To receive Notices of Motion submitted under Standing Order No.12
a) Rushcliffe Borough Council, along with the other district councils in the East Midlands, are on the precipice of change. We have made the initial steps towards a more sustainable future by acknowledging the climate emergency; auditing our carbon footprint and committing to divestment away from fossil fuels; and these actions are welcomed. But Covid-19 has accelerated the need to for a rethink about whether our current economic models is environmentally, socially or even economically sustainable.
Community wealth building is a people-centred approach to local economic development. It reorganises local economies to be fairer and more democratic. It stops wealth flowing out of our communities, towns and cities. Instead, it places control of this wealth into the hands of local people, communities, businesses and organisations. Community wealth building promotes the progressive procurement of goods and services, as this spending power can be a means through which greater economic, social and environmental benefits can be achieved. By adapting their procurement processes and decision making, anchor institutions can anchor institutions can create dense local supply chains and ecosystems of businesses that are more likely to support local employment and have a greater tendency to recirculate wealth and surplus locally.
We call upon this Council:
1) To investigate Community Wealth Building as a means of ensuring that money is kept circulating in our local economies.
2) To support our local economy and businesses particularly SME’s accepting procurement law and to engage with other anchor institutions in Rushcliffe to encourage them to procure locally wherever possible.
3) To investigate the possibility of establishing Community Land Trusts or working through Public-Commons Partnerships as a means of transforming the ownership of many under-utilised public assets by transferring decision making to citizens through common ownership.
Councillor J Walker
b) Humans have already caused irreversible climate change, the impacts of which are being felt in Rushcliffe, the UK and around the world. Global temperatures have increased by 1 degree Celsius from pre-industrial levels. Atmospheric CO2 levels are above 400 parts per million (ppm) and continue to rise. This far exceeds the 350 ppm deemed to be a safe level for humanity. Without more significant and sustained action, the world is set to exceed the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C limit between 2030 and 2040. Therefore, the current UK target of net zero by 2050 is not satisfactory. It is too little too late.
The increase in harm caused by a rise of 2°C rather than 1.5°C is significant. This is described by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C published in October 2018. According to the IPCC, limiting heating to 1.5°C may still be possible with ambitious action from national and sub-national authorities, civil society, the private sector and local communities. The costs of failing to address this crisis will far outstrip the investments required to prevent it. Investing now will bring many benefits in the form of good jobs, breathable cities and thriving communities.
Local authorities such as Devon County, Croyden Borough and Lancaster City have established Citizens’ Assemblies that are playing an important role in assisting them in their plans to achieve net zero by 2030 or before.
A bill has been laid before Parliament—the Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill (published as the “Climate and Ecology Bill”)—according to which the Government must develop an emergency strategy that:
a. requires that the UK plays a fair and proper role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions consistent with limiting global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees C above pre-industrial temperatures;
b. ensures that all the UK’s consumption emissions are accounted for;
c. includes emissions from aviation and shipping;
d. protects and restores biodiverse habitats along overseas supply chains;
e. restores and regenerates the UK’s depleted soils, wildlife habitats and species populations to healthy and robust states, maximising their capacity to absorb CO2 and their resistance to climate heating;
f. sets up an independent Citizens’ Assembly, representative of the UK’s population, to engage with Parliament and Government and help develop the emergency strategy.
Council therefore resolves to:
1. Support the Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill;
2. Set up a Citizens’ Assembly to develop an emergency strategy for Rushcliffe as set out in the Bill;
3. Publicise its decision;
4. Write to local MPs, asking them to support the Bill; and
5. Write to the CEE Bill Alliance, the organisers of the campaign for the Bill, expressing its support (campaign@ceebill.uk).
Councillor P Gowland
c) Back in 2014, Rushcliffe adopted its local plan for housing in the Borough. Despite numerous appeals to the Housing Minister, the plan had to include many thousands of additional homes, to meet the needs of Nottingham, because of the Duty To Co-operate policy.
Delivery of these additional homes has put an intolerable strain on infrastructure and local services across the Borough. Moreover, it has required the release of large swathes of our green belt and changed the nature and character of many of the rural settlements of the Borough.
As the Council prepares its legal obligation to agree the next Local Plan, this Council calls on the Government to remove the Duty to Co-operate in the forthcoming Planning Bill and calls on Nottingham City Council to be more flexible and adaptable to deliver the new homes needed in the City going forward.
