to consider the following motions received (if any) in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10.1
(a) By Cllrs Birch and Baldry
‘This Council resolves to investigate and report on the formation of a company, similar to that set up by Wokingham Borough Council, for the purpose of delivering social housing in order to meet the needs of those in South Hams who are finding it difficult to purchase their own property and/or find suitable rented accommodation.
An initial report is to be presented to the Executive and Overview and Scrutiny Panel within the next three months.’
(b) By Cllrs Green and Hodgson
‘This Council will:
require that all Councillors sign an agreement to refrain from submitting for planning permission which would lead to a development within the District resulting in a market value gain of over £500,000 whilst being a District Councillor and for a period of one year after being a District Councillor. The agreement will include a penalty for failure to comply, equivalent to any resulting market value increase over £500,000, to be payable to the Council.’
(c) By Cllrs Hodgson and Green
‘This Council is disappointed that our district council representative on DCC Health and Adult Care Scrutiny Committee recently voted against calls to refer the closure of community hospital beds to the Secretary of State for Health and in future we call on him to consult the Leader of this Council, if a County Council Health and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee is debating and voting on a decision that affects the whole of Devon.
This Council also wants to remind the District Council representative on Devon County Council Health and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee that he is there to represent the views of all District Councils not his own personal opinion.
This Council will write to their representative noting our disappointment at his vote to not refer the decision to the Secretary of State.’
.
Minutes:
35/17
It was noted that four motions had been received in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10.1.
(a) By Cllrs Birch and Baldry
‘This Council resolves to investigate and report on the formation of a company, similar to that set up by Wokingham Borough Council, for the purpose of delivering social housing in order to meet the needs of those in South Hams who are finding it difficult to purchase their own property and/or find suitable rented accommodation.
An initial report is to be presented to the Executive and Overview and Scrutiny Panel within the next three months.’
In introducing the motion, the proposer made reference to:-
- his initial raising of this matter at the Overview and Scrutiny Panel meeting held on 27 July 2017 (Minute O&S.29/17 refers);
- broad details of the Wokingham Borough Council scheme;
- Torbay Council having introduced a similar model; and
- the urgent need for Social Housing in the South Hams.
During the ensuing debate, a Member welcomed the motion to raise the profile of affordable housing in the South Hams. The Member advised that officers had held discussions with the Managing Director of the Wokingham Housing Company in June 2017 and was informed that they had a 3 pronged approach:-
1. To develop housing (as a builder for third parties or the Council itself);
2. A ‘for profit’ registered housing provider; and
3. An affordable and social housing local housing company.
In addition, the Member highlighted that the Borough Council had started work on the formation of a company back in 2011 and it was estimated that the Council now employed 5 full time officers that were solely focused on this initiative.
At this point, the Member proposed the following amendment:
‘This Council resolves to investigate and report on the range of options for the purpose of delivering social/affordable housing in order to meet the needs of those in South Hams who are finding it difficult to purchase their own property and/or find suitable rented accommodation.
An initial report is to be presented to the Overview and Scrutiny Panel within the next six months.’
Having been invited by the Chairman, the proposer and seconder of the original motion confirmed their support for the amended wording, which therefore became the substantive motion and, when put to the vote, it was then:
RESOLVED
This Council resolves to investigate and report on the range of options for the purpose of delivering social/affordable housing in order to meet the needs of those in South Hams who are finding it difficult to purchase their own property and/or find suitable rented accommodation.
An initial report is to be presented to the Overview and Scrutiny Panel within the next six months.
(b) By Cllrs Green and Hodgson
‘This Council will:
require that all Councillors sign an agreement to refrain from submitting for planning permission which would lead to a development within the District resulting in a market value gain of over £500,000 whilst being a District Councillor and for a period of one year after being a District Councillor. The agreement will include a penalty for failure to comply, equivalent to any resulting market value increase over £500,000, to be payable to the Council.’
In his introduction, the proposer highlighted that there was a perception amongst the local community that elected Members were motivated by self-interest. Whilst emphasising that the intention of this motion was not concerned with previous incidents (and was not meant to be a personal slur against any fellow Member(s)), the proposer and seconder reiterated the importance of maintaining public confidence.
Whilst some Members supported the principle of its sentiments, other Members felt the motion to be divisive and discriminatory against landowners. Furthermore, the view was expressed that approval of this motion would be a disincentive for prospective candidates standing to be a Member. Finally, a Member felt that the existing Code of Conduct (and the consequent need to register and declare interests) ensured that sufficient controls were in place that negated the need for this motion.
When put to the vote, this motion was declared LOST.
(c) By Cllrs Hodgson and Green
‘This Council is disappointed that our district council representative on DCC Health and Adult Care Scrutiny Committee recently voted against calls to refer the closure of community hospital beds to the Secretary of State for Health and in future we call on him to consult the Leader of this Council, if a County Council Health and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee is debating and voting on a decision that affects the whole of Devon.
This Council also wants to remind the District Council representative on Devon County Council Health and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee that he is there to represent the views of all District Councils not his own personal opinion.
This Council will write to their representative noting our disappointment at his vote to not refer the decision to the Secretary of State.’
In her introduction, the proposer highlighted that:-
- there had been extensive press coverage over this issue; and
- a number of residents were of the view that the representative had based his decision on his own personal views and not the views of the District Councils that he represented.
In the ensuing discussion, reference was made to:-
(a) the comments of the Leader. The Leader of the Council informed that he met regularly with the representative. Furthermore, it was confirmed that, in this instance, the representative was fully aware of the views of the Leader;
(b) the Dartmouth Community Hospital consultation exercise. Some Members outlined the process that had been followed for the Dartmouth Community Hospital and it was highlighted that, on the whole, the local community was fully in favour of the new proposals;
(c) the role of a District Council representative. In expressing the view that the criticism was unfair, a Member made the point that it was often impossible to make contact with Members from every District Council.
When put to the vote, the motion was declared LOST.