The following Motions have been submitted in accordance with Council Procedure 15.1 and 15.2:
MOTION 1
Proposer: Councillor Stanley
Seconder: Councillor Bennett
This Council requests an officer report be produced exploring how we can further enhance our performance regarding Empty Homes, with an aim to bring even more of them back into use.
This report should include but not exclusively contain:-
1. Council tax charged on Empty Homes with a view to exploring a potential sliding scale increase over time. A similar system is currently being used in Brighton and Hove.
2. Council tax charged on Holiday Homes with a view to encourage owners to utilitise their properties on at least an annual basis.
3. A review of the incentives and services we (could) offer property owners to increase engagement with our Empty Homes Team and support tenant management issues and misconceptions.
4. A review of how we promote our Empty Homes service and how we communicate success stories.
This Council acknowledges the potential financial impact of this work (both costs and income streams) well as the potential impact on officer resource and requests this information is included in the report.
Finally this Council requests a letter is sent to the relevant minister and local members of parliament requesting consideration is given to including Empty Homes that are brought back into use into the Housing Delivery targets for Local Authorities, and an option to co-sign this letter be given to all District Council Groups Leaders.
MOTION 2
Proposer: Councillor Edwards
Seconder: Councillor Gunner
Motion about Southern Water
We are unfortunately hearing about the continuous discharges of untreated sewage in the sea which has directly affected our residents’ opportunity to use the bathing waters, as well as affecting the wildlife in our harbours and waterways.
This is not just an issue for the Arun District either, it is affecting the coastline from Kent to Portsmouth. Residents along the coast are being constantly subjected to incidents where raw sewage is simply pumped directly into the sea.
Arun District Council believes that the health of residents is of the utmost importance, and this situation therefore must not be allowed to continue. It will also potentially affect our local economy if people are unable to use the seaside because of unsafe bathing water.
This Council urges Arun District Council to condemn this disgraceful practice in the strongest possible terms and calls upon Southern Water and Mr Andrew Griffith, MP and The Rt Hon Nick Gibb, MP to meet together with Arun District Council to agree specific timed commitments for ceasing the practice of discharging untreated sewage into our safe water system.
MOTION 3
Proposer: Councillor Dixon
Seconder: Councillor Thurston
The Coastal Plain in the Arun District is low lying and flat – making it vulnerable to the risks arising from climate change, particularly rising sea levels. This land was under the sea once (as evidenced by the district’s raised beaches), and, if recent climate change forecasts are to be believed, it can be again.
There are already thousands of existing homes on the Coastal Plain. Also, the Council is compelled by government policy to build a further 20,000 new homes.
Normally, in districts at risk of flooding, it is possible to build on higher ground but in the Arun district our higher ground is National Park, where there is a presumption against development, and so we are prevented from doing this. New homes can only be built on the Coastal Plain.
On the 5 December 2019, the Prime Minister said:
“We've got to stop building on flood plains. We've got to stop building on areas which are vulnerable to flooding.”
And
“The other thing we've got to do, we've got to put in long-term flood defences ...
This Council supports these aims, as expressed by the Prime Minister.
The Council therefore calls on the government to recognise the flood risks to the Coastal Plain arising from climate change, by commissioning a full and comprehensive risk assessment for the Coastal Plain, utilising the most up to date and credible scientific data available, in order to identify what mitigation measures will be required to protect new and existing communities.
The Council instructs the Chief Executive to write to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to request a meeting to discuss this.
MOTION 3
Proposer: Councillor Dixon
Seconder: Councillor Stanley
I wish to submit the following motion to rescind for September’s Full Council, as a motion to rescind requires the support of at least 14 Councillors to be placed on the agenda I can confirm the following Councillors support both of these motions.
Councillors Batley, Bennett, Blanchard-Cooper, Gregory, Jones, Lury, Needs, Oppler, Purchese, Smith, Stanley, Tilbrook, Walsh, Warr, Worne, Yeates, Coster, Dixon, Hamilton, Haywood, Huntley, Catterson and Thurston.
