Agenda item

The Chairman informed Members that four motions had been submitted to the meeting.  The motions related to:

(i)                 Cross Party working on the Buckinghamshire Council Local Plan.

(ii)               Day Travel Card.

(iii)              Implementing a 20 mph speed limit on roads outside all schools in Buckinghamshire.

(iv)              Scrutiny.

 

(i)                 Cross Party working on the Buckinghamshire Council Local Plan.

 

The motion was proposed by Councillor Stuart Wilson and seconded by Councillor Robin Stuchbury –

 

“This Council regards the development of the new Buckinghamshire Council Local Plan (LP4B) as one of the most significant actions during this Council term of office to May 2025 and the next. It understands the importance of creating the LP4B based on the widest possible views from all parts of the county as represented by the elected Members. It is noted that cross-political group participation in its development is absolutely necessary to ensure that there is fair and transparent representation across all sections of our communities, towns, villages and rural areas.

 

Council requires Cabinet to ensure that:

 

a.                  All future LP4B working parties/task & finish groups and such like involving any Members will include Group Leaders or their delegates as full participants; and,

b.                  All future LP4B working parties/task & finish groups and such like involving any Members will also include additional representatives from all political groups, as a minimum in line with political proportionality, to ensure any geographical or other gaps are covered.”

 

Councillor Wilson briefing explained the rationale of the motion.  During the debate the Cabinet Member for Planning and Regeneration explained the role and makeup of the Local Plan Working Group, and detailed the scrutiny and consultation that would be undertaken as the Local Plan was being developed.

 

At the conclusion of the debate, a requisite number of Members present requested that a recorded vote be held.  Following a recorded vote, the motion was declared to be LOST.

 

Voting was as follows:

 

FOR (25): Councillors Baldwin, Bates, Baughan, Cooper, Dixon, Gemmell, Guy, D Hayday, O Hayday, I Hussain, Majid Hussain, N Hussain, T Hussain, James, Kayani, Kelly, R Khan BEM, Morgan, Poland-Goodyer, W Raja, G Smith, M Smith, Stuchbury, Wheelhouse and Wilson.

 

AGAINST (80): Councillors Adoh, Alam, Anthony, Ashman, Ayub, Bagge, Barnes, Barrett, Baum, Birchley, Blamires, Bond, Bowles, Bracken, Brazier, Broadbent, Broom, Brown, Carington, Carroll, B Chapple OBE, S Chapple, Chaudry, Chhokar, Chilver, Collins, Cornell, Cranmer, Culverhouse, Darby, Egleton, Fealey, Flys, Gomm, Goss, Green, M Harker OBE, Harriss, Heap, A Hussain, Maz Hussain, Mahboob Hussain JP, Irwin, Jackson, Jordan, King, Knight, MacBean, A Macpherson, I Macpherson, Mahon, Martin, R Matthews, W Matthews, Mohammed, Mordue, Newcombe, Oliver, Osibogun, Poll, Rana, Rand, Rouse, L Smith BEM, Southworth, Stannard, Strachan, Sullivan, Tett, Thomas, Thompson, Towns, M Turner, P Turner, L Walsh, Ward, Waters, Williams, Winn and K Wood.

 

ABSTENTIONS:  There were none.

 

(ii)               Day Travel Card

 

The motion was proposed by Councillor Steven Broadbent and seconded by Councillor Martin Tett –

 

“This council notes the proposed removal of Day Travel Cards by the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, for those travelling into and throughout London. This will result in Buckinghamshire residents having to buy separate Rail and London transport service tickets.

 

Currently, Day travelcards provide unlimited travel on TfL services, including London Underground, Bus, Tram, Docklands Light Railway, London Overground and Elizabeth line, and National Rail services in London. They can also be used to obtain a one third reduction in River Services fares.

 

The proposals to remove Day Travelcards constitute an unfair, unacceptable and expensive levy on Buckinghamshire residents who wish to travel to London. The proposals have deliberately targeted the removal of the Day travelcard as a method to generate additional income for TfL.

 

It is anticipated by the Mayor’s own consultation that the withdrawal of day travelcards will result in Rail Operators ceasing to sell Zone 1-6 travelcards. This will add barriers and travel friction to journeys to London – running counter to evidence that passenger journeys and the use of public transport are enhanced by improving integrated ticketing not reducing it.

