8
N.B. Councillor E Brambley Crawshaw left the meeting during the discussion of the first Motion.
The Chairman invited the Monitoring Officer to provide some guidance for Members on the consideration of Motions.
Mr Bing, Head of Legal and Democratic Services and Monitoring Officer, reported that there were 3 Motions to be considered and he drew Members' attention to the flow chart which had been created, to assist with the process for dealing with Motions, as outlined within the Constitution. The first stage of the process was for the Motion to be moved and seconded, the second stage was for Members to decide if they wished to debate the Motion this evening or to refer it to Cabinet or another Committee. If Members had decided to debate the Motion this evening, the process would enter the third stage of debating the Motion, during which the Motion could be amended and then, finally, there would be a vote on whether to approve or reject the Motion.
a) Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Smith-Lyte
The Chairman invited Councillor Smith-Lyte to read out her Motion.
Councillor Smith-Lyte proposed her Motion and then read out the following:
This Council commits to implementing a change in decision-making governance arrangements, comprising the cessation of the current leader and cabinet model of governance and the implementation of a full committee model of governance. This will be developed during 2021/22 with a view to the arrangements taking effect from the beginning of the 2022/23 municipal year, subject to a legally and constitutionally robust process, led by the council’s Audit and Governance committee and agreed by Council.
Councillor Smith-Lyte reported that before 2000, the Committee Model of governance had been widespread amongst Councils. This system allowed for power to be shared widely and the workload was shared evenly over many Councillors. She stated that several Councils who had changed to the Executive (Cabinet) system since 2000 had reverted back to the Committee system - these included North Devon, Basildon and Cheshire East.
The Chairman interjected to clarify that Councillor Smith-Lyte should explain the purpose of the Motion and what she wanted to achieve by it. This was not the appropriate time for speeches.
Councillor Brambley-Crawshaw sought further clarification as Councillor Smith-Lyte had been invited to read out her Motion and then explain what she wanted to achieve by it and had then been advised that no speeches were allowed at this point. The Chairman advised that if the Motion was approved for debate this evening, that was the correct time for speeches to be made.
The Motion was then seconded by Councillor Fisher.
The Chairman then advised that the Motion had been moved and seconded, the next stage in the process was to decide if the Motion was to be debated this evening or not and he invited Councillor Gallant to speak.
Councillor Gallant then proposed that the Motion be debated this evening, as it was an important matter that a Member had raised and he stated that it should be dealt with by Full Council this evening. This was duly seconded by Councillor Cook.
Councillor Lynch, Chairman of the Audit and Governance Committee, raised concerns that his Committee's workload was already heavy and it would not be able to accommodate this additional piece of work within the next 3.5 months, to allow for the implementation of the new arrangements for the beginning of the 2022/23 municipal year.
There being no further comments from Members, the proposal to discuss the Motion this evening was put to the vote and it was unanimously CARRIED.
The Chairman then invited Councillor Smith-Lyte to speak to her Motion.
Councillor Smith-Lyte reported that before 2000, the Committee Model of governance had been widespread amongst Councils. This system allowed for power to be shared widely, in politically balanced committees, and the workload was shared evenly over many Councillors. She stated that several Councils who had changed to the Executive (Cabinet) Model since 2000 had reverted back to the Committee system - these included North Devon, Basildon and Cheshire East. She noted that many of these Councils had Conservative Administrations. This system would bring more Councillors into the decision making process, bring local issues to the table and would stop a few Cabinet Members being overworked, with more meeting invitations than they could possibly attend, as was the case, she believed at East Suffolk. In addition, there had been research undertaken by the Centre for Public Scrutiny (CfPS), which suggested that no system of governance was any financially cheaper to run than another but that the ability to make stream lined decisions was increased with the Committee Model.
The Chairman clarified that the meeting was now in debate and he invited Councillor Gallant to speak.