In line with Council Procedure Rule 19.1 this is a motion to rescind a decision. I move that the decision at minute 176 of the Economic Committee Meeting of the 26 July 2021 be rescinded.
This being
1) Officers to immediately re-market the London Road Lorry Coach Park (Bognor Regis) for sale, and to report back a marketing and level of interest update to the next meeting of the Economic Committee.
2) When re-marketing, Officers are to advise interested parties that the Council would prefer a developer to retain 100 public car parking spaces, re-provide public toilets, and facilitate a quality entrance route to Hotham Park.
3) The land area under consideration incorporates the adjoining car park. In marketing the site, Officers will use an agent, and the terms of sale will be as before, with no end use defined.
4) Officers are given authority to exceed their £100,000 delegated authority in respect of a fee which could become payable to an agent
MOTION 4
Proposer: Councillor Bennett
Seconder: Councillor Haywood
I wish to submit the following motion to rescind for September’s Full Council, as a motion to rescind requires the support of at least 14 Councillors to be placed on the agenda I can confirm the following Councillors support both of these motions.
Councillors Batley, Bennett, Blanchard-Cooper, Gregory, Jones, Lury, Needs, Oppler, Purchese, Smith, Stanley, Tilbrook, Walsh, Warr, Worne, Yeates, Coster, Dixon, Hamilton, Haywood, Huntley, Catterson and Thurston.
In line with Council Procedure Rule 19.1 this is a motion to rescind a decision. I move that the decision at minute 200 of the Audit & Governance Committee Meeting of the 29 July 2021 be rescinded.
This being that the Committee’s start times for meetings for 2021/22 be 10.00 am
MOTION 5
Proposer: Councillor Thurston
Seconder: Councillor Walsh
Introduction
Whilst recognising the good intentions of the Council as expressed in the Energy Efficiency strategy 2020-25, for measures such as improved insulation and energy saving measures, this Council believes that action now needs to be stepped up if we are to meet our carbon reduction targets. We recognise two major difficulties: a high level of fuel poverty in the district; and the need to understand the new and emerging technologies required to address the carbon reduction targets. However, Arun District has declared a Climate Emergency and aims to be a carbon neutral authority by 2030. That is only eight years away.
In the last few years, Arun District Council has connected 200 council homes to the gas network, and in 2020, around 80 properties had gas boilers installed under the Safe and Warm Home grants scheme. And a few weeks ago, a special meeting of the Wellbeing and Residential committee was called at very short notice to authorise a communal heating gas boiler serving 70 homes to be replaced at Bersted Green Court. This boiler was known to be reaching the end of its life and its replacement had been planned.
Gas is a fossil fuel and causes high levels of carbon dioxide emissions. As we know, the government will be phasing out the use of gas for new housing in the next few years. It is still legally possible to carry on replacing boilers until around 2030 if they are assumed to last for up to twenty years; this would tie in with the government’s target of reaching carbon neutral by 2050. However, at Arun we have set a higher target and so this does not set a good precedent. In fact, this decision alone will surely prevent us being a carbon neutral council by 2030 as we intended.
Motion
This Council requires that carbon neutral alternatives are found to replace heating systems in Council owned properties, rather than replacing gas boilers with new gas boilers. There are systems available and research for alternatives to suit a variety of properties should start now, so that Arun District Council is never again in the position of having to renew a gas boiler.
MOTION 6
Proposer: Councillor Walsh
Seconder: Councillor Stanley
This Council notes with great concern that Southern Water has been fined £90m for sustained sewage discharges into seawater and water courses in our region, after earlier repeated offences. It also notes that Macquarie, a company with a history of asset stripping and profit taking, have taken a majority stake in the company.
It RESOLVES to request the Chief Executive and Group Head of Planning write to them asking what plans and timescales they have to:
a) Cease such
illegal discharges causing risk to public and environmental
health
b) Separate rainwater
drainage from sewage networks
c) Accommodate all the proposed
new house building with main sewer connection before a)
and
If no satisfactory answers are received, it further RESOLVES to request the DCHLG to drastically reduce the Arun Local Plan housing delivery targets until safe sewage disposal and reasonable rainwater excess drainage can be achieved.
