staff and trade unions. 1.5 Two years have passed since this time, and the SJC trade unions remain of the opinion that large proportions of the Local Government workforce have never been fully recognised for their efforts and commitment over the course of the pandemic, and this has been directly referenced in recent pay negotiations. 1.6 This has recently led other Local Authorities to consider staff Covid recognition schemes including Scottish Borders Council who at the end of March agreed an additional “wellbeing day” for staff who have contracted hours and have been employed for a period of three months or more on 31 December 2021. 1.7 It should be noted that this additional day’s leave in Scottish Borders Council is to be taken in 2022/23, and is over and above the additional day which has already been awarded as part of the Platinum Jubilee. The Council has also enabled teaching staff to participate in the scheme, through the conversion of one of their approved in-service days to an annual leave day. 1.8 Most recently West Lothian Council have agreed a similar scheme to award staff one additional day of “recognition” leave to be taken over two years. Again, this is in addition to the Platinum Jubilee day, and all staff are in scope, including teachers, who will replace an in-service day with an annual days leave. • endorse the relevant officers to take forward the proposal with appropriate communication and engagement of staff and trade unions. The Plan for North Lanarkshire Priority Improve North Lanarkshire's resource base Ambition statement (23) Build a workforce for the future capable of delivering on our priorities and shared ambition Page 30 of 64
Page 31
2 Report 2.1 To enable the Council to move forward on an affordable proposal, which recognises staff locally for their efforts over the course of the pandemic, it is proposed that North Lanarkshire Council consider the award of one additional day of leave in the form of a “wellbeing day”, to be taken over the next two leave years (January to December). 2.2 It is also proposed that all staff, including teachers are in scope, and agreement has been reached with the SNCT trade unions that this additional leave day will be accommodated using an in-service day. 2.3 For all other staff, and following approval by Elected Members on the 9th June 2022, the additional days wellbeing leave will be available to be booked up to December 2023 in conjunction with and following approval by service line managers. 2.4 With respect to costs, Financial Solutions have fully reviewed the proposal and are satisfied that taking the leave day over two years ensure that any additional costs accrued can be accommodated within existing service budgets. 3. Measures of success 3.1 Council wide support to take forward the proposal outlined above, with an opportunity to properly recognise the staff of North Lanarkshire Council for their significant efforts, flexibility, and commitment during the Covid-19 pandemic. 4. Supporting documentation 4.1 n/a Fiona Whittaker Head of People and Organisational Development Page 31 of 64
Page 32
5. Impacts ( http://connect/report-template-guidance ) 5.1 Public Sector Equality Duty and Fairer Scotland Duty Does the report contain information that has an impact as a result of the Public Sector Equality Duty and/or Fairer Scotland Duty? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? As all staff are included, the proposal reflects positively in terms of the Council’s responsibilities under the Public Sector Equalities Duty. If Yes, has an assessment been carried out and published on the council’s website? Yes ☐ No ☒ 5.2 Financial impact Does the report contain any financial impacts? Yes ☒ No ☐ If Yes, have all relevant financial impacts have been discussed and agreed with Financial Solutions? Yes ☒ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? Financial Solutions have been fully sighted on the content of the proposal and are satisfied that it can be managed within existing service budgets. 5.3 HR policy impact Does the report contain any HR policy or procedure impacts? Yes ☒ No ☐ If Yes, have all relevant HR impacts have been discussed and agreed with People and Organisational Development? Yes ☒ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.4 Legal impact Does the report contain any legal impacts (such as general legal matters, statutory considerations (including employment law considerations), or new legislation)? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, have all relevant legal impacts have been discussed and agreed with Legal and Democratic Solutions? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.5 Data protection impact Does the report / project / practice contain or involve the processing of personal data? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, is the processing of this personal data likely to result in a high risk to the data subject? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, has a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) been carried out and e- mailed to dataprotection@northlan.gov.uk Yes ☐ No ☐ 5.6 Technology / Digital impact Does the report contain information that has an impact on either technology, digital transformation, service redesign / business change processes, data management, or connectivity / broadband / Wi-Fi? Page 32 of 64
Page 33
Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? Where the impact identifies a requirement for technology, has an assessment been carried out (or scheduled) by the Enterprise Architecture Governance Group (EAGG)? Yes ☐ No ☐ 5.7 Environmental / Carbon impact Does the report / project / practice contain information that has an impact on any environmental or carbon matters? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.8 Communications impact Does the report contain any information that has an impact on the council’s communications activities? Yes ☒ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? Communications will be engaged following agreement of the proposal and to ensure that staff are fully aware of the additional leave day and the Council’s desire to fully recognise their efforts and commitment. 5.9 Risk impact Is there a risk impact? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the key risks and potential impacts, highlighting where the risk(s) are assessed and recorded (e.g. Corporate or Service or Project Risk Registers), and how they are managed? Page 33 of 64
Page 34
Page 34 of 64
Page 35
