(a) Motion from Councillor D N Keane
Infrastructure Readiness and Evidence-Based Growth Planning
This Council notes that:
Huntingdonshire District Council is preparing a new Local Plan to guide development across the district to 2046.
Since work commenced on the Local Plan, national planning policy and housing targets have changed, with significant implications for future housing requirements across Huntingdonshire.
While no local authority has formally launched a judicial review, multiple councils, led by different political parties, have strongly pushed back on the revised housing targets. Some councils are seeking longer timescales, additional infrastructure funding, and adjustments to the local plan process.
To date, Huntingdonshire District Council has not publicly set out what flexibility, infrastructure support, transitional arrangements, or timetable adjustments it may seek in response to the revised national housing targets.
The emerging Local Plan must be supported by relevant, proportionate, and up-to-date evidence, including evidence on infrastructure, transport, viability, flood risk, water management, health, education, utilities, and community facilities.
Work remains underway to assess the transport implications of future growth, including through the A141 and St Ives Improvements Study, the Strategic Transport Assessment, and related transport evidence.
The Council’s Infrastructure Delivery Plan, Infrastructure Delivery Study, and associated infrastructure schedules identify substantial requirements for highways, public transport, active travel, education, health services, utilities, flood mitigation, water management, community facilities, green infrastructure, and environmental infrastructure.
The Independent Review into bus franchising was published by the CPCA in June 2026, confirming a phased approach to bus franchising from 2027–2030.
The Local Plan relies on the assumption of expanding sustainable transport; therefore, this revised timeframe and scope of delivery should be accounted for.
Residents across Huntingdonshire consistently raise concerns regarding the cumulative impact of development on roads, schools, healthcare provision, drainage, flood risk, public transport, and local services.
Council believes that:
a. Sustainable development requires housing growth, employment growth, and infrastructure delivery to be planned together.
b. Public confidence in the Local Plan process depends upon decisions being informed by the most complete, current, and transparent evidence available.
c. The cumulative impact of development across Huntingdonshire should be properly understood before strategic decisions are taken on the scale and distribution of future growth.
d. Infrastructure capacity, funding, timing, and deliverability are central to whether proposed growth can be considered sustainable.
e. A Local Plan that is not supported by clear evidence on infrastructure delivery risks being less effective, less credible, and less capable of commanding public confidence.
f. Effective infrastructure planning requires close engagement with infrastructure providers, neighbouring authorities, the Combined Authority, and relevant government agencies.
This Council therefore resolves to:
(b) Motion from Councillor R Coogan
Confidence in the Chair of Council
The Council notes that:
The concerns raised regarding Cllr Stephen Ferguson’s conduct in his capacity as Chair of Huntingdonshire District Council.
This Council believes that the Chair must command confidence across the whole Council and wider district, and must discharge the office with neutrality, impartiality, sound judgment, and respect for the Council’s rules and legal obligations.
This Council therefore resolves:
(c) Motion from Councillor R Coogan
Cutting Waste and Delivering Services
The Council notes that:
All councillors must retain their individual rights to speak, vote, ask questions, submit motions and represent residents, and that statutory political-balance requirements must continue to be met.
However, this Council believes that very small political groups should not create disproportionate administration, duplication or officer workload.
This Council therefore resolves to:
1. amend the Constitution so that groups of five councillors or fewer receive only the recognition required by law, and no additional group-based administrative or procedural support unless expressly agreed by Council.
This Council believes this change will help cut waste, reduce bureaucracy and ensure Council time and taxpayers’ money are focused on delivering services for local people.
Minutes:
Councillor D Keane moved, and it was duly seconded by Councillor A Bulat that
This Council notes:
Huntingdonshire District Council is preparing a new Local Plan to guide development across the district to 2046. Since work commenced on the Local Plan, national planning policy and housing targets have changed, with significant implications for future housing requirements across Huntingdonshire.
While no local authority has formally launched a judicial review, multiple councils, led by different political parties, have strongly pushed back on the revised housing targets. Some councils are seeking longer timescales, additional infrastructure funding, and adjustments to the local plan process.
