To receive Notices of Motion submitted under Standing Order No.12
a) This Council calls on the Government to provide funding over five years to local authorities accommodating vulnerable Afghan Refugees so that practical and social support can be provided and in the case of large families, considers deferring the application of benefit caps to avoid recreating poverty and homelessness.
Councillor R Jones
b) This Council recognises that food waste contributes hugely to climate change and appreciates the carbon benefits that could be realised if Rushcliffe's household food waste was collected separately and processed via Anaerobic Digestion or In-Vessel Composting. Council will seek to influence relevant partners and agencies to bring this forward as soon as is practically possible.
Councillor C Thomas
c) The "Planning for the Future" White Paper appears to be in tatters due to many of the government's own supporters having turned on it and the recent Cabinet reshuffle. The proposals could take away the right of local communities to comment on individual planning decisions by introducing zones where consent in principle is predetermined. Combined with wide-ranging changes to "permitted development rights" this is undermining the more democratic process that has regulated planning decisions for generations.
This Council calls on the government to halt the destructive programme of so called "planning reform" set out in the "Planning for the Future" White Paper, particularly the zoning proposals, and keep local councillors, communities, and democracy at the heart of the planning process.
Councillor J Walker
Minutes:
a) The following Notice of Motion was proposed by Councillor Jones and seconded by Councillor Begum.
Prior to presenting his motion Councillor Jones informed the Mayor that he wished to make a small alteration under Standing Order 14 (highlighted in italics below). After outlining the alteration, consent was given by Council and Councillor Jones proceeded to move the motion.
“This Council calls on the Government to provide funding over five years to local authorities accommodating vulnerable Afghan Refugees so that practical and social support can be provided and in the case of large families, considers deferring the application of benefit caps to families as they are comprised on arrival to avoid recreating poverty and homelessness.”
Councillor Jones informed Council, in moving the motion, that this was a call for the government to extend its current three-year funding model to five years in recognition of the long-term support and stability needed by refugee families. Evidence from the Syrian Resettlement Programme should be sufficient to demonstrate that longer term funding is needed for the following reasons: funding is required to set up homes including basic furniture and provisions, it is required to fund the refugee workers to support families to register with GPs, apply for jobs or benefits, set up a bank account or find a gas and electricity supplier; and this is before addressing the emotional distress caused by trauma, resettlement and building an entirely new life. Councillor Jones informed Council that resettlement takes time and requires stable funding which is why he has brought forward this motion to seek five-years’ worth of funding instead of three as well as requesting the deferment of the application of the benefits cap for refugees from Afghanistan to avoid creating further hardship and homelessness.
Councillor Begum seconded the motion and reserved the right to speak.
Councillor Brennan proposed an amendment to the motion. She stressed that no one can have failed to be shocked by how quickly the situation in Afghanistan deteriorated after the withdrawal of western troops or to fear deeply for the safety of the women and girls left behind. It was noted that simply the use of social media would not secure their freedoms and safety. The UK government has been at the forefront of humanitarian aid with relocation and resettlement schemes already operational such as “Operation Warm Welcome” and the Afghan Relocation and Assistance Scheme. It was explained that under these schemes that £200 million of government funding would enable the UK to welcome 20,000 Afghan citizens. Additionally, it was announced by the Home Office that that everyone arriving under these schemes would be given?indefinite?leave to?remain.?Granting Indefinite Leave to remain provides certainty and stability to those resettling in the UK. It provides the right to work and recourse to public funds, including?social housing?and homelessness assistance. Whilst this Council would like to offer as much support to displaced families as possible, it seems a little premature to suggest that longer term funding is required to schemes that are only weeks old. The Conservative Group cannot support the motion as it stands and proposes the following amended motion:
“This Council calls on the Government to provide funding over five years to local authorities accommodating vulnerable Afghan Refugees so that practical and social support can be provided and This Council welcomes the Government’s comprehensive plans to support the relocation of vulnerable Afghan refugees into the UK but calls on the Government to keep under review the decision to provide funding over three years to local authorities to support these plans, with a view to a possible extension if necessary and, in the case of large families, considers deferring, if necessary and for a limited period, the application of benefit caps to avoid recreating poverty and homelessness to further support their integration into local communities.”
Councillor Barney seconded the amendment and reserved the right to speak.
The Mayor asked Councillor Jones if he supported the amendment. He informed Council that he did not as he felt the amendment diluted the original motion.
Councillor J Walker informed Council that she felt sufficient evidence existed from the resettlement programme for Syrian refuge families to support an initial five years of funding and that the motion should not be amended, and Councillor Thomas agreed that the amendment changed both the meaning and sentiment of the original motion so she would not be supporting it. Councillor Begum reported to Council that she had experience of supporting Syrian refuge families and the current programme for Afghan refugees did not offer the right level of support as it stands.
