Motion 1
Walking and Cycling to School – Road Safety Measures
West Lindsey District Council supports the campaigns of Government, Education and Health Authorities to promote pupils walking and cycling to and from school. This daily activity instils good life style habits with our young people as well as improving their health, including obesity, and wellbeing. It also has a potential to improve the climate and environmental issues faced by our planet.
The Council also recognises that for such schemes to successfully taken up the pupils and their parents/carers must feel they can carry out the activity in a safe environment. Unfortunately, many of our area’s schools suffer from a lack of adequate pavements and safety barriers, inadequate parking spaces, traffic travelling at fast speeds and air pollution from passing motor vehicles making them risky and unsafe for pedestrians. In rural villages and back street locations the narrowness of the roads frequently heightens the problem. Where schools do have safety zones and other speed reduction schemes outside their premises they are mainly advisory and not mandatory and so are frequently ignored.
The Council require the Leader and Chief Executive Officer to write to Cllr Martin Hill OBE as Leader of Lincolnshire County Council and to Councillor Mrs Patricia Bradwell OBE Executive Member for Children Services and Cllr Richard Davies Executive Member for Highways to request, as a matter of urgency they help to bring about an increase in pupils undertaking active travel to and from school by providing outside and in the immediate vicinity of all schools in the District:
· adequate pavements and associated infrastructure
· a mandatory speed limit of 20mph, in line with the ‘20 is Plenty Campaign’
· parking free zones outside the school
· help in identifying and providing suitable parent car parking in areas away from the school – which will allow park and stride schemes to operate.
I so move.
Councillor. Stephen Bunney”
Motion 2
Selective Licensing
“In England the private housing sector accounts for 4.4 million or 19% of households compared with 4.0 million or 17% households in the social rented sector. Therefore private landlords clearly play an important role in supporting local authorities meeting local housing demand.
WLDC introduced a Selective Licensing Scheme of Private Landlords in parts of the Gainsborough South West Ward in 2016 and the authority is currently carrying out a consultation process with a view of extending the scheme to other areas of the district in 2023.
Whilst we welcome the consultation it has to be recognised that an online process has limitations regarding the current challenges faced by the private rented sector in our urban and rural areas.
Clearly there are many advantages for the authority building improved partnerships with the private rented sector, including meeting our statutory requirements regarding homelessness, employment, domestic violence, mental health etc. They also support the authority meeting the housing needs of many individuals who have exhausted their options regarding social housing.
Our citizens deserve good housing standards, the selective licensing scheme can improve the quality of accommodation however it has had limited success in many other areas such as anti social behaviour, community safety and crime levels.
It is therefore essential before we extend the selective licensing scheme we gain a far better understanding of how many of these other issues can be addressed, There we ‘move’
1. The consultation process is halted and reformulated to address the limitations of the online consultation process including a district wide meeting between elected members and the private landlords of the designated areas.
2. The key findings are considered and implemented into the new selective licensing scheme.
3. A report is produced and presented to the following Prosperous Communities Committee prior to the new licensing scheme being implemented.
We so Move
Councillor Trevor Young
Gainsborough South-West Ward
Councillor Stephen Bunney
Market Rasen Ward
Councillor Paul Howitt Cowan
Hemswell Ward
Councillor Tom Regis
Wold View Ward”
Minutes:
The Chairman advised the meeting that two motions pursuant to Council Procedure Rule No.10 had been submitted to the meeting, these were as set out in the agenda.
Councillor Bunney, was invited to put his motion to the meeting, as follows:
Walking and Cycling to School – Road Safety Measures
West Lindsey District Council supports the campaigns of Government, Education and Health Authorities to promote pupils walking and cycling to and from school. This daily activity instils good life style habits with our young people as well as improving their health, including obesity, and wellbeing. It also has a potential to improve the climate and environmental issues faced by our planet.
The Council also recognises that for such schemes to be successfully taken up the pupils and their parents/carers must feel they can carry out the activity in a safe environment. Unfortunately, many of our area’s schools suffer from a lack of adequate pavements and safety barriers, inadequate parking spaces, traffic travelling at fast speeds and air pollution from passing motor vehicles making them risky and unsafe for pedestrians. In rural villages and back street locations the narrowness of the roads frequently heightens the problem. Where schools do have safety zones and other speed reduction schemes outside their premises they are mainly advisory and not mandatory and so are frequently ignored.
