To consider Notices of Motion.

Council considered the notices of motion set out in the supplement published on 11 July 2018.

 

Council considered a notice of motion concerning verge parking.

 

In moving the motion Councillor BA Baker made the following points:

 

·         There was significant frustration regarding verge parking in the county and the damage caused;

·         Underground services were vulnerable to the damage caused to verges;

·         The introduction of restrictions would have resource implications for civil enforcement officers;

·         Legal exemptions would need to be established for certain circumstances such as broken down vehicles; and

·         Parking on verges was an unsightly and unregulated activity which required action.

 

In seconding the motion Councillor SP Anderson made the following points:

 

·         The issue was a significant issue across the county; and

·         The motion proposed a positive way forward to address the problem.

 

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

 

·         It was recognised by members that this was a significant issue;

·         There would be an issue in determining land owners and where restrictions on verges could be enforced;

·         Wider consideration was also required in market towns to understand and make provision for cars displaced by the introduction of restrictions on verge parking;

·         It was queried whether the cost of new enforcement would be affordable to the Council; and

·         It was important to undertake other methods of deterring people from parking on verges including tree planting;

 

Councillor D Summers proposed and Councillor P Rone seconded an amendment to the motion to include restrictions on parking on pathways in the motion.

 

The proposed amendment was discussed with the following points raised:

 

·         There would be resource implications involved with imposing restrictions on pathways as well as grass verges; and

·         The problems caused to people with wheelchairs and prams by cars parking on pathways was significant. The proposed amendment would positively address problems caused by cars parking on pavements.

 

The amendment was put to the vote and was carried by a simple majority.  

 

The substantive motion was put to the vote, as amended with inclusion of reference to pathways, and was carried.

 

RESOLVED: The damage caused by vehicles being parked carelessly on grass verges and pathways is not only unsightly but can add to the costs of maintaining the verges and highways at a time when council resources are already stretched. In light of this largely unregulated activity. I move that the executive be asked to consider putting in place suitable controls to restrict parking on grass verges and pathways, including the introduction of by-laws.

 

 

Council considered a notice of motion concerning the Development Partnership.

 

In moving the motion Councillor EE Chowns made the following points:

 

·         The motion was a cross-party initiative to help shape the direction of development in the County;

·         The motion provided a framework for development to follow;

·         The motion built on an earlier motion to Council in 2014;

·         Consultation had been conducted with officers and other members; and

·         Two alterations to the motion were outlined by the proposer: the inclusion of the wording ‘…development designed and constructed through…’ in place of ‘…housing built through…’; and an additional bullet point, as follows: ‘designed to promote walking, cycling, public transport and car sharing.’

 

A further alteration was requested by Councillor PJ Edwards to include the wording ‘…with maintenance thereof.’ at the end of the first bullet point. The alteration was accepted by the proposer and seconder.

 

In seconding the motion Councillor SP Anderson made the following points:

 

·         The motion would ensure the development partnership would be sustainable;

·         The motion would incorporate social responsibilities and environmental considerations into the development partnership; and

·         The intention was for the selected development partner to demonstrate evidence of sustainable principles in development activities.

 

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

 

·         The Council was compliant with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Core Strategy and Policy Framework incorporated relevant elements and principles from the NPPF;

·         The contract management team at the Council would produce Key Performance Indicators for the Development Partnership. The proposed principles would need to be balanced against an assessment of value for money; and

·         The motion proposed valuable principles to incorporate in the development partnership at an early stage.

 

The motion was put to the vote and was carried unanimously.

 

RESOLVED: that -

 

Noting that Herefordshire Council has recently mobilised a large amount of capital from the sale of its farm estate, and plans to invest this in a ‘Development Partnership’ which will significantly shape the growth and development of the county, we call on the council to resolve:

 

That the Development Partnership should be designed to be a Sustainable Development Partnership, with equal consideration given to social, environmental, and economic dimensions of planned development.

 

That the executive be asked to consider ensuring that all development designed and constructed through the Development Partnership should be:

 

·           planned to maximise residents’ health and wellbeing, including through shared green space and opportunities for outdoor exercise and social interaction, with maintenance thereof;

·           built to the highest possible standards of energy and water efficiency in order to ensure affordability for residents and low environmental impact;

·           sourced using local procurement wherever possible, in order to maximise local economic benefit and employment opportunities;

·           designed to support and enhance wildlife habitats, in line with Herefordshire’s identity as a beautiful rural county; and

·           designed to promote walking, cycling, public transport and car sharing.

 

 

Council considered a notice of motion concerning the Hereford Justice Centre.

 

In moving the motion Councillor ACR Chappell made the following points:

 

·         Remand cases were now being sent to Kidderminster;

·         Magistrates in Kidderminster were unfamiliar with the local area in Hereford and the circumstances in the town;

·         The travel involved for solicitors would be a 70 mile round trip;

·         Many of those in front of magistrates experienced mental health problems or a limited income and if it is found that there is no case to answer they would be released in Kidderminster;

·         A  motion had also been approved unanimously by Hereford City Council  calling on the Lord Chancellor & Secretary of State for Justice to reverse the transfer of remand cases from Hereford to Kidderminster Justice Centre ; and

·         The hearing of remand cases at Kidderminster was counter to principles of local democracy and local application of justice.

 

In seconding the motion Councillor CA Gandy made the following points:

 

·         It was a long and convoluted journey to Kidderminster if there was no case to answer. People with Mental Health problems and learning disabilities would need to make the journey back;

·         Depending on the time of arrest some people would spend 24 hours in custody awaiting transportation to Kidderminster.

 

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

 

·         There was a cost to West Mercia Police, solicitors, defendants and others;

·         Some defendants may think it cheaper to plead guilty than have to make the journey back from Kidderminster;

·         The savings proposed by the Department of Justice were not felt to be acceptable and would cost others additional time and expense; and

·         The need for savings have caused the Department of Justice to make an unreasonable decision.

 

 

The motion was put to the vote and was carried unanimously.

 

                RESOLVED: that

           

            Earlier this year, the judicial system was changed so that remand       cases throughout West Mercia are automatically sent to Kidderminster Justice Centre, thus removing local justice from the county, and locating hearings for            all remand cases to a court in a town some 35 miles from Hereford's Justice             Centre. Local justice should be administered locally, by magistrates who know       the area, and local factors, and defence solicitors who are aware of the      circumstances and some of the background issues.

 

            That Herefordshire Council deplores the transfer of remand cases from Hereford   to Kidderminster and calls on requires the Leader of the Council to call onthe   Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, to right a wrong and return          such cases to the 'Hereford Justice Centre', (Magistrates Court) to be dealt with by Herefordshire Justices dealing with Herefordshire cases.