Agenda item

(a)          The following Motion has been submitted in the name of Councillor Tony Vickers:

“Public Funds for Public Access

That Council notes:

1.    How the pandemic has highlighted the importance of outdoor exercise for our mental and physical health and wellbeing and our understanding of the interconnections between farming, biodiversity and food production;

2.    That the Environment Agency accepts that the benefits of outdoor exercise could be worth billions to the NHS and care services;

3.    That the Environment Bill includes provision for “public funds for public goods”;

4.    That the Agriculture Act contains powers to provide financial assistance to support public access to the countryside, through replacing the EU funding system known as the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP);

5.    The excellent work done by this Council’s Rights of Way Team and many volunteers from bodies represented on the Mid & West Berkshire Local Access Forum to maintain and improve public access to our beautiful countryside, and

6.    The emphasis in our local planning and transport policies towards more ’active travel’ opportunities, as part of combating Climate Change.

Council therefore supports the campaign of the Outdoor Access Alliance of organisations that represent countryside access groups to enable this “BREXIT Bonus” for funding to be channelled through local government to help improve our rights of way network;

And calls on this Council to work with local and national organisations to improve the relationship between urban communities, landowners and farmers as the rural environment and economy is transformed by BREXIT and climate change, so that all our residents better understand the connections between food production, biodiversity, landscape and public health.”

(b)          The following Motion has been submitted in the name of Councillor Lee Dillon:

“That the decision to end a meeting of Full Council rests with the Members in the Chamber deciding a suitable end time rather than any pre-set limit.”

(c)          The following Motion has been submitted in the name of Councillor Tony Linden:

“Sprinklers:

That this Council:

·         Acknowledges that sprinklers and other Automatic Fire Suppression Systems (AFSS) save lives, protect property, reduce the impact of fire on the environment, reduce interruption to business and improve safety for individuals in the community in general and firefighters. In recognising these benefits supports the National Fire Chief’s Council position on sprinklers by writing to Central Government to express support for the creation of a legal requirement to fit sprinklers or AFSS in buildings.

·         Commits to installation of sprinklers or other AFSS within its own building stock when planning for and constructing new buildings or as a retrofitted solution when undertaking major refurbishments of existing buildings.

·         Through building regulations, promotes and supports the installation of sprinklers or other AFSS for all new or refurbished buildings and particularly those that present the most significant risk to the public and firefighters.”

(d)          The following Motion has been submitted in the name of Councillor Lynne Doherty:

“This Council recognises:

the commitment and bravery shown by Locally Employed Staff (LES) who supported British Armed Forces in Afghanistan; that many members of LES have had their safety threatened in Afghanistan and are at genuine risk due to their work with the United Kingdom; that HM Government has established two schemes designed to help current and former LES – the Ex- Gratia Scheme (EGS) and the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP) each of which offers a route to LES meeting certain criteria to apply for leave to enter the UK; that LES who qualify and choose to relocate to the UK with their families are not expected to return to Afghanistan and that in due course they will be able to apply for permanent residence ensuring that they can settle permanently and build their lives and future here; and concludes:

·         that the United Kingdom has a responsibility to make sure these individuals are protected from harm;

·         that HM Government is right to introduce these schemes to support current and former LES.

This Council notes that it is being asked by HMG to provide four months of support to those LES who have been relocated (funded by HMG) including: reception arrangements upon arrival at the airport including handover from flight escorts and welcome briefing; accommodation; a package of advice and assistance covering employment, welfare benefits, housing, health, education and utility supply; assistance with registration with GPs and local Job Centre Plus (including allocation of a National Insurance Number); assistance in securing school places for school aged children; and cash support.

This Council Resolves to:

·         inform HM Government that it is willing to support the ‘Afghan Locally Employed Staff – relocation schemes’; and

·         develop plans to appropriately support the relevant LES and their families”.

(e)          The following Motion has been submitted in the name of Councillor Jeff Brooks:

“In order to assist the regeneration of the Newbury evening economy and provide support to hospitality businesses, including cafes, restaurants and pubs, this Council resolves to:

·         Introduce extended hours pedestrianisation of Northbrook Street and the Market Place with the utmost haste – with pedestrianisation lasting from 10.00 hours to 24.00 hours every day of the week.

·         This will give time between 00.00 hours to 10.00 hours for store deliveries with emergency vehicles having the ability to enter at any time by lowering the street barriers.

·         By such rapid measures, hospitality businesses will be able to take advantage of the longer summer evenings and extend their premises across pavements and outside areas.

·         Only by taking this decision this evening and implementing it with proper speed, will the Council be able to make a difference to this key economic sector in this summer.”

(f)           The following Motion has been submitted in the name of Councillor Jeff Brooks:

“During the period from March 2020 to May 2021 the public understood the need for the Council to take steps to protect them from Covid 19 and amongst those measures people understood the introduction of the Booking system at our two HWRCs in order to manage social distancing and those centres.

Now that our society is opening up, the public should expect the Council to rapidly re-instate the services that they pay their Council Tax to have available to them.

Whilst the Booking system at these facilities has merit, consultation with the public should be undertaken to help determine if such a system should remain in place.

Whilst that is undertaken, there is no reason for the restriction that allows a household to visit the facilities only once a week and for those facilities to close at 17.30 when they would normally stay open much later in the spring and summer months.

Since both centres are not particularly busy and a booking can be made on the day or at least the following day, we call upon the Council to immediately lift the once a week restriction and extend the opening hours without delay.

This is the time of year when households need maximum access to the facilities and we are bound to provide the access they are used to and have paid for.”

 

(g)          The following Motion has been submitted in the name of Councillor Carolyne Culver:

“West Berkshire Council recognises that electoral fraud in the form of impersonating another voter at a polling station is a vanishingly small problem: at the 2019 general election, there were 34 allegations of this offence, with one conviction, out of 34 million votes cast.

Government proposals to introduce photographic identification as a requirement to vote are, therefore, unnecessary, putting up barriers to voting that would disproportionately affect people least likely to have appropriate documents, in particular members of disadvantaged communities.

According to the Electoral Commission, 11 million UK citizens have no driving licence or passport and 3.5 million no access to photo ID at all.

The burden to provide “free voter cards” for people in this position would fall on local authorities, at an estimated cost of £20m per election. It is unclear who would pay for this, but all too clear that this system would create much more work for council staff, both in between elections and at polling stations on election day.

