To consider Notices of Motion.

Motion 1 - road markings

 

Councillor NE Shaw proposed the motion. The motion was seconded by councillor A Seldon.

 

Councillor Shaw highlighted that the current policy of waiting until work is required was not sufficiently responsive to public concerns about conditions.  The motion if passed would enhance road safety.

 

In discussion the following principal points were made:

 

• The standard of road markings done in recent years had been of poor quality.

 

• The current method of requests for work through locality stewards was working and there must be a sensible approach taken with repairs with regard to costs.

 

Councillor P Rone cabinet member transport and roads confirmed that the motion only related to repairs to existing workings and was not a fast track for new road markings.  Any new request would be required to go through the usual channels i.e. locality stewards.

 

The motion proposed that a:‘…request by parish council, headmaster or emergency services officer through the ward councillor…’

 

An amendment was proposed to substitute the word ‘through’ with ‘copied’ with the view being that this amendment would enhance communication. The proposer of the motion confirmed that he was content with this amendment.

 

RESOLVED: The executive cabinet member responsible should reconsider the blanket approach in respect of road markings and special road treatments outside schools; fire, police and ambulance stations; pedestrian crossings and any other locations historically associated with serious or fatal accidents. That in such circumstances a request by a parish council, headmaster or emergency services officer copied to ward councillor be prioritised by our highways maintenance partner and delivery of an agreed scheme on the ground be effected within 3 calendar months unless delayed for reasons justified by the cabinet member responsible e.g. adverse weather, re-surfacing being scheduled within the next 12 months, closure or consolidation of a location, other traffic scheme (TRO or otherwise) being imminent.

 

Motion 2 – Additional 2% precept in respect of adult social care.

 

Councillor J Stone proposed the motion with a minor alteration to the wording of the motion which was seconded by councillor PA Andrews.    

 

Councillor Stone made the following principal points:

• Any increase in council tax is never welcome however if this motion is not passed savings would have to be secured elsewhere which would increase existing pressures on other services.

 

• Hereford has a higher percentage of residents over the age of 65 compared to the national figure – 23% and 17% respectively.

 

 In discussion the following principal points were made:

 

• The opportunity should be welcomed to use the extra money to maintain and improve services.

 

• The wider issue of care funding would not be solved by the additional 2% levy and other actions would continue to be required including delivery of savings and increasing economic growth in the county.

 

• There should be clear demonstration of how the extra money should be spent.

 

• The additional costs of service delivery in rural areas  should be recognised.

 

RESOLVED:  This Council requires the executive to consider accepting the additional 2% precept in respect of adult social care. In making its recommendations to Council the executive is requested to consider how this money can be best used to protect services, continue to further transform our local health and social care system, reduce demand and ensure improved services for some of the most vulnerable citizens now and in the future.

 

Motion 3 – Supplementary planning document: Intensive livestock units.

 

The motion was proposed by Councillor AJW Powers and seconded by Councillor FM Norman

 

Councillor Powers made the following principal points:

 

·         the local planning authority must have robust policies in place;

·         there would be little or no cost in developing a suitable policy;

·         a robust policy would avoid appeals and associated costs.

 

Cllr Norman spoke in support of the motion noting that without robust policies in place the authority could be vulnerable to legal appeals.

 

Councillor P Price, cabinet member infrastructure, in responding to the motion, noted that most of the issues were addressed in the core strategy, and proposed the following amendment which was seconded by councillor Swinglehurst:

 

a)    Should it be found that the new policies in the adopted core strategy plus those to be included in the minerals and waste development plan document are not adequate to address matters of:

 

public and residential amenity

waste and manure management

impacts on surface and ground waters

landscape and visual impacts

traffic movements, volumes and highway safety

 

Then the Executive be asked to develop – with officers, members and key stakeholders – a Supplementary Planning Document for intensive livestock units (and related forms of development)

 

b)    This Supplementary Planning Document goes through the appropriate consultation and decision-making channels before being adopted.

 

In discussing the amendment the following principal points were made:

 

• The county had experienced an increasing number of poultry related planning applications.

 

• Without a robust policy the council could leave itself vulnerable to possible legal appeals and the associated costs.

 

• Whilst understanding the sentiments behind the motion most issues were already addressed in the core strategy.

 

The amendment was carried with 27 votes for, 18 against and one abstention.

A named vote was then held on the substantive motion.

For (30): Councillors, BA Baker, JM Bartlett, H Bramer, CR Butler, MJK Cooper, PGH Cutter, BA Durkin, CA Gandy, DW Greenow, KS Guthrie, DG Harlow, EL Holton, JA Hyde, JF Johnson, JLV Kenyon, JG Lester, MT McEvilly, PM Morgan, PD Newman, CA North, RJ Phillips, GJ Powell, P Price, PD Rone, NE Shaw, WC Skelton, J Stone, EJ Swinglehurst, DB Wilcox and SD Williams.

Against (12): Councillors, PA Andrews, TL Bowes, EPJ Harvey, TM James, MD Lloyd-Hayes, MN Mansell, SM Michael, FM Norman, AJW Powers, A Seldon, LC Tawn,  and A Warmington.

Abstentions (6) Councillors ACR Chappell, PE Crockett, PJ Edwards, J Hardwick, PJ McCaull, and AR Round.

 

RESOLVED: That

 

(a)      Should it be found that the new policies in the adopted core strategy plus those to be included in the minerals and waste development plan document are not adequate to address matters of:

        

• public and residential amenity
• waste and manure management
• impacts on surface and ground waters
• landscape and visual impacts
• traffic movements, volumes and highways safety

 

then the executive be asked to develop – with officers, members and key stakeholders – a supplementary planning document for intensive livestock units (and related forms of development.

 

(b)      This supplementary planning document goes through the appropriate consultation and decision making channels before being adopted.