a) Councillor Birch
The current SEND (Special Educational Needs and Disabilities) provision by Nottinghamshire County Council is totally inadequate, with long wait times for assessment and insufficient access to services. Consequently, many families in Rushcliffe face significant hardship.
All children, regardless of their educational needs and disabilities, should receive the highest quality education and support.
This Council calls on Nottinghamshire County Council to take immediate action to improve SEND provision across the county, and urges central government to increase SEND funding.
Council resolves to:
· Write to Nottinghamshire County Council to express our dissatisfaction with the current quality of SEND provision.
· Write to Nottinghamshire County Council to demand that they meet their legal obligations with regards to completing EHCPs (Education, Health and Care Plans) within the statutory 20 week timeframe.
· Write to Nottinghamshire County Council to request that they measure the qualitative, as well as quantitative, aspects of their SEND provision.
· Write to both the Secretary of State for Education, Bridget Phillipson MP, and the Minister of State for Education, Kelly Tolhurst MP, to request more funding is allocated to SEND education.
· Request that Nottinghamshire County Council gather and properly consider a wider range of views from parent carers and SEND children than just those from the commissioned Nottinghamshire Parent Carer Forum.
· Request that Nottinghamshire County Council implements a customer service desk to give parents of SEND children a central point of contact.
· Request that Nottinghamshire County Council implements a Service Level Agreement between themselves and SEND parents, which guarantees that phone messages and emails will be responded to within two working days.
· Request that Nottinghamshire County Council provides the Oliver McGowan Learning Disability and Autism Training to all teaching staff at schools across the county, as is currently mandated by the NHS.
· Provide the Oliver McGowan Learning Disability and Autism Training to all Rushcliffe Borough Council staff and Councillors.
Rushcliffe Borough Council stands firmly in support of all children with SEND and their families. By adopting this motion, we call on Nottinghamshire County Council, and central government, to recognize the urgency of the situation and to take decisive action to enhance the quality and effectiveness of SEND provision.
b) Councillor Clarke
This Council is extremely disappointed that the Government has voted to restrict vital Winter Fuel Payments to only pensioners in receipt of means-tested benefits such as Pension Credit.
Age UK estimates that this will mean 2 million pensioners nationwide who depend on this fund to stay warm this coming winter will not receive it.
There are nearly 30,000 pensioners in Rushcliffe. While some pensioners currently in receipt of the Winter Fuel Payment may not require it, many across Rushcliffe will sit just above the cut-off for Pension Credit. These vulnerable residents will be impacted by this sudden, and deeply unfair, change in policy during the coldest months of the year. This will place additional strain on those that need it most and many will face the cruel dilemma of whether to “eat or heat”.
This Council resolves to:
· Urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the decision to means-test the Winter Fuel Payment and to ensure that compensatory payments are included in the October Budget to ensure that vulnerable pensioners, particularly those who do not claim Pension Credit, are protected from fuel poverty this winter.
· Also urge our local Rushcliffe MPs to lobby the Chancellor to introduce measures to help those pensioners in Rushcliffe in need of additional support this winter, especially those that fall just outside the pension credit threshold.
· Continue the existing successful Council-led local awareness campaign, and work with local partners and charities, to alert those pensioners in Rushcliffe potentially eligible for Pension Credit but who currently do not access it, to apply for their entitlement.
· Work with Nottinghamshire County Council to utilise the Household Support Fund to provide some financial relief to the Borough's most vulnerable pensioners
c) Councillor Upton
This Council is disappointed with the Government's decision to increase Rushcliffe's housing targets. We have given permission for a significant number of homes to be built since our Local Plan was adopted in 2014 and we have led the way on housebuilding in Nottinghamshire.
We have built our fair share of houses and any increase in our housing target is unacceptable due to the extra pressure on our countryside and greenbelt land, and our distinctive rural and semi-rural settlements.
This Council resolves to write to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to request:
1. That the housing target for Rushcliffe is not increased in recognition of the number of houses we have already built and already plan to build, and,
2. That under the Duty to Co-operate, Nottingham City Council is urged to allocate our increase in housing numbers, as we did for them in 2014.
Minutes:
Councillor Parekh indicated an interest in this item and moved to sit in the public gallery. She took no part in the debate
a) The following Notice of Motion was proposed by Councillor Birch and seconded by Councillor Chewings.
