To consider the following motions:

1    Recognition for the canary girls in the munitions factories in Rotherwas in the world wars.

2    Hereford eastern river crossing and link road.

Council considered the following notices of motion.

 

Motion 1 – Recognition for the canary girls in the munitions factories in Rotherwas in the world wars.

In moving the motion, Councillor SD Williams made the following points:

·         that consideration be given to the erection of a plaque of honour by way of celebrating the achievements of the canary girls

·         that his mother and sister worked in the munitions factory along with thousands of other women whose skin turned yellow through exposure to the chemicals, and who experienced arduous and fearful conditions

·         the factory was bombed by the Luftwaffe and, as Churchill urged “give us the tools and we’ll finish the job”, the canary girls worked for the country and should be recognised and honoured and never forgotten

 

Councillor ACR Chappell seconded the motion and stated that:

·         the role of women during wars and conflict was not fully recognised and the importance of their role during World Wars 1 and 2 as well as the Korean War should be recognised

·         women as young as 16 came from all over the area to work at  the factory and were billeted in the city at a hostel in Redhill and south Herefordshire

·         the women risked their lives filling the shells and on several occasions where there were explosions, they were killed and maimed, and saw the death and injury of their colleagues

·         in his former role as Chair of the South Wye Partnership, Cllr Chappell installed three commemorative stones and a group was set up with the support of the enterprise zone for a living museum and plans to develop the former shell store, where some 3500 women were identified who worked there.  It was expected that there were more women around the world who had not been recognised and it was time for Herefordshire to recognise all those who worked in munitions factories.

 

Other councillors spoke in support of the motion and the following principal points were made:

·         that recognition was better late than never as many women carried out this dangerous work in doing their bit towards the defence of country

·         experience of serving on the front line highlighted the skills of the women who worked in  the munitions factories

·         it was timely that it was world women’s day next week, with an exhibition being arranged by the Herefordshire Archives and Records Centre (HARC), and councillors were encouraged to extend this to their wards.

·         this was an opportunity for the Enterprise Zone, parishes and community groups to join up in creating formal recognition

·         the existing exhibition material needed to be refreshed, noting the heritage aspects and the opportunity to link it to bid to be the city of culture

·         many councillors had family members who worked in the factory or who cared for the women in hospital

 

In addition, a number of councillors commented that these women deserved more than a plaque in recognition of their work and spoke in support of a statue to be commissioned.

In response the Chairman reminded council that the motion was to refer to the executive to consider recognition, in the appropriate form. 

 

Councillor DG Harlow, as Cabinet member, economy and corporate services, spoke in support of the motion and thanked members for their comments regarding the Enterprise Zone, which he undertook to take to their agenda for discussion.

 

Councillor Williams confirmed he had no further comments or amendments to make in reply 

 

The Chairman put the original motion to the vote. The motion was passed unanimously. 

 

RESOLVED

That the council recognise the significant contribution made during the first and second world wars by the canary girls in the munitions factories in Rotherwas and asks the Executive to consider erecting a plaque in Rotherwas  to recognise their national role and sacrifices made in the war effort and to honour and remember their important work in the county.

 

Motion 2 - Hereford eastern river crossing and link road

 

In moving the motion, Councillor JLV Kenyon made the following points:

·         that the proposal was not to oppose the aims of the council or a western route as that was the only way to connect the A49 road to the north and south of Hereford, but was a local solution to a traffic problem. It was understood that many people in the Tupsley ward would support a road to the east of Hereford linking to Rotherwas and the Ledbury road

·         the administration’s concerns about how this would be received by Westminster was acknowledged; however, the route had been thought through and was sited on a proposed route to alleviate heavy goods and support the development of the rugby club site and which would support people to access the essential services in the city such as the hospital and schools. Traffic modelling showed that the route was robust

·         the route was supported by the Enterprise Zone and parish councils were generally supportive, and members were urged to consider this as a simple and common sense solution to a local traffic problem

 

In seconding the motion, Councillor PJ Edwards made the following comments:

·         the proposal was very much about freeing up traffic flow within the city and the immediate surroundings including emergency services traffic and access to education

·         it was believed that it would provide growth in business efficiency with links to Rotherwas and the Enterprise Zone

·         it would bring improvements in air quality for a third of Hereford residents

·         with regard to the major planning application regarding the rugby club on Hampton Dene Road, a key element of the application was the safeguarding of such a route proposed today and therefore the proposal was contained within the planning approval

·         this could be an affordable and deliverable solution in a timely manner after many years of waiting, and while the core strategy had to be delivered, this issue also needed attention.

