(i) To be moved by Cllr Thompson:
This Council notes:
· That a planning application has been submitted for the new leisure centre on June 14, 2018 – with a Statutory Expiry date before the next scheduled Full Council meeting
· That this application was submitted before councillors and local residents had been consulted on the detailed final design – and before local sports clubs had been given full access to detailed proposed plans for the scheme to check their practicality
This Council believes that:
· It should follow exemplary consultation practices, including detailed public and councillor consultation on its own planning applications before designs are agreed and submitted
· The proposed design has several design flaws that lie partly or wholly outside the scope of the planning process – but that need to be urgently addressed before construction starts – including:
o An impractical design of the main sports hall that does not meet the needs of local sport and recreation
o Poorly thought through access and parking arrangements – especially for residents in Highcliffe
This Council therefore:
· Reconfirms its commitment to a new leisure centre at Bar End
· Instructs the Council to bring forward a revised plan that addresses these concerns – and other critical design concerns raised during public consultation and consultation with local sports clubs – to be submitted in sufficient time to minimise any delay to the planning and development process
(ii) To be moved by Cllr Bell:
Council notes that each member of Project Integra is being asked to agree the draft Project Integra Action Plan 2018-2021.
Council believes that, as drafted, the plan lacks ambition:
(1) relying heavily on increasing capture of materials currently accepted for recycling;
(2) failing to account for disincentives to use Household Waste Recycling Centres and incentives to flytip due to charging;
(3) failing to give a clear commitment to doorstep recycling of an increased range of material including plastics widely recycled elsewhere; and
(4) not articulating renewed national ambition on reducing unsustainable products such as single use plastic items through behaviour change.
Council therefore resolves not to support the Project Integra Action Plan 2018-2021 and ask the Project Integra Board to respond to the issues raised.
Minutes:
(a) The following Notice of Motion had been submitted by Councillor Porter and seconded by Councillor Thompson, under Council Procedure Rule 9:
“This Council notes:
· That a planning application has been submitted for the new leisure centre on June 14, 2018 – with a Statutory Expiry date before the next scheduled Full Council meeting
· That this application was submitted before councillors and local residents had been consulted on the detailed final design – and before local sports clubs had been given full access to detailed proposed plans for the scheme to check their practicality
This Council believes that:
· It should follow exemplary consultation practices, including detailed public and councillor consultation on its own planning applications before designs are agreed and submitted
· The proposed design has several design flaws that lie partly or wholly outside the scope of the planning process – but that need to be urgently addressed before construction starts – including:
o An impractical design of the main sports hall that does not meet the needs of local sport and recreation
o Poorly thought through access and parking arrangements – especially for residents in Highcliffe
This Council therefore:
· Reconfirms its commitment to a new leisure centre at Bar End
· Instructs the Council as developer and landowner to bring forward a revised plan that addresses these concerns – and other critical design concerns raised during public consultation and consultation with local sports clubs – to be submitted to the Council as the Local Planning Authority in sufficient time to minimise any delay to the planning and development process.”
As part of her introduction to her Motion, Councillor Thompson requested a minor drafting amendment, which was accepted by the Mayor. This is shown by the additional text in bold above.
The Corporate Head of Resources provided advice to those members of the Council who were members of the Planning Committee. In summary, it was clarified that Planning Committee members were able participate in the debate of the Notice of Motion, with the caveat that case law had made it clear that the words used by particular Members and the interpretation put on those words was of particular importance. Therefore, Members would need to be aware of making statements in advance of the determination of planning applications as there was a risk that they can be misinterpreted or taken out of context.
Motion (1) Tod (2) Thompson
“Suspend Council Procedure Rule 9 (6) so to allow the matters referred to in the Notice of Motion to be voted upon and resolved by Council, rather than firstly referred to a Committee for consideration and reference back to a future Council meeting.”
Motion carried.
During the debate which followed on Councillor Thompson’s Motion, the following points were raised:
· Councillor Ashton highlighted that, to date, there had been extensive consultation on the proposed new Leisure Centre at Bar End. Various organised events had been arranged as well as liaison with residents, users, clubs and groups etc. There had been much discussion on the design of the centre, sustainability, accessibility etc. Changes to the proposed plans as outcomes from this work had been made and in advance of the planning application. Everyone was still able to comment on the plans submitted and then after 16 July, there would be a feedback session to consider any required redesign.
· Although consultants had been engaged with regard to the design of the sports hall and that this was reflective of predicted need, had they taken account of predicted increased usage of under 16 years olds and the over 70s? In addition, the current design of the sport hall inclusive of the glass wall may limit the overall ‘usability’ of the hall. Furthermore, the lack of viewing gallery and seating was regrettable.
