To receive Notices of Motion submitted under Standing Order No.12
a) We call on this Council to actively support alternative forms of transport into Nottingham, in particular cycling, and ask that a detailed piece of work is undertaken by Scrutiny and reported back to Cabinet on improvements that could be made to the cycling network and infrastructure in Rushcliffe using the newly available funds from Central Government.
Councillor J Walker
b) We have all probably seen photographs of the flowery, bee-friendly waysides that have been planted in Rotherham and have no doubt we have all been asked by residents to achieve the same for our own wards. Rushcliffe Borough Council resolves:
To ask Scrutiny to review the feasibility of sowing native wild flower seeds along the road verges that it manages and put forwards recommendations to the Cabinet.
Councillor P Gowland
c) This Council resolves to develop a fair, transparent, and consultative process to allocate the portions of the Community Infrastructure Levy on its Infrastructure List collected for "provision of or improvements to playing pitches and ancillary facilities" and for "provision of or improvements to indoor leisure provision.” Furthermore, the Council resolves to allocate these funds for spending in a timely fashion so that the infrastructure to support development is provided sooner rather than later.
Councillor C Thomas
Minutes:
a. The following Notice of Motion was proposed by Councillor J Walker and seconded by Councillor Bansal.
“We call on this Council to actively support alternative forms of transport into Nottingham, in particular cycling, and ask that a detailed piece of work is undertaken by Scrutiny and reported back to Cabinet on improvements that could be made to the cycling network and infrastructure in Rushcliffe using the newly available funds from Central Government.”
Councillor J Walker, in moving the motion, reminded the Council that its tagline was; ‘Great Place, Great Lifestyle, Great Sport’. That tagline encapsulated all that the Council wanted to work towards for its residents, but it needed to be more than just a tagline. The most recent Cycling Strategy published by the Authority dated back to 1995 and she questioned how the Council expected developers to plan for sustainable cycling routes if the Council did not make it clear what it required. Councillor Walker considered that the Borough had been let down by Nottinghamshire County Council this week in relation to provision for cycle paths within the Borough. The County had come 75th out of 78 local authorities in bidding for funding to help people walk or cycle during the Covid-19 pandemic and keep public transport free for those that have no alternative transport. The County Council had only been awarded £260,000 out of a total of £573,000 available. Councillor Walker stated that she would like the Council to develop a document to complement the County Council’s Cycling Strategy, which linked new developments through to existing infrastructure and she believed that scrutiny was the right forum for that to happen.
Councillor Bansal seconded the motion and reserved the right to speak.
Councillor Clarke strongly supported the need to encourage cycling within the Borough; however, he considered that it would be misplaced to ask scrutiny to develop a Rushcliffe Strategy. Councillor Clarke advised that he would prefer to see a more joined up and collaborative approach in partnership with the County Council, as the Highways Authority. Scrutiny should not be used for issues over which the Borough Council had no control. Councillor Clarke reminded all Councillors that they could lobby their County Councillors to make improvements to the cycling network within the Borough. He highlighted that further funding under the same scheme was being made available in the coming week. Councillor Clarke proposed an amendment to the motion:
“This Council supports alternative forms of transport in and around Rushcliffe, in particular cycling, and will strive to work with Nottinghamshire County Council, as Highway Authority, to identify improvements that could be made to the cycling network in Rushcliffe.”
Councillor Cottee seconded the amendment and reserved the right to speak.
Councillor Gray advised that the substantive part of the original motion was to work with Nottinghamshire County Council as the Highways Authority. He did not believe that the phrase ‘strive to work’ had the same emphasis and consequently he would not be supporting the amendment as he considered that it diluted the original motion.
Councillor Jones confirmed that he was in favour of the spirit of original motion and was pleased to hear Councillor Clarke’s commitment to improving the cycling network. He advised that he would be happy to support the amendment if the word ‘actively’ was inserted before strive as he considered that best intentions fall foul when trying to work with the County Council. Councillor Jones proposed the following amendment to the amendment:
“This Council supports alternative forms of transport in and around Rushcliffe, in particular cycling, and will actively strive to work with Nottinghamshire County Council, as Highway Authority, to identify improvements that could be made to the cycling network in Rushcliffe.”
Councillor Gaunt seconded the amendment to the amendment. He stated that the Cycling Strategy was very old and he did not see why the Council could not make new plans, which reflected the current position. He considered that the inclusion of the word ‘actively’ made the statement an action and therefore held the Council accountable.
Councillor Gowland stated that collaborating with the County Council was not sufficient and added that the Council was best placed to understand the needs of cyclists in Rushcliffe.
Councillor Jones concluded that the motion needed energy behind it to capitalise on the benefits of the pandemic in terms of people choosing to use alternative forms of transport.
There was no further debate. After being put to the vote, the amendment to the amendment was lost.
The debate returned to the first amendment.
