In proposing the recommendation, Councillor Bowen, Chair of the Constitution Working Group, explained that Members were being asked to consider the amendments set out in Appendix One and determine which should be approved for incorporation into the Constitution.

He advised that a number of the proposed changes were largely procedural in nature and described them as sensible and straightforward improvements and he referred to amendments relating to the Member Protocol on pre‑decision engagement, changes to the budget amendment deadline, and revisions concerning area committees.

In relation to the budget amendment deadline, Councillor Bowen explained that the change would provide officers with additional time to properly review amendments ahead of the budget meeting, reducing last‑minute pressure and avoiding the need for weekend working.

Councillor Bowen also highlighted the proposal to introduce the use of an electronic Council seal. He stated that this reflected the Council modernising its processes while retaining the traditional seal for appropriate documents, and that the electronic seal would make the handling of documents more efficient.

Councillor Wise, seconded the recommendation and reserved his right to speak.

The Mayor then invited comments from members.

Councillor Baldock expressed significant reservations about the proposed Member protocol for pre-application and pre-decision developer engagement, stating that it did not provide opportunities for parish councils, town councils or residents’ groups to engage with Members. He raised concern that the protocol could be perceived as allowing one‑sided engagement with developers and warned that this could attract external criticism. He stated that, in his view, the proposal required further consideration and refinement.

Councillor Baldock also raised objections to the proposed change to the naming of Area Committees, arguing that the term “Councillors and Residents Forum” was misleading and inconsistent with the Council’s Constitution. Councillor Baldock stated that forums and committees were distinct entities and that Area Committees were intended to consider future policy impacts on local areas, rather than act as engagement forums.

Councillor Baldock referred to consultation feedback indicating public support for the existing “Area Committee” title and questioned the rationale for changing it. He expressed concern that the proposed change would create confusion for the public and asked that the renaming proposal be removed.

The following amendment was proposed by Councillor Baldock and seconded by Councillor Jayes.

Motion: That Appendix 1, Item C, point one be removed.

The Mayor then invited members to debate the amendment..

A Member commented that this committee was not the correct forum for such a change and there had been numerous opportunities for input and changes during the working groups.

Councillor Baldock stated that he did not consider there to be sufficient justification for the proposed change as set out in the report. He referred to the consultation results, noting that a majority of respondents supported retaining the existing name, and questioned why this feedback was not being reflected in the proposal. He expressed concern that changing the terminology would require substantial amendments to the Constitution to define what a “forum” was, including whether such a body would have decision‑making powers.

Councillor Baldock warned that this could unintentionally weaken the role of Area Committees and described the proposal as unwise. He concluded that the current arrangements should remain unchanged.

On being put to the vote, the amendment was lost.

In summing up, Councillor Bowen stated that the proposals had already been considered through the Council’s agreed governance processes, including the Constitutional Working Group, the Policy and Resources Committee, and now Full Council. He noted that Members, including those raising concerns, had opportunities at each stage to propose amendments or changes.

Councillor Bowen emphasised the importance of respecting the agreed decision‑making process and using Council time efficiently, cautioning against repeatedly revisiting the same issues once they had progressed through the appropriate stages. While acknowledging Members’ democratic rights, he urged the Council to proceed in accordance with its established processes and make better use of its time.

On moving to the vote, Councillor Baldock requested that his vote against Appendix 1, Item A be recorded.

Resolved:

(1)  That the updates to the Protocol for Pre-application and Pre-decision Developer Engagement as set out in the report be agreed and the constitution be updated.

(2)  That the changes to procedure rule 3.1.16.4 to bring forward the deadline to 4.30pm on the Thursday preceding the Council meeting, as set out in the report be agreed and the constitution be updated.

(3)  That the name of the Committee and other changes as set out in the report be agreed and the constitution be updated

(4)  That the use of the electronic Council seal, as set out in the report, be agreed and the constitution updated.