To debate any motions submitted in accordance with Council Procedure Rules.
Minutes:
The Mayor requested the Chief Executive read the first Council Debate Motion made on behalf of the Administration:
“This Council notes that fly-tipping incidents in England have risen to over one million per year, and records appreciation for the huge efforts of our workforce to address the problem within our own borough at a time of severe financial pressures.
We call upon the government to run a national media campaign against fly tipping that spells out the environmental impact and the waste of public money clearing up after those who fly tip, that further spells out how that money could be better spent on other public services.
We call upon the government to debate the issue in parliament with a view to legislating tougher penalties, giving additional funding to local authorities to address fly-tipping, and in consultation with local authorities to review guidance to courts so that the worst offenders face more severe penalties.
We call on the government to further consider legislation on deposit schemes and incentives for manufacturers delivering bulky household goods to provide a new for old collection service”.
The Mayor invited Councillor Collins to propose the motion.
Councillor Collins explained that the motion was seeking cross party support to lobby Government to take a stand against those who fly-tip. This was reported as having increased by 40% in six years with councils on average spending £87m on clear-ups which was money that could be spent on other services. The Cabinet Member congratulated enforcement officers for their work in the Borough dealing with fly-tipping. Research had found that one in five residents admitted to fly-tipping and didn’t know what constituted fly-tipping. Councillor Collins called on Government to show it was taking the issue seriously. The comparison was made with drink driving; there was a need to demonstrate the consequences of fly-tipping to create a social stigma so that it was no longer thought acceptable. The Cabinet Member stressed that there could no longer be any excuses. Rather individuals had to take responsibility. Councillor Collins also called for positive Government action for schemes to reduce and return packaging. In closing, Councillor Collins called for penalties for fly-tipping to be tougher, for those convicted to be required to do Community Service to clear-up fly-tipped rubbish and for the Opposition to support the motion and to stand by what was right.
Councillor Jewitt seconded the motion and reserved her right to speak.
The Mayor invited Councillor Creatura to speak who remarked that the Labour Group, in its motion, was arguing fly-tipping was a national problem and that it had done all it could. However, Councillor Creatura emphasised that fly-tipping in Croydon had increased significantly more than in other London Boroughs which was due to poor local policies and a lack of political management. The Councillor described the experience of one resident in using the Council’s bulky waste service; they had waited three months for their collection which had happened but not on the day requested. This meant that Croydon was failing to meet the recommendations from Keep Britain Tidy on reducing the hassle factor in disposing of waste. Councillor Creatura described Labour as admitting defeat and needing the national Conservative Government to ride to the rescue. However, the Opposition Group would support the motion as it was keen to tackle fly-tipping. Councillor Creatura highlighted that if the Labour Party had given up, it should let local Conservatives takeover the reigns as it was ready to step-in.
Councillor Hopley was invited to speak by the Mayor who stated that the Administration didn’t want to take responsibly for its own failure. Councillor Hopley stated that the increase in fly-tipping in Croydon was the result of the decisions taken by the Administration and the Cabinet Member. Councillor Hopley described how residents were turned away by the contact centre and told to report fly-tipping online. As a result items were left strewn across the Borough. The issues for those living in flats were described as particularly acute with rubbished left to pile up on grassy areas and walls with the hope of attracting attention. Purley Oaks Recycling Centre was described as refusing to allow walk-ins. Also that extra garden waste collections were being refused and Christmas trees had still not been collected. Councillor Hopley highlighted the decision to dispose of all the neighbourhood recycling centres and that residents were not happy because they were having to store recycling indoors for up to two weeks between collections when they could previously have taken it to recycling centres daily. It was stressed that it was directly the responsibly of the Administration to get a grip of the issue.
Councillor Jewitt exercised her right to speak and highlighted that it was not the role of Council to undermine but to support the work done by the waste management team. It was explained that Croydon benefitted from having residents who were good at reporting incidents of fly-tipping which made the issue in Croydon seem larger than in other Boroughs. Councillor Jewitt called on Government to step up and do more, expressing the wish to work together. The message that fly-tipping was antisocial behaviour and would not be tolerated needed to be communicated across a range of channels. Enforcement action needed to be taken against landlords who threw out belongings and furnishings when tenants moved on including revocation of their landlord licenses. Funding was needed for school co-ordinators to educate children in school to be better at managing their waste. Councillor Jewitt called for cross party support for this proposal.
The motion was put to the vote and carried unanimously.
