To receive Notices of Motion submitted under Standing Order No.12
a) In light of recent reports on council company governance issues leading to company failures, job losses, significant financial losses to the tax payer and council budgets being overly reliant on single commercial income streams, potentially impacted by Covid-19.
This Council calls on the Government to provide clearer governance and risk management guidance to councils taking part in commercial ventures - to ensure that local council tax-payers’ money and jobs are better protected.
Councillor S Robinson
Give due consideration to the potential impact of the building of housing in flood risk areas, zones 1-3.
Where proposed sites in the Rushcliffe part of the Greater Nottingham Strategic Plan fall within flood prone areas to actively engage with statutory consultees to ensure robust assessment of the proposal.
Councillor M Gaunt
Minutes:
a. The following Notice of Motion was proposed by Councillor Robinson and seconded by Councillor Brennan.
This Council calls on the Government to provide clearer governance and risk management guidance to councils taking part in commercial ventures - to ensure that local council taxpayers’ money and jobs are better protected.”
Cllr Robinson informed Council, in moving the motion, that he had brought this motion forward to protect local businesses and people employed by local authorities. He reminded Council that since 2010, local authorities had been encouraged to diversify, generate additional income streams and become more business-like. Central Government did this on trust leaving it up to councils to ensure they had the right governance structures, skilled employees, risk awareness and financial backing. Rushcliffe had taken up that challenge and delivered. There was an Asset Investment Board, which considered investments and risks, it had developed a very successful portfolio, and senior council officers have been trained by the Institute of Directors to be competent in this new area. At the heart of this approach was the understanding that councils managed public money and, consequently, had substantial responsibility to ensure that was used wisely and prudently. Councillor Robinson reminded Council that Rushcliffe had recently been recognised as the Best Commercial Council and the most Entrepreneurial Local Authority in the same year after a number of successes including the delivery of Bridgford Hall, the regeneration of Cotgrave town centre, Rushcliffe Arena and Streetwise. He outlined a number of other councils that had not been as effective with their investments, with a detrimental effect on local communities, local authority finances, and in many cases people employed by those new businesses. He believed that central government should be setting guidelines for local authorities to steer their activities in this area to protect local taxpayers, council run businesses and their employees.
Councillor Brennan seconded the motion and reminded Council that all local authorities were facing extreme financial challenges and that many front-line services were under threat. The Covid-19 pandemic had left many councils weaker still. She supported the need for guidelines to be published to support local authorities in their commercial ventures to protect public resources.
Councillor Gray informed Council that the Labour Group would be supporting the motion but that they objected to the overtly political manner in which the Leader had presented the motion. He also reported that research showed that councils with the greatest social need invested heavily and early to off-set the losses made by austerity cuts – cuts they would not have needed to make if Central Government had not removed the Revenue Support Grant.
Councillor Jones also supported the motion but informed Council that political point scoring was unnecessary in this case. Councils of all political persuasions had diversified in order to meet the growing budget gap, some had been successful, others had not. Commercialism was not an effective way to support public services in all areas.
Councillor R Mallender suggested that it was a failure of scrutiny and risk management by parties with an overwhelming majority thinking that they knew best on behalf of their residents. He claimed it was a warning that all councils needed to heed. Commercialisation was not a bad idea per se, councils just needed to do it better. Local authorities needed to have the competence to understand how businesses worked, as did Councillors, to ensure that they could ask the right questions.
Councillor Thomas declared that the motion was politically motivated, designed to highlight the risks of commercial activity in relation to other councils but not this authority. She proposed an amendment to the motion, which would be seconded by Councillor Jones.
On checking against the Constitution, the Monitoring Officer declared that the motion, as amended, was not acceptable as it completely changed the purpose and function of the original motion. Councillor Thomas was given the option of continuing with any further comments she wished to add on the motion but declined.
Councillor Robinson agreed with the comments made by Councillor R Mallender and stated that the Council had an excellent process in place for managing its risks. It was noted that the Council had turned down projects and investments in order to manage its risks.
