Councillors and committees

Agenda item

Community Motion under Standing Order 7A

Under Standing Order 7(A), a minimum of 500 interested people may present a motion for debate relevant to an issue which affects the Royal Borough at any ordinary meeting of the Council.  An interested person is defined as somebody who lives, works, studies or owns a property or business in the Borough.  The Council shall consider the motion as soon as possible and, wherever practicable, at its next ordinary meeting. 

 

At the meeting, a representative of the signatories will have a period of up to five minutes to address the meeting on the subject.  A further period of up to ten minutes shall be allowed for questions and answers, following which there will be a maximum of 30 minutes in which members of the public present will be given the opportunity to address the meeting for up to 3 minutes each.  After this time, the Council will consider the motion and may accept, modify or reject it.

 

In accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 7A, a community motion, which has been accepted as valid, has been submitted as follows: 

 

“Demanding Better on Resident Parking

"This Council notes:

- the failure of the Liberal Democrat administration to meet their promises, set out in their 2018 local manifesto, to "", and instead pursue a regressive tax on residents living within CPZs;

- the huge public outcry in response to these changes, which has resulted in a petition of over 2000 signatures;

- the lack of openness and transparency in consultation carried out by the current administration and the feelings being expressed by residents that consultation is just a tick box exercise, that they are being ignored by RBK and that the Council is just doing whatever it wants to do; and

- the failure of the Liberal Democrat administration to meet their promise, set out in their 2018 local manifesto, to '', which further reinforces the feeling that RBK will just do whatever it wants to, regardless of the views of residents.

This Council believes:

- the Liberal Democrat council is not engaging with residents; that public consultation has been poor in general but particularly bad in regard to the proposed CPZ charges;

- it is important to find ways to drive behavioural change and improve air quality in the borough by discouraging unnecessary car journeys, encouraging the use of environmentally friendly forms of transport, through less regressive means;

- a regressive tax on older vehicles, whilst allowing newly purchased £100k cars to have free permits, will hit the financially vulnerable the most in our borough; and

- it is imperative that residents feel the council is doing things with residents, not to residents, and, as such, does not consider consultations a 'tick-box' exercise.

This Council resolves to:

                     i.        listen to and engage with our residents;

                    ii.        be sure we have identified groups that need to be included in our consultations and communications;

                   iii.        properly consult with our residents on issues that affect them;

                   iv.        be accountable to our residents;

                    v.        make sure senior Administration politicians are answerable to our residents for policy and that they do not stand behind Council officers who are employed to implement policy agreed by politicians; and

                   vi.        in light of the thousands of residents who have displayed their opposition to the proposed CPZ charges, to immediately halt the rollout of changes to resident parking permits, and seek a better way forward."

 

A briefing paper will be circulated prior to the Council meeting to assist Members to debate this Community Motion.

Minutes:

(1)  The Council agreed to bring forward this item on the agenda because of the large numbers of members of the public attending for it.

(2) Standing Order 7(A) provides for a minimum of 500 interested people to present at any ordinary meeting of the Council a motion for debate relevant to an issue which affects the Royal Borough. 

(3)  In accordance with the Standing Order the following community motion was presented by Mr James Giles:

 “Demanding Better on Resident Parking

A.   "This Council notes:

(i)         the failure of the Liberal Democrat administration to meet their promises, set out in their 2018 local manifesto, to "", and instead pursue a regressive tax on residents living within CPZs;

(ii)       the huge public outcry in response to these changes, which has resulted in a petition of over 2000 signatures;

(iii)      the lack of openness and transparency in consultation carried out by the current administration and the feelings being expressed by residents that consultation is just a tick box exercise, that they are being ignored by RBK and that the Council is just doing whatever it wants to do; and

(iv)      the failure of the Liberal Democrat administration to meet their promise, set out in their 2018 local manifesto, to '', which further reinforces the feeling that RBK will just do whatever it wants to, regardless of the views of residents.

B.   This Council believes:

(i)         the Liberal Democrat Council is not engaging with residents; that public consultation has been poor in general but particularly bad in regard to the proposed CPZ charges;

(ii)       it is important to find ways to drive behavioural change and improve air quality in the borough by discouraging unnecessary car journeys, encouraging the use of environmentally friendly forms of transport, through less regressive means;

(iii)      a regressive tax on older vehicles, whilst allowing newly purchased £100k cars to have free permits, will hit the financially vulnerable the most in our borough; and

(iv)      it is imperative that residents feel the Council is doing things with residents, not to residents, and, as such, does not consider consultations a 'tick-box' exercise.