 

No regard is given in the proposals for the potential loss of revenue to the London economy that may be caused by the increase in travel costs as Buckinghamshire residents risk being priced out of the nation’s capital. Employers, retail and leisure businesses, theatres and many others may see a reduction in revenue as the people of Buckinghamshire reduce their time and/or expenditure in London.

 

The Cabinet Member for Transport has written to TfL on this matter to express concern and a lack of support for these proposals.

 

This Council therefore resolves:

·               To demand that London Mayor, Sadiq Khan, immediately withdraws his proposals for the removal of day Travelcards.

·               To request that the Leader of the Council writes to Sadiq Khan informing him of this resolution of Buckinghamshire Council, the discriminatory nature of his proposal, the impact on Buckinghamshire residents, the negative impact on the economy of London and therefore the need to abandon plans to remove Day Travelcards.

·               That the Leader write to the Secretary of State for Transport urging him to intervene in this matter.”

 

Councillor Broadbent briefing explained the rationale of the motion.  During the debate Members raised a number of issues including that the proposed removal of Day Travel Cards for those travelling into and throughout London would unfairly and adversely impact Buckinghamshire residents, both those that worked in London but also those that travelled there for leisure and family outings.  It would also have a negative impact in removing vehicles from road networks and discouraging people from travelling on public transport.

 

At the conclusion, a requisite number of Members present requested that a recorded vote be held.  Following a recorded vote, the motion was declared to be CARRIED.

 

Voting was as follows:

 

FOR (99): Councillors Adoh, Alam, Anthony, Ashman, Ayub, Bagge, Baldwin, Barnes, Barrett, Baughan, Baum, Birchley, Blamires, Bond, Bowles, Bracken, Brazier, Broadbent, Broom, Brown, Carington, Carroll, B Chapple OBE, S Chapple, Chaudry, Chhokar, Chilver, Collins, Cooper, Cornell, Cranmer, Culverhouse, Darby, Dixon, Egleton, Fealey, Flys, Gemmell, Gomm, Goss, Green, M Harker OBE, Harriss, O Hayday, Heap, A Hussain, I Hussain, Maz Hussain, Mahboob Hussain JP, N Hussain, T Hussain, Irwin, Jackson, James, Jordan, Kayani, Kelly, R Khan BEM, King, Knight, MacBean, A Macpherson, I Macpherson, Mahon, Martin, R Matthews, W Matthews, Mohammed, Mordue, Morgan, Newcombe, Oliver, Osibogun, Poland-Goodyer, Poll, W Raja, Rana, Rand, Rouse, L Smith BEM, Southworth, Stannard, Strachan, Sullivan, Tett, Thomas, Thompson, Towns, M Turner, P Turner, L Walsh, Ward, Waters, Watson, Wheelhouse, Williams, Wilson, Winn and K Wood.

 

AGAINST (4): Councillors Guy, Majid Hussain, G Smith and M Smith.

 

ABSTENTIONS (3):  Councillors Bates, D Hayday and Stuchbury.

 

RESOLVED –

 

(1)               That this Council demands that the London Mayor, Sadiq Khan, immediately withdraws his proposals for the removal of Day Travelcards.

(2)               That the Leader of the Council should write to Sadiq Khan informing him of the resolution of Buckinghamshire Council, the discriminatory nature of his proposal, the impact on Buckinghamshire residents, the negative impact on the economy of London and therefore the need to abandon plans to remove Day Travelcards.

(3)               That the Leader of the Council should write to the Secretary of State for Transport urging him to intervene in this matter.

 

(iii)             Implementing a 20 mph speed limit on roads outside all schools in Buckinghamshire

 

The motion was proposed by Councillor Adam Poland-Goodyer and seconded by Councillor Peter Cooper –

 

“We request that Council seek to adopt a new policy implementing a 20mph speed limit on the roads in Buckinghamshire where there are schools.

 

Council notes that:

·               Buckinghamshire Council should be providing a safe environment for children and adults to work and study by reducing casualties on the roads and community inequality.

·               As part of Buckinghamshire Councils climate challenge, it is acknowledged that 20mph speed limits lower emissions, tackle congestion, improves air quality and reduces ambient noise. DFT guidance states that 20mph schemes have environmental benefits through saving fuel and reducing pollution.

·               Buckinghamshire Council is committed to increasing child and adult activity levels and mental health and wellbeing by promoting walking and cycling, which after the pandemic should be a key concern of this Council to address all aspects of public health.

·               20mph schemes promote quality of life, community benefits and encouragement of healthier and more sustainable transport modes such as walking or cycling.

·               There are currently over 2000 20mph schemes in the UK in operation.

·               Reducing speed reduces collisions and casualties as the collision frequency is lower at lower driving speeds. There is also a greater chance of survival if struck at 20mph (90%) compared to 30mph (50%).

·               The Royal Society for the prevention of accidents found that the risk of pedestrians being fatally injured at 20mph was 2.5% compared to a 20% chance at 30mph.

·               DFT’s free flow speed report shows that 50% of drivers drive at less than 30mph in a 30mph zone. In a 20mph zone 80% of drivers drive less than 20mph.

 

Council further recognises that:

·               Between 2020 and 2021 on Urban and Rural roads in Buckinghamshire there was a total of 701 accidents and 831 casualties. 26 of these were children who were walking on the pavement and 48 were adults. 17 of these were children riding bikes to and from school, and 59 were adults cycling on the road. 1 Pedestrian and 2 people in a vehicle were killed. 5 Children walking on the pavement were seriously injured and 14 adults. 1 Child and 13 Adults was seriously injured riding a bike. All this information is available on the DFT website.

·               On the government website it states local speed limits are determined by local traffic authorities having regard to the guidance issued by the DFT.

·               Other Councils who have adopted the 20mph speed limit policy have not had to implement the costly expense of physical calming measures.

·               Thames Valley Police have no policy to enforce based on arbitrary speed limits alone but will enforce based on the threat of harm, risk, and resourcing. 20mph speed limits are not excluded from this and will be enforced where appropriate.

 

Council therefore resolves to:

·               Establish a cross party working group to seek to implement a Council wide 20mph speed limit outside all schools as soon as possible. This should include identifying which roads the 20mph speed limit should be implemented and explore enforcement measures such as average speed/ ANPR cameras and community speed watch initiatives.

·               Ask the Chief Executive/Leader of the Council to write to all the Town and Parish Councils in Buckinghamshire, inviting them to consult with Buckinghamshire Council on the proposed 20mph speed limits.”

 

Councillor Poland-Goodyer briefing explained the rationale of the motion.  During the debate Members raised a number of issues as follows:

-                      That there was already a mechanism in place with Community Boards and Parish Councils to identify and implement, where required, 20 mph speed limits on a case-by-case basis.

-                      That the police had a policy of not enforcing 30 mph speed limits outside schools (unless there was an identified threat or risk) and this would not change if 20 mph speed limits were introduced.  A far greater problem was caused in the near vicinity of schools, usually by parents, through bad parking and other dangerous and inconsiderate practices.

-                      The Cabinet Member for Transport provided statistics that in 2020/21 there had been 15 injury incidents outside schools although none had been caused through speeding.  It was also commented that through mechanisms in place there were already 105 roads in the county that had 20 mph limits.

 

At the conclusion of the debate, a requisite number of Members present requested that a recorded vote be held.  Following a recorded vote, the motion was declared to be LOST.

 

Voting was as follows:

 

FOR (26): Councillors Baldwin, Bates, Baughan, Cooper, Dixon, Gemmell, Guy, D Hayday, O Hayday, I Hussain, Majid Hussain, N Hussain, T Hussain, James, Kayani, R Khan BEM, Knight, Morgan, Poland-Goodyer, W Raja, G Smith, M Smith, Southworth, Stuchbury, Wheelhouse and Wilson.