Prior to presenting her motion, Councillor Birch informed the Mayor that he wished to make an alteration to the motion using Standing Order Paragraph 4.58. After outlining the alteration, consent was given by the Council and Councillor Birch proceeded to move the motion.
“Council resolves to:
· Write to Nottinghamshire County Council to express our dissatisfaction with the current quality of Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) provision.
· Write to Nottinghamshire County Council to demand that they meet their legal obligations with regards to completing EHCPs (Education, Health and Care Plans) within the statutory 20 week timeframe.
· Write to Nottinghamshire County Council to request that they measure the qualitative, as well as quantitative, aspects of their SEND provision.
· Write to both the Secretary of State for Education, Bridget Phillipson MP, and the Minister for School Standards, Catherine McKinnell MP, to request more funding is allocated to SEND education.
· Request that Nottinghamshire County Council gather and properly consider a wider range of views from parent carers and SEND children than just those from the commissioned Nottinghamshire Parent Carer Forum.
· Request that Nottinghamshire County Council implements a customer service desk to give parents of SEND children a central point of contact.
· Request that Nottinghamshire County Council implements a Service Level Agreement between themselves and SEND parents, which guarantees that phone messages and emails will be responded to within two working days.
· Request that Nottinghamshire County Council provides the Oliver McGowan Learning Disability and Autism Training to all teaching staff at schools across the county, as is currently mandated by the NHS.
· Provide the Oliver McGowan Learning Disability and Autism Training to all Rushcliffe Borough Council staff and Councillors.
Rushcliffe Borough Council stands firmly in support of all children with SEND and their families. By adopting this motion, we call on Nottinghamshire County Council, and central government, to recognize the urgency of the situation and to take decisive action to enhance the quality and effectiveness of SEND provision.”
In moving the motion, Councillor Birch advised that the Rushcliffe Independents were launching a Nottinghamshire SEND Improvement Campaign, with a petition being launched asking the County Council to undertake a number of measures. Councillor Birch highlighted what SEND included, as well as how a child could receive support, including an Education Health Care Plan (EHCP), and advised that there was a 20 weeks statutory time frame to receive a Plan once it had been requested. Currently the national average response rate was 50%; however, in 2022, the response rate at the County Council was 4.5%. Council was advised that a SEND Improvement Board had been set up by the County Council in 2023, following an Inspection by OFSTED and the Care Quality Commission, which had highlighted systemic failures. Despite the Board being set up, parents were still very concerned about the service and he felt that both residents and children deserved better.
Councillor Chewings seconded the recommendation and reserved the right to speak.
Councillor J Wheeler proposed an amendment to the motion as follows:
“Rushcliffe Borough Council resolves to:
· Write to Nottinghamshire County Council to request that they measure the qualitative, as well as quantitative, aspects of their SEND provision.
· Write to both the Secretary of State for Education, Bridget Phillipson MP, and the Minister for School Standards, Catherine McKinnell MP, to request more funding is allocated to SEND education in Nottinghamshire.
· Request that Nottinghamshire County Council continue to gather and consider a wide range of views from parents, carers and SEND children.
· Welcome the creation of the dedicated SEND email inbox for parents, carers and children to contact NCC and share their views and asks for details of NCC’s response procedures to be shared with borough councillors.
· Request that Nottinghamshire County Council continues to provide accredited Learning Disability and Autism Training to all teaching staff at schools across the county.
· Encourage RBC councillors to complete the NCC Autism Awareness Course that is available as a e-learning modules on the members intranet.
· Welcome the news that RBC staff have recently undertaken a training session on neuro divergency.
Rushcliffe Borough Council stands firmly in support of all children with SEND and their families. By adopting this motion, we support Nottinghamshire County Council, and central government, in recognizing the urgency of the situation and taking decisive action to enhance the quality and effectiveness of SEND provision.”
Councillor Barney seconded the amendment to the motion and reserved the right to speak.
In proposing the amendment, Councillor Wheeler confirmed the Council’s support for this issue and referred to the increasing pressures on the service. He acknowledged that currently the County Council did not meet the target for completing EHCPs; however, this was a national issue and had to be addressed. The County Council had recognised that it needed to do more, with the establishment of the SEND Improvement Board, and the problem was recognised by the last Government, which had increased funding. He welcomed the measures taken by the County Council and confirmed that it had already written to the new Government; however, the response had lacked any commitment, and it was hoped that this would be reconsidered. Councillor Wheeler referred to the centralised system in place at the County Council to handle enquiries, and Council was reminded that it was more important to give a quality response, rather than trying to meet the two day deadline, and he confirmed that appropriate training was undertaken by all relevant parties.