Councillor R Upton
Minutes:
a. The following Notice of Motion was proposed by Councillor J Walker and seconded by Councillor Gaunt.
“Rushcliffe Borough Council, along with the other district councils in the East Midlands, are on the precipice of change. We have made the initial steps towards a more sustainable future by acknowledging the climate emergency; auditing our carbon footprint and committing to divestment away from fossil fuels; and these actions are welcomed. But Covid-19 has accelerated the need to for a rethink about whether our current economic models is environmentally, socially or even economically sustainable.
Community wealth building is a people-centred approach to local economic development. It reorganises local economies to be fairer and more democratic. It stops wealth flowing out of our communities, towns and cities. Instead, it places control of this wealth into the hands of local people, communities, businesses and organisations. Community wealth building promotes the progressive procurement of goods and services, as this spending power can be a means through which greater economic, social and environmental benefits can be achieved. By adapting their procurement processes and decision making, anchor institutions can anchor institutions can create dense local supply chains and ecosystems of businesses that are more likely to support local employment and have a greater tendency to recirculate wealth and surplus locally.
We call upon this Council:
1) To investigate Community Wealth Building as a means of ensuring that money is kept circulating in our local economies.
2) To support our local economy and businesses particularly SME’s accepting procurement law and to engage with other anchor institutions in Rushcliffe to encourage them to procure locally wherever possible.
3) To investigate the possibility of establishing Community Land Trusts or working through Public-Commons Partnerships as a means of transforming the ownership of many under-utilised public assets by transferring decision making to citizens through common ownership.”
Councillor J Walker informed Council, in moving the motion, that community wealth building was the modern economic version of social responsibility. It was a people centred approach to economic development which stopped wealth flowing out of communities and placed financial control in the hands of local people, providing resilience and local economic security. In a post Brexit world, it also gave communities control over procurement where a preference for local supply chains could be prioritised. Councillor Walker also talked about the importance of anchor institutions, such as the Council, Trent Bridge Cricket Ground, Nottingham Forest and the larger academy chains, in showing smaller organisations the importance of local investment. In summary, Councillor Walker informed Council that corporate wealth building encouraged businesses to think about employment beyond the provision of jobs to the modern take on corporate social responsibility.
Councillor Gaunt seconded the motion and reminded Council that the UK was the sixth most unequal country in the world according to the OECD. He referenced incomes below the poverty line, even though people were in work, and the profits of businesses being extracted by shareholders rather than being reinvested back into local communities. He felt this motion would rebuild the connection between people and the places they lived and worked in. He highlighted the benefit of community wealth being reinvested into socially minded local businesses, as well as progressive procurement processes which aimed to recirculate wealth within the community. Councillor Gaunt outlined a number of different models of community wealth building which could be considered by the Council and highlighted that a more diverse range of decision making criteria could be taken into account including environmental impact and local supply chains.
Councillor Edyvean acknowledged that not many people would not support keeping locally generated wealth within the community. He outlined the many initiatives the Council already ran or supported that already supported this idea including the Carbon Clever Big Business Club and seminars for local businesses. He also highlighted the more flexible procurement practices that the Council could now undertake allowing awards to local businesses, which were the most financially beneficial now that the country had exited the EU. Councillor Edyvean informed Council that he would find it difficult to support a motion which increased bureaucracy and costs when the Council already did so much to support and promote local businesses.
Councillor Jones commented upon the overly wordy motion but supported the spirit of the three recommendations. He felt that community land trusts were worth investigating so that the Council was more aware of alternative options should opportunities arise in the future.
Councillor R Mallender agreed that the motion presented some very interesting ideas that should be investigated further. He pointed out that the motion called for consideration not commitment and therefore he could see no harm in finding out more before deciding whether to take any action.
Councillor Thomas agreed that the subject was worth investigating.
Councillor Robinson was keen to highlight that the Council already undertook much of what this motion was calling for. Across the Borough, community groups were already looking after parcels of land, Lutterell Hall was run by the community, and the Council’s new build facilities in Bingham and Stragglethorpe would create local jobs and use local suppliers.
Councillor Brennan agreed that the motion presented many good ideas but agreed with Councillor Robinson that the Council was already doing many of those in the Borough. She stated that public sector led economic growth was very successful and that leaving the EU would enable the Council to be much more creative and flexible.
