Rules that meant a 21-minute council meeting cost more than £3,000 to hold have been described as “a farce”.
Sefton Council had to hire out the Golden Miller Suite at Aintree Racecourse at a cost of £3,169 for its annual meeting on Thursday (May 20) as social distancing rules meant it needed a larger room than its normal council chamber.
But the meeting, a largely procedural occasion that formally approves committee membership and minor amendments to the council constitution, lasted just 21 minutes.
With the cost of the meeting working out at £150 per minute, Liberal Democrat councillor Iain Brodie Brown described the occasion as “a farce”.
Even before the meeting, Cllr Brodie Brown had tweeted that the situation was “plain silly” adding that the size of the room meant he was “closer to the horses parading outside than I am to the mayor”.
Since the start of the pandemic, councils have been able to meet virtually in order to limit risks to those attending.
However, the law allowing virtual meetings or hybrid meetings where some councillors attend in person and others attend virtually expired on May 6 forcing local authorities across the country to return to in-person meetings.
But with most council chambers too small to allow a 2m distance between councillors, councils have had to find alternative venues.
Some have chosen to hold their annual meetings in leisure centres, with Liverpool City Council meeting at Wavertree Tennis Centre on Wednesday (May 19) and Knowsley Council meeting at Huyton leisure centre this afternoon (May 21).
But other councils have had to look further afield, often at great cost. Lincoln City Council held its annual meeting in the city’s cathedral, while Portsmouth Council had to pay £5,000 for a single meeting at the city’s Guildhall.
Cllr Ian Maher, leader of Sefton Council, said: "While we recognise and respect that we are once more legally bound to hold physical meetings of council, we are extremely disappointed in the government for not doing more to extend a hybrid way of working.
"In order to keep our members, staff and public safe, we must use facilities which allow us to be Covid-19 secure but this inevitably carries a cost implication at a time when the council continues to suffer from budgetary restraints and cuts.
“Our Democratic Services team worked round the clock to ensure full council was held safely and securely and we would once again like to thank the Jockey Club and Aintree Racecourse for their hospitality.
“Going forward steps are being taken to bring back meetings of full council to our local authority buildings and we are working closely with our public health colleagues in order to find a solution which allows for our democratic process to take place, while remaining Covid compliant and reducing further needless expenditure.”
Planning changes approved
Although Sefton’s meeting at Aintree lasted just 21 minutes, it could have been even shorter.
The only item on the agenda that attracted any sort of debate was a proposal to restrict the number of planning applications that were discussed in public by the planning committee rather than decided by council planning officers without debate.
The proposals meant that the committee would no longer have to debate applications that had more than five public comments if those comments were in line with officers’ recommendations.
But the changes also mean that councillors will no longer be able to call in applications relating to listed building consent, adverts or certificates of permitted developments, which include potentially controversial plans to erect mobile phone masts.
Householder developments like extensions and loft conversions will also be excluded unless an “adjoining neighbour” objects and a councillor calls in the application.
According to a council report, these changes mean the committee “can concentrate on more significant forms of development, improving performance of [the planning] service overall” while excluding householder developments will prevent “random call-ins just for political benefit”.
However, independent councillor Maria Bennett objected, saying: “Taking away residents’ rights to be heard will only undermine faith in the planning system which has already taken a knock on Merseyside.
"Similarly, alterations to much loved heritage assets can draw wider interest and considerable opposition. Signage and advertising can destroy the character of an area and once again can evoke strong opinions, and increasingly residents are becoming outspoken on the natural environment, particularly trees and tree protection orders."
She added: “These changes are not insignificant and in my view require wider consultation.”
No other councillors spoke on the proposals, which were approved without a formal vote.
