Well, tonight’s council meeting actually went on after 9 pm. But the Tory block vote triumphed on everything,
In brief:
The Lib Dems proposed reintroducing a 30 minute car parking period and to stop charging at 6 pm for parking. We were supporting by Councillors Michael Hoy and John Mason – but all the other Tories present voting against – with the honourable exception of Councillor Malcolm Maddocks , who abstained. Michael Hoy made a very good point that he visited a Rayleigh Chamber of Trade meeting last night where they were very much in favour.
The Tories forced through their housing figure proposals – 190 new homes per year up to 2031
The motion from Chris Black and Ron Oatham
?That this Council welcomes the statement by the Liberal Conservative Coalition Government that they will allow Councils to return to the committee system, should they wish to.?
was treated by horror by the Conservative leadership. Clearly any hint from us that the cabinet system isn’t perfect hit a extremely raw nerve. As a result they voted as a block against a motion praising their own national party.
The motion from Michael Hoy and John Mason
….. this Council agrees to carry out a housing needs study for Rochford District and adjust the housing allocations proposed in the Core Strategy to satisfy the minimum needs of our community.?
was voted down by the Tories as well.
Well it’s no real suprise is it?
Do we assume the Core Housing Plan remains as it is then?
Thanks for the efforts at getting some sensible suggestions put forward but we do need less Tories on the council!
One of the night’s highlights was when Councillor Chris Lumley drew attention to the fact that certain Conservative Members on the Review Committee had already voted in favour of 30 minutes parking fees but they had evidently changed their minds since the decision by the Cabinet Member had been called in !! Do we know who did that?
I would have liked to have been advised on Monday, 26 July, the day before Full Council, of the likely Judicial Review on the Airport Expansion as the Conservative Members had been already advised on a need to know basis. Why did Lib Dem and Non Group Members not need to know?
The position on Members emails was stated at Full Council but an email that I sent today only to Members ended up in an employees mail box. The Deputy Chief Executive says “We do not monitor Member e mails”, so I have welcomed an investigation.
Residents I spoke to who attended Full Council were not impressed with the performance of the administration or what we other Members have to put up with when trying to put the views of residents forward.
The beginning of the end of other political administrations has been witnessed in the same way over the years !!
Is there a way that I can find out how Hullbridge Cllrs Robinson and Butcher voted ?
They were made aware that the residents of Hullbridge supported the motion of Cllrs Hoy and Mason.
If they did not comply with our wishes I want to let them know that we shall be trying to publish the fact in Ripples ( our local paper)
I believe Councillor Robinson was absent (about 10 or 11 Tories were). The minutes will confirm that when they come out.
As for councillor Lesley Butcher, she certainly didn’t vote for any of the Lib Dem/ Green/ Independent motions. I believe she voted with the Conservative group throughout but I guess it’s possible she may have abstained at one stage. Actually, the best thing is to email her and ask her….
It had been my understanding that the proposals were supported by the whole review commiteee, though if you check the minutes of the meering that approved the final report, five out of seven Conservatives were absent!
http://cmis.rochford.gov.uk/CMISWebPublic/Binary.ashx?Document=17101
Minutes of the meeting of the Review Committee held on 27 April 2010 when there were present:-
Chairman: Cllr Mrs J R Lumley
Vice-Chairman: Cllr M Maddocks
Cllr Mrs G A Lucas-Gill
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Cllrs K A Gibbs, T Livings, P R Robinson, M J Steptoe and J Thomass.
It seems to me that the Conservatives as a whole aren’t treating the review commmittee with the respect it deserves.
I also noticed that when someone criticised the Area Committees (Ron, I think?) as being toothless, there was a spontaneous agreement from across the council chamber. This is sad, but not surprising, I personally think that areas committeess could be a very potent tool for local democracy , but they are withering away. Those who want to discuss things with residents are frustrated thar the area committees are achieving so little, those who don’t want to listen to residents just don’t like them anyway.
Thanks Chris,
I have already emailed them both and I am awaiting their response.I also asked them to explain their decisions if they voted against the motion.
Keep up the good work !!
Chris
I raised the issues of non performing councillors on the Review Committee with the Audit Commission in May 2009 ahead of their then next inspection and review of the Council. I did this in silent support of Councillor June Lumley as Chair.
Here are some snippets from the email that I sent.
“It would appear to me that 25% of the Conservative Members who have been appointed by the Administration have, essentially, been “non performing” this Municipal Year.”
“…if 25% of Members are non performing then I for one consider that keeping non performing seats under political control is equally unacceptable.”
Needless to say nothing was done by the Audit Commission.
The new Coalition Government has now abolished such inspections and bearing in mind that these inspections did not address performance problems I wholeheartedly concur!!
Is there any real point to the Review Committee if so mamy Members do not attend as in the example you raise because not being there to vote at Review in the first place meant that so much Officer resource was wasted when, perhaps, the recommendations should never have gone forward to the Cabinet Member in the first place?
Apart from the Central Area Committee Meeting on 13 November 2008, when the Hawkwell Action Group heavily publicised the subject of the LDF and how it affected Hawkwell, most have been inconsequential. I attend out of respect for those very small number residents of the District who still do send in questions or attend to ask questions. But honestly if they raised some of the issues with me as their ward councillor then the responses would be better and actions would be taken far quicker at much less Officer time cost for them to attend the Area Committees.
