Agenda item
Notice of Motions
In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12, the following Motions have been received:-
a) Motion – Scrap the Planning Act
Proposed by Councillor Rachel Coxcoon, Seconded by Councillor Joe Harris:
Council notes:
The significant concerns expressed through the ballot box in Chesham & Amersham over the Conservative Government’s proposed Planning Reforms, including:
- Loss of democratic accountability within the planning system, under a proposed zoning system that would grant presumed consent to development in two of the three zones
- No commitment to using the planning system to tackle climate change, either through genuinely sustainable placemaking, or through the imposition of a building standards system that will deliver zero-carbon homes.
- The expansion of Permitted Development Rights under this Government, which have already led to the development of ‘modern day slums’.
- Widespread concerns and condemnation of the Planning White Paper proposals across Local Government, The Planning and Architecture Sector, and organisations concerned with protecting green spaces and heritage.
Council is concerned that:
Government proposals to deregulate planning will remove the rights of residents to influence or object to inappropriate development where they live.
The Government's proposals pass the costly burden of design codes from developers to local government, and result in codes that will hold no statutory weight.
The proposals in the White Paper, coupled with the weakness of the proposed Future Homes Standard and Design Codes and the ease with which Permitted Development Rights can now be used, means that the planning system is in danger of becoming an active enabler of the climate crisis, rather than part of the solution.
And finally,
That the proposals in the White Paper, designed principally to speed up the delivery of much needed housing, are doomed to fail on this crucial point, since the slow delivery of housing is demonstrably not a result of delays within the planning decision-making system. Rather, it is the result of land-banking and market manipulation by the development industry. Almost a million homes already have planning permission but have not been built out. Zoning, and thus the allocation of more land for housing, will secure land value increases for a small number of major development companies, but will not alter the speed at which housing comes to the market.
Council believes that:
Residents have the right to a say over development that will change the area they live in.
Local councils, in consultation with their businesses and residents are best placed to understand the issues in their area and respond with a spatial strategy tailored to that area.
The planning system is not fit for purpose if climate change is not the pre-eminent test in decision-making, and local planning authorities are not required to manage emissions through the planning system.
International evidence shows that zoning systems, far from producing the simplified system that advocates suggest, can often result in less transparent, less accountable decision-making than a discretionary, plan-led system.
The development industry, not the planning system, is the main cause of slow housing delivery.
Council calls for the Government to:
Scrap the proposals in the Planning White Paper and instead look to the proposals in the 2017 Raynsford Review of planning to shape a fairer, more sustainable, people-centred system.
Ensure that any re-imagined planning system has a statutory purpose at its heart, to be defined in the Planning Acts. We suggest the following, from the October 2020 Common Ground Publication:
“The purpose of the planning system is to positively promote the spatial organisation of land to achieve the long-term sustainable development of the nation and the health, safety and wellbeing of individuals. In the Planning Acts, ‘sustainable development’ means managing the use, development and protection of land, the built environment and natural resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing while sustaining the potential of future generations to meet their own needs.”
And finally,
Ensure that the Planning Acts and the Climate Change Act are bound together in law, making climate change considerations a central test in any planning policy making and decision-making process.
b) Motion - Community Funding for the 2022 Queen’s Platinum Jubilee Celebrations
Proposed by Councillor Julia Judd, Seconded by Councillor Tony Berry:
“Council notes that The May Bank Holiday Weekend 2022 will be moved to Thursday 2 June 2022 and an additional Bank Holiday on Friday 3 June will see a four-day weekend to celebrate Her Majesty The Queen’s Platinum Jubilee - the first time any British monarch has reached this historic milestone.
This will also likely mark the first truly large community gathering since 2019 owing to the Covid-19 pandemic, so could arguably be considered a double celebration.
There is likely to be a strong appetite from communities to celebrate this milestone. There is no recent parallel for such an event, the closest being the Armistice commemorations and town and village parishes will benefit from a long lead-in time to plan, agree the format and cover issues such as road closures, refreshments and even catering.
This council therefore resolves to set aside specific community funding to support communities to run events over this weekend, enabling them to kick-start their plans to organise an event never to be forgotten.”
c) Motion – Cotswold Shopping Festival
Proposed by Councillor Richard Morgan Seconded by Councillor Stephen Hirst.
“After the successful vaccine rollout, it seems that the COVID-19 lockdown restrictions will be fully lifted on Monday 19 July (in what some people have labelled “Freedom Day”)
As we all know, throughout the pandemic many of our local businesses have been significantly impacted, and our high streets and town centres have been particularly hard hit.
As Freedom Day approaches, we believe that this Council has a duty to support our high streets and encourage people back into our town centres and help build consumer confidence. For this reason we would like to propose the following Motion:
- CDC launches a “FREE FOR THREE” parking scheme. This would involve offering free parking in CDC Car Parks for three days (Preferably a Friday, Saturday, Sunday long weekend).
- During the “Free for Three” period, CDC would also hire several local musicians, street performers and children’s entertainers to provide small scale, modest pop-up shows. These small business owners have also been hard hit during the pandemic so are worthy of support.
- Launch a social media campaign and a PR campaign to publicise a “Free for Three” shopping festival. The marketing to be themed around:
o Visit our town centre and park for free.
o Bring the whole family and enjoy some local street entertainers.
o Do your shopping in our amazing shops and support small business owners.
