Council services by letter

Agenda item

||

Motions

The following Motions have been notified in accordance with the requirements of Council Procedure Rule 15, to be moved and seconded by the Members indicated:

 

(1)          Motion to remove Temporary Street Space Schemes

 

 

To be moved by Councillor Paul Osborn and seconded by Councillor Anjana Patel:

 

 

This Council requests that the Executive immediately removes all temporary Low Traffic Neighbourhood schemes (LTNs) from Harrow, all temporary Strategic Cycling routes, and those temporary Pedestrian Space schemes that were recommended for removal by TARSAP (Traffic and Road Safety Advisory Panel) of 10 August.

 

The LTN schemes and the Strategic Cycle routes, while well intentioned, have caused congestion, consternation, and chaos for local people across the borough.  The Pedestrian Space schemes have made negligible difference for pedestrian safety while seriously impacting local businesses.  It is now time for the Executive to acknowledge that these hastily implemented schemes are not working and should be removed.

 

This Council notes:

 

·                     These Street Space schemes have led to numerous petitions being set up by residents, signed by thousands of local people.

·                     The most recent petition, which calls for the removal of nearly all LTNs, gained over 5,500 signatures in a matter of days.

·                     Many Members of the Council have received numerous communications from residents expressing their dismay at the effect of these schemes.

·                     Many residents feel there was no meaningful consultation by the Council for these schemes, and that these schemes were not properly publicised.

 

This Council recommends that the Executive immediately removes all temporary LTNs, Strategic Cycling routes and those Pedestrian Space schemes that were recommended for removal by TARSAP in order to allow for a meaningful consultation with residents to take place and to restore confidence in this Council.

 

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 15.6, as this Motion relates to a matter within the powers of the Executive, the Leader of the Opposition moves that it does not stand automatically referred to the next meeting of the Executive but be dealt with as if Council Procedure Rule 15.7.1 applied.

 

(2)          London Living Wage Motion

 

 

To be moved by Councillor Adam Swersky and seconded by Councillor Kiran Ramchandanai:

 

This Council notes that:

 

·                     4.7 million people in Britain are low paid

·                     The real Living Wage is calculated independently by the Living Wage Foundation based on what people need to get by

·                     The real Living Wage is currently £9.50 per hour nationally and £10.85 per hour in London.  A GMB London study showed that 25% of jobs in Harrow are paid below the London Living Wage

·                     Harrow Council has committed to paying its own staff the London Living Wage.  It has also modified its procurement processes to encourage contractors to pay this rate to their staff

·                     121 Councils are accredited as Living Wage employers by the Living Wage Foundation

 

This Councils resolves to:

 

·                     Seek accreditation as a Living Wage employer with the Living Wage Foundation

·                     Ensure all staff employed by the Council are paid the real Living Wage

·                     Develop a plan for all contractors to pay their staff the real Living Wage over time, recognising the dependency on the Council’s budget settlement from central government for 2021/22 and beyond.”

 

(3)          Motion to create a better built environment for developments of Council owned land

 

 

To be moved by Councillor Marilyn Ashton and seconded by Councillor Stephen Greek:

 

This Council notes that there have been many planning applications for large high-rise developments within Harrow.  Many of the developments that have been approved and built have significantly changed the character of Harrow and have damaged the leafy and pleasant landscape, which had attracted so many people to live in the borough.

 

This Council notes:

·                     The lessons from the past when tower blocks dominated the street scene only to be demolished, because they failed to deliver sustainable communities.

·                     The Council can, and should, influence the scale, bulk and height of developments on Council land that it owns or wishes to dispose of.

·                     Restrictive covenants are an effective way of influencing potential future developments on land the Council owns at present and might wish to dispose of in future.

 

This Council resolves:

To insert the following condition to Section C87 of the Council’s Financial Regulations (Part 4K of the Council Constitution).

VI.       ensure that a restrictive covenant is in place limiting any future development on the site to be no higher than 10 storeys in the town centre and no higher than 5 storeys in the rest of the borough.”

 

Minutes:

(i)            Motion to remove Temporary Street Space Schemes

 

 

Motion in the names of Councillor Paul Osborn and Councillor Anjana Patel:

 

 

This Council requests that the Executive immediately removes all temporary Low Traffic Neighbourhood schemes (LTNs) from Harrow, all temporary Strategic Cycling routes, and those temporary Pedestrian Space schemes that were recommended for removal by TARSAP (Traffic and Road Safety Advisory Panel) of 10 August.