Councillor J Walker was pleased to see so many open-minded attitudes to doing things differently. She went on to say that businesses needed help more than ever as they struggled to recover from the impact of the pandemic and that voting for this motion would show Councillors’ support to people who were currently struggling.
On being put to the vote, the motion was lost.
b. The following Notice of Motion was proposed by Councillor Gowland and seconded by Councillor Gray.
“Humans have already caused irreversible climate change, the impacts of which are being felt in Rushcliffe, the UK and around the world. Global temperatures have increased by 1 degree Celsius from pre-industrial levels. Atmospheric CO2 levels are above 400 parts per million (ppm) and continue to rise. This far exceeds the 350 ppm deemed to be a safe level for humanity. Without more significant and sustained action, the world is set to exceed the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C limit between 2030 and 2040. Therefore, the current UK target of net zero by 2050 is not satisfactory. It is too little too late.
The increase in harm caused by a rise of 2°C rather than 1.5°C is significant. This is described by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C published in October 2018. According to the IPCC, limiting heating to 1.5°C may still be possible with ambitious action from national and sub-national authorities, civil society, the private sector and local communities. The costs of failing to address this crisis will far outstrip the investments required to prevent it. Investing now will bring many benefits in the form of good jobs, breathable cities and thriving communities.
Local authorities such as Devon County, Croydon Borough and Lancaster City have established Citizens’ Assemblies that are playing an important role in assisting them in their plans to achieve net zero by 2030 or before. A bill has been laid before Parliament—the Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill (published as the “Climate and Ecology Bill”)—according to which the Government must develop an emergency strategy that:
a. requires that the UK plays a fair and proper role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions consistent with limiting global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees C above pre-industrial temperatures;
b. ensures that all the UK’s consumption emissions are accounted for;
c. includes emissions from aviation and shipping;
d. protects and restores biodiverse habitats along overseas supply chains;
e. restores and regenerates the UK’s depleted soils, wildlife habitats and species populations to healthy and robust states, maximising their capacity to absorb CO2 and their resistance to climate heating;
f. sets up an independent Citizens’ Assembly, representative of the UK’s population, to engage with Parliament and Government and help develop the emergency strategy.
Council therefore resolves to:
1. Support the Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill;
2. Set up a Citizens’ Assembly to develop an emergency strategy for Rushcliffe as set out in the Bill;
3. Publicise its decision;
4. Write to local MPs, asking them to support the Bill; and
5. Write to the CEE Bill Alliance, the organisers of the campaign for the Bill, expressing its support (campaign@ceebill.uk).”
Councillor Gowland informed Council, in moving the motion, that Rushcliffe had clearly demonstrated over the years that it was taking climate change very seriously. She went on to give examples demonstrating that commitment nationally and in other local areas could be improved upon and asked the Council to lead the way by supporting this motion. It called for action now to change behaviour at a local level from the ground upwards as well as highlighting small actions that when undertaken across a community could have a cumulative effect contributing toward climate change. Councillor Gowland outlined the purpose of citizen’s assemblies and highlighted a number of reasons why she felt they would be particularly successful in Rushcliffe.
Councillor Gray seconded the motion and reserved the right to speak.
Councillor Brennan thanked Councillor Gowland for her motion and commended her passion for this subject. She recognised that the environment was a significant concern for everybody at Rushcliffe and went on to outline the many actions the Council had already undertaken or committed to in this area. Those included setting clear carbon neutral targets for the Borough, the investment in green technology at the new Crematorium, green building methods for the new leisure centre and investment in sustainable energy. She also highlighted the upcoming scrutiny of the Carbon Management Plan in April 2021. Councillor Brennan also asked Council why additional citizens’ assemblies were needed when residents in the Borough had elected them as their representatives and that engagement with communities on topics of interest was a substantial part of being a local councillor.
Councillor Jones agreed that the Council was undertaking much to contribute to the climate emergency but could see the value of citizens’ assemblies to engage residents within communities and foster a sense of responsibility at a local level.
Councillor R Mallender welcomed any contribution to the climate change debate as he recognised there was much still to be done. He felt that behavioural change at a community and household level were areas for development.
Councillor Thomas added her support for additional methods of bringing about behavioural change at a local level.
Councillor Inglis informed Council that he felt Rushcliffe was following a very positive course of action regarding this subject and highlighted a number of additional examples such as the Abbey Road development, the free trees and wildflowers schemes, and the impressively low carbon footprint of the Arena. He went on to agree that Councillors were the voice of the community and that he felt there was little to be gained from adding an additional layer of complexity to the debate. He concluded by pointing out that he felt the motion was a distraction from the good work already being done by the Council.
