to consider the following motions received (if any) in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10.1
(a) By Cllrs Wright and Ward
‘As a result of the Government’s recent announcement that Housing Associations will have to cut Social housing rents by 1% each year for the next four years from April 2015, this Council wishes to express its concerns that this policy will reduce the number of affordable homes being brought forward in our District, and asks for the support of the local members of Parliament.’
(b) By Cllrs Pennington and Hodgson
‘A review of the Freedom of Information Act 2005 is currently being undertaken under the Chairmanship of Lord Bridges. South Hams District Council consider that, in the important interests of local democracy, there will not be any charges or fees levied on applicants, as this would deter the use of the Act. Additionally, there must not be any increase in exemptions, as it would countermand the wise words of the then Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer in 2005 who described the Act as “a constitutional change of great significance, a radical and permanent change in the relationship between the citizen and government.”’
(c) By Cllrs Pennington and Hodgson
‘South Hams District Council expects all statutory consultees for planning applications involving the construction of dwellings and all planning applications for industrial and commercial developments to provide written reports to be made available to all Councillors and members of the public if requested to conform with the Freedom of Information Act 2005 and the Access to Information Act 2000 in the name of local democracy. The practice of any reliance on verbal reports only should be discontinued. Similarly, all of the above requirements must be observed for licensing applications submitted to South Hams District Council Licensing Committee.’
(d) By Cllrs Hodgson and Green
‘This Council will endeavour (through the LGA) to seek new legislation at National Government to enable significant increases in Council Tax for Second Homes and Holiday Homes.’
(e) By Cllrs Hodgson and Green
‘This Council will continue to support the need for social and affordable housing and consider direct purchase of housing as part of its investment strategy.’
(f) By Cllrs Vint and Green
‘This Council will, in order to protect small business and vulnerable residents, seek to identify where flat-rate charges for key services can be replaced by fees that correspond with ability to pay, prior to approval of the 2016/17 Budget:
(i) by linking charges for key business services, where appropriate, to business rates or floor area; and
(ii) by linking charges for key services for residents, where appropriate, to Council Tax bands.’
Minutes:
48/15
It was noted that six motions had been received in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10.1.
(a) By Cllrs Wright and Ward
‘As a result of the Governments recent announcement that Housing Associations will have to cut Social housing rents by 1% each year for the next four years from April 2015, this Council wishes to express its concerns that this policy will reduce the number of affordable homes being brought forward in our District, and asks for the support of the local members of Parliament.’
In introducing the motion, the proposer made particular reference to:-
- the extreme disparities between average house prices and average income in the South Hams;
- the government announcement affecting all rental markets, including affordable housing;
- the proposals leading to inevitable cashflow problems for Housing Associations. As a guide, it had been estimated that 14,000 less homes would be developed due to changes in the rent formula;
- these proposals also causing Housing Associations to revise their viability assessment figures. In addition, the Council had received correspondence from the DCLG that was urging local authorities to consequently accept lower viability figures from developers. The proposer emphasised that such action was in complete contradiction to the Council’s Corporate Priority of housing.
During the ensuing debate, the following points were raised:-
(i) The seconder echoed the comments of the proposer and was of the view that 14,000 fewer homes was a conservative prediction and estimated that between 25-27,000 less homes would be built;
(ii)Whilst expressing support for the sentiments of the motion, a Member felt that there was a need for a review to be undertaken into the effectiveness of Housing Associations. Furthermore, the Member asked that the Council did not confuse viability with the ability of Housing Associations to pay their mortgages.
It was then:
RESOLVED
As a result of the Governments recent announcement that Housing Associations will have to cut Social housing rents by 1% each year for the next four years from April 2015, this Council wishes to express its concerns that this policy will reduce the number of affordable homes being brought forward in our District, and asks for the support of the local members of Parliament.
(b) By Cllrs Pennington and Hodgson
“A review of the Freedom of Information Act 2005 is currently being undertaken under the Chairmanship of Lord Bridges. South Hams District Council consider that, in the important interests of local democracy, there will not be any charges or fees levied on applicants, as this would deter the use of the Act. Additionally, there must not be any increase in exemptions, as it would countermand the wise words of the then Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer in 2005 who described the Act as “a constitutional change of great significance, a radical and permanent change in the relationship between the citizen and government.”
In introducing his motion, the proposer emphasised that it was an apolitical issue and the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act had proven to be a vital principle of openness and transparency.
In discussion, the following points were raised:-
(i) The Leader informed that he was broadly supportive of the intention of the motion, however he fundamentally disagreed with there being no ability to charge applicants. The Leader felt that it was outrageous that, of the 1,355 requests that had been received by the Council and West Devon Borough Council in 2014, 90% had been received from corporate bodies (e.g. the national media). Furthermore, BBC figures had found that the cost to the South Hams District and West Devon Borough Council taxpayers in 2014 of supporting the FOI Act was £391,000.
In conclusion, the Leader supported the ability of local residents to utilise the Act without any charge, but could not support the motion as it was presented whereby national bodies were submitting requests linked to issues such as: ICT contracts, Business Rates, Public Health and Funerals;
(ii) A Member queried the appropriateness of an amendment being proposed as follows:
‘………there will not be any charges or fees levied on applicants who live in the South Hams area.’
