Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

At this point Members must declare whether they have an interest, whether personal or prejudicial, in any of the items on the agenda. Members must also declare if they are subject to their party group whip in relation to any items under consideration.

The following declarations of interest were made:

Councillor Arculus declared that he worked at a conveyance firm which bought and sold properties and secured mortgages against properties and that his father was Chairman of a bank but one that was not involved with the Local Authority Mortgage Scheme.

Councillor Murphy declared that he owned property in Peterborough and had dealings with some of the banks that might be involved.

Councillor Peach also declared that he owned property called Broadway Properties within Peterborough.

The Chair requested that the Legal Officer advise if the declarations amounted to an interest. The Legal Officer’s response was that having assessed the papers and having considered the declarations of interest in her opinion those declarations had not amounted to a personal interest. The Legal Officer had produced a written advice note regarding this and copies were made available.

The purpose of the meeting is to provide an opportunity for consideration of any request to call in a decision.  A Call-In request has been made in relation to the decision made by Cabinet on 13 June 2011 with regard to the Local Authority Mortgage Scheme.

The purpose of the meeting was to consider the Call-In request that had been made in relation to the decision made by Cabinet on 13 June 2011 with regard to the Local Authority Mortgage Scheme.

The request to Call-In this decision was made on 17 June 2011 by Councillor Murphy and supported by Councillor Jamil.  The decision for Call-In was based on the following grounds:

1.      The decision did not follow the principles of good decision making set out in Article 12 of the  Council’s Constitution, specifically that the decision maker did not:

(a)     realistically consider all alternatives and, where reasonably possible, consider the views of the public

After considering the request to call-in and all relevant advice, the Committee were required to decide either to:

(a)              not agree to the request to call-in, when the decision shall take effect;

             (b)       refer the decision back to the decision maker for reconsideration, setting out its concerns; or

             (c)       refer the matter to full Council.

In support of the request to call-in Councillor Murphy and Councillor Jamil made the following points:

Before Councillor Murphy addressed the Committee the Chair requested that Councillor Murphy should not discuss pecuniary interests as it was not a matter for the Scrutiny Committee but if there were a complaint it would need to be referred to the Standards Committee.

·         Councillor Jamil advised that in principle he was not opposed to the scheme, but he wanted to make sure the scheme was going to work for Peterborough, and was the best use of Council money.

·         The scheme may make properties prices artificially high and it would have been useful to have had examples of the scheme already working in other Authorities.

·         Did the Council consider other providers or other expertise within the council or a partnership to provide mortgages directly?

·         Were alternatives considered?

·         Why weren’t the views of the public and other stakeholders effectively sought?

·         Who initiated the idea with the Council and who developed the policy?

·         Did Treasury Services Ltd receive a payment from the Council and would they get commission.

·         Where will the £1 million funding come from.

·         Had a risk assessment been completed?

·         Do applicants have to be resident in Peterborough at the time of application?

·         What would happen if the interest rates go up?

·         Has there been an Equality Impact Assessment done on this policy?

·         What effect would this have on the rental market within Peterborough?

·         Was it sensible to tie £10 million up for 5 years at 4.7% interest rate, when there was an expectation that interest rates would go up?

Questions and Comments from Members:

·         Cllr Arculus hoped that by determining the eligibility criteria this would alleviate any concerns about the scheme and the process. The fine details of the eligibility criteria would be decided at Full Council.

·         Would the £1million deposit with Lloyds happen on day one or only once an applicant had passed the criteria?

·         Who will be responsible for ensuring that the banks don’t routinely ask  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.