Agenda item
Notice of Motions
In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12, the following Motions have been received:-
a) E-Petition Tab on the Council website
Proposed by Councillor Julia Judd, Seconded by Councillor Tony Berry
In support of this Council’s ambition to be open and transparent, residents need a facility to inform the Council of concerns, especially when they are shared by many people, which is visible to all across the District.
An e-Petition tab on the front of the Council’s website would make it easier for residents to raise issues which are the responsibility of this Council, to be raised in an open and transparent forum. Petitions would have a clear statement, the name and contact details of the petition organiser or clerk to whom the correspondence can be sent. Details would be required to login to sign an e-petition as a safeguard against bogus petitions.
An e-petition facility supports this Council’s ambition to be open and transparent and are successfully used by other councils.
b) Virtual and Hybrid Council Meetings
Proposed by Councillor Nick Maunder, Seconded by Councillor Garry Selwyn
Council notes:
A) The temporary enabling of virtual Council meetings in response to the coronavirus pandemic allowed the Council to continue making democratic decisions efficiently, transparently and safely without the need for physical meetings in one place. We welcomed the return to in-person meetings where they can safely and efficiently take place, but also recognise the benefits to democracy of providing flexible meeting options, including opening up local democratic decision-making and creating a more accessible experience for councillors and the public.
B) The following advantages of being able to hold remote and hybrid council meetings:
1) Some councillors and prospective councillors have work or caring commitments, or mobility or accessibility issues limiting their ability to attend meetings in person. Virtual meeting options provide more flexibility and accessibility for councillors to attend Council meetings. In the future, this flexibility and increased accessibility could help to attract a wider range of potential councillors.
2) Many councillors have to travel a long distance from their homes to the Council meeting place. This can make it more difficult for councillors to attend every meeting they would wish to attend. In addition, long travel time for short meetings may not be the most efficient use of councillor time; remote attendance on occasion may help maintain high levels of councillor attendance and be more efficient.
3) A reduction in travel by attending some meetings virtually rather than driving would reduce emissions and cut down on the Council’s carbon footprint.
4) Virtual meetings can save money for the Council in terms of travel expenses and venue costs.
5) Some councillors are also councillors for other Councils in the area, and virtual meetings options can help them attend more meetings, even meetings taking place on the same day. This increases engagement in the various tiers of government, which is an advantage for this Council and others affected.
6) Providing virtual meeting options can make Council meetings more accessible and produce better engagement from the public and the press on various issues.
Council therefore resolves to:
1) Write to the Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) urging a permanent amendment to the meeting rules set out in the Local Government Act 1972 by enabling local authorities to hold virtual, hybrid or physical meetings
2) Write to Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP to ask for support for this flexible approach to Council meetings
3) Continue to explore the use of technology to develop online meetings to attract a wider audience once our request has been successful.
c) National Park Motion
Proposed by Councillor Joe Harris, Seconded by Councillor Juliet Layton
In November 2019, following a review of National Parks and AONBs by Julian Glover, this Council debated and supported a motion urging Natural England, the MP for The Cotswolds Constituency and various Cabinet Ministers, that no further work should be undertaken on the proposal that the Cotswolds becomes a national park.
Whilst there has been very little public comment from the Government, two years on this proposal hasn’t been dropped and Cotswold District Council, again, urges the Government not to undertake any further work on this proposal.
This Council therefore resolves to write to Natural England, the MP for the Cotswolds constituency and George Eustice MP, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) to:
(i) Support the recommendations of the Landscapes Review to increase biodiversity recovery and enhance the 'national landscape' of the Cotswolds AONB through partnership working and increased Government funding.
(ii) Confirm that Cotswold District Council is taking a leadership role among the Cotswolds AONB Local Authorities to find quicker, cheaper and easier methods to deliver these benefits.
(iii) Support the creation of a National Landscapes Service to act as a coordinator, facilitator and ombudsman for National Parks and AONBs.
(iv) Advise that Cotswold District Council has concluded that, on current evidence, the case for the Cotswolds AONB to be considered for National Park status is very weak - on the basis that doing so is likely to:
• take 10-20 years of costly consultation and technical work to deliver;
• exacerbate the chronic housing affordability crisis;
• hinder the Government's ability to deliver genuinely affordable housing in the communities that need it most
• limit or reduce economic, research and development potential;
• not significantly increase the benefits of tourism; and
• remove decision making for planning and development from the district and pass it to an unelected body.