 

In response, as cabinet member for infrastructure, Councillor PD Price spoke against the motion, making the following points:

·         over the past number of years this has been considered as part of the infrastructure proposals.  There had been considerable cost involved in developing the core strategy and studies provided evidence to not support it

·         the Board of the Marches Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) had limited resources and had to prioritise projects and although Herefordshire had benefited so far, this could not be assumed in the future

·         in the wider scheme, the funding authorities would not see the proposal as a solution and the motion could not be supported as presented

 

Members speaking in support of the motion made the following principal comments:

·         the Belmont to Ross road was poor value for money and would not alleviate problems or improve access, whereas businesses in the Enterprise Zone believed that an eastern bridge would help to get the economy moving

·         it was recognised that the strategic plan was to build a bypass to the west in order to link the A49 road. However, the western route would do little for the city or for the people living to the west and the motion was a way of easing the routes to establishments to the east. 

·         this was a plan for the future once the western route was completed and it would not appear incoherent to the government, and this should be considered before rejecting the motion

·         the proposal was a cost effective solution in terms of geography, logistics and populations and suggested forward thinking in relation to the impact of traffic from housing expansion south of the city

 

Members speaking against the motion made the following principal comments:

·         the core strategy approved the western bypass with funding continuing to be sought from Whitehall. The motion would present a muddled and confused message and detract from a decision to give funding

·         serious consideration had been given previously to routes both to the east and the west.  The Rotherwas access road was a great achievement and the Enterprise Zone provided areas for a bridge but in the fullness of time

·         it was necessary for the route to be to the west because of the Lugg Meadows and it would be necessary to find a traffic solution for roads in the east such as Hampton Park Road and Ledbury Road and mitigate impact around Bartestree and Lugwardine

·         the focus should be on dispersing business development around the county and the market towns rather than concentrating it into Rotherwas

·         serious consideration needed to be given to alternatives to car travel and there were examples of cities looking at alternatives to reduce car numbers that could be explored. 

 

The Leader, in opposing the motion, responded that the government would be asked about funding and that they, along with the Highways Authority and Transport for England would have to prioritise. It would be unrealistic to expect funders to believe that the plan was coherent if it changed from west to east and this could result in no funding at all. It was important to ensure against this.   In order to produce economic benefits the solution would be to build in the west; to pass this motion would result in disjointed funding requests and put economic development at risk.

 

Councillor JG Lester proposed that the question now be put and this was seconded by Cllr BA Durkin.  The chairman put the procedural motion to the vote having considered that the item under discussion had been sufficiently discussed.

Members voted in favour of the closure motion. There were no votes against or abstentions.

 

As the vote was passed the chairman gave the proposer of the original motion a right of reply.

 

In summing up, Cllr JLV Kenyon said that when the A49 bridge at Greyfriars was opened some 50 years ago, it was predicted that it would not be sufficient, and an additional crossing was still awaited. The motion was clear that this was not about east versus west but about a local common sense solution to a local problem. The fears regarding putting the western bypass in jeopardy were understood and it was recognised that it would bring more houses and make a sustainable authority, but it would not help the traffic. The problem was highlighted recently when storms lifted the roof off the Asda petrol station with the resulting road closure bringing the city to a standstill. The impact of the reduction in people visiting the city centre that afternoon on the economy was brought into question.  The traffic flow through the city centre would be helped by two additional bridges and members were asked what would be required for the case for the eastern route to be heard. 

 

The Chairman read the proposal, as published, for the vote.

 

Eight members present at the meeting demanded a recorded vote.

The motion was lost with 11 votes in favour, 34 against and 1 abstention.           

 

For (11)  Councillors TL Bowes, PE Crockett, PJ Edwards, EPJ Harvey, JLV Kenyon, MD Lloyd-Hayes, MN Mansell, SM Michael, AJW Powers, D Summers, A Warmington.

 

Against (34) Councillors PA Andrews, BA Baker, JM Bartlett, WLS Bowen, H Bramer, CR Butler, ACR Chappell, PGH Cutter, BA Durkin, CA Gandy, KS Guthrie, DG Harlow, EL Holton, JA Hyde, TM James, AW Johnson, JF Johnson, JG Lester, RL Mayo, MT McEvilly, PM Morgan, PD Newman, FM Norman, CA North, RJ Phillips, GJ Powell, PD Price, P Rone, NE Shaw, WC Skelton, J Stone, EJ Swinglehurst, DB Wilcox, SD Williams.

 

Abstentions (1) Councillor A Seldon

 

Councillor RI Matthews left the meeting prior to the voting.