To receive Notices of Motion submitted under Standing Order No.12
a) Council recognises the problems faced in recent new estates where ownership and management of Public Open Space (POS) is under private companies, with residents subject to a charge on their homes and unregulated and uncapped charges for POS, plus additional fees not directly related to maintaining the public areas.
Council commits to undertaking a full and detailed options appraisal of ownership and ongoing management of public open space with a view to changing the policy for future new housing estates by April 2024, evaluating the following options:
· RBC takes ownership of the POS and responsibility for management with no additional charge to residents, with a commuted sum paid by the developer to support this for a number of years via a S106 agreement. (i.e. revert to the previous policy);
· RBC takes ownership of the land and itself charges residents for maintenance, undertaking the work in-house or procuring the services;
· Ownership of the land passes to a properly constituted and regulated not-for-profit co-operative residents’ association responsible for ongoing maintenance and any charges to residents.
Council further commits to investigate ways that Rushcliffe could change the existing arrangements for recent new estates affected by the current policy.
Councillor Thomas
b) Council believes that artificial grass is detrimental to the environment and will do everything possible to eliminate its use in residential settings, parks, and other open spaces, through policy changes and media campaigns.
Councillor Way
c) Council:
· notes with concern that the new requirements for Voter ID create a barrier to residents exercising their democratic right to vote and may lead to some residents being disenfranchised. The requirements entail additional administrative burdens on Electoral Services and a risk of abuse to Poll Staff from anyone denied a vote due to lack of ID;
· asks Officers to send appropriate information to all voters who have become 18 since the last Borough election unless registered for a postal vote;
· asks the Leader to call on government to halt the further roll out of Voter ID, and if not, an expansion of the ‘accepted’ forms of photo ID to include those valid for young people.
Councillor Jones
d) Council recognises the importance of soil health in food production, combatting climate change, storing carbon, regulating water flow and quality, and as the basis for biodiversity. However Rushcliffe’s soil is under multiple threats including industrial farming methods, the ever-increasing built environment, flooding, and climate change. Council will:
· Include policies to help protect soil in the next round of the local plan, including measures to minimise impermeable surfaces in development;
· Review its own operations with a view to improving soil health on the council’s own land and land it manages;
· Engage with Rushcliffe’s farming community to discover barriers to more natural and organic methods of farming that nurture soil health;
· Target future grant opportunities such as REPF towards projects that can demonstrate improved soil health as one outcome (e.g. agroforestry);
· Create a register of such projects locally that can be used for purchase of offsite Biodiversity Net Gain credits;
· Engage with residents to promote small scale improvements in soil health in a garden setting, including possible extension of the “free tree” scheme to include seed packets for nitrogen fixing vegetables and lawn plants;
· Call on the government to strengthen soil protection in legislation and planning policy.
Councillor Thomas
Minutes:
a) The following Notice of Motion was proposed by Councillor Thomas and seconded by Councillor Way.
“Council recognises the problems faced in recent new estates where ownership and management of Public Open Space (POS) is under private companies, with residents subject to a charge on their homes and unregulated and uncapped charges for POS, plus additional fees not directly related to maintaining the public areas.
Council commits to undertaking a full and detailed options appraisal of ownership and ongoing management of public open space with a view to changing the policy for future new housing estates by April 2024, evaluating the following options:
· RBC takes ownership of the POS and responsibility for management with no additional charge to residents, with a commuted sum paid by the developer to support this for a number of years via a S106 agreement. (i.e. revert to the previous policy);
· RBC takes ownership of the land and itself charges residents for maintenance, undertaking the work in-house or procuring the services;
· Ownership of the land passes to a properly constituted and regulated not-for-profit co-operative residents’ association responsible for ongoing maintenance and any charges to residents.
In moving the motion, Councillor Thomas stated that many residents living on new estates in the Borough had to pay a development company directly for the management of public open spaces in their community, in addition to their Council Tax. Those additional sums were often way beyond the anticipated charge for cutting the grass and could also include future liability for capital works such as play areas and drainage ponds. Councillor Thomas reported that a third of homes in her ward of Leake were now subject to those additional charges. Councillor Thomas advised that unfortunately, residents on new estates often mistakenly believed that those payments meant that local open spaces and play areas were exclusively for the use of residents that paid those additional charges, and this could lead to conflict between local residents and perceived visitors. Local residents paid for maintenance, litter collection and dog fouling, so it seemed logical to them that the facilities were for their use solely. Councillor Thomas stated that Section 106 Agreements differed significantly across different developments with a number of models in operation across the Borough and argued that despite the decision to move to this system being taken in good faith, it was not working and would lead to further problems inthe future. Councillor Thomas outlined three alternative options described in the motion and asked the Council to commit to undertaking this work before April 2024, to ensure there was a better solution in place for new estates attracting residents after that time. Councillor Thomas also asked for consideration to be given to improving the situation for residents already subject to those additional charges and she requested that a recorded vote be taken on the motion and any amendment proposed.