On being put to the vote, the motion was carried, with two abstentions (Councillors Thomas and Shaw).
b. The following Notice of Motion was proposed by Councillor Gaunt and seconded by Councillor J Walker.
“The 21% of new homes built in the flood zone in Rushcliffe is the highest in Nottinghamshire and cannot still be considered a sustainable option. The Environment Agency in England has said building homes on flood plains should be resisted where possible and Conservative MP John Redwood has stated in February 2020 that “building on land most at risk of flooding was a very foolish thing to do.” With the future impact of climate breakdown meaning that flooding is likely to intensify in both frequency and severity, we call on the Borough Council to commit to the following actions:
Give due consideration to the potential impact of the building of housing in flood risk areas, zones 1-3.
Where proposed sites in the Rushcliffe part of the Greater Nottingham Strategic Plan fall within flood prone areas to actively engage with statutory consultees to ensure robust assessment of the proposal.”
The Mayor made Council aware that the motion contained a typographical error. A vote was taken to accept the correction of the error before the Mayor invited Councillor Gaunt to present his motion.
The corrected motion reads:
“The 21% of new homes built in the flood zone in Rushcliffe is the highest in Nottinghamshire and cannot still be considered a sustainable option. The Environment Agency in England has said building homes on flood plains should be resisted where possible and Conservative MP John Redwood has stated in February 2020 that “building on land most at risk of flooding was a very foolish thing to do.” With the future impact of climate breakdown meaning that flooding is likely to intensify in both frequency and severity, we call on the Borough Council to commit to the following actions:
Give due consideration to the potential impact of the building of housing in flood risk areas, zones 2-3.
Where proposed sites in the Rushcliffe part of the Greater Nottingham Strategic Plan fall within flood prone areas to actively engage with statutory consultees to ensure robust assessment of the proposal.”
Councillor Gaunt, in moving the motion, gave a number of examples where senior public officials had made comment on the dangers of building new homes on local flood plains. He also drew Council’s attention to the part that flooding was playing in the climate emergency, which this Council had pledged to address locally. However, Rushcliffe continued to approve plans allowing others to build on the flood plain. It also allocated land at risk of flooding for development in the Local Plan. Councillor Gaunt explained that this motion was necessary to ensure the Council considered and consulted upon all other options before building on the flood plain. He concluded by saying that building new homes on the flood plain was not sustainable – economically, socially or environmentally.
Councillor J Walker seconded the motion and reserved the right to speak.
Councillor Upton responded to the motion on behalf of the leading group. He stated that he was very surprised that the motion had been put forward as the Council already considered alternative options and undertook extensive consultation before approving land for allocation or new developments. He also pointed out that there had not been significant flooding on any new development in the Borough built in the last five years and moved that the motion be put to the vote without further debate.
Councillor Gaunt argued against setting aside discussion of the motion as he felt this was an important issue that deserved to be debated democratically in an open forum.
Councillor Gray raised a point of order, referred the Mayor to section 14.11.c of the Council’s Constitution, and stated that Councillor Upton’s motion to proceed directly to the vote had not been seconded.
Councillor Robinson seconded the motion to proceed directly to the vote and reassured Councillor Gaunt that his Group would be supporting the motion as the Council already undertook the measures he was proposing.
Councillor Jones added his support to the motion and raised concerns that what the Council was currently doing was not working and did not go far enough to protect the flood plains. He pointed out that building on flood plains did not necessarily mean that those properties would flood but suggested the Council look more widely at the impact of developments as there had been significant additional flooding in more established parts of the Borough adjacent to new developments.
Councillor Thomas encouraged the Council to take the opportunity to assess flood risk as more than just a box ticking exercise.
Councillor J Walker, who had reserved her right to speak, was disappointed that a more productive debate had not taken place. She reiterated that the Council needed to stop allocating land for development and approving plans to develop in Zones 2-3.
On being put to the vote, the motion was carried.