a)    By Councillor Hill

 

During an appeal hearing of the First tier Tribunal between a resident and The Information Commissioner, held in October 2021, it was alleged that RBWM had not been entitled to withhold information included in an Independent investigators report pertaining to a code of conduct complaint. The final decision was that the information was to be made available with minimal redactions.

 

This council agrees to

      i)         Ensure all members are made aware of any court decisions pertaining to the RBWM organisation

     ii)         Ensure all court decisions pertaining to the RBWM organisation are published in full in a timely manner

    iii)         Ensure that the Investigation report into the speech made on 26th April 2019 by Simon Dudley, then Councillor Dudley and Leader of  the Council, now eventually released following an initial FOI request, is published immediately following this meeting on the RBWM website and treat that day as day one regarding the period it remains live online, rather than the date of the original FOI request.

 

b)    By Councillor Davey

 

That all existing Councillors will treat all political candidates with respect during the May 2023 elections and will encourage any prospective party candidates to follow their lead and sign up to running clean, respectful campaigns in May 2023.

 

c)    By Councillor W Da Costa

 

Construction is a major UK activity using resources, emitting Green House Gasses, and affecting local Biodiversity and ecosystems. Buildings constructed today will continue to affect GHG Emissions and Biodiversity extinction for decades to come. Today's developments and development processes have the potential to help RBWM meet its Climate and Environmental obligations or to fail future generations and life on Earth.

 

This Council agrees to radically improve our processes in line with BLP Policies SP2, NR2 & NR3 and require that every planning application is accompanied by:

i)           a biodiversity assessment measuring the impact on the fullness of biodiversity and biomass and targeting a high value of enhancement or creation (using TCND or the best practice then available), and

ii)          a Climate Change mitigation assessment incorporating measurement of the impact on Greenhouse Gas emissions including Scope 3 emissions as set out by the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) and targeting the highest level of mitigation.

 

A maximum period of 30 minutes will be allowed for each Motion to be moved, seconded and debated, including dealing with any amendments.  At the expiry of the 30-minute period debate will cease immediately, the mover of the Motion or amendment will have the right of reply before the Motion or amendment is put to the vote.

 

Motion a) 

 

Councillor Hill introduced his motion and thanked the officers for publishing Richard Lingard's report, the independence solicitor who had investigated the events of the 29th of April 2019.  He also put forward a couple of amendments to motion that had been published with the agenda, the revised motion to read: 

 

This council agrees to 

i)??         Ensure all members are made aware of any significant court decisions pertaining to the RBWM organisation 

ii)         Ensure all significant court decisions pertaining to the RBWM organisation are published in full in a timely manner 

iii)        Ensure that the Investigation report into the speech made on 26th April 2019 by Simon Dudley, then Councillor Dudley and Leader?of?the?Council, now eventually released following an initial FOI request, is published immediately following this meeting on the RBWM website and treat that day as day one regarding the period it remains live online, rather than the date of the original FOI request. 

 

Councillor Hill explained that the motion related to good governance, transparency and security. He quoted from the tribunal papers relating to the speech given by the Leader of the Council, Councillor Dudley, at Maidenhead Mosque on the 26th of April 2019 during the Purdah period shortly before the local elections.  In that speech Councillor Dudley had said that the Council owned the freehold to the Ivy leaf Club site and were negotiating with them to surrender that lease.  Councillor Dudley gave an undertaking that the site would not be redeveloped for housing and advised that he had sent a draft agreement to the Mosque stating that when the Council had secured control of the site it would allow the Islamic trust to acquire it to enable them to expand.  Former Councillor Dudley had also expressed at the meeting that he hoped that those present would vote Conservative at the local government elections on the 2nd of May.  

 

Councillor Hill went on to quote from the report of the independent investigator. He stated that the investigator had not been convinced by Russell O'Keefe's comment that Simon Dudley had no advantage conferred upon him by the draft agreement being sent to the Mosque and that it was Simon Dudley’s intention to sway some voters to vote Conservative.  However, the investigator did not believe that Mr O'Keefe had conspired in that matter.  The report also stated that, although Simon Dudley had informed the audience at the Mosque that the Council were negotiating with the Ivy League Club, that was not the case as the Club had been informed seven months previously that their site had been excluded from the redevelopment scheme and that no further negotiations had taken place since that time.  The investigator had concluded that there could be no argument that Simon Dudley’s encouragement of the audience to vote Conservative was an electioneering speech. 

