Agenda and minutes

No declarations of interest were made.

RESOLVED

that the minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 23 September 2021, as now submitted, be received and approved.

Leader of the Council

The Leader of the Council took the opportunity to remind Members that Ashfield District Council had been honoured with the Gold Award for Outstanding Support to the Armed Forces.

The Council was one of just eleven organisations in the East Midlands to have received the Employer Recognition Scheme Gold Award for their outstanding support towards the Armed Forces community.  Along with the Leader, the Chief Executive, the Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Council and Social Housing and the Armed Forces Covenant lead officer, attended the awards ceremony at the Royal Armouries in Leeds on 25 November 2021.

Mention was also made of the Council Staff Award ceremony that had taken place earlier in the afternoon and a list of all the worthy winners.  The Leader reiterated his appreciation for all Council employees that has gone above and beyond during the pandemic, to deliver a full range of services to the residents of Ashfield.

Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Council and Social Housing

The Deputy Leader advised Members that in relation to the Council’s 2018 pledge to build a hundred new properties to add to the Council’s housing stock, 4 units had now been completed with a further 50 identified for development in the near future.

(None received for this meeting)

No questions were received for consideration.

Petition 1

To consider a petition submitted by Mandy Shaw with 7653 signatories (3504 e-petition and 4149 paper signatures) as follows:-

“We the undersigned petition the council to reject the proposal to permit the development of the Greenbelt land in and around Whyburn Farm, Hucknall.”

Petition 2

To consider a petition submitted by Laura Gapski subject to confirmation that the total number of signatures reaches the threshold of 1500 signatories by the petition closing date of 1 December 2021:-

“We the undersigned petition the council to Reject the proposal to permit the development of 1000 homes, a school and associated amenities, in accordance with the Draft Local Plan 2020-2038 on the greenfield land around Cauldwell Road and Derby Road, Sutton-In-Ashfield.”

The Council received two petitions for consideration:

Petition 1

Submitted by Mandy Shaw with 7653 signatories as follows:-

“We the undersigned petition the council to reject the proposal to

permit the development of the Greenbelt land in and around Whyburn

Farm, Hucknall.”

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12.6 and the Council’s Petition

Scheme, Mandy Shaw addressed the Council for the prescribed five

minutes. The petition, containing over 1500 signatures, was duly debated for a maximum of fifteen minutes.

RESOLVED

that the matter be referred back to Cabinet for further discussion.

Petition 2

Submitted by Laura Gapski with 1686 signatories as follows:-

“We the undersigned petition the council to Reject the proposal to

permit the development of 1000 homes, a school and associated

amenities, in accordance with the Draft Local Plan 2020-2038 on the

greenfield land around Cauldwell Road and Derby Road, Sutton-In Ashfield.”

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12.6 and the Council’s Petition

Scheme, Laura Gapski addressed the Council for the prescribed five

minutes. The petition, containing over 1500 signatures, was duly debated for a maximum of fifteen minutes.

RESOLVED

that the matter be referred back to Cabinet for further discussion.

The Leader of the Council advised as follows:-

“In accordance with Rule 17.2 of the Access to Information Procedure Rules it

is necessary for me to inform Council when an executive decision has been

taken pursuant to Rule 16 (Special Urgency Provisions.)

I can inform the Council that one such decision has been taken by me as a

matter of urgency recently.

The decision relates to the temporary extension of project management services to support progression of key milestones and submissions for the Towns Fund and Future High Street Projects. The contract is due to end and an extension is required to fill the gap for four weeks whilst a procurement exercise is completed, to appoint a project management company for the delivery of the project programmes.

The decision was not key but contained exempt information and the full 28 days’ notice could not be given due to the need to secure the temporary extension, thus ensuring continuity of service in the interim.

The Rule 16 Notice and the non-exempt elements of the decision have been

published.”

(During consideration of this item, Councillor Jamie Bell entered the meeting at 5.10pm.)

Council was recommended to approve acceptance of the Home Office 2021/22 (Round 3) Safer Streets funding from the Office of the Police and Crime for Nottinghamshire and to include the capital funding in the Council’s Capital Programme.

RESOLVED that

a)    the work undertaken to date and the continued development to secure funding and deliver initiatives to improve community safety throughout the District, be received and noted;

b)    approval be given to accept the Safer Streets funding from the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner of Nottinghamshire (OPCC) and for the capital funding to be included as part of the Capital Programme.

In accordance with the Council Procedure Rule 2(ix), Council considered the

following recommendation:-

Minute No. L.10

Licensing Committee - 11 November 2021

Review of the Statement of Gambling Policy

RESOLVED

that the revised Statement of Gambling Policy and the maintenance of the “No Casino” Resolution, effective from 31st January 2022, be approved.

The following Cabinet Members gave updates in relation to their portfolio activity:

1.    Councillor Matthew Relf - Portfolio Holder for Regeneration and Planning

2.    Councillor Jason Zadrozny – Leader of the Council

3.    Councillor Helen-Ann Smith – Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Community Safety and Crime Reduction

4.    Councillor Kier Barsby - Portfolio Holder for Environmental Improvements, Corporate Communications and Cross Portfolio Support

5.    Councillor Samantha Deakin - Portfolio Holder for Parks, Town Centres and

6.    Neighbourhood Services

7.    Councillor Daniel Williamson – Portfolio Holder for Customer Services, Corporate Change and Digital Transformation

8.    Councillor David Martin – Portfolio Holder for Finance, Revenues and Benefits

9.    Councillor Rachel Madden - Portfolio Holder for Leisure, Health and Wellbeing

10.Councillor John Wilmott - - Portfolio Holder for Licensing, Environmental Health and Regulatory Services.

