Skip to main content

Agenda item

NOTICE OF MOTIONS

To consider any motions, due notice of which have been given in accordance with Standing Order 4.8.12.

Decision:

In accordance with Standing Order 4.8.12, three motions had been submitted by the required deadline set out in the Constitution.

 

(A)        Objection to the National Scheme of Delegation for Planning Applications

 

RESOLVED: That Council instructed the Leader of the Council to write to all North Herts MPs setting out the views in the motion.

 

(B)        Mimram Valley Local Landscape Designation Project

 

RESOLVED: That Council:

 

(1)         Expressed its support for the Mimram Valley being granted Local Landscape Designation status.

 

(2)         Instructed Officers to engage in discussions with the Mimram Valley Local Landscape Designation Project Steering Group in order to progress the ambition of the Mimram Valley being granted Local Landscape Designation status in the upcoming revision of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan.

 

(3)         Instructed the Leader of the Council to write to the Leaders of Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council and East Hertfordshire District Council calling on their respective Councils to support the Mimram Valley being granted Local Landscape Designation status within their Local Development Plans.

 

(C)        Future of Land Holdings South of the A505, Royston

 

RESOLVED: That the motion, as amended, was LOST.

Minutes:

Audio recording – 01 hours 50 minutes 07 seconds

 

There were three motions submitted in accordance with Standing Order 4.8.12.

 

(A)      Objection to the National Scheme of Delegation for Planning Applications

 

Councillor Steve Jarvis proposed the motion as follows:

 

‘Council regrets the decision of the Government to introduce a "National Scheme of Delegation" for planning applications.

 

It believes that:

a)         Planning decisions should continue to be made by locally elected councillors rather than being increasingly determined by officers under national rules.

b)         the Secretary of State is being given excessive power to dictate council constitutions and planning procedures.

 

Council resolves:

 

To instruct the Leader of the Council to write to all North Herts MPs setting out these views.’

 

Councillor Ruth Brown seconded the motion.

 

The following Members took part in the debate:

 

·                Councillor Donna Wright

·                Councillor Tom Tyson

·                Councillor Daniel Wright-Mason

·                Councillor Paul Ward

·                Councillor Daniel Allen

·                Councillor Ruth Brown

·                Councillor Ralph Muncer

·                Councillor Elizabeth Dennis

·                Councillor Martin Prescott

·                Councillor Tim Johnson

·                Councillor Nigel Mason

·                Councillor Matt Barnes

 

The following points were made as part of the debate:

 

·                Concerns from Members were understood, but they must acknowledge that the current arrangements were deeply flawed and inconsistent between authorities and did not serve residents or applicants well, and the new scheme was designed to improve this.

·                Planning Control Committees would continue to have an important role as large applications would be considered by them.

·                Some Planning Control Committees were politically charged under the current setup, which meant that some applications were not decided on their merits.

·                The Council should be able to trust Planning Officers with professional expertise to make independent, evidence-based judgements.

·                Reform to the scheme would help Members to focus on other areas where they added the most value such as setting visions and establishing policy frameworks.

·                The country faced a housing crisis and a critical need for new infrastructure, and growth in the economy was also needed, which a fair planning system would address.

·                The scheme would take away community voices and the democratic oversight that members of the public gave on decisions taken by Planning Control Committees.

·                The perception that the Government imposed development on residents without accounting for local concerns would be reinforced, and public trust in the planning system would be eroded.

·                Shifting the responsibility of decision-making onto Officers was undemocratic.

·                Service delivery for homes had experienced a fundamental failure in recent years, which North Herts district had been part of as their share of national housing delivery had declined by a third in the last 25 years.

·                The Government were trying to correct decades of service failure and under delivery in an area of great importance, and those who were in desperate need of housing, including those on the housing register and in temporary accommodation deserved this response.

·                These reforms would place an onus on the limited number of Planning Officers.

·                Members would have a vote on this scheme at the next Full Council meeting, so the motion was pointless.

·                Neither the broken planning system nor the social housing required across the country would be addressed by the scheme.

·                The UK had a developer-led planning system, where developers only built homes if they were viable in term of profit, and this scheme would not change that or the problems it presented where developers sought to legally challenge financial contributions.

·                Taking decision-making powers from Members would not lead to more homes being built.

·                This motion represented a centralisation of power as the role of the Planning Inspectorate would be increased, and the comments made by Chris Hinchliff MP about empowering residents and not disregarding their concerns were agreed with.

·                The Secretary of State already had the powers to set this important regulatory framework as local authorities were governed by statute.

·                Planning Control Committee meetings were long and frequent under the current system, and this scheme would contribute towards resolving this.

·                This scheme would not take power from Members as they would still be able to perform their democratic function in decision making by communicating with Planning Officers and expressing concerns on behalf of residents.

·                The Planning Control Committee was not driven by political imperatives.