North Lanarkshire Council Report North Lanarkshire Council Does this report require to be approved? ☒ Yes ☐ No Ref FW/JH Date 09/06/22 Expenses Support for our Employees From Fiona Whittaker, Head of People and Organisation Development E-mail Whittakerf@northlan.gov.uk Telephone 07973 728628 Executive Summary Although the current economic climate is creating cost of living challenges for all of our staff, there are particular issues now emerging for staff within some of our key frontline service areas. This is linked to the fact that under our existing service arrangements, many staff are required to use their own vehicles to deliver services in our communities, and although they are fully re-imbursed for this, the rapidly rising cost of fuel and other related service costs mean that our mileage rates may not always be sufficient to cover their actual costs. This situation is not unique to North Lanarkshire Council and has been raised by the Trade Unions at a national level with COSLA. Talks are ongoing but it is understood that any ask related to this will be included as part of the wider pay negotiations exercise which is likely to be protracted and remain unresolved for a number of months. At a local level, and over the last few months, we have been in discussions with our trade unions about what support could be offered to staff whilst pay negotiations continue. At the same time, we have undertaken a full analysis of mileage levels across our services and have sought to explore affordable ways in which we could assist those staff who are incurring high levels of milage at this time, working within our existing policy framework. Following a review of this information and further discussion with our Corporate Management Team and trade unions, we are now bringing forward for consideration a proposal which we believe will offer some welcome support to our critical frontline staff groups for a defined period of time. Recommendations It is recommended that full Council: • acknowledge the underlying intent to support staff at this time, where this is considered financially prudent and affordable • approve the proposal set out in section 2 of this report, and the associated one-off cost implications, including the related implementation of temporary adjustments in HR arrangements • note that officers will keep matters under review, and where appropriate research other options for providing staff with support, where these are affordable and appropriate. AGENDA ITEM 6 Page 35 of 64
Page 36
1. Background 1.1 Elected Members will be aware of the ongoing cost of living crisis and the significant challenges now faced by all staff, but particularly those in lower paid roles. 1.2 Fuel prices, including gas, diesel and petrol are now at a record high, and this coupled with energy bills increasing by around 50% this year, with a further hike expected in October, is set to potentially put a large number of people, including those employed by North Lanarkshire Council in significant financial hardship. 1.3 Whilst the Council has little control over these wider economic challenges and is bound by single status job evaluation and national pay awards in terms of staff remuneration, there are some policy elements we do control locally that could be used to assist with increasing bills at this time. 1.4 In particular, where our employees are using their own cars for work activity, it would seem reasonable that we consider ways in which we can support them with rising fuel prices and other associated costs, and this paper makes an affordable proposal on how we may be able to do that at this time. 1.5 Figure 1 below shows the top ten job roles that claimed mileage expenses in years 2021/22. Figure 1 2021/22 0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 Total Miles 2021/22 Total Miles The Plan for North Lanarkshire Priority Improve North Lanarkshire's resource base Ambition statement (23) Build a workforce for the future capable of delivering on our priorities and shared ambition Page 36 of 64
Page 37
1.6 It is notable that whilst the year 21/22 was during the COVID-19 pandemic, comparison with previous years shows that there has been little change in both the mileage claimed, and the top ten roles claiming. This is due to the frontline nature of these roles with 81% of all mileage claimed being accounted for roles which are supporting frontline service delivery. 1.7 Council will also note that in terms of overall miles, the most are travelled by our Home Support Workers, with almost 600 staff in this workforce grouping regularly travelling an average of 2180 miles per year and some undertaking more than this. 1.8 Under our existing local HR policy arrangements, roles within the Council which regularly involve a high level of milage are awarded the payment of an annual Designated User Allowance (DUA) of £314.34 which is intended to cover the costs of servicing and other wear and tear on a user’s vehicle. This payment is index linked to the annual percentage pay award agreed for Local Government employees. 1.9 The DUA is paid on a retrospective annual basis, for all employees who travel more than 2500 miles within that calendar year. This is in addition to the current milage rate of 45p per mile which is reimbursed on an ongoing basis, and via our expenses policy, to all employees who incur business mileage irrespective of their annual mileage rate. 1.10 The mileage rate of 45p is based on the current recommend HMRC rate, for business travel up to 10,000 miles per year, which is amended in line with the rate set by the UK Treasury in its budget each year. This rate is in line with the rate paid by all other Local Authorities in Scotland. 1.11 This rate was updated on 6th April 2022 by HMRC and they have further confirmed that they do not intend to increase this rate in the tax year ahead. 1.12 It should be noted that were the Council to increase this 45p base rate, this would attract an increase in employee and employer National Insurance Contributions and be classed as a benefit in kind, which would be subject to tax deduction. 2. Report Mileage claims 2.1 Table 1 below shows that there are currently 381 employees (highlighted in grey) being paid Designated User Allowance (DUA) at a cost of £119,763.54 to the council, with the majority of these falling within Adult Health and Social Care. 2.2 Of the total figure of 1662 employees who currently claim milage across the Council, 1281 employees currently fall under the 2,500 miles DUA threshold and therefore do not qualify for the additional payment and are reimbursed at 45p per mile only. Page 37 of 64
Page 38
