Agenda item

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, and local determination of the planning framework and planning applications play an important part in this process.

E.   This Council requests that, when considering the response from Dacorum Borough Council, the Strategic Planning and Environment O&S Committee takes into account the sentiments expressed in this motion.

A vote was held:

42 for,

0 against,

0 abstentions,

Therefore the motion was carried.

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 the government had already introduced restrictions on time limits and also that it would be in the interest of the operator to advertise events in advance anyway. He advised he was contacted by a couple of residents around bonfire night last year and although he had sympathy with them he wasn’t sure what we as a council could practically do to encourage stockists to provide quieter fireworks. He had every sympathy for pets and pet owners but it was a difficult thing to get through and he couldn’t support the motion.

Councillor Pringle spoke in favour of the motion. She said he has had pets for a number of years and also had a son that was diagnosed with autism so she could confirm that it does have an impact on pets and those with mental health conditions. She appreciated it was difficult to enforce but felt we should be ambitious in trying to support our residents and lead on education and information at not a great deal of cost. She suggested information packs that residents could access or download to help advise them on how to resolve issues surrounding fireworks. She felt we should all work together to lead our community and invited others to support the motion.

Councillor Williams said he was sympathetic to the content of the motion but had an issue with motions like this one coming to full council and felt more education was required. He felt that full council wasn’t the place to try and amend council policies and it was inappropriate. He agreed there was a need for the government to look at issues around the sale of fireworks and the noise etc. but he wouldn’t be supporting this motion.

Councillor England said many residents of Adeyfield West enjoy fireworks and many do not. Over a long period fireworks have become more affordable for more people so it is important to recognise it has the effect of putting more people and pets in closer proximity to more fireworks. There is a problem here, some of these people may be ex-services that would like to see anything done to address this at any level of government. This motion is a way to find some level of accommodation between the extremes of feelings of bouts, a back garden private choice of one household which can be heard, smelt and felt by the whole community and crucially at the level of individual distress. On the demand side this council can assist its residents by promoting good neighbourly behaviour and that is part of what we’re here for, and we could call for a 21^st century reconsideration of how to enjoy celebrations when gardens are getting smaller and the effects on neighbourhoods are better understood. On the supply side, by developing choice on the responsible end of the product range, we would be able to respond locally to demand while community impact is moderated. He accepted that the effects we can achieve may be small, but if you view them at an individual level they are worth having. As a council we can signal this move in many ways and this message would look good on the council website, we can achieve an improvement on quality of life for our ward residents. He hoped many members would support this motion.

Councillor Griffiths said she would be voting against the motion on the basis that full council wasn’t the way to develop policy. Full council doesn’t give the option for members to scrutinise and have a full debate. She recalled a couple of years ago that we created an information pack for residents that could be found on our website and suggested we could reissue this information again. As a ward councillor for Leverstock Green and the executive of the Leverstock Green Village Association, she said they tried to co-ordinate a firework display every year so that residents can enjoy fireworks in a safe environment and do not need to go and buy fireworks themselves. She was concerned that due to coronavirus and the lack of firework displays this year that people may go and buy their own fireworks but that was unfortunately out of our control.

Councillor Tindall felt that full council was an appropriate place for opposition members to present motions and highlight matters of concern. He referred to Councillor Griffith’s point about information packs being made available to residents in previous years and advised that he was unaware of this so he felt that this proved that bringing matters to full council was an appropriate mechanism and had served a purpose.

Councillor Adeleke said he wouldn’t be supporting the motion as it should be directed to the government rather than a local council. He felt it served no purpose to residents.

Councillor Uttley explained we were a nation of animal lovers in the UK yet through our own ignorance we often inadvertently cause them harm. This motion wasn’t about stopping people doing what they want to do or to seek to take away the joy that people need, it is about education. With education comes change and change starts from the ground up which is why people look to local councillors for support and take interest in the information they provide. This motion was about raising awareness and understanding. She referred to the points about practicalities and suggested that there was time for a discussion and amendment if that was a concern.

Councillor Freedman thanked everyone for their contributions. He said there were many things we can do no matter how small and thanked Councillor Griffiths for sharing information on the packs used in previous years as this is what he was asking for. He agreed that major changes would need to be done nationally but that doesn’t reduce the need for us to act locally. He advised that the motion didn’t ask the council to enforce anything but to actively encourage with an education system through its existing forms of publishing and there would of course be a small cost for this. He finalised by saying this motion was in no way a political move as suggested by Councillor Williams and asked members to overlook political party when considering their vote for this motion.

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, and local determination of the planning framework and planning applications play an important part in this process.

E.   This Council requests that, when considering the response from Dacorum Borough Council, the Strategic Planning and Environment O&S Committee takes into account the sentiments expressed in this motion.

A vote was held:

42 for,

0 against,

0 abstentions,

Therefore the motion was carried.