·                It was condescending and patronising and they fully supported the motion.

·                The Council would not have a Planning Control Committee if they did not pass the scheme into their Constitution at the Council meeting later in the year.

·                Going forward, Members should work with Planning Officers and the Planning Control Committee to make wise decisions and make the new scheme work.

·                What remained of the democratic planning system would be demolished by these reforms and the removal of public voices would drive public outrage.

·                It was outrageous for this scheme to be forced through, and Government Ministers should work with Members to put power back into communities.

 

Councillor Steve Jarvis replied to the debate and advised that:

 

·                It was agreed that Planning Officers were experts and their valuable advice should be considered, but the democratic element of their decision making was questioned.

·                Planning applications should not be determined in the same way across the county as local considerations should be accounted for.

·                This scheme showed a lack of trust by the Government in councillors.

·                No evidence supported the notion that this scheme would result in more housing being built as there were thousands of unimplemented applications across the country due to developers not proceeding until they were able to obtain the right level of profit.

 

Having been proposed and seconded and, following a vote, it was:

 

RESOLVED: That Council instructed the Leader of the Council to write to all North Herts MPs setting out the views in the motion.

 

Councillor Nigel Mason advised that there were no political Members on the Planning Control Committee and that Members of the Committee were there to do things well, not represent their parties.

 

(B)      Mimram Valley Landscape Designation Project

 

Councillor Ralph Muncer proposed the motion as follows:

 

‘The River Mimram runs from its source near Whitwell to join the River Lea at Hertford and is one of only 260 chalk streams that exist in the world.

 

Earlier this year, the Mimram Valley Local Landscape Designation steering group submitted an outline case for a Local Landscape Designation (LLD) for the Mimram Valley to be included in the next iteration of the Local Plan, with this proposal being submitted to North Hertfordshire District Council, Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council and East Hertfordshire District Council.

 

A LLD protects areas considered by the Local Planning Authority to be of particular landscape value to the local area and if granted, the designation would ensure this precious natural and heritage-rich environment is sustained by making landscape impact a primary consideration in planning decisions.

 

The designation would also play an important role in developing an awareness of the landscape qualities that make the Mimram Valley distinctive, promote awareness amongst the various communities in the valley and help to strengthen local rural economies.

 

Therefore, Council resolves:

 

1.         To express its support for the Mimram Valley being granted Local Landscape Designation status.

 

2.         To instruct Officers engage in discussions with the Mimram Valley Local Landscape Designation Project steering group in order to progress the ambition of the Mimram Valley being granted Local Landscape Designation status in the upcoming revision of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan

 

3.         To instruct the Leader of the Council to write to the Leader of Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council and the Leader of East Hertfordshire District Council calling on their respective Councils to support the Mimram Valley being granted Local Landscape Designation status within their Local Development Plans.’

 

Councillor Joe Graziano seconded the motion.

 

The following Members took part in the debate:

 

·                Councillor Val Bryant

·                Councillor Joe Graziano

 

The following points were made as part of the debate:

 

·                This designation had already been included in the Draft Local Plan Review to ensure that all chalk streams in North Herts, including the River Mimram were locally valued landscapes. The Strategic Planning Board would consider this soon and public consultation would take place on this as part of the Local Plan Review if approved by Cabinet.

·                The River Mimram was an internationally rare chalk stream, and the Mimram Valley connected many communities and provided important landscape for wildlife, recreation, heritage and wellbeing.

·                It faced water abstraction, pollution, habitat loss, and development pressures.

·                The Council must ensure that the valley was enhanced for future generations.

·                This designation would ensure future planning decisions would give greater weight to conserving the character, nature assets and biodiversity of the valley, and ensure an additional layer of safeguarding from inappropriate development.

·                The Council should work with landowners to preserve the ecological health of the River Mimram and heritage of the Mimram Valley as they were irreplaceable.

 

Having been proposed and seconded and, following a vote, it was:

 

RESOLVED: That Council:

 

(1)       Expressed its support for the Mimram Valley being granted Local Landscape Designation status.

 

(2)       Instructed Officers to engage in discussions with the Mimram Valley Local Landscape Designation Project Steering Group in order to progress the ambition of the Mimram Valley being granted Local Landscape Designation status in the upcoming revision of the North Hertfordshire Local Plan. Thursday, 16th July, 2026.

 

(3)       Instructed the Leader of the Council to write to the Leaders of Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council and East Hertfordshire District Council calling on their respective Councils to support the Mimram Valley being granted Local Landscape Designation status within their Local Development Plans.

 

(C)      Future of Land Holdings South of the A505, Royston

 

N.B. Councillors Steve Jarvis and Chris Lucas declared an interest on this item due to their positions as Members of Cabinet at Hertfordshire County Council and left the Chamber for the duration of the motion.