Table 1 Banding Adult Health & Social Care Chief Executive's Office Education & Families Enterprise & Communities Grand Total 0 - 999 288 43 219 284 834 1000 - 1500 86 6 46 48 186 1500 - 1999 90 1 17 30 138 2000 - 2499 85 1 17 20 123 2500 - 2999 61 1 12 19 93 3000 - 3499 52 7 12 71 3500 - 3999 35 2 11 48 4000 - 4499 23 16 13 52 4500 - 4999 17 3 11 31 5000+ 28 10 48 86 DUA Total (highlighted in grey) 216 1 50 114 381 Overall Total 765 52 349 496 1662 2.3 This presents an opportunity for us to consider whether it would be affordable at this time to reduce the qualifying milage rate for DUA, in particular considering the 2000 - 2499 banding, which would bring a further 123 employees into scope for the payment, the majority of whom (85) are within our Adult Health & Social Care service where we are seeing the most significant impact on our staff. 2.4 In particular, the Homecare service have reported that both existing and new Homecare Workers are struggling with fuel costs relating to their job, and that this is affecting both morale and retention amongst this critical service group. This issue has also been directly raised with us by the trade unions. Proposal 2.5 Set out below is our proposal to mitigate the impact of staff travelling for business in the current economic climate. Due to the likely fluctuating nature of these issues, and to ensure that we avoid a recurring revenue burden on the Council, this proposal is intended to be in place for a 12-month period only, and then subject to review. 2.6 Given that dropping the DUA qualification rate to 2000 would bring into scope the remainder of our Homecare Workers, its is proposed that this be set as the new DUA threshold for a period of 12 months. 2.7 As the basis of the DUA payment is to cover wear and tear on the user’s vehicle, it is also proposed that this payment is increased by 50% from £314.34 per year to £471.51, again for a period of 12 months to provide further support to high mileage users. Page 38 of 64
Page 39
2.8 This proposal would increase the number of employees qualifying for DUA by 123 to 504 and would bring additional overall costs based on an improved yearly rate DUA of £471.51. The full cost increase to the Council is set out in table 2 below. Table 2 Proposal to increase DUA x 1.5 (£471.51) and reduce mileage threshold to 2000 Mileage Employee numbers DUA X 1.5 Total Cost Increase from Current Cost Current 2,500 381 £179,645.31 £59,881.77 Drop to 2,000 504 (plus 123) £237,641.04 £57,995.73 Total Additional Cost £117,877.50 2.9 It should be noted that in addition to the increased cost of £117,877.50 outlined above, the increased DUA will attract a small amount of additional NI employer cost, and Figure 3 below shows the difference in employer cost which is around £71 per employee. Figure 3 Cost per employee based on 2,000 miles Current rate @ 45p per mile Current rate of 45p plus DUA @ £471.51 Reimbursement to Employee £900 £1,371.51 Cost to Employer £1,035.45 £1,442.47 2.10 This proposal has been fully discussed with our SJC trade union groups who are fully supportive of the approach and satisfied that it will offer a meaningful way to further support our key front-line employees at this time. 2.11 With regards to funding, and given that the majority of the additional cost will fall within the Adult Health and Social Care Service, the Chief Officer, Health & Social Care Partnership has confirmed that there will be scope within the winter business case to cover additional costs over the next 12 months. Next Steps 2.12 Assuming that the proposal outlined above and the associated costs to the Council over a 12 month period are deemed affordable, and approved, the proposal will be taken forward by relevant officers at the earliest opportunity. 2.13 In addition, following implementation, officers will keep the proposal under review, including monitoring its impact in supporting staff at this time and researching other affordable ways of supporting staff groups who may be impacted by ongoing rises in the cost of living. 2.14 The outcome of any review detailed above, or any further proposals for support will be brought to a relevant committee for Elected Member oversight and approval as required. Page 39 of 64
Page 40
3. Measures of success 3.1 Positive engagement, support, and retention of employees in our most critical services at this difficult time. 3.2 Full support from our trade unions, including a recognition that we have listened to and acted on their concerns at a local level. 3.3 Achievement of the above benefits for employees and the Council whilst minimising the impact on our recurring revenue burdens. 4. Supporting documentation Mileage & Overtime – My NL Fiona Whittaker Head of People and Organisational Development 5. Impacts ( http://connect/report-template-guidance ) 5.1 Public Sector Equality Duty and Fairer Scotland Duty Does the report contain information that has an impact as a result of the Public Sector Equality Duty and/or Fairer Scotland Duty? Yes ☒ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? Any increase in DUA or reduction in the mileage criteria would have a positive impact on the PSED and FSD. If Yes, has an assessment been carried out and published on the council’s website? Assessment carried out (see attached) will be published on the Council’s website following approval. Yes ☒ No ☐ 5.2 Financial impact Does the report contain any financial impacts? Yes ☒ No ☐ If Yes, have all relevant financial impacts have been discussed and agreed with Financial Solutions? Yes ☒ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? The proposal has been fully discussed with Financial Solutions and approved by CMT. 5.3 HR policy impact Does the report contain any HR policy or procedure impacts? Yes ☒ No ☐ If Yes, have all relevant HR impacts have been discussed and agreed with People and Organisational Development? Yes ☒ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? Changes to HR guidance and procedures required if proposals agreed. 5.4 Legal impact Page 40 of 64
Page 41
Does the report contain any legal impacts (such as general legal matters, statutory considerations (including employment law considerations), or new legislation)? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, have all relevant legal impacts have been discussed and agreed with Legal and Democratic Solutions? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.5 Data protection impact Does the report / project / practice contain or involve the processing of personal data? Yes ☒ No ☐ If Yes, is the processing of this personal data likely to result in a high risk to the data subject? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, has a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) been carried out and e- mailed to dataprotection@northlan.gov.uk Yes ☐ No ☐ 5.6 Technology / Digital impact Does the report contain information that has an impact on either technology, digital transformation, service redesign / business change processes, data management, or connectivity / broadband / Wi-Fi? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? Where the impact identifies a requirement for technology, has an assessment been carried out (or scheduled) by the Enterprise Architecture Governance Group (EAGG)? Yes ☐ No ☐ 5.7 Environmental / Carbon impact Does the report / project / practice contain information that has an impact on any environmental or carbon matters? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.8 Communications impact Does the report contain any information that has an impact on the council’s communications activities? Yes ☒ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? Communication support will be required following a decision to take forward the agreed proposal. 5.9 Risk impact Is there a risk impact? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the key risks and potential impacts, highlighting where the risk(s) are assessed and recorded (e.g. Corporate or Service or Project Risk Registers), and how they are managed? Page 41 of 64
