| 50 | A. Upon a Notice of Motion received in the name of Councillor Gillam, a proposition was moved by Councillor Gillam and seconded by Councillor Pratt in the following terms:-
" Council notes that
1. The quantity of affordable housing specified in the Borough's Local Plan, 20% on sites of over one hectare, is insufficient to meet the need for such housing in the Borough
2. Many Councils around the country are specifying higher figures, some as high as 50%.
The council will therefore seek to ensure that, following the public consultation on the Local Development Framework, the needs of local people for affordable housing are met."
The Mayor put the proposition to the meeting and declared the same carried and it was:-
RESOLVED:
Council notes that
1. The quantity of affordable housing specified in the Borough's Local Plan, 20% on sites of over one hectare, is insufficient to meet the need for such housing in the Borough
2. Many Councils around the country are specifying higher figures, some as high as 50%.
The council will therefore seek to ensure that, following the public consultation on the Local Development Framework, the needs of local people for affordable housing are met."
B. Upon a Notice of Motion received in the name of Councillor R.F. Spencer, it was proposed by Councillor R.F. Spencer and seconded by Councillor Golland:-
‘i. At a residents meeting on Monday 18 September 2006, the Police Local Area Commander complained that he has more Police but they are so tied down with paperwork that he has less operational police on the beat.
Therefore this Council resolves to write to our MP's to ask why the residents of Gedling Borough are paying for more policing but are actually getting less.'
An amendment was moved by Councillor Gollop and seconded by Councillor Feeney in the following terms:-
At a recent residents meeting on Monday 18 September 2006, the Police reported an increase in resources.
This Council recognises the increased resourcing of the divisional police force which has resulted in an increased number of police officers.
It calls on the Portfolio Holder for Crime Reduction to write to the Divisional Commander and the LACs to welcome this improvement and pledges the Council's support to the continuing work on improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the force. Through the newly merged CDRP, the Council will continue to work in partnership to develop the community policing initiative.
The Mayor put the amendment to the meeting and declared the same carried.
The amendment then became the substantive proposition and upon the Mayor putting the proposition to the meeting it was declared carried and it was:-
RESOLVED:
At a recent residents meeting on Monday 18 September 2006, the Police reported an increase in resources.
This Council recognises the increased resourcing of the divisional police force which has resulted in an increased number of police officers.
It calls on the Portfolio Holder for Crime Reduction to write to the Divisional Commander and the LACs to welcome this improvement and pledges the Council's support to the continuing work on improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the force. Through the newly merged CDRP, the Council will continue to work in partnership to develop the community policing initiative.
C. Upon a Notice of Motion received in the name of Councillor Gollop, it was proposed by Councillor Gollop and seconded by Councillor Feeney : -
‘i. This Council recognises the significant strides taken to reduce crime in the Borough and wishes to place on record its congratulations to the police, the PCSOs and the Neighbourhood Wardens for their work on the front line of that action.
It calls on the Portfolio Holder for Crime Reduction to write to the appropriate bodies to pass on our thanks, and reassure their organisations of the continuing support of this Council, in terms of both action and resources, to continue to further reduce crime levels
It calls on the Cabinet to continue the current subsidy to the Police for the employment of Police Community Support Officers for the financial year 2007/08 and to continue to consult with the Council Tax payers of Gedling with regard to further subsidy'.
An amendment was moved by Councillor Golland and seconded by Councillor R.F. Spencer in the following terms:-
delete the final word of the last sentence 'subsidy' and add the following words, 'additional subsidy in subsequent years to increase the number of PCSO's'
The Mayor put the amendment to the meeting and declared the same carried.
The amendment then became the substantive proposition and upon the Mayor putting the proposition to the meeting it was declared carried and it was:-
RESOLVED:
This Council recognises the significant strides taken to reduce crime in the Borough and wishes to place on record its congratulations to the police, the PCSOs and the Neighbourhood Wardens for their work on the front line of that action.
It calls on the Portfolio Holder for Crime Reduction to write to the appropriate bodies to pass on our thanks, and reassure their organisations of the continuing support of this Council, in terms of both action and resources, to continue to further reduce crime levels
It calls on the Cabinet to continue the current subsidy to the Police for the employment of Police Community Support Officers for the financial year 2007/08 and to continue to consult with the Council Tax payers of Gedling with regard to a further additional subsidy in subsequent years to increase the number of PCSO's'
D. Before moving the Notice of motion previously submitted, Councillor Gollop sought and received the approval of the Council under Standing Order 14.1.1 to alter the motion of which he had given notice, by the deletion of the final sentence contained in the final paragraph and with the addition of:-
'Therefore it calls on the Leader of the Council to take immediate action to resolve this situation.
It further resolves to request that the Portfolio Holder for Housing write to the tenants of Killisick Court and to individuals and organisations that have expressed an interest in the subject, setting out the reasons for the decision and pointing out that all parties on the council supported that decision'.
It was thereupon moved by Councillor Gollop and seconded by Councillor McCrossen that:-
‘This Council has grave concerns about the current controversy regarding its Housing Strategy
That Strategy was received and passed by the Cabinet on 13 January 2005 and by Full Council, with unanimous cross party support on 9 February 2005 - both under the leadership of Councillor R. Spencer.
