To consider any Notices of Motion.

 

Councillors ACR Chappell and GW Dawe have submitted the following Notice of Motion as a matter of urgency:

 

NOTES the Judgement by Mr. Justice Collins in the case of the Dinedor Hill Action Association v Herefordshire County Council.

 

NOTES that the Rotherwas Access Road has been completed without any financial contribution from JS Bloor Ltd.

 

NOTES that JS Bloor Ltd have submitted a Planning Application to build 300 houses at Bullinghope without any socially affordable element.

 

RESOLVES that the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Political Group Leaders, should appoint suitable persons independent of the Council to conduct a full and public enquiry and to publish the outcome.

 

INSTRUCTS the Chief Executive to include in the Terms of Reference for this Enquiry:

 

The circumstances that on 28 July 2006 led the Leader of the Council to move the rejection of a decision by his own Cabinet, despite assurances given to the contrary less than 24 hours previously.

 

Whether Councillor Phillips and others were warned by Legal Officers as to the conduct now found unlawful by Mr Justice Collins.

 

A full and detailed chronology of discussions, proposals and responses between Council Members, Council Officers and representatives of JS Bloor Ltd, concerning the Rotherwas Access Road and housing allocations at Bullinghope.

 

An investigation of whether or not inappropriate pressure was placed on Planning Officers during this process, and if so by whom.

 

What professional advice was given to Councillor Phillips concerning the Planning Inspector’s view on future housing numbers.

 

How have the Government’s targets for housing in Herefordshire been determined and whether that process has been influenced directly or indirectly by JS Bloor Ltd.

 

What evaluation was made of proposals for alternative methods of funding the Rotherwas Access Road.

 

What understandings have been reached with JS Bloor Ltd about issues additional to the application for 300 houses at Bullinghope.

 

What pre-application discussions were held with JS Bloor Ltd in relation to Flood Risk, water supply, sewerage and traffic.

 

Why the Council submitted its evidence to the High Court late and withheld crucial evidence.

 

Why the Council’s Scrutiny procedures failed to challenge the conduct that has led to the current circumstances.

 

Whether any Members failed to Register or declare Interests that should have been registered or declared in relation to JS Bloor Ltd.

 

Any other matters that they believe to be relevant to the matter and that the public would expect to know.

 

The Chairman will rule whether the motion is urgent.

Councillors ACR Chappell and GW Dawe submitted the following Notice of Motion:

 

“NOTES the Judgement by Mr. Justice Collins in the case of the Dinedor Hill Action Association v Herefordshire County Council.

 

NOTES that the Rotherwas Access Road has been completed without any financial contribution from JS Bloor Ltd.

 

NOTES that JS Bloor Ltd have submitted a Planning Application to build 300 houses at Bullinghope without any socially affordable element.

 

RESOLVES that the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Political Group Leaders, should appoint suitable persons independent of the Council to conduct a full and public enquiry and to publish the outcome.

 

INSTRUCTS the Chief Executive to include in the Terms of Reference for this Enquiry:

 

The circumstances that on 28 July 2006 led the Leader of the Council to move the rejection of a decision by his own Cabinet, despite assurances given to the contrary less than 24 hours previously.

 

Whether Councillor Phillips and others were warned by Legal Officers as to the conduct now found unlawful by Mr Justice Collins.

 

A full and detailed chronology of discussions, proposals and responses between Council Members, Council Officers and representatives of JS Bloor Ltd, concerning the Rotherwas Access Road and housing allocations at Bullinghope.

 

An investigation of whether or not inappropriate pressure was placed on Planning Officers during this process, and if so by whom.

 

What professional advice was given to Councillor Phillips concerning the Planning Inspector’s view on future housing numbers.

 

How have the Government’s targets for housing in Herefordshire been determined and whether that process has been influenced directly or indirectly by JS Bloor Ltd.

 

What evaluation was made of proposals for alternative methods of funding the Rotherwas Access Road.

 

What understandings have been reached with JS Bloor Ltd about issues additional to the application for 300 houses at Bullinghope.

 

What pre-application discussions were held with JS Bloor Ltd in relation to Flood Risk, water supply, sewerage and traffic.

Why the Council submitted its evidence to the High Court late and withheld crucial evidence.

 

Why the Council’s Scrutiny procedures failed to challenge the conduct that has led to the current circumstances.

 

Whether any Members failed to Register or declare Interests that should have been registered or declared in relation to JS Bloor Ltd.

 

Any other matters that they believe to be relevant to the matter and that the public would expect to know.”

 

 

The Chairman ruled urgency.

 

Councillor ACR Chappell spoke on the Notice of Motion and stated:

 

• He believed there was a need for a public enquiry into the allocation of the land as Members might have been “whipped” into making their decision at Council in July 2006.

 

• A meeting took place between Council officers and Bloor Homes representatives in Leominster in September 1998 where it was suggested that a bypass for Hereford could be built in exchange for permission to build five thousand homes.  Planning officers expressed concern at the proposed routing and plans were never made public for discussion.