Councillor Gallant reported that he was surprised to see this Motion come forward for several reasons. In the preparations to become one Council, just over two years ago, several Member Working Groups were formed, which were made up of cross-party groups of Councillors. The Constitution and Governance Member Working Group, aided by key Officers, specifically worked on implementing good governance and the robust procedural elements designed to underpin the activities of this Council. Together, the cross-party working group agreed on the current Leader and Cabinet Model and built-in the robust checks and balances to ensure transparency and fairness.
Councillor Gallant stated that research clearly showed that the current governance arrangement was far more efficient than the full Committee Model being proposed. The current model was agile and allows the local authority, to react quickly to the needs of our residents and thus deliver against our collective strategic agenda in both a timely and efficient manner. An example of this was how quickly ESC had been able to support our communities at the height of the pandemic. Many councils had needed to avail themselves of the Chief Executives emergency powers to get things done, East Suffolk Council did not.
The proposed Committee Model was widely known to be inefficient, sluggish, and overly focused on operational matters, rather than policy and outcomes. Adopting this Model would see significant increases in administrative processes and procedures, and Member and Officer time would be tied up in more meetings, with reduced outcomes. It fostered a silo way of working, with no consistent overview of the organisational ambitions. ESC had a duty to spend taxpayer money wisely and not on special responsibility allowances for Members, as they sit in endless meetings nor in employing more officers to support the increased bureaucracy. The current Cabinet Model was widely regarded as a cost-effective method of political governance.
Councillor Gallant reported that he was surprised and disappointed to see this Motion come forward this evening. He had widely made it known that the Cabinet were available to all Members, including those of the Opposition, and Cabinet Members and the Leader could be approached directly to discuss their Portfolios or areas of concern. Additionally, this Council had a strong Scrutiny system in place, that ensured all Councillors have a role in the development of Council policy. The system allowed any Councillor to question, challenge and review specific areas of concern in a manner that will allow public debate. The Call-in process further enhanced this opportunity. Members of the Opposition also had an open invitation to both attend and indeed speak at Cabinet meetings.
Councillor Gallant reported that although he was speaking as the Leader of the Council and the Leader of the controlling Group, he didn't believe that only his Group could produce good ideas. This was made further evident by how the Council had collectively developed the Strategic Plan for East Suffolk. Members would recall that the “hothouse” process was transparent and inclusive. Two years on, as ESC delivers against this Plan, the process remains - transparent and inclusive, with full cross-party input into our Strategic Plan Delivery Board.
Councillor Gallant reported that this cross-party working would be further evidenced this evening by the very next Motion, which was submitted by an Opposition Group Leader who had worked together with the relevant Cabinet Member, to ensure that what was proposed worked for all, and sought to deliver meaningful outcomes. To dismantle the effective arrangements that were in place, and to move to a full Committee Model of governance would hinder this authority and significantly slow down the progress we are making towards delivering on our collective promises to the people of East Suffolk. He confirmed that he would therefore be voting against this Motion and he called for all Members to join him in doing so.
Councillor Rivett stated that East Suffolk Council was not yet 3 years old. The Constitutional Working Group had completed a huge amount of work and we had successfully transitioned from 2 Councils into 1. This Motion should be seen for what it was, which was a vote of 'no confidence' in the Administration. The Administration was able to carry out its business and the Opposition had regular access to the Cabinet Members and Leader and are given many opportunities to challenge and have input, suggesting alternatives to the direction and initiatives of the Council.
Councillor Rivett then asked Members to look at the level of challenge and the provision of alternatives from the Opposition. Between January and October 2021, the Opposition had tabled 3 Motions. They were so concerned with the direction of the Council, that only 3 times have they sought a change in direction. Those Motions included a request for a carbon budget and a citizens assembly for climate change. He took the opportunity to commend Councillor Mallinder for his ongoing hard work, as the Cabinet Member for the Environment. The other Motion had been about appointments to committees and unfortunately, Councillor Rivett stated he had not been able to attend the meeting to participate in that debate. This time, a Committee Model of governance was requested. Councillor Rivett then gave some examples of the amount of work currently underway within his portfolio which included Sizewell C, several off-shore wind farms and energy projects, as well as an increasing number of consultations and queried how that would be covered successfully by the Committee Model. He commented that if the Opposition were so concerned, why was their attendance at Cabinet Meetings so low, as it averaged only 4 Members of the Opposition per meeting? Councillor Rivett stated that the Cabinet was delivering great things and, as such, this Motion should be voted down.