Councillor Barney reminded Council of the Moment of Reflection at the beginning of the evening where the Tamil community stressed the value of doing things for others. He informed Council that he was personally very moved by the TV footage of the recent events in Afghanistan and would be seeking to do everything he could to help families that were resettled locally. He reported that he had been honoured to be involved in conversations at County Hall which started with the premise, ‘how can we help?’ Therefore, he felt it was important to get behind the scheme as it stands now to take practical action to help those families in need, and improve the scheme later, if it is required.
Councillor Brennan thanked Councillor Barney for his heartfelt comments and reminded Council that she felt that it was a distraction to focus on extending the scheme at this point when people had worked very hard to put it in place quickly, and that displaced families needed the Council to focus on the practical ways in which they could help not argue about what more could be done in the future with greater levels of funding.
On being put to the vote the amendment was carried. There was no further debate and the motion, as amended was carried.
b) The following Notice of Motion was proposed by Councillor Thomas and seconded by Councillor Jones.
“This Council recognises that food waste contributes hugely to climate change and appreciates the carbon benefits that could be realised if Rushcliffe's household food waste was collected separately and processed via Anaerobic Digestion or In-Vessel Composting. Council will seek to influence relevant partners and agencies to bring this forward as soon as is practically possible.”
Councillor Thomas informed Council, in moving the motion, that sending food waste to landfill produced methane gas and incinerating food waste produced carbon monoxide, both of which contributed significantly to global warming. If food waste is processed via Anaerobic Digestion or In-Vessel Composting to produce compost, biofuel and fertiliser then it makes a positive contribution to climate change. Councillor Thomas also informed Council that separating food waste at source increases resident awareness of food wastage, which may in itself help to reduce waste, and keeps bins cleaner. The Environment Bill is expected to require the separate collection of food waste from 2023/24, and whilst funding might be available later, Councillor Thomas informed Council that this was not a situation she felt the Council should be dragged into kicking and screaming but one they should choose to do as quickly as possible. Councillor Thomas informed Council that 37% of local authorities already provided a separate food waste collection service with an additional 11% collecting food waste with garden waste and 3% of local authorities provided both services. She felt that it was shameful that Rushcliffe fell into the category with 49% of local authorities providing no separate food waste collection service. Councillor Thomas recognised that the Borough Council was not the waste disposal authority but felt that more could be being done to influence the County Council.
Councillor Jones seconded the motion and reserved the right to speak.
Councillor Inglis proposed an amendment to the motion informing Council that no one disagrees with the need for and environmental impact of separate food waste collection; however, he felt that the move was premature as the Environmental Bill had not yet reached Royal Assent and large areas of the Bill were still being worked upon. This authority did not have control over the end-to-end process and therefore has to work with a number of partners to ensure the environmental benefits can be realised. In addition, Councillor Inglis informed Council that the separate collection of food waste was just one part of the Environmental Bill and that it would not be prudent or pragmatic to focus on one area in advance of the whole picture being understood. In proposing the following amended motion, Councillor Inglis also made it clear that officers were already drawing up preliminary plans so that once the Bill had been agreed actions could be taken swiftly:
“This Council recognises that food waste contributes hugely to climate change and appreciates the carbon benefits that could be realised if Rushcliffe's household food waste was collected separately and processed via Anaerobic Digestion or In-Vessel Composting.Council will continue working with relevant partners and agencies to bring this forward as soon as is practically possible following any national guidelines set by Government in the forthcoming Environmental Bill.”
Councillor Clarke seconded the amendment and reserved the right to speak.
The Mayor asked Councillor Thomas if she supported the amendment. Councillor Thomas was willing to accept the amendment if the second sentence of the motion was removed altogether. She believed that the Borough Council should be working on the draft of the Bill that has already been published so that swift action could be taken and that removing the second sentence of the motion indicates that intention. Councillor Gowland seconded the amendment to the amendment and Councillor Inglis agreed to accept the change. The amended motion now reads:
“This Council recognises that food waste contributes hugely to climate change and appreciates the carbon benefits that could be realised if Rushcliffe's household food waste was collected separately and processed via Anaerobic Digestion or In-Vessel Composting.”
Councillor Jones informed Council that the purpose of the motion was to encourage the Council to get a move on and not wait for legislation because the separate collection of food waste was clearly the right thing to do for the environment. Councillor R Mallender echoed that view and stressed that we should be reducing carbon emissions by any means possible to address the climate emergency.
Councillor Barney informed Council that the process of anaerobic digestion was getting much better and that he saw this as a very exciting time for theCouncil.
Councillor Gaunt asked whether this motion would in effect commit the Council to separate food waste collections regardless of whether the requirement remained in the final version of the Environment Bill.
