Agenda item

Councillor Stephen Giles-Medhurst, seconded by Councillor Sarah Nelmes, to move under notice duly given as follows:

Motion 1

Council notes that the Member of Parliament for South West Herts (covering the majority of the Three Rivers Council area) has issued a leaflet at the end of May signed by him making a false claim about this Council.

The MP stated in this leaflet:

"The Liberal Democrat Council in Three Rivers have been pressing on with plans to build over 1,000 new dwellings across two of our green belt sites, which falls within the Chilterns’ Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)".

 

This is false.

In fact, the Council has not proposed or supported any development on any site within the Chilterns’ Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

Without exception, every application for development on any site within the AONB has been rejected by Three Rivers Council (including both the current applications in respect of the Green Street site in Chorleywood).

The Council has not consulted about Green Street, Chorleywood or any other site in the AONB as a potential development site in its emerging Local Plan.

Council therefore expects the MP to withdraw the leaflet, issue a retraction and a public apology for misleading residents if he has not already done so as asked of him on 31 May.

 

Council instructs the Chief Executive to write again to the MP setting out the facts, seek assurances that he will not repeat misleading facts again and request a retraction and a public apology for misleading residents within 5 working days of this motion being passed if so a retraction has not already been received.

 

Council notes that its officers will, as have they have done so previously, rigorously defend any refusal of planning before the governments planning inspector and will do so re the Green Street, Chorleywood proposals.

 

Motion 2

Councillor Stephen Giles-Medhurst, seconded by Councillor Sara Bedford, to move under Notice duly given as follows:

Green Belt and Local Plan

Council notes various pronouncements made by Michael Gove as Secretary of State for Levelling Up & Communities and other prominent Conservative MPs that the standard methodology for calculating housing numbers is not going to be compulsory and that councils need not build on the Green Belt, although such changes have not yet been applied to legalisation councils are required to follow.

Council believes that our towns and villages are important to communities and that the green space within and around them is precious.

Council therefore requests that officers continue to work on:

1. Conducting further search for brownfield land, with publicity to landowners and the public.

2. Preparing a draft Local Plan with an evidence-based approach to safeguard undeveloped Green Belt land.

3. Ensure there is an evidence-based response to support the approach outlined in 2 above in any submission we are required to make to the planning inspectorate.

 

Motion 3

 

Councillor Reena Ranger, seconded by Councillor Ciaran Reed to move under Notice duly given as follows:

 

This Council notes that on 4 March 2022, the Mayor of London announced his plan to expand the Ultra-Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) from its current boundary of the North and South Circulars to cover almost all of Greater London. These plans would see ULEZ expanded by 29 August 2023 to the border of Three Rivers.

This Council notes that, whilst ULEZ was originally introduced covering the same area and with the same boundaries as the Congestion Charge Zone, on 25^th October 2021, it was expanded by 18 times its original size to its current boundaries.

This Council notes that this significant change took place less than two years ago and that the ramifications have yet to be fully assessed.

This Council notes that expansion would mean that those with non-compliant vehicles would pay £12.50 per day to drive within the ULEZ. Some of our residents would be forced to pay more to get to visit their doctor, dentist, drop or collect small children from school or nursery, work, visit friends and family and local businesses and high streets. This will cost jobs, damage the social fabric of the local area, and encourage businesses to locate elsewhere.

This Council notes that Transport for London’s own modelling shows there would be no air pollution benefits in Three Rivers, despite the high cost to Three Rivers residents.

This Council notes this would be a regressive tax and those with less choice disproportionately penalised.

This Council further notes that this expansion would mean many more areas with poor public transport would be included within the zone; this is fundamentally unfair on those residents, who would be unable to afford to keep or replace their car and would thus be forced to rely on inadequate levels of public transport.

This Council welcomes the claim brought by Harrow, Hillingdon, Bexley, Bromley, and Surrey councils in challenging the lawfulness of the decision to expand ULEZ on the grounds that the Mayor did not comply with statutory requirements, the Mayor did not consider all material considerations, the Mayor conducted an unfair and unlawful consultation, and the scrappage scheme is irrational.