Councillor Byatt stated that it was crucial for the Opposition to be able to continue asking questions and challenging, as there needed to be checks and balances in the decision-making process. He felt it was important to ask questions and have Motions in a public arena and it was not always appropriate to ask Cabinet Members questions outside of Full Council and Committee meetings. He sought assurances that Opposition Members would be able to continue asking questions at meetings, particularly those of the Cabinet. Councillor Byatt stated that the Committee Model of governance required more meetings, more travel, increased costs etc and he would prefer to retain the current Cabinet Model. The Chairman provided reassurance that the Constitution stated, in Cabinet Procedure Rules, paragraph 2.2a, that Members of the Council may attend meetings of the Cabinet and ask questions.
Councillor Mallinder stated that the Leader was inclusive, the Opposition were valued and he was proud of what the Council had achieved to date. The Cabinet Members were all accessible and there was successful cross party working in many ways including on the Environment Task Group. The Opposition were an integral part of how the Council worked. At the moment, he felt that we needed action not words to deal with the climate emergency.
Councillor Deacon reported that he had previously worked under the Committee Model and he had found it to be cumbersome, longwinded, expensive and slow. In contrast, there were no problems with the current system, he confirmed he would be very reluctant to return to the Committee Model and he would not support this Motion.
Councillor Bird stated that he supported what had previously been said regarding clarity and transparency of the Cabinet Model. He commented that Councillors stood as party political candidates with a manifesto of policies, with the Administration steering the direction of the Council. He queried who would steer the Council, if ESC were working under the Committee Model? As Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee, Councillor Bird stated that accountability was extremely important. The Council currently had a Leader and Portfolio Holders who had clearly defined roles, so that the Scrutiny Committee would know who to approach to answer questions and be held accountable. He queried who would be held responsible when matters were referred from Committee to Committee under the Committee Model? The current system worked well, there was adequate scrutiny and the opportunity to ask meaningful questions, he stated that he saw no reason to change from the Cabinet Model.
Councillor Gooch stated that she welcomed the Motion and the opportunity to debate broader ways of working democratically. She commented that she had no experience of working under the Committee Model personally or operationally. Councillor Gooch did raise concerns about the timing of the Motion, as by the time the Audit and Governance Committee had time to thoroughly review the matter, the Council would be in the run up to the next elections campaign for this Council. She felt that if the Committee Model were to be looked at, it should be considered by the new Administration in 2023.
Councillor Pitchers stated that he had past experience of working under the Committee Model where he had been Chairman of one the Committee’s and he felt that it was not a workable Model.
As there was no more debate, the Chairman invited Councillor Fisher, who had seconded the Motion, to sum up. Councillor Fisher stated that given the direction of the debate, he would not try to persuade a large number of people to change their minds this evening.
The Chairman then invited Councillor Smith-Lyte, who had proposed the Motion, to sum up.
Councillor Smith-Lyte stated that, as with Councillor Fisher, she knew when she was beaten. She thanked Councillor Byatt for raising the point that this was the arena for the Opposition to ask questions and putting Motions forward, which was an important part of democracy. She commented that Councillor Rivett’s examples of what was happening in his Portfolio had merely demonstrated that the Cabinet Members had far too much to do and would benefit from sharing their workload with others. Councillor Smith-Lyte still maintained that the Committee Model was more democratic and it was clearly not unworkable, as many other Councils of a similar size were using it effectively.