Retail research has shown that if you can attract a customer to your shop three times, they become a loyal customer and visit again and again. For this reason, if the first “Free for Three” event is successful we should consider running it again. (Once a month for three months.)”
d) Motion – Dog Waste Bin Provision
Proposed by Councillor Julia Judd
“This Council notes that an unexpected consequence of Covid-19 has been an escalation in dog ownership. According to the Pet Food Manufacturers' Association over 12 million of us now own a dog and their Covid-19 Pet Survey confirms a staggering rise in pet acquisition with dogs being the most popular at 57%.
Many Cotswold parishes suffer from an over-supply of dog waste causing the bins to fill up quickly. It is common to see dog waste bags lying on the ground around overflowing bins, photos of this regularly appear on Social Media, especially in Tetbury.
It is also common to see filled dog waste bags hanging from trees, trodden into footpaths, dropped in grit bins, left lying by gateways or on top of Cotswold stone walls. Requests from Parishes for extra dog waste bins and more frequent collections have been turned down, even if Parishes are prepared to pay for the new bins.
Waste collection is a core service which all Councils are expected to deliver, Council Tax Payers expect it and pay for it. It is a service which upholds the Council’s Civic Pride agenda and is imperative for public health.
One Cotswold village was told ‘we are currently unavailable to install any additional litter / dog waste bins…..we have had to put (this) in force across the whole of the district for various reasons and has been previously raised with Cabinet Member Cllr Andrew Doherty. As a result of COVID 19 we have received a high volume of requests for additional bins, we are unable to fulfil these requests at the present time as we have reached our limit on capacity and the amount of weight the vehicle can collect on each round. We are hopeful that with the easing of lockdown measures the volume of waste will reduce to pre-lockdown figures and we can start looking at getting any additional bin requests installed.’ This response implies the Council considers that the problem might go away post Covid-19.
The Ubico team in Chipping Campden were surprised to hear from Cllr Blomefield that we have been told that collection efforts are at maximum capacity, as public bin waste is less than normal owing to there being fewer tourists over the pandemic.
New signs on the bins include information to contact the Council that the bin needs to be emptied and also to encourage people to take their dog waste bags home with them. This rather defeats the purpose of the bins in the first place but more to the point, many people will choose not to take them home, especially if they are travelling in a car, as it is such an unpleasant and potentially hazardous thing to do.
Waste collection is a mandatory, core service. Residents, especially those in towns and bigger villages are suffering from poor service. This situation needs resolving and I ask that Council resolves to approve the appropriate funding to ensure that sufficient bins are made available and regularly emptied before they overfill.”
e) Motion – Planning Committee Protocol
Proposed by Councillor Steve Trotter
“This Council notes that concerns have been raised by Parish ands Town Councils throughout the District regarding the revised process of referring applications to the Planning Committee.
The following protocol has been adopted by Stroud Council and is therefore tried and tested and demonstrated to be fit for purpose.
I. The delegation shall not apply to an application where the Chair of Development
Control Committee (“DCC”) (or in his/her absence the Vice Chair of the Committee)
having:
(a) consulted the Head of Develop Management or the Development Manager;
and
(b) being satisfied that the application is a matter which should be considered by
committee taking account of paragraphs 1 to 4 below requires that the application first be referred to DCC for consideration before determination.
2. Requirements for reference of items to DCC
2.1. Requests for items to be placed before the DCC may only be made to the Planning Manager, the Development Manager or the Chair of the DCC by:
(a) the Parish or Town Council in which the application site is located, or
(b) a Ward Councillor within whose ward the application site is located.
2.2. An application which the Head of Develop Management or Development
Manager would otherwise consider it appropriate to determine pursuant to their delegation, should only be referred to committee where it has:
(a) generated significant public interest which has given rise to contradictory
views as to whether the application should be approved or refused; and
(b) such interest is based upon material planning considerations
2.3. Any request for an application to be referred to committee must:
(a) be made in writing (or by email);
(b) include a summary of the reasons why it is considered the matter should
be referred to committee;
(c) be copied to the Head of Develop Management and the Development
Manager;
(d) be received by the Head of Develop Management and the Development
Manager before the consideration of the proposal by the panel of planning
officers who make recommendations to the said managers to ensure that
the application is not determined prior to receipt of such request.
(Applications will not be placed before the panel until the expiry of the
consultation period being at least 21 days after the relevant weekly list of
applications).
2.4. An application may not be referred to committee pursuant to this Appendix if it concerns a matter of technical appraisal, fact or legal opinion; or is a
Version: 22 October 2020 4.23 Section 4 - Appendices A and B
Delegations to Officers application with fixed determination periods (e.g. notifications, approval ofdetails reserved by conditions and minor amendments).
2.5. Ward Members are to be invited to the meeting of the Planning Review Panel to discuss their reasons for referral.
It is proposed that this Council replaces the existing protocol adopting the above protocol in it’s place.”
Minutes:
Members had been given notice of a number of Notice of Motion, detailed on the agenda.
In relation to Agenda Item 14, Motion (e) – Planning Committee Protocol, it was agreed at the meeting that this would be considered during the deliberations relating to Item 12 – Refresh of the Constitution. This motion was therefore removed from this section of the agenda (Minute 24 relates).
Due to the late hour, it was proposed by Councillor Evemy and duly seconded that consideration of the remaining Notices of Motion be moved to the next Council meeting, due to be held on 22 September 2021.
On being put to the vote, the proposal was carried and it was therefore
RESOLVED that the following Notices of Motion be considered at the Council meeting on 22 September 2021:
a) Scrap the Planning Act
b) Community Funding for the 2022 Queen’s Platinum Jubilee Celebrations
c) Cotswold Shopping Festival
d) Dog Waste Bin Provision