 

Councillor Hill referred to the Judge’s interim decision which accepted Miss Stretton’s argument that it was important that elected members and officers of the council not only complied with the rules and guidance intended to protect the fairness of elections but were seen to be doing so.   He commented upon the Judge’s final decision which allowed the appeal, and which stated that Council had not been entitled to withhold the requested information. 

 

He contended that had the Council not withheld the relevant information by-elections could have been held in a number of Wards in the final quarter of 2019 possibly resulting in the Conservatives losing power.  He therefore stressed the need for Members to be made aware of all Court decisions and investigations in full for proper scrutiny and to avoid similar circumstances occurring in the future. 

 

Councillor Johnson asserted that there was an urgent need to clarify the record and to continue to establish the truth as to what happened that day at the Mosque. He gave an assurance that such an event would never take place under his leadership and commented upon the distinct line that had been drawn by his Administration over the last three and a half years to that of the previous Administration.   

 

He reminded Members that he had not been an elected member of this Council when the incident took place and referred to previous statements that he had made following the publication of the CIPFA report on the need for good governance, transparency and secure elections to be paramount.  He contended that there was no evidence to support the premise that by-elections would have been called as a result of incident. 

 

He stated that there were still significant questions to be answered about the event and commented upon the use of certain extracts from the speech without referencing the speech in full, which was included within the report and available on YouTube and which formed the basis of the investigation.  He advised that there had been another Member of the Council present when the speech was given at the Mosque and indeed was name checked in the speech by Mr Dudley. He advised that the Councillor in question had been the subject of an internal investigation by the Conservative Group and the Councillor had subsequently left the Group due to the failure to answer questions as to why he had been present that day and what had been discussed and agreed.   

 

Councillor Price explained that the motion was about how Councillors could try to improve the way they conduct themselves.  She expressed concern that the Council did not publish the Independent Investigators report despite the Judge’s ruling that it should be disclosed within 35 days of the final decision. She questioned why it was only published after the motion and question was published with the agenda despite the ruling stating that to not publish would harm the reputation of the Council and would be considered as a contempt of court.  She stated that the Council should comply with a court’s ruling and the Council should be open and transparent with residents. 

 

In seconding the motion, Councillor Jones stated that former Councillor Dudley had used his position to access Borough information not available to any other party and had used it in an election speech.  No other person could have accessed such information and no other person used that information in a speech.  She contended that the debate should not be about other people present at the speech, particular those that were not Members of the Council at the time.  She referred to the Nolan Principals, which stated that holders of public office should be open about the decisions and actions that they have taken and give reasons for their decisions, only restrict information when the wider public interest demands, and should be accountable for their decisions and actions, submitting themselves to scrutiny as appropriate to their office. 

 

Councillor Jones explained that she had raised a formal complaint in 2019 regarding the speech and the use of the documentation but despite being quoted in the investigation had not been provided with the report’s conclusions.   She acknowledged that none of the officers at the time were still employed by the council and thanked former Councillor Stretton for her persistence to ensure that the findings were published, albeit three years and two months after the original request.  She contended that Members should be made aware of such decisions, the contents of reports that related to concerns around openness and accountability and should be aware of decisions that affected how the council conducted itself to ensure that Members were able to be satisfied that their principles and policies are being upheld. 

 

Councillor Jones refuted the argument that the Council did not have publish the information and contended that the processes outlined in the motion were needed to ensure that decision that were in the public’s interest were published to prevent a similar situation happening in the future.  She urged all members to reflect on their fundamental democratic values that they should uphold and to vote in favour of the motion. 

 

Councillor W Da Costa expressed support for the motion and referred to an IPPR report that found that trust in politicians was at the lowest level on record and that there was a significantly disturbing decline in satisfaction with democracy and trust in key democratic institutions.   He referred to the perception that people considered politicians as only looking out for themselves and the appalling way in which Councillors and MPs treat each another and engage with one another during debates.  He commented upon the need to encourage a higher level of conduct and accountability in public life.  