The Chairman then invited Members to vote upon the Motion and it was
RESOLVED
That the Motion was LOST.
b) Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Topping
The Chairman invited Councillor Topping to read out her Motion.
Councillor Topping proposed her Motion and then read out the following:
This Council recognises:
1. The East Suffolk Staff Travel Allowance offers members and officers an allowance of £0.45 per mile for the first 10,000 miles. They can also claim 5p per mile for every passenger that they carry. This applies to petrol, diesel and electric cars. Cyclists are offered £0.20 a mile.
2. Incentivising shared travel, reducing emissions and lessening reliance on car-based transport is a vital step towards tackling the climate emergency which this Council declared in 2019.
3. Since March 2020, Council staff have saved almost 5 million miles of home to work commute driving, through remote working. There has been a 66% decrease in tonnes of CO2 equivalent arising from commuting and place of work. Increasing car-sharing and use of public transport could be a way to make sure emissions do not rise back to their pre-COVID levels.
4. Reducing the use of cars offers a way for staff, members, and the Council itself to save money, as well as reducing our carbon footprint and the impact of driving on local air quality and traffic congestion.
This Council resolves:
1. All Ward Members and Officers are encouraged to car-share or use public transport whenever possible in order to reduce unnecessary car journeys, particularly Members travelling from two-Member Wards or staff travelling to the same meeting. This will include an internal communications campaign that will offer information on the benefits of car sharing and using public transport.
2. Where appropriate Members, Officers and groups should be encouraged to use technology (Zoom/Teams) for meetings. Consolidate multiple in person meetings taking place in a particular geographical area in order minimise travel miles. Utilize electric pool cars and take advantage of cycling racks provided.
Councillor Mallinder seconded the Motion and reserved his right to speak.
The Chairman then invited Members to consider whether to debate the Motion this evening or not.
Councillor Gallant proposed that the Motion be debated this evening and it was duly seconded by Councillor Rivett. Upon being put to the vote, it was CARRIED.
The Chairman invited Councillor Topping to explain the purpose of her Motion.
Councillor Topping stated that on 28 July 2021, East Suffolk Council had a Full Council meeting which took place at High Lodge in Darsham. The venue was difficult to get to when trying to reduce carbon emissions. The options for the 3 Beccles Councillors to get to the meeting were:
a) to borrow Councillor Topping's husbands car and drive the 27.4 miles round trip, or
b) phone a taxi company in Halesworth to collect them from Darsham train station - cycle to Beccles train station, arrive at Darsham train station, taxi to High Lodge, allow the taxi to return to Halesworth and repeat the journey on the way home, which was 26.6 taxi miles round trip on top of the train and cycle miles already undertaken. Instead, they had chosen:
c) which was to cycle to Beccles train station, take the train to Darsham then cycle to High Lodge and then reverse the process at the end of the meeting. This option led to no car miles being used. Councillor Topping commented that much of the cycle track from Darsham train station to High Lodge was overgrown, she reported this and it was cleared in 2 weeks.
Councillor Topping stated that it was not always the easiest method that should be used to undertake Council duties, however she felt that Members should always think about their options and make an informed decision about the method of travel used, making sure they were doing their personal best to reduce their carbon footprint.
The Chairman then opened the debate and invited Councillor Gallant to speak.
Councillor Gallant stated that he wanted to provide clarification, to Members and the Public, that the 45p per mile was for travel for work purposes only and that the 5 million miles that had been saved, would not have received the 45p per mile payment. The 5 million miles saved were from officer’s travel from their home to their place of work, which would not have been paid for by the Council.
Councillor Byatt stated that he would like to propose an amendment to the Motion. Everything after 'This Council resolves...' would be replaced with: 'This Council resolves to await the publication of the East Suffolk Climate Action Plan, rather than jumping the gun at this stage, so that full consideration can be given to all the things contained within that Climate Action Plan.'
The Chairman asked if there was a seconder for Councillor Byatt's proposed amendment and Councillor Deacon seconded the amendment.