This Council therefore urges the government to abandon these proposals, and to give an assurance to the people of West Berkshire that not a penny of their council tax will be spent on implementing any such scheme.”

(h)          The following Motion has been submitted in the name of Councillor Lee Dillon:

“This Council notes that:

·         Core Strategy policy 18 (CS18) defines the current football club site at Faraday Road as Green Infrastructure (GI).

·         That CS18 requires that developments resulting in the loss of green infrastructure or harm to its use or enjoyment by the public will not be permitted.

·         Where exceptionally it is agreed that an area of green infrastructure can be lost a new one of equal or greater size and standard will be required to be provided in an accessible location close by.

·         That the recent West Berkshire Council Playing Pitch Strategy (approved Feb 2020) highlights that ‘there is a significant deficit of 3G Artificial Grass Pitch (AGP) provision in the area, with only one full sized 3G pitch available to the community (at Park House School) and a requirement to increase provision. There is a deficit of 7 full sized 3G AGP’s currently, based on FA calculations of 38 teams per 3G AGP.

Council therefore resolves that:

·         The Executive have acted outside of the Council’s existing polices in relation to Green Infrastructure.

·         Given the requirement to replace green infrastructure with ‘a new one of equal or greater size and standard’ means that the new facility being promoted at Newbury Rugby club is not a replacement facility for the current football club, but that it does help in reducing the deficit of AGP’s in the district.”

(i)            The following Motion has been submitted in the name of Councillor Adrian Abbs:

“This Council notes:

·         That existing telephone boxes are being offered to the council for free or as little as £1.

·         That telephone boxes make ideal environments to place public access defibrillators due to their existing power and the shelter they offer.

·         That defibrillators are known to save lives.

·         That those minutes and seconds are critical to a positive outcome where defibrillators are used.

This Council, therefore resolves to:

(1)      take a default position where it would adopt any telephone boxes being offered throughout West Berkshire for use as an Open Access Defibrillator location.

(2)      install an Open Access Defibrillator in each adopted box should another defibrillator not be present within 100 metres.

(3)      make residents local to that defibrillator aware of its presence

(4)      provide a “how to use a defibrillator” guide to all residents within 400 metres of the device.

(5)      ensure the location of the device is added to the emergency services register of defibrillators.

(6)      undertake the minimal servicing required to keep the devices active or devolve this to the local parish or town council.

Cost

Costs are maximum £1500 per defibrillator including purchase and installation.”

(j)            The following Motion has been submitted in the name of Councillor Tony Vickers:

“Proposals for Reform of Planning System

Council notes:

A.   that the Queen’s Speech announced that “plans to modernise the planning system, so that more homes can be built” in England, will be brought forward in a Planning Bill in this Parliament and

B.   that the plans set out in the Planning White Paper were in the main last autumn unanimously rejected by this Council on the advice of its professional planners and

C.   that the House of Commons Housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee’s first report on those plans, published in May, have criticised that White Paper on numerous counts, including:

1.    Denying local people and their local councils from having any influence on individual planning applications;

2.    Further diminishing the prospects for achieving public acceptance of Local Plans and hence the democratic accountability of those Plans;

3.    Failure to include any measures to incentivise developers to complete consented housing developments in a timely manner;

4.    Absence of any additional resources for Local Planning Authorities

D.   Furthermore the Select Committee report refers to its predecessor’s report on Land Value Capture in 2018 which called for more of the uplift in land value resulting from allocation of land for housing and from planning consent to be captured for public benefit. This could be perhaps by breaking the link between ‘hope value’ use in compulsory purchase, which gives landowners – including some in West Berkshire - and a small number of large national speculative homebuilders immense unearned profit, greatly reducing the available funding for high quality, affordable homes and their essential infrastructure.

E.   This Council has no confidence that the measures in the White Paper will achieve the Government’s stated aims without tackling these problems in the land market at the same time – problems which are widely accepted to be more significant than any flaws in the planning system. 

The Council therefore resolves:

That whilst it supports the aspirations of the Government to take urgent measures to restore a functioning land and homes market that results in more affordable and better quality homes and a socially sustainable and climate resilient built environment, it will write to the three MPs representing West Berkshire urging them to resist those measures in the Planning Bill that their colleagues on the all-party Select Committee have so roundly condemned and to call for a more fundamental reform of the land market.”

(k)  The following Motion has been submitted in the name of Councillor Graham Bridgman:

“Background

With the expiry of The Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panels Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020 any public meeting (“Meeting”) of the Council or a Council Committee, Board, Sub-Committee, etc (“Body”) must take place in person at a single, specified, geographical location (“Meeting Room”).

However, there is a continuing need to ensure that Meetings are conducted safely and follow public health guidance regarding covid precautions, social distancing, etc.

Motion

In order to ensure that Meetings are held in a covid-safe manner, but that each member of the Body (“Member”) can contribute to, and members of the public can engage with, the Meeting, this Council RESOLVES that, at the sole option of the Chairman of the meeting (“Chairman”):

·         those individuals who are not physically in the Meeting Room but are present virtually - including Members, other members of council, officers and members of the public - may be invited by the Chairman to speak, provided that they would be allowed to speak if physically present;

·         those Members who are not physically in the Meeting Room but are present virtually may be invited by the Chairman to join in an indicative, but non-binding, vote so that the Members in the Meeting Room can gauge the feelings of the entire membership on a particular item before voting substantively upon it;

·         where a member of the public, interested party, etc, has a right to ask a question at, or make a submission to, the Meeting, they may choose to ask that question or make that submission virtually; and

·         the requirement for any questioner to say (eg) “I ask my question as set out in the Summons” is replaced by an option for the Chairman to refer to the question and invite the person responding to answer; but that

·         nothing in this Resolution affects the ability of the Chairman to determine how a question shall be answered as set out in the Constitution (eg at 4.12.5); and

·         the Monitoring Officer is authorised to publish a statement setting out the effect of this Resolution in the Constitution and in any other place considered necessary to bring it to the attention of anyone affected as she deems fit, and to publish any Protocol or Guidance regarding the way in which the Council conducts Meetings.”

The Council considered the under-mentioned Motion (Agenda item 17a refers) submitted in the name of Councillor Tony Vickers relating to Public Funds for Public Access.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Tony Vickers and seconded by Councillor Howard Woollaston.

