Agenda item - Notices of Motion.

The following Notices of Motion have been submitted by Members for consideration (copies attached):

 

(a)         Reducing the Negative Impact of Roadworks in Brighton and Hove - Proposed by Councillor Wealls.

(b)        School Places – Proposed by Councillor Pissaridou.

(c)         Oppose The National Planning Policy Framework – Proposed by Councillor Morgan.

(d)        New Measures Needed to Address Housing Crisis – Proposed by Councillor Wakefield.

(e)         Public Service Pensions – Proposed by Councillor MacCafferty.

 

(a)               Reducing the Negative Impact of Roadworks in Brighton and Hove

 

34.1         The Notice of Motion as detailed in the agenda was proposed by Councillor Wealls and seconded by Councillor G. Theobald.

 

34.2         Councillor Lepper moved an amendment on behalf of the Labour & Co-operative Group, which was seconded by Councillor Marsh.

 

34.3         The Mayor noted that the amendment moved by Councillor Lepper had not been accepted by Councillor Wealls and therefore put the proposed amendment to the vote which was carried.

 

34.4         The Mayor then put the following motion as amended to the vote:

 

“This Council recognises that street works by utility companies and highway authorities are necessary in order to provide and maintain the essential services and transport networks on which the residents of Brighton & Hove depend. However, it also recognises that the traffic congestion caused by such works also carries a considerable cost to residents, businesses and visitors - nationally, it is estimated that roadworks cost the economy £4 billion a year.

 

This Council notes:

 

(a)    The success of Permit Schemes, such as those introduced by the Mayor of London, in leading to a more co-ordinated approach to roadworks and to significant reductions in disruption to residents and businesses.

 

(b)    The current Government consultation paper – New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 – Lane Rental Schemes – which advocates the use of lane rental schemes on the most critical parts of the highway network to incentivise those undertaking street works to do so more quickly and at less disruptive times of the day.

 

Therefore, this Council agrees in principle that a Permit or Lane Rental Scheme could bring enormous benefits to residents, businesses and visitors in Brighton & Hove and requests that the Cabinet Member for Transport and Public Realm:

 

(a)    Brings a report to his CMM by the end of the year, considering the feasibility of introducing a Permit and/or Lane Rental Scheme in Brighton & Hove; and

 

(b)    Calls on the government to give powers of intervention to the utility regulators to enable them to prevent any costs arising from this scheme to the utility companies from being passed on to their consumers.”

 

34.5         The motion was carried.

 

 

(b)              School Places

 

34.6         The Notice of Motion as detailed in the agenda was proposed by Councillor Pissaridou and seconded by Councillor Robins.

 

34.7         The Mayor congratulated Councillor Robins on his maiden speech.

 

34.8         Councillor Wealls moved an amendment on behalf of the Conservative Group, which was seconded by Councillor Brown.

 

34.9         The Mayor noted that the amendment moved by Councillor Wealls had not been accepted by Councillor Pissaridou and therefore put the proposed amendment to the vote which was lost.

 

34.10    The Mayor then put the following motion as amended to the vote:

 

“This council recognises the concern shared by parents and school staff in West Hove and Portslade over the provision of future Primary School places.

 

It notes the significant rise in the numbers of children needing Primary School places and that in the next academic year, the city will not have enough Reception Year places for the numbers of children requiring them and the provision of adequate numbers of Junior stage places for children in Portslade is not yet resolved.

 

The council also notes that the planned expansion of four Primary Schools and the continued use of the Connaught Centre to provide some Infant class-rooms will still not provide the future numbers of places needed.

 

It recognises that following a policy of continual expansion of existing Primary Schools is not sustainable, does not provide the best learning environment for young children and over-large schools are not popular with parents. 

 

It understands the pressing need for a new Primary School in Hove within three years as part of a well thought through strategy for the future of school places in the city.

 

The council regrets that under the Coalition Government’s policy the only options available for the creation of a new Primary School in Hove are as an Academy or a Free School and shares the Administration's concerns with this national policy.