The Chairman invited Members to debate the amendment.
Councillor Gallant stated that it was a sound amendment, as of course, the Council could wait. However, he felt that the Council could do something positive in the meantime. The Motion was not something that would cost the Council additional funding, the wording encouraged Members and Officers to do what they could, at this moment in time. Councillor Gallant stated he understood the rationality behind the proposed amendment and waiting but the Council could do something immediately. He stated that the Cabinet Member for the Environment had initiated the conversion of Council vehicles to Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil (HVO), whilst waiting for more sustainable types of technology to come along. ESC could either do nothing and wait, or ESC could do something and wait. Councillor Gallant supported doing something and waiting and he called for Members not to support the proposed amendment.
Councillor Bird raised a point of order. He asked if Members could have a ruling from the Monitoring Officer about whether the proposed amendment did in fact negate the intention of the original Motion? Mr Bing, Monitoring Officer, stated that the proposed amendment to the Motion clearly deferred or delayed the implementation of the original Motion, it did not negate the meaning.
The Chairman invited Councillor Deacon, as the seconder of the proposed amendment, to speak. Councillor Deacon confirmed that he wished to reserve his right to speak.
There being no further comments, the Chairman invited Members to debate. There being no further debate, the Chairman invited Councillor Deacon to speak as the seconder of the proposed amendment.
Councillor Deacon stated that the majority of the things listed in the original Motion were already being implemented, therefore he saw little point to it. He felt that what Councillor Byatt had suggested in his amendment was to implement all of the recommendations from the Climate Action Plan, when it was available, as it would contain what was in the original Motion, and more. Councillor Deacon commented that he was unclear when the Climate Action Plan report would be available but he believed that the contents of the original Motion were already being implemented and achieved.
The Chairman asked Councillor Topping, as the proposer of the original Motion, if she wished to comment.
Councillor Topping stated that she disagreed with Councillor Deacon. She said that she regularly travelled to Council meetings in Melton and, apart from Councillor Gooch, she had not seen any other Members travel by train. Councillor Topping stated she was not saying that everyone had to use the train, however, if you lived near a train station, why wouldn't you make use of it? Councillor Topping stated that she had been offered lifts from Members of the Opposition travelling to places such as Trinity Park, as she would not be able to get to such places using public transport. She felt that there was more to be done and that more car sharing should be undertaken. The Council needed to act now, there was a climate emergency, it was unclear when the report would be published and we needed to be more forceful in our actions.
Councillor Goldson stated that he was delighted to hear that the Green Party wanted to travel more sustainably. However, the Opposition had just proposed a Motion that ESC moved to change to the Committee Model of governance, which would increase the amount of meetings and, therefore, travel ten-fold. This Council was currently doing all it could and everything in its power to be environmentally friendly.
Councillor Blundell stated that he supported the car sharing issue, however in order to do so, Members should have business cover on their insurance in order to take passengers, which had increased his premium. He also stated that he had chosen not to claim mileage for attending Council meetings.
The Chairman then invited Councillor Byatt to sum up regarding his proposed amendment.
Councillor Byatt asked, with the greatest respect, not to be lectured about the way in which he travelled to Council meetings. He stated that we were already doing the things mentioned in the original Motion and he clarified that he needed to refer to that, to explain the purpose of his proposed amendment. He asked if the original Motion meant that Officers were not already car sharing etc? The original Motion only contained a small part of what the Council could do and, as he had already mentioned, the Climate Action Plan had been delayed and should be available shortly. There are many more things that the original Motion could have included, such as financial incentives to car share, cycle hire, the help to buy scheme for bicycles. The Chairman reminded Councillor Byatt that his comments should be relevant to his proposed amendment. Councillor Byatt stated that his comments were relevant and that the Council would only have to wait a few weeks for the Climate Action Plan to be published and then the recommendations within that could be fully implemented.
