Agenda item

Motions

1) To consider the following motion received from Councillor T Neilson:

“Our tenants should not be made prisoners in their own homes. When they need extra work to be done on their house so that they can more easily look after themselves then we should be make that as easy as possible. This council believes that 14 months to get an adaptation to a council house is too long. We therefore will introduce a service level agreement with our tenants to ensure that the vast majority (say 90%) of adaptations are done within a maximum of 10 months for routine adaptations and 6 months for more urgent adaptations.

This will of course be subject to the same budgetary restrictions and caveats relating to planning applications as the current policy”.

2) To consider the following motion received from Councillor J Legrys:

“Motion of Economic Impact of the Closure of Snibston Exhibition Hall

This Council’s Constitution requires the Cabinet/Executive to:

“To carry out the Authority’s responsibilities for improving the economic, social and environmental well-being of the District and increasing the availability and equality of access to employment”.(Article 16 page 41)”.

Motion:

In light of Leicestershire County Council’s consideration to close the Exhibition Hall at Snibston Discovery Museum this Council will undertake an Economic Impact Assessment to examine the affect of such a closure on Coalville and the wider District.

The Economic Impact Assessment(EIA) will be an assessment of different options for the future of Snibston including an appraisal of the economic impact of:-

1. Maintaining the Exhibition Hall and current collections intact at the current location at Snibston Discovery Museum and continuing towards increased commercialisation as described in the Business Plan detailed in the Black Radley Ltd report dated 15^th March 2011.

2. Closing & demolishing the Exhibition Hall, redistributing collections away from Coalville with a view to building new housing or employment on the vacant site.

3. Transferring control of Snibston Discovery Museum, including the Scheduled Ancient Monument, Gallery, Park and Century Theatre and all associated land and artefacts into a charitable trust with a with a view to increasing footfall and private sector investment as referred to in the Black Radley Ltd report on pages 23 and 24.

4. A ‘low key’ weekend/holiday only opening of the Scheduled Monument with no Main Gallery attraction”.

3) To consider the following motion received from Councillor J Legrys:

“Minimum Size of Vehicular Garages on New Developments

Elected Members are receiving complaints from residents that many garages on new developments are so small that it is impossible to be used for vehicular parking. The re-visit of the Local Plan will provide an opportunity to examine current policy and practice.

Motion

This Council will deliver a new policy to insist that developers provide minimum internal garage dimensions that will:

Provide Garage door width that will enable most cars to enter/leave the garage and allow most drivers of an average (model) sized vehicle to open the vehicle door(s) and to enter/exit the vehicle freely without effort.

Consider the implications of the Disability Discrimination Act on the internal design of all new garages.

Garage parking space should be considered as supplementary to the required Parking Provision calculation for any development”.

Minutes:

The Chairman encouraged all Members to make their submissions on the motions received in a timely manner.

Motion (1)

Councillor T Neilson moved the following motion:

This will of course be subject to the same budgetary restrictions and caveats relating to planning applications as the current policy”.

Councillor T Neilson stated that the motion originated from some of the experiences Members had been hearing about when knocking on doors. He added that more and more casework related to adaptations, and the issues to be discussed were dignity and quality of life. He stated that to ask people to wait more than a year to have their needs addressed was poor in the 21^st century, and completion timescales varied. He believed that through implementing challenging targets, the Council could start to show disabled tenants it was working for them.

The motion was seconded by Councillor J Legrys who reserved his comments.

Councillor R D Bayliss urged Members to reject the motion as he believed it was badly drafted, would be difficult to implement, was not costed in terms of the consequences and was ill-informed as to the present policy. He acknowledged that there were occasional regrettable failures in performance but felt that this did not detract from the policy itself. He reminded Members that the starting point had been a no star, poor performance service with uncertain prospects, and therefore Members would understand why he was not prepared to listen to lectures on the quality of the policy or the service. He also reminded Members that the present policy had been adopted by the Council in May 2008 and had succeeded in the audit. He explained that minor adaptations were implemented within 28 days, fast track adaptations within 5 months or less, and other adaptations were completed within 8 months if they were relatively urgent. Routine adaptations could take upto 14 months and some could take longer. He outlined some of the factors that could impact upon timescales, such as reports from occupational therapy, planning permissions, procurement issues and contracting for works, which demonstrated that the process could not simply be sped up. That said, he advised that the policy was currently under review and would be reported to Cabinet before the end of the calendar year. He reminded Members that they could call the issue in or refer it to Policy Development Group if they were so minded.