Councillor R Mallender stated that everyone needed to play a part in creating neighbourhoods that were not exclusively reliant on cars. The Borough required a decent cycling infrastructure and he called upon those Councillors that also represented the Borough at a County level to create momentum for developing a good cycling network throughout the Borough.
Councillor Way stated that she was in favour of the original motion, as it enabled the community to build upon the benefits lockdown had brought to individual’s health and to the environment. However, she urged that safety be considered in any development of this kind as combining cyclists with pedestrians could have a life changing impact when things went wrong.
Councillor Robinson stated that he did not believe that the amendment weakened the original motion; in fact, it strengthened the motion for the Borough, as cycling journeys took place between towns and villages as well as into and out of the City and the amendment included travel across the whole of Rushcliffe. He advised that the Borough was represented by its County Councillors, and they were all well placed to bring this change about.
Councillor Cottee thanked Councillor Walker for raising this subject at Council and informed Councillors that the County Council had spent £3.6million in the last three years on cycling routes. £1.4million of this had been in the Borough making significant improvements to the safety of the cycling route from Wheatcroft Island into West Bridgford. The Government had made it clear that it wanted the Highways Authority to develop an integrated cycling and walking infrastructure plan; the County Council was working with other authorities within the D2N2 area to deliver that in a coordinated way.
Councillor Cottee informed Council that the County Council would identify priorities for delivery, as funding opportunities become available, and he encouraged all Councillors to lobby their County Councillors, as further tranches of funding from Government would be forthcoming.
In summing up, Councillor Clarke recognised that more emphasis on safe cycling within the Borough created a better environment for all residents as well as resulting in better neighbourhoods; however, he highlighted that it was essential that a cycle network was created across the Borough and not just in one direction.
On being put to the vote, the amendment to the motion was carried.
The Mayor read out the substantive motion.
“This Council supports alternative forms of transport in and around Rushcliffe, in particular cycling, and will strive to work with Nottinghamshire County Council, as Highway Authority, to identify improvements that could be made to the cycling network in Rushcliffe.”
Councillor Walker aired her disappointment that the motion as originally proposed had been diluted and, more importantly, used as a political party broadcast on behalf of the County Council. She advised that she had brought forward the motion to create safe spaces for cycling, to allow public transport to be prioritised for those needing it during the pandemic.
In response, Councillor Clarke drew Councillors attention to the fact that the motion now focused upon creating cycle routes within the Borough and working with the County Council instead of spending time on changes that the Borough Council had no power to bring about.
On being put to the vote, the substantive motion was carried.
b. The following Notice of Motion was proposed by Councillor Gowland and seconded by Councillor Murray.
“We have all probably seen photographs of the flowery, bee friendly waysides that have been planted in Rotherham and have no doubt we have all been asked by residents to achieve the same for our own wards. Rushcliffe Borough Council resolves:
To ask Scrutiny to review the feasibility of sowing native wild flower seeds along the road verges that it manages and put forwards recommendations to the Cabinet.”
In presenting the motion, Councillor Gowland informed Council that the UK had lost 97% of its wildflower meadows in less than a century and that rewilding roadside verges provide the Council with the opportunity to undo some of that damage. In areas where rewilding had already been trialled, fewer cuts have reduced costs to Council, increased biodiversity and contributed towards carbon reduction targets. Councillor Gowland stated that increased time spent in a more natural environment could alter brain development and increase feelings of calm. She called upon Councillors to support the motion, which asked scrutiny to consider the rewilding of road verges in the Borough.
Councillor Murray seconded the motion and reserved the right to speak.
Councillor Cottee thanked Councillor Gowland for the motion but informed Council that he could not support it. The motion asked for scrutiny to review the feasibility of sowing wildflowers on verges it managed; however, the Council did not manage any verges in the Borough, Nottinghamshire County Council managed them all. Councillor Cottee reported that the County Council had undertaken trials, but those had not been successful so far. He advised that the County Council had prioritised visibility and safety when it came to roadside verges. Councillor Cottee referred to a document published by the County Council, which had been due to be discussed at the County’s Communities and Place Committee on 2 April 2020. That meeting had been cancelled due to the Covid-19 pandemic; however, it was expected it to be considered shortly.
Taking regard of Councillor Cottee’s comments, Councillor Gray proposed an amendment to the motion to replace ‘road verges’ with ‘grassed areas’. The amendment was seconded by Councillor J Walker and accepted by Councillor Gowland. The motion was as follows:
“We have all probably seen photographs of the flowery, bee friendly waysides that have been planted in Rotherham and have no doubt we have all been asked by residents to achieve the same for our own wards. Rushcliffe Borough Council resolves:
To ask Scrutiny to review the feasibility of sowing native wild flower seeds along the grassed areas that it manages and put forwards recommendations to the Cabinet.”
In responding to the acceptance of the amendment, Councillor Gray asked that scrutiny consider the trialling of wildflower planting in a small number of areas.