OK, so I understand all 5 Lib-Dems, the Green and the Independent members of RDC are all against 190-196 homes being built in the District per annum.
But which of the following alternatives DO they support then?:
Demolish 100 homes per year perhaps?
Build none? Build 100? Build 300? Build 400? Build 500? Build 600?
I wonder how many of those seven Members Wards’ residents realise that they apparently preferred instead to risk having imposed on RDC more than TRIPLE the current 196 homes now proposed per annum which is, put another way, less than 0.6% per annum of the current 33,000 existing homes in the District. That more than TRIPLED figure (650 homes per annum) is precisely what would have happened had RDC followed those Members wishes for RDC not to submit or to delay submitting a reasoned housing strategy, and we had subsequently been forced to find instead 13,000 homes over the next 20 years. RDC would almost certainly have lost the Appeals on the very large developments that were dismissed by Inspectors recently, doubtless along with similar other speculative proposals too, all on sites of developers’ not RDC’s choosing and mostly in green belt.
Colin first of all, thank you for having enough of a commitment to good local democracy to leave a comment here. You are always welcome here.
You understand somewhat wrongly.
Speaking for myself only – the Lib Dems do not have a whip on this – as I said at the meeting, I am provisonally willing to accept that 190 new homes per year is acceptable. Which is why I proposed that the council strategy should be for 190 new dewellings pet year up to 2025. The Conservative position has been to keep that 190 homes per year going until 2031 – which means you are making a decision now to allow 6 x 190 = 1140 more homes in the Green Belt than we need to. That will mean building on sites that most informed residents think are not suitable. I believe that decisions on what should be built in the late 2020s and early 2030s should be left until around 2020, when councillors at that time will have a better idea of what is needed.
Up till now we’ve been told that we have to agree to all this housing because of Labour! Now we are told that we need to agree to stop developers building willy-nilly in an uncontrolled way across our Green Belt! But thgat still doesn’t explain why we have to allocate land up to 2031 – all it does it blight some areas for two decades ahead, and maybe make a few landowners wealthy.
Much has been made of the new Local Development Framework being some kind of shield stoppoing developers building in the wrong places. But if you look at what the Secretary of State is saying , you will see that that’s not really the case at all. For example, in the decision this month on the application in Hawkwell the reasons for refusal were:
“very special circumstances to justify development in the Green Belt have not been demonstrated and that the proposal conflicts with the development plan and national plan policies in a number of respects ….
……In this case, the development plan comprises the saved policies of the Rochford District Local Plan 2006 (RDLP).”
The italics are mine – our current 2006 local plan is still acting as a shield!
You mention that the level of new housing will be 0.6 percent per annum . I only wish that was the case for Rawreth -which is facing a possible DOUBLING OF it’s population.
But to conclude Colin – thank you very much for being willing to come here and debate these issues. It’s very much appreciated and will be respected by onlinefocus readers. hopeful;y we can convince you.
em>As there seems to be some misunderstanding as to my position in seconding the Joint Motion please indulge me for quoting what I actually said in Council.
with Councillor Hoy.
I gather that I was mistaken in believing that Cllrs Chris and June Lumley did not support Cllr Keith Hudson’s housing policy at Tuesday’s Full Council meeting, they have informed me that they did indeed vote in favour of it and I have apologised to them and thank them for their decision. Sitting below and in front of them it was not easy for me to see that slightly unexpected stance from them as Lib-Dem Members.
Regarding the broad drift of my comment earlier, it was written and reads not solely in the context of Tuesday’s meeting but where previous opposition to the current policy would have landed us.
regards
Colin Seagers
Cllr Seagers and any other cllr reading this article.
I hope you are not like some Conservative District councillors that I know who think they know better than their electorate and do not consult with them on major issues that will effect their lives like removing surrounding Green Belt and placing huge demands upon infrastructure/ services. Why do you think their has been such a huge response from the electorate impacted, perhaps it is because the effectiveness of the communication by the Councillors is extremely poor. What the public want is a say in what happens in their parish and district, which I believe is what was in the Conservative manifesto. Perhaps this is another U turn ? What we need to see is the proof of all brownfield sites that are or may become available. I.e, The Eon site in London Road is a prime example that was not identified during the site allocations. They also need to see where this great demand for houses is coming from i.e, whithin a Parish, District etc., The Planning officers of RDC should make policy to ensure large developments (over a specified number of sq feet) need proof that infrastructure can handle the increase in both Parish and District.
At present the facts that the council have gathered are BURIED within the LDF and if they are anything like the facts used in the Thames Gateway Strategic Housing Market Assessment they are at least two years out of date.
I have not seen anything from RDC to show that ongoing capture of vital statistics are being kept and that these are constantly being reviewed and forecasts updated.
Please can you enlighten me and other electorate and tell us where we may find the justification to build be the 190 houses per year you all talk about.
Why don’t you come and speak to the electorate and see if you can convince us. We all have common sense and understand logic and if you can prove you case then you will find less opposition from the likes of me. At present we feel let down by the councillors which is why so many independent protest groups have emerged, surely you should be asking yourselves why and what you can do to make them redundant.