 

Councillor Davey thanked David Knowle Leeks for ensuring that the matter was progressed.  

 

Councillor Rayner commented upon the chronology of the various reports and legal challenges and requested that the Monitoring Officer clarifies the point raised about the sequence of events relating to the publication of the unredacted report.  

 

The Council’s Monitoring Officer advised that FOI request had been received from former Councillor Claire Stretton and that the subsequent report had been released but redacted in 2019.  Mrs Stretton had disagreed with the application of some of the redactions, but the ICO had supported the Council’s view, which was appealed against and then appealed again to the ICO.  The report that had been released recently was the unredacted version that was released in 2019. She advised that the council was obliged to respond to FOIs generally within 20 working days and that the Council did not do that in response to the initial request, which had been noted by the ICO. 

 

Councillor McWilliams referred to the particular section of the report in which the other Member of the Council referred to in the debate had been mentioned. He expressed the need for Members to be open and transparent and commented upon possible changes to processes by this and other Councils that may emerge in the light of the Court’s decision. He stated that it was important to acknowledge the changes that had taken place in this Council since the report was commissioned.  He commented upon the significant changes in Council’s financial management following the publication of the CIPFA report, in particular the current level of reserves which were the result of difficult decision taken by the Council and medium-term financial plan, which included a plan to pay down debts to zero. Councillor McWilliams stated that the significant positive change in the culture of the Council in terms of greater transparency and good governance should also be acknowledged.  He contended that it was important to understand what the motion aimed to achieve as it was not clear what decisions were to be considered to be significant or who determined the significance of the decision. He stated that understood the political motivations for the motion but questioned whether the motion was required from a Council process point of view.  

 

Councillor Werner expressed support for the motion and stated that a number of Cabinet Members were Councillors at the time and referred to particular Councillors that had supported the appointment of Councillor Dudley as Leader of the Council following election in 2019.  Therefore, he contended that it was wrong for certain Councillor to try and distance themselves from the issue as their hands were as tainted as former Councillor Dudley’s. 

 

In response to a point of order raised by Councillor Hunt, the Mayor ruled that Councillor Werner had broken the rules relating to the conduct and standard of debate and requested Councillor Werner to desist from making similar comments. The Mayor requested Councillor Werner apologise which he refused to do. As Councillor Werner refused the Mayor excluded him from speaking further during the remainder of the debate.   

 

Councillor Bowden explained that he had produced evidence for the Nolan Inquiry and therefore had intimate knowledge as to how the Nolan principles were drawn up.  As a result, he would abstain from voting on the motion.  

 

Councillor Knowles expressed support for the motion and explained that it related to good practice.  He stated that the Council should be open and transparent and when the Council received a significant legal decision, it should be published unless there were legitimate reasons why certain information should not be published, in which case the reasons for not publishing the information should be recorded for future reference. He regretted the negative points raised during the debate and requested that the motion be supported as it sought to improve current processes to ensure greater transparency and openness.   

 

In summing up, Councillor Hill explained that the word significant had been discussed with the Monitoring Officer and it was not difficult to understand what would be considered significant in the context of what the motion was trying to achieve. He urged all Members to vote for the motion as it was clear that what had happened over the past three to four years was appalling and that the document should have been released unredacted and put on the website.  It was not acceptable that the report was only published following the submission of the motion on the 12th of January as that was not conducive to good government, was not transparent and looked appalling publicly. He referred to the upcoming local election and stated that if Members did not vote for the motion then they could not be considered to be transparent, fair, free and open. 

 

A recorded vote was taken following a request by at least five Councillors. 16 Councillors voted for the motion; 21 Councillors voted against the motion. 1 Councillor abstained. The motion therefore fell. 