To date, Huntingdonshire District Council has not publicly set out what flexibility, infrastructure support, transitional arrangements, or timetable adjustments it may seek in response to the revised national housing targets.
The emerging Local Plan must be supported by relevant, proportionate, and up-to-date evidence, including evidence on infrastructure, transport, viability, flood risk, water management, health, education, utilities, and community facilities.
Work remains underway to assess the transport implications of future growth,
including through the A141 and St Ives Improvements Study, the Strategic Transport Assessment, and related transport evidence.
The Council’s Infrastructure Delivery Plan, Infrastructure Delivery Study, and associated infrastructure schedules identify substantial requirements for highways, public transport, active travel, education, health services, utilities, flood mitigation, water management, community facilities, green infrastructure, and environmental infrastructure.
The Independent Review into bus franchising was published by the CPCA in June 2026, confirming a phased approach to bus franchising from 2027–2030
The Local Plan relies on the assumption of expanding sustainable transport; therefore, this revised timeframe and scope of delivery should be accounted for.
Residents across Huntingdonshire consistently raise concerns regarding the cumulative impact of development on roads, schools, healthcare provision, drainage, flood risk, public transport, and local services.
Council believes that:
a) Sustainable development requires housing growth, employment growth, and infrastructure delivery to be planned together.
b) Public confidence in the Local Plan process depends upon decisions being informed by the most complete, current, and transparent evidence available.
c) The cumulative impact of development across Huntingdonshire should be properly understood before strategic decisions are taken on the scale and distribution of future growth.
d) Infrastructure capacity, funding, timing, and deliverability are central to whether proposed growth can be considered sustainable.
e) A Local Plan that is not supported by clear evidence on infrastructure delivery risks being less effective, less credible, and less capable of commanding public confidence.
f) Effective infrastructure planning requires close engagement with infrastructure providers, neighbouring authorities, the Combined Authority, and relevant government agencies.
This Council therefore resolves to:
In presenting the proposed motion, Councillor Keane stated that its purpose was to review the infrastructure and supporting evidence underpinning work on the Local Plan. He noted the significant officer time and resources already invested, including briefings, checklists and other supporting documentation, and suggested that a thorough scrutiny of these elements would be a valuable exercise for the Council. Given the importance of the forthcoming meeting in September, he proposed that the review be undertaken.
The Chair invited the Executive Councillor for Economy, Regeneration and Housing, Councillor B Mickelburgh, to move an amendment. In doing so, Councillor B Mickelburgh stated that he broadly supported the principles of the substantive motion, including the need to plan housing, employment and infrastructure together, to base decisions on the best available evidence, and to take residents’ concerns regarding infrastructure capacity seriously. He explained that the amendment sought to retain the substance of the motion while clarifying the requests being made of officers and ensuring consistency with the Council’s governance processes.
The Elections and Democratic Services Manager and Deputy Monitoring Officer advised that to enable full participation in the debate, the amendment should be clearly set out by the proposer.
Councillor B Mickelburgh outlined the proposed amendments as follows:
Point 1: To clarify the request to officers by seeking a non-technical, plain English summary of infrastructure readiness, drawing on existing and emerging evidence relating to the Local Plan, including transport, education, health, utilities, flood risk, water management, community, green and environmental infrastructure. The document would be presented alongside other Local Plan documents through Overview and Scrutiny, Cabinet and Full Council.
Point 2: To remove the phrase “so far as the evidence allows” and refer consistently to a document rather than a report. The document would summarise infrastructure requirements, delivery assumptions, funding sources, responsibilities, risks, gaps, constraints, phasing issues and dependencies relevant to the preparation, soundness, viability and deliverability of the emerging Local Plan.
Point 3: To replace the word “report” with “document” for consistency. The document would consider cumulative infrastructure impacts across Huntingdonshire, including the interaction between major site allocations, market town growth, village allocations, employment sites and existing infrastructure pressures.
Point 4: To simplify the request by removing alternative actions and seeking that the document be considered by Overview and Scrutiny, Cabinet and Full Council alongside the Local Plan as it progresses to its next formal stage.
Point 5: No changes were proposed. The point would continue to reaffirm that the Local Plan should be prepared on the basis that housing, employment, infrastructure and community services are planned together, with clear evidence of how growth will be supported, funded, phased and delivered.
