In accordance with Council Procedure Rule No 10 to consider Motions on notice from Members. Motions must be received in writing or by email to the Monitoring Officer by 12pm (Noon) twelve clear working days before the meeting.
The following motions(s) have been submitted:-
Motion ‘A’ – Proposed by Councillor P Windley
Council notes:
· The increasing financial pressures on Rykneld and the HRA owing to mould and disrepair issues
· The casework issues ward councillors have experienced in terms of multiple mould cleans being necessitated while remedial works are pending
· The impact on tenants physical and mental health caused by recurring outbreaks of mould
· The cost of treating recurring mould issues
With thanks, the hard work of colleagues in treating these issues Council calls for the Portfolio Holders for Strategic Leadership and Finance to work more closely with Rykneld to address the root cause issues of mould in council owned properties more swiftly, to reduce both the financial cost and health impacts of mould recurring where there is an identified structural cause.
Motion ‘B’ – Proposed by Councillor D Hancock
Council notes:
· Rykneld Homes permits its tenants to create off street parking on their properties at their own expense.
· Rykneld Homes follows the policy of North East Derbyshire District Council on what materials and solutions can be used to construct the off street parking.
· Technology and materials available will inevitably change as time moves forward.
· New solutions are available which are more cost effective and better for the environment to support the Council’s environmental strategy.
Council resolves:
To undertake a review into the materials and solutions that are permitted under the policy of creating off street parking on Rykneld properties with a view to increasing the options for residents.
Motion ‘C’ – Proposed by Councillor R Shipman
Council notes:
In 2023, 94% of residents use a smart phone device in North East Derbyshire.
Digital experts eMarketer say “an app provides a direct access point from the Home Screen of a mobile device, and a native app experience is typically slicker and faster than a capitals web experience.”
Overwhelming consensus from digital marketing companies say an app is much better than a website across all factors from engagement, user experience, and communication with its users.
Council believes:
Developing an app for smart devices would provide a line of communication and information delivery to residents who would otherwise not engage directly with council resources on the website.
The digital boom is an opportunity to make better use of its resources and engage with residents and provide a more efficient way of sending urgent messages, allow residents to manage their council tax payments or planning applications and allows them to receive and submit reports on a variety of district council services such as their bin collections, environmental health, anti social behaviour and dog fouling.
Council resolves:
To start a working group with a mixture of staff, residents and councillors to scope what sort of services and resources the app will need to include, then gather costings for various suppliers for cabinet to review.
Minutes:
Motion ‘A’
Members considered a Motion submitted by Councillor P Windley that called on the Portfolio Holders for Strategic Leadership and Finance to work more closely with Ryknled Homes Ltd (RHL) to address the root cause of mould in Council owned properties. The full text of Councillor P Windley’s Motion, set out as Motion ‘A’, was included on the agenda for the meeting.
Councillor D Hancock seconded the Motion. He explained that residents were having to deal with recurring issues with mould which was resulting in repeat cleans while works to address the root cause were not being completed.
Councillor A Dale signalled his support for the Motion. He explained that due to the significant financial cost and use of resources, the issue should receive additional scrutiny.
Councillor A Dale suggested an amendment to the Motion that called on updates to be provided to every other meeting of Council on the additional resources being spent on this issue and the impact that this was having. He also asked for details to be provided on the longer term strategy as to how this issue would be tackled and what the resource requirements for this would be over an extended period of time, and for a range of statistics to be provided on how many reports of mould were being received, what were the causes for these and how long the issues took to be addressed. His amendment also called for the exploration of technological solutions which could be used to combat the issue and for an analysis of the benefit/cost ratios for these.
Councillor P Windley accepted the suggested amendment to her Motion.
Councillor K Gillott spoke against the Motion. He reflected that all Members would agree with the sentiment of the Motion but that it showed a lack of understanding of recent changes that had taken place. He went into detail to highlight some of the changes that had taken place in the last 12 months. These included: the inclusion of an Elected Member from outside of the Majority Group on the RHL Board and the Board being chaired by one of the Independent Members. He went on to explain that the Leader, Councillor N Barker attended every Board meeting and met regularly with the Chair. Council were also reminded that the Managing Director of RHL had attended the previous meeting of Council as well as the Joint Scrutiny Meeting where she had gone through these issues in detail. Councillor K Gillott outlined further measures that were being taken to tackle this issue such as: the employment of additional staff to focus entirely on damp and mould and holding a review of the damp and mould policy. He explained that more funding from Government would be needed in order to help solve this issue. He finished by explaining that most of the information Councillor A Dale had requested could be publicly accessed online.
Councillor K Gillott invited any Members with casework that related to damp and mould to discuss it with either himself or the Managing Director of RHL.
