a) Councillor Birch
“Council notes that:
1. Physical cash remains essential for residents who cannot, or choose not to, use digital payment systems.
2. Cash protects personal liberty by providing:
· autonomy?over personal finances without reliance on banks or devices;
· privacy?without mandatory data trails;
· resilience?when digital systems fail or networks go down; and
· equality?for residents excluded by digital-only services.
3. Removing cash acceptance risks making access to council services conditional on technology, wealth, or digital proficiency, which undermines fairness and public confidence.
Council believes that:
a. Access to cash is a matter of civic freedom and informed choice, not nostalgia.
b. Councils should lead by example in preserving the right to use cash for on-site payments.
c. Residents should not be compelled into digital systems to participate in everyday civic life.
Council therefore resolves to:
1. Guarantee that physical cash will continue to be accepted as a payment option at all council-owned premises where on-site payments are taken.
2. Require an Equality Impact Assessment and committee approval before any move to cashless operation is considered for a Council service or venue.
3. Instruct the Chief Executive to review current payment arrangements and report within three months?on:
· where cash is currently accepted;
· where it has been removed in the last five years;
· options to reinstate cash access where appropriate.
Write to relevant partners and contractors to encourage the continued acceptance of cash in Council-affiliated services.”
b) Councillor Thomas
“The Development Framework Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) for the Gamston/Tollerton Sustainable Urban Extension has been subject to full public consultation and revision and was unanimously supported at the cross-party Local Development Forum on 7 January 2026. It was considered by Cabinet on 13 January 2026. Cabinet supported the principle of the SPD but paused the approval process in order to write to various parties – this action has now been taken, and replies have been received showing that considerable progress has been made since this action was taken.
Council recognises both the importance of the SPD to delivery of housing in Rushcliffe and the concerns expressed by residents about potential contamination, flooding and highways matters.
Council supports adoption of the East of Gamston/North of Tollerton Development Framework Supplementary Planning Document at the earliest opportunity.
Council notes that the process going forward requires planning applications for development on any part of the site, necessitating public consultation, and in particular that:
(a) para 3.23 of the SPD has been amended to expand on safeguards re contamination during the individual application stages;
(b) highways and access proposals will be published for full public consultation before approval of any planning applications on the site;
(c) a flood risk assessment will be required to accompany any planning application on the site where this is relevant, to be subject to review by the relevant consultees.”
Minutes:
The following notice of motion was proposed by Councillor Birch and seconded by Councillor Chewings.
Prior to presenting the motion, Councillor Birch informed the Mayor that he wished to make an amendment to the motion to refer to Council-owned and operated premises, and to clarify the referral process to scrutiny. After outlining this alteration, consent was given by the meeting and Councillor Birch proceeded to move the following motion.
Council therefore resolves to:
· Guarantee that physical cash will continue to be accepted as a payment option at all Council-owned and operated premises where on-site payments are taken.
· Require an Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) and referral to the relevant scrutiny committee for consideration before any move to cashless operation is considered for a Council service or venue.
· Instruct the Chief Executive to review current payment arrangements and report within three months on:
o Where cash is currently accepted;
o where it has been removed in the last five years;
o options to reinstate cash access where appropriate.
· Write to relevant partners and contractors to encourage the continued acceptance of cash in council-affiliated services.
In moving the motion, Councillor Birch stated that he had brought this motion for two reasons, an element referring to Rushcliffe itself, and a wider, ideological debate. He stated that cash was vital for a liberal democracy and it was inclusive, given that some communities disproportionately used cash more than others, particularly the elderly. It was also important to mitigate against systems failures by having the option to take cash payments. Councillor Birch referred to the issue of fairness and confidence, with people on low income relying on cash more and the motion was asking for good housekeeping, as detailed above. Turning to the wider debate, he felt that losing cash gave inordinate power to faceless corporations and the state, and it was important to keep cash, to retain privacy, as digital transactions could be monitored, and to ensure resilience. He stated that cash was a technology currency, allowing people to physically see their outgoings and it helped trades people and small businesses. Councillor Birch stated that voting for the motion was the kind and humane thing to do, helping elderly and disadvantaged residents and as a democratic institution, the Council had a duty to act against the ‘creep’ of digital currency.
Councillor Chewings seconded the motion and reserved the right to speak.
Councillor Virdi thanked Councillor Birch for bringing forward the motion, recognising his genuine concerns; however, he felt that the motion failed to reflect the current position, with it suggesting that residents risked being excluded from Council services, which was not the case. He confirmed that cash was accepted across a number of Council services and locations, with cash payments for bills still accepted. The Council had adapted specific services, which supported digital payments, including leisure centres, with this model adopted during Covid, together with around 99% of Council Tax payments made digitally. Councillor Virdi stated that this was not a policy choice, it was customer preference, and that using cash was not cost free, it required additional infrastructure, staffing and insurance coverage, and for those reasons businesses and public sector organisations have been moving towards digital payment models. Councillor Virdi referred to the three requests detailed in the motion and reiterated previous points regarding the need for additional infrastructure and operational costs, despite there being very low demand. In respect of requiring an EIA, it was noted that the Council’s existing governance processes had steps in place, and introducing a blanket requirement would create unnecessary bureaucracy. In respect of reviewing current payment arrangements, he advised that officers already monitored this information. Councillor Virdi confirmed that the Council’s external partners already made decisions based on customer usage and efficiency and were performing well. The Council provided cash options, whilst it carefully managed public resources to avoid introducing unnecessary costs, and he believed that the motion was seeking to solve a problem that did not exist.
It was proposed by Councillor Thomas that the meeting be extended to allow the last motion to be heard, and to move to the vote on this motion.
On being out to vote, the motion to extend the meeting was lost.
The Chief Executive advised that the Mayor did not feel that there had been sufficient debate and that Councillor Polenta, who had indicated that she wished to speak on the matter, should be allowed to speak and then move to the vote.
Councillor Polenta agreed with the ethos of the motion and to the importance of EIAs during decision making and ensuring when any changes were made that all voices were heard. She appreciated going forward that digitalisation would increase but this was still the transitional stage when barriers could widen. Accessibility could be reduced, with some groups marginalised and feeling uncomfortable.
On being put to the vote, the motion was lost.
The Monitoring Officer advised that as there was insufficient time to hear the next motion and that would be carried over to the next ordinary meeting of the Council.