C.   This Council resolves to:

(i)         listen to and engage with our residents;

(ii)       be sure we have identified groups that need to be included in our consultations and communications;

(iii)      properly consult with our residents on issues that affect them;

(iv)      be accountable to our residents;

(v)       make sure senior Administration politicians are answerable to our residents for policy and that they do not stand behind Council officers who are employed to implement policy agreed by politicians; and

(vi)      in light of the thousands of residents who have displayed their opposition to the proposed CPZ charges, to immediately halt the rollout of changes to resident parking permits, and seek a better way forward."

 

(4)  A briefing paper had been circulated prior to the Council meeting to assist Members to debate this Community Motion.  The Council heard representations from ten members of the community as follows: Stephen Reilly, Charles Deacon, Georgina Hall, Suzanne Harrison, Andrew Brand, Jo Wright, Ann Taylor, Les Csonge, Harm van Eynsbergen, and Damon Noad.

(5)  The Standing Order provides that the Council, having considered a community motion, may accept, modify or reject it.   After initial debate, the Leader of the Council, Councillor Liz Green, moved and Councillor Patricia Bamford seconded that the community motion be modified by omitting Sections 3A and 3B (above) and retaining Section 3C (i-vi) (above)

(6)  At 11:10pm the Mayor asked that the Council meeting be adjourned to allow relevant Portfolio Holders to receive advice on the financial implications of the Leader’s motion.  The meeting reconvened at 11:15pm.

(7)  Councillor David Cunningham moved and Councillor Kevin Davis seconded that the Council’s Standing Orders be varied to allow Mr James Giles as presenter of the community motion to respond to the debate and sum up the community motion.  Councillor Cunningham asked for a named vote on his motion.  A named vote on this motion having been taken, the motion was declared defeated.

Voting:

For: 12 Members of the Council (Councillors Roy Arora, Rowena Bass, David Cunningham, Kevin Davis, Mark Durrant, Ed Fram, Ian George, Liz Green, Jason Hughes, Maria Netley, Dave Ryder-Mills and Sharron Falchikov-Sumner)

Against: 16 Members of the Council (Councillors Stephanie Archer, Tricia Bamford, Mark Beynon, Tim Cobbett, Emily Davey, Lorraine Dunstone, Sam Foulder-Hughes, Hilary Gander, Jaesung Ha, Alison Holt, Caroline Kerr, Katrina Lidbetter, John Sweeney, Olly Wehring, Annette Wookey and Sharon Young)

Abstaining: 12 Members of the Council (the Mayor, Councillor Thay Thayalan, the Deputy Mayor, Councillor Olivia Boult, and Councillors Zain Abbas, Kim Bailey, Simon Edwards, Andreas Kirsch, Rebekah Moll, Malcolm Self, Margaret Thompson, Jon Tolley, Diane White and Yogan Yoganathan)

(8) The motion as set out in paragraph (5) above was put to the vote and was declared carried.

Voting:

For: 31 members of the Council  (The Deputy Mayor (Councillor Olivia Boult) and Councillors Zain Abbas, Stephanie Archer, Kim Bailey, Tricia Bamford, Mark Beynon, Tim Cobbett, Emily Davey, Lorraine Dunstone, Mark Durrant, Sharron Falchikov-Sumner, Sam Foulder-Hughes, Hilary Gander, Liz Green, Jaesung Ha, Alison Holt, Caroline Kerr, Andreas Kirsch, Katrina Lidbetter, Rebekah Moll, Dave Ryder-Mills, Anita Schaper, Malcolm Self, John Sweeney, Margaret Thompson, Jon Tolley, Olly Wehring, Diane White, Annette Wookey, Yogan Yoganathan and Sharon Young.)

Against: 8 members of the Council (Councillors Roy Arora, Rowena Bass, David Cunningham, Kevin Davis, Ed Fram, Ian George, Jason Hughes, and Maria Netley)

Abstaining: 2 Members of the Council (the Mayor, Councillor Thay Thayalan and Councillor Simon Edwards)

(9)     On being put to the vote, the substantive motion was declared carried as follows:

This Council resolves to:

(i)      listen to and engage with our residents;

(ii)     be sure we have identified groups that need to be included in our consultations and communications;

(iii)    properly consult with our residents on issues that affect them;

(iv)    be accountable to our residents;

(v)     make sure senior Administration politicians are answerable to our residents for policy and that they do not stand behind Council officers who are employed to implement policy agreed by politicians; and

(vi)    in light of the thousands of residents who have displayed their opposition to the proposed CPZ charges, to immediately halt the rollout of changes to resident parking permits, and seek a better way forward."

Voting - unanimous