• You are here:  
  • Agenda item

Agenda item

To consider any motions from Members under Procedure Rule No 10

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 12 noon seven clear working days before the meeting.  3 Motions have been received and will be considered in the order set out on this agenda.

 

(a)       Motion proposed by Councillor David Hancock and seconded by Councillor Pam Windley

 

“Council notes:-

 

·                The increased reports of rat problems around the District over the last 12 months.

·                Concerns raised by residents to elected Members of both District and Parish Councils, to the Council’s charging structure.

         

Council believes that the removal of this fee would:-

 

·                Enable a more consistent approach to tackling pest control;

·                Better protect the environment by ensuring that the most appropriate and safest methods are being used;

·                Ensure that those in our poorer communities are not suffering disproportionately because of their inability to pay.

           

            Council resolves:-

 

·                To trial a 12 month waiver of fees in relation to pest control;

·                To monitor whether there is an increased take-up of the pest control service;

·                To monitor whether there is an increased effectiveness of pest control during this trial period;

·                That, should the trial demonstrate an increased effectiveness in the numbers of residents taking up the service and a resulting decrease in the overall numbers of pests, then Council will effect a continuing waiver”.

 

(b)       Motion proposed by Councillor Ross Shipman, seconded by Councillor Pamela Windley

 

            “Council notes:-

 

·                Disabled facilities grants aid North East Derbyshire families for the care of their disabled relatives by funding necessary adaption to properties, such as room conversions and specialised equipment;

·                That the Council place a legal clawback on properties if they are sold on within 10 years of the grant being issued;

·                That, under certain qualifications (such as financial hardship), Council will waive this fee;

·                That, under the current policy, bereavement of the claimant is not one of the criteria in which the legal charge would be waived. 

 

Council believes:-

 

·                That it is not unreasonable for families to move home following the death of a loved one. 

 

Council resolves:-

 

·                To add ‘bereavement of the individual on whose behalf the application was made’ as one of the criteria for waiving the legal charge. 

 

(c)       Motion proposed by Councillor Nigel Barker

 

Council notes:

 

that given 3 meetings of the Local Plan Steering Group have been cancelled since the District election, the Council needs to clarify what is happening with the Local Plan and when is it likely to be adopted.

 

With these questions in mind this Council resolves:

 

‘That at the earliest opportunity, it will make public the consequences of pausing the Local Plan and publish a revised timetable of when it will be adopted’.

 

Minutes:

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 12 noon seven clear working days before the meeting. 

 

Three motions had been submitted under Procedure Rule No 10 for this meeting and were considered in the order submitted. 

 

(a)      Motion proposed by Councillor D Hancock and seconded by Councillor P Windley

 

          “Council notes:-

 

·       The increased reports of rat problems around the District over the last 12 months.

·       Concerns raised by residents to elected Members of both District and Parish Councils, to the Council’s charging structure.

 

Council believes that the removal of this fee would:-

 

·        Enable a more consistent approach to tackling pest control;

·        Better protect the environment by ensuring that the most appropriate and safest methods are being used;

·        Ensure that those in our poorer communities are not suffering disproportionately because of their inability to pay.

 

          Council resolves:-

 

·       To trial a 12 month waiver of fees in relation to pest control;

·       To monitor whether there is an increased take-up of the pest control service;

·       To monitor whether there is an increased effectiveness of pest control during this trial period;

·       That, should the trial demonstrate an increased effectiveness in the number of residents taking up the service and a resulting decrease in the overall number of pests, then Council will effect a continuing wavier”.

 

In presenting his motion to Council, Councillor D Hancock expressed his views that there was a rat problem in the District and a 12 month trial to waive pest control fees was the most appropriate way to address this.  Councillor R Shipman duly seconded the motion and added his view that rat control was becoming a national issue. 

 

Councillor N Barker felt that the rat problem in the District had been exaggerated by Councillor D Hancock and he believed that Councillor D Hancock’s opinion had been coloured by hearsay and social media posts.  He added that in response to one particular post on Facebook, independent surveys were carried out and the situation was addressed with assistance from the Portfolio Holder for Environment and Climate Change. 

 

Members were informed by Councillor N Barker that the District had seen six rat cases in 2018 and eight in 2019, which he felt was not the severe situation suggested by Councillor D Hancock.  He added the main weapon against rats was prevention by way of not littering or fly-tipping. 

 

Councillor S Cornwell believed that a consistent approach was necessary for pest control.  She felt that the extent of the District’s rat problem had been stoked because of the story in the Derbyshire Times mistakenly using a rat photograph from Ireland instead of North East Derbyshire, which had then been shared on Facebook. 

