Agenda

Question 1 – To the Leader of the Council – Asked by Sebastian Soar

First, I would like to thank the Leader of the Council for being so generous with his time and for spending an hour with me earlier this month discussing this issue.

When people think about the benefits of working in the public sector, and particularly in local government, one of the things they often associate with it is a strong and inclusive employment package. In many respects, that is true. However, there is one area where policy has failed to keep pace with modern working lives and changing expectations around equality: paternity leave.

Gedling Borough Council’s current paternity leave arrangements, like those of many local authorities, were developed in a policy environment that no longer reflects where we are as a society. They do not fully reflect the progress we have made in challenging traditional gender roles, supporting greater equality between men and women, and recognising the importance of fathers being able to play a meaningful role in the earliest weeks of their child’s life.

Enhanced paternity leave is a relatively low-cost policy with potentially significant benefits. It can support fathers, mothers and children at one of the most important periods in family life; give families the time and financial security they need to adjust to a new child; support maternal wellbeing and a more equal sharing of caring responsibilities; and help the Council attract and retain staff by demonstrating that it is a genuinely family-friendly employer.

With that in mind, and given that other councils have already begun to enhance their paternity leave policies, will the Council commit to reviewing its paternity leave policy as a matter of priority, with the aim of introducing six weeks of fully paid paternity leave for employees of Gedling Borough Council?

Question 2 – To the Portfolio Holder Climate Change, Parks, and Environmental Health

Hi, i’m a fourteen year old boy who lives near conway park, i was just wondering if it would be possible for a volleyball net to be put in at the tennis facilities on conway park, and for the court to be done, i know it’s a big ask but i think it’d open up a lot more opportunities for people and maybe get more people interested in the sport as it is quite underrepresented.

Question 3 – To the Chair of Planning Committee.

How do I found out if a HMO grant has been agreed for the area I Live and why are the residents not consulted before applicants are agreed.

Question from Cllr Maltby to the Portfolio Holder for Environmental Services (Operations)

How many missed bin collections has there been per ward over the past 12 months?

Question from Cllr Hughes to the Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Community Protection, Communications and Engagement

Could the Leader please tell me how much money has been spent on preparations for LGR on consultants etc; and provide an estimate of how many hours of senior officer time have been committed to preparing for the now paused Local Government Reorganisation.

Question from Cllr Ellwood to the Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Community Protection, Communications and Engagement

Concerns have been raised by local residents concerning littering near to commercial properties within Phoenix Ward. What action does the Council intend to do to address this matter?

Question from Cllr Whiting to the Chair of Planning Committee

To ask what steps Gedling Borough Council takes to ensure that planning applications are adequately enforced, especially in the construction phase of projects.

Question from Cllr Whiting to the Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Community Protection, Communications and Engagement

Following the recent decision to pause LGR will any remaining budget allocated to LGR now be reallocated to other areas?

Question from Cllr Meads to the Portfolio Holder for Sustainable Growth and Economy

There seems to be a misconception, especially on social media, that planning applications cannot be submitted for sites identified within the Gedling draft local development plan until the plan is adopted in 2028. But is it in fact correct that planning applications could be submitted at any time a developer wishes for these sites? Then any planning applications would be determined on the basis of their merits at the time of submission, and as the draft local development plan progress through the process to adoption the planning officers will afford any planning applications that come in for these sites more weight.

Question from Cllr Meads to the Portfolio Holder for Sustainable Growth and Economy

Is it correct that when deciding on the housing site allocation in the draft Gedling local development plan, the defined settlement and spatial development hierarchy was strictly adhered to, and decisions evidenced based, in other words was the total housing allocation met in this order:

First) sites within the main built-up urban area

Second) sites adjoining the main built-up urban area

Third) sites at Linby around Oak House

Fourth) sites at the key settlements of Ravenshead, Bestwood village, and Calverton

Finally sites around the other villages within the borough?

Report of the Leader of the Council

Report of the Senior Leadership Team

Report of the Chief Finance Officer & Section 151 Officer

Report of the Assistant Director - Development

Report of the Democratic Services Manager

Motion 1

Motion: LGR cost to local taxpayers and government reimbursement

Council notes that:  

• In the face of potentially unlawful decision making, and allegations of gerrymandering, the Labour Government has announced a review of Local Government Reorganisation, with decisions in some areas withdrawn and implementation work across Nottinghamshire paused.

• Gedling Borough Council, and Councils across the country, have already spent significant amounts of taxpayers’ money and officer time preparing for Local Government Reorganisation at the Labour Government’s request.

• Much of this work has been undertaken because councils were working to deadlines and requirements set by the Labour Government.

Council believes that:  

• Local residents should not be left to pick up the bill for a process which the Government has now chosen to pause.

• At a time when council finances are already under enormous pressure, every pound unnecessarily spent on Local Government Reorganisation is a pound which cannot be spent on improving the services our residents rely on.

• It should be democratically elected local councils, in consultation with local residents, to decide on whether or not to put forward (locally-led) proposals for restructuring

Council resolves: 

• To direct the Chief Executive and Section 151 Officer to establish the full cost to this Council of Local Government Reorganisation to date.

• To direct the Leader of the Council to write to the Secretary of State and our local Members of Parliaments making clear that:

o   Local taxpayers should not be expected to pay for the Government’s LGR U-turn. 

o   Call on the Government to reimburse this Council for all costs incurred as a direct result of the Local Government Reorganisation process.

o   Call on the Government to provide clear answers about the future of Local Government Reorganisation before councils are expected to spend any more taxpayers’ money on the process.

o   To make clear this council’s view that the Local Government Boundary Commission for England must be involved in reviewing any local government boundary, ward and council size proposals submitted to the Secretary of State by councils in due course.

Proposed by Cllr Mike Adams

Seconded by Cllr Martin Smith

Motion 2

Motion: Application of parking standards to houses in multiple occupation

This Council notes that:

1. Gedling Borough Council’s Parking Provision for Residential and Non-Residential Developments Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), adopted in February 2022, establishes minimum parking standards for new development and is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications.
2. The SPD states that its purpose is to ensure that new development is supported by an appropriate level of parking and provides a framework for determining and negotiating parking requirements on planning applications.
3. The SPD sets parking requirements according to factors including the type and size of residential development, the number of bedrooms and whether a site is located in an urban or rural area.
4. The SPD does not, however, expressly set out a specific parking standard for Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs).
5. The Nottinghamshire County Council Highway Design Guide does set out parking  ...  view the full agenda text for item 12.