That Council notes:

“1. How the pandemic has highlighted the importance of outdoor exercise for our mental and physical health and wellbeing and our understanding of the interconnections between farming, biodiversity and food production;

2. That the Environment Agency accepts that the benefits of outdoor exercise could be worth billions to the NHS and care services;

3. That the Environment Bill includes provision for “public funds for public goods”;

4. That the Agriculture Act contains powers to provide financial assistance to support public access to the countryside, through replacing the EU funding system known as the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP);

5. The excellent work done by this Council’s Rights of Way Team and many volunteers from bodies represented on the Mid & West Berkshire Local Access Forum to maintain and improve public access to our beautiful countryside, and

6. The emphasis in our local planning and transport policies towards more ’active travel’ opportunities, as part of combating Climate Change.

Council therefore supports the campaign of the Outdoor Access Alliance of organisations that represent countryside access groups to enable this “BREXIT Bonus” for funding to be channelled through local government to help improve our rights of way network;

And calls on this Council to work with local and national organisations to improve the relationship between urban communities, landowners and farmers as the rural environment and economy is transformed by BREXIT and climate change, so that all our residents better understand the connections between food production, biodiversity, landscape and public health.”

The Chairman informed the Council that under Procedural Rule 4.9.8 the motion would not be debated, and instead it would be referred to the Environment Advisory Group for consideration as the detail of the Motion falls within the remit of the Executive. A report would be considered at Executive and the outcome reported to Council.

Councillor Tony Vickers in introducing the motion noted that it was about a potential Brexit bonus, noting that Michael Gove intended to replace the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy with a Public Funds for Public Goods policy which would reward land owners and farmers. The British Ramblers’ Association are campaigning alongside conservation bodies to flesh out such an intention. The Agriculture Act put that in UK Law, setting out public goods which would be eligible for public funds to support them, and strengthening the responsibilities of local government in supporting this. However, public access was not explicitly included, and the Environmental Land Management Scheme (ELMS) was being trialled by DEFRA prior to this, with only one trial in the country.

Councillor Vickers thanked Councillor Woollaston for his support as the previous Portfolio Holder for Health and Wellbeing, but pointed out that it was a private body, and would struggle to advise the Council on how to respond. He instead suggested that the Local Access Forum have a special meeting on how to respond to the legislation and be consulted.

 

The Council considered the under-mentioned Motion (Agenda item 17b refers) submitted in the name of Councillor Lee Dillon relating to the finish time for Council meetings.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Lee Dillon and seconded by Councillor Carolyne Culver.

“That the decision to end a meeting of Full Council rests with the Members in the Chamber deciding a suitable end time rather than any pre-set limit.”

 

The Council considered the under-mentioned Motion (Agenda item 17c refers) submitted in the name of Councillor Tony Linden relating to sprinklers.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Tony Linden and seconded by Councillor Jeff Brooks.

“That this Council:

·         Acknowledges that sprinklers and other Automatic Fire Suppression Systems (AFSS) save lives, protect property, reduce the impact of fire on the environment, reduce interruption to business and improve safety for individuals in the community in general and firefighters. In recognising these benefits supports the National Fire Chief’s Council position on sprinklers by writing to Central Government to express support for the creation of a legal requirement to fit sprinklers or AFSS in buildings.

·         Commits to installation of sprinklers or other AFSS within its own building stock when planning for and constructing new buildings or as a retrofitted solution when undertaking major refurbishments of existing buildings.

·         Through building regulations, promotes and supports the installation of sprinklers or other AFSS for all new or refurbished buildings and particularly those that present the most significant risk to the public and firefighters.”

The Chairman informed the Council that under Procedural Rule 4.9.8 the motion would not be debated, and instead be referred to the Planning Advisory Group and the Asset Management Group for consideration prior to a report being considered by the Executive. The outcome of that will also be reported to Council.

 

The Council considered the under-mentioned Motion (Agenda item 17d refers) submitted in the name of Councillor Lynne Doherty relating to Afghan Local Employed Staff.

Councillor Lynne Doherty proposed a minor alteration in the text of the motion confirming that the period of support in question was twelve months. Councillor Tony Vickers, seconding, agreed to this minor alteration. The amendment was additionally approved by Members present.

AMENDED MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Lynne Doherty and seconded by Councillor Tony Vickers.

“This Council recognises:

the commitment and bravery shown by Locally Employed Staff (LES) who supported British Armed Forces in Afghanistan; that many members of LES have had their safety threatened in Afghanistan and are at genuine risk due to their work with the United Kingdom; that HM Government has established two schemes designed to help current and former LES – the Ex- Gratia Scheme (EGS) and the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP) each of which offers a route to LES meeting certain criteria to apply for leave to enter the UK; that LES who qualify and choose to relocate to the UK with their families are not expected to return to Afghanistan and that in due course they will be able to apply for permanent residence ensuring that they can settle permanently and build their lives and future here; and concludes:

·         that the United Kingdom has a responsibility to make sure these individuals are protected from harm;

·         that HM Government is right to introduce these schemes to support current and former LES.

This Council notes that it is being asked by HMG to provide twelve months of support to those LES who have been relocated (funded by HMG) including: reception arrangements upon arrival at the airport including handover from flight escorts and welcome briefing; accommodation; a package of advice and assistance covering employment, welfare benefits, housing, health, education and utility supply; assistance with registration with GPs and local Job Centre Plus (including allocation of a National Insurance Number); assistance in securing school places for school aged children; and cash support.

This Council Resolves to:

·         inform HM Government that it is willing to support the ‘Afghan Locally Employed Staff – relocation schemes’; and

·         develop plans to appropriately support the relevant LES and their families.”

Councillor Lynne Doherty in introducing the motion noted that her first motion as a new Councillor was to support the Syrian Refugee scheme, and commended the Council’s willingness to reflect this country’s support for refugees. This request to support the locally employed staff who assisted British troops in Afghanistan had come at the bequest of the Home Secretary, Secretary for Defence and Secretary for Communities and Local Government. Councillor Doherty stated that those workers who had assisted British troops as interpreters and medics, among other roles, were now at risk of retribution by the Taliban, and were no longer secure in Afghanistan.

