to consider the following motion received in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10.1:
(a) By Cllrs Green and Hodgson
“In response to rising concerns regarding the role of the Local Enterprise Partnership in participating in the bid for public funding to finance the HOSW Devolution bid, this Council calls for LEP Board Members to be bound by the same code of conduct as Publicly Elected Representatives.”
(b) By Cllrs Hodgson and Green
“In the light of the proposed NHS cuts and the likely impact on local care services, the HOSW Devolution Bid should include a request for funding to secure a health service which looks after the needs of all those living in Devon and Somerset.”
(c) By Cllrs Green and Hodgson
“The Council will consider allowing Neighbourhood Plan groups to decide to develop recommendations for specific sites and remove these sites from the JLP on condition that the estimated number of dwellings included in the JLP for that Neighbourhood Plan area is not reduced.”
(d) By Cllrs Vint and Birch
“That this Council:
notes the ruling of the High Court (Case No: CO/2241/2016) in support of a housing policy known as ‘H2. Full Time Principal Residence Requirement’ as set out in St Ives Area Neighbourhood Development Plan and which provides that: ‘New second homes and holiday lets will not be permitted at any time..’ and
supportsand encourages Town and Parish Councils within the South Hams District to adopt similar policies in their own Neighbourhood Development Plans.”
(e) By Cllrs Ward and Holway
“The Council develops a plan to become more dementia aware, particularly for customer facing staff and to support the development of dementia awareness in the community.’
(f) By Cllrs Rowe and Holway
“We propose that the area known as T3 should be removed from the Joint Local Plan.”
(g) By Cllrs Hodgson and Green
“In the event that SHDC approves the Local Authority Controlled Company to deliver services on behalf of this Council, then a local referendum to ascertain public support would be held. (This could be held as part of the proposed referendum next March on a Combined Authority of Devon and Somerset).”
Minutes:
58/16
It was noted that one motion had been received in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10.1.
(a) By Cllrs Green and Hodgson
“In response to rising concerns regarding the role of the Local Enterprise Partnership in participating in the bid for public funding to finance the HOSW Devolution bid, this Council calls for LEP Board Members to be bound by the same code of conduct as Publicly Elected Representatives.”
In introducing the motion, the proposer made reference to:-
- a recent national media report that had claimed that over 250 payments had been made (amounting to over £100 million) by LEP Board Members that involved obvious conflicts of interest;
- his motion both seeking to protect LEP Board Members and encourage transparency;
- his general view that, across the country, the local government overview and scrutiny function had not been sufficiently scrutinising LEP’s. When considering the huge sums of public expenditure involved, the Proposer felt this to be regrettable.
In the ensuing debate, the following points were raised:-
(a) Some Members informed that LEP Board Members were subject to the same rules and guidance in respect of registering and declaring their interests. Furthermore, a Member had reviewed the South West LEP website and found that most Board Members had declared their respective interests. However, it was also acknowledged that not all Board Members appeared to have complied with this requirement;
(b) With regard to the overview and scrutiny of the LEP, the view was expressed that the County Council would probably be taking a lead in this regard. As a consequence, the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel requested that the Head of Paid Service check whether this was the case and, if it was not, he would be more than happy for this Council’s Panel to take on ownership of this matter;
(c) Whilst supporting the sentiments of the motion, a Member did highlight the importance of the most appropriate industry representatives being involved on LEP Boards;
(d) A Member stressed his total opposition to the principle of LEP Boards and felt it to be regrettable that such emphasis, responsibility and power was being given to these unelected bodies.
It was then:
RESOLVED
In response to rising concerns regarding the role of the Local Enterprise Partnership in participating in the bid for public funding to finance the HOSW Devolution bid, this Council calls for LEP Board Members to be bound by the same code of conduct as Publicly Elected Representatives.
(b) By Cllrs Hodgson and Green
“In the light of the proposed NHS cuts and the likely impact on local care services, the HOSW Devolution Bid should include a request for funding to secure a health service which looks after the needs of all those living in Devon and Somerset.”
