To consider Notices of Motion.

Motion 1 – Zero Carbon Citizens Assembly

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

·         The motion was intended to encourage and facilitate public engagement in the Council’s transitioning to zero carbon.

·         The growing urgency and recognition of the climate emergency was welcomed and the need to move to zero carbon.

·         It was noted that the commons select committees had recently utilised citizens’ assemblies as an effective form of consultation.

·         The motion sought to convene a democratically and demographically representative assembly to provide an opportunity for thoughtful and well considered proposals for the move to zero carbon.

·         It was intended that the motion would ensure that work was undertaken between officers and colleagues from across the chamber.

·         The citizen assemblies would assist is determining how zero carbon could be operationalised.

In seconding the motion Councillor Louis Stark made the following points:

·         Climate change was an existential threat.

·         The declaration of a climate emergency by the previous administration was welcomed and now it was important to seek to implement measures to move to zero carbon.

·         A citizens’ assembly would be an important element of the process of transitioning to zero carbon.

The following principal points were raised during the debate:

·         The motion was timely in light of the report from the committee on climate change which highlighted the problems of carbon emissions from industry and transport.

·         The motion dealt with the critical subject of how the Council could respond to the climate emergency.

·         The citizens’ assembly needed to ensure that it represented a broad cross section of opinion in order to find practical methods to address the climate emergency. To ensure credibility the widest possible involvement of people was required and the involvement of young people.

·         The response to the climate emergency and the move to zero carbon needed to demonstrate how it could be applied to rural areas and the farming community. It was important to avoid an excessive focus on the urban environment.

·         The legal grounds for a Council to call a citizens assembly and an appropriate budget were queried. The solicitor to the council explained that if a specific power was not available then the legal authority could be found in the Localism Act and the chief finance officer explained that there were budgets for public consultations.

·         It was recognised that there were a number of existential threats including those posed by insecticides and soil security. It was queried whether the remit of the assembly could be broadened to include other critical, environmental elements.

·         It was queried how the assembly would operate; whether it would consist of a single session or be an ongoing exercise. It was hoped that the assembly could be a mechanism to facilitate ongoing engagement and consultation with local residents on how to accomplish change.

·         It was important that individuals take personal responsibility to change their behaviour and lifestyles.

·         The Council needed to understand the key ecological damages in the county and then determine how it could influence improvements and lower carbon emissions.

In closing the debate Councillor Chowns explained that it was important for the council to act on measures to move to zero carbon given the findings of the report from the committee on climate change. The assembly would be focused on finding solutions and in composition its members would be carefully sampled to ensure it was democratically representative. The involvement of youth was also important and to ensure there was a rural element there needed to be a demographic balance on the assembly. The cost of the assembly would be met through public engagement budgets. Following this initial citizen assembly on transitioning to zero carbon, future citizen assemblies on topics including biodiversity and the capital programme would be welcomed.

The motion was put to the vote and agreed by a simple majority of the Council.

RESOLVED: That this Council asks the executive to conduct a citizens assembly on how Herefordshire can transition to zero carbon, timetabled to coordinate with the national citizens assembly on the same topic.

Motion 2 – Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

In moving the motion Councillor Paul Symonds made the following points:

·         Councils had had the ability to introduce CIL since 2010 and a number of authorities had chosen to implement the scheme.

·         CIL was an alternative to section 106 contributions and was a simple scheme to secure a levy which represented a percentage of a new housing development.

·         Section 106 contributions were not due on developments that consisted of fewer than 10 houses therefore a number of local areas that had completed neighbourhood development plans (NDPs) were not benefitting from section 106. The introduction of CIL would help to empower local communities.

·         The date of implementation contained in the motion of 1 April 2020 was acknowledged to be unrealistic and an alternative timeframe would be proposed.

In seconding the motion Councillor Jenny Bartlett made the following points:

·         A task and finish had been undertaken on the introduction of CIL and on balance it had concluded that CIL was preferable to section 106.

·         The motion was timely and contained a proposal for the introduction of CIL that could be considered alongside the review of the Core Strategy.

·         CIL was a fairer system particularly with respect to smaller developments.

The following principal points were raised during the debate:

·         In principle the introduction of CIL was positive but it required significant levels of detail to be determined by the authority including what exceptions and rates would be implemented.

·         A finding from the task and finish group had been over the inflexibility of the scheme. Rates that had been agreed were not negotiable therefore if developers felt housing schemes were unviable they might be abandoned or affordable housing elements reduced.  There was concern that CIL could impact on the construction and availability of affordable housing in the county.

·         It was timely for the Council to review the potential implementation of CIL again.

·         The motion referred to an intention to investigate the adoption of CIL and it was queried what the role of Council would be in future. The solicitor to the council confirmed that the implementation of CIL would be a decision of the full Council.

·         Clarification over the threshold for the number of dwellings above which section 106 became applicable was sought. The Chairman explained that clarification would be circulated following the meeting.

·         The efficiency of the section 106 process was questioned with contributions held back for long periods of time before being allocated or spent.

In closing the debate Councillor Symonds explained that when the levy was introduced it would be necessary to consider how it applied to development such as self-builds and how it would be modified to take account of local circumstances. It was important that consideration of the implementation of CIL was linked to the review of the core strategy however it could be introduced prior to the approval of the core strategy.

Councillor Symonds acknowledged that the date in the motion did not provide enough time for an investigation of the introduction of CIL. An alteration to the date in the motion to January 2021 was proposed.

The seconder and Council agreed the alteration.

The motion was put to the vote and agreed by a simple majority of the Council.

RESOLVED:

Legal powers for English Planning authorities to introduce in their areas a Community Infrastructure Levy have been in place since the Planning Act 2008 (1).  The CIL provides among other things, for Parish and Town Councils to receive at least 15% of all proceeds, or 25% if a Neighbourhood Development Plan is in place.

Herefordshire Council has paused the process by which CIL can be levied in the County, thus depriving Town and Parish councils of this potential income.  Most neighbouring authorities have introduced the levy including Shropshire, Cheltenham Borough, Gloucester City, Tewkesbury Borough, Malvern Hills, Worcester City and Wychavon Councils. The longer this goes on, the more income is lost to Town & Parish Councils.

This Council asks the executive to investigate the adoption of the Community Infrastructure Levy as a matter of urgency, ensuring it is implemented for Herefordshire no later than January 2021.

A correction to the date of the full-day Members Climate Emergency Workshop as outlined in the report was provided. The date of this session was Monday 21 October.