To receive Notices of Motion submitted under Standing Order No.12
Rushcliffe Borough Council is proud of its record in delivering high quality services to its residents in conjunction with prudent financial management to deliver those services with value for money and efficient use of all of its resources.
As a responsible Council it is important to regularly review all of our assets in order to ensure that they
This Council agrees that regular review of its property portfolio is necessary and responsible for the benefit of Rushcliffe residents.
This Council also agrees that all Members should support these review processes and do their utmost to uphold the reputation of the Council for delivering good service to its residents.
Councillor A Edyvean
Rushcliffe is receiving a significant number of housing applications as a result of which house building is underway in the Borough at an expedited rate. Following the motion considered at this Council in March 2019 relating to the Climate Emergency, this Council calls upon Government to change planning policy to reflect the resolve to recognise the Climate Emergency and asks that a report be brought to the next meeting of the Council detailing what can be achieved locally now and by Government or other policy changes in the future.
Councillor R Jones
Minutes:
a) The following motion was moved by Councillor Edyvean and seconded by Councillor J Wheeler
“Rushcliffe Borough Council is proud of its record in delivering high quality services to its residents in conjunction with prudent financial management to deliver those services with value for money and efficient use of all of its resources.
As a responsible Council it is important to regularly review all of our assets in order to ensure that they:
• Deliver value for money
• Meet the ever changing requirements of our Communities
• Optimise the best use of the Asset
This Council agrees that regular review of its property portfolio is necessary and responsible for the benefit of Rushcliffe residents.
This Council also agrees that all Members should support these review processes and do their utmost to uphold the reputation of the Council for delivering good service to its residents.”
Councillor Edyvean, in moving the motion confirmed that the proposal was self-explanatory and required no further clarification.
In seconding the motion, Councillor J Wheeler stated that the Council should not hesitate to let residents know that it understood its responsibility to manage public finances and the expectations of the public to deliver services. By regularly reviewing and scrutinising the Council’s property portfolio, the Council could ensure that assets were delivering the priorities referred to in the motion and reassure the public that the Council did not take its responsibilities lightly.
Councillor Gray proposed the following amendment.
“Rushcliffe Borough Council is proud of its record in delivering high quality services to its residents in conjunction with prudent financial management to deliver those services with value for money and efficient use of all of its resources.
As a responsible Council it is important to regularly review all of our assets in order to ensure that they:
• Deliver value for money and benefits to the community
• Meet the ever changing requirements of our Communities
• Optimise the best use of the Asset
• Retain sufficient land in public ownership to provide future services and facilities
This Council agrees that regular review of its property portfolio is necessary and responsible and that such reviews should be transparent and involve consultation with the community for the benefit of Rushcliffe residents.
This Council also agrees that all Members should support these review processes and do their utmost to uphold the reputation of the Council for delivering good service to its residents.”
Councillor Gray, in moving the amendment to the motion stated that he hoped the additional wording would improve the original motion and underline the Council’s priorities as a modern, progressive, open and transparent organisation. In referring to the first point of the amendment, Councillor Gray referred to the irreplaceable assets the Council had responsibility for and their importance to the community. Any loss would be profound and it was essential that assets were not only judged on financial return or market price at a given time but on the social and cultural benefits to the community. On the second point of the amendment, the importance of ensuring that the Council planned appropriately, whilst retaining sufficient land in public ownership to provide services and facilities as communities grew was vital. The final point of the amendment was perhaps the most important as it related to the first line of the Constitution, which referred to the Council being ‘committed to openness in how it operates.’ With that in mind, the Council had to be as open and transparent as possible and ensure that during any evaluation of an asset used by the community, that community should be the first to be consulted. Councillors should be the enablers of the community and in turn, the community could help to scrutinise and utilise assets. If the amended motion was passed, it would take into account the nature of the wider benefits of the Council’s assets, the scope of planning and the Council’s commitment to the highest standards of openness and transparency.
The motion was seconded by Councillor Thomas who reserved the right to speak.
Councillor Thomas requested a recorded vote on the amendment.
Councillor Edyvean confirmed that the Conservative Group did not accept the amendment as proposed, as it did not consider that the proposed amendment improved the original motion.
Councillor Jones stated that the original motion sought to tie Councillors to represent the financial decisions of the Council whilst the amended motion appeared more balanced. Many residents in West Bridgford were concerned that the Council had sold off too many assets and gained considerable capital from those sales. Residents remained very protective of the remaining assets in the area, including the two community halls with nearby parks and playing fields.
Councillor Robinson confirmed that he could not support the amendment, as he did not consider that it improved the original motion. Optimising the best use of an asset was one factor for consideration as were finance and meeting the changing requirements of communities. There were numerous examples throughout the Borough of where the Council had consulted and listened to local communities and invested in its assets and made improvements for the benefit of those communities, including Bridgford Hall. In Cotgrave over £10m of public money had been spent on providing first class community assets. The Council had a very proud record in delivering value for money and where assets had been sold, the revenue had been put into frontline services. The Rushcliffe Arena itself was the most incredible community asset and well used by numerous local residents. The Council ensured financial prudency to deliver those community assets.