 

Motion on Notice a)
Councillor Clive Baskerville	For
Councillor Christine Bateson	Against
Councillor Gurpreet Bhangra	Against
Councillor Simon Bond	For
Councillor John Bowden	Abstained
Councillor Mandy Brar	For
Councillor Catherine del Campo	For
Councillor David Cannon	Against
Councillor Stuart Carroll	Against
Councillor Gerry Clark	Against
Councillor David Coppinger	Against
Councillor Carole Da Costa	For
Councillor Wisdom Da Costa	For
Councillor Jon Davey	For
Councillor Phil Haseler	Against
Councillor Geoffrey Hill	For
Councillor David Hilton	Against
Councillor Maureen Hunt	Against
Councillor Andrew Johnson	Against
Councillor Greg Jones	Against
Councillor Lynne Jones	For
Councillor Neil Knowles	For
Councillor Ewan Larcombe	For
Councillor Sayonara Luxton	Against
Councillor Ross McWilliams	Against
Councillor Gary Muir	Against
Councillor Helen Price	For
Councillor Samantha Rayner	Against
Councillor Joshua Reynolds	For
Councillor Julian Sharpe	Against
Councillor Shamsul Shelim	Against
Councillor Gurch Singh	For
Councillor Donna Stimson	Against
Councillor John Story	Against
Councillor Chris Targowski	Against
Councillor Amy Tisi	For
Councillor Leo Walters	Against
Councillor Simon Werner	For
Rejected

 

Motion b) 

 

Councillor Davey introduced his motion. He submitted a slight amendment to the motion by adding the word “officer” in line 1.  The amended motion to read: 

 

That all existing Councillors will treat all political candidates and officers with respect during the May 2023 elections and will encourage any prospective party candidates to follow their lead and sign up to running clean, respectful campaigns in May 2023. 

He explained that he hoped that all existing Councillors would treat all political candidates and officers with respect during the May 2023 elections and encourage any prospective candidates to follow their lead and to agree to running a clean respectful campaign in 2023.  He stated that as a trainee sales representative in the 1980s he was advised to never knock the competition as that put you in a negative light but to instead adopt a more positive approach and focus on the benefits of your product.  The election campaigning had already started and there was already a certain amount of negativity, commenting that people that would make good Councillors did not put their names forward because they are concerned about the effect the negativity would have on themselves and people close to them. 

 

He commented that a more positive approach would encourage better people to stand and would provide a more life-given experience.  He stated that local politics should not be about grandstanding but about helping residents solve problems that were important to them.  He stated that there was a big difference between a healthy robust political debate and harassment in the workplace, advising that he had already had a prospective candidate approach him and his colleagues in his workplace asking political questions, which was unacceptable. 

 

He stated that if he did choose to stand again, he would run a very Zen campaign and would not attack other candidates.  He stated that he was a good Councillor who was able to sort issues out for residents and urged others with similar confidence in your own abilities to support the motion so that negativity could be removed from local elections and instead make it all about how candidates might add value to their communities. 

 

Councillor Stimpson expressed support for the motion and explained that, as somebody who suffered from mental health issues, she found negative political debates overwhelming, similar to the debate on the previous motion. She urged everyone to respect each other as that way people that work with you adopted a similar approach, which made for a good working relationship.  

 

Councillor Johnson advised that he broadly supported the motion, which he stated should also extend to all political candidates and activists.  He stated that everyone agreed that people should treat each other with respect during the election campaign but advised that it should not be confused with accountability.  Mudslinging and the spreading of misinformation was wrong, but it was important that candidates were held to account for their previous record, statements or actions. He commented, from his own experience, upon the problem of anonymous fake social media accounts that were established with the sole intent of spreading hate, division and misinformation within the community with the intent to either cause political disruption or something slightly more sinister.  He stated all Councillors were accountable and acted in accordance with certain set of guiding principles but sadly of late some of those principles had been eroded. The onus was therefore on all Councillors to make sure that they acted in accordance with those principles but to not to lose sight of the fact that they would be held accountable for everything they did.   Respect was paramount but only where it was due. He concluded by stating that he looked forward to a clean election campaign based upon records, citing the current Administration’s strong track record.  

 

Councillor Carroll stated that it was important that Councillors not only showed respect to each other but also respect to officers.  He commented upon the need for a zero-tolerance approach to be taken by all, but particularly leaders, and the need to ensure that dealing with mental health was a priority. He commented upon his own experience about false and defamatory comments made by a Councillor about his own mental, for which he had not received an apology, at a time when his uncle was dying in a hospital bed.  He congratulated the Leader of the Conservative Group for the making positive changes to the culture of the group and his zero tolerant approach.  During the debate, Councillor Carroll questioned why Councillor Reynolds had laughed when he was talking about serious matters relating to mental health.  Councillor Carroll reiterated the need for those to be held accountable and challenged if they failed to adhere and uphold the standards expected of them.    