Councillor N Barker reiterated the comments made by Councillor K Gillott. He explained that damp and mould was a large issue and that much of the information called for in the Motion could already be accessed online. He informed Council that RHL were recruiting extra staff to deal with the issue and that if any Members had any cases that they felt weren’t being correctly handled that they should report these concerns back to himself or RHL.
Councillor R Shipman spoke in favour of the Motion. He explained that the root causes of the issue were not being dealt with and enquired as to whether the right staff were being hired in order to tackle the issue. He informed Council of the importance of them being able to hold RHL to account.
Councillor M Durrant spoke against the Motion. He explained that these issues had already been outlined and discussed at previous meetings such as at Communities Scrutiny Committee in September 2023.
Councillor F Adlington-Stringer spoke against the Motion. He criticised the Motion for lacking a clear objectivity and for not providing benefit to Members or residents. He suggested that the emphasis should be on building decent homes for residents and not relying on technological solutions.
Councillor P Windley responded that it was important for Council to remain updated on damp and mould and there were clear issues that were leaving residents with problems.
At the conclusion of the debate the Motion was put to the vote and defeated.
Motion ‘B’
Members considered a Motion submitted by Councillor D Hancock that called on Council to undertake a review into the materials and solutions that were permitted under the policy for creating off street parking on Council properties managed by Rykneld Homes. The full text of Councillor D Hancock’s Motion, set out as Motion ‘B’, was included on the agenda for the meeting.
Councillor R Shipman seconded the Motion but reserved his right to speak.
Councillor F Adlington-Stringer felt that the Motion was short sighted and not environmentally sustainable. He argued that the best way to resolve the transport crisis would be through the provision of decent public transport.
Councillor N Barker argued that the Motion was not necessary and that if Members had any potential new solutions then they should raise these with RHL and a review would take place on a case by case basis. He shared sympathy with the views expressed by Councillor F Adlington-Stringer but argued that on-street parking was an issue that needed to be addressed.
Councillors A Dale, C Renwick and S Reed spoke in favour of the Motion. They argued that parking was an important issue for residents and that there was not enough demand for public transport to make it a viable alternative. They suggested that the Motion would lead to increased off-street parking and that design guides and principles could be used to ensure that properties remained in keeping with the surrounding area.
Councillor R Shipman reiterated that the Motion was only calling for a slight amendment to the policy so that more environmentally sustainable methods for creating off street parking for residents could be considered.
Councillor M Durrant suggested that the Motion would be better suited for a debate at Scrutiny Committee. He argued that the reason public transport was not utilised more across the District was because it was unreliable and people were therefore forced to use personal cars.
Councillor H Wetherall considered that parking was an issue that required addressing and suggested that residents with electric vehicles would need off-street parking access in order to charge them. She also argued that sustainable transport solutions should be considered for the future.
Councillor D Hancock responded that an improved public transport system would be beneficial, but it would still not be appropriate for all people all of the time. The Motion proposed a pragmatic solution to an issue many residents were facing.
At the conclusion of the debate, the Motion was put to the vote and defeated.
Motion ‘C’
Members considered a Motion submitted by Councillor R Shipman that called on Council to start a working group in order to begin exploring the possibility of developing an app for the Council. The full text of Councillor R Shipman’s Motion, set out as Motion ‘C’, was included on the agenda for the meeting.
Councillor D Hancock seconded the Motion but reserved his right to speak.
Councillor S Reed spoke against the Motion. He informed Council of the large costs associated with developing an app and that this was unnecessary as the Council’s website was already mobile friendly. He also reminded Members that the Council already held the ability to send out group text messages to residents and that they wouldn’t necessarily receive any greater public engagement from an app.
Councillor F Adlington-Stringer recognised the potential costs involved with developing an app and suggested an amendment to the Motion that would see the Council partner with other authorities to create an app on a larger regional scale.
Councillor R Shipman declined the suggested amendment and argued that the project would never get going if too many actors were involved.
Councillor A Dale argued against the Motion. He suggested that not all residents would use an app and that if it was designed poorly it would put residents off using it. He argued that instead, Council should focus on improving the website and existing lines of communication.
Councillor J Barry explained that the feasibility of developing a dedicated app had been fully explored in the past but was not compatible with the Council’s customer relationship management system. She explained that there would be a review of the customer relationship management system in the upcoming months but at present there had not been any feedback from residents to request a dedicated app.
Councillor D Hancock responded that the idea shouldn’t be discounted because the customer relationship management system did not allow for an app. He also raised concerns with the proposed amendment suggested by Councillor F Adlington-Stringer as it would be difficult to get other local authorities to commit to work together on the app. He explained that the app could help to increase engagement with certain residents and that the idea should be explored.
Councillor R Shipman responded that an app would be an efficient way to reach certain residents and that this would be a more convenient way for certain residents to receive updates on Council services through the use of features such as push notifications.
At the conclusion of the discussion the Motion was put to the vote and was defeated.