Page 42
Document Text Staff Expenses Support Author Jennifer Hardy Contact details hardyj@northlan.gov.uk Owner Fiona Whittaker whittakerf@northlan.gov.uk EqIA version number 1 EqIA status Complete X Incomplete If Incomplete please say why - for instance pending further consultation / research Governance Committee Full Council Date approved 9/06/22 Review date Page 42 of 64
Page 43
Section 1. About the Policy 1.1 Name of the policy / strategy / function / procedure: Staff Expenses Support Is this a: - A new policy /strategy / function / procedure / service x Budget saving Review of policy /strategy / function / procedure Review of Service Other (please specify) Community Asset Transfer Is this is a key strategic decision subject to the Fairer Scotland Duty Yes No x 1.2 Person Responsible for the policy etc. Name: Job Title and Service / Team: Fiona Whittaker Head of People and Organisational Development 1.3 What is the scope of the assessment? Detail where appropriate Whole of the organisation x Service specific Discipline specific Other 1.4 What is the policy/ strategy/ function/ saving trying to achieve / do? Given the significant pressures that staff are under relating to rising cost of living expenses and in particular fuel costs for staff using their own car to carry out operational requirements, this change in procedure is proposed to help address this pressure. 1.5 If this is a budget saving, how will the saving be achieved? N/A Section 2. What do I know now? 2.1 Who are the stakeholders and beneficiaries? All employees currently travelling more than 2000 business miles per year will benefit. Stakeholders include our single status trade unions who are keen to ensure that we support staff at this difficult time. 2.2 What data, consultation, research and other evidence or information is available relevant to this assessment? (This is a desktop exercise) Page 43 of 64
Page 44
Consultation with trade unions has been ongoing relating to this issue. A full analysis of milage rates across the Council has been undertaken to research the viability of the proposal. 2.3 Considering the information in Section 1 and 2.1 and 2.2 2.3.1 If this policy is subject to the FSD what does it suggest about the impact or potential impact on socio-economic disadvantage? (please refer to FSD Interim Guidance) Low income Provides direct financial support to those on low income. Low wealth NA II Material deprivation NA II Area deprivation 2.3.2 Are any of the people communities listed below likely to be more affected by this policy than others? People who share one or more of the protected characteristics of the Equality Act 2010 Yes Details No Details Don’t Know Age (a particular age or range of ages) x Disabled people and people with long term health conditions x Women and men, girls and boys x People defined by their race, colour and nationality, ethnic or national origins. x Married people and civil partners x Pregnant women and new mothers (including breastfeeding mothers) x Lesbian, gay and bisexual people x People transitioning from one gender to another x People of different religions or beliefs or non-beliefs x Other groups Children and families x Homeless people x Looked after and accommodated people x Care leavers x Carers – paid / unpaid, family members x Asylum seekers x Employees – full and part time. Including SES, MAs etc. x Full time employees Page 44 of 64
Page 45
within the Adult Health & Social Care service will most benefit from this proposal. Others x 2.4 Do you have evidence or reason to believe that this policy will, or may potentially affect the Council’s duty to: (Please tick all that apply). Yes No Don’t Know 1. Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and any other conduct prohibited by the Equality Act 2010? X 2.Advance equality of opportunity between people who share a relevant protected characteristic and those who do not X 3. Foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not? X 4. Protect and promote human rights? X 5. Reduce socio-economic disadvantage x Please provide details. The council is offsetting the impact of rising fuel costs on low paid employees who are required to use their own vehicles to deliver our services. Section 3. What else do I need to know /find out? 3.1 Further consultation – Please use the table directly below to say who you will consult with (tick Yes or No). Consider those groups from section 2.3 where you ticked yes or don’t know. Once consultation has taken place provide the details below. People and communities Yes No Describe what you did, with whom and when. Please provide a brief summary of the responses gained and links to relevant documents, as well as any actions Age (a particular age or range of ages) Disabled people and people with long term health conditions Women and men, girls and boys People defined by their race, colour and nationality, ethnic or national origins. Married people and civil partners Page 45 of 64
Page 46
Pregnant women and new mothers Lesbian, gay and bisexual people People transitioning from one gender to another People of different religions or beliefs or non-beliefs Other groups Children and families Homeless people Looked after and accommodated people Care leavers Carers – paid / unpaid, family members Asylum Seekers Trade Unions x Ongoing discussions with trade unions will continue to assess the effectiveness of this proposal in supporting our frontline staff. Employee Equality Forum Others x All employees 3.2 What additional research or data is required? None. 3.3 What does the additional research and data tell you about potential or known effects? Page 46 of 64
Page 47