The Chairman advised Councillor R D Bayliss that he had spoken for almost 5 minutes in total and asked him to conclude.

Councillor R D Bayliss stated that improvements had been made upon what had been inherited, however he urged Members to reject the motion and await the outcome of the review.

Councillor J Legrys stated that he was obviously disappointed with the response from Councillor R D Bayliss. He stated that the Conservative Group had been in control of the Council for 8 years and it was about time this titanic was turned around. He expressed disappointment for the council tenants who were having to wait so long for the adaptations they required. He accepted that there was a fast track process and he welcomed this. However he expressed disappointment that officers were working in silos and there was no agreement from the planning department to overcome these issues. He concluded that there were a lot of elderly tenants who were waiting too long to be able to have a bath, a wash or a shower independently, and this was appalling in 2014. He stated that the situation must be avoided where someone in later life waits so long for an adaptation that they never receive it.

Councillor T Neilson exercised his right of reply and stated that he was not sure why he was being accused of not understanding the policy given that his allegation regarding the timescales was correct. He added that he was very happy to hear that a review was ongoing and he imagined that the Labour Group would want to provide some input. He stated that he believed the Council should be demonstrating to tenants that it was listening and understood that what might be considered a minor adaptation could have a huge impact upon their quality of life. He commented that he had included a caveat in respect of costs in the motion and so he did not accept the argument that the motion could not be supported as it had not been costed. He also felt that the planning issues could be overcome. He urged Members to support the motion.

Having been moved and seconded, the motion was then put to the vote and was declared LOST.

Councillor D J Stevenson attempted to speak.

Councillor J Legrys raised a point of order that Councillor D J Stevenson was speaking out of turn.

The Chairman called for order at this point.

Motion (2)

Councillor J Legrys moved the following motion:

“Motion of Economic Impact of the Closure of Snibston Exhibition Hall

This Council’s Constitution requires the Cabinet/Executive to:

Motion:

The Economic Impact Assessment(EIA) will be an assessment of different options for the future of Snibston including an appraisal of the economic impact of:-

2. Closing & demolishing the Exhibition Hall, redistributing collections away from Coalville with a view to building new housing or employment on the vacant site.

3. Transferring control of Snibston Discovery Museum, including the Scheduled Ancient Monument, Gallery, Park and Century Theatre and all associated land and artifacts into a charitable trust with a with a view to increasing footfall and private sector investment as referred to in the Black Radley Ltd report on pages 23 and 24.

4. A ‘low key’ weekend/holiday only opening of the Scheduled Monument with no Main Gallery attraction”.

Councillor J Legrys stated that the Council had a duty to assess the economic impact of large-scale significant employers, which was a possibility given Leicestershire County Council’s proposals. He added that the motion was focussing on the economic impact of the current consultation, and not the rights and wrongs of the decision. He highlighted the Black Radley report which had been circulated to Members in the additional papers and which he had specifically referred to in the motion. He emphasised the economic impact of the current offer on Coalville alone. He felt that it was necessary to provide a professionally prepared economic impact assessment before the next meeting in September. He stated that he was pleased that the Cabinet at its meeting last week had agreed to undertake various assessments regarding Roxhill and urged Members to support the motion.

The motion was seconded by Councillor L Spence who reserved his comments.

Councillor A V Smith stated that unfortunately she could not support the motion for very good reasons. She reiterated the Council’s dedication to the regeneration of Coalville and appreciated that Leicestershire County Council’s proposed plans for Snibston had been thought through and had the potential to be very positive for Coalville. She pointed out that the plans included demolishing the existing museum, which required significant investment to make it sound, however they also included the introduction of a smaller museum, focussed on Coalville’s rich coal mining heritage. She added that a local museum for Coalville had been championed for some time by the Coalville Heritage Society. She would support the development of such a facility on the Snibston site if this was possible. She believed that with the correct focus and continued investment, a museum like this would be an excellent community facility for local people, as well as an opportunity to showcase our heritage. She highlighted that the proposals also included investment in the country park and continued support for the Century Theatre, both of which were much loved community assets.

