To consider Notices of Motion.

Councillor EPJ Harvey stated that she wished to withdraw her motion concerning the code of conduct.

 

Councillor BA Baker requested that his motion concerning verge parking be deferred to a later meeting date.

 

Council considered a motion concerning the introduction of video casting of council meetings.

 

In moving the motion Councillor AJW Powers made the following points:

 

·         The introduction of video-casting would be in accordance with the openness principle contained within the councils PEOPLE ethos;

·         The introduction of audio-casting was welcomed but in order to be fully visible and accountable to the public video-casting was required;

·         The general public were not well treated when they attended public meetings and were sat in a confined space at a distance from the meeting taking place;

·         Up to 111 local authorities across the UK were using video-casting and all Hereford’s neighbouring authorities, except Shropshire, used the facility;

·         Video was a method many people now used to access information; and

·         The cost could be assumed to be £40k-£50k per year and an additional capital start-up cost which would represent value for money.

 

In seconding the motion Councillor FM Norman made the following points:

 

·         The proposal would maximise openness at the council and ensure that all would have access to information;

·         Members would become accustomed to the new facility very quickly;

·         Video-casting would increase the democratic accountability of the Council.

 

The following principal points were raised by members in the debate:

 

·         Meetings were open to the public;

·         It was the contention of some members that the cost would not represent good value for money particularly if it could be spent on social workers instead. Other members felt that cost would be minimal and the investment worthwhile;

·         There had been a trial of video-casting at a planning committee meeting which had been a success;

·         It was not felt that the Shire Hall was an ideal venue for a webcasting facility;

·         The motion asked for the executive to consider the facility which was a reasonable request;

·         It was requested that the wording in paragraph (a) of the motion was changed to “to consider again the merits…” in place of the term “re-consider”. The change was acceptable to the proposer of the motion.

 

The motion was put to the vote and was carried.

 

Resolved – that:

 

Recognising that, following It’s Our County’s proposal and after a nine month trial period, this council has recently decided to audio-cast public meetings and to adopt these recordings as audio minutes; and knowing that almost all our neighbouring authorities (Gloucestershire, Monmouthshire Powys and Worcestershire), and many others already routinely video-cat their meeting – an option originally rejected by this council on cost grounds.

 

That, to align this council with best practice elsewhere, the executive is asked:

 

a)            to consider again the merits of ‘up-grading’ from audio to live on-line video streaming so that the public meetings of Herefordshire Council and its elected members would be publically open and visible to those unable to attend, and that the recordings should be archived and made available on-line.

 

b)            To consider a trial period for live video streaming with the opportunity during the trial for feedback from elected members and the public.

 

 

Council considered a motion to provide a protected corridor for an eastern river crossing from the Rotherwas Industrial Estate to the A438 at Tupsley.

 

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

 

·         A change to the published motion was outlined to remove the first paragraph.

·         Plans of the proposed route had been circulated.

·         Some important developments in the area of the proposed road had occurred enhancing its feasibility. The Rotherwas access road from Grafton had opened and a private road to the bio-digester near Hampton Bishop.

·         The proposed route crossed a site which was subject to planning permission which had expired. Any future planning permission for the site should include conditions to protect the route.  

·         The motion had no impact on the western bypass and the propsed route would remove traffic from the A49 travelling through Hereford city.

·         A letter signed by local businesses in support of the route had been circulated which was five years old.

 

The following principal points were raised by members in the debate:

 

·         Local residents in Lugwardine and Bartestree would only support the route with a weight restriction to prevent access by lorries. Only cars along the route would be supported by local residents.

·         The proposal took a longer term strategic view of a potential solution to removing traffic from the centre of Hereford and ensured that the option of a road to the east was protected.

·         The proposed route would support businesses at Rotherwas and the continued expansion of the site.

·         It was recognised that the western bypass offered the opportunity for housing development but people would need to access services on the eastern side of the Hereford. The proposed route in the motion would facilitate this access and relieve congestion in the city.

·         The local MP had expressed support for the route.

·         The Core Strategy contained other long term strategic priorities which may never come to fruition.

·         It was doubted that funding for the route would come from central government or Highways England.

·         The proposed route was not a bypass but was intended to remove trafiic from the city and relieve congestion.

·         The proposed route was not sufficiently advanced or developed to reach a decision. The route would be required to extend northwards and would be considered a bypass to the east. 

·         If agreed the motion would pose a threat to the western bypass which was the only feasible route to relieve congestion from the city and facilitate growth. The opportunity for a bypass was a ‘once-in-a-generation’ possibility.

·         The route in the motion represented another road proposed to reduce congestion. Alternative solutions to congestion should be investigated before road-building was considered.

·         The proposed route would threaten the Lugg Meadows which had been an objection of central government previously.

·         The motion proposed investigation of a protective corridor only and could provide an alternative if the route to the West did not materialise.

 

In seconding the motion Councillor SM Michael made the following points:

 

·         The motion had become a west versus east debate which was not its intention.

·         The motion proposed the route for investigation in the future; the motion ensured that it was future-proofed for consideration when appropriate.

·         The local MP had expressed support for the route.

 

In responding to the debate Councillor Kenyon made the following points:

 

·         The motion had nothing to do with the western bypass proposal;

·         The motion called on the executive to investigate the proposed route.

 

Councillor Seldon proposed a named vote which was supported by at least eight members of the Council.

 

A named vote was held on the motion.

 

The motion was lost 16 votes in favour, 32 vote against and 2 abstentions.

 

For (16): Councillors TL Bowes, PE Crockett, PJ Edwards, EPJ Harvey, PC Jinman, J Kenyon, MD Lloyd-Hayes, PP Marsh, RI Matthews, SM Michael, AJW Powers, AR Round, A Seldon, D Summers, LC Tawn, A Warmington.

 

Against (32) Councillors SP Anderson, PA Andrews, BA Baker, JM Bartlett, H Bramer, CR Butler, MJK Cooper, EE Chowns, P Cutter, BA Durkin, CA Gandy, DW Greenow, KS Guthrie, DG Harlow, JA Hyde, TM James, AW Johnson, JF Johnson, JG Lester, RL Mayo, PD Newman, FM Norman, CA North, RJ Phillips, PD Price, P Rone, NE Shaw, WC Skelton, J Stone, EJ Swinglehurst, DB Wilcox, SD Williams.

 

Abstentions (2) Councillors WLS Bowen, ACR Chappell.