The Council require the Leader and Chief Executive Officer to write to Cllr Martin Hill OBE as Leader of Lincolnshire County Council and to Councillor Mrs Patricia Bradwell OBE Executive Member for Children Services and Cllr Richard Davies Executive Member for Highways to request, as a matter of urgency they help to bring about an increase in pupils undertaking active travel to and from school by providing outside and in the immediate vicinity of all schools in the District:
· adequate pavements and associated infrastructure
· a mandatory speed limit of 20mph, in line with the ‘20 is Plenty Campaign’
· parking free zones outside the school
· help in identifying and providing suitable parent car parking in areas away from the school – which will allow park and stride schemes to operate.
I so move.
Councillor. Stephen Bunney”
With the motion duly seconded, lengthy debate ensued. Whilst supportive of the motions principles and acknowledging that such behaviours recognised in the motion should be encouraged. However, it was also acknowledged that the rural locations of some of the District communities did see a reliance on cars and motor vehicles. Several Members spoke of issues within their own towns and villages, where simple rules of the road were ignored, but were of the view that greater enforcement from Police and traffic wardens was required. Greater education was required, some Members therefore questioned the effectiveness of the Motion, given the District’s limited responsibilities and the County Council being under no mandate to respond.
Clarity was sought from the motion proposer regarding the meaning on “immediate vicinity” with the response being 200 metres outside the school.
Making reference to a previous motion, a request to write to the County Council, and the non-response to-date it was again questioned why this motion would produce any different response.
Other Members spoke of the “20 is Plenty campaign”, currently championed by a number of Councillors across the Chamber, and the effectiveness this had had in other towns and cities. Positive effects on cycling had also being achieved. The wider aims of the 20 is plenty campaign were outlined. Members considered speeding traffic was a significant issue across the District with rural routes often appearing as race tracks, resulting in a net effect of people not walking or cycling to school. Those Members considered the District did have a role to challenge the current situation and encourage those responsible to take action. This was something the community was concerned about. The stark contrast between the approach in Nottinghamshire just across the river compared to West Lindsey and Lincolnshire was notable. Some Members were of the view the County Council needed to be made to listen. Some considered simply debating the matter in Chamber brought the issues into the public domain and the Council should be encouraging other partners to be applying similar pressure to those could help alleviate. Personal examples were given as to where changes could be made to areas Councillors were aware had an issue.
Again, acknowledging the issues existed, were prevalent across the whole of Lincolnshire, and would vary from school to school, village to village, the approach was questioned. The need for greater education was a shared view, however there were examples of communities not wanting reduced speed-limits. Any work in this area needed to be in the spirit of co-operation. It was commented on the number of dual-hatters in the Chamber, those which served on both the District and County Council, it was suggested those Members should be representing this issue on behalf of the District and trying to lobbying from within the organisation they were elected to.
There was some general discussion regarding reducing speed limits and the effectiveness of this was without real enforcement, noting those who traditionally speed, would speed regardless of the limit in place. Supporters of the 20 is plenty campaign disagreed noting the differences seen as a result.
In bringing the debate to a close, the motion submitted clarified his intention was to ensure this matter was brought to the attention of the County Council, to acknowledge that this was a problem across the District, and that priority action should be taken to address the issues which were the cause of complaint and concern for many communities.
On being put to the vote, the MOTION AS SUBMITTED was declared CARRIED and as a result it was
RESOLVED that the Leader and Chief Executive Officer write to Councillor Martin Hill OBE as Leader of Lincolnshire County Council and to Councillor Mrs Patricia Bradwell OBE Executive Member for Children Services and Councillor Richard Davies Executive Member for Highways to request, as a matter of urgency they help to bring about an increase in pupils undertaking active travel to and from school by providing outside and in the immediate vicinity of all schools in the District:
· adequate pavements and associated infrastructure
· a mandatory speed limit of 20mph, in line with the ‘20 is Plenty Campaign’
· parking free zones outside the school
· help in identifying and providing suitable parent car parking in areas away from the school – which will allow park and stride schemes to operate.