The amendment was seconded by Executive Councillor for Planning, Councillor T Sanderson who reserved his right to speak.
Councillor R Martin raised a Point of Order under 14.3 of the Constitution, requesting written notice of the amended motion.
The Meeting adjourned at 7.23pm.
The Meeting resumed at 7.38pm.
Councillor R Martin reiterated that under 14.3 of the Constitution advises there should be a written copy of the amendment and that he could not see the wording that was displayed on the screen. The Chair proposed another adjournment in order for the amendment to be printed and circulated to Members.
The Meeting adjourned at 7.39pm.
The Meeting resumed at 7.46pm.
Speaking against the amendment, Councillor R Martin expressed concern about both the process leading to the debate and the purpose of the proposed changes. He stated that, in his view, the amendment did not clearly set out what it was intended to achieve and appeared to dilute the original motion rather than strengthen it. He suggested that the amendments were unnecessary and reflected an attempt to alter the motion without materially improving its objectives. Councillor R Martin advised that he would not support the amendment and looked forward to the continuation of the debate.
Responding to the amendment, Councillor D Keane thanked Councillor B Mickelburgh for engaging with the motion and for his broad support of its objectives. Whilst acknowledging that some of the proposed changes reflected governance and process considerations, he stressed that the motion was fundamentally about ensuring public confidence in the Local Plan rather than procedural matters. He
stated that, in his view, the amendment altered the purpose of the motion by shifting the emphasis from enabling Members to satisfy themselves that the Local Plan was supported by deliverable, funded and appropriately phased infrastructure, towards the production of a plain English summary of existing and emerging evidence. He argued that Members would be required to make a significant planning decision in September and that residents would expect them to have scrutinised and challenged the evidence before reaching a conclusion.
He also expressed concern that references to “existing and emerging evidence” could imply that evidence still under development was sufficient, and that a plain English summary might explain the evidence without necessarily assisting Members in testing its implications. He emphasised that the motion was not intended to generate additional documentation, nor to criticise the work undertaken by Officers, whose continuing efforts to develop the evidence base he welcomed. He concluded that Members needed to understand how the various strands of evidence, including transport, health, education, utilities, water, flood risk, viability and infrastructure funding, combined to support the Local Plan. He reiterated that the motion was not intended to delay or predetermine the Local Plan, but to provide assurance that the evidence had been properly examined. Whilst recognising the constructive intentions behind the amendment, he advised that he could not support it and urged Members to retain the original wording of the motion.
The Chair moved for a vote on Councillor B Mickelburgh’s amendment.
Having been put to the vote, the amendment was declared to be CARRIED.
The amendment became a substantive motion.
Councillor T Sanderson thanked Councillors D Keane and A Bulat for bringing forward the motion and Councillor B Mickelburgh for his amendment. He also recognised the contributions of Members, Parish Councils and other stakeholders who had engaged with the Local Plan process.
He noted that the Local Plan had been developed over three years, supported by extensive consultation and a substantial evidence base, including infrastructure and viability studies. He highlighted the significant work of the Local Plan team and the recent publication of further infrastructure evidence. He emphasised the importance of maintaining the Local Plan timetable, noting that Huntingdonshire faced increased housing targets and currently lacked a five-year housing land supply. He warned that delays could reduce the Council’s ability to control the location of future development and increase exposure to speculative planning applications and appeals.
He also referred to ongoing work with partner organisations and infrastructure providers on transport, health, education and water infrastructure matters. Whilst acknowledging Members’ concerns regarding infrastructure provision, he expressed confidence in the robustness of the Local Plan process and supporting evidence base, and indicated his support for the substantive motion.
The Executive Councillor for Climate, Transformation and Workforce, Councillor L Davenport-Ray spoke from the perspective of representing a rapidly growing ward and highlighted the importance of ensuring that infrastructure kept pace with development. She noted that St Neots East had experienced significant growth and could see further expansion under the emerging Local Plan.
Referring to the publication of Stage 2 of the Infrastructure Delivery Study after the motion had been submitted, she asked Councillor D Keane whether, in light of the newly published evidence and updated infrastructure information, he continued to support the original motion as proposed.