 

Councillor C Cupit, Portfolio Holder for Environment and Climate Change, thanked Councillor D Hancock for the submitted motion and efforts to tackle pest control issues but she believed it failed to address what it was aiming to.  She added that Council data showed no significant increase in annual pest control figures, although seasonal increases did occur when the temperature was colder.  Councillor C Cupit advised that in terms of the motion’s proposal to waive the pest control fee there was already a concessionary rate within the Council’s pest control service, and she also felt the service was superior to most private services.  She added that the vast majority of local authorities charge for the service as well.  A removal of the fee could lead to a 50% to 80% increase in phone calls, which would be a demand that the Council could not deal with. 

 

Councillor C Cupit stated her belief that the motion missed the point in putting the responsibility with the Council because there were many factors that led to rats appearing.  She believed the motion was not environmentally or financially responsible. 

 

Councillor N Barker advised the pest control service charge was introduced when he was a member of the Cabinet and alternative options at the time were considered thoroughly and carefully. 

 

Councillor D Hancock stated that his motion was not about causing panic but was simply an attempt to solve an issue.  He added that he strongly disagreed with Councillor S Cornwell’s assertion that the fears were based on mistaken photographs and Facebook sharing because he had heard the information from a Board meeting. 

 

On being put to the vote the motion was defeated. 

 

(b)      Motion proposed by Councillor R Shipman and seconded by Councillor           P Windley

 

          “Council notes:-

 

·             Disabled facilities grants aid North East Derbyshire families for the care of their disabled relatives by funding necessary adaption to properties, such as room conversions and specialised equipment;

·             That the Council place a legal clawback on properties if they are sold on within 10 years of the grant being issued;

·             That, under certain qualifications (such as financial hardship), Council will waive this fee;

·             That, under the current policy, bereavement of the claimant is not one of the criteria in which the legal charge would be waived. 

 

Council believes:-

 

·              That it is not unreasonable for families to move home following the death of a loved one. 

 

Council resolves:-

 

·             To add ‘bereavement of the individual on whose behalf the application was made’ as one of the criteria for waiving the legal charge”.

 

In presenting his motion to Council, Councillor R Shipman expressed his view that the Council’s current disabled facilities grant policy did not take into account when someone died in these situations.  He added that by amending the policy as proposed in the motion the Council could lead the way in supporting people who had lost their loved ones.

 

Councillor D Hancock duly seconded the motion and added that the relevant legislation stated that the local authority may demand the payment which gave the Council enough room for interpretation to amend its own policy.  He believed that people who lost their loved ones had already suffered enough and the motion would allow them some comfort. 

 

Councillor C Cupit thanked Councillor R Shipman for the motion and agreed it highlighted a heart rending subject.  She advised that an ongoing Environmental Health Review of the Council had included the Council’s Disability Facilities Grant Policy and how it would interpret the relevant legislation, so she felt the Council should allow this review to conclude rather than accept the motion because the motion could restrict how the Council’s policy operated. 

 

On being put to the vote the motion was defeated. 

 

(c)      Motion proposed by Councillor N Barker

 

“Council notes-

That given three meetings of the Local Plan Steering Group have been cancelled since the District Election, the Council needs to clarify what is happening with the Local Plan and when is it likely to be adopted. 

 

With these questions in mind this Council resolves:-

 

‘That at the earliest opportunity, it will make public the consequences of pausing the Local Plan and publish a revised timetable of when it will be adopted’.” 

 

In presenting his motion to Council, Councillor N Barker stated that progression of the Council’s Land Plan had been going on a long time and he felt clarification on its discretion was necessary. 

 

Councillor T Reader seconded the motion and reserved her right to speak. 

 

Councillor R Shipman believed that Councillor N Barker was playing politics with an important issue instead of trying to clarify its progress.  He added that residents he had spoken to were not confident that the current Cabinet could deliver the Local Plan. 

 

Councillor C Cupit stated that the previous Labour administration did not deliver the Local Plan in 10 years.  She added that the current administration was committed to delivering the Local Plan and the motion would not make this happen any faster because the Local Plan Steering Group had no formal powers or obligations, instead the current administration would establish new public forums to listen to residents and be united in protecting the District's landscape. 

 

Councillor A Foster believed that Councillor R Shipman was sharing untruths on social media about the current administration’s plans to build on Green Belt land which would result in lost credibility for Councillor Shipman with the public and other Members. 

 

Councillor D Hancock stated his support of the motion because it mentioned producing a Local Plan timetable which he felt would inform Members of the Plan for the Local Plan’s progression. 

 

Councillor T Reader felt that the public were weary of waiting on the political disagreements on this matter and she believed that a revised Local Plan timetable would clarify matters. 

 

On being put to the vote the motion was defeated.