In seconding the motion, Councillor Way provided Council with examples of additional charges residents had reported to her. Council was advised that on one estate there were twenty-six additional items charged for including a seller’s information pack at £249; permission to apply for alterations £110; retrospective consent for alterations £475; a change of mortgage lender £115; and the provision of answers to questions £30. Some charges had seen a 40% increase in the last two years, and all excluded VAT. Councillor Way stated that none of those charges would apply to owners of older homes, and none had anything to do with managing public open spaces. It was noted that many new homeowners did not realise there was a charge on their home or that the management company name was listed on their deeds, which could lead to difficulties when selling their property; in some areas, buyers had reported being offered incentives to use the solicitors recommended by developers for ease and expediency, which further compounded the issue. The prospect of receiving huge bills from developers hung over the heads of residents and some had reported feeling threatened with subsequent effects on mental and physical wellbeing and Councillor Way called upon the Council to investigate unreasonable charges to support and protect residents.
Councillor Upton stated that whilst agreeing whole heartedly with the sentiment of the motion, the Conservative Group would be unable to support the three policy changes suggested without due consideration and investigation and he therefore, proposed an amendment to the motion as follows:
“Rushcliffe Borough Council recognises the problems faced in most of the recent new medium and large housing estates where ownership and management of Public Open Space (POS) is under private companies, with residents subject to a charge on their homes and unregulated and uncapped charges for POS, plus additional fees not directly related to maintaining the public areas.
Council commits to undertake a full and detailed options appraisal of ownership and ongoing management of this public open space, and then follow due process to change or confirm the policy for future new housing estates by April 2024, and also to seek opportunities to improve the situation in existing new housing estates.”
The amendment to the motion was seconded by Councillor J Wheeler who reserved the right to speak.
Councillor Upton, in moving the amended motion, stated that the additional wording would provide clarity, with the removal of the three specified policychanges contained in the original motion. Councillor Upton reassured Councillor Thomas and Councillor Way that his Group understood the issue and was committed to taking it through scrutiny in line with their original timescale.
Councillor Thomas, as the original proposer of the motion, accepted the amendment, and this became the substantive motion.
Councillor Clarke commented that he largely agreed with the original proposer and seconder of the motion but wished to clarify a point raised in the Citizens’ Question earlier in the evening by Mr Robinson-Green. He believed he had described ‘unintended consequences’ not ‘unforeseen circumstances’ when discussing this issue in the past and recollected that he had been Leader of the Council when this Policy had been approved, when the Council had been facing escalating and unsustainable costs in relation to open spaces. The Council was trying to mitigate costs to the Council and the taxpayer and had not foreseen some of the consequences that had occurred as a result of that decision. Councillor Clarke stated that this motion provided a good opportunity to scrutinise the current Policy and its application in the broadest possible sense to potentially find a solution that had less of a negative impact on residents.
Councillor S Mallender supported the motion and was keen to hear again from Councillor Thomas at the end of the debate.
Councillor Gowland informed Council that residents of Abbey Park had been experiencing this problem since the 1970s as developers moved on and lost interest in established estates.
Councillor Gaunt commented that he was usually concerned when the detail was removed from motions but, in this case, he could see the advantage as it would allow for a much wider debate.
Councillor Barney thanked Councillor Thomas and Councillor Way, and the residents from East Leake in the public gallery, for bringing this issue to the attention of Council and hoped appropriate scrutiny would take the national position into consideration.
The Leader informed Council that the problem had been recognised nationally and that the Council had contributed to the consultation on the Levelling Up and Planning Bill to that effect. He felt that a national solution might be more powerful than one the Council could develop locally but that it was right at this stage to consider all options.
Councillor Thomas thanked Councillors for their consideration of the motion and warned that although the impact of those policies was being seen first in East Leake it would affect the whole Borough in time as the new estates became populated. Council was urged not to wait until the Levelling Up and Planning Bill had been published as each day of delay was causing more residents to be caught in this untenable position.
In accordance with Standing Orders – Council 16.4, a recorded vote was taken on the substantive motion.