Councillor Steve Masters noted that he wished to second this motion but could not as he was present remotely. Regardless, he commended Councillor Doherty for proposing it, and noted that he had encountered and been helped by many locally employed staff during his deployments around the world, particularly in the Middle East, and noted their dedication despite the dangers present. Councillor Masters urged that assistance be extended to locally employed staff in other places such as Iraq, and that this be raised with the Home Office alongside this policy.

Councillor Masters reiterated the dangers, noting that at least 20 had been killed in Afghanistan, and stated that he would be following the work of the Council in implementing this motion. Councillor Masters concluded by warning that while this work was commendable, it was not right to believe that asylum should be limited just to those who had done something for the country, and that it should be universal, noting the integration of unaccompanied minors into schools and colleges in West Berkshire.

Councillor Dominic Boeck reassured Councillor Masters that the Council had the resources to support asylum seekers. Councillor Boeck commended the effort to grant this asylum to locally employed staff and their families, and for helping them to settle in the community. Councillor Boeck noted that he had heard of the story of a care leaver in West Berkshire who had come as an unaccompanied minor, and had just graduated from university with a First Class Honours degree and was now studying for a Masters.

Councillor Andy Moore stated that he also wished to support the motion as the Armed Forces Champion. He requested that while the parallels were not exact, that any locally employed staff that were settled in West Berkshire be treated with the same respect as a member of the Armed Forces.

Councillor Tony Linden expressed his support for the motion.

Councillor Owen Jeffrey endorsed the speeches made on the motion thus far, and noted that as a former member of the Royal Naval Reserve he wished to see those who had supported servicemen be treated right. Councillor Jeffrey noted that while it was not a naval engagement due to the location of Afghanistan, many members of the Naval Reserve had gone and served, and expressed support for settling those who had helped before the situation in Afghanistan worsened.

Councillor Tony Vickers in seconding the motion stated that he was quite humbled to be doing so, noting that he had not put his life on the line during his service in the Armed Forces like Councillor Masters had. Councillor Vickers noted that his work as a military survey officer had brought him to West Berkshire, and that many in his role had served in Afghanistan. Due to that, locally employed staff who are settled in West Berkshire would be wholly welcomed by the community.

Councillor Lynne Doherty in concluding the debate stated that the teams working to settle locally employed staff in West Berkshire would work to help and integrate them. Councillor Doherty noted that it was a fast-moving situation and that the South East Migration Partnership will be very relieved by the support.

The Chairman informed Councillor Lee Dillon that as he had momentarily left the Chamber, he would be unable to vote. Councillor Dillon accepted this and stated that he would have voted in favour.

An indicative vote of all Members present in the Council chamber and remotely approved the Amended Motion.

 

The Council considered the under-mentioned Motion (Agenda item 17e refers) submitted in the name of Councillor Jeff Brooks relating to the regeneration of the Newbury evening economy.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Jeff Brooks and seconded by Councillor Erik Pattenden.

“In order to assist the regeneration of the Newbury evening economy and provide support to hospitality businesses, including cafes, restaurants and pubs, this Council resolves to:

·         Introduce extended hours pedestrianisation of Northbrook Street and the Market Place with the utmost haste – with pedestrianisation lasting from 10.00 hours to 24.00 hours every day of the week.

·         This will give time between 00.00 hours to 10.00 hours for store deliveries with emergency vehicles having the ability to enter at any time by lowering the street barriers.

·         By such rapid measures, hospitality businesses will be able to take advantage of the longer summer evenings and extend their premises across pavements and outside areas.

·         Only by taking this decision this evening and implementing it with proper speed, will the Council be able to make a difference to this key economic sector in this summer.”

The Chairman informed the Council that as it related to an Executive function the motion would not be debated, and instead be referred to the Economic Development Board for consideration prior to a report being considered by the Executive. The outcome of that would be reported to Council.

Councillor Jeff Brooks in introducing the motion expressed disappointment that the motion would not be considered at the meeting, noting that the text of the motion made clear that it needed to be implemented promptly to be effective at making a difference. Instead, it would be referred to various bodies and likely not be implemented until autumn. Councillor Brooks noted the previous comments by Councillor Dillon on the large numbers of referrals, and noted that process had prevailed over common sense. Councillor Brooks stated that he believed it was an urgent matter and should be debated at Council, but that the administration instead wished to converse proposals in secret, and make decisions without further debate.

 

Referring specifically to the motion, Councillor Brooks noted that the proposal was to extend the pedestrianisation of Northbrook Street and the marketplace, which would allow more businesses to operate on the pavements. Newbury Town Council supported the measures, who had sent a letter to Councillor Ross Mackinnon requesting that it could be done for a trial period of 5 weeks. 600 local shops and 80% of businesses were strongly in favour of the proposal, yet the Council did not support it, on the basis that it would be too confusing, emergency services vehicles would not be able to access it, and that customers would not be able to access takeaway meals, reasoning that Councillor Brooks disagreed with, stating that no valid reasons existed. Councillor Brooks urged the Executive to make a decision on the matter rather than requiring a motion to go through the process.

 

The Council considered the under-mentioned Motion (Agenda item 17f refers) submitted in the name of Councillor Jeff Brooks relating to the booking system in place at West Berkshire’s two Household Recycling Centres.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Jeff Brooks and seconded by Councillor Adrian Abbs.

“During the period from March 2020 to May 2021 the public understood the need for the Council to take steps to protect them from Covid 19 and amongst those measures people understood the introduction of the Booking system at our two HWRCs in order to manage social distancing and those centres.

Now that our society is opening up, the public should expect the Council to rapidly re-instate the services that they pay their Council Tax to have available to them.

Whilst the Booking system at these facilities has merit, consultation with the public should be undertaken to help determine if such a system should remain in place.

Whilst that is undertaken, there is no reason for the restriction that allows a household to visit the facilities only once a week and for those facilities to close at 17.30 when they would normally stay open much later in the spring and summer months.

Since both centres are not particularly busy and a booking can be made on the day or at least the following day, we call upon the Council to immediately lift the once a week restriction and extend the opening hours without delay.

This is the time of year when households need maximum access to the facilities and we are bound to provide the access they are used to and have paid for.”

The Chairman informed the Council that as it related to an Executive function the motion would not be debated, and instead be referred to the Environment Advisory Group for consideration prior to a report being considered by the Executive. The outcome of that would be reported to Council.