 

As a point to personal explanation, Councillor Reynolds stated that he had laughed at the specific comments raised by Councillor Carroll about the change in the culture of the Conservative Group, particularly in the light of their conduct in the earlier debate, and not about his comments on mental health.  

 

Councillor W Da Costa asked what processes would be put in place to implement the motion if it was passed and what action would be taken if a person breached the rules.  He was also of the opinion that it should go further and challenged leaders of all political groups to commit to call out publicly any members, activists or candidates of their group that were found to be engaging in inappropriate activity.  He referred to inappropriate activity that had occurred in the past, such as bogus candidates being put forward, candidates being defamed and the production of false election material, which he hoped would not be repeated going forward.  

 

In response to Councillor W Da Costa’s request, Councillor Johnson supported the core premise of the request and gave his commitment that action would be taken if any bad behaviour was reported to him, commenting upon his record of dealing with such behaviour by members of his group.  

 

Councillor McWilliams commented that Members should not reflect too much on the difficult job they were elected to do as being scrutinised and held to account was an integral part of being a Councillor.   He commented upon the need to ensure that public discourse generally in any organisation should not contribute to the spreading of lies and fake news or create fear, anger, hate and despair.   He commented upon the implications of heated and angry public debate, referring to the murders of Jo Cox MP, PC Palmer and Sir David Amos MP.  He commented upon the need to be honest and to endeavour to do ones best without cynicism and, quoting Jo Cox, stated there was more that unites us than divides us. He reiterated the point that it was important that people were scrutinised and held accountable for their actions and decisions and that they should avoid alienating each other and create conspiracy theories for political gain.  The spreading of lies simply to win was not the right action to take and should be avoided.   He commented upon the need to have a good standard of public debate to ensure that it does not spill out into violence as experienced in other places. He referred to the hate that was generated by social media in response to people simply taking policy decisions that they disagreed with.  He commented upon the need for people to call out such inappropriate behaviour as all Councillors were working to try to make their communities better and by allowing it to continue only lead to negative public discourse, which if left unchecked could have tragic consequences.   

 

In seconding the Motion, Councillor Clark explained that it was sad that the motion was required as he hoped that everyone would abide by fairness, truth and respect. He commented upon the need for arguments to be presented to residents truthfully without the need for personal comments and criticism or the spreading of misinformation. He stated the motion related to respect but stressed the need for people to be honest.  He also stressed the need for people to be called out if they fell short of the standards expected and hoped that people would engage in reasoned arguments to win the debate not the mudslinging.   

 

Councillor Waters referred to the era in which he was brought up and stated that he found acting respectful and courteous to others quite natural.   

 

Councillor Werner welcomed this motion and concurred that elections should not be about personal attacks and that fellow candidates should be respected whatever the party.  He stated that the need for personal attacks was not necessary although it was appropriate to identify and criticise the failings of the Administration, in particular the failed governance, financial chaos and destruction of the green belt in Cox green and in Cookham.  The election was the opportunity for his party to put forward proposals that would make a difference and that matter to residents, such as promoting openness and transparency, addressing the financial chaos, clearing up the streets and supporting our community rather than trying to destroy it.  He contended that residents wanted a party in power that would give them a vision of how the Borough could be better, which would be delivered by the Liberal Democrats and The Independents.  He urged Members to support the motion, show respect for all candidates of whatever party and not to get involved in personal attacks, particularly Councillor Johnson. 

 

By way of personal explanation, Councillor Johnson commented that he did not recall at any point in the meeting, or more broadly, engaging in what the Leader of the Opposition had referred to as personal attacks. He believed that he had delivered a dignified and balanced speech on the subject and only reiterated that people should be held accountable for that they have done or were proposing.  

 

In summing up, Councillor Davey explained that it had been an easy choice to ask Councillor Clark to second the motion in the light of his excellent work on the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee.   He concluded by stating that, after four years on the Council, he welcomed the prospect of finally having a motion agreed.  

