Home > Agenda item

Agenda item

Council Debate Motions

To debate any motions submitted in accordance with Council Procedure Rules.

Minutes:

The Mayor requested that the Chief Executive read out the first Council Debate Motion made on behalf of the Administration: “This Council fully recognises the importance of all our residents living in the Private Rented Sector and their right to healthy, safe and secure accommodation.  We also note the rise in the numbers of families, older people and those living on lower incomes in this sector.  Nothing can be more important than the place you call home and given the support from landlords, tenants and other residents, the Council recommends that all necessary steps are taken to ensure there is a renewed landlords’ licensing scheme beyond 2020”.

 

The Mayor invited Councillor Butler, the Cabinet Member for Home and Gateway Services, to propose the motion. The Cabinet Member stressed that there was nothing more important than having a home. Councillor Butler described the increase in numbers in privately rented homes and how there were landlords who took pride in their business and those who didn’t. The importance of the Council holding landlords to account was stressed; those in the private rented sector should be open to the same scrutiny as social landlords. The importance of allowing concerns with how properties were managed to be raised was noted and that this was about ensuring housing was safe. The Cabinet Member explained that the majority of landlords pay £350 for a five year registration to the Landlords’ Licensing Scheme. This allowed important advice to be given to some landlords whilst others had been banned from renting their properties and some homes had been judged too small for renting.

 

The Cabinet Member detailed how the Landlords’ Licensing Scheme provided powers of entry and the ability to tackle issues at a time of considerable cuts. The scheme allowed macro information on the scale of the private rented sector to be collected on which basis it could be determined where intervention was needed. It also allowed the Council to work in partnership with the private rented sector to address issues such as anti-social behaviour, demonstrating the Council was listening to landlords and on their side. The Cabinet Member recommended the motion to the Members of Council.

 

Councillor Clark seconded the motion and reserved the right to speak.

 

The Mayor invited Councillor Hale to speak on the motion who noted that the scheme had been based on a selected consultation conducted in 2015 and had subsequently failed to drive up quality or to address anti-social behaviour effectively. Councillor Hale noted that the 36,000 registrations had raised £15m but that thus far the scheme had not been evaluated and so it was not possible to demonstrate the positives of the scheme. The call to make the scheme robust and targeted based on an evaluation was made. Councillor Hale described how 20% of those in housing covered by the scheme had raised issues but that only 19 financial penalties had been imposed as a result of the scheme and just two licenses revoked. Whilst this was evidence of the improved quality of housing there was no evidence that anti-social behaviour had been addressed. As a result the Councillor said she was unable to support the motion and would be abstaining because whilst residents had a right to good quality housing, the motion did nothing to demonstrate this would be achieved as a result of the scheme.

 

The Mayor invited Councillor Tim Pollard to speak on the motion who questioned the basis of the motion and suggested that it was seeking to gain endorsement of a way that Labour Councils were raising revenue. Councillor Pollard stressed that the Council already had the powers it needed to address issues with private rented accommodation and that the costs of the scheme were set against a backdrop of rents and landlord costs rising sharply. It was highlighted that there was no evidence of improvement in the quality of accommodation in the private rented sector as a result of the scheme with its voluntary status meaning the worst landlords were failing to register altogether. Councillor Pollard recommended that a lower cost scheme should be used so that landlords didn’t feel the need to pass the charge onto residents. He called on the scheme to be more focused on effectiveness and not just a way of raising funds. It was emphasised that it is a role of the Council to drive up the quality of accommodation on the basis of which he would be abstaining from the vote as he did not want to give the Administration any form of blank cheque.

 

Councillor Clark was invited to speak in support of the motion by the Mayor. The Councillor described the Landlords’ Licensing Scheme as a significant success having achieved 35,000 registrations but that its continuation would require the approval of the Secretary of State.  Councillor Clark recommended talking to Fairfield residents about their housing issues where not one of them was against the scheme. Through the scheme they had raised issues such as the length of tenancies and the safety of their accommodation, which were very real issues. Councillor Clark noted that the Government had shown where its priorities lay by not taking action and that the Permitted Development Scheme allowed housing issues to be circumvented. Councillor Clark expressed his disappointed but that he was not surprised that the Opposition was abstaining from the motion.

 

The Mayor put the motion to the vote which was passed.

 

The Mayor requested that the Chief Executive read out the second Council Debate Motion made on behalf of the Opposition: “This Council recognises the vital role that green spaces, trees and gardens play in providing a sustainable and healthy borough and is committed to protecting Croydon’s green spaces that do so much for our environment, our health and our well-being.

 

This Council will use the Local Plan partial review as a means of protecting these vital spaces by changing policy to ensure their protection. This will include measures such as protecting garden space from encroaching backland development, and a greater protection for trees and biodiversity.