Councillor T Neilson sought to raise a point of order as Councillor A V Smith’s speech did not relate to the motion.

Councillor A V Smith stated that an economic impact assessment would incur a significant cost to the Council and the results would not be available prior to the decision being made by Leicestershire County Council, and as such she encouraged Members to work closely with Leicestershire County Council to enhance what was offered in Coalville for local residents, schools and visitors. She added that an economic impact assessment was too little, too late. She also requested that the minutes of this meeting and the decision on this motion be made available to Leicestershire County Council.

Councillor J Legrys sought to raise a point of order in that Councillor A V Smith’s speech had determined the outcome of Leicestershire County Council’s decision.

Councillor N Clarke stated that if Snibston was to close, it would have a significant impact and the public had the right to know what effect this would have on the economy.

Councillor T Neilson stated that he wished to propose an amendment to the motion. As his proposal was a significant amendment to the motion, the meeting was adjourned to enable officers to give advice and to circulate the amendment.

The meeting was adjourned at 7.30pm and reconvened at 7.40pm.

Councillor T Neilson moved the following amendment:

“Motion of Economic Impact of the Closure of Snibston Exhibition Hall

This Council’s Constitution requires the Cabinet/Executive to:

Motion:

In light of the Black Radley Ltd report and Leicestershire County Council’s consideration to close the Exhibition Hall at Snibston Discovery Museum this Council will undertake an Economic Impact Assessment to examine the affect of such a closure on Coalville and the wider District.

The Economic Impact Assessment(EIA) will be an assessment of different options for the future of Snibston including an appraisal of the economic impact to the area of closing & demolishing the Exhibition Hall, redistributing collections away from Coalville with a view to building new housing or employment on the vacant site”.

The motion was seconded by Councillor J Geary who reserved his comments.

Councillor D De Lacy spoke in support of the amendment. He stated that thousands of people had signed a petition about the closure of Snibston and for that reason alone, tonight’s meeting needed to take place. He added that Coalville was the most populated area in North West Leicestershire and if the Council’s plans took place there would be a lot more people living here in future. He commented that Snibston was the jewel in the crown.

The Chairman reminded Councillor D De Lacy to confine his contributions to the subject of the amendment.

Councillor D De Lacy commented that he hoped the Chairman would allow him as much license as he had allowed the Portfolio Holder.

The Chairman asked Councillor D De Lacy if he was suggesting that he was not being allowed the requisite amount of time to speak. Councillor D De Lacy confirmed that this was not what he was suggesting.

Councillor D De Lacy stated that he felt it would be a massive mistake to close the biggest attraction in Coalville, which was why he supported the motion. He commented that he had not received an answer to his earlier question, however there was a growing perception outside the Chamber that the District Council was becoming the ‘poodle’ of the County Council and he questioned the morality of senior Councillors at Leicestershire County Council taking this decision without the benefit of the economic impact assessment. He stated that he felt these Councillors were conflicted on the subject of this motion. He called for District Councillors to start representing the District. He added that many people felt that any decision to close Snibston would be a detriment to the area, and for that reason the economic impact assessment should be completed as soon as possible. He stated that he felt County Councillors should not be voting on this amendment.

Councillor A V Smith stated that she still could not support the amendment. She added that she could not say what Leicestershire County Council was going to decide, and the District Council needed to work on its own agenda. She reiterated that supporting the mining museum could make a huge difference to Coalville.

Councillor J Legrys sought clarification that, as the mover of the original motion, he was entitled to speak to the amendment. The Chairman confirmed that he was able to speak again to the amendment.

Councillor J Legrys spoke in support of the amendment and felt that it simplified the proposed action on the economic impact assessment. He accepted that no decision had been made on the outcome of the consultation, however he felt the Council should act to meet the needs of the District, and he expressed bitter disappointment at the statements made by Members of the Conservative Group on a much-loved feature. He urged Members to agree that the Council should conduct an economic impact assessment in the same way it had on the closure of other significant employers.