Councillor Jeff Brooks in introducing the motion stated that as the pandemic measures are reducing, that Councillor Steve Ardagh-Walter has continued to limit access to the recycling centres to once a week, with officers stating that the allowance of one visit per week was more than enough for most residents.

Councillor Brooks stated that the visit limit was not a pandemic response, but was instead implemented as a cost-cutting measure and to deter abuse of the recycling system, which would be unfair on fellow residents. Councillor Brooks disagreed that visiting more than once a week was abuse of the system, and that it would not be a full service were residents denied the opportunity to come more often. Councillor Brooks noted the 30% increase in fly-tipping, and said that it may be linked. Councillor Brooks additionally criticised the motion not being debated at this meeting, and instead asked Councillor Ardagh-Walter to answer a number of questions.

Firstly, Councillor Brooks asked ‘unfairness’ to be defined, as residents do not go to recycling centres for fun, what process had been used to make the decision, how they knew one visit was enough, why recycling centres were being closed earlier in the summer months, and whether reduced fees had been negotiated. Councillor Brooks stated that he had tested the assertion that booking an additional visit could be done in advance, and that he could not, and had not received a call back. Councillor Brooks stated that this policy was not putting the customer first.

 

The Council considered the under-mentioned Motion (Agenda item 17g refers) submitted in the name of Councillor Carolyne Culver relating to a government proposal requiring that voters provide photographic identification to vote.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Carolyne Culver and seconded by Councillor Graham Bridgman.

“West Berkshire Council recognises that electoral fraud in the form of impersonating another voter at a polling station is a vanishingly small problem: at the 2019 general election, there were 34 allegations of this offence, with one conviction, out of 34 million votes cast.

Government proposals to introduce photographic identification as a requirement to vote are, therefore, unnecessary, putting up barriers to voting that would disproportionately affect people least likely to have appropriate documents, in particular members of disadvantaged communities.

According to the Electoral Commission, 11 million UK citizens have no driving licence or passport and 3.5 million no access to photo ID at all.

The burden to provide “free voter cards” for people in this position would fall on local authorities, at an estimated cost of £20m per election. It is unclear who would pay for this, but all too clear that this system would create much more work for council staff, both in between elections and at polling stations on Election Day.

This Council therefore urges the government to abandon these proposals, and to give an assurance to the people of West Berkshire that not a penny of their council tax will be spent on implementing any such scheme.”

Councillor Graham Bridgman noted that he had offered to second the motion because a second Green Member was not present to do so, and made a request to the Chairman that a Green Member be asked to speak at the end of the debate in his place. Instead, Councillor Lee Dillon offered to be a full seconder, and Councillor Bridgman withdrew to allow this to happen.

Councillor Carolyne Culver in introducing the motion thanked Councillors Bridgman and Dillon for their offers to second the motion. Councillor Culver noted that in the 2019 general election, there were just 39 allegations of election fraud out of 34 million votes, most of which was campaigning offences such as not putting the imprint on election literature or fraud in the nomination process. Only 24% of allegations were voter fraud, of which one conviction and one police caution actually occurred. In this context, Councillor Culver asked whether a Voter ID policy was necessary to combat this, and stated that it would instead act as a barrier to people wishing to exercise their right to vote. Councillor Culver noted the proportion of people without any form of photographic identification, and stated that many of these will be disenfranchised by such a policy, and turned away from the polling stations.

Councillor Culver noted the pilot scheme in Mid Sussex, in which 78 people were unable to vote, with three wards being won by margins under 25 votes and therefore potentially having their outcome changed. Councillor Culver noted that the free voter cards would create costs of up to £20 million, and add to the strain the work of officers who administrate elections, who would need to heavily publicise such work. Therefore, Councillor Culver notes that the motion calls for a total abandonment of such a policy by central government.

Councillor Ross Mackinnon states that the issue that this motion concerns is a matter for central government, and there was little that could be done on a local level. Councillor Mackinnon noted the line in the motion calling for council tax to be unaffected by the policy, and responded that the Cabinet Office had made it clear that central government would bear the cost. Councillor Mackinnon noted that it was not an unusual request that voters present such identification, and was common around the democratic world and Europe, and that it was required in Northern Ireland since 2003, and was recommended by the Electoral Commission, an independent and impartial body, since 2014. Councillor Mackinnon noted that voter impersonation was not often detected and apprehended because it was a relatively easy crime to commit, with investigation of electoral fraud in Tower Hamlets showing it was a much wider phenomenon than believed. Councillor Mackinnon said that he believed it would therefore be dishonest to take these statistics at face value. Councillor Mackinnon additionally noted that IFS statistics had found 98% of voters had the necessary ID, with non-typical and expired ID being accepted.

Councillor Thomas Marino stated that applying for a job, foreign travel, or opening a bank account were all things that required photographic ID, and that voting would not be out of place. Councillor Marino noted that it was additionally required in British Overseas Territories such as Gibraltar, and that it had been successful in Northern Ireland at tackling the issue of voter impersonation. Councillor Marino noted that the overwhelming majority of voters had no issue, and that it had no notable effect on turnout, with voters returning with acceptable ID, and only 0.3%-0.7% of people having this issue in trials. Councillor Marino disagreed with the assertion that it was voter disenfranchisement, noting that free voter ID was readily available to all voters, as well as with the statement that the issue was too small to tackle, stating that it was a crime. Councillor Marino finished by quoting a Forbes article that stated that the only reasons to oppose voter ID was either from ignorance of the issue, or an understanding that there was a benefit from voter fraud to a party or candidate.

Councillor David Marsh notes that Councillor Marino had compared relatively mundane tasks with the valuable exercise of democratic rights. Councillor Marsh stated that free voter ID was akin to ID cards, and quoted Boris Johnson’s opposition of the proposal in the early 2000s, and quoted David Davis’ statement that it was an illiberal solution to a non-existent problem. Councillor Marsh disagreed that it would present no costs to local government, noting that that promise from the Cabinet Office was not present in the White Paper, and stated that it would be additional strain on poll workers and discourage people from voting. Councillor Marsh noted voter suppression efforts by Republicans in the United States included stringent requirements for voter ID. Councillor Marsh stated that if the policy was implemented for the 2023 local elections, that would make West Berkshire guinea pigs for the policy, and noted that the effects from the policy was more likely to impact Members with low turnouts in their wards, with voters in those wards needed encouragement to vote instead. Councillor Marsh stated that if voter impersonation were an issue that the central government cared about, polling cards would be sufficient enough to discourage it.

