Meeting documents

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors J Bridges, J Geary and R Holland.

Councillor S Sheahan declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in recommendations 2 - 6 of item 10 - North West Leicestershire Local Plan: Core Strategy - Response To Pre-Submission Consultation And Suggested Changes, having a financial interest in a piece of land in Measham which was proposed to be allocated as housing land under the Core Strategy.

The Chairman made the following announcements:

- The Chairman reported that on Friday, 22 March he had attended the Sport for All day at Loughborough University. The team for North West Leicestershire had performed excellently in the indoor athletics relay races.

- The Green Footprints Challenge awards and civic dinner will take place on 26 April 2013. There were still a few tickets available.

Councillor R Blunt gave an update on progress regarding licenses to access Council land. He reported that following the unanimous decision to refer the matter to the Policy Development Group, a meeting of the Group had taken place on 19 March 2013 and cross party support had been given to conducting a site by site assessment. He advised that the matter was initially referred to the Cabinet meeting in June, however it had been agreed that this could be undertaken sooner and the site by site assessment would be conducted in April. He stated that a special meeting of the Policy Development Group would take place in late May or early June to receive the findings of the assessment. He thanked all Members of the Policy Development Group for their work and pragmatism in relation to this matter.

Mr D Price of 22 Marlborough Way, Ashby de la Zouch, put the following question to Councillor T Pendleton:

"Given that:

- Her Majesty's Inspector may yet allow the appeal against refusal of planning permission for Holywell Spring Farm, in which event the Council could find itself obliged to accept large housing developments at both Holywell Spring Farm and Money Hill;

- it was argued to the above appeal hearing that Ashby de la Zouch has already been subjected to housing expansion proportionately far in excess of housing developments attached to Coalville, which is the major centre;

- residents of Ashby de la Zouch overwhelmingly rejected an offer to fund construction of the Ashby bypass in return for construction of 450 homes (minimum) on Money Hill, views supported in Parliament by the last David Taylor MP (footnote 1);

- whereas the planning proposals for Money Hill are inevitably predicated upon a new junction on the A511 Ashby bypass to offset the huge increase in traffic congestion that would result on Nottingham Road and at Flagstaff Roundabout, Leicestershire County Council, when challenged, has not replied whether an additional junction would be acceptable in highways terms in light of location, volumes of traffic on the bypass, its crawler lanes, etc. (footnote 2);

- if, as proposed by the Money Hill Consortium, a link road were to be built connecting to the A511 bypass, future major housing developments off that link road would become virtually irresistible, further swamping the town's infrastructure (footnote 3);

- expansion on such a scale would condemn Ashby from being the small-town "jewel in the crown" at the heart of The National Forest to being a suburban sprawl occupied by residents who live in the town but work elsewhere, with consequences for road traffic;

- the site for a new Health Centre suggested by the Money Hill Consortium is unlikely to be a preferred option;

How can North West Leicestershire possibly approve Policy CS37 as part of its Core Strategy submission to the Secretary of State?"

Councillor T Pendleton gave the following response:

"The Council remains opposed to development at Holywell Spring Farm and will continue to resist it at the Public Inquiry when it re-opens in October 2013.

In the meantime it is essential that the Council makes progress on the Core Strategy. It would not be appropriate for the preparations of the Core Strategy to be delayed until applications, that the Council regards as inappropriate, are determined. There has been a substantial amount of prior consultation on the preparation of the Core Strategy and we have considered all of the potential locations for development around Ashby, including Holywell Spring Farm. As a result, we have determined that Money Hill is our preferred location in Ashby. The Money Hill site is better related to the town centre and all its services and facilities, as well as significant employment opportunities on the east side of Ashby. If the Core Strategy is agreed this evening, we will continue to robustly make this case to the Inspector considering the Holywell Spring Farm appeal.

In preparing the Core Strategy we have worked closely with the Highway Authority and they have not raised objection. We will continue to engage with them on the current planning application at Money Hill.

It is important that new development makes proper provision for new infrastructure to mitigate the impact upon existing services and the local community. The Core Strategy allows for this.

The Council has to make provision for new development in Ashby, just as it does elsewhere in the district. Money Hill is the most sustainable direction for Ashby to accommodate this new growth and therefore remains the preferred direction of growth in the Core Strategy".

