Agenda and draft minutes

Link to further information in the Council’s Constitution

Councillor Parekh declared an interest in Item 10a Notices of Motion.

To receive as a correct record the minutes of the Meeting of the Council held on Thursday, 18 July 2024.

The minutes of the meeting held on Thursday, 18 July 2024 were approved as a true record and signed by the Mayor.

The Mayor referred to the 22 events he had attended over the summer, including the very successful Lark in the Park and West Bridgford Food Festival, together with Merchant Navy Day, which had included a very moving speech made by a World War 2 veteran. He reminded Councillors of the importance of honouring all those who had made the ultimate sacrifice, by supporting both Remembrance Sunday and Armistice Day. The Mayor went on to say that he had enjoyed the Bavarian Beer Festival in Bingham, the West Bridgford Horticultural and Allotment Society annual show and the Hickling Scarecrow Festival. The Mayor concluded by referring to a recent book launch he had attended in Lady Bay, for an eight year old author, Binuthi Gunasekara, and what a fantastic event it was.

The Leader welcomed Sara Pregon to her first official meeting as Monitoring Officer. The Leader highlighted the recent award won by the Council from the Boots and Berets Organisation, for the excellent Proms in the Park event, and he thanked officers responsible for organising it. The Leader referred to the Chief Executive’s recent announcement that she would be leaving to take on a new role as Chief Executive at North Kesteven District Council, he congratulated her and stated that her departure would be a great loss to the Council. 

There were no Chief Executive’s Announcements.

To answer questions submitted by Citizens on the Council or its services.

No citizens’ questions were received for this meeting.

In accordance with the Council’s Petitions Scheme, the Mayor invited Mr Kerr to present the petition entitled ‘Community Governance Review.’

Mr Kerr introduced himself as Chair of Barton in Fabis Parish Council and stated that the petition sought the removal of the new Sustainable Urban Extension (SUE) at Fairham from the parish of Barton in Fabis, to allow the formation of a new parish Council at Fairham. Mr Kerr briefly outlined details of the location and history of the parish and referred to the ongoing development pressures faced in this rural location. Mr Kerr stated that the new SUE, which had been removed from the Greenbelt would be a standalone development, differing greatly from the small, rural parish of Barton in Fabis. Mr Kerr was concerned that if Fairham remained part of the ancient parish, the interests of the current community would be overwhelmed, and the residents of Fairham deserved their own representation. Mr Kerr advised that the new boundary had been drawn along the Greenbelt, as that represented the natural boundary between the SUE and the rural land beyond. Should the validated petition be accepted, there was sufficient time for the boundary changes to be effective in time for the next elections in 2027.

The report of the Director – Development and Economic Growth is attached

The Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Planning and Housing, Councillor Upton presented the report of the Director – Development and Economic Growth detailing the Greater Nottingham Strategic Plan (GNSP).

In moving the recommendation, Councillor Upton referred to the Council’s statutory duty to review and adopt a new Local Development Plan, which had taken several years to prepare, in conjunction with Broxtowe, Gedling and Nottingham City, and advised that it was critical that the current Plan was updated, to secure sustainable development and growth. Councillor Upton referred to the significant public consultation already undertaken, together with the meetings of the cross party Local Development Framework (LDF) Group, where at its last meeting, members present had unanimously resolved to accept the draft document and submit it to Full Council for approval. 

Councillor Upton referred to the recent consultation on revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which suggested a transitional period, where not all of the updates had to be completely reflected in local plans, if they had reached a certain stage, and it was thought that the current timeline would meet those new rules, providing Rushcliffe’s Plan was published for consultation by next month. Without approval this evening, Councillor Upton stated that this transitional window would be lost, with the Plan unable to go forward, leaving the Council without an up to date Plan. Each council would have to individually agree and adopt the Plan, and that would be followed by a six week public consultation, and then onto a public examination. 

Councillor Upton referred to Policy 3, which related to Housing Targets and advised that as part of the transitional arrangements, the Plan was only able to be adopted if each councils’ annualised housing target was within 200 dwellings throughout the Plan period, with those housing targets detailed in Table 1 of Policy 3 in the report. Council noted that Rushcliffe had more than sufficient existing housing supply to meet the Borough’s proposed housing target as detailed in Paragraph 4.33.  Economic and employment land had also been carefully considered in draft Policy 5, together with Policy 10, which required all developments to aspire to the highest standards of design and materials. Councillor Upton concluded by thanking all those involved in preparing this report, including partners, officers, in particular the Planning Policy Manager, and members of the LDF Group.