 

However the council places a greater priority on ensuring that the city’s young children are able to learn in the best quality, modern settings that can be provided for them with governance arrangements that place the running of the school firmly with parents and the local community, working in partnership with staff and the LEA.

 

The council notes the positive, ethical values of Co-operative Trust Schools and the model's growing success with Co-operative Trust Academy Schools in Manchester, Stockport and Nottingham, being run in partnership with their Local Education Authorities and universities and believes that this ethical and co-operative model of education would prove beneficial and popular with parents, children, teachers and communities in Brighton & Hove while retaining strong links with the LEA and other schools.

 

Therefore resolves to request the Cabinet:

 

a)      To immediately pursue a well-thought through strategy to meet the increasing demand for school places;

 

b)      To meet this increased demand for school places by pragmatically working within the limits imposed by central Government; and

 

c)      To specifically consider the creation of a Co-operative Academy Trust model for a new primary school in Hove.”

 

34.11    The motion was lost.

 

 

(c)               Oppose the National Planning Policy Framework

 

34.12    The Notice of Motion as detailed in the agenda was proposed by Councillor Morgan and seconded by Councillor Mitchell.

 

34.13    Councillor Kennedy moved an amendment on behalf of the Green Group, which was seconded by Councillor MacCafferty.

 

34.14    The Mayor noted that the amendment moved by Councillor Kennedy had been accepted by Councillor Morgan and therefore put the proposed motion as amended to the vote:

 

“This council notes the growing and widespread opposition to the Coalition Government’s proposed National Planning Policy Framework.  Groups such as the National Trust, the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England, the RSPB, the WI and even The Daily Telegraph are calling for significant changes to be made or for the scrapping of the proposals in their entirety.

 

This council has concerns that under the new proposals there will be less opportunity for local people and local authorities to shape their town and city planning frameworks, as the NPPF will contain a ‘presumption to build’ that has to be incorporated into all planning and development stages.

 

This council notes that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) severely weakens our planning system, which currently protects local people from unsafe, unsightly and unsustainable development.  It departs from this council’s previous policy based on the physical capacity of the city to accommodate balanced development on brownfield sites, incorporating the demands of the local economy, housing and the necessary infrastructure.

 

This council supports a more streamlined planning system to encourage more economic growth, but notes that cutting around 1000 pages of planning policy down to nearly 50 is overly excessive, stripping away protection for residents and leaving little left but a charter for developers and barristers.

 

This council shares many of the popular concerns which have been voiced in opposition to the proposed plans, but in particular how the following issues will affect residents in Brighton & Hove directly:

 

·         Deregulation of permitted development and the current Use Classes Order which could see the city losing much-needed employment space, undermining our economic recovery;

 

·         Failure to include renewable energy requirements, endangering the ability of the UK government to achieve its legally binding 15% renewable energy target by 2020;

 

·         Lack of clarity in planning rules covering hotels, leisure and tourism, potentially giving developers free rein to build hotels wherever they please across the city;

 

·         Abolition of planning guidance which currently protects our city from flooding, potentially leading to an increased flood risk and possibly leaving homes uninsurable;

 

·         Weakening of conservation protections which currently preserve the historic glory of Brighton & Hove's distinctive Regency and Victorian buildings; the very architecture of which keeps the city unique and attracts tourists;

 

·         Scrapping of protection for our local and unique shopping streets and independent city centre shops, as planning changes will encourage developers to build out-of-town shopping centres and retail parks, increasing car journeys, traffic congestion and pollution;

 

·         Placing more pressure to build on our currently locally protected urban fringe, in which some sites have already regrettably had their protection severely weakened by non-inclusion in the new South Downs National Park;

 

·         A lack of clarity over the term ‘sustainable development’ leading to a reduction in high quality, sustainable building design, and undermining environmental, carbon reduction and sustainable transport objectives;

 

·         A lack of emphasis in relation to affordable housing provision: with over 11,000 people on our housing waiting list, Brighton & Hove’s housing crisis will be worsened by these proposals;

 

·         A lack of recognition for the provision of supporting infrastructure.