Councillor A Bulat thanked Councillor D Keane for bringing forward the motion and welcomed the constructive cross-party discussion on infrastructure and development. She emphasised the importance of ensuring that infrastructure planning kept pace with housing and employment growth, and that Members had access to up-to-date evidence ahead of key decisions on the Local Plan. She welcomed the constructive nature of the debate and stressed the need for strong political leadership in supporting planned growth. Referring to concerns raised by residents, she highlighted the importance of maintaining public confidence that the necessary infrastructure would be delivered alongside development. She drew particular attention to the A141, describing it as a key element in supporting strategic growth and noted the importance of continued engagement with partners on its development. She acknowledged progress made to date but recognised that some residents remained concerned about the pace of delivery and the uncertainty surrounding infrastructure provision. She concluded by emphasising that the motion was not intended to support or oppose the Local Plan, nor to predetermine future decisions, but rather to ensure that Members had the evidence needed to demonstrate that growth could be supported by appropriate infrastructure and to make a positive and informed case for the future development of the District.
In summing up, Councillor D Keane acknowledged the amendment to the motion, although he remained of the view that the original wording would have provided a stronger basis for scrutinising infrastructure readiness ahead of decisions on the Local Plan. He nevertheless confirmed his support for the amended motion.
He emphasised that Members would ultimately be accountable for their decisions on the Local Plan and should be satisfied that the supporting evidence demonstrated that the necessary infrastructure could be delivered. Referring to issues raised by residents, he highlighted concerns relating to transport, wastewater, schools, healthcare, public transport, funding and phasing. Hewelcomed the work undertaken by officers and the publication of further evidence, expressing the hope that the information provided would give Members sufficient assurance on infrastructure requirements, delivery and associated risks. He concluded that Members had a responsibility to make decisions based on robust evidence and confirmed his support for the amended motion.
Having been put to the vote, the Motion as amended was declared to be CARRIED.
Councillor R Coogan moved, and it was duly seconded by Councillor H Tobias that
This Council notes:
The concerns raised regarding Cllr Stephen Ferguson’s conduct in his capacity as Chair of Huntingdonshire District Council.
This Council believes that the Chair must command confidence across the whole Council and wider district, and must discharge the office with neutrality, impartiality, sound judgment, and respect for the Council’s rules and legal obligations.
This Council therefore resolves:
1. That this Council has no confidence in Cllr Stephen Ferguson’s continued ability to discharge the office of Chair in a neutral, impartial, lawful, and confidence-building manner.
2. That this Council calls on Cllr Stephen Ferguson to resign as Chair of Huntingdonshire District Council.
The Chair declared an interest in the item and reminded Members that he had been granted a dispensation to remain and participate in the debate. However, in the interests of impartiality, he vacated the Chair for the consideration of the item and invited the Vice-Chair to preside over that part of the meeting.
As Councillor R Coogan was invited to move the motion, a point of order was raised by Councillor H Tobias, seeking clarification on whether the Vice-Chair had a declarable interest in the item. The Vice-Chair advised that having been photographed with a Councillor at a Civic event did not constitute a declarable interest and he confirmed that no declaration would be made. Following a further challenge, the Vice-Chair reiterated that no declarable interest existed and the meeting proceeded.
In presenting the proposed motion, Councillor R Coogan set out the motion in the agenda, which expressed no confidence in Councillor S Ferguson’s continued ability to discharge the office of Chair and called upon him to resign.
In speaking to the motion, Councillor R Coogan stated that the issue for Council was whether the Chair continued to command the confidence necessary to fulfil the role. He argued that the office of Chair required neutrality, impartiality, sound judgement and fairness, and contended that confidence in the Chair had been undermined by a series of incidents and public controversies. Councillor R Coogan emphasised that the motion was not intended as a standards or legal process, but as a judgement on confidence in a Civic office holder. He argued that concerns related to the cumulative impact of the Chair’s conduct, including perceptions of impartiality and the separation between political activity and Civic responsibilities. He concluded that public confidence and accountability required Members to consider whether the Chair continued to represent the Council and its residents in an impartial and effective manner.