Section 4. Assessing the impact and strengthening the policy Considering all the evidence you now have from section 1-3, how will the policy affect different people and communities in relation to equality, socio-economic disadvantage and human rights? 4.1 How does/will the policy and resulting activity affect those with the characteristics listed below (including employees)? Please use the table below to provide details. Detail any Positive impact Detail any adverse impact If adverse how can we mitigate this? Where no mitigating action is planned please say why not Age (a particular age or range of ages) Disabled people and people with long term health conditions Women and men, girls and boys People defined by their race, colour and nationality, ethnic or national origins. Married people and civil partners Pregnant women and new mothers Lesbian, gay and bisexual people People transitioning from one gender to another People of different religions or beliefs or non-beliefs Other groups Children and families Homeless people Looked after and accommodated people Care leavers Carers – paid / unpaid, family members Asylum Seekers Page 47 of 64
Page 48
Employees – full and part time. Including SES, MAs etc. For high mileage employees not currently included within the scope of the DUA policy there will be a significant positive benefit in terms of support for rising fuel costs. Others 4.2 What measures could be taken to strengthen the policy / strategy to help advance equality of opportunity, foster good relations, promote human rights and reduce socio-economic disadvantage. A review of effectiveness of the proposal directly with affected employees and through trade unions. 4.3 Considering questions 4.1 and 4.2 what actions / measures will be put in place before introducing this policy please provide details. Action Timescales Responsible Officer Review details (include timescales) Review the effectiveness of the proposal in providing support for fuel costs. When it has been in place for 6 months. J Hardy Feedback will be sought from employees and trade unions as to the extent of support the proposal has provided. Section 5. Monitoring, evaluating and reviewing 5.1. How will you monitor the impact and effectiveness of the new policy? Direct feedback from staff and trade unions. Section 6. Making a decision and sign-off Recommendation Tick Comment (where applicable, please give more information e.g. where to pilot, what modifications, etc.) Timescales Page 48 of 64
Page 49
Introduce the policy x Adjust the policy then introduce Introduce the policy with justification regarding potential adverse impact Stop and withdraw the policy Name of Policy Head of Service /Senior Manager sign-off: Name Job title and division/ team Date Signature Fiona Whittaker Head of People and OD 30/05/22 For further information please contact: Name: Jennifer Hardy Job title: ESC Manager Service: People and OD Contact details: hardyj@northlan.gov.uk Page 49 of 64
Page 50
Page 50 of 64
Page 51
North Lanarkshire Council Report Council Does this report require to be approved? ☒ Yes ☐ No Ref PH/LB Date 09/06/22 Proposed Change to Scheme of Delegation – Ground Based Telecoms Masts From Head of Planning and Regeneration E-mail bowdenl@northlan.gov.uk Telephone Lorna Bowden, Planning and Place Manager, 07939 280460 Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to seek an amendment to the Scheme of Delegation which is considered necessary due to the amendment of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 (GPDO) which has established new and extended permitted development rights relating to digital telecommunications, most notably in respect of new ground-based telecoms masts. The purpose of these changes is to support a range of existing communication services and facilitate new services to help Scotland become a world class digital economy, in line with Scottish Planning Policy. The change introduces a prior approval process for applications for ground-based telecommunications masts and associated equipment which are classed as permitted development. Due to the timescales specified by the Scottish Government for determining the Prior Notification requests (56 days), it is sometimes not possible to seek a determination from Planning Committee in accordance with the current scheme of delegation. If the council does not determine the application for Prior Notification within 56 days then prior consent is deemed to have been granted. Therefore, some applications which the council may be minded to refuse could, by default, end up going ahead. An amendment to the Scheme of Delegation is therefore being requested to enable these applications to be determined by the Planning Service. Recommendations It is recommended that the Council approve the amendment to the Council’s Scheme of Delegation to permit the Appointed Person (Head of Planning and Regeneration, the Planning and Place Manager, Planning Managers (North) and (South)) to determine: • applications within the category of Prior Notification or Prior Approval made under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 Schedule 1 for Part 20 - Class 67: Development by electronic communications code operators regardless of how many objections have been received. AGENDA ITEM 7 Page 51 of 64
Page 52
1. Background 1.1 The Scottish Government is taking forward a phased programme to review and extend permitted development rights (PDR) in Scotland. Following consultation, the first phase of these extended permitted development rights was introduced on 1 April 2021. The changes relate to four development types: digital telecommunications infrastructure, agriculture, peat land restoration and active travel. 1.2 PDR generally relate to minor, uncontroversial developments or changes associated with an existing development where consideration on the principle of the development by a planning authority on an individual basis is unlikely to add value to the process. On this basis, PDR can help remove the need for unnecessary applications for planning permission and therefore reduce the burden on both applicants and planning authorities without harm to the local community or environment. Nevertheless, even when a particular type of development is granted PDR, projects must still comply with other statutory obligations, including requirements to obtain another consent – for example, listed building consent or consent requirements under the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 where works affect a Site of Special Scientific Interest. 1.3 The subject of this report is the change in PDR for digital telecommunications infrastructure which is not covered by the current Scheme of Delegation. 2. Report 2.1 The Scottish Government’s intention in extending PDR for digital connectivity is to assist in supporting and enhancing the roll out of vital and improved digital communications for all regions of Scotland. This has become even more important given society’s reliance on digital communications during the Covid-19 pandemic and will particularly support working from home and economic development in remote and rural communities. 