Councillor Clarke endorsed the comments of Councillor Robinson and stated that the amendment lacked clarity and did not relate to specific quantities or values. The Council continued to review its assets and make the best use of them.
In seconding the amendment, Councillor Thomas confirmed that the suggested amendment did not relate specifically to money. Value for money was important; however, other issues were as important and the amendment added balance. Publically owned open spaces at the heart of any community were rare and if sold, it was unlikely that land could be replaced for the same affordable market price for public facilities. As a new Councillor, there had already been two proposals for projects involving the disposal of such assets. Was it the Council’s policy to sell off all of its assets for short-term gain or was consideration given to keeping land in public ownership? A balance had to be struck between the future use of an asset and any financial gain from a sale and the amendment covered that issue.
Councillor Combellack advised that the original motion covered the points raised by the earlier speakers regarding meeting the changing requirements of local communities.
Councillor Butler commented that the Council had a significant history of investment and the wording in the amendment was unnecessary. The Council was well respected and had recently won several awards.
Councillor Gaunt stated that the community would be most alarmed if the amendment was rejected, as it would appear that certain Councillors were refusing to accept the need for transparency and consultation with the community.
Councillor Begum stated that since becoming a Councillor, she had been made aware by many local residents of the importance of consultation and the amendment emphasised that.
In response to comments made regarding the amendment to the motion, Councillor Gray thanked all Councillors who had taken part in the debate and reiterated the view that reviews should be transparent and involve consultation with the community. Moving the original motion would emphasise the financial value rather than the societal value of the process.
Councillor Edyvean stated that the Council had an excellent record of purchasing land and was investing in its assets rather than selling them. Some of the Council’s assets were commercial making public consultation on them impractical. The Council had a robust Commercial Strategy of investment in assets that helped to maintain low Council Tax rates for residents.
In accordance with Standing Orders – Council 16.4, a recorded vote was taken for the amended motion as follows:
FOR: Councillors N Begum, M Gaunt, B Gray, L Howitt, R Jones, A Major, R Mallender, J Murray, K Shaw, C Thomas, J Walker and L Way.
AGAINST: Councillors R Adair, K Beardsall, B Buschman, R Butler, N Clarke, T Combellack, J Cottee, G Dickman, A Edyvean, L Healy, R Hetherington, R Inglis, A Brennan, D Mason, A Phillips, S Robinson, Mrs M Stockwood, R Upton, D Virdi, R Walker, D Wheeler, J Wheeler and G Williams.
ABSTENTION: Councillors Mrs C Jeffreys and S Mallender.
The amended motion was declared as lost.
In debating the original motion, Councillor Edyvean confirmed that there had been no recent proposals through Cabinet to sell any assets. The Council was reviewing and evaluating its assets but at no time had it specified that it was planning to sell any. The Council’s commercial assets were highly important and land had been purchased to provide community facilities, including land for the construction of the new leisure centre in Bingham. The motion covered the points regarding community involvement. Value for money involved the delivery of both value for money and optimising the best use of assets. The Council could not undertake public consultation every time it involved a commercial asset and the wording of the motion was appropriate.
There was no further debate. After being put to the vote, the motion was declared as carried.
b) The following motion was moved by Councillor Jones and seconded by Councillor R Mallender who reserved the right to speak.
“Rushcliffe is receiving a significant number of housing applications as a result of which house building is underway in the Borough at an expedited rate. Following the Motion considered at this Council in March 2019 relating to Climate Emergency, this Council calls upon the Government to change planning policy to reflect the resolve to recognise the Climate Emergency and asks that a report be brought to the next meeting of the Council detailing what can be achieved locally now and by Government or other policy changes in the future.”
Councillor Jones, in moving the motion advised that a significant number of recently built new homes were unfit for a carbon neutral future, with further developments yet to be approved. New dwellings should be carbon neutral and produce some energy, as converting existing buildings would prove extremely costly and would not be as efficient. The Council must encourage developers to construct better, more eco-friendly new builds with micro-generation. A report should be submitted to the next Council meeting to advise what could be achieved within the existing Core Strategy and National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and if policy changes within the Council could assist. Could greater weight be given to Core Strategy Policy 2 on Climate Change and the NPPF Core Planning Principles paragraph 17? Secondly, could the Council ask the Government to be more adventurous? Recent Government publications including a ‘Green Growth Strategy’ and ‘A Future Framework for Heat in Buildings’ contained laudable aims; however, any action still appeared to be far away, with developers reluctant to make any significant changes. Planning and building regulation policy guidance required urgent improvement by the Government. This motion recognised the motion submitted in March 2019; however, the subject was different. That motion related to long term planning and consideration of the Council’s own carbon plan. The current motion considered both current and pending developments and requested more immediate action.
Councillor J Wheeler confirmed that the Council’s Carbon Management Plan would be scrutinised by the Communities Scrutiny Group at its meeting in October 2019, with its recommendations then taken to Cabinet and Council. Councillors were asked to forward any ideas or suggestions on potential improvements to the Plan to reach the Council’s target of being carbon neutral.