Minutes:
Members had been given notice of a number of Motions, detailed on the agenda.
a) Motion - E-Petition Tab on the Council website
Proposed by Councillor Julia Judd, Seconded by Councillor Tony Berry
In support of this Council’s ambition to be open and transparent, residents need a facility to inform the Council of concerns, especially when they are shared by many people, which is visible to all across the District.
An e-Petition tab on the front of the Council’s website would make it easier for residents to raise issues which are the responsibility of this Council, to be raised in an open and transparent forum. Petitions would have a clear statement, the name and contact details of the petition organiser or clerk to whom the correspondence can be sent. Details would be required to login to sign an e-petition as a safeguard against bogus petitions.
An e-petition facility supports this Council’s ambition to be open and transparent and are successfully used by other councils.
Councillor Judd provided further context around the Motion, highlighting the importance for members of the public being able to easily view and access historic and current petitions.
Councillor Berry expressed agreement that it was important for petitions to be easily accessible.
Council noted that the CDC petitions scheme was available on the website. The Monitoring Officer informed Council that further work needed to be undertaken to determine how the functionality around e-petitions operated and how it may be made available on the CDC website.
The Leader of the Council, Councillor Joe Harris informed the Council that the Liberal Democrat Group would be supporting the motion but that one amendment to the wording was requested which was that the word ‘tab’ be amended to read ‘link’. This would result in the essence of the motion remaining but reflected that it might not be possible to place a tab on the front page of the Council website.
Council agreed that a link to ensure that e-petitions could be easily accessed on the CDC homepage would be beneficial.
Councillor Evemy seconded the amendment.
Council noted that there was a facility in Modern.gov which was a system utilised by CDC which could be used to service e-petitions and was a feature currently used by other Councils.
The proposer of the Motion agreed to the proposed amendment to the wording and acknowledged that the link to access e-petitions easily via the front page of the Council website was important and was the essence behind the submission of the Motion.
Council voted to support the Motion.
Record of Voting – for: 29 , against: 0, abstentions: 0, absent: 5
b) Motion - Virtual and Hybrid Council Meetings
Proposed by Councillor Nick Maunder, Seconded by Councillor Garry Selwyn
Council notes:
A) The temporary enabling of virtual Council meetings in response to the coronavirus pandemic allowed the Council to continue making democratic decisions efficiently, transparently and safely without the need for physical meetings in one place. We welcomed the return to in-person meetings where they can safely and efficiently take place, but also recognise the benefits to democracy of providing flexible meeting options, including opening up local democratic decision-making and creating a more accessible experience for councillors and the public.
B) The following advantages of being able to hold remote and hybrid council meetings:
1) Some councillors and prospective councillors have work or caring commitments, or mobility or accessibility issues limiting their ability to attend meetings in person. Virtual meeting options provide more flexibility and accessibility for councillors to attend Council meetings. In the future, this flexibility and increased accessibility could help to attract a wider range of potential councillors.
2) Many councillors have to travel a long distance from their homes to the Council meeting place. This can make it more difficult for councillors to attend every meeting they would wish to attend. In addition, long travel time for short meetings may not be the most efficient use of councillor time; remote attendance on occasion may help maintain high levels of councillor attendance and be more
efficient.
3) A reduction in travel by attending some meetings virtually rather than driving would reduce emissions and cut down on the Council’s carbon footprint.
4) Virtual meetings can save money for the Council in terms of travel expenses and venue costs.
5) Some councillors are also councillors for other Councils in the area, and virtual meetings options can help them attend more meetings, even meetings taking place on the same day. This increases engagement in the various tiers of government, which is an advantage for this Council and others affected.
6) Providing virtual meeting options can make Council meetings more accessible and produce better engagement from the public and the press on various issues.
Council therefore resolves to:
1) Write to the Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) urging a permanent amendment to the meeting rules set out in the Local Government Act 1972 by enabling local authorities to hold virtual, hybrid or physical meetings
2) Write to Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP to ask for support for this flexible approach to Council meetings
3) Continue to explore the use of technology to develop online meetings to attract a wider audience once our request has been successful.
Councillor Maunder provided further context around the Motion, acknowledging the importance of being able to utilise hybrid/remote meetings during the pandemic whilst also referencing the logistical benefits of being able hold meetings on this basis in the future.
Cost savings had been made through reduced Member travel claims, with virtual meetings also resulting in time savings for Members and a reduction in carbon emissions where journeys had not been required. Due to the sparse, rural nature of the District, virtual meetings were beneficial where sufficient public transport networks were not in place, resulting in personal vehicles having to be used to travel to and from a central meeting location.