The Chairman then invited Members to vote on the proposed amendment and when it was put to the vote the proposed amendment was LOST.
The Chairman invited Members to debate the original Motion.
Councillor Cackett stated that she welcomed the Motion. She felt that public transport was often poor and it was not always possible to car share, as it was impractical. Train times were inconvenient and using the train often meant that meetings had to be left early in order to catch the train home. Cycling was also not practical or suitable for all people, particularly for older people.
Councillor Daly stated that the proposed Motion was not compulsory, it was encouraging everyone to think about things in a slightly different way and to consider green methods of travel. He called for Members to support the Motion.
Councillor Cook stated that during the 2020/21 financial year, £300,000 had been saved from the reduction in mileage claims and the resultant carbon saving. In the 2021/22 financial year to date, finances were still running under budget for mileage claims and this was because the Council had been changing how it did things and it continued to have more meetings on Teams or Zoom. Councillor Cook stated that the Council had also changed its diesel vans to electric vans for Norse, there was an electric bus service Framlingham Ward which travelled from Framlingham to Campsea Ash, the Council had installed electric charging points for its staff and had replaced diesel fuel with HVO for its larger vehicles. He stated that it was difficult not to support the Motion.
Councillor Gooch stated that she supported the Motion. She said that there clearly needed to be increased co-operation and communication within between everyone, as some of the train stations were remote and fairly isolated and there was a significant distance between the 2 Council offices. She stated that everyone should be safe when using public transport, including when waiting for a train and nobody should be waiting alone.
The Chairman commented that he had to rely on trains or lifts to attend meetings and he regularly arrived at the station to find that he had just missed the train and then had to wait an hour for the next one.
Councillor Pitchers stated that he agreed with Councillor Cook, the Council was already working to reduce its carbon footprint. He stated that he found this Motion to be pointless, as the Council was already doing everything within it, therefore he would be voting against it. He suggested that officers could be asked to send a reminder out to everyone, to encourage car sharing, as appropriate.
There being no further debate, the Chairman invited Councillor Mallinder, as the seconder of the Motion, to speak.
Councillor Mallinder stated that he was delighted to second the Motion and he took the opportunity to remind Members that the Environment was a key theme of the Council and was a founding principle in the Strategic Plan. The Council had recently declared a climate emergency and aimed to be carbon neutral by 2030, had introduced electric vehicles, changed larger vehicles to run on HVO and making sure that our assets were functioning efficiently. The Council was also preserving and championing our natural environment, reducing the use of chemicals and having a clean air strategy. Councillor Mallinder stated that he welcomed this Motion as it highlighted the focus of the Council, working cross-party to set an example to others, to reduce our carbon footprint and Ward Members should be leading on this. He commented that he had upset some of the Councillors in the North of the District by not attending their meetings in person but he had wanted to consolidate his meetings and reduce his carbon footprint, which sometimes meant taking difficult decisions. There was a climate emergency and small changes could make a big difference over time, therefore he was delighted to second the Motion and recommend it to Full Council.
Council Byatt raised a point of order to clarify if he was able to speak now? The Chairman confirmed that he could. Councillor Byatt confirmed that he did not wish to prolong the meeting this evening, but he drew Members’ attention to the wording of the Motion and queried if it was only in 2 Member Wards where Members should car share? What about the Wards with 3 Members, such as in Lowestoft? He also queried the word 'encourage', as he felt that it should be made stronger, that all Members and officers would car share wherever practical. He felt that the Motion should be bolder and include that officers will use technology in order to facilitate online meetings. He asked why there was no mention of installing solar panels at our offices? He stated that this Motion only covered a tiny part of what the Council can do, which it was already doing and it could include so much more.
There being no further debate, the Chairman invited Members to vote on the Motion and it was
RESOLVED
That the Motion be APPROVED by Full Council.
c) Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Beavan
The Chairman invited Councillor Beavan to read out his Motion.