Therefore, this Council:

•       opposes measures to push up the cost of living in Three Rivers by imposing taxes and charges on residents who rely on motor vehicles without providing them with realistic alternatives and have no democratic option to oppose this

•       calls on the Leader to send a letter to the Mayor of London calling on him to withdraw his planned ULEZ expansion and instead, to focus the almost £400 million that he has set aside for it on fairer and more effective ways of improving London and Hertfordshire’s air quality.

•       supports the application for judicial review brought against the Mayor of London by Harrow, Hillingdon, Bexley, Bromley, and Surrey councils.

Motion 4

 

Councillor Abbas Merali, seconded by Councillor Philip Hearn to move under Notice duly given as follows:

 

Three Rivers District Council recognises the important place that local sports clubs have for the communities in Three Rivers.

Three Rivers District Council believes that local sports clubs provide great social and health benefits to the community, increasing participating in physical activity and providing locations and activities that bring people together for a common purpose.

Three Rivers District Council further supports the independence of local sports clubs as excellent examples of the community self-organising.

Three Rivers District Council therefore understands that it should be an objective of the council to support local sports clubs and ensure their long-term financial viability.

Three Rivers District Council supports the Government’s new funding to invest in grassroots football facilities to ensure that local clubs across the country can flourish, with a further £168 million being invested into facilities in England by 2025, on top of a continued £18 million annually.

Three Rivers District Council commits to support local sports clubs across the District by highlighting grants available to them and providing advice on how to apply for grants as well as to consider favourably funding applications including CIL applications, from this council.

 

Motion 1

Councillor Stephen Giles-Medhurst moved, seconded by Councillor Sarah Nelmes under notice duly given the motion as follows:

Council notes that the Member of Parliament for South West Herts (covering the majority of the Three Rivers Council area) has issued a leaflet at the end of May signed by him making a false claim about this Council.

 

The MP stated in this leaflet:

"The Liberal Democrat Council in Three Rivers have been pressing on with plans to build over 1,000 new dwellings across two of our green belt sites, which falls within the Chilterns’ Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)".

 

This is false.

In fact, the Council has not proposed or supported any development on any site within the Chilterns’ Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

Without exception, every application for development on any site within the AONB has been rejected by Three Rivers Council (including both the current applications in respect of the Green Street site in Chorleywood).

 

The Council has not consulted about Green Street, Chorleywood or any other site in the AONB as a potential development site in its emerging Local Plan.

Council therefore expects the MP to withdraw the leaflet, issue a retraction and a public apology for misleading residents if he has not already done so as asked of him on 31 May.

 

Council instructs the Chief Executive to write again to the MP setting out the facts, seek assurances that he will not repeat misleading facts again and request a retraction and a public apology for misleading residents within 5 working days of this motion being passed if so a retraction has not already been received.

 

Council notes that its officers will, as have they have done so previously, rigorously defend any refusal of planning before the governments planning inspector and will do so re the Green Street, Chorleywood proposals.

 

Councillor Oliver Cooper moved, seconded by Councillor Philip Hearn the following amendments to the motion:

•       Before the first original paragraph, add four paragraphs reading:

•       “Council notes its desire for better-informed public debate on the most important issues affecting local residents.

•       “Council notes a number of misleading communications, including a recent leaflet distributed by the district councillors for Chorleywood South & Maple Cross, which claimed that the Local Cycling & Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) was developed and proposed by “consultants for Hertfordshire County Council”.

•       “This is false, as the first line of the LCWIP states, “This document is the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan for Watford Borough Council (WBC) and Three Rivers District Council (TRDC), developed with these two local authorities and in partnership with Hertfordshire County Council (HCC) as the Highway Authority.”

•       “TRDC’s leading role in proposing the plan has also been made clear in multiple statements issued by the Lead Member through official communications and in the officers’ report to IHED in October 2022.”

•       In the first original paragraph, before “Council”, add “In addition, this”.

•       In the fifth original paragraph, after “(AONB)”, add "and the applications in question were unanimously rejected by members of all parties at the Planning Committee.  It would only have been correct if he had referred to the Green Belt, not AONB.”

•       Add a new paragraph after the fifth original paragraph, reading: “This Council reminds all officeholders of the importance of releasing factually accurate information to our residents.”

•       Delete all after.