Speaking against the motion, Executive Leader, Councillor S Conboy, argued that a distinction should be made between mistakes, potential breaches of the Members’ Code of Conduct, and a vote of no confidence in the Chair. She noted that the Chair had already publicly acknowledged and apologised for recent mistakes and observed that all Members could make errors in judgment. She stated that the motion was not a standards hearing and argued that many of the concerns raised related to political opinions, media reports and allegations rather than formally established findings. She emphasised that, where concerns about conduct existed, the Council had established procedures through the Code of Conduct process to consider evidence, context and responses from the Member concerned. Referring to the Council’s Constitution, she noted the role of the Chair in promoting high standards of debate and local democracy, and argued that no clear evidence had been presented to demonstrate a breach of the Constitution. She cautioned against reaching conclusions on conduct or confidence without following established procedures and urged Members to uphold due process and natural justice. In concluding her remarks, she stated that concerns about misconduct should be addressed through the Council’s established Code of Conduct procedures, which provided for the proper consideration of evidence and due process. She urged against using a political motion to determine matters that should be considered through an independent process and, for those reasons, advised that she could not support the motion.
Speaking against the motion, Councillor G Seeff stated that he had known Councillor S Ferguson for a number of years and, despite political differences, had always found him to be courteous, professional and committed to fulfilling his public responsibilities. He referred to Councillor S Ferguson’s previous service in Civic and Council roles and expressed confidence in his integrity and dedication. He acknowledged that Councillor S Ferguson had recently made an error of judgement but noted that he had issued an unreserved apology. He argued that the matter should be viewed in context and highlighted that there had been no findings of serious misconduct. He concluded by expressing his confidence in Councillor S Ferguson’s ability to continue carrying out the role of Chair fairly and effectively and urged Members to reject the motion.
Speaking against the motion, Councillor R Tomlinson stated that where concerns arose regarding a Member’s conduct, established procedures existed for complaints to be reported and investigated. He noted that, to his knowledge, no such process had resulted in findings against Councillor S Ferguson. He further argued that the motion did not present a detailed case and that Members were being asked to withdraw confidence without the benefit of a formal investigation or findings. On that basis, he advised that he could not support the motion.
Speaking against the motion, Councillor A Bulat noted that interruptions and points of order were a normal part of Council debate and should not necessarily be viewed as personal or political actions. She expressed disappointment that the Council was debating matters of this nature rather than focusing on issues that residents regularly raised, such as infrastructure, development and Council services. Having reviewed the evidence submitted in support of the motion, s She stated that she did not consider it demonstrated a sufficient case for the action proposed. She noted that an apology had been issued and observed that no formal findings had been made through the Council’s conduct processes. She also commented that the Chair’s exercise of discretion in meetings was not prescribed in the manner suggested by the motion. She concluded that, having considered the evidence and his experience of working with Councillor S Ferguson in various public roles, she did not believe the case for removing confidence had been made. She therefore advised that she would not support the motion.
Speaking against the motion, Councillor L Dewey-Beckett thanked Councillor R Coogan for bringing the matter before Council and stated that it provided an opportunity for Members to reflect on the standards expected of elected Members. Referring to concerns regarding the Chair’s use of a casting vote at the Annual Council meeting, Councillor L Dewey-Beckett noted that the Chair had acted in accordance with the powers provided by the Constitution. Whilst Members might have disagreed with the outcome, he argued that this did not make the decision undemocratic. He further stated that where concerns existed regarding a Member’s conduct, the appropriate route was through the Council’s Code of Conduct complaints process, which allowed matters to be considered independently and fairly. He expressed concern that motions of no confidence could risk substituting political debate for established procedures and concluded that he would vote against the motion.
Speaking against the motion, Councillor R Martin expressed the view that the matter did not warrant further debate and argued that the motion would not achieve its intended outcome, noting that the Chair would remain in office unless he chose to resign. He questioned the basis of the motion and argued that individuals should be free to express opinions within the law. Referring to documentation circulated in support of the motion, he criticised the content and suggested that not all relevant information had been presented. He concluded by stating that public office holders should expect scrutiny and differing opinions as part of public life and confirmed that he would not support the motion.