Councillor Beavan proposed the following Motion:
This Council urges the government to finally and promptly close the iniquitous loophole that allows second home owners to evade both council tax and rates by pretending to be a holiday let business, even though they do not have to actually let at all.
The Motion was duly seconded by Councillor Daly, who reserved his right to speak.
The Chairman then invited Members to consider whether to debate the Motion this evening or not.
Councillor Gallant proposed that the Motion be debated this evening. He noted that Council had debated this matter before, however, he felt that it would be practical to send the Motion to Cabinet or another Committee. Councillor Patience stated that he wished to ask a question about the Motion and the Chairman advised that the Council was still discussing whether to debate the Motion this evening or not. Councillor Cook duly seconded the proposal to discuss the Motion this evening and upon being put to the vote, it was CARRIED.
The Chairman invited Members to debate the Motion.
Councillor Patience sought clarification that no Council Tax or rates were being paid by those people with second homes? Councillor Beavan replied that second homes should pay Council Tax, however several such premises were being classed as a business, a holiday let, therefore they did not have to pay Council Tax as they were able to claim small business rates relief at 100%. He stated that no checks were currently undertaken to ensure that these holiday lets were being let out to tourists.
Councillor Beavan read out a quote from Rishi Sunak, Chancellor of the Exchequer, from 3 years ago. It was unanimously agreed by the Government that the loophole should be closed and it was mentioned again in the Spring of 2020 that the loophole would shortly be closed. He reported that Councillor Cook had also been told that the loophole would be closed in the Autumn of 2021 and again, nothing had happened. Councillor Beavan reiterated that the Government had declared that the loophole would be closed for 3 years and still nothing had happened. Meanwhile, a small minority were still getting away with fraud, whilst young families struggled to pay their bills. During lockdown, people still returned to their second homes in Southwold, one of which was registered as a holiday let and had no customers for the whole year, despite there being enormous demand for holiday let properties. Councillor Beavan confirmed that he had reported the matter to the Council.
Councillor Beavan stated that in his opinion, all holiday lets should be registered with HMRC, under the existing category of a furnished holiday let, and should be required to provide evidence of actually letting the property. This was not a party political matter, and Councillor Beavan stated that he was grateful for Councillor Gallants support. It was about decency and fairness and the loophole reflected badly on all second home owners. Councillor Beavan stated that this would be a difficult winter for many people, who would struggle to run one home, without having to subsidise others using this loophole. This loophole could be closed quickly and easily and Councillor Beavan asked for the Council's support to do this, for the benefit of our communities.
Councillor Gallant stated that he recognised the situation of individuals using the loophole, with scant regard to the negative impact upon the Council and local residents. However, he stated that a Motion should provide the Council with an opportunity to do something tangible, that would make a difference as the words “Urges the Government" were somewhat empty.
Councillor Gallant stated that Councillor Cook had been working hard, in concert with other councils, to keep this matter on the Governments agenda. The latest update received from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, gave appropriate assurances that the regulations necessary to deliver the requisite changes would be taken forward over the autumn period. Therefore, Members could be assured that the Government had committed to doing their part and the progress of this will continue to be monitored.
Councillor Gallant reported that those people who choose to opt out of paying Council Tax should not be availing themselves of the services that the Council provides to its Council Tax payers. He stated that the current systems and processes were not sufficiently robust to ensure that this was not occurring. If an individual home was registered as a business, then it should be treated as a business. For example, if they wanted waste to be collected, then they should be paying a commercial rate.
Councillor Gallant commented that he was pleased to see that both Reydon Parish and Southwold Town Councils had taken local action in recently made and advanced Neighbourhood plans, with policies to ensure that new housing developments were restricted to only be occupied as principal residences. Therefore, all new homes in those areas would be retained as homes and could not be used as holiday lets or second homes without permission. Councillor Gallant stated that he would like to propose an amendment to this Motion, which would create meaningful actions. The proposed amendment was:
'This Council has urged, and will continue to press, the Government to take action to close a loophole that allows second homeowners to falsely claim that their property is a qualifying holiday let in order to avoid paying Council Tax and in order to claim Small Business Rate Relief when, in fact, no such holiday lets are taking place.