At this point, the Monitoring Officer was asked to give her legal advice on the suitability of this potential amendment. In so doing, she advised that the Council should not commit itself at this stage and should wait to see the details of any revised legislation.
In light of this advice, there was no such amendment proposed.
(iii) The seconder felt there to be scope to improve the accessibility and information which was published on the Council website, which was currently not particularly easy to navigate around. In addition, the seconder emphasised that the media acted in the public interest and therefore could not agree with the concerns expressed by the Leader.
When put to the vote, the motion was declared LOST.
(c) By Cllrs Pennington and Hodgson
‘South Hams District Council expects all statutory consultees for planning applications involving the construction of dwellings and all planning applications for industrial and commercial developments to provide written reports to be made available to all Councillors and members of the public if requested to conform with the Freedom of Information Act 2005 and the Access to Information Act 2000 in the name of local democracy. The practice of any reliance on verbal reports only should be discontinued. Similarly, all of the above requirements must be observed for licensing applications submitted to South Hams District Council Licensing Committee.’
In introducing the motion, its proposer wished to formally move a slightly amended version (as below):-
‘South Hams District Council expects all statutory consultees – for both planning and licensing applications – to comment in writing with reasons for their view. These comments will be available to all Councillors and members of the public if requested to conform with the Freedom Of Information Act 2005 and the Access to Information Act 2000. The practice of the use of verbal responses should be discouraged.’
In discussion, reference was made to the intention of the amended wording being to send a strong (yet more succinct) message to statutory consultees.
It was then:
RESOLVED
South Hams District Council expects all statutory consultees – for both planning and licensing applications – to comment in writing with reasons for their view. These comments will be available to all Councillors and members of the public if requested to conform with the Freedom Of Information Act 2005 and the Access to Information Act 2000. The practice of the use of verbal responses should be discouraged.
(d) By Cllrs Hodgson and Green
‘This Council will endeavour (through the LGA) to seek new legislation at National Government to enable significant increases in Council Tax for Second Homes and Holiday Homes.’
The proposer highlighted the major impact of second and holiday homes in the South Hams and felt that the Council should lead the way in seeking new legislation.
During the ensuing debate, the following points were raised:-
(a) Some Members emphasised that there was no current way of identifying second and holiday homes. Moreover, a Member felt that the Council should firstly closely monitor the impact of the pending changes in legislation regarding stamp duty increases for second and holiday homes;
(b) To provide some balance, a Member commented that second and holiday homes were a mixed blessing. In expanding her point, the Member highlighted that such properties paid Council Tax, but did not use services such as schools and were rarely utilising other services such as local highways and waste collections;
(c) The huge migration from second homes classification to businesses (estimated to be in the region of 2,500 properties) was also cited as a further reason why this motion should not be supported;
(d) In support of the motion, the seconder reiterated the corporate drive to raise additional revenue and felt that there were methods of establishing primary residence (e.g. via the electoral roll);
(e) In attempting to discourage the number of second and holiday homes, a Member cited the Channel Islands policy whereby a minimum charge was applied.
When put to the vote, the motion was declared LOST.
(e) By Cllrs Hodgson and Green
‘This Council will continue to support the need for social and affordable housing and consider direct purchase of housing as part of its investment strategy.’
In introducing the motion, the proposer and seconder requested a slight alteration whereby the words: ‘affordable housing to rent and consider……..’ be added.
In discussion, the following points were raised:-
(i) A Member complimented the proposer and seconder for submitting a well drafted motion;
(ii)In stressing the Council’s commitment in this area, a Member highlighted the recent Executive recommendation to Council whereby an updated Asset Management Strategy be adopted (Minute E.32/15 refers). Furthermore, it was noted that the Council had already increased its investment portfolio of housing stock.
It was then:
RESOLVED
This Council will continue to support the need for social and affordable housing to rent and consider direct purchase of housing as part of its investment strategy.
(f) By Cllrs Vint and Green
‘This Council will, in order to protect small business and vulnerable residents, seek to identify where flat-rate charges for key services can be replaced by fees that correspond with ability to pay, prior to approval of the 2016/17 Budget:
(i) by linking charges for key business services, where appropriate, to business rates or floor area; and
(ii)by linking charges for key services for residents, where appropriate, to Council Tax bands.’
(NOTE: in the absence of Cllr Vint, this motion was subsequently proposed by Cllr Green and seconded by Cllr Baldry).
The proposer introduced the motion and felt that, if supported, it could help support small businesses in the market towns. As an example to underpin the motion, the proposer stated that the charge for a High Hedge Complaint was currently proposed to be £320 across the board and the Council could look for opportunities to tier charging into say two or three different banding levels.
In discussion, the following points were raised:-
- A Member commented that Council Tax bands did not reflect the ability to pay. In addition, by linking charges to floor area would not necessarily be reflective of the profitability of a business (e.g. pubs and leisure centres);
- A further barrier to supporting the motion was the lack of ability to enforce and monitor the proposals and legislation dictating that a number of these fees and charges could only be able to be set on a cost recovery basis.
When put to the vote, this motion was declared LOST.