Councillor Birch confirmed that he would accept the amendment and so this became the substantive motion.
Councillor Plant referred to this very important issue and felt that everyone would agree that those affected deserved the right to an appropriate education. Councillor Plant stated that she had supported many parents and carers in their continuous battle to get help. It was noted that whilst the number of children with SEND has been increasing, funding had failed to keep pace and it was a Labour Manifesto commitment to address this crucial issue as those affected deserved better and she confirmed that the Labour Group would support this motion.
Councillor Butler stated that he was pleased that the amendment had been accepted and referred to his own experiences as a school governor and that more funding was required, as this was a challenging issue.
Councillor R Mallender appreciated the strength of feeling on this issue and confirmed that the Green Group would be supporting the motion.
Councillor Simms stated that he could relate and identify with SEND, having being diagnosed with dyslexia and he was aware that demand was outstripping supply. Whilst this was an important issue, it was a matter for the County Council, and he hoped in future that motions would relate to Borough Council issues.
Councillor Polenta agreed that funding for SEND was inadequate. She felt that for too long conversation around SEND had been limited to a single access approach, with marginalised groups being further disadvantaged and it was important that no one should be left behind.
Councillor Gowland referred to the desperation that many parents and carers felt and stated that both councils should try to do everything they could to help.
Councillor Barney referred to the significant frustration felt by those trying to get support, and everyone welcomed the efforts being made to improve this. Poor communication was a major concern, compounded by long waiting times, and he felt that the County Council currently offered excellent support, and he welcomed the wider training programmes for teachers. Due to underfunding the SEND system was currently falling short and addressing those challenges required a multi-faceted approach.
The Leader stated that whilst this issue affected local residents in Rushcliffe, SEND provision was provided by the County Council and it would have been more appropriate to approach them. The Leader agreed that this situation could not be allowed to continue and confirmed that Government had been lobbied about changing processes, and the County Council was reviewing service provision, hence the amendment to the motion.
In seconding the motion, Councillor Chewings stated that the motion was asking another body to do something for local residents and acknowledged the ongoing financial challenges, and he hoped that the funding promised by the new Government would come to fruition.
Councillor Birch stated that Councillors were the voice of people in the Borough, and he thought that the motion had been very educational and had highlighted the problems faced by parents and carers. He stated that parents wanted qualitative as well as quantitative measurements and concluded by urging everyone to support this motion. Councillor Birch requested that a recorded vote be taken.
In accordance with Standing Orders Paragraph 4.23, a recorded vote was taken for this item as follows:
FOR: Councillors M Barney, J Billin, T Birch, R Bird, A Brennan, A Brown, R Butler, S Calvert, J Chaplain, K Chewings, N Clarke, T Combellack, J Cottee, A Edyvean, S Ellis, G Fletcher, M Gaunt, E Georgiou, P Gowland, C Grocock, R Inglis, R Mallender, S Mallender, D Mason, P Matthews, H Om, H Parekh, A Phillips, L Plant, D Polenta, N Regan, D Simms, D Soloman, C Thomas, R Upton, D Virdi, J Walker, R Walker, L Way, T Wells, G Wheeler, J Wheeler, and G Williams
The motion was carried.
Councillor Parekh returned to the meeting.
b) The following Notice of Motion was proposed by the Leader, Councillor Clarke MBE and seconded by Councillor Brennan.
“This Council resolves to:
· Urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the decision to means-test the Winter Fuel Payment and to ensure that compensatory payments are included in the October Budget to ensure that vulnerable pensioners particularly those who do not claim Pension Credit, are protected from fuel poverty this winter.
· Also?urge our local Rushcliffe MPs to lobby the Chancellor to introduce measures to help those pensioners in Rushcliffe in need of additional support this winter, especially?those that fall just outside the pension credit threshold.
· Continue the existing successful Council-led local awareness campaign, and work with local partners and charities, to alert those pensioners in Rushcliffe potentially eligible for Pension Credit but who currently do not access it, to apply for their entitlement.