Minutes:
The Chair confirmed that seven Motions had been submitted for this meeting.
Councillor Bower seconded this Motion.
The Group Head of Law & Governance & Monitoring Officer was invited to provide advice and it was confirmed that this Motion without Notice was acceptable. An explanation as to what this meant was provided to Councillors. This was that Council Procedure Rule 15.1 [Notices of Motion] be suspended to allow Council Procedure Rule 19.1 [Motion to Rescind a Previous Decision] to be removed from the Constitution permanently. It was confirmed that this meant that Motions 3 and 4 would no longer be considered. The remaining Motions would be discussed in accordance with the Chair.
Councillor Coster raised a Point of Order in relation to Council Procedure Rule 15.5 [How Motions will be dealt with] and he referred to sections (a) and (b) of that rule as outlined in the Constitution reading the rules out to the meeting. Councillor Coster suggested that the Motion without Notice from Councillor Roberts be referred to the Constitution Working Party for consideration and that this matter should not be considered here.
The Monitoring Officer confirmed that it was within the Council’s authority to make this decision and that it did not need to be referred to the Constitution Working Party.
Councillor Roberts, as proposer of the Motion without Notice, outlined that this would be a permanent change to the Constitution allowing the Council to be able to proceed in conducting its business and deliver positive change for those that lived and worked in the District. The move to the new Committee system had revealed anomalies requiring correction and this was one of them. His motion allowed Officers, when instructed by a Committee to undertake business, to proceed in conducting that business; and to follow the instructions given to them by the Council. The Motion to rescind a previous decision prevented Officers from conducting vital work as it permitted 14 Councillors to rescind a decision. Councillor Roberts accepted that the role of scrutiny was very important and to assist with this the Recovery and Referral Rules in the Constitution continued to permit Members to exercise this function. It was his view that Council Procedure Rule 19.1 was not fit for purpose and so he urged Councillors to accept his motion.
Debate on the Motion took place and concern was expressed around submitting Motions without Notice that affected the Council’s Constitution. It was strongly felt that any constitutional change required thorough examination and scrutiny by the Constitution Working Party. Councillor Robert’s Motion without Notice denied Councillors the opportunity to take part in debating important motions that had been submitted in line with constitutional requirements. Other viewpoints were expressed in that this proposal was undemocratic, unwise and that it was dangerous to make such radical changes to the Constitution in this way.
Concerns were expressed over the way in which an urgent decision had been presented and made at the last meeting of the Economic Committee on the London Road Lorry Coach Park Lury. It was felt that this unnamed urgent item had been presented in an undemocratic way. This had been why Motion 3 [4] had been submitted to provide Councillors with the opportunity to debate an important issue. The same principle applied to Motion 4 [5] where there was a need to debate the unsuitable start time for a Committee meeting. The Motion without Notice was an attempt to suppress debate and to ensure that alternative views were silenced.
Following further discussion, a request had been made that the voting on the Motion without Notice be recorded.
Those voting for were Councillors Bicknell, Bower, Caffyn, Chace, Chapman, Charles, Clayden, Alison Cooper, Andy Cooper, Daniells, Dendle, Edwards, Joan English, Paul English, Goodheart, Gunner, Hughes, Kelly, Madeley, Oliver-Redgate, Pendleton, Roberts and Stainton [23]. Those voting against were Councillors Batley, Bennett, Catterson, Coster, Dixon Hamilton, Haywood, Huntley, Lury, Oppler, Stanley, Tilbrook, Thurston, Walsh, Warr, Worne and Yeates [17]. Councillors Brooks, Buckland, Northeast and Staniforth abstained from voting [4.].
The Motion without Notice was therefore declared CARRIED.
The Council therefore
RESOLVED
That the Council removes from its Constitution the ability to propose a Motion to rescind a previous decision. [Council Procedure Rule 19.1].