Councillor Jones advised that he fully supported the intention of the motion in appropriate areas and would be interested to hear other Councillors’ views in terms of action that the Borough Council could take to encourage the Highway Authority to consider rewilding grass verges.
Councillor R Mallender considered that a sensible approach and advised that, regardless of who owned the grass, everyone should be doing the best job possible to look after the environment.
Councillor Clarke reminded Council that it had already considered and undertaken some rewilding many years ago and the current motion was not suggesting anything new.
Councillor G Wheeler thanked Councillor Gowland for her motion and Councillor Cottee for referring to the paper that the County Council had yet to consider. Councillor Wheeler reported that as the Chairman of the Communities and Place Committee, he was totally committed to bringing this issue forward. He advised that he would be meeting with officers next month to discuss rewilding in a measured and focused way on sites that would clearly benefit from that approach. Those sites would be carefully managed in conjunction with partners such as the Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust.
Councillor Robinson reminded Councillors that the Council already did much to support the biodiversity of the Borough, regularly winning awards for its local parks and open spaces, and continued to run the free trees scheme to boost the natural environment. He considered that the Council was already doing what it could to improve the Borough’s environment.
Councillor Way highlighted that East Leake had been trying to develop a strategy for planting wild flowers but had come across difficulties in respect of who had responsibility for the land.
Councillor Gaunt thanked Councillor Wheeler for his update and stated that he was pleased that the motion now focused on a larger proportion of land in the Borough.
Councillor Murray reported that, in other areas, significant financial savings had been made, as well as increasing biodiversity and promoting health and wellbeing.
Councillor J Stockwood reminded Councillors that they had just approved the Council’s Asset Management Plan, which had highlighted amenity land in the Borough. He referred to the Council’s Nature Conservation Policy, which was due for review shortly, before suggesting that not all grassed open spaces were suitable for rewilding, as they often had other uses within the community.
Councillor Gowland welcomed the support she had received for the rewilding motion and passed on her thanks to Councillor Wheeler for championing the cause with the County Council. Councillor Gowland noted the problems caused by multiple ownership of land and agreed that not all areas were appropriate to be rewilded. She welcomed the opportunity for scrutiny to consider this important topic.
On being put to the vote, the amended motion was carried.
c. The following Notice of Motion was proposed by Councillor Thomas and seconded by Councillor Way.
“This Council resolves to develop a fair, transparent, and consultative process to allocate the portions of the Community Infrastructure Levy on its Infrastructure List collected for "provision of or improvements to playing pitches and ancillary facilities" and for "provision of or improvements to indoor leisure provision.” Furthermore, the Council resolves to allocate these funds for spending in a timely fashion so that the infrastructure to support development is provided sooner rather than later.”
In presenting the motion, Councillor Thomas explained that in villages within the Borough such as East Leake, infrastructure had not been provided in a timely fashion, which had created a strain on existing facilities. Therefore, it was proposed that when the Council collected the Community Infrastructure Levy for new developments, it should be allocated fairly and promptly to ensure that existing community facilities did not become overwhelmed. Additionally, she considered that parish council’s should have access to funding for development in their area and that the money should be spent where it is required.
Councillor Way seconded the motion and reserved the right to speak.
Councillor Moore stated that the Conservative Party would support the motion.
Councillor Gaunt stated that the Labour Party Group would support the motion and agreed that the village of East Leake had seen extreme levels of new development without having the community infrastructure to accommodate its new residents. He noted therefore, that the Community Infrastructure Levy was the only solution to ease the weight of new developments. Councillor Gaunt expressed concern that 588 new homes were to be built in the village of Ruddington, which would see community facilities such as public transport and schools overwhelmed, and he advised that it would be essential that the Community Infrastructure Levy should be implemented quickly and transparently in order to mitigate any damage that new developments might bring.
Councillor Jones supported the motion on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Group and stated that profits from the purchase of new development land should be allocated to the Council, so that new community facilities could be built for residents. He noted that the Council would always be faced with the dilemma of building developments first before providing community facilities and so it was vital that the Levy should be spent in a timely fashion.
Councillor R Mallender supported the motion on behalf of the Green Party.
Councillor Edyvean advised that although 1,200 houses had been built in East Leake, the Council’s Planning Committee had not supported all of those applications, and an independent Planning Inspector had permitted them. He reiterated the importance of the implementation of the Local Plan Part 2, which would enable the Council to be protected from that type of development in the future.
In seconding the motion, Councillor Way stated that she was pleased to note the Council’s support of the motion and she confirmed that residents had been informed of the Planning Inspector’s decisions when they challenged local councillors about the number of housing developments in East Leake. Councillor Way stated that it was important that communities should be involved in consultation and be made aware of how the Levy was allocated.
Councillor Thomas expressed her appreciation of the Council supporting her motion.
On being put to the vote, the Motion was carried.