Speaking against the motion, Councillor B Mickelburgh stated that, having reviewed the supporting documentation, he did not consider that it provided sufficient evidence to justify a vote of no confidence in the Chair. Referring to concerns regarding the Chair’s use of casting votes, Councillor Mickelburgh noted that these had been exercised in accordance with the Council’s Constitution and argued that the lawful use of a constitutional power should not be regarded as misconduct. He observed that much of the material presented comprised allegations and opinions rather than formal findings. Councillor B Mickelburgh acknowledged that Councillor S Ferguson had made an inappropriate comment and had subsequently issued a public apology. He maintained that any concerns regarding conduct should be addressed through the Council’s established complaints procedures rather than through a motion of no confidence.
He concluded that he did not believe the case for withdrawing confidence in the Chair had been made and confirmed that he would vote against the motion.
Speaking in response to the motion, Councillor S Ferguson stated that he had not been provided with the evidence bundle referred to during the debate and therefore had not had the opportunity to review or respond to the allegations being made. He expressed concern that the process was unfair and did not allow him to defend himself properly. He also highlighted what he described as a pattern of bullying and harassment, including the circulation of manipulated images depicting him in his capacity as Chair. He argued that such attacks were directed not only at him personally but also at the office of Chair and the Council as an institution. Referring to his experience in a number of Civic and local government leadership roles, he stated that he had consistently sought to carry out his duties with integrity and impartiality. He cited previous occasions on which he had exercised his casting vote contrary to the interests of personal or political associates, arguing that this demonstrated his commitment to acting independently and in accordance with his responsibilities as Chair. he concluded by stating that impartiality did not require silence in the face of discrimination and that he remained committed to treating all Members fairly whilst upholding principles of fairness, inclusion and decency.
Speaking in support of the motion, Councillor R Ioannides argued that the issue extended beyond a single incident and instead concerned whether the Chair continued to command the confidence and demonstrate the judgement required for the role. He referred to concerns raised during the Annual Council meeting regarding the Chair’s impartiality, noting that questions about the Chair’s conduct had arisen during the appointment of Committee chairs and Vice-Chairs. He also highlighted issues relating to the display of a flag at a Council building and subsequent public comments made by the Chair. He contended that the Chair’s response to the matter did not sufficiently accept responsibility and suggested that this had contributed to concerns regarding public confidence in the office of Chair.
Raising a point of order, Councillor L Davenport-Ray raised concerns regarding references being made to statements and evidence contained within a supporting evidence bundle. She advised that neither she nor Councillor S Ferguson had received the documents and therefore had not had the opportunity to review or respond to their contents. The Vice-Chair acknowledged the concern. The Elections and Democratic Services Manager and Deputy Monitoring Officer clarified that the Council had not formally received or been provided with the documents referred to.
Continuing his speech in support of the motion, Councillor R Ioannides referred to a social media post made by Councillor S Ferguson in relation to a local farm fire and argued that, although an apology had subsequently been issued, the original comment demonstrated poor judgement. He also referred to comments made on social media which he said had affected him and his family. He stated that he was not alleging that Councillor S Ferguson had authored the comments in question, but raised concerns regarding his involvement in the wider discussion.
He referred to concerns raised publicly by residents regarding the Chair’s conduct and argued that these concerns should not be dismissed, even where individual allegations had not been formally proven. He stated that the motion was based not on any single incident but on what he considered to be a pattern of behaviour that had given rise to concerns about confidence in the office of Chair. He concluded that the central question for Members was whether the Chair continued to command the confidence of the Council and advised that, in his view, he did not. He therefore urged Members to support the motion.
During the debate, Councillor H Tobias sought permission to make a further contribution despite not having reserved the right to speak when the motion was seconded. He argued that, in the interests of fairness and consistency, he should be afforded the same opportunity that had been given earlier in the meeting to another Member. Clarification was provided regarding the procedural circumstances under which Members may reserve the right to speak. Following further discussion and a point of order concerning the Procedural circumstances, the meeting was adjourned.
The meeting adjourned at 8.45pm.
The meeting resumed at 8.53pm.