2.2 Class 67 of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 (GPDO) sets out permitted development rights (PDR) for certain works carried out by or on behalf of an electronic communications code operator for the purposes of the operator's electronic communications network or carried out in accordance with the electronic communications code 2.3 The key change that has been introduced is the introduction of PDR for ground-based telecoms masts of up to 30 metres in height subject to a determination by the Planning Authority on whether prior approval is needed for its siting and design. 2.4 The new regulations provide a halfway house between full planning permission and permitted development. The masts (up to 30m in height) are deemed to be acceptable in principle and can be described as “permitted development” as long as the planning authority is happy with the siting and design of the mast. Applications for ground masts are required to be accompanied by a fee and supporting information (plans etc) and also a certificate which confirms that radiation from the mast is within recommended levels (known as ICNIRP). The Plan for North Lanarkshire Priority Improve economic opportunities and outcomes Ambition statement (18) Ensure our digital transformation is responsive to all people's needs and enable access to the services they need Page 52 of 64
Page 53
2.5 In terms of design, in general there is little that can be done to masts to change their appearance, other than colour and possibly screening of the associated apparatus. Most of the applications the council has received to date have been in urban settings where these changes are not considered appropriate. In terms of siting again the ability to influence is limited and would only be appropriate where the location is causing an obstruction in terms of road or pedestrian safety; where there may be an impact on Cumbernauld Airport or where the location is within certain ‘designated areas’ which include: World Heritage sites; conservation areas; historic battlefields; National Parks, and the settings of both category A listed buildings and scheduled monuments. 2.6 Of particular note (and unique in the consideration of ‘prior approval’ applications) is that the application (to determine if ‘prior approval’ is required) is also the basis of “neighbour notification” and any occupied buildings within 20m of the mast will be sent a letter allowing them 2 weeks in which to comment. Valid comments can only be considered if they relate to the siting and design of the apparatus. 2.7 As part of the assessment process, the planning authority must advise the applicant within 56 days of receipt of the application if ‘prior approval’ is required. If it is deemed to be required, then it must also (within that 56 day period) confirm if prior approval is granted or refused. 2.8 It is this very short timescale that presents a challenge, as under the current Scheme of Delegation, if 6 or more objections are received to a proposal the application must be referred to the Planning Committee for determination. The lead in time for Committee means that most of these applications will exceed the 56-day determination period. Currently, due to the current scheme of delegation, the Council would be unable to determine applications where 6 or more objections are received within the statutory 56-day period. The regulations make it clear that where the Council cannot determine the application for Prior Approval within 56 days then prior approval is deemed to have been given. It is for this reason that the change to the Scheme of Delegation is required. 2.9 It is therefore proposed that the council’s Scheme of Delegation should be amended to permit the Appointed Person (Head of Planning and Regeneration, the Planning and Place Manager, Planning Managers (North) and (South)) to determine applications within the category of Prior Notification or Prior Approval made under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 Schedule 1 for Part 20 - Class 67: Development by electronic communications code operators, regardless of how many objections have been received. 3. Measures of success 3.1 The council is able to determine applications for Prior Approval for telecom masts over 30 metres within the 56 day statutory timescale set by the Scottish Government. 4. Supporting documentation 4.1 Annex G of Circular 2/2015: non-domestic permitted development rights: https://www.gov.scot/publications/planning-circular-2-2015-consolidated-circular-non- domestic-permitted-development-rights-updated-2021 Page 53 of 64
Page 54
Pamela Humphries Head of Planning and Regeneration Page 54 of 64
Page 55
5. Impacts ( http://connect/report-template-guidance ) 5.1 Public Sector Equality Duty and Fairer Scotland Duty Does the report contain information that has an impact as a result of the Public Sector Equality Duty and/or Fairer Scotland Duty? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? If Yes, has an assessment been carried out and published on the council’s website? https://www.northlanarkshire.gov.uk/your-community/equalities/equality-and-fairer- scotland-duty-impact-assessments Yes ☐ No ☐ 5.2 Financial impact Does the report contain any financial impacts? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, have all relevant financial impacts have been discussed and agreed with Financial Solutions? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.3 HR policy impact Does the report contain any HR policy or procedure impacts? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, have all relevant HR impacts have been discussed and agreed with People and Organisational Development? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.4 Legal impact Does the report contain any legal impacts (such as general legal matters, statutory considerations (including employment law considerations), or new legislation)? Yes ☒ No ☐ If Yes, have all relevant legal impacts have been discussed and agreed with Legal and Democratic Solutions? Yes ☒ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? The proposed change to the Scheme of Delegation outlined in this report has been discussed and agreed with Legal and Democratic Solutions. 5.5 Data protection impact Does the report / project / practice contain or involve the processing of personal data? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, is the processing of this personal data likely to result in a high risk to the data subject? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, has a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) been carried out and e- mailed to dataprotection@northlan.gov.uk Yes ☐ No ☐ 5.6 Technology / Digital impact Does the report contain information that has an impact on either technology, digital transformation, service redesign / business change processes, data management, or connectivity / broadband / Wi-Fi? Yes ☒ No ☐ Page 55 of 64
