Agenda item

Councillor N A Dugmore formally moved, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 7, the following Motion:

“This Council calls for an immediate review of the relationship between Telford and Wrekin local planning authority and ATP the private planning consultancy established by this Council to avoid any perception that applicants paying to use this consultancy have an unfair advantage”

The Motion was formally seconded by Councillor I T W Fletcher.

 In proposing the Motion, Councillor Dugmore stated that a review of the relationship between ATP and the planning department was needed, as he stated there was a perception that those who engage ATP are more likely to have their applications approved. Although it was the role of planning consultants to look at ways to overcome barriers to approval, Councillor Dugmore stated that there needed to be respect between Councillors and officers.

Various Members stated that serious allegations should not be made without proof, and that if such proof was available, this should be presented to the police or directly to the relevant officers. Councillor Wright stated that there were no double standards and that the Council carried out its duty within the law. Other Members clarified that ATP does not engage with the Planning Committee, the committee were advised by planning officers and legal advisors.

Members were advised that a new director had recently been appointed to oversee the planning department and that a review of ATP was underway, with a report due shortly.

A recorded vote was requested. The vote was as follows:

For:     12  

Councillors S Bentley, S P Burrell, E J Carter, N A Dugmore, A J Eade,  I Fletcher, V Fletcher, E J Greenaway, M B Hosken, A Lawrence, T J Nelson, J M Seymour

Against:          36

 Councillors K T Blundell, A J Burford, E Callear, L D Carter, C Cassar, G H Cook, S Davies, A E England, N A M England, R C Evans, C Healy, V Holt, T L B Janke, A Jhawar, J Jones, J Lavery, J Loveridge, A D McClements, R Mehta, K Middleton, G Offland, R A Overton, G C W Reynolds, S A W Reynolds, S J Reynolds, H Rhodes, K S Sahota, P J Scott, C F Smith, B J Thompson, K T Tomlinson, W L Tomlinson, C R Turley, P R Watling, D R W White, D Wright

Abstentions: 0

RESOLVED - that the Motion not be approved

Councillor S Bentley formally moved, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 7, the following Motion:

“Transparency through consultation with stakeholders and elected members is a key element of Local Government and should be fully incorporated into the decision making process of Telford and Wrekin Council.”

The Motion was formally seconded by Councillor N A Dugmore.

Councillor P R Watling moved the following amendment, with additional words shown in bold and underlined: 

“Transparency through consultation with stakeholders and elected members is a key element of Local Government and should be fully incorporated into the decision making process of Telford and Wrekin Council. Our adherence to these principles is demonstrated by the results of our recent residents’ survey, the current budget engagement and live local plan consultation and our ongoing commitment to our Co-Operative Council Values.”

The amendment was seconded by Councillor D Wright.

A vote was taken on the proposed amendment, which was carried, becoming the substantive motion.

At the end of the debate, a vote was taken on the amendment put forward by Councillor Watling which was CARRIED. 

RESOLVED - that the amended Motion be approved

Members of the Health Scrutiny Committee and Councillor G Offland declared an interest in the following item and did not take part in the determination of the item.

Councillor N A Dugmore formally moved, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 7, the following Motion:

“This Council has no confidence in the Future Fit hospital reorganisation programme.”

The Motion was formally seconded by Councillor A J Eade.

Councillor A J Burford moved the following amendment, with additional words shown in bold and underlined: 

“In line with motions passed previously by Telford & Wrekin Council (the latest at an extraordinary meeting called by the Labour administration in October 2019) this Council reiterates that it has no confidence in the Future Fit hospital reorganisation programme. We believe that the Covid pandemic should cause a rethink of priorities for the allocation of the £500 million plus that Future Fit will cost. There never was a good case for using most of this funding to prop up the crumbling infrastructure at the RSH at the expense of Telford and Wrekin's Women and Children's Centre (for which a strong clinical argument for its location at PRH was successfully made only 6 years ago) and a fully functioning A&E department at PRH. This plan makes even less sense now given the urgent need to consider investment priorities in the round in the light of the pandemic. We once again call upon our NHS colleagues to discuss with us an alternative plan without preconditions and we call upon both of our MPs (who welcomed the Future Fit announcement) to support the Council and its residents by joining us in this approach

We ask that a joint letter signed by the leader and group leaders be sent to local MPs and NHS organisations declaring our lack of confidence in Future Fit and calling for them to engage with us on alternative plans for this investment.”

The amendment was seconded by Councillor R A Overton.

A vote was taken on the proposed amendment, which was carried, becoming the substantive motion.

At the end of the debate, a vote was taken on the amendment put forward by Councillor Burford which was CARRIED. 

RESOLVED - that the amended Motion be approved