 

This council also shares concerns expressed by The Argus, that these reforms could simply see Brighton & Hove become a “southern suburb of London; a giant housing development by the sea”.

 

This council therefore resolves to request the Chief Executive to:

 

·         Write to Greg Clark MP, Minister for Planning with a copy of this motion, expressing our grave concerns with the National Planning Policy Framework, its potential impact on Brighton and Hove and emphasising how much the city and its council values and wishes to protect and enhance its employment space and the green spaces that make up the urban fringe on the edge of the city;

 

·         Write to Grant Shapps MP, Minister of State for Housing and Local Government, calling for capital funding to be released as a matter of urgency to enable the city to address its severe housing shortage; and

 

·         Write to Brighton & Hove's Members of Parliament, asking them to lobby the government to recognise the specific problems regarding the city’sland constraints which make delivering a sound plan so challengingfor Brighton and Hove and to amend its plans that will have such a negative impact on the city and its residents.”

 

34.15    The motion was carried.

 

 

(d)              New Measures Needed to Address Housing Crisis

 

34.16    In view of the lateness of the meeting, Councillor Randall stated that he wished to withdraw the motion and to bring it to the next council meeting.

 

34.17    The Mayor noted that no opposition had been raised to Councillor Randall’s request and therefore moved to the next item.

 

 

(e)               Public Service Pensions

 

34.18    The Notice of Motion as detailed in the agenda was proposed by Councillor MacCafferty and seconded by Councillor Buckley.

 

34.19    The Mayor congratulated Councillors MacCafferty and Buckley on their maiden speeches.

 

34.20    Councillor Wealls queried whether the councillors had read the Centre for Local Government’s consultation document which suggested that anyone earning under £15k would not be required to make a contribution and that higher earners would pay more.  He suggested that the government was looking to make pensions sustainable and that they would be kept for public workers and would be good value.

 

34.21    Councillor Gilbey stated that she fully supported the motion and that she believed public service pensions were sustainable and affordable and that there were no funding gaps.  She believed the current proposals affected all public sector workers and would see them worse off whilst benefiting others such as the bankers.  It was a deferred salary which would affect thousands of people.

 

34.22    The Mayor congratulated Councillor Gilbey on her maiden speech.           

 

34.23    The Mayor then put the following motion to the vote:

 

“This council notes the Coalition Government's attack on public services pensions in general and local government pensions in particular.  It further notes Ministers' proposals to increase member contributions in the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS).

 

Despite reassurances in consultation papers recently released by the Department for Communities and Local Government, there is great concern at members being forced to pay more so soon after re-negotiating terms.

 

At the same time, the Government's earlier decision to link pension increases to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) rather than the Retail Price Index (RPI) will result in LGPS members losing up to 25 per cent in the value of their pensions during the next 25 years.

 

This council believes the effect of these proposals will lead to many local government workers leaving the LGPS because they will find it unaffordable.  This will affect the long term viability of LGPS and lead to its possible collapse.  Research by the GMB shows that 25 per cent of council workers opt out of the LGPS for affordability reasons and in some local authorities this figure is as high as 50 per cent.

 

Further research shows that these government proposals, which are a Treasury tax on pension savings, could lead to 50 per cent or more of LPGS members opting out. This will lead to more low paid public service workers swelling the ranks of the 1 in 6 UK pensioners who, according to Age Concern, already live in retirement poverty.  An increase in the state benefit bill will inevitably follow.

 

This council therefore resolves to:

 

(1)    Support the trade unions and others in their campaign to protect local government pensions and to provide all pensioners with a Living Pension; and

 

(2)    Ask the city's three MPs and the City Council's Chief Executive to write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne and Communities Secretary Eric Pickles urging them to:

 

·         End their attack on public service pensions by scrapping their plans to increase contributions and by retaining the link between pension increases and RPI;

 

·         Increase all state pensions above the official poverty level of £178 a week in line with the recommendations of the National Pensioners Convention.”

 

34.24    The motion was carried.