· Work with Nottinghamshire County Council to utilise the Household Support Fund to provide some financial relief to the Borough's most vulnerable pensioners.”?
The Leader stated that he was shocked that the new Government had taken the decision to cut winter fuel payments, with many pensioners falling just outside the threshold of claiming Pension Credit. The Leader advised that James Naish MP had stated that it was the responsibility of the Borough and County Councils to support those pensioners. It was noted that members at the Labour Conference had voted to ask the Chancellor to reverse the decision. The Leader accepted that there were wealthy pensioners who did not need the allowance; however, many vulnerable pensioners would find themselves in hardship. The Government had said that pensioners would be compensated, with an increased pension in April, but that would be too late as energy bills continued to rise. The Leader concluded by advising that Rushcliffe Borough Council would do what it could for the most vulnerable; however, that should not be a substitute for the loss of the allowance.
Councillor Brennan seconded the recommendation and reserved the right to speak.
Councillor Chaplain stated that the Labour Group was disappointed that this decision had been taken; however, the Government was being forced to deal with the huge financial deficit left by the previous administration. Councillor Chaplain also felt that many people, not just pensioners had been forced to make the same decisions during previous winters. Budget plans were unknown, although the Chancellor had stated that all pensioners would be better off and she assured Council that James Naish MP was acting on behalf of pensioners. Councillor Chaplain stated that the Labour Group fully supported improving access to Pension Credit, as well as using the Housing Support Fund, and it was hoped that the Council would do more to alleviate fuel poverty for all its residents, and she advised that the Labour Group would abstain from voting as the measures called for were meaningless.
Councillor J Wheeler reiterated that if all eligible pensioners signed up for Pension Credit, it would cost the Government more money, and it had been identified in Nottinghamshire that over 147,000 pensioners would lose the winter fuel allowance. Council noted that the Housing Support Fund helped many people and funds had already been extended by the previous Government and this motion was being put forward to ask those who could to lobby on the Council’s behalf.
Councillor R Mallender felt that the wealthy should be taxed more to ensure that this money was available to all pensioners and called for more insulation and retrofitting in homes.
Councillor Chewings stated that protecting the most vulnerable should be a priority and that cutting this payment, with very little notice, without offering compensation was dangerous, especially to the nearly 200,000 pensioners with high energy needs, and together with the loss of additional cost of living payments, this would see some pensioners £600 worse off. People who voted for the Government were now asking why the elderly were being targeted and it was hoped that this decision would be reviewed.
Councillor Combellack reminded Council that the loss of this allowance would add to the burden on the NHS.
Councillor Thomas proposed an amendment to the motion as follows:
This Council resolves to:
• Urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the decision threshold to means-test the Winter Fuel Payment and to ensure that compensatory payments are included in the October Budget to ensure that vulnerable pensioners, particularly those who do not claim Pension Credit, are also protected from fuel poverty this winter.
• Also urge our local Rushcliffe MPs to lobby the Chancellor to introduce measures to help those pensioners in Rushcliffe in need of additional support this winter, especially those that fall just outside the pension credit threshold.
• Continue the existing successful Council-led local awareness campaign, and work with local partners and charities, to alert those pensioners in Rushcliffe potentially eligible for Pension Credit but who currently do not access it, to apply for their entitlement.
• Work with Nottinghamshire County Council to utilise the Household Support Fund to provide some financial relief to the Borough's most vulnerable pensioners.
• Consider allocating funding in Rushcliffe’s next budget to provide a hardship fund to give council tax relief to households in fuel poverty, including pensioners who have lost the allowance.
Councillor Thomas stated that all were concerned about how this would affect vulnerable pensioners, and she felt that it should be the threshold that was reviewed, rather than the decision to stop it being a universal payment. Councillor Thomas felt that Rushcliffe should also consider doing something to help households suffering from fuel poverty.
The Mayor asked the Leader if he accepted the amendment and he confirmed that he would not.
Councillor Billin seconded the amendment and agreed that Rushcliffe should lobby the local MP to urge the Government to change the threshold, to ensure that the most vulnerable were protected.
The Leader stated that the amendment changed the thrust of the motion and given that the County Council provided a hardship fund, if Rushcliffe was to do the same, the Leader hoped that it would also be provided by the Government.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak on the motion.
Councillor Om reiterated concerns raised and stated that winter was a challenging time for pensioners and removing this lifeline would increase health issues and reduce the quality of life for many.