 

• He judged it was inappropriate for developers to dictate the conditions of any proposed development and that supporters of a relief road should not have been manipulated by Bloor Homes.

 

• He agreed the importance of the Rotherwas Access Road and had been part of the delegation to Government Office. 

 

• It was asked of the Leader why he had changed the housing development from Holmer to Bullinghope without consulting Cabinet.

 

• He accepted the details that had been given so far, but did not believe them and therefore feels an enquiry is needed.

 

• Some of the queries go back as far as the first administration of Herefordshire Council under the Liberal Democrats.

 

• Why was nothing done to pursue the funding of the Rotherwas Access Road under the regeneration of the Rotherwas Industrial Estate.

 

• An investigation is needed as to whether inappropriate pressure was put on planning officers.

 

• Members were reminded of the requirement for good governance.

 

Councillor Chappell requested a named vote on the issue and formally moved the Notice of Motion.  It was seconded by Councillor GW Dawe who reserved his right to reply until the end of the debate.

 

Councillor MAF Hubbard spoke on the Notice of Motion and asked whether the public was consulted at the start of the process. He expressed his concern over the funding arrangements and felt it was wrong for the funding over the new road to be agreed solely based on any monies raised from a potential housing development.  He was particularly concerned that the Council appeared to have approved the road’s construction on that basis.  He questioned the openness and transparency of the lead up to the Council’s decision in July 2006 and felt there were a number of unanswered questions.

 

Councillor Hubbard went on to point out that there were a number of alternative routes considered for the road by the Government Office for the West Midlands and questioned why there was no record of this. He said that overall, the whole issue had undermined the public’s perception of Herefordshire Council and that an enquiry would go some way towards restoring public confidence in the Council.

 

Councillor AM Toon proposed a slight amendment to the Motion before Council and requested the words “financial options appraisal” be inserted into paragraph 12 of the original motion so that it would read:

 

“What evaluation and financial option appraisal was made of proposals for alternative methods of funding for the Rotherwas Access Road.”

 

Councillor Toon, in speaking on the proposed amendment, asked why the houses were not allocated to Roman Road as originally intended and why a vote at a previous Council meeting on whether to split houses between Rotherwas and Holmer, did not take place. 

 

Councillor ACR Chappell accepted the proposed amendment to the motion.  Councillor PA Andrews formally seconded the amendment and a vote was taken.

 

 

For – 17

Against – 32

Abstentions – 2

 

The amendment to the motion was lost.

 

The Leader of the Council proposed an amendment to the notice of motion before Council asking that only the first two paragraphs be included. Councillor Phillips then spoke on the proposed amendment and emphasised the following points:

 

• The construction of a Rotherwas access road had long been a priority for the Council and in 2003 planning permission for the road was agreed.
• There were no records of meetings between Cabinet Members and Bloor homes around the time in question as diary dates had not been kept.  Electronic diaries are to be used in the future.
• No undue pressure was placed on Planning Officers and professional advice was noted.  The decision to act against the advice was not taken lightly.
• In January 2006, Cabinet was surprised when the funding bid was declined for the third time by government.
• Land at Bullinghope was not included in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) at this stage.
• Businesses in Rotherwas are grateful for the relief road and its construction was a positive step for Herefordshire
• The decision to proceed with the road’s construction was endorsed by Cabinet and all group leaders
• If the funding to secure the road was received as expected then the motion would not have been needed – the policy was sincere and based on information held at the time 
• The UDP’s existence will cease in 2010 unless the Council extends it.
• There was no debate at Council in July 2006 on the Cabinet report that said land for 16000 homes needed to be found in Herefordshire.
• Central Government expects section 106 agreements to be used for improvements to infrastructure, education provision and other related themes.
• The percentage of affordable homes in the UDP has been increased from 25 to 35%.
• A successful business park is central to the success of Herefordshire.  It will attract well paid jobs, bring the younger generation back to live in Herefordshire and might go some way towards the creation of a university for Herefordshire.
• All information that the proposed enquiry aims to uncover is already available under freedom of information.

 

In response to a question from Councillor MAF Hubbard, the Assistant Chief Executive Legal and Democratic advised Council that Councillor Phillips’ amendment did not, under Standing Order 4.26.5.1, “negate” the meaning of the original motion as it was deleting words from the original motion.

 

Councillor PJ Edwards seconded the amendment to the motion and made the following points:

 

• The public were consulted over plans for a Rotherwas relief road but the consultation events were very poorly attended.
• Development companies meeting with local authorities to discuss proposals are common place – this has long been established practise and is in no way unethical.
• Councillors must always be seen to lead through the democratic process and this has been done in this instance.
• Believe valuable public money and officer time would be wasted if a full enquiry were to take place.
• The construction of the relief road has improved air quality for residents of Holme Lacy Road

 

Councillor WU Attfield spoke against the amendment to the motion and made the following points:

 

• The importance of holding an enquiry was not widely recognised.
• On arrival at the meeting of Council in July 2006, Members believed that land at Bullinghope would not be included in the UDP and Members were “bounced” into a debate which they were not prepared for.
• The trust in the senior hierarchy of the Council had been compromised and public faith in the Council would be difficult to restore.  An enquiry would reassure the public that their grievances were being investigated

 

Councillor MD Lloyd-Hayes stated that at Council in July 2006, the Leader had proposed an amendment.  Had it been a notice of motion the public would have been aware and been able to present their questions.