The Chairman invited Councillor Young, as lead submitter, to put his motion to Council as follows: -
Selective Licensing
“In England the private housing sector accounts for 4.4 million or 19% of households compared with 4.0 million or 17% households in the social rented sector. Therefore private landlords clearly play an important role in supporting local authorities meeting local housing demand.
WLDC introduced a Selective Licensing Scheme of Private Landlords in parts of the Gainsborough South West Ward in 2016 and the authority is currently carrying out a consultation process with a view of extending the scheme to other areas of the district in 2023.
Whilst we welcome the consultation it has to be recognised that an online process has limitations regarding the current challenges faced by the private rented sector in our urban and rural areas.
Clearly there are many advantages for the authority building improved partnerships with the private rented sector, including meeting our statutory requirements regarding homelessness, employment, domestic violence, mental health etc. They also support the authority meeting the housing needs of many individuals who have exhausted their options regarding social housing.
Our citizens deserve good housing standards, the selective licensing scheme can improve the quality of accommodation however it has had limited success in many other areas such as anti- social behaviour, community safety and crime levels.
It is therefore essential before we extend the selective licensing scheme we gain a far better understanding of how many of these other issues can be addressed, Therefore we ‘move’
1. The consultation process is halted and reformulated to address the limitations of the online consultation process including a district wide meeting between elected Members and the private landlords of the designated areas.
2. The key findings are considered and implemented into the new selective licensing scheme.
3. A report is produced and presented to the following Prosperous Communities Committee prior to the new licensing scheme being implemented.
We so Move
Councillor Trevor Young
Gainsborough South-West Ward
Councillor Stephen Bunney
Market Rasen Ward
Councillor Paul Howitt Cowan
Hemswell Ward
Councillor Tom Regis
Wold View Ward”
With the motion duly seconded debate ensued. The Deputy Leader indicated her support for items 2 and 3 of the motion, noting that such actions were already part of the project plan and decision-making process. Early into the debate the following amendment
“that the word halted be removed from recommendation 1 and replaced with extended”.
The rationale being that this would allow the current consultation to be extended to include some face to face meetings and provide residents opportunity to fully give their views. A consultation process was important as it gave residents the opportunity to inform the Council of what they really thought, and the results of that consultation would help promote develop and shape further how Selective Licensing was dealt with in the future. The lead motion submitted indicated he was not willing to accept that amendment and as such the amendment was duly seconded and would require a vote later in the proceedings.
Further debate ensued as to the merits or otherwise of the amendment. The Leader whilst welcoming the motion, was supportive of the amendment offering his reasoning. The consultation was half way through its designated process. The consultation had been designed at a time when the Omicron was still rife and ongoing restrictions were unclear. At the time therefore, he considered the logical thing to have done was to arrange for on-line, remote events, simply for certainty. The consultation was running over 12 weeks and would close on 11 April, he considered consultation was currently performing effectively, with 296 responses to-date. The consultation process had been discussed at at least two meetings of the Prosperous Communities Committee and the decision taken had allowed enough flexibility to make amendments to the consultation process, and events, only recently further engagement events had been incorporated. Clarifying timescales relating to the broader scheme any new scheme was never intended to be introduced before 2023, one of the main reasons being that if proposals were to be taken forward by this Council they would need approval by the Secretary of State before anything could be introduced. All things considered, the safeguards in place, the Leader was therefore of the belief the safest and fairest thing for all parties concerned was to continue with the current consultation, whilst extending it also, as suggested.
Some Members considered the methodology in any consultation was critical to ensuring the right data was collected and used to inform decisions. Occasionally methodologies were in-correct and when that was the case, stopping proceedings was considered more appropriate. The acceptance of including face to face meetings was welcomed however some Members were of the view that the issue was fundamentally more than that. It was not suggested that Selective Licensing should not be looked at, everyone having the right to live in a decent standard of accommodation, but the Scheme did need to provide confidence that the end product worked, as such ensuring the right methodology was critical. As such halting the process was considered more appropriate.
Further Members spoke in support of the amendment, although there were concerns that the current approach penalised good landlords. There were concerns that halting a consultation mid process was undemocratic and unfair to those who had engaged to-date. As a whole Members were supportive of the inclusion of additional face to face opportunities, acknowledging why the original approach had been adopted, but recognising that those restrictions no longer applied. Re-introducing face to face contact was welcomed as were the views of the landlords, however some felt this should not be to detriment to those who had already expressed views, halting the consultation would do just that.
