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 twelve clear working days before the meeting.
The following Motion(s) had been received from Member(s):-
Motion submitted by Councillor R Shipman
Council notes:
- Planning application 20/00221/FL was approved for the erection of 34 dwellings on land opposite 24 to 44 Clay Lane, Clay Cross;
- At the time of the original planning application decision, Derbyshire County Council as Local Lead Flood Authority carried out a desktop assessment and didn’t submit any objections or concerns;
- At the time of the original application, concerns were raised by residents and councillors about flooding from Smithy Brook;
- Planning enforcement issued a temporary stop notice on the site which ended at the beginning of August after the developer failed to comply with planning conditions;
- Subsequent planning applications to discharge conditions on the site has resulted in Derbyshire County Council raising flooding concerns about a part of the original planning application;
- The developer has declined to undertake a survey requested by Derbyshire County Council as it is outside the scope of their current application;
- The duties and responsibilities of North East Derbyshire District Council as the planning authority.
Council resolves:
That planning application 20/00221/FL be referred back to the Planning Committee to determine whether permission be revoked in respect of the flooding concerns raised by Derbyshire County Council.
Motion submitted by Councillor N Barker
This Council notes:
· That there are roughly 5,500 households on Universal Credit in North East Derbyshire and that unemployment is expected to continue to rise into the New Year.
· Many of these families will not only lose the £20 uplift to the UC but will also be expected to pay the increase to their National Insurance contributions.
The Council agrees to:-
· Write to the Chancellor Rishi Sunak demanding that the £20 increase to Universal Credit is reinstated and made permanent.
· Urge the government to end the five week wait for Universal Credit by converting advances into grants instead of loans.
· Continue to work alongside partner organisations to provide help and assistance wherever possible to all those struggling during these difficult times.
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 twelve clear working days before the meeting.
Two motions had been submitted from Members.
Motion submitted from Councillor R Shipman
Council notes:-
- Planning application 20/00221/FL was approved for the erection of 34 dwellings on land opposite 24 to 44 Clay Lane, Cross;
- At the time of the original planning application decision, Derbyshire County Council as Local Lead Flood Authority carried out a desktop assessment and didn’t submit any objections or concerns;
- At the time of the original application, concerns were raised by residents and councillors about flooding from Smithy Brook;
- Planning enforcement issued a temporary stop notice on the site which ended at the beginning of August after the developer failed to comply with planning conditions.
- Subsequent planning applications to discharge conditions on the site has resulted in Derbyshire County Council raising flooding concerns about a part of the original planning application.
- The developer has declined to undertake a survey requested by Derbyshire County Council as it is outside the scope of their current application.
- The duties and responsibilities of North East Derbyshire District Council as the planning authority.
Council resolves:
The planning application 20/00221/FL be referred back to the Planning Committee to determine whether permission be revoked in respect of the flooding concerns raised by Derbyshire County Council.
Councillor R Shipman moved the motion and explained that he hoped it could be used as a mechanism for Planning Committee to reconsider an application in respect of Clay Lane, Clay Cross, due to new information coming to light retrospectively of the application being approved by the Committee.
Councillor T Reader seconded the motion and spoke of her support for the residents of Clay Lane and that all of the Clay Cross District Councillors had made their objections, alongside the Parish Council, to the original application.
Councillor C Cupit stated that she completely understood the concerns of residents and Members, however, would vote against the motion as in essence it asked for the consideration of the revocation of planning permission for the site. Councillor R Shipman was encouraged to reconsider his motion and engage in practical solutions to help residents as revocation would be premature given that potential solutions were on the table and should be considered. Council heard that following meetings with a range of stakeholders, the developers had agreed to hire an external consultant to do additional assessments of the brook to address residents’ concerns, and that further meetings were planned.
Councillor D Ruff spoke against the motion and confirmed that the application had been considered by the Planning Committee in March 2020 where it was given approval following a lengthy debate. Council heard that since approval, fresh issues had been identified, however a solution in principle seemed to have been agreed following meetings between Councillor C Cupit, Lee Rowley MP, and the developer. Councillor D Ruff looked forward to the proposals being presented to the Planning Committee in due course, and asked that Councillor R Shipman consider his language about the Council on social media in future.
Councillor M Foster also confirmed that as a Planning Committee Member the application had been considered in March 2020, and approved following a lengthy debate. The Portfolio Holder for Council Services argued that the previous administration had placed the application into the emerging Local Plan.
