Agenda item

MOTIONS

Decision:

Notice of 4 Motions had been received and decided upon as set out in the attached appendix.

Minutes:

Notice of four Motions had been received and these were dealt with as follows:

 

1)  Library Service – (Revised version)

 

The following Motion was proposed by the Councillor Tom Papworth, and seconded by Councillor Reg Adams:-

 

“Bromley Council

 

  1. reiterates its commitment to ensuring that all residents of the London Borough of Bromley of Bromley are able to easily access library services;
  2. acknowledges the receipt of a petition in 2011 of over 1,000 signatures from residents (especially from Crystal Palace, Penge & Cator and Clock House) calling on Bromley Council to save Anerley Library
  3. notes with concern the threat to the long term future of Upper Norwood Joint Library by the 60% cut in funding imposed by Croydon Council;
  4. notes the excellent service provided by Anerley and Upper Norwood  Libraries to Bromley residents in the Crystal Palace Ward
  5. seeks the commitment from the Executive that some library services continue to be provided from the Anerley Town Hall site, following the development of a new library in Penge town centre
  6. seeks assurances from the Leader and Portfolio Holder that they will work with Croydon and Lambeth Councils to explore how the long term future and governance of the Upper Norwood Joint Library can be secured.”

 

On being put to the vote this revised Motion was LOST.

 

 

2.  Government Planning Policies

 

The following Motion was proposed by Councillor Peter Dean and seconded by Councillor Alexa Michael:

 

“This Council notes with great concern the recent proposed planning changes announced by Eric Pickles MP, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

 

In particular, this Council is concerned about specific proposals to allow residents to build conservatories and single storey rear extensions of up to eight metres (30 feet) in domestic gardens without having to apply for planning permission until late 2015, and the proposal to encourage Councils to use the National Planning Policy Framework to vary the extent of the Green Belt in their areas.

 

This Council believes those proposals:

 

  • would have an adverse and irrevocable impact on the character of the Borough, including further encroachment of the Green Belt and undesirable changes to properties;
  • would reduce the quality of life for neighbours and Borough residents generally;
  • would undermine both the ability of individual residents to object to planning proposals that affect them and elected Councillors’ power to refuse bad planning applications.

 

This Council therefore urges the Secretary of State to reconsider the above proposals and also calls on the Borough’s MPs to lobby against the proposals.”

 

On being put to the vote the Motion was CARRIED.

 

 

Order of Business

 

Councillor Getgood requested that in view of the important subject matter and the lateness of time that his Motion on Hospital Services be taken next for discussion – after brief discussion a Motion to proceed on that basis was moved and seconded and was CARRIED. 

 

(Councillor Colin Smith asked for the recording of his contrary vote against changing the order of business.)

 

 

3  Hospital Services

 

The following Motion was proposed by Councillor John Getgood and seconded by Councillor Kathy Bance:

 

“This council welcomes the positive and helpful recommendations of the Special Administrator to deal with the financial problems associated with the South London Health Trust in his initial report published on 29th October2012. 

 

However, this Council is deeply concerned that the proposals to close Orpington Hospital, the Lewisham A&E and Maternity units and to withdraw services from the Beckenham Beacon will be harmful to the standards of health care for people living in Bromley. 

 

This council calls on the Leader of the Council and the Chief Executive to respond to the consultation by drawing attention to these concerns and to approach the four Members of Parliament representing the Borough to present a united response to the Special Administrator on the recommendations he will finallymake to the Secretary of State for Health.”

 

An Amendment to the Motion was put that it be referred to the Care Services PDS Committee for consideration at the meeting on 4th December 2012 when the Trust Special Administrator would be attending whilst members discussed the consultation proposals.

 

On being put to the vote this amendment to the Motion was CARRIED.

 

(Note: The Leader of the Council stated that he would write to the Trust Special Administrator seeking an extension to the consultation period following the Council Meeting.)

 

 

3.  European Union

 

The following Motion was proposed by Councillor Colin Smith and seconded by Councillor Richard Scoates:

 

“This Council notes with profound concern, recent widespread reports that the European Union intends to seek significant additional financial contributions from the UK over coming years, further to expand its own still un-audited and wasteful budget. This at a time when the Coalition Government is quite rightly trying to eliminate the worrying domestic deficit it inherited from its predecessors.

The EU provides little obvious benefit to the residents of this Borough. This Council therefore firmly believes that with valued local services facing acute ongoing pressure as a result of Central Government’s 28% cut to Local Government funding, that the EU must be forced to play its part in the solution too, by reducing its call on the Bromley taxpayers’ purse.

Accordingly, this Council respectfully calls on the Coalition Government to inform the EU of its intention to make large, real time reductions to the UK’s future contributions to the EU's budget and likewise respectfully requests the Borough’s 4 MPs to use their influence within the House of Commons to promote this desired outcome.”

 

An amendment to the Motion deleting the majority of paragraph two and all of the last paragraph from the Motion was moved and seconded.

On being put to the vote this amendment was LOST. 

 

On being put to the vote the original Motion was CARRIED.