· The planning application as submitted had not acted upon the matters previously raised with regard to pedestrian and cycle access to the site and also the potential for greater accessibility to park-land for the residents of Highcliffe.
· There were concerns that the Notice of Motion, if supported, may delay the project being taken forward as there were unlikely to be any fundamental changes that were able to be incorporated to the plans. Residents were keen for the new centre to be built.
· Although the location and specification of the new centre had been agreed following consultation, the detailed aspects within the planning application had not ben consulted on. There were issues that needed to be addressed to ensure that the facility was to work as well as it might.
· The Cabinet (Leisure Centre) Committee had considered various iterations of the proposals and that there had been positive feedback with regard to accessibility. The Movement Strategy would also influence the final proposals.
· Only a relatively small percentage of the total throughput figure for the existing River Park Leisure Centre was associated with sports clubs. The sports hall at the new facility at Bar End would also be 50% larger.
Council then voted on the Notice of Motion (as amended) which was carried.
RESOLVED:
That the Notice of Motion as set out above be agreed
(b) The following Notice of Motion had been submitted by Councillor Bell and seconded by Councillor Murphy, under Council Procedure Rule 9:
“Council notes that each member of Project Integra is being asked to agree the draft Project Integra Action Plan 2018-2021.
Council believes that, as drafted, the plan lacks ambition:
(1) relying heavily on increasing capture of materials currently accepted for recycling;
(2) failing to account for disincentives to use Household Waste Recycling Centres and incentives to flytip due to charging;
(3) failing to give a clear commitment to doorstep recycling of an increased range of material including plastics widely recycled elsewhere; and
(4) not articulating renewed national ambition on reducing unsustainable products such as single use plastic items through behaviour change.
Council therefore resolves not to support the Project Integra Action Plan 2018-2021 and ask the Project Integra Board to respond to the issues raised.”
During the debate which followed, the following points were raised:
· The Project Integra Action Plan and papers relating to the joint Committee was not easily accessible via the Council’s website and some appeared to have restricted access via the East Hants District Council website.
· The Council’s Joint Environment Services Contract Committee met regularly and the Action Plan had been much discussed.
· Winchester’s current recycling rates appeared to be lower than for some other authorities in the Project Integra area and there must be improvements. There was seemingly no commitment to kerbside collection within the Action Plan, nor proposals to engage with the public with regard to plastic recycling. The capture of recyclables was not the only way to increase overall rates.
· Councillor Warwick highlighted that delivery of the Action Plan required buy-in form all local authority partners. Proposed Improvements to recycling facilities were explained and Members reminded that the Joint Environment Services Contract Committee was administered by East Hants District Council.
· Councillor Warwick also highlighted that the Joint Committee had commented that the Action Plan could have been more ambitious and that it would jointly work to be part of a solution. It was expected that the Action Plan would be revised accordingly within 1 year.
· Councillor Warwick suggested that Project Integra Action Plan be additionally referred to a future meeting of The Overview and Scrutiny Committee for further consideration and comment.
RESOLVED:
That the Notice of Motion (together with the draft Project Integra Action Plan 2018-202) be referred to a future meeting of The Overview and Scrutiny Committee for further investigation.
(c) Notice of Motion – Removal of Leader from Office
The Mayor agreed to allow a procedural Motion (Motion 1 below) to suspend Council Procedure Rule 9 (1) to allow the consideration of a late Notice of Motion (Motion 2 below) to be moved by Councillor Tod.
Motion 1 (1) Councillor Tod (2) Councillor Learney
‘That Council Procedure Rule 9 (1) be suspended to allow consideration of a late Notice of Motion to be moved by Councillor Tod.’
Motion carried
Motion 2 (1) Councillor Tod (2) Councillor Learney
“This Council agrees to remove Councillor Horrill as Leader of the Council with immediate effect.”
As it was the wish of more than a quarter of those present, the Mayor decided that a recorded vote be taken in respect of the Motion.
Division Lists
The following Members voted in favour of the Motion:
Councillors Achwal, Becker, Bell, Bentote, Clear, Cutler, Evans, Gottlieb, Green, Hiscock, Hutchison, Izard, Laming, Learney, Murphy, Porter, Power, Prince, Rutter, Thompson, Tod and Weir.
The following Members voted against:
Councillors Ashton, Berry, Brook, Burns, Cook, Cunningham, Gemmell, Godfrey, Griffiths, Horrill, Humby, Huxstep, Mather, McLean, Miller, Pearson, Read, Ruffell, Scott, Stallard, Tresahar, Warwick and Weston.
Motion lost.