In her introduction, the proposer highlighted that:
- there was a huge amount of community concern regarding these cuts, which were becoming an even bigger issue in light of the aging population;
- Health and Wellbeing was an important component of the Devolution Bid;
- a similar motion had been approved by Devon County Council at its meeting on 8 December 2016.
During the subsequent discussion, the following points were raised:-
(i) Some Members were of the view that, when considering the aging population and the rural nature of Devon, the NHS changes were wholly unsuitable to this area. To mitigate against the impact, it was felt that this motion was suggesting a potential solution;
(ii) It was noted that central government had indicated that it would not devolve such powers as part of any Devolution Bid;
(iii) Some Members supported the thrust of the motion, but were of the view that there may be better means of attracting appropriate funding. Furthermore, it was confirmed that extensive lobbying to central government was currently taking place and an announcement regarding social care funding was anticipated imminently.
It was then:
RESOLVED
In the light of the proposed NHS cuts and the likely impact on local care services, the HOSW Devolution Bid should include a request for funding to secure a health service which looks after the needs of all those living in Devon and Somerset.
(c) By Cllrs Green and Hodgson
“The Council will consider allowing Neighbourhood Plan groups to decide to develop recommendations for specific sites and remove these sites from the JLP on condition that the estimated number of dwellings included in the JLP for that Neighbourhood Plan area is not reduced.”
In his introduction, the proposer was of the view that the Council should create the provision (where there was good reason) for certain areas to be removed from the Joint Local Plan (JLP) and into Neighbourhood Plans. In addition, he considered this motion to be timely in advance of the Special Council meeting on 2 March 2017 to consider the next stage of the JLP process.
In the ensuing discussion, the point was made that the prescribed legal process should be allowed to run its course and approval of this motion at this time would make the whole JLP process somewhat vulnerable. Whilst the Council would aspire to achieve the intention of this motion, it was currently considered to be too early in the process, with it being more appropriate for Neighbourhood Plan groups to influence the programme at the March 2017 consultation stage.
When put to the vote, this motion was declared LOST.
(d) By Cllrs Vint and Birch
“That this Council:
notes the ruling of the High Court (Case No: CO/2241/2016) in support of a housing policy known as ‘H2. Full Time Principal Residence Requirement’ as set out in St Ives Area Neighbourhood Development Plan and which provides that: ‘New second homes and holiday lets will not be permitted at any time..’ and
supports and encourages Town and Parish Councils within the South Hams District to adopt similar policies in their own Neighbourhood Development Plans.”
The proposer introduced the motion and highlighted the implications of the high court decision whereby town and parish councils now had the power to specify the types of homes that were permitted to be built.
In discussion, reference was made to:
(i) a suggested amendment to the motion. Since it was considered to be the Council’s role to be in a neutral position regarding the formulation of a Neighbourhood Plan, a Member suggested that the words ‘and encourages’ should be deleted from the motion. The proposer and seconder of the motion confirmed their willingness to accept this suggestion and the substantive motion was updated accordingly;
(ii) support for the motion. Some Members commented that the Council should do everything it could to take advantage of this landmark ruling;
(iii) reference to ‘holiday lets’. Whilst there was confusion regarding whether or not reference was included to ‘holiday lets’ in the policy, since the motion included the words ‘to adopt similar policies’, then there was considered to be sufficient flexibility to enable Members to support its approval;
It was then:
RESOLVED
That this Council:
notes the ruling of the High Court (Case No: CO/2241/2016) in support of a housing policy known as ‘H2. Full Time Principal Residence Requirement’ as set out in St Ives Area Neighbourhood Development Plan and which provides that: ‘New second homes and holiday lets will not be permitted at any time..’ and
supports Town and Parish Councils within the South Hams District to adopt similar policies in their own Neighbourhood Development Plans.
(e) By Cllrs Ward and Holway
“The Council develops a plan to become more dementia aware, particularly for customer facing staff and to support the development of dementia awareness in the community.”
(NOTE: in the absence of Cllr Ward, Cllr Holway proposed the motion, which was then seconded by Cllr Cuthbert.)