Councillor D Hancock spoke in favour of the motion and stated that subsequent information had come to light since the approval of the application. The motion therefore looked to protect the public, so that the Committee could reconsider the application with all of the facts that it did not have at the time.
Councillor R Shipman responded by arguing that it was only right and fair, given the new evidence, that the application was reconsidered by Committee and questioned the message it sent to residents. Council heard that the process was a failure if the Authority refused to consider sending it back to the Committee, and that it should automatically go back if new issues were identified which were not outlined in any original application.
On being put to a vote, the motion was defeated.
Motion submitted by Councillor N Barker
This Council notes:
- That there are roughly 5,500 households on Universal Credit in North East Derbyshire and that unemployment is expected to continue to rise into the New Year.
- Many of these families will not only lose the £20 uplift to the UC but will also be expected to pay the increase to their National Insurance contributions
The Council agrees to:-
- Write to the Chancellor Rishi Sunak demanding that the £20 increase to Universal Credit is reinstated and made permanent.
- Urge the Government to end the five week wait for Universal Credit by converting advances into grants instead of loans.
- Continue to work alongside partner organisations to provide help and assistance wherever possible to all those struggling during these difficult times.
Councillor N Barker moved the motion and argued that whilst he acknowledged and supported the extensive financial assistance offered by the Government and the Council during the Pandemic, he felt that the £20 uplift to Universal Credit should not be taken away and that it should be made permanent. Council also heard that the five week wait was unacceptable and should be ended.
The motion was seconded by Councillor S Pickering who reserved his right to reply until later in the debate.
Councillor R Shipman spoke in favour of the motion and agreed it was important that people who were experiencing financial hardship continued to receive support, otherwise they would be plunged into further poverty.
Councillor A Dale acknowledged that it had been an exceptionally tough time for families and that both the economy and peoples livelihoods had been severely affected by the Pandemic. Council heard that the Authority had provided extensive support to the District’s poorest and most vulnerable, and that the Government had also supported and done its best to prop up the economy and assist those in need. The Leader of the Council outlined the scale of support which had been provided by the Government which totalled £350 billion worth of investment including the furlough scheme, the self-income support scheme, a bounce back loan scheme, a kick start scheme for young people, and a range of other measures. It was argued, however, that the cost of all this had come from borrowing and that the level of UK debt was unsustainable. The uplift to Universal Credit had always been a temporary measure of support, and therefore Councillor A Dale would vote against the motion.
Councillor A Powell spoke to confirm the situation in regards to Links CVS, a voluntary organisation which had received funding from the Council. Council heard that following the contract opportunity being publicised by the Council, Links CVS failed to submit a tender for the work and it remained unclear as to why they had not.
Councillor D Hancock acknowledged the support offered by the Government as outlined by Councillor A Dale, however, argued that the situation had changed due to factors such as high inflation, and that taking away £20 would be a blow to the poorest in society. Council heard how he would be voting for the motion.
Councillor J Kenyon spoke against the motion and argued that the uplift to Universal Credit was provided in an emergency situation. Other measures to provide a better standard of living such as increasing the living wage and providing a high wage economy were better strategies to deal with poverty.
Councillor S Pickering had seconded the motion and argued that whilst the Government had spent a significant amount of money during the Pandemic, a lot of it had been wasted and not sent to those who need it most. Council heard that the removal of the uplift would leave families in North East Derbyshire facing an unprecedented squeeze on their household budgets and plunge some into further poverty, and that removing it came at a time when the District and country faced a cost of living crisis. Council was encouraged to show compassion and empathy and vote for the motion, and that it was the responsibility of all Councillors to challenge the removal of the uplift to protect residents.
Councillor N Barker concluded the debate by urging Members to vote for the motion so that Council could demonstrate its opposition to the removal of the uplift with a letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Councillors S Pickering, N Barker, and B Wright requested a recorded vote.
For the motion:- 21
B Wright, P Wheelhouse, L Stone, R Shipman, K Rouse, T Reader, S Pickering, G Morley, J Lilley, T Lacey, P R Kerry, M Jones, P Holmes, L Hartshorne, D Hancock, J Funnell, S Cornwell, A Cooper, J Birkin, J Barry, N Barker
Against the motion:- 24
P Wright, R Welton, M E Thacker, K Tait, B Strafford-Stephenson, D Ruff, C Renwick, A Powell, M Potts, A Platts, P Parkin, H Liggett, B Lewis, J Kenyon, A Hutchinson, R Hall, M Foster, M Emmens, P Elliott, A Dale, C Cupit, S Clough, W Armitage, P Antcliff (24)
Abstentions – 0
The motion was defeated.