Councillor Upton advised that the Council had ambitious targets and continued to remain proactive with ongoing scrutiny. It would be impractical to submit a report to the next Council meeting, before the Carbon Management Plan had been scrutinised in October 2019. The Council did not have the authority to amend national policy. It would now be impractical to change the Local Planning Policy Part 2 and he proposed the following amendment.
“Rushcliffe is receiving a significant number of housing applications as a result of which house building is underway in the Borough at an expedited rate. Following the Motion considered at this Council in March 2019 relating to Climate Emergency, this Council calls upon the Government to change planning policy to reflect the resolve to recognise the Climate Emergency.”
Councillor Robinson seconded the amendment and reserved the right to speak.
Councillor Jones advised that he would abstain from voting as given the number of pending local developments it was important that action be taken immediately.
Councillor J Walker stated that to remove the request for the submission of a report to the next Council meeting it would detract from the urgency of the situation.
Councillor R Walker noted that if the timeframe for action was removed, it would detract from the motion and if it was too soon to submit a report to the next Council meeting, a compromise should be sought.
Councillor Gaunt echoed the comments of Councillor R Walker.
Councillor Clarke suggested that given the timescales involved it would be impractical to submit a report to the next Council Meeting.
In seconding the amendment, Councillor Robinson agreed that it was important to provide the most eco-friendly dwellings possible. The Council was working with the developers for both the Abbey Road and Fairham projects to ensure they provided the highest quality, most environmentally efficient housing that the whole Borough would be proud of. The UK was the first of the G7 nations to commit by law to becoming net zero carbon by 2050 and that would be achieved through actions rather than words. Environmental bodies including the Woodland Trust were working with the Government to bring through standards to be adopted by local authorities. Councillors needed to be realistic about what could be achieved within specific timescales and the Council had set a timescale of March 2020, when Cabinet and Council would consider the report from the Communities Scrutiny Group.
In response to the comments made regarding the amendment to the motion, Councillor Upton confirmed that the issue was complex and adequate time was required and September 2019 was an unrealistic target. Officers were working hard and it was hoped that the development at Abbey Road would become an exemplar of good development for the East Midlands.
Councillor Jones stated that he was aware of the work being undertaken for the Abbey Road and Fairham developments; however, he was concerned that there were many other sites currently being developed that failed to reflect the Council’s aspirations and time was of the essence.
There was no further debate. After being put to the vote, the amendment to the motion was carried.
The Mayor read out the substantive motion.
“Rushcliffe is receiving a significant number of housing applications as a result of which house building is underway in the Borough at an expedited rate. Following the Motion considered at this Council in March 2019 relating to Climate Emergency, this Council calls upon the Government to change planning policy to reflect the resolve to recognise the Climate Emergency.”
In debating the substantive motion, Councillor R Mallender stated that it was correct that the Council should put this issue to the Government and ask it to act urgently on planning policy, as action was required. The Government still had a long way to go to fulfil public expectations.
Councillor Thomas proposed the following amendment.
“Rushcliffe is receiving a significant number of housing applications as a result of which house building is underway in the Borough at an expedited rate. Following the Motion considered at this Council in March 2019 relating to Climate Emergency, this Council calls upon the Government to change planning policy to reflect the resolve to recognise the Climate Emergency and undertakes to include in the review of the Core Strategy, full consideration of energy efficient standards.”
The amendment was seconded by Councillor Shaw, who reserved the right to speak.
In moving the amendment, Councillor Thomas stated that if the Council was to change its policies, the Core Strategy was the place where energy efficiencies standards and considerations should be added and the wording added value to the motion.
Councillor Robinson confirmed that the Scrutiny Groups considered all those issues and the additional wording added nothing to the motion.
Councillor Jones queried the possibility of amending the Core Strategy.
Councillor Upton stated that Part 1 of the Core Strategy dated from December 2014, and the consultation for Part 2 had finished on 5 July 2019. The Strategy was now with the Government Inspector and it was hoped that the Plan would be brought to the Council meeting in September 2019. The Council currently had a 3.4-year housing supply that was problematic and the adoption of the Local Plan would give the Council the five-year supply it required. Any delay would therefore be seriously detrimental to the Council. Demand for further housing would continue past the life of the current Local Plan as the population and needs continued to grow and it was important that plans were in place to meet those needs.
Councillor Jones stated that whilst he fully understood the situation, would it be possible to convene the Local Development Framework (LDF) to produce a supplementary planning document that could be approved by the Council.
Councillor Upton confirmed that the LDF would be meeting in early September 2019, before the proposed adoption of the Local Plan Part 2 and it would be possible to discuss the issue at that meeting. He confirmed that the next Local Development Plan would contain Part 1 and Part 2 and it would be appropriate to consider amendments when Part 1 was being drafted.
In response to comments made regarding the amendment to the motion, Councillor Thomas confirmed that in her amendment she was requesting that a review take place during the next Local Plan process.
Councillor Upton agreed that the Council would look at those issues during the next review of the Local Plan Part 1.
There was no further debate. On being put to the vote, the amendment to the motion was declared as lost.
There was no further debate on the substantive motion. On being put to the vote, the substantive motion was carried.