 

Councillor Ralph Muncer proposed the motion as follows:

 

‘On 17 June, the Cabinet at Hertfordshire County Council declared land holding to the South of the A505, Royston to be “surplus to operational requirements” and took the decision to dispose of the land.

 

The Land North of Roysia School was acquired in the 1980s using statutory compulsory purchase powers for education purposes and whilst the land in question has been allocated for residential development within the North Herts Local Plan, the decision of the County Council to dispose of this land has not adequately addressed the cumulative impact of significant additional housing on the existing highway network, particularly the single point of access that already serves over 1,000 homes in the surrounding area.

 

Additionally, there is no evidence that any public consultation has been undertaken with local residents, community groups or stakeholders in Royston regarding the proposed disposal and the residential development it will facilitate, particularly in light of existing pressures on local infrastructure.  

 

Whilst the County Council has concluded there is “no current or future need” for the land for County Council service delivery, it does not appear to have fully considered whether retention of all or part of the land could deliver alternative public or community benefits, for example sports facilities of which there are a significant shortage within the town, and whether the proposed joint disposal strategy with the Highfield Land Trust represents the option that best serves the wider public interest.

 

Therefore, Council Resolves:

 

1.         To instruct the Leader of the Council to write to the Leader of Hertfordshire County Council requesting that the Cabinet examines, again, its decision to dispose of the land in question and fully considers if the proposed joint disposal strategy with the Highfield Land Trust best serves the wider public interest or whether retention of the land could deliver alternative public/community benefits, for example, the health and wellbeing benefits from additional sports/recreational facilities, of which there are a significant shortage within the town.

 

2.         To instruct the Officers at North Hertfordshire District Council to work with Hertfordshire County Council in order to identify the best possible future community use of this land.’

 

Councillor Martin Prescott seconded the motion.

 

Councillor Tim Johnson proposed an amendment to be included in the motion to instruct Officers at North Herts to investigate ways this land could be acquired to provide additional sporting facilities for Royston.

 

Councillor Ralph Muncer, as the proposer, accepted the amendment into the substantive motion and this was also accepted by Councillor Martin Prescott as seconder.

 

In response to a question raised by Councillor Sadie Billing, Councillor Ralph Muncer advised that:

 

·                The proposal had gone through the committee process at Hertfordshire County Council (HCC) and Members had raised concerns through this.

·                There was a worrying trend on the disposal of land allocated for key community infrastructure by HCC and other authorities, which was the key principle for this motion.

 

The following Members took part in the debate:

 

·                Councillor Ruth Brown

·                Councillor Ian Albert

·                Councillor Martin Prescott

·                Councillor Matt Barnes

·                Councillor Alistair Willoughby

·                Councillor Tim Johnson

·                Councillor Val Bryant

·                Councillor Laura Williams

 

The following points were made as part of the debate:

 

·                The decision taken by HCC could have been called-in as it was taken by Cabinet.

·                Even though the site had been allocated for 100 homes in the Local Plan, there was no reason why it could not be reallocated for sports provision.

·                Roysia School had been shut in 2019 by the administration at the time, and neither they nor the current administration had done anything to address this.

·                There had been numerous opportunities to comment on the disposal of land at HCC meetings, but no comments had been made.

·                Acquiring land for sports facilities would be ideal, but it was not viable for the Council to do this, and sending a letter to HCC was not likely to make a difference.

·                Residents attending Royston & Villages Community Forum had expressed a dire need for more sports facilities in the town and it would be nice for funding to go towards this.

·                This motion failed to mention the Outdoor Sports Strategy published by the Council, which gave high priority to working with multiple organisations to develop a new multi-sports facility to address shortfalls for sporting provision in Royston.

·                Sports provision could be delivered on this land as it was undeveloped and flat, and the amendment played a tangible role in delivering on the Outdoor Sports Strategy.

·                This proposal could have been included in the Work Programme at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee at HCC as it could have carried more weight there.

·                A Council meeting was not the right place for this issue to be resolved, and they could easily talk to the Leader of the Council outside the meeting about this.

·                There were opportunities to work with Royston Town Council to investigate how they could acquire the land.

·                There was no indication of how much the land would cost.

 

In response to points raised by Councillor Ian Albert, the Monitoring Officer advised that the motion was reasonable as it would not commit funding at this stage.

 

In response to points raised by Councillor Ian Albert, the Chief Executive advised that every motion could have implications on Officer time.

 

Councillor Emma Rowe left the Chamber at 22:31 and returned at 22:32.

 

Councillor Ralph Muncer replied to the debate and advised that:

 

·                Matters decided by other authorities such as HCC should be subject to debate by the Council as they had an impact on their communities.

·                Debating this motion gave Members a chance to raise issues of concern and made sure that HCC were held accountable for their decisions.

 

Having been proposed and seconded and, following a vote, it was:

 

RESOLVED: That the motion, as amended, was LOST.

Supporting documents: