Issue - meetings

The following Motion was proposed by Councillor Freedman and seconded by Councillor Uttley:

This Council resolves:

·      to require all public firework displays within the local authority boundaries to be advertised in advance of the event, allowing residents to take precautions for their animals and vulnerable people

·      to actively promote a public awareness campaign about the impact of fireworks on animal welfare and vulnerable people–including the precautions that can be taken to mitigate risks

·      to write to the UK Government urging them to introduce legislation to limit the maximum noise level of fireworks to 90dB for those sold to the public for private displays

·      to encourage local suppliers of fireworks to stock ‘quieter’ fireworks for public display.

A vote was held:

17 for,

26 against,

2 abstentions,

Therefore the motion failed.

The following Motion was proposed by Councillor Tindall and seconded by Councillor Williams:

The recent changes to planning law made by the Government are causing a stir across the country, removing the right of local people to have a say in the planning process.

In protecting the public’s say in the planning process;

A. This Council notes:

1.  The publication by Government of the White Paper, ‘Planning for the Future’ on 6 August 2020, which set out proposals on reforms to the planning process for the future.

2.  That the vast majority of planning applications are given the go ahead by local authority planning committees, with permission granted to around 9 out of 10 applications.

3.  That research by the Local Government Association has said that there are existing planning permissions for more than one million homes that have not yet been started.

B.   This Council is concerned that the proposals seek to:

1.  Reduce or remove the right of residents to object to applications near them.

2.  Grant automatic rights for developers to build on land identified as ‘for growth’.

3.  Remove the consultation role of Parish and Town Councils to comment and make recommendations on local planning applications.

C.   This Council Further Notes:

1. The Royal Institute for British Architects called the proposals ‘shameful and which will do almost nothing to guarantee delivery of affordable, well-designed and sustainable homes’. RIBA also said that proposals could lead to the next generation of slum housing.

2. The reforms are opposed by the all-party Local Government Association, currently led by Conservative Councillors.

3.  That the reforms remove section 106 payments for infrastructure and proposes their replacement with a national levy, paid direct to councils and non-negotiable by developers.

D.  This Council Believes:

1.  That existing planning procedures, as currently administered by our own team in   Dacorum Borough Council allow for local democratic control over future development, and provides an opportunity for local people to make contributions regarding planning proposals that affect them.

2.  That proposals for automatic rights to build in ‘growth’ areas, and increased permitted development rights, risk unregulated growth and unsustainable communities.

3.  That local communities must be in the driving seat on shaping the future of their communities,  ...  view the full decision text for item 5

The following Motion was proposed by Councillor Freedman and seconded by Councillor Uttley:

This Council resolves:

·      to require all public firework displays within the local authority boundaries to be advertised in advance of the event, allowing residents to take precautions for their animals and vulnerable people

·      to actively promote a public awareness campaign about the impact of fireworks on animal welfare and vulnerable people–including the precautions that can be taken to mitigate risks

·      to write to the UK Government urging them to introduce legislation to limit the maximum noise level of fireworks to 90dB for those sold to the public for private displays

·      to encourage local suppliers of fireworks to stock ‘quieter’ fireworks for public display.

Councillor Freedman said the motion was inspired by the RSPCA and other animal welfares charities aimed at making fireworks less frightening for animals and vulnerable people. Sadly fireworks inadvertently lead to the distress, injury and death of a significant number of family pets, farm animals and wildlife every year. He didn’t want to illustrate the evidence behind this claim especially as the motion didn’t call for any restrictions, rather it seeks to use the council’s position as a community leader to help educate people both to the dangerous side effects of fireworks but also to the safer, quieter alternatives that are becoming available. He hoped this motion would encourage our community to be good neighbours whilst enjoying the fireworks and we’re asking them to do this by firstly giving them advance notice of displays especially those with animals or conditions, encouraging the community to be aware of the problems fireworks may contribute to, and finally to encourage the sale and use of the quieter and safer alternatives. He explained that although the motion was inspired by animals, the noise of fireworks also has an impact on those with mental health conditions. He hoped that encouraging the use of quieter, safer fireworks would increase the range and availability locally, and that the high decibel and high range products would reduce in popularity and be replaced by these better alternatives. Finally this motion asks DBC to add its name to the list of councils calling on the government to add the decibel level to the criteria of fireworks marketed to the general public. Currently fireworks containing over a certain amount of explosives are regulated and only available to those licenced for holding public displays. The basis of this regulation seems to be risk associated with physical injury caused by a fireworks explosion. This motion simply asks the government to consider the damage done by sudden noise as part of that criteria. He felt this motion didn’t reduce any capacity for residents to enjoy fireworks in the manner that they currently do but at the same time it acknowledges the problems they may possibly cause and strikes a balance.

Councillor Anderson said he had sympathy with the motion and with what it was trying to achieve but he couldn’t support it because it was impractical. He said  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5