Some Members felt it had become apparent that the current process was not working, landlords should be front and centre of the proposals and not feeling side-lined as they currently did. Consultation should drive decisions not be designed to generate the pre-conceived solution. As such halting was the preference for some, to allow the whole scheme to be reconsidered, dismissing the suggesting that it was undemocratic.
Information was sought from the Monitoring Officer, as to whether undertaking face to face meetings only for those Groups referenced in the motions was challengeable from a robust consultation view. It was confirmed that if the motion as submitted was carried face to face meetings would need to be looked at for other stakeholder groups too, referencing the original decision which would permit such.
It was also referenced that since the adoption of the Climate and Sustainability Strategy, it was general policy to avoid face to face meetings in favour of virtual and questioned how the request fitted alongside that Policy requirement. The benefits of face to face did not appear to have been made strongly.
It was suggested, by one of the motion movers, that the current scheme and current consultation lacked integrity. Methodology was key and views were expressed that this had not been undertaken to a good enough standard. Perceived failings were outlined including the lack of impact assessments on rents, as such halting the process was deemed appropriate.
Arising from an earlier question posed the Head of Paid Service indicated that face to face meetings would result in a greater need of travel and increase the carbon footprint.
Clarity was sought and provided regarding the amendment. And in line with earlier comments if the amendment was passed, the extension of face to face meeting would be made to all stakeholder groups, not just private landlords. The Head of Paid Service, placed on record that no one group had been excluded from the current consultation and a number of both residents and tenants had engaged in the process. Over 300 responses had been received to-date suggesting it was not poorly formatted
With original motion submitter indicating he would not be accepting the amendment, did believe the whole process need to be halted and reconfigured, indicating he would save his full of right of reply for any substantive motion.
A request for a recorded vote, for the amendment, was made and duly seconded by a further Member.
On being put to the vote, votes were cast in the following manner: -
For: - Councillors Bierley, Devine, Ellis, Grimble, Lawrence, McCartney, McNeill, Milne, Morris, Patterson, Summers, Waller and Welburn (13)
Against: - Councillors Boles, Bunney, Clews, Cotton, Dobbie, Howitt-Cowan, Oliver, Panter, Rainsforth, Regis, Rollings, M Snee, J Snee, White, and Young (15)
Abstentions: - Councillor Fleetwood (1),
With a total of 13 votes in favour, 15 votes against and 1 abstention, the AMENDMENT was declared LOST.
Further debate ensued and Members spoke of the need to engage all stakeholders, recognising the substantive motion was likely to be passed, and the process would go back to beginning, the four motion submitters, were urged by other Members in the Chamber to engage with Officers from the outset to avoid the same issues. This sentiment was echoed by others
Clarity was sought as to if the motion as submitted was carried, how quickly would the decision be implemented, with the Chief Executive confirming if the motion was passed work would begin the following day to halt the consultation. Leaflets had been printed for inclusion in Council Tax Bills for example, and the halting of the consultation did bring with it some costs. It would also need to be determined, what would happen to the 300 plus responses received to-date and it was likely if the consultation was fundamentally re-formatted it was likely those people would be asked to re-submit.
Members sought indication as to the cost of the leaflet and did acknowledge it would be a shame if those consultation responses already submitted were lost and there was a risk of consultation fatigue.
The leaflet had cost in the region of £1500, the on-line survey could be switched off relatively easily with little costs. However, money had been spent to- date on designing the process and input to date but an accurate figure was not available immediately be could be in the thousands.
Members questioned whether the costs to date have been funded from the licence fee paid by those under the previous Scheme. It was confirmed this was not the case, fees paid under the previous scheme covered the cost of that scheme.
It was suggested that any money lost was as a result of an ill-conceived process.
The motion submitter used his right reply to reply and made the following statement: -
“Firstly Chairman, having a first class honours degree in housing and being a member of the chartered institute of housing until recently, I consider myself well-experienced to talk about Housing Policy
I along with the other Members who submitted this Motion would be more than willing to work with Offices in terms of a revised scheme. It was interesting Chairman, that only this week Councillor Martin Hill stated the importance of private landlords and the role they would play in settling refugees reference the current situation in the Ukraine. Back in 2015/16 when the previous Chief Executive spoke of selective licensing in parts of the South West Ward, her vision was about making that world a better place where people wanted to live and enjoyed living, rather than being forced to live in a low demand area. Tackling high levels of anti-social behaviour and high levels of crime and a good neighbour scheme benefiting the whole of the community should have been the main focus of delivery. Unfortunately, when the previous Chief Executive left the organisation, the way the selective licensing scheme was implemented by our Officers focused on none of the original priorities.