 

Councillor Toon concurred with Councillor Hubbard and stated the fundamental element of the motion was regarding the process.

 

Councillor Oliver spoke against the amendment proposed by Councillor Phillips and raised the following points:

 

·        It was long established that the land at Bullinghope was unsuitable for housing and the UDP working group at its meeting in March 2003 endorsed this view

·        When land at Holmer was deleted from the UDP, only limited housing should have been proposed to be built on the land at Bullinghope in exchange for funding for an access road to Rotherwas

·        The planning enquiry saw the inspector delete the allocation of land at Bullinghope, as it would have been harmful to the area.

 

Councillor JG Jarvis spoke to formally second the amendment put forward by Councillor Phillips and made the following points:

 

• The decision making process of Cabinet has always been transparent – this is especially true now that full minutes are taken at its meetings
• The Local Development Framework (LDF) has just finished consulting the people of Hereford which has looked at the best way to allocate land in Herefordshire for housing and will shortly report to Members
• Time spent conducting an enquiry would be wasted and better spent focusing on ensuring success for the future of Herefordshire

 

Councillor GF Dawe spoke against the proposed amendment and highlighted that the recent High Court Case was lost, in part, by this Council and that crucial evidence was not provided to the court in a timely manner.

 

Councillor KG Grumbley supported Councillor Phillips’ amendment and said that an enquiry would not achieve anything. He pointed out that since 2003 things had been achieved and that the eventual access road was built without money from Bloor homes.

 

Councillor SJ Robertson said that she recognised Rotherwas was an important place for employment for 18-25 year olds living in Herefordshire but expressed disappointment that the land for 300 homes at Holmer was included in the UDP.

 

Councillor DB Wilcox spoke in favour of the amendment and said that people in Herefordshire were pleased with their new road as it was important for the rural economy. He added that only a small number of Councillors voted against the issue in 2006 and that the planning process introduced the concept of developers paying for infrastructure. He pointed out that the High Court judgment of Justice Collins conceded that the planning inspector did accept that a contribution from developers towards a road was justifiable.  The decision to include land at Bullinghope in the UDP was endorsed by the Government Office for the West Midlands and this accordingly updated the Regional Spatial Strategy.  He added that the Rotherwas improvement scheme was now fully on track and a public enquiry would not be beneficial.

 

Councillor A Seldon said that the fact the Council is assembled at an extraordinary meeting goes to prove that something went wrong and an enquiry is needed to establish what went wrong.

 

Councillor PM Morgan said that the cost of an enquiry would impede on any future work of the Council and have no benefits

 

Councillor JP French said that enquires could be time consuming and expensive.  Decision making processes are more transparent than ever as minutes are now routinely taken at Cabinet meetings and available electronically.

 

Councillor French highlighted the fact that the Rotherwas road was the first piece of major infrastructure for Hereford since the 1960s.  She added that we must learn the lessons the judge has stated, that we must put the case clearly.

 

Councillor Chappell spoke against the proposed amendment.  He contended that Councillor Phillips’ proposed amendment would stifle any debate and not lead to the truth being found out. He urged Members to vote against the proposed amendment.

 

A vote on the proposed amendment was then taken.

 

In accordance with Standing Order 4.15.4 a named vote was held and is attached at Appendix 1 to the minutes. The voting for the amendment was as follows:

 

For 35

Against 14

Abstentions 2

 

The amendment to the motion therefore became the substantive motion.

 

Councillor MAF Hubbard then proposed an amendment to the substantive motion:

 

Council instructs that the Group Leaders should arrange a special Scrutiny Committee chaired by the chair of the Standards Committee, Mr Robert Rogers, to take evidence; call witnesses co-opt appropriate advisors and publish a report. This committee would make recommendations to ensure that any future infrastructure projects and housing proposals did not meet the same difficulties as Bullinghope and the Rotherwas Access Road.

 

Councillor Hubbard then spoke on the amendment to the substantive motion:

 

• The proposed scrutiny review would be more cost effective than a public enquiry.
• The Council should be concerned that the road was not being used to its full potential

 

Councillor MD Lloyd Hayes formally seconded the amendment to the substantive motion and a number of Members spoke in support of the amendment.

 

In accordance with Standing Order 4.15.4 a named vote was held and is attached at Appendix 2 to the minutes. The voting in support of the amendment to the substantive motion was as follows:

 

For 16

Against 32

Abstentions 3

 

The amendment to the substantive motion was lost.