It was advised by the Monitoring Officer that the proposed amendments were contrary to Rule 16(6d) as they had the effect of negating the motion and could not be considered.

On being put to Council the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair of Council the voting being 26 For, 0 Against and 9 Abstentions (one Councillor was not present in the room for the vote).

RESOLVED:

The council notes that the Member of Parliament for Southwest Herts (covering the majority of the Three Rivers Council area) has issued a leaflet at the end of May signed by him making a false claim about this Council.

 

The MP stated in this leaflet:

"The Liberal Democrat Council in Three Rivers have been pressing on with plans to build over 1,000 new dwellings across two of our green belt sites, which falls within the Chilterns’ Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)".

 

This is false.

 

In fact, the Council has not proposed or supported any development on any site within the Chilterns’ Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

Without exception, every application for development on any site within the AONB has been rejected by Three Rivers Council (including both the current applications in respect of the Green Street site in Chorleywood).

 

The Council has not consulted about Green Street, Chorleywood or any other site in the AONB as a potential development site in its emerging Local Plan.

Council therefore expects the MP to withdraw the leaflet, issue a retraction and a public apology for misleading residents if he has not already done so as asked of him on 31 May.

 

Council instructs the Chief Executive to write again to the MP setting out the facts, seek assurances that he will not repeat misleading facts again and request a retraction and a public apology for misleading residents within 5 working days of this motion being passed if so a retraction has not already been received.

 

Council notes that its officers will, as have they have done so previously, rigorously defend any refusal of planning before the governments planning inspector and will do so re the Green Street, Chorleywood proposals.

 

Motion 2

Councillor Stephen Giles-Medhurst moved, seconded by Councillor Sara Bedford under notice duly given the motion as follows with additional point 4:

Green Belt and Local Plan

Council notes various pronouncements made by Michael Gove as Secretary of State for Levelling Up & Communities and other prominent Conservative MPs that the standard methodology for calculating housing numbers is not going to be compulsory and that councils need not build on the Green Belt, although such changes have not yet been applied to legalisation councils are required to follow.

Council believes that our towns and villages are important to communities and that the green space within and around them is precious.

Council therefore requests that officers continue to work on:

1. Conducting further search for brownfield land, with publicity to landowners and the public.

2. Preparing a draft Local Plan with an evidence-based approach to safeguard undeveloped Green Belt land.

3. Ensure there is an evidence-based response to support the approach outlined in 2 above in any submission we are required to make to the planning inspectorate.

4. That in light of misleading and inaccurate information being circulated across the District about the Local Plan and planning decisions, the Council should use all facilities at its disposal to correctly inform residents of the factually correct information concerning the Local Plan and other matters.

Councillor Ciaran Reed, seconded by Councillor Oliver Cooper proposed an amendment to the motion as follows, which was rejected by the proposer of the motion.

•       In numbered list 2, after “land”, add:

•       “and that does not allocate any sites in the Green Belt for development unless the site is both:

•       (i)           substantially developed; and

•       (ii)          where the harm to the Green Belt from development is either low or moderate

On being put to Council the substantive motion with the addition of point 4 was declared CARRIED by the Chair of Council the voting being by general assent.

RESOLVED:

Green Belt and Local Plan

 

Council notes various pronouncements made by Michael Gove as Secretary of State for Levelling Up & Communities and other prominent Conservative MPs that the standard methodology for calculating housing numbers is not going to be compulsory and that councils need not build on the Green Belt, although such changes have not yet been applied to legalisation councils are required to follow.

 

Council believes that our towns and villages are important to communities and that the green space within and around them is precious.

 

Council therefore requests that officers continue to work on:

1. Conducting further search for brownfield land, with publicity to landowners and the public.

2. Preparing a draft Local Plan with an evidence-based approach to safeguard undeveloped Green Belt land.

3. Ensure there is an evidence-based response to support the approach outlined in 2 above in any submission we are required to make to the planning inspectorate.

4. That in light of misleading and inaccurate information being circulated across the District about the Local Plan and planning decisions, the Council should use all facilities at its disposal to correctly inform residents of the factually correct information concerning the Local Plan and other matters.

Motions 3 and 4 fell under Rule 11(4)

 

 

 

CHAIR