As a supplementary question, Mr D Price stated that he understood that the Council found itself under considerable pressure to submit the Core Strategy. He asked if the Council would accept that leading spokespersons from both parties had spoken out and expressed severe concerns regarding development at Money Hill, and if the Council would agree that it would be dangerous to allocate this land for housing development without a full risk and impact assessment.

Councillor T Pendleton responded that he understood Mr Price's concerns and the concerns of residents in Ashby de la Zouch. He explained that following the 7 years of consultation, the figure of 14% of the total development had been reached to be allocated to Ashby de la Zouch. He added that whilst it was possible to make statements regarding individual sites, some sites would have to be included in a cohesive plan. He stated that the allocation figure for Ashby de la Zouch was reasonable and sustainable.

Ms J Straw of 91 Hermitage Road, Whitwick, put the following question to Councillor T Pendleton:

"The Core Strategy report - Response to Pre-submission Consultation and Suggested Changes is being considered by the Council tonight. What would the consequences be if Members do not agree this tonight?"

Councillor T Pendleton gave the following response:

"If the Council were not to approve the Core Strategy for submission, then we would have shown ourselves unwilling to make the important decisions necessary for the future growth of the District. Without an up-to-date Local Plan this would make it difficult to sustain objections to unwanted developments at appeals. As a result we would end up with development where we do not necessarily want it. For example, we thought we had fought off the Stephenson Green proposal but that decision is now being challenged in the courts. If that challenge is successful, and let's hope it isn't, then if we don't have a Core Strategy to defend how we are planning for growth there is a real risk that the decision will be reversed and all that effort by the Council and the local communities will have been for nothing".

He added that the Council would be walking a dangerous tightrope if the Core Strategy was not approved tonight. He applauded the Whitwick Action Group for their efforts in the campaign to save the Whitwick Green Wedge, and explained that the challenge in respect of that particular planning application would be coming in October. He added that if the Core Strategy was not approved at that time, it was less likely that the appeal could be defended. He stated that the Green Wedge needed to be saved and the Core Strategy could not be delayed any longer.

Councillor J Legrys put the following question to Councillor T Pendleton:

"The Daily Telegraph newspaper has published details of Councillors on a few English Local Planning Authorities (LPA's) openly negotiating with Developers for financial gain. The newspaper reports that changes made by the Conservative/Liberal Democrat Government's 'Localism Act' make individual Councillor negotiation with Developers/applicants with or without financial gain lawful.

It has to be accepted that Councillors with Responsibilities do need to negotiate directly with Developers, however NWLDC has policies and practices in place to ensure third party transparency and accountability under the Council's current Constitution and Codes of Conduct.

However, I ask the Portfolio Holder if he considers it to be lawful for Councillors to receive financial or other reward for giving advice to Developers or Objectors on Planning matters?"

Councillor T Pendleton gave the following response:

"Thank you for your question and for raising this important issue. As I am sure you would expect I have sought the view of the Monitoring Officer on this issue. This is a matter for her advice rather than my opinion as a Member. Miss Warhurst's advice is set out below:

"Following receipt of the question further clarification was sought from Councillor Legrys by the Deputy Monitoring Officer to confirm exactly what his concerns were. During that conversation Councillor Legrys confirmed his view that councillors with responsibilities (e.g. the Portfolio Holder and other senior Members) on occasions do need to negotiate directly with Developers and that was generally done with the guidance and assistance of officers, however, the crux of his concerns are the suggestions in the press following the passage of the Localism Act 2011 that it would be lawful for individual Members to receive financial or other reward for giving advice to Developers or Objectors on planning matters and the impact that the Localism Act 2011 has had on third party transparency and accountability under the Council's current Constitution and Codes of Conduct.

As a result of that further clarification from Councillor Legrys it was agreed that the issues to be addressed in response to his question are the effects of the Localism Act 2011 on the roles of Members both in the planning application process and the decision making process.

It has always been the case that Members are able to undertake employment in relation to planning matters in their private capacity and that has not been changed by the Localism Act.

Where a Member is engaged in a private capacity to advise an applicant on a consultancy basis, that constitutes "employment" under the Legislation (see below for the effect of such employment on the decision making process).