 

AGAINST (80): Councillors Adoh, Alam, Anthony, Ashman, Ayub, Bagge, Barnes, Barrett, Baum, Birchley, Bond, Bowles, Bracken, Brazier, Broadbent, Broom, Brown, Carington, Carroll, B Chapple OBE, S Chapple, Chaudry, Chhokar, Chilver, Collingwood, Collins, Cornell, Cranmer, Culverhouse, Darby, Egleton, Fealey, Flys, Gomm, Goss, Green, M Harker OBE, Harriss, Heap, A Hussain, Maz Hussain, Mahboob Hussain JP, Irwin, Jackson, Jordan, Kelly, King, MacBean, A Macpherson, I Macpherson, Mahon, Martin, R Matthews, W Matthews, Mohammed, Mordue, Newcombe, Oliver, Osibogun, Poll, Rana, Rand, Rouse, L Smith BEM, Stannard, Strachan, Sullivan, Tett, Thomas, Thompson, Towns, M Turner, P Turner, L Walsh, Ward, Waters, Watson, Williams, Winn and K Wood.

 

ABSTENTIONS:  There were none.

 

(iv)              Scrutiny

 

The motion was proposed by Councillor Stuart Wilson and seconded by Councillor Robin Stuchbury –

 

“Council noted the importance of Scrutiny for Buckinghamshire Council following the Annual Scrutiny Report presented to Council in April 2023. The Minutes of that meeting record that the process at Buckinghamshire is highly regarded by other councils, and by the LGA. Buckinghamshire Council strives to operate best practice.

 

According to the Centre for Governance & Scrutiny, pre-decision scrutiny results in more meaningful engagement for Scrutiny Committees leading to better decision-making. Call-in procedures are used to scrutinize policy post-decision if necessary. Forward Plans are aligned to enable Scrutiny in advance of Executive decision-making at Cabinet.

 

In Buckinghamshire Council, detailed policy decision papers rarely come before Scrutiny Committees in advance of Cabinet, although policy development papers are sometimes put before Scrutiny Committees which is to be applauded. The notable exception of consistent Pre-Decision Scrutiny is Budget Scrutiny which is a compressed timeframe prior to Cabinet approval and publication to Full Council.

 

The call-in scope is limited by the Constitution to procedural matters, rather than policy content, so there is very limited opportunity for a Scrutiny Committee to scrutinize and recommend amendment of detailed policy either in advance or indeed after a policy decision has been taken.

 

This Council notes:

·               The best practice of Pre-Decision Scrutiny of Policy highlighted by the Centre for Governance & Scrutiny and in the recent training delivered to Members.

 

This Council resolves that:

·               The Pre-Decision Scrutiny of Policy is adopted by Buckinghamshire Council, such that all Policy Decisions undergo Pre-Decision Scrutiny through the relevant Select Committee prior to going to Cabinet.

·               Pre-Decision Scrutiny of any Policy Decision considered to be confidential on grounds permitted by law will be held in a confidential Scrutiny session.

·               The Council’s emergency powers remain available in appropriate circumstances to override the need for Pre-Decision Scrutiny; in such circumstances, a Decision can be reviewed at the appropriate Select Committee at the next available opportunity.

·               Pre-Decision Scrutiny by Select Committees will result in a Pre-Decision Scrutiny Report submitted to the relevant Cabinet Portfolio Holder(s) for full consideration in advance of a Policy Report to Cabinet, which should include the Pre-Decision Scrutiny Report as an appendix.

·               Any Policy Decision taken by Cabinet without Pre-Decision Scrutiny, or the Pre-Decision Scrutiny Report being appended to the Cabinet Report, is subject to Call-In by the relevant Select Committee on procedural grounds.

·               Forward Plans and Calendars for Select Committees and Cabinet are amended within three months of this resolution to enable Pre-Decision Scrutiny of Policy for the remaining term of this Council and beyond.”

 

Councillor Wilson briefing explained the rationale of the motion.  During the debate Members raised a number of issues as follows:

-                      That the Council already operated one of the strongest, most powerful Select Committee systems in the country that was an LGA role model.  The Select Committees worked in a constructive and bipartisan way to hold the Executive to account, and had powers to call-in Executive decisions and summons the Leader or Chief Executive to attend scrutiny meetings.

-                      That Select Committees were already able to, and did, undertake pre-decision scrutiny which was working well.  An excellent example of this was budget scrutiny.

-                      That the motion was not intended to hold up decision-making but to focus on pre-decision scrutiny of the most important policy decisions of the Council.

 

At the conclusion the motion was put to the vote and declared to be LOST.