This Council will work to introduce measures to ensure that premises registered as businesses do not receive free council services that are provided to Council Tax payers.
Such services include household waste collection, the free use of Household Waste Recycling Centres and resident only parking schemes.'
Councillor Gallant then called for a seconder. Councillor Cook duly seconded the amendment.
The Chairman invited Members to debate the proposed amendment.
Councillor Byatt stated that he had been happy to second the Motion. He commented that he could understand Councillor Beavan's point of view, however he felt that the Motion should be strengthened, as suggested by Councillor Gallant.
Councillor Bird raised a point of order and asked if the proposer of the original Motion should be asked if they were happy to accept the amendment? The Monitoring Officer provided clarity that the proposer of the original Motion did not need to give their permission for an amendment to be made, there would be a vote in due course.
Councillor Byatt stated that he had been prepared to propose an amendment but was content to proceed with the eloquent amendment proposed by Councillor Gallant. He stated it was deeply concerning if people were able to avoid paying Council Tax and it was only right that those people claiming that their second homes were holiday lets should not avail themselves of the services that Council Tax payers receive. Councillor Byatt was concerned that those businesses may have been able to claim Covid business relief, when they were really second homes and he stated that the Internal Audit Team would be able to investigate these matters further. He stated that he and his Group supported the amended Motion, while acknowledging the good intentions of Councillor Beavan.
Councillor Beavan asked if the amended Motion urged the government to close the loophole? It was confirmed that it did. Councillor Beavan confirmed that he did not have a problem with the amendment but commented it was a pity he did not have sight of it before the meeting, as it would have saved time.
Councillor Mapey commented on the internal mechanisms within the Council, as he ran a pub and therefore paid business rates downstairs and Council Tax upstairs. However, he had been informed that he was unable to have domestic bins on a commercial premises and therefore had been without domestic bins for the past 11 years. He clarified that Environmental Health could decide to inspect the holiday lets as a food premises, check that electrical safety certificates were in order and undertake fire safety inspections.
Councillor Mallinder stated the Councillor Cook was pressuring the Government to close the loophole and he confirmed that he would not tolerate any business using domestic waste services. He was closely monitoring the situation and would investigate bringing in further measures to stop this dishonest behaviour.
The Chairman invited Councillor Cook to speak and he confirmed that he was happy to second the amendment.
Councillor Gallant asked Members to support his practical amendment, which would support the Council. He then took the opportunity to comment upon Councillor Beavan's last statement and said that in accordance with the Constitution, Councillor Beavan should have contacted his Group Leader who would have spoken to Councillor Gallant, as Leader, about the Motion, prior to submitting it to Full Council.
The Chairman then invited Members to vote upon the proposed amendment, which had previously been moved and seconded, and it was CARRIED.
The Chairman clarified that the amendment was now the Substantive Motion, which could now be debated.
Councillor Cook reported that the Council remained committed to closing the loophole, the Finance Team had been in touch with Government again and they had received a response on 16 November 2021, which confirmed that the Government was going to change the eligibility criteria, which would require that holiday rentals meet an actual lettings threshold, before being assessed for business rates relief. Further details would be provided shortly by the Government, hopefully before Christmas.
Councillor Gooch thanked Councillor Beavan for raising this matter and she noted that he had been raising this matter as far back as 2018, at the former Waveney District Council. The press had also been highlighting this issue for best part of the last decade and she asked that the loophole just be closed.
Councillor Bird commented that Councillor Beavan would be pleased to know that the Government operated under the Minister and Cabinet Model, which would expedite proceedings, rather than using the cumbersome Committee Model.
There being no comments from Councillor Cook or Councillor Gallant, the Motion was put to the vote and it was
RESOLVED
That the Motion be APPROVED by Full Council.