Two notices of motion have been submitted for consideration by Council.  The first notice of motion was submitted by Councillors: MAF Hubbard and JD Woodward.  The second notice of motion was submitted by Councillor RJ Phillips, Leader of the Council.

First Notice of Motion

“The Council notes the Standards Committee as its hearing on 23 February 2010 found Councillor T Hunt was in breach of the Brockhampton Group Parish Council’s Code of Conduct and the decision notice states:

‘The Committee are concerned that Councillor T Hunt has completed a Statutory Declaration under oath, which based on the information presented to the Committee, on the balance of probabilities, does not represent the facts as they found them.’

The Council notes that the Standards Committee had sufficient doubt about the truth of Councillor T Hunt’s sworn statement to publish their concern.

The Council agrees that Councillors should be exemplars and this doubt about a Councillor’s honesty and integrity published on our website is damaging the Council’s reputation.

Therefore this Council requires Council T Hunt to consider his position as Chairman of the Planning Committee.

This Council notes the exceptional job done by officers within the planning department and that this motion in no way reflects on the service provided by the planning department and its officers.”

Second Notice of Motion

“That the Council agree in principle to carrying out a referendum with the people of Herefordshire to ask a question relating to construction of a road around Hereford City and that the Executive be asked to consider the practicality of such action.”

First Notice of Motion : Chairman of Planning Committee

Councillor MAF Hubbard rose to speak on the motion and apologised for having had to bring forward the motion to Council.  The information had been available on the website for some months and having considered the view of the Standards Committee he felt from a personal point of view he would not have continued in the position of Chairman of a main committee of the Council following the Standards Committee’s judgement.  Councillor GFM Dawe seconded the motion and stated that he would speak later.

The following points were made by Members:

• Several Members raised concern about the appropriateness of dealing with the matter at a Council meeting and that it should more properly be dealt with through the Standards Committee. It was felt that the notice of motion was misguided and every Member was answerable to their electorate.
• The Leader reiterated the legal duty of the Standards Committee and its sub committees to deal with complaints and it was not the business of Council to deal with standards matters.  The Standards Committee had the power to suspend a Member, which it had not chosen to enforce.  The Committee had taken into account the long service and unblemished record of the Member and recognised it was hard to find a solution to the flooding problem, which was at the heart of the complaint.  All Members should strive to be exemplars in the way they dealt with members of the public.
• Some Members stated they would vote against the notice of motion as they were not in possession of the facts of the case.

Councillor GFM Dawe rose to speak as the seconder and stated that consideration should be given to the opinion of the person in the street.  Councillor MAF Hubbard stated that he had considered the matter for some time before putting forward the motion, but felt that he needed to challenge the culture of the Council.

For                   3

Abstained        6

Against            Majority

The motion was lost.

Second Notice of Motion: Road around Hereford City

The Leader moved the motion and amended the wording of the motion to state ‘poll’ instead of ‘referendum’.  This was seconded.

In speaking for the motion, the Leader stated:

·         His regret that the matter of the transport infrastructure had not been dealt with before. 

·         That the average earnings in the county was £20,000 whilst the average earnings in England was £25,000; the disparity equated to £70 per week less in take home pay.

·         It was essential to recognise the needs of businesses which were crucial for the economic, social and well being needs of the county.

·         That congestion had deterred the Welsh Assembly from suggesting the use of the A49 as the best route from North to South Wales in 2001.

·         The motion sought agreement in principle for a poll in order that considerations of practicalities such as cost, legal implications, timescales, and wording of questions would be had.  Such practicalities would be considered with the Group Leaders.

An amendment to the motion was moved by Councillor PJ Edwards and seconded.  The amendment to read: ‘That the Council defer any decision to agree in principle to carrying out a poll with the people of Herefordshire to ask a question relating to construction of a road around Hereford City and that the Executive be asked to consider the practicality of such action’.

In speaking for the amendment, Councillor PJ Edwards stated the following as sound reasons for deferral:

• As the core strategy consultation period had been extended from 5 November to 19 November the consultation was still underway.
• The wording of the motion would require further consideration as such an important issue should not be left to the Executive, indeed it should be for a matter for consideration by the whole Council at a later date. 
• Clarification was needed as to the date of the poll and consideration given to the geographical area of those polled i.e. Herefordshire as a whole, or the city area solely.
• The issues of the preferred option of the western relief road had already been discussed in the LDF task group and shared with the press in advance of briefing Members.

In debating the amendment the following comments were made by Members:

• It was not considered fair for the people of Herefordshire to form a judgement prior to the end of the consultation process. 
• There was disappointment that a motion submitted on the wider LDF process had been rejected therefore precluding the opportunity for debate.
• It was suggested that poll be held 5 May 2011, the date of the local election; this option would prove to be one of least cost.
• The considered opinion should be sought of the whole county electorate as the transport infrastructure of Hereford city was an important matter for all in the county.
• The question asked in the poll would need to be clear, simple and unambiguous.
• A relief road would bring with it economic benefits which would provide for higher wages in the county.  Such a road would be of benefit to the county as a whole and, by providing opportunities, the county’s young people would have a reason to remain.
• It was important to gain clarity on the views of the public to this matter; the motion was a clear statement of intent to investigate the best way in which this could be done.
• Caution would be required so as not to polarise views and alienate sections of the communities with differing opinions.
• The issue had been deferred too long and the original motion was to be welcomed.  It was acknowledged that whilst there had been a certain amount of views collected within the Place Shaping consultation and the poll carried out by the Hereford Times, there was a need to seek the views of the people of Herefordshire as a whole to find out what their wishes were.
• The original motion was not clear, not simple and was ambiguous.  The views expressed to date by residents should not be ignored.
• It was indicated that correspondence pertaining to the funding of an outer distributor road received by Herefordshire Council in July 2009 stated that any consideration of an outer distributor road would be premature before 2014.  In the member’s opinion, the current economic climate and public sector financial settlement would imply that consideration of such a road was far removed, especially as other schemes nationally were being cancelled or suspended.  In addition, it was stated that journey times would not improve.
• A firm decision was required on a relief road, and prior to such decisions it was essential to gain the views of the people of Herefordshire.  It was essential to get the process right.  Members were advised that, in relation to the earlier comment on the preferred option, the LDF Task Group had met on 8 September 2010 and that all Members were provided with papers prior to a debate and discussion which was open to all members which was held on 10 September 2010.  The information provided to the press was strictly embargoed.

The amendment was put to the vote.

For                  10

Against            Majority

The amendment was lost

An amendment to the motion was moved by Councillor MAF Hubbard and seconded.  The amendment to read: ‘That the Council agree in principle to carrying out a poll with the people of Herefordshire to ask a question relating to the construction of a road around Hereford City that will be built using developer money from thousands of houses that will create such a level of traffic that congestion times in the city will never improve above the 2008 level resulting in increased journey times, and that the Executive be asked to consider the practicality of such action’.

In speaking for the amendment, Councillor MAF Hubbard stated that:

• He believed that a poll should be held as it was essential to gain information and base a decision on facts.
• In his view current evidence supported the fact that the building of a road would not make a difference to the residents of Hereford City in relation to journey times and that no benefits would be had in building the road in the proposed way.
• It was important to ensure that the information provided was clear and based on evidence.

The amendment was put to the vote.

For                   4

Abstain            5

Against            Majority

The amendment was lost.

The original motion was put to the vote

Against            4

Abstained        4

For                   Majority

The motion was carried.