Agenda item

To deal with matters raised by members of the public resident within the Borough, of which notice has been given in accordance with the procedures relating to public questions, motions or petitions set out in Paragraph 36 to 46 of the Council and Committee Procedure Rules in Chapter 4 of the Council Constitution.

The Mayor reported that in accordance with the Council’s Petition Scheme, two petitions had been submitted for consideration at the Council meeting, as follows:

 

(a)      The first petition containing 2,920 signatures had been submitted by Ms. Juliet Edgar on behalf of ‘Stand Up in Bootle’ and residents of Sefton.

 

The Petition stated:

 

“We:

 

(1)       demand that Sefton Council passes a resolution to call on the Coalition Government to drop the ‘Bedroom Tax’;

 

(2)       demand that Sefton Council passes a resolution to refuse to implement the ‘Bedroom Tax’ within the Sefton Council Benefit Department; and

 

(3)       also demand that Sefton Council exerts pressure on the 23 housing associations within its area, to adopt a policy of ‘No Evictions’ for ‘Bedroom Tax’ arrears.”

 

The lead petitioner, Ms. Edgar, made a statement in support of the petition.

 

The Leader of the Council (Councillor P. Dowd) thanked Ms. Edgar for the submission of the petition and indicated that he supported the calls for the repeal of the ‘Bedroom Tax; that the Council, along with other local authorities had a statutory duty  to implement the legislation and the Council was holding discussions with local housing associations on procedures for assisting their tenants

 

A debate then took place on the content of the petition and a number of Members of the Council indicated their support for the repeal of the ‘Bedroom Tax’ and for more socially rented property to be made available in the Borough.

 

Following the debate, it was moved by Councillor Maher  and seconded by Councillor P. Dowd :

 

“That this Council calls on this or any future Government of whatsoever Party to repeal the ‘Bedroom Tax.”

 

An amendment was moved by Councillor Brodie – Browne, seconded by Councillor Robertson that the Motion be amended by the addition of the following text:

 

“(2)      That the Government be requested to repeal the ‘Bedroom Tax’ for the private rented sector and expand the number of socially rented property available.”

 

Councillor Maher indicated that he accepted the amendment and on a show of hands, the Mayor declared that the Amended Motion was carried by 47 votes to 7, with 1 abstention and it was

 

RESOLVED:

 

(1)       That the Council calls on this or any future Government of whatsoever Party to repeal the ‘Bedroom Tax; and

 

(2)       That the Government be requested to repeal the ‘Bedroom Tax’ for the private rented sector and expand the number of socially rented property available.

 

(b)      The Mayor reported that the second petition containing 3,581 signatures had been submitted by Mrs Maria Bennett on behalf of Formby Residents Action Group Opposition From Formby (FRAGOFF)

 

Petition Summary and Background:

 

“Sefton’s local plan, formulated over the last 5 years continues to show little regard for the green belt. Our Council will, in the upcoming months, embark on a Public Consultatation Process, using household population figures that they themselves concede are not an accurate reflection of current housing need. Most up to date Government figures show the Council’s projections to be at least 20% too high. We believe this anomaly is so significant that it undermines the validity of the Consultation exercise.”

 

The action petitioned for was:

 

“We the undersigned urge the Council, officers, elected members and Leader to amend the ‘Preferred Option’ plan to reflect the most recent and up to date Government statistics which clearly show a significant reduction in housing need, sheds doubt on the necessity for large edge of town industrial parks, which in the absence of sufficient  demand, threatens local traders, damaging town centres.”

 

The lead petitioner, Mrs Bennett, made a statement in support of the petition.

 

The Leader of the Council (Councillor P. Dowd) thanked Mrs Bennett for the submission of the petition and indicated that the intention of the Council was, and always would be, to protect greenbelt and green spaces as much as it possibly can within the bounds of the planning law and regulation and in the context of the Coalition Government’s drive for economic growth. He then made the following comments on the content of the petition:

 

1.         Sefton’s emerging Local Plan does not show ‘little regard’ for Sefton’s green belt as suggested in the petition. The Plan proposed a controlled and limited release of a small amount (3.7%) of green belt to deliver the houses and jobs that Sefton needs up to 2030. The Coalition Government’s policy made it clear that it was entirely appropriate to review green belt boundaries when preparing a local plan.

 

2.         The evidence the Council had commissioned set out clearly what Sefton’s needs are and the Government expected the Council to plan to meet those needs in the Local Plan. The best way to protect Sefton’s green belt was to plan to meet those needs and if it did not do this, the Local Plan would not be approved by the Government Inspector. It would be found unsound and would leave Sefton vulnerable to unplanned development on green belt sites that the Council would have very limited control over.

 

3.         The consultation exercise exceeds statutory requirements. The Council was required to consult for 6 weeks and would be consulting for 12 weeks to encourage as much involvement as possible.

 

4.         The Plan relied on the most up-to-date completeevidence and this was further supported by independent evidence specific to Sefton. The Council had not stated that any population figures relied upon were not accurate, as suggested in the petition. The Council had been open on this point and it was covered in the report as referred to in pararaph 6.3 on page 35 of the agenda pack.

 

5.         It was not appropriate to use Office of National Statistics interimhousehold projections to inform this stage of the plan, for the following reasons, which were clearly explained in the report:

 

·           they were interim and would be superseded in 2014;

 

·           they did not cover a significant part of the plan period and only looked forward to 2021;

 

·           they took no account of a planned Government review of household formation rates due to be published next year; and

 

·           they made no allowance for vacant or second homes which would further increase the ‘interim’ figures from 399 per annum to 420 per annum. However, even using the interim figures this would mean significant numbers of houses being allocated to the green belt.

 

6.         The Council had been very clear and advised that it would review the housing requirement further next year when the appropriate data was published by the Government. It had been indicated to the Council that the population figures would be available in April 2014 and hopefully the household formation figures some months later. Indeed, to accommodate this, the addendum note to the report sought approval to an amendment to the recommendations asking for the publication date to be put back from June/July 2014 to August/September 2014. 

 

7.         To make any assumptions, post 2021, based on interim figures, would be unsound in planning terms and in any event the Planning Inspector would fully expect this update to be done before the Council submitted the final Local Plan for examination.

 

8.         The petition refers to large edge of town industrial parks, suggesting that these would threaten local traders and damage town centres. The Plan proposed to allocate 3 new employment sites in the green belt.  These allocations did not include retail parks/uses. The Plan aims to encourage regeneration and redevelopment of Sefton’s town centres in order to help sustain them.

 

9.         Two of the business parks/employment sites would be primarily developed with quality office and light industrial type uses. The Crowland Street site would be a continuation of the types of industrial uses already operating there. The 3 employment sites would create opportunities for approximately 4,000 new jobs in Sefton over the Plan period. These would provide local employment opportunities and benefits to the local economy. These jobs would also help to support the local economy and town centres and not damage them as suggested in the petition.

 

A debate then took place on the content of the petition and Members of the Council made the following comments on the petition:

 

·         the robustness of the statistics in the Preferred Option Document, which currently indicated that 510 homes per annum would need to be provided during the period of the Local Plan, due to an increase in inward migration, would need to be challenged.

 

·         concerns were raised about the loss of green belt land and Grade 1 agricultural land.

 

·         concerns were raised about the impact of the proposals on the services provided by local hospitals and local schools.

 

Following the debate, it was moved by Councillor P. Dowd, seconded by Councillor Maher and

 

RESOLVED:

 

That the petition be noted and the issues be considered during the debate under Minute No. 26 below.