Page 56
If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? As outlined in the report the amendments introduced by the Scottish Government are aimed at helping to improve digital connectivity in Scotland. Where the impact identifies a requirement for technology, has an assessment been carried out (or scheduled) by the Enterprise Architecture Governance Group (EAGG)? Yes ☐ No ☒ 5.7 Environmental / Carbon impact Does the report / project / practice contain information that has an impact on any environmental or carbon matters? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.8 Communications impact Does the report contain any information that has an impact on the council’s communications activities? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.9 Risk impact Is there a risk impact? Yes ☒ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the key risks and potential impacts, highlighting where the risk(s) are assessed and recorded (e.g. Corporate or Service or Project Risk Registers), and how they are managed? There is a risk that the council cannot determine applications within 56 days including those that the Planning service would wish to recommend for refusal and therefore masts could be erected in locations that are not deemed to be suitable. Page 56 of 64
Page 57
North Lanarkshire Council Report Council Does this report require to be approved? ☒ Yes ☐ No Ref Date 09/06/22 Amendment to the Procedure for Considering Petitions From Head of Legal and Democratic Solutions E-mail rosean@northlan.gov.uk Telephone 07951 409714 1. Background 1.1 At its meeting held on 6 December 2018, the former Policy and Resources Committee agreed a procedure to be followed upon a petition being received by the Council. 1.2 A copy of the agreed report from the meeting of the former Policy and Resources committee held on 6 December 2018 is attached as an appendix. 2. Report 2.1 Following the local government elections held on 5 May 2022 the new Council Administration indicated its desire to create a Petitions Sub-Committee which would be responsible for dealing with any petitions received by the Council. 2.2 The creation of a Petitions Sub-Committee is dealt with separately at the meeting of the Council held on 9 June 2022. There is a requirement for approval to be given for the required changes to the current process to facilitate the sub-committee. Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to seek approval for an amendment to the procedure for considering petitions received by the Council. Recommendations Council is recommended to agree the amendment to the process for considering petitions received by the Council, as detailed in the report. The Plan for North Lanarkshire Priority Enhance participation, capacity, and empowerment across our communities Ambition statement (24) Review and design services around people, communities, and shared resources AGENDA ITEM 8 Page 57 of 64
Page 58
2.3 It is proposed that the process be amended as detailed below:- Step 1 Petition received by the Council. If petition relates to a specific geographical area, it is sent to the appropriate Area Community Partnership Manager. If the petition relates to the Council area as a whole, or across multiple LAP areas proceed to Step 4. Step 2 The Area Community Partnership Manager considers whether the desired outcomes can be actioned immediately. If yes, this is undertaken. If no, proceed to Step 3. Step 3 Petition is considered by the Petitions Sub-Committee. Options available to the Sub-Committee are: (a) request further information, in which case it would be considered at an appropriate future meeting; (b) agree fully or in part, the terms of the petition, or (c) that no further action be taken. Should (b) “agree fully or in part, the terms of the petition”, be agreed, and there are implications which may include, but not restricted to, budgetary or resources, the petition, together with the recommendation from the Sub- Committee, be submitted to the appropriate Committee. Step 4 The appropriate Committee considers the petition and decides accordingly. 2.4 In reference to Step 3, the Petitions Sub-Committee may, if it so decides, agree to hold a Hearing to consider the terms of the petition and it may invite members of the community and/or stakeholders to address the Sub-Committee. 3. Measures of success 3.1 The proposed Council process is considered good practice 4. Supporting documentation Appendix – report approved by the former Policy and Resources Committee held on 6 December 2022 Archie Aitken Head of Legal and Democratic Solutions Page 58 of 64
Page 59
5. Impacts ( http://connect/report-template-guidance ) 5.1 Public Sector Equality Duty and Fairer Scotland Duty Does the report contain information that has an impact as a result of the Public Sector Equality Duty and/or Fairer Scotland Duty? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? If Yes, has an assessment been carried out and published on the council’s website? https://www.northlanarkshire.gov.uk/your-community/equalities/equality-and-fairer- scotland-duty-impact-assessments Yes ☐ No ☐ 5.2 Financial impact Does the report contain any financial impacts? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, have all relevant financial impacts have been discussed and agreed with Financial Solutions? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.3 HR policy impact Does the report contain any HR policy or procedure impacts? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, have all relevant HR impacts have been discussed and agreed with People and Organisational Development? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.4 Legal impact Does the report contain any legal impacts (such as general legal matters, statutory considerations (including employment law considerations), or new legislation)? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, have all relevant legal impacts have been discussed and agreed with Legal and Democratic Solutions? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.5 Data protection impact Does the report / project / practice contain or involve the processing of personal data? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, is the processing of this personal data likely to result in a high risk to the data subject? Yes ☐ No ☐ If Yes, has a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) been carried out and e- mailed to dataprotection@northlan.gov.uk Yes ☐ No ☐ 5.6 Technology / Digital impact Does the report contain information that has an impact on either technology, digital transformation, service redesign / business change processes, data management, or connectivity / broadband / Wi-Fi? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? Page 59 of 64