Councillor J Geary made reference to the fact that Leicestershire County Council needed to make cuts and the museum service was not statutory and would therefore be in the firing line. He stated that without an economic impact assessment it could not be known what Coalville would lose if Snibston closed. He added that there would be job losses and it was unknown whether town centre footfall would be affected. He stated that if Members were committed to the regeneration of Coalville, they should be looking at the damage the closure of Snibston would cause to the regeneration. He added that information was wanted to ensure the right decision could be made.

Councillor D De Lacy commented that if this issue was considered by so many to be such an in important matter, there should have been an item of business on this agenda.

Councillor T Neilson requested a recorded vote. The motion was then put to the vote and the voting was as follows:

For the motion:

Councillors R Adams, N Clarke, P Clayfield, D De Lacy, D Everitt, J Geary, D Howe, P Hyde, R Johnson, J Legrys, L Massey, T Neilson, S Sheahan, L Spence, R Woodward and M B Wyatt (16).

Against the motion:

Councillors G A Allman, R D Bayliss, R Blunt, J Cotterill, J G Coxon, T Gillard, R Holland, J Hoult, G Jones, C Large, C Meynell, T J Pendleton, V Richichi, N J Rushton, A C Saffell, A Smith, N Smith, M Specht and D J Stevenson (19).

Abstentions:

None (0).

The motion was declared LOST.

The motion having failed, the Chairman referred Members to the substantive motion.

As Councillor L Spence had reserved his comments, the Chairman invited him to speak. He declined to make any further comments.

Councillor J Legrys exercised his right of reply and stated that he was disappointed with the response from the Members opposite and commented that with the press in attendance at the meeting, the comments would be reported outside of the Chamber. He expressed sadness that Coalville Councillors were voting against conducting a professional study on the impact of Leicestershire County Council’s proposals. He concluded that an external body would be needed to undertake this work and added that he was aware of the cost of doing this, however he felt this would be well supported by the people of Coalville.

Councillor J Legrys requested a recorded vote. The motion was then put to the vote and the voting was as follows:

For the motion:

Councillors R Adams, N Clarke, P Clayfield, D De Lacy, D Everitt, J Geary, D Howe, P Hyde, R Johnson, J Legrys, L Massey, T Neilson, S Sheahan, L Spence, R Woodward and M B Wyatt (16).

Against the motion:

Abstentions:

None (0).

The motion was declared LOST.

Motion (3)

Councillor J Legrys moved the following motion:

“Minimum Size of Vehicular Garages on New Developments

Motion

This Council will deliver a new policy to insist that developers provide minimum internal garage dimensions that will:

Consider the implications of the Disability Discrimination Act on the internal design of all new garages.

Garage parking space should be considered as supplementary to the required Parking Provision calculation for any development”.

Councillor J Legrys commented that it was ironic that a meeting with no business had lasted longer than a meeting with business. He expressed disappointment that he felt it necessary to bring this motion to Council, however he reported that the Members Planning Forum was cancelled more often than not, and as such there was no other vehicle for him to raise this matter. He reported that he and Councillor P Clayfield were receiving complaints from residents of an estate which had an allocation of 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling, and unfortunately the garages doors were 2m in width. He pointed out that these garages were so narrow that residents simply could not physically access them. He accepted that many people chose to use their garages for junk rather than cars, however with developments becoming more compact, parking space was becoming a premium. He called upon the Council to deliver a policy that insisted upon developers providing a minimum sized garage space. He stated that the Authority could not continue giving planning permission for parking spaces that could not be used. He added that people should have the ability to park in a space that they are able to get out of. He stated that the Council’s planning policy and the Disability Discrimination Act were not being taken into account.

Councillor T Gillard interjected that people should buy a house with a bigger garage.

The Chairman called for order at this point in the meeting.

Councillor J Legrys raised a point of order that Councillor T Gillard had spoken out of turn.

Councillor J Legrys stated that he was disappointed with the attitude to this issue.

The Chairman advised Councillor J Legrys that he had spoken for almost 5 minutes in total and asked him to conclude.

Councillor J Legrys stated that as a Planning Authority, the Council had done some good work to improve the standard of homes. He requested a policy renewal that would benefit those people who wanted to park their car in their garage.

The motion was seconded by Councillor P Clayfield who reserved her comments.