FOR: Councillors R Adair, B Bansal, M Barney, K Beardsall, N Begum, A Brennan, R Butler, N Clarke, J Cottee, G Dickman, M Gaunt, P Gowland, B Gray, L Howitt, R Inglis, Mrs C Jeffreys, R Jones, R Mallender, S Mallender, G Moore, J Murray, A Phillips, V Price, F Purdue-Horan, S Robinson, K Shaw, D Simms, Mrs M Stockwood, C Thomas, R Upton, J Walker, R Walker, L Way, D Wheeler, J Wheeler and G Williams
ABSTENTION: Councillors T Combellack and D Mason
The substantive motion was carried
b) The following Notice of Motion was proposed by Councillor Way and seconded by Councillor Thomas
“Council believes that artificial grass is detrimental to the environment and will do everything possible to eliminate its use in residential settings, parks, and other open spaces, through policy changes and media campaigns.”
In moving the motion, Councillor Way informed Council that there had been a considerable increase in the use of artificial turf, especially during lockdown, with some companies reporting a 65% increase in sales. Councillor Way listed the disadvantages of artificial grass; including the reliance on fossil fuels in terms of manufacturing, problems with recycling once it started to degrade, the increased temperature underfoot and the dangers of this to children and pets, as well as the inability of artificial turf to absorb CO2 and release oxygen. Council was advised that artificial turfs also removed natural habitats for many creatures, further reduced biodiversity and released harmful microplastics into the environment. Manufacturers advertised its green credentials as it did not need watering; however they did recommend a monthly hose down with water and a chemical cleaner. Councillor Way informed Council that there were circumstances in which artificial turf was the preferred option in spite of those environmental concerns, including its use on sports pitches, where it presented a much more suitable and robust playing surface. Councillor Way concluded by reminding Council of the benefits of green spaces and wildlife on mental health.
In seconding the motion, Councillor Thomas highlighted the provisions in the forthcoming Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill, which sought to restrict the use of artificial grass on new housing developments and stated that this needed to go further to prevent use in all residential settings. Councillor Thomas outlined the reasons why homeowners choose fake grass over real grass, including the time taken to maintain a real lawn and its depressing colour in a drought. The use of raised beds or low growing ground cover plants could provide an alternative to grass that was more natural and less harmful to the planet. Councillor Thomas concluded by asking Council to support the motion to increase education and change policy, bringing about behavioural change within the Borough.
Councillor Brennan informed Council that the Conservative Group wholeheartedly supported the sentiment behind Councillor Way’s motion, noting that even badly cared for lawns were better for the environment and biodiversity than artificial grass. However, she felt that it would be difficult for the Council to prevent residents from using artificial grass and reminded Council that there were no laws preventing its sale or use, it was readily available, reasonably priced and to many presented a low maintenance alternative to natural grass. Council was advised that in some instances, the land available for grass was too small to make owning a lawnmower viable and for those with certain disabilities artificial grass enabled them to enjoy their gardens without the burden of maintenance. Councillor Brennan stated that the Council would not want to create a blanket ban and would not be able to enforce it and in some circumstances, artificial grass was a reasonable choice. She reminded her colleagues that the Council preferred natural grass with the exception of playing pitches where the use of artificial grass was supported by various governing bodies as it increased the number of playable hours, was cheaper to maintain and was harder wearing. Councillor Brennan also mentioned the Council’s free tree planting scheme and advice to residents in relation to protecting and increasing biodiversity in their gardens and with this in mind, Councillor Brennan proposed an amendment to the motion as follows:
“Council recognises that artificial grass can be detrimental to the environment. We do recognise that its use in certain circumstances can be justified, such as for playing pitches and for small scale decorative purposes. Council will undertake, through media campaigns, to raise awareness of the negative impact on the natural environment and biodiversity of the extensive use of artificial grass.”
Councillor Brennan hoped that Councillor Way could see that the amendment supported the sentiment of the motion but focused action in areas that were within the Council’s control, such as media campaigns to provide information about alternatives and educating the public.
The amendment was seconded by Councillor Butler who stated that he absolutely agreed with the ethos of the motion but hoped that the amendment made things clearer and more achievable.
Councillor Way was given the opportunity to accept the amendment to the motion but did not support the changes proposed and stated that she would like the Council to introduce local policy changes to stop the use of this dreadful material.
Councillor Jones raised concerns about free-roaming microplastics in the water supply and the impact this would have for generations to come, stating this was the most important issue whichever motion was approved.
Councillor S Mallender gave her support to the original motion and informed Council that playing fields were the second largest source of microplastics after road surfaces. She also highlighted the large carbon footprint associated withmanufacturing artificial grass, the negative impact on biodiversity, the 12,000 different chemicals in artificial grass linked to significant medical problems and the fact that it currently could not be recycled. Councillor Mallender did not feel that the Council should be supporting any kind of artificial grass use even on playing pitches.