Councillor Polenta stated that providing this allowance was the right thing to do to ensure a fair society for all and means testing stigmatised people and took away their dignity.
Councillor G Wheeler noted that cutting the winter fuel allowance had not been mentioned before the Election, and although in 2017 the Conservative Government had considered it, there would have been a consultation before anything happened.
Councillor Birch stated that many pensioners in Rushcliffe would be severely impacted, and further distress had been caused, due to poor communication and timing of the announcement so close to winter and he also questioned the existence of the £22billion black hole. He noted that the Government had acknowledged that no full Risk Assessment had been conducted and he confirmed that he would be supporting the motion.
It was proposed by Councillor Clarke, seconded by Councillor Brennan and RESOLVED by Councillors that the meeting be extended and would finish no later than 10.30pm.
Councillor Phillips stated that the elderly needed to heat their homes more, it was known that this cut would lead to unnecessary deaths, and pensioners deserved better.
It was proposed by Councillor R Mallender and seconded by Councillor S Mallender and RESOLVED that Council should move to the vote.
In seconding the motion, Councillor Brennan stated that she was sure that the Labour Group found this policy as reprehensible as everyone else and she reiterated that if eligible pensioners claimed Pension Credit then no savings would be made. Councillor Brennan stated that the Council would do what it could to help but thought it was wrong that Council Tax payers should be asked to pay more to subsidise winter fuel payments.
The Leader stated that Rushcliffe was one of many councils putting forward similar motions, which he hoped would have considerable influence and he called on James Naish MP to lobby for the payments to be retained. He advised that Rushcliffe was already providing support by having the lowest Council Tax in the county.
On being put to the vote, the motion was carried.
c) The following Notice of Motion was proposed by Councillor Upton and seconded by Councillor R Walker.
This Council resolves to write to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to request:
?
1. that the housing target for Rushcliffe is not increased in recognition of the number of houses we have already built and already plan to build; and
2. That under the Duty to Co-operate, Nottingham City Council is urged to allocate our increase in housing numbers, as we did for them in 2014.?
Councillor Upton stated that Rushcliffe had already built its fair share of housing and would continue to do so and the motion was asking that Rushcliffe should not be allocated anymore, and if any additional housing was required, the City of Nottingham should be asked to take it, as Rushcliffe had done in 2014.
Councillor R Walker seconded the recommendation and reserved the right to speak.
Councillor Calvert was concerned that if the motion was accepted, it could delay progress of the GNSP, and he assured Council that the Labour Group also cared but it was also important that local residents could access affordable housing. Councillor Calvert was concerned that by writing to the Secretary of State, this could negatively impact on partnership working.
Councillor Chewings referred to this important issue and stated that the Rushcliffe Independents would be supporting the motion.
Councillor Thomas was very disappointed that the motion had been brought forward and felt that it was Councillor Upton’s responsibility as the Portfolio Holder to send a message to the Government and to address this issue in an appropriate, considered manner at JPAB.
Councillor Parekh felt that Rushcliffe had already made a significant contribution and would continue to do so, and increasing the target would fail to recognise the proactive steps already being taken and could also impact on existing residents’ quality of life. Councillor Parekh stated that building should be kept at a suitable level to align with local needs.
Councillor Grocock advised that people living in the countryside were not opposed to new housing, it just needed to be suitable and reasonably priced, and if demand kept increasing, then appropriate housing, with the right infrastructure needed to be built.
The Leader stated that in 2014, Rushcliffe was given what it considered to be a reasonable allocation of 6,000 houses, as part of the duty to cooperate with Nottingham City Council, which was over and above the nearly 4,000 houses, which was the housing need for the Borough; however, the Inspector then asked the Borough to find a further 3,500 houses. Given that the City Council now had brownfield sites that it could develop, the Leader felt that Rushcliffe should not be asked to build any additional homes.
In seconding the recommendation, Councillor R Walker stated that this was an opportunity for the City to address significant issues related to population growth and the relative lack of housing delivery, when compared to other major cities, and such increases should be welcomed by the City to act as a catalyst to increase prosperity.
Councillor Upton agreed that smaller villages and rural communities needed some small developments to provide affordable housing for young people and Rushcliffe had a history of infill and garden developments.
On being put to the vote, the motion was carried.