 

It was proposed by Councillor Davey, seconded by Councillor Clark and: 

 

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That all existing Councillors will treat all political candidates and officers with respect during the May 2023 elections and will encourage any prospective party candidates to follow their lead and sign up to running clean, respectful campaigns in May 2023. 

 

Motion c) 

 

Councillor W Da Costa introduced his motion and explained that, at this critical time, it was an issue of ambition and achievement that was vital for our children.  He referred to the role of Members to set the ambition and aspirations to be implemented by officers and commented upon the Council’s responsibilities as a planning authority to define development and land use policies. He stated that over the next few years, billions of pounds worth of new development would be approved, for both large and small developers, that would exist for over 50 years. 

 

He outlined how development and land use polices could either positively or negatively influence carbon emission for the next 50 years, meet Paris’s 1.5 degree centigrade standards, stimulate the economy, protect residents from the impact of extreme temperatures and stimulate a recover in ecosystems and protect food production in the UK. The planning process therefore had an immense power to achieve success or have a significant failure for future generations. 

 

He referred to a simplified biodiversity hierarchy, which was similar to Maslov’s Hierarchy of needs, and explained how each lower level needed to be 1000’s time bigger to sustain the level above.  He stated that limiting the habitat limited the availability of food and reduced the prospects and wellbeing for future generations. 

 

He hoped that Members would see biodiversity net gain in a new light and stressed the need to set the ambition for success, not for failure.  It was important that Members recognised the future that the current generation was making for future generations and as a result should commit to the setting of ambitions for success by radically improving the Council’s planning processes, to include biodiversity assessments, climate change mitigation assessments, the adoption of best practice available and?the targeting of the highest level of mitigation. He concluded by commenting upon the clear benefits of the motion in terms of constructing buildings that were fit for purpose, with zero carbon emissions and that protect residents from additional suffering, death and poverty. 

 

Councillor Werner commented that the effect of development on biodiversity and on climate change was massive and stated that the Council was not taking the matter seriously enough.  He agreed with the sentiment behind the motion, which put forward suggestions as to how the Council could improve the planning processes.  He commented upon a number of policies within the Borough Local Plan (BLP) that provided the necessary framework but suggested that there was a need to improve the processes in planning, in particular the need for the swift implementation of the Sustainable Design and Constriction SPD.  He recognised that advice from the planning officers was required to confirm whether what was being proposed was possible but stated that in the past motions had been passed on the basis that the spirt of the motion was right even if the detail required more work.  

 

Councillor Johnson welcomed the support shown for the BLP polices and the associated supplementary documents which laid down the policy framework for addressing such issues that were the subject of the debate.    

 

Councillor Del Campo said she was mindful to support the motion and commented upon the need for the Council to pick up the pace. However, she asked how the proposal would affect the typical small development that proposed minor works or small extensions without imposing huge amounts of additional paperwork.  

 

Councillor Larcombe commented upon the need to ensure that everything was done to mitigate the effects for future generations, as they were not responsible for the current situation. He stated that a lot of damage had been done in the past and it would take a great deal of effort to redress the balance.   

 

Councillor Stimpson disagreed with the comment that the Council had not been taking the matter seriously.  She commented upon her role as Cabinet Lead for Climate Change and sustainability and outlined how the Council had been really creative in addressing the issue.  She commented upon the eightfold increase in the number of climate officers employed by the Council and the creation of the interim sustainability and Energy Efficiency statement and the sustainability SPD, which was being worked on at the moment.  She also commented upon the Council’s involvement with Bio Regional, which she claimed was the most sustainable charity in the world and advised that the Council had agreed to set aside 30% of the borough land for nature by 2030 and was working with local farmers to improve land use and crop production.  She argued that the Council was busy progressing with a number of initiatives and just because they were not being highlighted did not mean that action was not being taken.  

 

Councillor Haseler stated that the motion appeared to set information requirements for planning applications. He explained that a local authority could only do this by adopting a ‘Local List’, which had to be the subject of formal consultation and would have to meet certain statutory requirements.  He stated that they would have to be reasonable having regard to the nature and scale of the proposed development and had to be about a matter which it was reasonable to believe would be a material consideration in the determination of the application.  He advised that the planning team were currently looking to prepare a local list, which would the subject of public consultation later in the year, therefore it would not be appropriate for the Council to approve a motion that appeared to impose such requirements, or pre-judge what they might be, without having followed due process.  He gave an assurance biodiversity and climate change would be considered in the preparation of the Council’s local list. 