Councillor Butler seconded the recommendation and reserved the right to speak.

Councillor Calvert referred to the long history of close collaboration across the county, including the formation of the Greater Nottingham Planning Partnership in 2008. Governance was provided by a Joint Planning Advisory Board (JPAB), and those arrangements had remained, with the same Board overseeing the development of this Plan. Councillor Calvert felt that the LDF Group had considered the Plan in depth, and he echoed the thanks given to officers; however, he felt that the Group’s ability to influence the Plan was very limited, and it was difficult to grasp the complexities of the individual policies. Councillor Calvert also considered this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

To receive Notices of Motion

a)             Councillor Birch

The current SEND (Special Educational Needs and Disabilities) provision by Nottinghamshire County Council is totally inadequate, with long wait times for assessment and insufficient access to services. Consequently, many families in Rushcliffe face significant hardship.

All children, regardless of their educational needs and disabilities, should receive the highest quality education and support.

This Council calls on Nottinghamshire County Council to take immediate action to improve SEND provision across the county, and urges central government to increase SEND funding.

Council resolves to:

·       Write to Nottinghamshire County Council to express our dissatisfaction with the current quality of SEND provision.

·       Write to Nottinghamshire County Council to demand that they meet their legal obligations with regards to completing EHCPs (Education, Health and Care Plans) within the statutory 20 week timeframe.

·       Write to Nottinghamshire County Council to request that they measure the qualitative, as well as quantitative, aspects of their SEND provision. 

·       Write to both the Secretary of State for Education, Bridget Phillipson MP, and the Minister of State for Education, Kelly Tolhurst MP, to request more funding is allocated to SEND education.

·       Request that Nottinghamshire County Council gather and properly consider a wider range of views from parent carers and SEND children than just those from the commissioned Nottinghamshire Parent Carer Forum.

·       Request that Nottinghamshire County Council implements a customer service desk to give parents of SEND children a central point of contact.

·       Request that Nottinghamshire County Council implements a Service Level Agreement between themselves and SEND parents, which guarantees that phone messages and emails will be responded to within two working days.

·       Request that Nottinghamshire County Council provides the Oliver McGowan Learning Disability and Autism Training to all teaching staff at schools across the county, as is currently mandated by the NHS.

·       Provide the Oliver McGowan Learning Disability and Autism Training to all Rushcliffe Borough Council staff and Councillors.

Rushcliffe Borough Council stands firmly in support of all children with SEND and their families. By adopting this motion, we call on Nottinghamshire County Council, and central government, to recognize the urgency of the situation and to take decisive action to enhance the quality and effectiveness of SEND provision.  

b)             Councillor Clarke

This Council is extremely disappointed that the Government has voted to restrict vital Winter Fuel Payments to only pensioners in receipt of means-tested benefits such as Pension Credit.

Age UK estimates that this will mean 2 million pensioners nationwide who depend on this fund to stay warm this coming winter will not receive it.

There are nearly 30,000 pensioners in Rushcliffe. While some pensioners currently in receipt of the Winter Fuel Payment may not require it, many across Rushcliffe will sit just above the cut-off for Pension Credit. These vulnerable residents will be impacted by this sudden, and deeply unfair, change in policy during the coldest months of the year. This will place additional strain on those that need it most and many will face the cruel dilemma of whether to “eat or heat”.  ...  view the full agenda text for item 32.

Councillor Parekh indicated an interest in this item and moved to sit in the public gallery. She took no part in the debate

a)  The following Notice of Motion was proposed by Councillor Birch and seconded by Councillor Chewings.

Prior to presenting her motion, Councillor Birch informed the Mayor that he wished to make an alteration to the motion using Standing Order Paragraph 4.58. After outlining the alteration, consent was given by the Council and Councillor Birch proceeded to move the motion.

“Council resolves to:

·      Write to Nottinghamshire County Council to express our dissatisfaction with the current quality of Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) provision.

·      Write to Nottinghamshire County Council to demand that they meet their legal obligations with regards to completing EHCPs (Education, Health and Care Plans) within the statutory 20 week timeframe.

·      Write to Nottinghamshire County Council to request that they measure the qualitative, as well as quantitative, aspects of their SEND provision. 