 

This Council will also use its development company, Brick by Brick, to lead the way and cease developing on green spaces. This Council will, therefore, remove its proposals to rip up and develop on valued land like the grass and trees on Shepherds Way where the community of Monks Hill holds its fun day, the green heart of the estate at Farnborough Avenue which was central to its original design and the green space at Covington Way in Upper Norwood that local residents are fighting to protect.

 

This Council also recognises that it was wrong to develop over green spaces and play areas in Montpelier Road, Heathfield Gardens, Longheath Gardens and Tollers Estate to name but a few.

 

Green spaces should not be destroyed as they provide a vital lung in our suburban environment and once they are destroyed they are lost forever.

 

Councillor Helen Pollard, invited to propose the motion by the Mayor, opened by stressing the seriousness with which she takes the views of residents who regard the Administration’s approach to the protection of green spaces as shambolic and disingenuous. Councillor Pollard described how, during the process of adoption of the local plan, green spaces in the borough had been left vulnerable. The Administration had only started to address this in June 2019 with the implication being that they were fair game for developers. It was highlighted that green spaces were being sold to the Council’s developer Brick by Brick and that these sales had been agreed with great speed. Shock was expressed at the list of sites identified and the implication that sites at the heart of communities were to be concreted over.  Having raised awareness of this development amongst residents, Councillor Pollard described how she had collected over 1,000 signatures in order to conduct a Local Petition Debate at Council. However, this had not been allowed to progress given it had been judged that it was not possible to determine that a significant number of signatures had been provided by those resident, working or studying in the Borough. Councillor Pollard stated that she would welcome a meeting with Councillor Butler and described how letters had been sent out saying work was about to start to develop the sites sold to Brick By Brick.

 

Councillor Butler interjected with a point of personal information. It was clarified that the letters did not state that work was about to start. Rather the letters were about being open and transparent and gave residents notification that initial work surveying sites to asses suitability for development was about to begin.

 

During this exchange, Councillor Butler used unbecoming language in reference to Councillor Pollard for which the Cabinet Member gave an apology to Council.

 

Councillor Helen Pollard concluded in proposing the motion by stressing that residents were fed-up with being ignored by a Council that does not care.

 

Councillor Gatland seconded the motion and reserved the right to speak.

 

The Mayor invited Councillor Avis to speak on the motion who highlighted that the Opposition was not providing any solutions to housing need in the borough and that the portrayal of the surveying of sites as the start of development was misleading. Councillor Avis emphasised that Councillor Butler had been trying to explain the protection that the Council was trying to give to the borough’s green spaces and called on the Opposition to stop scaring residents. At a time when the Opposition was claiming not enough was being done to protect green spaces, the Council had achieved national nature reserve status for a fourth site in the borough. The Councillor emphasised that the aim was simply to build homes for young people using Council land but that the Opposition was doing its best to thwart this in every way. This was described as a shame and pulling the ladder up on those yet to have a home.

 

During her comments, Councillor Avis used unbecoming language in reference to Councillor Helen Pollard for which the Cabinet Member gave an apology to Council following the interjection of the Mayor.

 

The Mayor invited Councillor Wood to speak on the motion who acknowledged the importance of green spaces in addition to protecting the environment and planet. It was noted that most were gardens already protected from building that required planning permission. However, this had to be balanced with the duty to act, a duty based on a belief in society. Councillor Wood emphasised that 46,000 homes were needed over the next three years meaning that the limited open space would need to be used for development but that this was just one part of the plan to strike the right balance. It was reiterated that the Opposition was providing no alternatives and that the Administration needed to make difficult decisions.

 

The Mayor invited Councillor Gatland to speak to the motion. She described how she had listened with great interest to the debate and commended the environmental activists who were present in the Chamber. However, Councillor Gatland noted that the Administration would be judged on its actions and not its words. Allowing grass verges to grow was welcomed but it was wondered why the same approach wasn’t being applied to those green spaces that had been identified for potential development by Brick By Brick. Councillor Gatland highlighted that these spaces were community gardens and were often the only green spaces available to those living in the surrounding area. The link to retaining green spaces and trees with action to address climate change, improving air quality and protecting health outcomes for residents was emphasised. The Administration was clearing nature rather than working with it and prioritising its relationships with developers. Councillor Gatland called for a more balanced approach similar to that taken in Sutton. This was described as standing up for residents and listening to their representations as well as planning for future need rather than rushing to implement the dictates of the Mayor of London. The Administration was called on to work alongside nature and for its Members to be brave and vote for the motion.

 

The Mayor put the motion to the vote and fell.