The Mayor requested the Chief Executive read the second Council Debate Motion made on behalf of the Opposition:
“This Council regrets that this administration has failed to accept the 8700 unit reduction in Croydon’s housing targets in the London Plan, made by Government Inspectors and accepted by the Mayor of London. Instead this Labour Council is continuing to impose unreasonably high targets on the borough and is prepared to sacrifice green belt and green spaces in order to do so.
This Council further regrets that despite declaring a climate change emergency it is failing to protect green space and is indeed guilty of building on Council owned green space across the borough through its wholly owned development company, Brick by Brick.
This Council should take the opportunity offered by a Croydon Local Plan refresh as the means to enhance and protect our green spaces, rather than decimate them across the borough, as they play such a vital role in the wellbeing of our residents and are so vital to tackling climate change”.
The Mayor invited Councillor Helen Pollard to propose the motion.
Councillor Helen Pollard stated that the Administration had a single minded campaign against green spaces. This was demonstrated by there being no protection for parks in the Local Plan and the sale of green spaces to Brick By Brick for building. This was happening at the same time as a climate emergency and the loss of green spaces was therefore affecting the quality of life of residents. It was stressed that the Administration did not have to do this. Councillor Helen Pollard called on the people of Croydon to be alert to the potential of building on green spaces. This included even small green spaces. It was described how these could be put up for sale at any time including Boxing Day. Residents were advised to put up a petition and to campaign against such proposals as experienced had shown that in the face of overwhelming opposition it was possible to change the minds of the Administration and its developers. Additionally, residents were recommended to be inquisitive and follow the example of Friends groups that had made Freedom of Information requests. Councillor Helen Pollard called on residents to be persistent and not to give up because otherwise, many more green spaces would be lost forever if they weren’t protected.
Councillor Perry seconded the motion and reserved the right to speak.
The Mayor invited Councillor Scott to speak who described how the Council was facing two acute emergencies: climate change and the housing crisis. The Council therefore had to protect the environment and provide enough homes for all those in need. As detailed in the Local Plan, the Council was rising to the challenge with 46,000 homes proposed to be built over the next 20 years. This figure was based on the standard methodology and meant that Croydon was making a fair and reasonable contribution to the London Plan. Delivery of that target was being undertaken sustainably with most development happening in the town centre. Development would also happen on the Purley Way and through suburban intensification. The Cabinet Member explained how whilst it was not his preference to build new homes on the green belt, that option was also being explored through the Local Plan consultation. It was acknowledged that some open land would need to be developed but that this would not be at the expense of biodiversity. Councillor Scott called for a sensible reasoned debate and to work together to deliver sustainable growth, to reject the motion and move forward positively.
The Mayor invited Councillor Prince to speak who expressed her pleasure at the Opposition’s commitment to tackle climate change and welcomed its commitment on other measures to tackle the climate emergency. It was thought that there had been some misunderstanding of the Local Plan review. This covered how the new homes required might be delivered at the same time as ensuring the green spaces needed for health and wellbeing through the development of a green grid. Croydon’s housing targets were achieved in line with the national planning policy framework and reflected the Government’s very high targets. Whilst the London Plan covered a period of 10 years, Croydon’s Local Plan spanned a 20 year period. This meant it had to take into consideration the homes that would be needed by the children going through schools in the Borough at the time of the meeting. It was also noted that it was wrong to imply that the London Plan was final. There was no proposal to downgrade green space designations and in fact, some were proposed to have higher designations. The comments of the Secretary of State for Housing, Local Government and Communities on the London Plan would be taken into consideration. The inaccuracies in the motion were noted with regret and in closing Councillor Prince stated that the motion could not be supported.
Councillor Perry exercised his right to speak and described how with the Administration it was always someone else’s fault. Rather than pushing back on the original high targets in the London Plan, the Administration had accepted these and sought funding. The Planning Inspectors had since judged that these targets were too high but those reductions had not been accepted by the Administration which was going to deliver them by destroying green belt despite the protection in place. It was highlighted that in 2018 the Administration hadn’t bothered to consult with Friends groups on the Local Plan. The reduction in numbers in the London Plan meant there was no justification to touch the green belt. The Minister for London was described as having stated his commitment to protect the green belt. The Administration was described as hypocritical for claiming to protect the environment whilst also planning to build on the green belt. It was hoped the Administration would listen to responses to the Local Plan consultation as there was no evidence of it having previously listening to residents.
The Mayor put the motion to the vote which fell.