·      Write to both the Secretary of State for Education, Bridget Phillipson MP, and the Minister for School Standards, Catherine McKinnell MP, to request more funding is allocated to SEND education.

·      Request that Nottinghamshire County Council gather and properly consider a wider range of views from parent carers and SEND children than just those from the commissioned Nottinghamshire Parent Carer Forum.

·      Request that Nottinghamshire County Council implements a customer service desk to give parents of SEND children a central point of contact.

·      Request that Nottinghamshire County Council implements a Service Level Agreement between themselves and SEND parents, which guarantees that phone messages and emails will be responded to within two working days.

·      Request that Nottinghamshire County Council provides the Oliver McGowan Learning Disability and Autism Training to all teaching staff at schools across the county, as is currently mandated by the NHS.

·      Provide the Oliver McGowan Learning Disability and Autism Training to all Rushcliffe Borough Council staff and Councillors.

Rushcliffe Borough Council stands firmly in support of all children with SEND and their families. By adopting this motion, we call on Nottinghamshire County Council, and central government, to recognize the urgency of the situation and to take decisive action to enhance the quality and effectiveness of SEND provision.”  

In moving the motion, Councillor Birch advised that the Rushcliffe Independents were launching a Nottinghamshire SEND Improvement Campaign, with a petition being launched asking the County Council to undertake a number of measures. Councillor Birch highlighted what SEND included, as well as how a child could receive support, including an Education Health Care Plan (EHCP), and advised that there was a 20 weeks statutory time frame to receive a Plan once it had been requested. Currently the national average response rate was 50%; however, in 2022, the response rate at the County Council was 4.5%. Council was advised that a SEND Improvement Board had been set up by the County Council in 2023, following an Inspection by OFSTED and the Care Quality Commission, which had highlighted systemic failures. Despite the Board being set up, parents were still  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

To answer questions submitted by Councillors

a)       Question from Councillor Grocock to Councillor Upton

“Considering the findings of the Environment Agency’s Adaptive Investment for Growth July 2023 prospectus, presented to Growth and Development Scrutiny Committee on 6th March 2024, has there been any analysis of the factors behind Rushcliffe's low score for some of the report's Environmental Inequality Themes, particularly “Plants and Wildlife” for which Rushcliffe is ranked 295, the worst of all councils across Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire?”

Councillor Inglis summarised what the document covered and advised that it ranked Rushcliffe third for overall environmental quality across the county; however, the Council was very aware of the findings, which were based on historical data and had been discussed with the Environment Agency. Rushcliffe comprised largely of good to very good agricultural land, which had been intensively farmed, resulting in ecologically poor land and lower levels of biodiversity compared to other areas. However, the Council had a strong track record in encouraging wider biodiversity across the Borough and advised that Rushcliffe scored 219 for its air quality.

The Mayor asked Councillor Grocock if he had a supplementary question.

“Can the Council commit to developing a strategy with associated actual objectives to address our low score on plants and wildlife and other themes where we ranked relatively poorly with the report?”

Councillor Inglis advised that the Council could.

b)       Question from Councillor Way to Councillor J Wheeler

“Residents of estates that have ‘open space’ management fees are raising concerns about the possible consequences of the current play park survey. How will the Council reassure these residents that any outcomes from the survey will not result in obligatory changes to the facilities on their estates resulting in subsequent increases in their management fees?”

Councillor J Wheeler advised that the survey related to future play parks rather than current ones.

The Mayor asked Councillor Way if she had a supplementary question.

“Apart from financial considerations, what barriers are there preventing Borough or parish councils adopting these play areas?”

Councillor Wheeler advised that the Leader had taken the issue of management of open spaces up with Government ministers and currently, apart from the parks it had responsibility for, the Council had no legal ability to take on any others.

c)       Question from Councillor Plant to the Leader, Councillor Clarke MBE

“At the recent Corporate Overview Group the Quarter 1 position for 2024/5 was reported on. There is a predicted net revenue efficiency of £1.106M for 2024/5. £500,000 of the projected underspend is to be put into a new "West Bridgford town centre reserve" towards the pedestrianisation of WBTC i.e. Central Avenue. Can the Leader of the Council tell me has the decision to pedestrianise Central Avenue been made?”

The Leader advised that this was a complex issue, involving many partners and stakeholders, who would need to be involved, together with public consultation, and although pedestrianisation was not directly within the Borough’s gift, the overarching desire was to ensure the economic prosperity of that area, and the consultation would show if it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.