Prior to the Localism Act, Members often faced difficulties in engaging with either Developers or Objectors because of the danger that a Member would be presumed to be pre-determined and therefore they could effectively be prevented from fully engaging in the planning process particularly where they had articulated strong opinions on the merits or otherwise of an application.

The effect of the Localism Act was to remove the presumption that a Member is pre-determined on a matter just because they have been involved with it prior to it reaching Committee. It has been my advice to Members that a Member who may be actively involved in a planning matter outside of the decision making process (for example by attending public meetings and engaging with their constituents) may have a predisposition towards a certain point of view, but provided that they take decisions having regard to their obligations under the Code of Conduct and with an open mind, objectively and by assessing the individual merits of the matter before them, they will not be pre-determined.

Where a Member is undertaking consultancy work in their private capacity, that constitutes "employment" under the Legislation. Such employment amounts to a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest and if the Member is a Member of the Planning Committee they are unable to take part in the decision of the Committee on that matter, but would be able to make representations to the Committee as the agent (not as a Member) for the applicant. If a Member were to take part in a decision in which they have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest they may commit a criminal offence. Criminal offences under the Act are investigated by the Police.

All Members when acting in their official capacity are required to comply with and are bound by the Local Code of Conduct and it is the responsibility of individual Members to ensure that they conduct themselves in accordance with the requirements of the Code. A Member who seeks to use their position as a Member in order to influence a decision may also be liable for a breach of the Council's Code of Conduct whether or not the Member is a Member of the Committee taking the decision.

Members will recall that in June 2012 the Council adopted a new Code of Conduct which it was required to do under the Localism Act. At that time NWLDC Members took the view that the requirements of the Localism Act did not provide the level of transparency and accountability they felt were necessary to ensure probity in public life and decided to extend the statutory definition of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests to include close associates and the family members of elected Members. As a result the Local Code prevents Members from being involved in decision making relating to close associates and family members which would otherwise be permitted under the Act. Whilst being involved in the decision making process in relation to a close associate or family member is not a criminal offence, sanctions may be imposed under the Local Code.

Whilst the Localism Act created the new offence of failing to declare a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest, it did not make any amendments to the general criminal law applicable to Members when acting in their capacity as an elected Member. Whilst it is acceptable for a Member to receive a financial incentive for promoting an application in the context of a formal professional relationship (eg. such as that between a planning consultant and a client), the acceptance of any incentive, financial or otherwise, by any Member outside of such a formal professional relationship in order to influence a decision, or attempts to influence a decision whether they are a Member of the decision making body or not, may constitute a criminal offence of corruption or misconduct in a public office. Again such matters are investigated by the Police.

Conclusion

When making decisions on behalf of the Council there are a number of matters which Members need to have regard to:

(i) the Legislative requirement in relation to Disclosable Pecuniary Interests;

(ii) the Council's Code of Conduct;

(iii) the Council's Planning or Licensing Code of Conduct;

(iv) the Criminal law.

Following the enactment of the Localism Act and the adoption of the new Code of Conduct I organised training sessions for councillors which included Disclosable Pecuniary Interests. In addition to the training, Members were all issued with a Guidance Note on the Code and all have access to me as Monitoring Officer and my Deputy for advice on individual matters which arise before committees and advice is given proactively by myself and my Deputy where necessary as significant issues are identified.

I therefore believe that the Council has adequate processes in place to not only assist councillors but also to reassure the public that Members are aware of their obligations and are taking decisions that are for the good of the District".

As a supplementary question, Councillor J Legrys thanked Councillor T Pendleton for the full and thorough response. He added thanks to the Deputy Monitoring Officer for his assistance. He stated that it was important that all Members prove that the Council as a Planning Authority was carrying out its duties diligently. He asked if the Portfolio Holder shared his view that the comprehensive response to his question needed to be widely publicised, and especially to be placed on the Council's website.

Councillor T Pendleton responded that he was happy for the information to be publicised on the Council's website.

Councillor R Johnson put the following question to Councillor A Smith:

"Could the Portfolio Holder please tell me what provision the Council is giving weight to in filling in the potholes on our car parks within the district, especially the council offices car park, in my view this is a poor advertisement to both visitors and residents visiting our town".