Following the adjournment, the Vice-Chair clarified that Councillor H Tobias had seconded the motion and, as he had not been invited to indicate whether he wished to reserve his right to speak at the appropriate point, would be permitted to address the Council before the mover exercised his right of reply. Speaking in support of the motion, Councillor H Tobias stated that the debate was not about policy, party politics or personalities, but about fairness, accountability and good governance. He argued that Members had a responsibility to challenge matters of concern where appropriate and to act in the interests of residents rather than political loyalties. He emphasised that the motion should be considered on the basis of democratic accountability and the standards expected of public office holders. He concluded by urging Members to focus on fairness, justice and effective representation when determining the motion.
In exercising his right of reply, Councillor R Coogan stated that, while an apology had been issued in relation to previous comments, he would have preferred to see a direct apology to those affected. He argued that the issue before Council related not to political views, but to the judgement and visible fairness expected of the holder of a Civic office. He noted that no formal findings had been made regarding the matters raised but stated that the motion was not intended to be a Code of Conduct process. Instead, he emphasised that it was a matter of confidence for Council to determine on the basis of the information before it. He concluded by stressing that Members were not being asked to judge Councillor S Ferguson’s entire public service record, but rather whether he continued to command the confidence necessary to fulfil the role of Chair. Councillor R Coogan stated that, in his view, that confidence had been lost and urged Members to support the motion.
A Motion for a recorded vote having succeeded, following this debate in accordance with the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014 the following Members voted for, against or abstained from a vote on the Motion.
For (8) Councillors Coogan, Francis, Gammons, Henly, Ioannides, Lancaster, M Simpson and Tobias.
Against (23) Councillors Blackwell, Bulat, Burke, Claffey, Conboy, Davenport-Ray, Dewey-Beckett, Harvey, N Hunt, A Hunt, J Hunt, Innes, Kerr, B Mickelburgh, D Mickelburgh, Mokbul, Sanderson, Sarkies, Seeff, Tomlinson, Wells, Wood and Young.
Abstain (8) Councillors Bywater, Cawley, Gardener, Keane, Lowe, Martin, McIlwain and P Simpson.
Having been put to the vote, the Motion was declared to be DEFEATED.
The meeting adjourned at 9.03pm.
The meeting resumed at 9.09pm.
Councillor R Coogan moved, and it was duly seconded by Councillor J Francis that
The Council notes that:
All councillors must retain their individual rights to speak, vote, ask questions, submit motions and represent residents, and that statutory political-balance requirements must continue to be met.
However, this Council believes that very small political groups should not create disproportionate administration, duplication or officer workload.
This Council therefore resolves to:
1. amend the Constitution so that groups of five councillors or fewer receive only the recognition required by law, and no additional group-based administrative or procedural support unless expressly agreed by Council. This Council believes this change will help cut waste, reduce bureaucracy and ensure Council time and taxpayers’ money are focused on delivering services for local people.
In presenting the proposed motion, Councillor R Coogan set out the proposed amendment to the Constitution whereby political groups comprising five or fewer Councillors would receive only the recognition required by law, with any additional administrative or procedural support subject to Council approval. He stated that the proposal would not affect individual Councillors’ democratic rights to speak, vote, ask questions, submit motions or represent residents, nor would it alter statutory political balance requirements. He argued that recognition of very small political groups could create disproportionate administrative demands and officer workload, and that the proposed threshold would provide a proportionate approach while retaining Council discretion to approve additional support where justified. He further stated that the proposal would reduce unnecessary bureaucracy, make more effective use of Officer resources, and help ensure that Council time and public funds remained focused on the delivery of frontline services and good governance.
Councillor B Mickelburgh moved an amendment to the motion. In presenting the amendment, he referred to Part 3 of the Constitution, which placed responsibility for considering proposals to amend the Council's constitutional arrangements and making recommendations to Council within the remit of the Corporate Governance Committee. he stated that any proposed constitutional change should follow the process set out in the Constitution and be subject to appropriate consideration before being referred back to Full Council for determination. The amendment was described as ensuring compliance with the Council's established governance procedures.
The amended wording proposed was:
"Initiate the process that considers amendments to the Constitution so that groups of five Councillors or fewer receive only the recognition required by law and no additional group-based administrative or procedural support unless expressly agreed by the Council."