Councillor Erik Pattenden quoted Councillor Marino’s assertion that voter impersonation was a vanishingly small problem, and stated voter ID was proposing to fix a problem that did not exist, and questioned why liberally-minded MPs such as that for Newbury would support it. Councillor Pattenden noted that voters needed encouragement to vote, and that voting is for many people the only level of political engagement they have. Councillor Pattenden asserted that the proposals would disenfranchise voters, making them unable to access the ability to have their say on local services.

Councillor Marino raised a point of order to state that he did not say that voter impersonation was a “vanishingly small problem” and had been misquoted by Councillor Pattenden.

Councillor Owen Jeffrey stated that the policy was an unnecessary scheme aimed to suppress those who oppose the government.

Councillor Adrian Abbs quoted Councillor Marino’s assertion that turnout would drop by between 0.3% and 0.7%, noting that that was between 123,000 and 287,000 people disenfranchised. Councillor Abbs stated that it was an undemocratic, illiberal policy, and urged democratically-minded Conservatives to oppose it.

Councillor Alan Law stated that the first two elections he had voted in were in Northern Ireland, where he was encouraged to “vote early, vote often”, and that Northern Ireland was a place which was incredibly sensitive to peoples’ rights. Councillor Law stated that despite voter ID, constituencies in Northern Ireland had the highest levels of turnout in the country, and so the policy was not discouraging voting.

Councillor James Cole noted that Councillor Law’s statements were correct, and noted that government had taken too long to make the proposal.

Councillor Graham Bridgman stated that if a person wished to impersonate somebody on the electoral register, they are going to make certain that they are not discovered. The policy is therefore necessary, as discouragement will be more effective than enforcement.

Councillor Lee Dillon disagreed with the assertion that this was not a local issue, stating that it was the job of local authorities to lobby central government and reflect the feelings of residents on any issue, especially one such as this policy which would adversely affect residents of West Berkshire. Councillor Dillon disagreed with the assertion by Councillors Mackinnon and Law that there must be evidence of something due to the absence of said evidence, and disagreed with Councillor Law that voter ID and high turnout in Northern Ireland were related. Councillor Dillon asked the Council whether they trusted members of the community, and whether they were interested in encouraging people to get out and vote for them. Councillor Dillon stated that a Freedom of Information Act request to the Electoral Services team in West Berkshire had revealed zero instances of electoral fraud in the district’s history. Councillor Dillon concluded that there was no beast of electoral fraud, that safeguards already existed for voters who feared they had been impersonated, and so the policy was an effort to suppress voters.

Councillor Howard Woollaston as Portfolio Holder stated that catching voter impersonation was almost impossible, and as a liberal conservative he could not see any issue with ID cards, and so he would be opposing the motion.

Councillor Culver thanked Members for having a fair, good-natured debate, contrasting it with the UBI motion. Councillor Culver urged Members to vote on the issue with their heart, not based on party line.

Councillor Law raised a point of order that Members were not asked whether they wished to vote against during indicative votes. Councillor Brooks concurred, stating that indicative votes should give clear indications of who supported and who opposed. Councillor Jeffrey requested a named vote, which the Chairman rejected. Councillor Bridgman requested that members use a Zoom ‘hands up’ process to vote, which would have the same effect as a show of hands.

An indicative vote of all Members present in the Council chamber and remotely rejected the Motion. 17 in favour, 21 against, 1 abstention.

The Motion was put to the vote and declared LOST. 6 for, 8 against, 0 abstentions.

 

The Council considered the under-mentioned Motion (Agenda item 17h refers) submitted in the name of Councillor Lee Dillon relating to green infrastructure.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Lee Dillon and seconded by Councillor Tony Vickers,

“This Council notes that:

·         Core Strategy policy 18 (CS18) defines the current football club site at Faraday Road as Green Infrastructure (GI).

·         That CS18 requires that developments resulting in the loss of green infrastructure or harm to its use or enjoyment by the public will not be permitted.

·         Where exceptionally it is agreed that an area of green infrastructure can be lost a new one of equal or greater size and standard will be required to be provided in an accessible location close by.

·         That the recent West Berkshire Council Playing Pitch Strategy (approved Feb 2020) highlights that ‘there is a significant deficit of 3G Artificial Grass Pitch (AGP) provision in the area, with only one full sized 3G pitch available to the community (at Park House School) and a requirement to increase provision. There is a deficit of 7 full sized 3G AGP’s currently, based on FA calculations of 38 teams per 3G AGP.

·         Council therefore resolves that:

·         The Executive have acted outside of the Council’s existing polices in relation to Green Infrastructure.

·         Given the requirement to replace green infrastructure with ‘a new one of equal or greater size and standard’ means that the new facility being promoted at Newbury Rugby club is not a replacement facility for the current football club, but that it does help in reducing the deficit of AGP’s in the district.”

The Chairman informed the Council that under Procedural Rule 4.9.8 the motion would not be debated, and instead be referred to the Overview and Scrutiny Management Commission for consideration and report back to the Council as this is a matter within their remit.

Councillor Lee Dillon in introducing the motion observed that the motion was being referred to the Overview and Scrutiny Management Commission, which was not a decision-making body, and would instead make recommendations, and so Councillor Dillon did not understand why such a referral was appropriate. Mr Shiraz Sheikh clarified that the OSMC would consider and report back to Council. Councillor Dillon questioned why a Council motion requires input from another body, and why such a decision had been made against his wishes.

Councillor Alan Law responded that as the Chairman of OSMC he had sympathy with Councillor Dillon, and that the commission should have been consulted on an item being added to their agenda. Councillor Dillon responded that he was the Vice Chairman of OSMC, and agreed that it was inappropriate, asking who had responsibility for referring the motion. The Chairman responded that he did, and Mr Sheikh clarified that the decision was made because the motion suggested that the Executive had acted outside of Council policy. Councillor Dillon asked whether the Chairman wished to refer a motion to OSMC if neither the Chairman nor Vice Chairman would accept it. Councillor Law interjected denied that he did not accept it, but reiterated that he should have been consulted. The Chairman stated that he had taken legal advice in making the decision, and that it was based on a thorough consideration of the information provided to him. Councillor Dillon responded that he respected the Chairman’s decision, but not the advice and information given to him on the question of motion referral, which he believed was poor.