Councillor A Smith gave the following response:

"I thank Cllr Johnson for this question although the details were provided at the last Full Council meeting within the Capital programme for 13/14. We have made provision for the following car parks to be resurfaced in the forthcoming financial year:

- Market Hall car park in Coalville
- Council Offices rear extension car park
- Council Offices rear main car park

All car parks are assessed on an annual basis and a programme of works are put forward for consideration during the annual budget process. These car parks are in need of attention and following budget approval the costs and programme of works are now being developed. The exact dates will be communicated to all Members in due course".

As a supplementary question, Councillor R Johnson stated that he would have liked more explanation and referred to a statement which had been made by Councillor N Rushton that the roads in Leicestershire were some of the best in the country. He stated that the roads were a disgrace.

Councillor A Smith thanked Councillor R Johnson for his statement and added that his comments had been noted.

Councillor N Clarke moved the following motion:

"On April 1st 2013 social housing tenants will see cuts in their Housing Benefit if it is deemed they are under occupying their home.

This Council:

- Believes that this "bedroom tax" is an unworkable policy given that if people moved house it would not save any money;

- Notes that according to the Government's own impact assessment, two thirds of the households affected have a disabled person;

- Further notes that the policy will cut support from the families of service personnel; and

- Asks the Government to re-examine the measures it is putting in place to cut housing benefit from some of North West Leicestershire's most vulnerable residents on the grounds that their social housing has a spare bedroom;

- Calls on the Conservative/Lib Dem Government to drop this policy and think again".

Councillor N Clarke stated that he was delighted that following the submission of his motion, the Government had reconsidered the policy being applied to service personnel. He added however that service personnel made up only a small percentage of the total number of people affected by the policy. He reported that only 1 in 8 people who were claiming housing benefit were unemployed. He referred to particular cases of residents who were affected in his Ward and stated that the policy was unfair. He added that people with disabilities resided in two thirds of the affected households, and in North West Leicestershire, 22% of Council tenants affected by the policy had a disability. He stated that the Labour Party supported welfare reform, but this policy was unfair and would not be effective in solving under occupancy as there were not enough smaller homes for people to move into. He added that nearly 800 properties in North West Leicestershire were deemed to be over occupied. He stated that any savings made by the policy would come from lower earning families who were unable to move. He stated that it was perverse and dishonest that savings would only be made if residents did not move. He added that if residents did move, they would have to move into privately rented accommodation with higher rents, which would increase the tax bill and would not solve under occupancy. He expressed his opposition to the policy in the strongest terms. He agreed that the welfare bill needed to be reduced, however the Government were failing to stimulate the economy. He stated that the "bedroom tax" was unfair, would hit disabled people hard and would worsen the housing crisis by forcing residents into privately rented accommodation. He urged Members to support the motion.

The motion was seconded by Councillor D De Lacy. He reserved his comments.

Councillor S Sheahan expressed his support for the motion. He stated that residents would be hit regardless of whether or not they decided to move, as rents in the private rented sector could be higher which could lead to an increase in the housing benefit bill. He added that the unsecure nature of tenancies in the private sector could lead to an increase in homelessness. He stated that the policy was an inadequate solution and more homes needed to be built.

Councillor P Clayfield stated that the policy disproportionately affected women. She highlighted some statistics, particularly in respect of the impact upon single parents, the majority of whom were women. She stated that the policy would hit working families on low incomes and added that the majority of part time workers were women and the majority of the lowest paid jobs were undertaken by women. She stated that the policy was likely to hit hard some of the most vulnerable members of society, and residents could find themselves dislocated from friends, family and other support mechanisms. She added that single parents may well feel compelled to leave their homes and the number of social and Council properties available was woefully low. She added that waiting lists were rising and there was a housing crisis. She stated that residents would have no recourse but to find a privately rented house at a higher cost, and therefore single parents would almost certainly receive higher housing benefit, inevitably costing the taxpayer more. She stated that the Government should think again, scrap this iniquitous policy and build affordable homes immediately. She added that people should be put before profit.

Councillor D Everitt recalled his personal experiences with homeless people and referred to a case in point. He stated that the Government had a responsibility to look after people and the more the screw was turned, the more people would be alienated, and civil unrest could be caused. He vehemently expressed his opposition to the policy.