 

Councillor Haseler referred to the purpose of the Taskforce on Nature Related Financial Disclosures Framework, which he argued was not designed for the assessment of development impacts or could be adapted to use for that purpose. He advised that Scope 3 emissions went beyond what would generally be assessed and also went beyond the requirements of the Environment and Climate Strategy. He stated that, although there would be circumstances where appropriate and relevant assessments outlined in the motion would be required, it would not be possible or appropriate for many applicants of minor residential extension to commission and fund such reports.  The motion was therefore unreasonable and would not meet the statutory requirements with regard the nature and scale of development. 

 

In seconding the motion, Councillor C Da Costa commented that she felt that the Council had been tardy in getting some of the supplementary plans to the table.  Whilst recognising that they were being worked on she stated that the Council needed to speed up the process and be more cognisant of their responsibility towards future generations and the need to protect the environment, the ecosystem and biodiversity.   

 

In summing up, Councillor W Da Costa reiterated that the motion was about ambition, about setting an agenda and targets to be achieved and then allowing the offices get on with implementing them.  Although more resources would be required to employ ecologists and climate specialists to help deal with the implementation of the policy it would not be of the scale mentioned during the debate. The motion aimed to radically improve the Council’s processes and to require assessments that measured what was relevant.  He stated that by referencing TCND and best practice available meant that the Council did not have to be tied down to any specific legislation. He commented upon the serious implications and impacts that not doing anything would have on future generations. He stated that the Scope 3 emissions were an example of putting our net out as widely as possible and contended that they were meaningful and relevant to achieving the climate ambitions of net zero. He explained that as the Environment and Climate Strategy was not a core policy document none of the Council’s decisions were measured as to how much carbon would be emitted.  

 

With regard to the implementation of the motion, Councillor W Da Costa explained that within planning it was reasonable to create parameters and guidelines for developers to consider when undertaking their assessment.  He advised that more robust criteria would be required for larger developments but for smaller developers there would be checklists detailing those that were relevant to make the process a lot simpler.   

 

He advised that he had sought the advice of Officers but had yet to receive a reply. He stressed the urgent need to address the problems now and to set standards for buildings to be built today and which would last for over 50 years to make sure that that people could survive and thrive and that businesses were able to grow and achieve high productivity.  He concluded by explaining how extreme temperatures would have a detrimental effect on people and therefore urged Members to support the motion.  

 

A recorded vote was taken following a request by at least five Councillors. 16 Councillors voted for the motion; 21 Councillors voted against the motion. 1 Councillor abstained. The motion therefore fell. 

 

MOTION C
Councillor Clive Baskerville	For
Councillor Christine Bateson	Against
Councillor Gurpreet Bhangra	Against
Councillor Simon Bond	For
Councillor John Bowden	Against
Councillor Mandy Brar	For
Councillor Catherine del Campo	Abstained
Councillor David Cannon	Against
Councillor Stuart Carroll	Against
Councillor Gerry Clark	Against
Councillor David Coppinger	Against
Councillor Carole Da Costa	For
Councillor Wisdom Da Costa	For
Councillor Jon Davey	Abstained
Councillor Phil Haseler	Against
Councillor Geoffrey Hill	For
Councillor David Hilton	Against
Councillor Maureen Hunt	Against
Councillor Andrew Johnson	Against
Councillor Greg Jones	Against
Councillor Lynne Jones	For
Councillor Neil Knowles	For
Councillor Ewan Larcombe	For
Councillor Sayonara Luxton	Against
Councillor Ross McWilliams	Against
Councillor Gary Muir	Against
Councillor Helen Price	Abstained
Councillor Samantha Rayner	Against
Councillor Joshua Reynolds	For
Councillor Julian Sharpe	Against
Councillor Shamsul Shelim	Against
Councillor Gurch Singh	For
Councillor Donna Stimson	Against
Councillor John Story	Against
Councillor Chris Targowski	Against
Councillor Amy Tisi	Abstained
Councillor Leo Walters	Against
Councillor Simon Werner	For
Rejected