 

The Council considered the under-mentioned Motion (Agenda item 17i refers) submitted in the name of Councillor Adrian Abbs relating to defibrillators.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Adrian Abbs and seconded by Councillor Jeff Brooks,

“This Council notes:

·         That existing telephone boxes are being offered to the council for free or as little as £1.

·         That telephone boxes make ideal environments to place public access defibrillators due to their existing power and the shelter they offer.

·         That defibrillators are known to save lives.

·         That those minutes and seconds are critical to a positive outcome where defibrillators are used.

This Council, therefore resolves to:

(1)  Take a default position where it would adopt any telephone boxes being offered throughout West Berkshire for use as an Open Access Defibrillator location.

(2)  Install an Open Access Defibrillator in each adopted box should another defibrillator not be present within 100 metres.

(3)  Make residents local to that defibrillator aware of its presence

(4)  Provide a “how to use a defibrillator” guide to all residents within 400 metres of the device.

(5)  Ensure the location of the device is added to the emergency services register of defibrillators.

(6)  Undertake the minimal servicing required to keep the devices active or devolve this to the local parish or town council.

Cost

Costs are maximum £1500 per defibrillator including purchase and installation.”

The Chairman informed the Council that under Procedural Rule 4.9.8 the motion would not be debated, and instead be referred to the Health and Wellbeing Board for consideration with a report to Executive, as the matter falls within their remit. The outcome of that will be reported to Council.

Councillor Adrian Abbs on introducing the motion stated that defibrillators save lives, and that the motion cost the Council next to nothing, that the NHS was fully supportive, and would use the remaining phone boxes to install defibrillators. Councillor Abbs noted that as a sheltered space with an electric supply, phone boxes were an ideal place to install defibrillators, and there are examples of how to use them. Councillor Abbs stated that he had created an interactive map of defibrillators across the district, and that Councillor Bridgman had given some feedback and indicated that it was a policy the Council was pursuing. Councillor Abbs concludes by noting that this was an issue that parish councils had taken up.

 

The Council considered the under-mentioned Motion (Agenda item 17j refers) submitted in the name of Councillor Tony Vickers relating to proposals for the reform of the planning system.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Tony Vickers and seconded by Councillor Adrian Abbs,

“Council notes:

A.   that the Queen’s Speech announced that “plans to modernise the planning system, so that more homes can be built” in England, will be brought forward in a Planning Bill in this Parliament and

B.   that the plans set out in the Planning White Paper were in the main last autumn unanimously rejected by this Council on the advice of its professional planners and

C.   that the House of Commons Housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee’s first report on those plans, published in May, have criticised that White Paper on numerous counts, including:

1.    Denying local people and their local councils from having any influence on individual planning applications;

2.    Further diminishing the prospects for achieving public acceptance of Local Plans and hence the democratic accountability of those Plans;

3.    Failure to include any measures to incentivise developers to complete consented housing developments in a timely manner;

4.    Absence of any additional resources for Local Planning Authorities

D.   Furthermore the Select Committee report refers to its predecessor’s report on Land Value Capture in 2018 which called for more of the uplift in land value resulting from allocation of land for housing and from planning consent to be captured for public benefit. This could be perhaps by breaking the link between ‘hope value’ use in compulsory purchase, which gives landowners – including some in West Berkshire - and a small number of large national speculative homebuilders immense unearned profit, greatly reducing the available funding for high quality, affordable homes and their essential infrastructure.

E.   This Council has no confidence that the measures in the White Paper will achieve the Government’s stated aims without tackling these problems in the land market at the same time – problems which are widely accepted to be more significant than any flaws in the planning system.

The Council therefore resolves:

That whilst it supports the aspirations of the Government to take urgent measures to restore a functioning land and homes market that results in more affordable and better quality homes and a socially sustainable and climate resilient built environment, it will write to the three MPs representing West Berkshire urging them to resist those measures in the Planning Bill that their colleagues on the all-party Select Committee have so roundly condemned and to call for a more fundamental reform of the land market.”

Councillor Tony Vickers in introducing the motion stated that he intends to withdraw the motion. Councillor Vickers noted that the Leader of the Council, Councillor Lynne Doherty, had assured him that she had worked through the Local Government Association and with central government to secure significant improvements to the Planning Bill that would address fears of all parties and parts of local government. Councillor Vickers stated that he would withdraw the motion for now to allow that process to take place and for central government to fulfil that promise.

Councillor Vickers highlighted Part D of the motion on Land Value Capture, noting that the main concession that will be achieved by the LGA will be the retention of local consultation. However, however good the involvement of local communities in the planning system, and however radical the reforms proposed, the issue causing the lack of housing provision was not the planning system, but the failure of the land market to allocate appropriate value, and that increased the wealth divide in society. There is therefore not enough value in building good and affordable homes, or to provide necessary infrastructure.

Councillor Vickers brought a procedural motion to withdraw the motion under Procedural Rule 4.9.12.f. The Chairman recommended that it be withdrawn.

Councillor Doherty raised a point of personal information to note that Councillor Vickers wanted to see the Council liaise with MPs and central government, which is what they were already doing. The Planning Bill White Paper received a cross-party response and was going to significantly change, but the final proposal was still unclear. Councillor Doherty noted that it was up to the Portfolio Holder and the PAG system to compose another cross-party response, and thanked Councillor Vickers for withdrawing.

The Procedural Motion to withdraw the Motion was put to the vote and declared CARRIED.

 

The Council considered the under-mentioned Motion (Agenda item 17k refers) submitted in the name of Councillor Graham Bridgman relating to Covid-safe Member participation in public meetings.

MOTION: Proposed by Councillor Graham Bridgman and seconded by Councillor Lee Dillon.

“Background

With the expiry of The Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panels Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020 any public meeting (“Meeting”) of the Council or a Council Committee, Board, Sub-Committee, etc (“Body”) must take place in person at a single, specified, geographical location (“Meeting Room”).

However, there is a continuing need to ensure that Meetings are conducted safely and follow public health guidance regarding covid precautions, social distancing, etc.