Councillor T Neilson stated that the policy was nothing to do with deficit reduction and it was another front in a class war. He expressed his opposition to the policy and the tax on benefits, workers rights and more. He stated that it was unfair that those who were pushing through the policy may have 5 or more spare bedrooms yet were unaffected by it. He stated that the policy amounted to an act of social vandalism. He urged Members to support the motion and send a message to the Government that the policy was wrong. He sought assurances that the Council would not evict people as a result of the policy.

Councillor L Spence stated that he felt many people would agree there was nothing wrong with a link between housing benefit and family size. He expressed his opposition to the policy and stated there were significant problems with it, as there was a shortfall of smaller housing units for people to move into. He added that the policy was affecting long established claimants and would have a severe detrimental effect. He stated that exceptions had not been considered and referred to some specific examples. He stated that the process was fundamentally flawed and the Public Accounts Committee had made a statement warning that evictions would rise and savings would be minimal. He urged all Members to support the motion.

Councillor M Wyatt stated that he would be supporting the motion as he did not feel that the policy had been properly considered. He added that it was all very well encouraging people to downgrade, but there was nothing for them to downgrade to. He stated that this would create greater poverty and could lead to an increase in homelessness.

Councillor J Cotterill stated that this was not the most popular of Bills. He referred to the cuts to the homelessness budget at the Labour led City Council and stated that this would penalise homeless people who did not have the luxury of receiving housing benefit. He added that the policy was not a tax, it was a reduction in housing benefit for those residents who were being subsidised for having a spare bedroom, and was the result of inequalities in the private rental and social sectors. He stated that those in the private sector were already restricted from having extra bedrooms due to cost and the current under occupancy was not the most effective use of the housing stock. He added that in order to protect vulnerable groups, the discretionary housing payment budget had been trebled which would support vulnerable groups and disabled people, and additionally pensioners living in sheltered accommodation would be exempt. He added that the shortage of affordable homes was a result of under investment by the previous Government, and the coalition was acting. He stated that Andrew Bridgen MP had helped to secure £20,000,000 funding for investment in the substandard housing stock.

Councillor J Ruff stated that the "bedroom tax" was a welfare cut which would affect lower paid people in social housing. She questioned why people should be penalised for having a spare room which was used for family members. She stated that interfering in people's homes was not right and this was an unfair cost to those who were least able to afford it. She added that it was the working class who would suffer again and urged Members to support the motion.

Councillor T Pendleton stated that the scheme was a pilot and the Government had said it would respond to the findings. He added that vulnerable groups would absolutely be safeguarded. He referred to the statement made by Councillor L Spence in respect of the link between housing benefit and family size.

Councillor D Everitt sought to raise a point of order and asked if Councillor T Pendleton's statement was relevant to the debate.

The Chairman indicated that Councillor T Pendleton could proceed.

Councillor T Pendleton added that it may be controversial, however he wondered if in future, consideration may be given to providing family allowance in respect of the first child only.

Councillor N Smith stated that this was a terribly emotive subject and he took offence to the inference that the opposition were the only people who cared. He added that it could not be fair to have a 3 or 4 bedroom house with only 1 or 2 people living in it. He added that there were thousands of people weekly who had to take a decision to downsize in order to reduce costs. He stated that he hoped the comments in respect of building more houses were remembered when the Core Strategy was considered.

Councillor J Legrys stated that the policy did not allow people to move on locally to smaller accommodation as there was nothing for people to move into. He added that people would be expected to move to the private sector and there was nothing in the Core Strategy to ensure the provision of 1 bedroom homes. He stated that the "bedroom tax" was a method of social cleansing to move people out of the area and to sell Council houses to the highest bidder. He added that this method of social engineering was wrong. He agreed that residents needed to be encouraged to move to smaller accommodation and release family houses, however this accommodation did not exist. He added that the "bedroom tax" would clobber a lot of people who could not afford a tax increase at present. He felt that if people were to be encouraged to move, it should be done with care and love, and within their communities. He stated that the policy would be fair if there were homes for people to move to.

Councillor R Blunt thanked Councillor J Legrys for his comments. He stated that he could not support the motion as it ended with the words ‘think again', however no alternative had been suggested. He added that the vulnerable group which had not been considered was those who were currently on the waiting list, who were as vulnerable as those people who were frightened about moving house.