Council noted the ways in which organisations and businesses had adapted to new ways of remote working due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Council further noted the importance of the public sector being afforded the legislation to support them being able to take their own decisions in determining their own meeting arrangements (whether purely physical or a mixture of remote and physical for example).
The current legislation meant that all formal Council meetings had to be held in-person, despite the Covid-19 pandemic continuing.
Council acknowledged the importance of technology being able to support the function of hybrid/remote meetings if they were to be successful going forwards.
The Council noted that the Council had responded to the Government’s request for responses in relation to how Council meetings might be facilitated in the future.
Council acknowledged that non-aligned Members had found that the quality of debate had not been what is was when compared with physical meetings as they did not have an opportunity to liaise with Group Members in advance of meetings/ in-between meetings, etc as the Conservative and Liberal Democrats had been able to do given the number of their Members.
Whilst the Council acknowledged the importance of adapting to new ways of working, the quality of debate and engagement when meeting in-person should not be discounted.
Councillor Gary Selwyn seconded the Motion.
Council voted to support the Motion.
Record of Voting – for: 27 , against: 0, abstentions: 2, absent: 5
c) Motion - National Park Motion
Proposed by Councillor Joe Harris, Seconded by Councillor Juliet Layton
In November 2019, following a review of National Parks and AONBs by Julian Glover, this Council debated and supported a motion urging Natural England, the MP for The Cotswolds Constituency and various Cabinet Ministers, that no further work should be undertaken on the proposal that the Cotswolds becomes a national park.
Whilst there has been very little public comment from the Government, two years on this proposal hasn’t been dropped and Cotswold District Council, again, urges the Government not to undertake any further work on this proposal.
This Council therefore resolves to write to Natural England, the MP for the Cotswolds constituency and George Eustice MP, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) to:
(i) Support the recommendations of the Landscapes Review to increase biodiversity recovery and enhance the 'national landscape' of the Cotswolds AONB through partnership working and increased Government funding.
(ii) Confirm that Cotswold District Council is taking a leadership role among the Cotswolds AONB Local Authorities to find quicker, cheaper and easier methods to deliver these benefits.
(iii) Support the creation of a National Landscapes Service to act as a coordinator,
facilitator and ombudsman for National Parks and AONBs.
(iv) Advise that Cotswold District Council has concluded that, on current evidence, the case for the Cotswolds AONB to be considered for National Park status is very weak - on the basis that doing so is likely to:
• take 10-20 years of costly consultation and technical work to deliver;
• exacerbate the chronic housing affordability crisis;
• hinder the Government's ability to deliver genuinely affordable housing in the
communities that need it most
• limit or reduce economic, research and development potential;
• not significantly increase the benefits of tourism; and
• remove decision making for planning and development from the district and pass it to an unelected body.
The Leader of the Council, Councillor Joe Harris provided further context around the Motion, which sought to oppose plans to have the Cotswold designated as a National Park.
Council noted that there had not been any expressions made by substantial numbers of residents seeking the Cotswolds to be designated as a National Park.
Council noted the importance of ensuring that local decisions on planning be taken by Elected Members.
Council further noted the potential for property price increases if the Cotswolds was designated as a National Park. The importance of delivering sustainable, affordable housing was recognised by the Council.
Council noted that the Glover Report had not sought to engage with District Councils who were currently responsible for determining planning applications. The Council would welcome an opportunity to put its views as part of the work being undertaken in this area.
Council further noted that the Cotswolds retained its uniqueness by not only the natural landscape, but also the built environment which was not typical of many National Parks.
Council acknowledged the pattern of tourist influxes to existing National Parks, Snowdonia for example and the potential negative impacts on biodiversity that this could have.
Some Members expressed a view that the potential benefits of designating the Cotswolds as a National Park would need to be analysed before a decision could be made on supporting this Motion.
Council acknowledged the quality of the debate in relation to this Motion.
Members acknowledged the importance of ensuring that the local area was shaped by the elected representatives of local people.
The Chair of the Council, Councillor Dilys Neill outlined the recommendations contained in the Motion.
Council voted to support the Motion.
Record of Voting – for: 16, against: 5, abstentions: 8, absent: 5
The Committee noted that a briefing on Member safety would be held on the same day in advance of the next Full Council meeting on 19 January 2022.