Page 60
Where the impact identifies a requirement for technology, has an assessment been carried out (or scheduled) by the Enterprise Architecture Governance Group (EAGG)? Yes ☐ No ☐ 5.7 Environmental / Carbon impact Does the report / project / practice contain information that has an impact on any environmental or carbon matters? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.8 Communications impact Does the report contain any information that has an impact on the council’s communications activities? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the impact? 5.9 Risk impact Is there a risk impact? Yes ☐ No ☒ If Yes, please provide a brief summary of the key risks and potential impacts, highlighting where the risk(s) are assessed and recorded (e.g. Corporate or Service or Project Risk Registers), and how they are managed? Page 60 of 64
Page 61
North Lanarkshire Council Report Policy and Resources Committee approval Noting Ref: AR/EH Date: 6 December 2018 Petitions Received by the Council From: Archie Aitken, Head of Business for Legal and Democratic Solutions Email: AitkenA@northlan.gov.uk Telephone: 01698 302295 Executive Summary This report seeks approval for a new process for considering Petitions or Deputations received by the Council which are deemed non operational. Recommendations The Committee is recommended to approve the new procedure for considering petitions received by the Council as detailed in Paragraph 2.4. Supporting Documents Council plan to 2020: Action 17 – Improve engagement with our communities to maximise involvement and empowerment. 1. Background 1.1. At its meeting on 21 June 2018, the Council agreed the terms of the following:- "That research and other works to identify examples of best practice and public engagement with Local Government be undertaken and a report to the Policy and Resources Committee be submitted for consideration." 1.2. During meetings of Political Group Business Managers at which consideration was given to a Review of Standing Orders, consideration was given to information provided by officers on options for a procedure relating to Petitions and/or Deputations received by the Council. It was agreed during those discussions that this matter would be dealt with outwith the Review of Standing Orders. Appendix 1 Page 61 of 64
Page 62
2. Report 2.1. The Policy and Resources Committee is reminded that the Council already has a Petitions Policy which was approved by this Committee on 13 May 1997. Specifically, it requires that a report be provided to the appropriate Committee providing details of the petition received together with actions undertaken and the outcome. For information, the existing policy stipulates that to be considered, a petition should be supported by no less than 10 signatures, although there is discretion to waive this requirement if deemed appropriate having regard to the merits. 2.2. The Council decision of 21 June 2018 requires consideration to be given to the introduction of a new protocol. Representations have been made to officers that such a protocol should ensure community engagement and remove any barrier to inclusion by all community groups. 2.3. Experience of Other Local Authorities 2.3.1. Following the Council decision of 21 June 2018, officers undertook a desktop exercise to review the way in which other local authorities in Scotland process petitions as detailed on the individual websites of each local authority. It became clear that virtually all of the other Scottish Councils, in respect of which information could be obtained, used a single procedure for all of their petitions – operational or otherwise. Of the 17 authorities in respect of which information was available, only five had constituted a Petitions Committee, while the remainder included the remit for considering petitions within either a single Committee or, in most cases, all Committees depending on which was the most appropriate forum to deal with the petition. 2.3.2. Of the other authorities, the majority required the petitions to contain a specific number of signatures; the lowest being one signature other than the petitioner and the highest being 1,000 (or 10% of the registered electors if related to a specific geographical area). However, two authorities allow petitioners to submit their petition without the need for supporting signatures and the petition is then published on those Councils' websites with members of the public being invited to support it. Only when the level of support reaches a specific threshold (100 and 200 signatures respectively) will a petition be considered by those Councils. In addition, different threshold requirements have been put in place across most other authorities if the petition has been submitted by a private sector organisation/commercial enterprise. 2.4. North Lanarkshire Model 2.4.1. The table below details the process proposed to be followed upon a petition being received by the Council Step 1 Request received by the Council. If petition relates to a specific geographical area, it is sent to the appropriate Community Partnership Manager. If the petition relates to the Council area as a whole, or across multiple LAP areas proceed to Step 4. Page 62 of 64
Page 63
Step 2 The Community Partnership Manager considers whether desired outcomes can be actioned immediately. If yes, this is undertaken. If no, proceed to Step 3. Step 3 Appropriate Local Area Partnership (LAP) is provided with details of the petition within its "Community Matters" business and considers whether it wishes to proceed with the petition or not. If yes, LAP may request further information, in which case it would be considered at an appropriate future meeting. If LAP able to determine immediately, then may agree (a) that no further action be taken, (b) that the LAP has available budget and delegated authority to agree that the terms of the petition be progressed, or (c) decide to refer the petition to the appropriate Committee. Step 4 The appropriate Committee considers the petition and decides accordingly. 3. Equality and Diversity 3.1. Fairer Scotland There is no requirement to carry out a Fairer Scotland assessment in this instance. 3.2. Equality Impact Assessment There is no requirement to carry out an Equality Impact assessment in this instance. 4. Implications 4.1. Financial Impact There is no Financial Impact. 4.2. HR/Policy/Legislative Impact There is no HR/Policy/Legislative Impact. 4.3. Environmental Impact There is no Environmental Impact. 4.4. Risk Impact There is no Risk Impact. Page 63 of 64
Page 64
5. Measures of Success The proposed Council process is considered good practice. Head of Business for Legal and Democratic Solutions Page 64 of 64