The Chair asked the Monitoring Officer to clarify what this meant. She confirmed that Motion 3 [should read 4] and Motion 4 [should read 5] were now rescinded and no longer existed and would not be debated. The meeting needed to return to Motion 1 so each Motion could be debated, having been proposed and seconded.
The Chair then invited Councillor Stanley to propose Motion 1.
Councillor Pendleton confirmed that she wished to propose that Motion 1 be referred to the appropriate Committee in line with Council Procedure Rule 15.5 (b).
The Monitoring Officer confirmed that this was acceptable if seconded. Motion 1 would then immediately be referred to the appropriate Committee without the need for a vote.
A Point of Order was raised by Councillor Walsh querying how this proposal could be accepted as Motion 1 had not been proposed or seconded.
The Monitoring Officer was asked to give advice. She confirmed that as Motion 1 had already been accepted by the Chief Executive and tabled via the agenda, proposed by Councillor Stanley and seconded by Councillor Bennett, Council Procedure Rule 15.5 (b) [Motions to be referred to a Committee] could be applied but that a proposer and seconder was required to do this, the Motion would then stand deferred without discussion.
This advice was disputed with Points of Orders raised and clarity requested as Council Procedure Rule 15.5 (b) had been used as a mechanism to remove Rule 19.1 from the Constitution.
The Monitoring Officer confirmed that Rule 15.1 had been applied to allow the Motion without Notice [16 (m)] to be used to suspend Rule 19.1 [Motion to rescind a previous decision] to be suspended. The Council procedure Rule being used now was Rule 15.5 (b) to refer a Motion to a Committee.
A Point of Order was raised by Councillor Coster claiming that he had referred to Rule 15.5 (b) when speaking against the Motion without Notice in that this should have been referred to the Constitution Working Party and he sought clarification as to why Rule 15.5 (b) had not been applied at that time but did apply now.
The Monitoring Officer and Chief Executive repeated the advice already provided.
Following further Points of Order and Points of Clarification raised, the Chair asked Councillor Pendleton to confirm which Committee she wished to refer Motion 1 to. This was confirmed as the Residential & Wellbeing Services Committee and this was seconded by Councillor Chace.
The Chair then referred Council to Motion 2. Councillor Gunner proposed that this Motion be referred to the Environment & Neighbourhood Services Committee in line with Council Procedure Rule 15.5 (b) and this was seconded by Councillor Edwards.
The Chair then referred Council to Motion 3. Councillor Bower proposed that this Motion be referred to the Planning Policy Committee in line with Council Procedure Rule 15.5 (b) and this was seconded by Councillor Chapman.
The Chair then referred Council to the next Motion at Motion 5 [should read 6]. Councillor Roberts proposed that this be referred to the Environment & Neighbourhood Services Committee in line with Council Procedure Rule 15.5 (b) and this was seconded by Councillor Pendleton.
Having received a Point of Order from Councillor Thurston that climate change did not fall under the remit of this Committee, Councillor Roberts confirmed that this Motion be referred to the Corporate Policy & Performance Committee.
The Chair then referred Council to the next Motion – Motion 6 [should read 7]. Councillor Gunner proposed that this be referred to the Environment & Neighbourhood Services Committee in line with Council Procedure Rule 15.5 (b) and this was seconded by Councillor Edwards.
Councillor Walsh declared his view that Constitutional procedures had not been followed. The Opposition Members then left the meeting, this being the Liberal Democrat Group; the Independent Group; and the Green Group.
The Chair confirmed that the meeting would continue as it remained quorate.
The Chair then announced that in accordance with Part 5, Section 1, Council Procedure Rule 8 [Cancellation, Postponement or Adjournment of Meetings] of the Constitution and in consultation with the Chief Executive, that now this item had been concluded, he would adjourn the meeting so as to allow the incomplete business remaining from the 14 July 2021 Council meeting [Items 11-13] to be completed. Following this, he would then resume the business for this meeting [agenda items 14 to 18].
Since the Liberal Democrat Group, the Independent Group and the Green Group had left the meeting, the Monitoring Officer confirmed that for the remaining items on the agenda, the voting on any recommendations should be recorded.