 

The LTN schemes and the Strategic Cycle routes, while well intentioned, have caused congestion, consternation, and chaos for local people across the borough.  The Pedestrian Space schemes have made negligible difference for pedestrian safety while seriously impacting local businesses.  It is now time for the Executive to acknowledge that these hastily implemented schemes are not working and should be removed.

 

This Council notes:

 

·                     These Street Space schemes have led to numerous petitions being set up by residents, signed by thousands of local people.

·                     The most recent petition, which calls for the removal of nearly all LTNs, gained over 5,500 signatures in a matter of days.

·                     Many Members of the Council have received numerous communications from residents expressing their dismay at the effect of these schemes.

·                     Many residents feel there was no meaningful consultation by the Council for these schemes, and that these schemes were not properly publicised.

 

This Council recommends that the Executive immediately removes all temporary LTNs, Strategic Cycling routes and those Pedestrian Space schemes that were recommended for removal by TARSAP in order to allow for a meaningful consultation with residents to take place and to restore confidence in this Council.”

 

Upon the meeting moving to a vote, ten Members rose and requested a Roll Call vote and the Motion was lost. The voting on the Motion was a follows:

 

 

Roll Call Vote (In Favour of the Motion):  Councillors Almond, Ashton, Bath, Baxter, Benjamin, Chana, Chauhan, Greek, Halai, Hall, Hinkley, Hirani, Jogia, Lammiman, Dr Lewinson, Mithani, Moshenson, Chris Mote, Janet Mote, Osborn, Mina Parmar, Anjana Patel, Pritesh Patel, Rabadia, Seymour, Stevenson and Thakker.

 

 

Roll Call Vote (Against the Motion): Councillors Ali, Dan Anderson, Jeff Anderson, Sue Anderson, Assad, Borio, Brown, Butterworth, Dattani, Ferry, Fitzpatrick, Gilligan, Graham Henson, Maxine Henson, Jamie, Lee, Kairul Kareema Marikar, Maru, Miles, Murphy-Strachan, O’Dell, Varsha Parmar, Primesh Patel, Perry, Proctor, Ramchandani, Robson, Rekha Shah, Sachin Shah, Smith, Krishna Suresh, Sasikala Suresh, Swersky and Dr Weiss.

 

 

Abstain: The Worshipful the Mayor Councillor Nitin Parekh.

 

(ii)          London Living Wage Motion

 

 

Motion in the names of Councillor Adam Swersky and Councillor Kiran Ramchandani:

 

This Council notes that:

 

·                     4.7 million people in Britain are low paid

·                     The real Living Wage is calculated independently by the Living Wage Foundation based on what people need to get by

·                     The real Living Wage is currently £9.50 per hour nationally and £10.85 per hour in London.  A GMB London study showed that 25% of jobs in Harrow are paid below the London Living Wage

·                     Harrow Council has committed to paying its own staff the London Living Wage.  It has also modified its procurement processes to encourage contractors to pay this rate to their staff

·                     121 Councils are accredited as Living Wage employers by the Living Wage Foundation

 

This Council resolves to:

 

·                     Seek accreditation as a Living Wage employer with the Living Wage Foundation

·                     Ensure all staff employed by the Council are paid the real Living Wage

·                     Develop a plan for all contractors to pay their staff the real Living Wage over time, recognising the dependency on the Council’s budget settlement from central government for 2021/22 and beyond.”

 

RESOLVED:  That the Motion set out at (ii) above be adopted.

 

(iii)         Motion to create a better built environment for developments of Council owned land

 

 

Motion in the names of Councillor Marilyn Ashton by Councillor Stephen Greek:

 

This Council notes that there have been many planning applications for large high-rise developments within Harrow.  Many of the developments that have been approved and built have significantly changed the character of Harrow and have damaged the leafy and pleasant landscape, which had attracted so many people to live in the borough.

 

This Council notes:

·                     The lessons from the past when tower blocks dominated the street scene only to be demolished, because they failed to deliver sustainable communities.

·                     The Council can, and should, influence the scale, bulk and height of developments on Council land that it owns or wishes to dispose of.

·                     Restrictive covenants are an effective way of influencing potential future developments on land the Council owns at present and might wish to dispose of in future.

 

This Council resolves:

 

To insert the following condition to Section C87 of the Council’s Financial Regulations (Part 4K of the Council Constitution).

VI.       ensure that a restrictive covenant is in place limiting any future development on the site to be no higher than 10 storeys in the town centre and no higher than 5 storeys in the rest of the borough.”

Upon the meeting moving to the vote, the Motion was lost.