Motion

In order to ensure that Meetings are held in a covid-safe manner, but that each member of the Body (“Member”) can contribute to, and members of the public can engage with, the Meeting, this Council RESOLVES that, at the sole option of the Chairman of the meeting (“Chairman”):

·         those individuals who are not physically in the Meeting Room but are present virtually - including Members, other members of council, officers and members of the public - may be invited by the Chairman to speak, provided that they would be allowed to speak if physically present;

·         those Members who are not physically in the Meeting Room but are present virtually may be invited by the Chairman to join in an indicative, but non-binding, vote so that the Members in the Meeting Room can gauge the feelings of the entire membership on a particular item before voting substantively upon it;

·         where a member of the public, interested party, etc, has a right to ask a question at, or make a submission to, the Meeting, they may choose to ask that question or make that submission virtually; and

·         the requirement for any questioner to say (eg) “I ask my question as set out in the Summons” is replaced by an option for the Chairman to refer to the question and invite the person responding to answer; but that

·         nothing in this Resolution affects the ability of the Chairman to determine how a question shall be answered as set out in the Constitution (eg at 4.12.5); and

·         the Monitoring Officer is authorised to publish a statement setting out the effect of this Resolution in the Constitution and in any other place considered necessary to bring it to the attention of anyone affected as she deems fit, and to publish any Protocol or Guidance regarding the way in which the Council conducts Meetings.”

Councillor Graham Bridgman in introducing the motion stated that the Council meeting was currently being run under a non-notice procedural motion, and that the Motion would prevent them from having to propose such a procedural motion each time a meeting was held. Councillor Bridgman noted that he hoped central government would listen on the question of virtual meetings, on which an overwhelming majority of local authorities agreed, and brought forward legislation to allow them to happen. Councillor Bridgman noted that this motion was wider than Covid-19, but would allow for permanent engagement from Councillors which could not attend and members of the public who would not normally engage. Councillor Bridgman described the process of indicative votes clunky, but noted that they would get better over time, once the Chairman and officers had found an effective way in which to hold them.

Councillor Jeff Brooks firstly congratulated the Chairman on conducting the indicative votes under difficulties, and stated that the process of debating and voting tonight would be disengaging and confusing to observers, and did not work. Councillor Brooks disagreed with the embrace of virtual work and meetings, stating that it would be damaging to socialising, networking, training and mentoring. However, Councillor Brooks stated that as the process was necessary in certain situations, he would vote for it, but asserted that he opposed Councillor Bridgman’s suggestion that the system could be used permanently, as councillors should be seen to be working and representing properly.

Councillor Doherty disagreed with Councillor Brooks, asserting that the Council had been hugely innovative in their embrace of virtual meetings and engagement, and willingness to continue adapting to changes. Councillor Doherty stated that digital was here to stay, and commended the officers and the Chairman for facilitating the changes and working through difficulty to do so. Councillor Doherty conceded that the process was not perfect, but that the legislative process was going to be slow to adapt. Councillor Doherty highlighted the hybrid system as being particularly innovative, and supported the motion.

Councillor Tony Linden stated that he had chaired a hybrid meeting, and that he hoped the government would legislate to allow people attending remotely to properly vote.

Councillor Richard Somner disagreed with Councillor Brooks, stating that as a manager in the NHS, he had seen an enormous need for remote working, which allowed those who had been shielding, self-isolating or with childcare needs to continue to work. Councillor Somner stated that he didn’t believe anybody was suggesting that everybody work from home, and that instead it was a means to use digitalisation to work around problems, and that other members would understand that it was a force to enable people to take part, noting the use of YouTube to allow people to watch the meetings.

Councillor Rick Jones noted that he had chaired a hybrid meeting, and agreed with Councillor Brooks that it was clunky, awkward and difficult to chair. Councillor Jones however stated that times had changed, and that the Council needed flexibility and the ability to use digital to return to some form of normality.

Councillor Claire Rowles noted that hybrid meetings were difficult, and was a cultural shift for members, commending the Monitoring Officer and Chairman for their work facilitating the meeting. Councillor Rowles noted that the Council must move with the times and adapt to virtual engagement and voting, and engaging people in politics through digital.

Councillor Adrian Abbs concurred with Councillor Brooks’ preference for physical meetings, and noted that technology was a tool for fixing a problem, and that it would not change the preference for physical engagement. Councillor Abbs supported the motion because it was important to ensure hybrid meetings were as good as they could be, but that until it was truly effective, it should not be completely relied on.

Councillor Thomas Marino agreed that the provision of virtual meetings had been very important over the previous 18 months, and agreed with Councillor Linden that there should be provisions set aside for those with genuine needs. However, Councillor Marino did somewhat agree with Councillor Abbs and Councillor Brooks, and expressed a preference for physical meetings as they were more natural.

Councillor Lee Dillon in seconding the motion stated that he agreed with all members, but reiterated that the debate was not about working from home in the future, or the Council’s provisions in the future. Instead, it was a stopgap measure, and that it was to fix a current problem and put all members on the same footing. Councillor Dillon stated that it was also a question as to whether officers and members should make decisions, and if members were to make decisions it would need to be over digital solutions. Councillor Dillon expressed his wish that physical meetings be returned to where practical, apart from resident and voter engagement, where the convenience of residents should be put before the Council’s process.

Councillor Woollaston as Portfolio Holder expressed his preference for physical meetings, but noted that it was an important solution to raise the diversity of candidates.

Councillor Bridgman in summarising responded to Councillor Brooks by expressing that he looked forward to the return of physical meetings, and did not wish to replace them with virtual meetings. However, it was important to deal with the current issue. Councillor Bridgman expressed that there were three things that would be achieved or enhanced by this Motion. Firstly, streaming of meetings would be kept as it would hugely increase the abilities for engagement. Secondly, that it would increase the level of public engagement, without requiring residents to come to the building in Newbury. Thirdly, to allow members who cannot be attend to engage fully with the meeting, and contribute to debates even if they could not currently vote. Councillor Bridgman stated that there would be a myriad of reasons why members would not be able to intend, and all should be covered, and expressed his wish that they would soon be able to vote.

An indicative vote of all Members present in the Council chamber or remotely approved the Motion. 35 in favour, 0 against.

The Motion was put to the vote and declared CARRIED.