Since then work has progressed on Priority Action 9, namely seeking funding for a new homeless hostel and domestic violence refuge, as detailed in Chapter 6 of the Strategy. Work has focused on progressing a scheme which takes account of property that has been difficult to let while having the potential to meet the need outlined above.
Since that time members of the Conservative group, most prominently the Leader of the Council Councillor R. Spencer, have attempted to entirely divorce themselves from their own and the Council's policy.
Despite these supposed misgivings, Councillor R. Spencer, brought forward to Cabinet on the 3 August 2006, as Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Finance, proposed amendments to the 2006/07 Capital Programme which included the sum of £98,900 for ‘Killisick Court - Temp Accomm for Families'. Moved and passed the same with a Conservative majority. He further seconded the same report when it was presented to the Personnel and Resources Committee on the 4 September 2006. Since which time he has continued to declare he is opposed to the scheme and informed members of the public that he has removed this money from the budget. This is not the case and is demonstrably not so according to the Council's own record of decisions.
He does however have Executive powers under Gedling's Constitution to redesignate the use of Killisick Court, over-ruling both the Portfolio Holder and the Council's policy. This he has been challenged to do in order to give clarity to members of the public and Council officers. This opportunity continues to be available but remains unused. This is clearly not in the best interests of the Council or the Community.
Further as Finance Portfolio Holder, it is incumbent on Councillor R Spencer to show clearly where funding will come from in order to allow the Council to meet its responsibilities with regard to refuge accommodation for domestic abuse victims and homeless families. He also needs to identify facilities and fully costed support mechanism to allow for the provision of the appropriate care and aid required by and for these emergency cases.
'Therefore it calls on the Leader of the Council to take immediate action to resolve this situation.
It further resolves to request that the Portfolio Holder for Housing write to the tenants of Killisick Court and to individuals and organisations that have expressed an interest in the subject, setting out the reasons for the decision and pointing out that all parties on the council supported that decision.'
An amendment was moved by Councillor Spencer and seconded by Councillor Golland in the following terms:-
That the Motion be amended by the deletion of all the words after the first sentence and with the addition of further words so as to read as follows:-
'Having listened to the concerns of local residents, the Council will confirm the reinstatement of Killisick Court to elderly persons accommodation and will consult AKRA in the design and refurbishment. As regards homeless accommodation we would ask the Deputy Chief Executive to look into the possibility of a Registered Social Landlord buying Balmoral House with a remit to demolish and replace with high quality supervised provision.'
The Mayor put the amendment to the meeting and declared the same defeated.
A request was made by two Members for a named vote on the substantive proposition and upon the Mayor putting the proposition to the meeting, the voting was as follows:-
For the proposition
Councillors P.G. Barnes, S.J. Barnes, A.A. Clarke, Cole, Creamer, Dunkin, Feeney, Gillam, Gollop, Griffiths, Lane, Luckett, Maddock, McCrossen, Poynter, Pratt, Preston, Pulk, Ragsdale, Rigby, Tunnicliffe and Wright.
Against the proposition
Councillors Bexon, Bradley, Chandran, G.V. Clarke, Golland, Goodwin, Grainger, Kempster, Nicholson, Parr, Pepper, Prew-Smith, J.J. Spencer, M.S. Spencer, R.F. Spencer and Tanner.
The Mayor declared the proposition carried and it was:-
RESOLVED:
‘This Council has grave concerns about the current controversy regarding its Housing Strategy
That Strategy was received and passed by the Cabinet on 13 January 2005 and by Full Council, with unanimous cross party support on 9 February 2005 - both under the leadership of Councillor R. Spencer.
Since then work has progressed on Priority Action 9, namely seeking funding for a new homeless hostel and domestic violence refuge, as detailed in Chapter 6 of the Strategy. Work has focused on progressing a scheme which takes account of property that has been difficult to let while having the potential to meet the need outlined above.
Since that time members of the Conservative group, most prominently the Leader of the Council Councillor R. Spencer, have attempted to entirely divorce themselves from their own and the Council's policy.
Despite these supposed misgivings, Councillor R. Spencer, brought forward to Cabinet on the 3 August 2006, as Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Finance, proposed amendments to the 2006/07 Capital Programme which included the sum of £98,900 for ‘Killisick Court - Temp Accomm for Families'. Moved and passed the same with a Conservative majority. He further seconded the same report when it was presented to the Personnel and Resources Committee on the 4 September 2006. Since which time he has continued to declare he is opposed to the scheme and informed members of the public that he has removed this money from the budget. This is not the case and is demonstrably not so according to the Council's own record of decisions.
He does however have Executive powers under Gedling's Constitution to redesignate the use of Killisick Court, over-ruling both the Portfolio Holder and the Council's policy. This he has been challenged to do in order to give clarity to members of the public and Council officers. This opportunity continues to be available but remains unused. This is clearly not in the best interests of the Council or the Community.
Further as Finance Portfolio Holder, it is incumbent on Councillor R Spencer to show clearly where funding will come from in order to allow the Council to meet its responsibilities with regard to refuge accommodation for domestic abuse victims and homeless families. He also needs to identify facilities and fully costed support mechanism to allow for the provision of the appropriate care and aid required by and for these emergency cases.
Therefore it calls on the Leader of the Council to take immediate action to resolve this situation.
It further resolves to request that the Portfolio Holder for Housing write to the tenants of Killisick Court and to individuals and organisations that have expressed an interest in the subject, setting out the reasons for the decision and pointing out that all parties on the council supported that decision. |