Selective Licensing should be a short term intervention which addresses specific problems in specific areas and it should be reviewed regularly and have measurable outcomes. When there is a clear focus on how the scheme should be implemented, it should deliver specific benefits for all stakeholders such as landlords, their tenants, their families, statutory services and particularly owner occupiers and local businesses. Selective licensing should form stronger working partnerships between the local authority and private landlords to ensure the key objectives are delivered. In the past five years in the South West Ward we have had a licensing scheme, in a select area of the ward, sadly incidents of anti-social behaviour have increased and crime levels have also increased, drug dealing from properties is prolific, together with the impact of street lights in this area being switched off, it has resulted in this feeling an unsafe place to live.
However, on reviewing the Five-Year scheme which has been in place, West Lindsey Officers claim that the Scheme has been a huge success. How can this be? Nothing has changed. The partnership between the Authority and private landlords has not happened, there is a clear inconsistency in how landlords are licensed. There has been no engagement with tenants and there has been huge criticism of the large licence fee and how it has been used. There has been a lack of landlords support for dealing with anti-social behaviour especially early presentation of waste and drug dealing from properties, there has been a lack of enforcement in the area. There have been deliberate attempts by Officers to keep Members at arm's length, criticism from other agencies about how the Scheme has been implemented. There has been no tracking of problem tenants and they keep reappearing when they have been evicted from licensed properties reappearing in other properties. The poor landlords and the poor tenants simply not being addressed. If there is an extension of the South West Ward scheme, there is a clear need to change the way it is implemented as it has simply not delivered.
Regarding the rollout of the licensing scheme in other parts of the District, we first need to understand what we are trying to achieve. It is totally unrealistic to take a blanket approach to identify whole wards. Consideration also needs to be given to the rurality of the District and what an important role some private landlords play in supporting and investing in our rural areas. Government Guidance on selective licensing, clearly advocates the need for active engagement with both landlords and tenants and clearly this should be done prior to any area being identified. The use of algorithms, as is the case in West Lindsey should be discouraged as they are unreliable and should not be used as a replacement for true meaningful engagement. Only when we fully understand what we need to deliver regarding the private housing sector, should we begin to consider how we consult in those areas and it has to be more than just an online consultation.
I also want to make it clear that there is no political reason why we have tabled tonight's motion. It is about doing the right thing and ensuring there is a selective licensing scheme in areas where there is a genuine reason and that any scheme is fit for purpose. Finally, if it takes another further 12-months to engage with our residents then this is what we should do. I call upon members to do the right thing this evening and support the motion. Let’s get this right.”
A further request for a recorded vote was made and duly seconded by a further Member.
On being put to the vote, votes were cast in the following manner: -
For : - Councillors Boles, Bunney, Clews, Cotton Devine, Dobbie, Howitt-Cowan, Oliver, Panter, Rainsforth, Regis, Rollings, J Snee, M Snee, White and Young (16),
Against: - Councillors Bierley, Ellis, Grimble, Lawrence, McCartney, McNeill, Milne, Morris, Patterson, Summers, Waller and Welburn (12)
Abstentions: - Councillor Fleetwood (1)
With a total of 16 votes in favour, 12 votes against and 1 abstention, the MOTION AS SUBMITTED was declared CARRIED and as such it was RESOLVED that: -
(a) the consultation process be halted and reformulated to address the limitations of the online consultation process including a district wide meeting between elected Members and the private landlords of the designated areas.
(b) the key findings be considered and implemented into the new selective licensing scheme;
(c) a report be produced and presented to the following Prosperous Communities Committee prior to the new licensing scheme being implemented.
Note: -
The meeting was adjourned for a short comfort break following consideration of the above item, with the meeting resuming at 9.11 pm
The following Councillors did not return to the Chamber following the adjournment, Councillors Howitt-Cowan, Regis and Waller.