In his introduction, the proposer stated that there was scope for the Council to set more of an example in this respect. Furthermore, the proposer felt that there was the need for emphasis to be given to Dementia Awareness in the Member Learning and Development Plan.
In discussion, the seconder highlighted that awareness of dementia was as important as actual funding provision.
It was then:
RESOLVED
The Council develops a plan to become more dementia aware, particularly for customer facing staff and to support the development of dementia awareness in the community.
(f) By Cllrs Rowe and Holway
“We propose that the area known as T3 should be removed from the Joint Local Plan.”
In her introduction, the proposer provided an extensive history of the area known as T3 and emphasised the importance of this site to the town of Totnes. In her conclusion, the proposer stressed her wish for the T3 area to be left alone and she therefore did not wish to see the site remain in the Joint Local Plan (JLP).
In the ensuing debate, reference was made to:-
(a) an amendment. The following amendment was PROPOSED and SECONDED as follows:
“This Council appreciates support from the Council’s officers to consider the Market Square in Totnes as a non-designated heritage asset and further the Council supports the work being done to designate Leechwell Gardens as a public open space. For this reason, the two areas will remain in the Local Plan. Further, the Grove School site and all the remaining sites in the Totnes Central Area will be removed from the Joint Local Plan.”
In support of her amendment, the proposer informed that:
o the Market Square was in the Conservation Area;
o the Grove School would not be relocating;
o the parking area would remain as a parking area;
o the amendment would have no overall effect on the JLP and the lead officer had been consulted and was content with this wording; and
o there would be a further opportunity for views to be expressed during the March 2017 consultation stage.
In contrast, other Members felt that this amendment presented a number of potential loopholes and it did not go far enough to reassure the local community. In particular, the lack of reference to removal of the proposed 70 dwellings was felt to be a real cause for concern.
Whilst the point was made on a number of occasions that professional officer advice had advised that removal at this time of the area known as T3 would seriously jeopardise the entire JLP process, several other Members wished to refute this claim and highlighted that areas T5, T6 and T8 had already been removed.
When put to the vote, the amendment was declared CARRIED and therefore became the substantive motion;
(b) a further amendment. A further amendment was PROPOSED and SECONDED as follows:
“This Council appreciates support from the Council’s officers to consider the Market Square in Totnes as a non-designated heritage asset and further the Council supports the work being done to designate Leechwell Gardens as a public open space. For this reason, the two areas will remain in the Local Plan. Further, the Grove School site and all the remaining sites in the Totnes Central Area together with the allocation of 70 dwellings will be removed from the Joint Local Plan.”
In support of the motion, some Members felt that the amendment would provide clear guidance to officers before the JLP was next presented to the Special Council meeting on 2 March 2017 for consideration. Officers again emphasised their advice that the removal of the 70 dwellings at this stage would jeopardise the entire JLP process. This point was again disputed by some Members.
When put to the vote, the amendment was declared LOST.
It was then:
RESOLVED
This Council appreciates support from the Council’s officers to consider the Market Square in Totnes as a non-designated heritage asset and further the Council supports the work being done to designate Leechwell Gardens as a public open space. For this reason, the two areas will remain in the Local Plan. Further, the Grove School site and all the remaining sites in the Totnes Central Area will be removed from the Joint Local Plan.
(g) By Cllrs Hodgson and Green
“In the event that SHDC approves the Local Authority Controlled Company to deliver services on behalf of this Council, then a local referendum to ascertain public support would be held. (This could be held as part of the proposed referendum next March on a Combined Authority of Devon and Somerset).”
The proposer introduced her motion and emphasised how strongly she felt about the methods by which the Council undertook its consultation exercises. Whilst she acknowledged that there were cost implications, a decision on the Local Authority Controlled Company (LACC) was so significant that she considered that it merited a local referendum.
In discussion, reference was made to:-
(a) referendums. Whilst some Members stated their support for the principle of a referendum, other Members were of the view that elected representatives were in place to represent their local communities;
(b) an operational decision. Since a decision on whether or not to establish a LACC would be an operational matter for the Council to ultimately determine, a Member advised that he could not support this motion.
When put to the vote, the motion was declared LOST.