Councillor Simms called on Council to keep things in perspective and stated that the benefits of artificial grass far outweighed the disadvantages. In addition, he pointed out that the Council could not create a policy to stop people from doing something that was within the law, therefore the amendment was appropriate and necessary.
Councillor Brennan recognised that there appeared to be broad agreement that widespread use of artificial grass was detrimental to the environment and should be discouraged but that several positives had also been identified by Councillors. Therefore, the amendment was necessary to clarify the Council’s position and focus attention on what could be done to educate residents, increase their understanding of the alternatives, and highlighting the environmental damage caused by artificial grass.
Councillor Way informed Council that she had listened carefully to the debate but felt that the changes to the motion undermined its impact and was disappointed that the Council was not prepared to be more forward-thinking in this area.
A vote on the amendment to the motion was carried, and this became the substantive motion.
No further Councillors wished to speak so the substantive motion was put to the vote and carried.
c) The following Notice of Motion was proposed by Councillor Jones and seconded by Councillor S Mallender
Council:
· notes with concern that the new requirements for Voter ID create a barrier to residents exercising their democratic right to vote and may lead to some residents being disenfranchised. The requirements entail additional administrative burdens on Electoral Services and a risk of abuse to Poll Staff from anyone denied a vote due to lack of ID;
· asks Officers to send appropriate information to all voters who have become 18 since the last Borough election unless registered for a postal vote;
· asks the Leader to call on government to halt the further roll out of voter ID, and if not, an expansion of the ‘accepted’ forms of photo ID to include those valid for young people.
In moving the motion, Councillor Jones informed Council that there were four reasons to consider: firstly the ID requirement was red tape and an unnecessary cost on the public purse; secondly the acceptable forms of ID were predominately held by older people, with the ID requirements discriminating against young people; thirdly, the UK Government’s own research had found that those less likely to hold any form of photo ID were those with severely limited disabilities, the unemployed, those without qualifications and those who had never voted before; and fourthly, the Election Commission concluded that there had been no evidence of large scale fraud in the 2019 elections and the Commission had advised that out of 142 allegations of voting irregularities, only one had been upheld. Councillor Jones considered such measures to be an attempt to limit the historical freedoms of the people.
In seconding the motion, Councillor S Mallender stated that there was evidence from countries with Voter ID rules, which did not have a mandatory ID card that this kind of ID led voting effects marginalised groups far more than other groups. Councillor Mallender stated that poorer people were less likely to have a passport, those who could not drive, would not have a driving license, so the groups mentioned by Councillor Jones were less likely to be able to vote in this situation. Council was advised that 2% of the population had no ID, with 4% having no recognisable ID and Councillor Mallender asked if an additional £180m should be spent across the country, each decade to solve a problem that did not exist. UK elections were safe and secure and very well run, with only 33 allegations of impersonation in a poll of over 58 million voters in 2019. Councillor Mallender asked if it was fair to ask polling station staff to slow up the process with more checks, and then having to deal with any queries and problems.
The Leader reminded Council that this was national legislation and whatever decision was made tonight, it would not change that legislation. The Leader stated that the Conservative Group supported Voter ID and referred to its successful use in Northern Ireland since 2003, as well as in many European countries and around the world. It was clear that the Government had undertaken research in implementing this and was being proactive, to ensure that democracy was upheld and preserved at any cost, and the Leader agreed that you could not put a price on democracy. Issues raised regarding education were acknowledged, and the Leader was delighted to note that the election was being promoted on the front of Rushcliffe Reports, through social media, and national TV campaigns. The Leader referred to the 2% of people without any ID in the Borough and confirmed that every measure including certification was being made available to ensure that Voter ID was valid, and this was all based on the experiences of other democracies, where this had been proven to work successfully.
Councillor J Walker had no comments.
Councillor Thomas stated that she would be supporting the motion and was unaware of any overwhelming evidence to justify the change, and that the motion recognised the differential impact that this would have on younger voters, and it could be argued that the new requirements would also have more impact on other socio-economic groups. Councillor Thomas wondered about the political motivation behind this, in that people who voted a certain way were more likely to initially have the ID, or if not, they would be more likely to obtain one. Council was reminded that the ID requirement could be overcome by requesting a postal vote, which it could be argued was a system more open to abuse, including coercion. Councillor Thomas urged officers to continue to work to ensure that as many residents as possible were ready for the election.
Councillor Jones stated that many of the countries referred to by the Leader had mandatory ID cards, which did not apply here and that the Government’s own research had established a number of groups who were less likely to vote because of Voter ID and the Electoral Commission had found very little evidence of voter fraud. Councillor Jones stated that a great deal of money would be spent, and it would limit democracy.
On being put to the vote, the motion was lost.