Issue - meetings

In line with the Council’s constitution, the Overview and Scrutiny Board is asked to consider a request that has been received for scrutiny of an issue – Queen’s Park Gold Course Buggy Policy.  Any councillor or member of the public may request that a matter be scrutinised, and the Board must decide whether to include it into the Forward Plan for scrutiny at a future date.

The attached report and appendices are provided to aid deliberations on whether the topic should join the Board’s Forward Plan.

Please note that the request has been submitted by Cllr D Borthwick but he has advised that he is doing so as a member of the public rather than in his role as Councillor.

The Chairman introduced the item and advised the Board that a request for scrutiny of the policy regarding the use of disabled buggies at Queen’s Park Golf Course had been made by Cllr D Borthwick, although the request was made in his capacity as a member of the public and not as a councillor. The Board was being asked to consider whether the issue should join the Board’s Forward Plan. The Board were asked to consider a report on the issue a copy of which had been circulated to Board members and a copy of which was appended at ‘D’ to these minutes in the minute book.

The Portfolio Holder noted some of the factors which the O&S Board may have wanted to take into consideration. This included the different types of uses within the park and the test of reasonableness of the practice being alluded to as being deemed unsafe.

Cllr D Borthwick outlined his reasons for bringing the request for scrutiny forward. The Chairman reminded members that this was purely an issue to consider whether it should be added to FP. The Chairman advised that Board that a petition had been submitted on this issue and was being considered by the Chief Operations Officer. It was noted that one of the options in response to the petition would be to refer it to a scrutiny body.

It was noted that an equalities assessment had been undertaken. There was some concern as to whether this was fit for purpose and had been applied correctly in this case and was suggested that it may be an issue for the Audit and Governance committee to consider.

It was suggested that it would be best to allow the petitions route already underway to continue and not to include the issue on the Forward Plan at this point.

RESOLVED that the issue is not included on the Board’s Forward Plan at the present time as it was already being considered as part of the Council’s petition scheme and to allow this process to be completed.

Voting: nem con