Councillor Jones agreed that Rushcliffe was already making positive progress in this area but recognised that there were still areas in which the Council could improve as change was required at individual levels as well as organisational ones.
Councillor Robinson reiterated that Rushcliffe was considered to be leading the field in this area locally and that the Council already had structures in place to consult with the community.
Councillor Gray drew together the points made by other Councillors and concluded that there seemed to be a lot of agreement in terms of the principles of the motion but not so much agreement regarding the citizens assemblies. He pointed out that the Borough was full of well-educated residents that were sufficiently savvy to organise themselves and promote change from within, this did not need to entail additional officer time or Council resources.
Councillor Gowland was pleased with the support from other Councillors and heartened that much appeared to be happening already. However, she felt that community action, similar to that seen in relation to the Covid pandemic, would make a substantial difference to climate change and was worth investigating.
There was no further debate. After being put to the vote, the motion was declared as lost.
c. The following Notice of Motion was proposed by Councillor Upton and seconded by Councillor Butler.
“Back in 2014, Rushcliffe adopted its local plan for housing in the Borough. Despite numerous appeals to the Housing Minister, the plan had to include many thousands of additional homes, to meet the needs of Nottingham, because of the Duty To Co-operate policy.
Delivery of these additional homes has put an intolerable strain on infrastructure and local services across the Borough. Moreover, it has required the release of large swathes of our green belt and changed the nature and character of many of the rural settlements of the Borough.
As the Council prepares its legal obligation to agree the next Local Plan, this Council calls on the Government to remove the Duty to Co-operate in the forthcoming Planning Bill and calls on Nottingham City Council to be more flexible and adaptable to deliver the new homes needed in the City going forward.”
Councillor Upton informed Council, before moving the motion, that Councillor Thomas had suggested a slight change to the wording of the preamble to the motion to which he had agreed prior to the meeting. The suggestion involved replacing the word ‘release’ with ‘development’ in the second paragraph of the preamble, and the words ‘green belt’ with countryside’ in the same paragraph. The Mayor agreed that those changes did not affect the motion and that Councillor Upton could precede to present the motion.
Councillor Upton went on to say that it was the right time to lobby central Government to change part of the planning system as a new planning bill was expected later this year. He informed Council that he would be requesting the legal Duty to Cooperate be removed before explaining that he was not opposed to cooperation across boundaries where it was in the best interests of local residents rather than at their expense. During the approval of the last Local Plan, Rushcliffe had to include many thousands of additional houses to assist Nottingham City as a result of the legal Duty to Cooperate within the legislation. This legal duty needed to be removed otherwise history would repeat and Rushcliffe would end up building even more houses to supplement those that were not being built in the city. Estimates showed that Rushcliffe would have 3,800 more houses than it needed at the end of this Local Plan period, whereas the City would be in a deficit of 8,000 homes. The City Council should meet its own needs within the boundaries of the city.
Councillor Gaunt informed Council that he felt the motion was asking for wrong thing. He believed the city had no scope to expand to meet housing need without going outside its own boundaries but that it was wrong to look at the city as a separate entity to the Borough. He recognised that many Rushcliffe residents worked within the city, they used the universities, hospitals and extensive retail offering as well as social opportunities provided in the city. He asked Councillors to consider whether more homes in the Borough was a suitable price to pay for access to the excellent resources and opportunities provided by Rushcliffe’s close proximity to the city. Instead he asked Councillors to push for a change in the formula used to calculate how many houses an area required to meet demand.
Councillor Jones agreed with the points raised by Councillor Gaunt but recognised that the Council did not fare well as a result of this legislation during the approval of the last Local Plan and would very much like to see it changed before the next Plan needed to be approved.
Councillor R Mallender drew Council’s attention to the difference between a legal Duty to Cooperate and wanting to cooperate for the benefit of the local community. He was happy to cooperate but recognised that being required to cooperate was not always in the best interest of the Borough’s own residents.
Councillor Thomas reminded Council that her ward had been targeted by developers to meet the demand for additional housing to meet the city’s need despite there being areas of the city that could be redeveloped for housing. She also highlighted the absurdity of building houses on established areas of countryside in order to develop greener inner-city areas from brownfield sites.
There was no further debate. After being put to the vote, the motion was declared as carried.