Councillor R Bayliss stated that the policy was a reduction in benefit rather than a tax, and most people had suffered a reduction in income at some point in their lives. He stated that this was a pilot which would be reviewed. He stated that there were a quarter of a million people living in overcrowded homes and not enough homes to go around, and the policy was an attempt to start the process and reach a balance. He added that the previous Government had done little to address this problem. He stated that of the tenants affected by the policy who had been interviewed, the majority had decided not to move.

The Chairman indicated to Councillor R Bayliss that he had spoken for 5 minutes in total.

Councillor N Rushton stated vehemently that to say ‘think again' was not enough and alternative policies should be proposed by the opposition. He referred to the funding which had been secured for investment in the District Council's housing stock. He stated that there were currently 335,000 people living in properties which were too large. He added that there were a number of exemptions to the policy and a hardship fund. He stated that something had to be done to reduce the social housing bill. He added that the country was in the worst economic recession, which was mostly attributable to the previous Government. He stated that only a third of the deficit had been dealt with and difficult decisions had to be made to avoid a similar situation to that of Cyprus.

Councillor D De Lacy stated that he would cancel the tax rebate for millionaires which would remove the requirement to impose this policy. He added that he would introduce a mansion tax. He stated that the architects of the policy had 10 spare bedrooms. He stated that when the original idea was foisted upon focus groups, it had seemed to receive a positive response, however as the public were coming to realise what the policy meant in practice, support for it was disappearing. He suggested that the policy would not produce savings, and if residents were evicted as a result of the policy, costs would increase. He stated that the people affected by the policy felt that it was a tax. He added that the policy was being implemented next week and the suggestion that it was a pilot was nonsense. He stated that the hardship fund would be insufficient. He referred to a case which had been reported in the press in respect of children sharing a bedroom, and felt that more concessions would need to be made in respect of this policy. He expressed pride in supporting the motion.

Councillor N Clarke exercised his right of reply and stated that he took exception to the suggestion that housing benefit was a luxury. He added that the dictionary defined tax as a burden, and this policy was an imposition.

The Chairman then put the motion to the vote. The motion was declared LOST.

There were no petitions received.

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meeting held on 26 February 2013.

Councillor R Bayliss referred to the statement made by Councillor M Wyatt in respect of minute 73 - Budget and Council Tax 2013/14. He requested that the minute be amended to reflect Councillor Wyatt's statement that tenants were receiving a poor service.

It was moved by Councillor M Specht, seconded by Councillor G Jones and

The Chairman clarified the process he intended to follow during consideration of the Core Strategy. He stated that in the interests of allowing a full debate whilst seeking to ensure the meeting was manageable and focussed, he would be seeking to suspend Council Procedure Rule 14.4 for this item only, to limit each speaker to 3 minutes; whilst allowing all those who wished to speak the opportunity to do so.

It was moved by Councillor M Specht, seconded by Councillor G Jones and

The Chairman reminded Members that the usual rules of debate applied to this item.

Councillor R Blunt presented the report to Members, highlighting the requirement in the Localism Act to publish the pay policy statement. He drew Members' attention to the changes from the previous year as outlined in the report.

Councillor N Smith commended the senior management team and extended his personal thanks to them.

Councillor T Neilson stated that he had proposed an amendment to last year's pay policy statement in respect of the pay multiple factor, however he would not be doing so this year as it had been misconstrued. He referred to the response to his amendment which had indicated the need to be consistent with other councils. He stated that this appeared to have changed this year and he requested that a message be sent to the LGA to ensure there was consistency and to enable comparisons to be made.

Councillor D De Lacy spoke in support of the document and welcomed the openness and transparency it provided. He stated that Eric Pickles had been critical in the past of Chief Executives' pay, however he had no problems paying the private sector. He added that the pay multiple factor for the Council was 6. He stated that it would be nearer 106 in the private sector, however there was no criticism of that from the Government.

The Chairman sought clarification how this was relevant to the current debate.

At this point in the meeting the Chairman called for order.

Councillor D De Lacy stated that the pay policy at the Council was in line with the national policy and Council staff had received a real terms pay cut of 19% over 6 years.

Councillor L Spence welcomed the opportunity to reiterate that the Council had an outstanding set of senior officers. He wished to place on record his thanks to them.

Councillor R Blunt declined to exercise his right of reply.

It was moved by Councillor R Blunt, seconded by Councillor N Rushton and