Councillor M Specht stated that he took on board the comments about disabled people accessing garages. He added that the majority of people did not use their garage to park their car and referred to the amount applications received for planning permission to convert the garage to ancillary accommodation. He commented that most average sized vehicles should fit through a garage door that was 2m wide and he suggested that people who could not manoeuvre a car through a garage door should not have a driving licence.

The Chairman called for order at this point in the meeting.

Councillor L Spence stated that many homes had garages which were far too small to be useful. He added that it was not for the Council to dictate how people should use their garages, however the Council should ensure that people could use them for the purpose for which they were intended. He referred to a particular case which was recently reported in the Daily Mail. He commented that it was becoming more commonplace that adult children could not afford to move out of their parents’ homes and there were more 3 or 4 car families. He concluded that the Council needed to ensure garages were practical for their intended purpose. He added however that there was a fine balance to be struck as a reduction in living space or an increase in costs should be avoided. He urged all Members to support the motion.

Councillor J Geary concurred that anyone with a full driving licence should be able to aim a car into a 2m wide entrance. He added that the problem was opening the car door once the vehicle was inside the garage, which was why he supported this motion. He stated that the Members Planning Forum was surely the appropriate place to debate this issue. He asked officers to relax their attitude to the Members Planning Forum meetings as it currently consisted mainly of presentations from developers.

Councillor D J Stevenson stated that he would welcome the chance to visit these properties with the Ward Members. He added that with the exception of disabled people, 6’ 6” was sufficient space to get in and out of a car and referred to the size of the parking spaces on the car park. He stated that he had previously fitted garage doors and he had only ever received requests to increase the height of the door. He added that people should not buy a house if the garage was not going to be big enough. He commented that women often chose a house and men often paid for it, and the last thing taken into consideration was the garage door.

The Chairman called for order at this point in the meeting.

Councillor D J Stevenson requested the names and addresses pertaining to the complaints received.

The Chairman reminded Members that it was not appropriate to give names and addresses in a public meeting and called for order.

Councillor T J Pendleton stated that this was the wrong forum to discuss this matter and suggested that Councillor J Legrys raise it at the Members Planning Forum. He added that this was a complicated issue and needed due consideration. He advised Members that 19 September was the final date for including items of consideration for the supplementary planning document. He added that he was not prepared to deal with planning ‘on the hoof’. He commented that it was the Labour government who had passed the current policy. He referred to the superb improvements made by the Council’s Urban Designer. He concluded that this was simply not the place to debate this fully and once again urged Councillor J Legrys to raise the matter at the Members Planning Forum.

Councillor J Legrys interjected that the Leader was calling for Councillor T J Pendleton to conclude.

The Chairman called for order at this point in the meeting.

Councillor T J Pendleton urged Members to vote against the motion and stated he would bring the matter forward for consideration in the supplementary planning document.

Councillor T Neilson expressed disbelief that a motion on garage doors had become a political foray. He commented that the motion was not seeking to accommodate the ‘dinosaurs’ driven by some Members opposite.

The Chairman called for order at this point in the meeting.

Councillor T Neilson concluded that the Portfolio Holder had indicated he would bring this forward for consideration in the supplementary planning document and therefore he could not understand why Members would vote against the motion. He reiterated the importance of this issue for some residents and added that it was a shame the subject had become a political football.

Councillor A C Saffell commented that this issue had become very political but it simply needed to be sensibly sorted out. He added that this was not the right forum to discuss it. He stated that he had just looked up the dimensions of his car, which was considered to be a medium-sized car, and it was 6’ 9” wide and would not go through a door which was 2m wide. He concurred that garages were too small. He added that if 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling was specified, and the garage was one of those spaces, it should accommodate a car. He concluded that this was wrong and a common sense approach needed to be adopted.

Councillor N Smith commented that John Prescott had introduced the policy which specified 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling. He recalled a previous planning application which had provided 1 garage for 7 flats, and Members were advised that they could not object on this basis. He disagreed with Councillor M Specht’s comments as both his Bentleys were more than 2m wide.

Councillor J Legrys called for the Chairman to move to the vote.

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

The Chairman called for order at this point.

Supporting documents:

Snibston Discovery Park Business Plan 2011/12 to 2013/14 - Black Radley, item 23. PDF 397 KB