Councillor Clarke informed Council that the County Council transport and environment committee were already in discussions about these matters including how it can be done, where the money will come from, how much of the Bill with be law and how much will be guidance. He stated that any change of this scale needs to be practically achievable and well thought through to avoid unintended and unpalatable consequences.
Councillor Thomas, in her right of reply, stated that the amendments had taken the teeth out of the motion but that it needed to happen because it’s the right thing to do.
On being put to the vote, the amended motion was carried.
c) The following Notice of Motion was proposed by Councillor J Walker and seconded by Councillor Gowland.
“This Council calls on the government to halt the destructive programme of so called "planning reform" set out in the "Planning for the Future" White Paper, particularly the zoning proposals, and keep local councillors, communities and democracy at the heart of the planning process.”
Councillor J Walker informed Council, in moving the motion, that changes to planning legislation had repeatedly restricted the number of ways in which local people can have a say in planning matters in their local area, the main one now being their involvement in the creation of a local plan. She recognised that change is definitely required, with the last significant policy review being the 1947 Town and County Planning Act. The Labour Group would like to see increased transparency, in particular the basis of assessment for housing need; improved and more effective engagement with existing residents; truly sustainable building; wildlife recovery and easy access to nature for residents; increased funds and resources to make it easier for residents to get involved in planning. Councillor J Walker summed up by explaining that the current planning reforms under consideration fall short of the five goals outlined above.
Councillor Gowland seconded the motion and reserved the right to speak.
Councillor Upton informed Council that as Chairman of the Council’s Planning Committee, a member of the County Council planning Committee and having worked with planning throughout his working life, it is clear that the planning system does need reforming. Put simply, some current planning rules are overly prescriptive, some are not strong enough and some are no longer relevant to the challenges communities face. However, it is vital that any reforms are carefully considered with input from all of those that participate in good and effective planning. This Council responded to all 24 proposals contained within the white paper and on the basis that it is vital that planning reform is grounded in local democracy, the Conservative Party will not be calling on the Government to halt local planning reform as requested in this motion. Councillor Upton did recognise that the reform paper was currently paused to ensure that all comments arising from the consultation exercise were taken into account and, whilst this was taking place, Rushcliffe would continue to build more houses because that is what the Borough needs.
Councillor Jones wondered if future consultation responses could be made available to Councillors as he felt that could have informed the debate. He went on to outline the many concerns he had with the white paper and in particular the plans to established zones that would, in effect, not require further planning permission. He stated that local residents and the council’s that represent them should have more involvement and more local control not less.
Councillor R Mallender recognised that zoning is very popular and successful elsewhere but that it does not enhance local democracy and lead to a greater feeling of community control. He went on to note that some kind of planning reform is needed but that the current iteration of the white paper does not appear to hit the mark.
Councillor Thomas noted that the planning white paper would reduce democratic engagement and that there is considerable evidence to suggest that local residents care deeply about planning matters. Local knowledge is key to strategic development, but residents are not planners and this lack of knowledge and expertise often precludes their involvement. However, on a local level, planning consultation does work, direct mail and notices on lampposts, and it would seem detrimental to remove this stage of public consultation. She expressed concern about other changes already happening in advance of the publication of new legislation and called upon the Council to make its concerns heard.
Councillor R Walker outlined that many councillors had spoken about fundamental flaws in the planning process but were also calling for a halt to reforms designed to address many of those concerns. He recognised that no one wanted new houses built near them, but that they had to go somewhere and that the best way to be able to influence a process is to be part of the process – in this case ensuring that suitable infrastructure was in place to support the development for example.
Councillor Edyvean reminded Council that the opportunity to contribute to the consultation had passed and that reform was desperately needed; we might not agree with every detail, but the overall change is welcomed.
Councillor Gaunt reminded Council that the motion called for a halt to reform as outlined in white paper, not reform overall; there has to be a better way. Councillor Gowland supported this view and also stressed that local residents need to be able to participate in the planning process both strategic development and piecemeal changes such as home extensions.
Councillor J Walker expressed her disappointment with the debate which seemed to suggest the wholescale acceptance of the planning reforms outlined in the white paper including those which would decrease local democracy, and she called for a recorded vote.
FOR: Councillors B Bansal, N Begum, M Gaunt, P Gowland, B Gray, R Mallender, J Murray, K Shaw, C Thomas, J Walker and L Way
AGAINST: Councillors R Adair, S Bailey, M Barney, A Brennan, B Buschman, R Butler, N Clarke, T Combellack, G Dickman, A Edyvean, L Healy, R Inglis, C Jeffreys, R Jones, D Mason, G Moore, A Phillips, F Purdue-Horan, S Robinson, D Simms, J Stockwood, M Stockwood, R Upton, D Virdi, R Walker, D Wheeler, and G Williams
ABSTAIN: S Mallender
On being put to the vote, the motion was lost.