Councillor L Dewey-Beckett seconded the amendment and expressed his support, stating that it was not intended to reject the proposal but to ensure that any constitutional change was considered through the Council's established governance processes. He argued that the proposal should first be reviewed by the Constitution Review Working Group and the Corporate Governance Committee before returning to Council for a final decision. It was noted that constitutional amendments had long-term implications and should be subject to appropriate scrutiny. He concluded by urging Members to support the amendment.
Councillor R Martin spoke against the amendment, stating that if the intention was to refer the proposal for consideration by the appropriate body, this could already be achieved through the procedures set out in the Constitution. He argued that the matter should have been referred through the established constitutional process from the outset and questioned the need for the amendment.
Councillor R Coogan spoke against the amendment, stating that the original motion was intended to reduce unnecessary administrative costs and officer time as quickly as possible. Councillor Coogan argued that the proposal was straightforward and did not require additional scrutiny or another stage in the decision-making process. Whilst acknowledging that the administration may wish to follow the process proposed in the amendment, he expressed the view that the amendment would create further bureaucracy and officer workload, contrary to the objective of improving efficiency and reducing waste.
The Chair moved for a vote on Councillor B Mickelburgh’s amendment.
Having been put to the vote, the amendment was declared to be CARRIED.
The amendment became a substantive motion.
Councillor J Kerr spoke against the substantive motion, stating that she considered it to be directed at the Independent Group, of which she was the Leader. She noted that she had been elected as an Independent Councillor and argued that neither she nor members of her group placed an unreasonable demand on Officer time. She expressed concern regarding the purpose of the motion and suggested that more Officer and Council time had been spent debating the proposal than would ordinarily be spent supporting her group.
Councillor L Davenport-Ray spoke against the substantive motion, expressing concern that it implied constitutional change without clearly identifying the relevant constitutional provisions or following the appropriate process for amendment. She also stated that the motion appeared to be directed at leaders of smaller political groups.
During the speech, a number of points of order were raised by Councillor R Coogan. The Chair did not uphold the points of order..
She further argued that the motion would have little practical effect on smaller groups, questioned the rationale behind it, and stated that matters relating to electoral systems and representation were beyond the Council's powers. Concluding, she described the motion as an unnecessary use of Council time and urged Members to vote against it.
Councillor R Martin spoke against the substantive motion, arguing that it would not deliver the waste reductions claimed and questioning what practical changes it proposed. He noted that political groups were recognised in law and expressed concern that the motion appeared to target smaller political groups. He emphasised the rights of all elected Members to engage with Officers and represent their residents, regardless of group size. He concluded that he viewed the motion as unnecessary and politically motivated, and confirmed that he would not support it.
Councillor A Bulat spoke against the substantive motion, noting that, as a non-aligned Member, she was unclear what additional administrative or procedural support small political groups were alleged to receive. She stated that Councillors were responsible for raising casework and requests directly with Officers and questioned whether the issue identified by the motion existed in practice. She further suggested that the time spent debating the motion outweighed any potential savings that might result from it. In the absence of evidence demonstrating a problem, she concluded that the motion sought to address an issue that had not been substantiated and confirmed that she would vote against it.
Councillor J Francis spoke in support of the substantive motion, stating that it was founded on the principle of accountability in the use of public resources. He argued that, where administrative or procedural support exceeded statutory requirements, its provision should be justified and approved by Council rather than granted automatically. He emphasised that the motion would not affect the democratic rights of individual Councillors or the role of smaller political groups. He stated that the proposal sought to promote transparency, accountability and value for money by ensuring that discretionary support arrangements were subject to appropriate scrutiny. He concluded by urging Members to support the motion.
Councillor R Coogan exercised his right of reply, reiterating that the motion sought to reduce unnecessary administrative burden and officer time while preserving the rights of all Councillors to speak, vote, ask questions and represent residents. He argued that the proposal related only to additional support beyond statutory requirements and would help ensure officer capacity and public resources were used efficiently. He concluded by urging Members to support the motion.
Having been put to the vote, the Motion as amended was declared to be DEFEATED.