(In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 30, it was moved by Councillor

Keir Morrison and seconded by Councillor Lauren Mitchell that Procedure

Rules 10 (Duration of Meeting) and 23 (Conclusion of Proceedings) be

suspended, for the duration of the meeting, to enable all matters on the

agenda to be satisfactorily concluded. Having been put to the vote, the Council agreed with this course of action.)

(During consideration of this item, Councillor Melanie Darrington left the meeting at 6.10pm.)

Motion 1

To consider a notice of motion proposed by Councillor Lauren Mitchell and seconded by Councillor Kevin Rostance, as follows:-

“Considerable opposition to the development proposals within the Draft Local Plan to expand Hucknall has been advanced by the people of Hucknall.

This Council therefore resolves to request the Cabinet (in conjunction with the Local Plan Steering Group) to fully take into account the consultation submissions and to address the opposition to the Draft Local Plan by the people of Hucknall by:

a)    Urgently reviewing, with a view to considering whether to amend at the earliest possible opportunity, this version of the Draft Local Plan which objectors consider allocates a disproportionate number of new dwellings to Hucknall and destroys a significant portion of Green Belt land; and

b)    Considering whether to replace it, at the earliest possible opportunity, with an amended Draft Local Plan that places greater weight upon the scale of development that has already occurred and been allocated in Hucknall, that allocates a greater level of new housing beyond Hucknall across Ashfield District, and that seeks to ensure that any such Plan is sustainable.

c)    Considering the adequacy of all infrastructure and services for such development as is proposed for Hucknall.”

The Council received a notice of motion moved by Councillor Lauren Mitchell and seconded by Councillor Kevin Rostance as follows:-

“Considerable opposition to the development proposals within the Draft Local Plan to expand Hucknall has been advanced by the people of Hucknall.

This Council therefore resolves to request the Cabinet (in conjunction with the Local Plan Steering Group) to fully take into account the consultation submissions and to address the opposition to the Draft Local Plan by the people of Hucknall by:

a)    Urgently reviewing, with a view to considering whether to amend at the earliest possible opportunity, this version of the Draft Local Plan which objectors consider allocates a disproportionate number of new dwellings to Hucknall and destroys a significant portion of Green Belt land; and

b)    Considering whether to replace it, at the earliest possible opportunity, with an amended Draft Local Plan that places greater weight upon the scale of development that has already occurred and been allocated in Hucknall, that allocates a greater level of new housing beyond Hucknall across Ashfield District, and that seeks to ensure that any such Plan is sustainable.

c)    Considering the adequacy of all infrastructure and services for such development as is proposed for Hucknall.”

Following an explanation from the Chairman in relation to Council Procedure Rule 14.4 and the process for considering a motion that is the responsibility of the Cabinet, the motion once moved and seconded was duly referred back to Cabinet for further discussion without debate.

Question 1

Question from Councillor Keir Morrison to the Portfolio Holder for Parks, Town Centres and Neighbourhood Services:

“It has been revealed that Piggins Croft car park in Hucknall is Ashfield District Councils' preferred location for the development of a new health facility.  If the build goes ahead, could the portfolio holder tell us where and how the council proposes to replace and increase lost town centre car parking?”

Question from Councillor Keir Morrison to the Portfolio Holder for Parks, Town Centres and Neighbourhood Services:

“It has been revealed that Piggins Croft car park in Hucknall is Ashfield District Councils' preferred location for the development of a new health facility. If the build goes ahead, could the portfolio holder tell us where and how the council proposes to replace and increase lost town centre car parking?”

The Portfolio Holder responded and firstly outlined how the Council had been extremely supportive of better health care infrastructure for Hucknall and since the Ashfield Independents had taken control, they had been instrumental in securing £1 million pounds towards a new facility for Hucknall and had kept the town centre vibrant with the 2-hour free parking offer and arranging a series of events.

The selection of a preferred site for a new facility would be undertaken by the Integrated Care Commission (ICC) and the Cavell Centre Programme Board and as yet no formal proposal has been submitted to the Council, although it was understood that the preferred location was currently the town centre.

Once the proposal had been submitted part of the assessment would be the site’s location and its relationship with the town centre.  Another consideration would be the provision of suitable parking requirements and its connection to public transport facilities. 

The Portfolio Holder advised that she could not comment on the potential impact of such a development at this present time.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 13.5, Councillor Morrison was

invited to ask a supplementary question as follows:

“Thank you for your answer; could you provide a timeline in terms of who could potentially bring the proposal to the Council regarding the health facility and when those decisions are likely to be made and at what forum or at what committee?

The Portfolio Holder responded again and advised that although the Council was in contact with the ICC and the Cavell Board in relation to the new facility proposals, no timelines could be given as of yet.  Further information would be sought and provided in writing to Councillor Morrison.

(None received for this meeting)

There were no questions submitted by Members.