Motions paper attached.

Procedural motion by the Conservative Group that all motions be dealt with under the intermediate debate procedure AGREED without division.

A.   PLANNING ENFORCEMENT ISSUE

Amendment by Conservative Group CARRIED by 31 votes to 15 and AGREED as substantive motion by 31 votes to 16.

B.   SAFER NEIGHBOURHOOD TEAMS AND NEW POLOCING MODEL

Amendment by Conservative Group CARRIED by 30 votes to 14; amendment by Labour Group NOT CARRIED by  35 votes to 12; amendment by Conservative Group AGREED as substantive motion by  40 votes to 9.

C.   GRAMMAR SCHOOLS

Motion withdrawn and resubmitted to next Council meeting.

A procedural motion by the Conservative Group that all motions be dealt with under the intermediate debate procedure was AGREED without division.

A PLANNING ENFORCEMENT ISSUE

Motion on behalf of the Independent Residents’ Group

As Members recall a motion before council regarding 2 metre high front walls was referred to the Towns and Communities O&S sub-committee for further consideration and they in turn deferred the matter until the planning department had received legal advice on the legality of the walls.

Planning concluded that part of the wall nearest the house was permitted development and the bit nearest the highway was unlawful. Planning then asked the owner on threat of enforcement action to lower the wall nearest the highway and they responded by submitting a Certificate of Lawfulness saying the entire walls were lawful. This was refused by planning and the owner appealed and the Government Inspector dismissed the appeal without qualification ruling the walls unlawful. (Planning Inspectorate APP/B5480/X/16/3152643)

But in response planning officers are once again intending to ask the owner to lower part of the wall nearest the highway or face enforcement. This is not good enough. Planning should enforce against the entire single structure walls and tell the owner to lower the entire walls or remove them completely. This is necessary in the public interest because the walls are anti-social and need to be deterred and because this is fair not punitive enforcement considering the Government Inspector ruled the entire walls unlawful.

Thus Council calls on officers to consider enforcing against the entire walls, but allowing the owner the option of lowering their entire height to avoid having to remove them completely.

Amendment by the Conservative Group

This Council requests the Town and Communities O & S sub committee to review again the case involving 2 metre high front walls referred to it on 25 November 2015 in the light of the subsequent appeal decision (Planning Inspectorate APP/B5480/X/16/3152643) and updated legal advice received.

The motion on behalf of the Conservative Group was CARRIED by 31 votes to 15 (see division 1) and AGREED as the substantive motion by 31 votes to 16 (see division 2).

RESOLVED:

This Council requests the Town and Communities O & S sub committee to review again the case involving 2 metre high front walls referred to it on 25 November 2015 in the light of the subsequent appeal decision (Planning Inspectorate APP/B5480/X/16/3152643) and updated legal advice received.

Motions paper attached.

A procedural motion that motion 11A be dealt with on a vote only basis, that all other motions be dealt with under the intermediate debate procedure and that motions be heard in the order 11A, 11B, 11D and 11C was AGREED by 47 votes to 5.

A.   MAYOR OF LONDON

Motion by Independent Residents’ Group NOT CARRIED by 28 votes to 14.

B.   SOLAR PARKS

Amendment by Conservative Group CARRIED by 28 votes to 13; amendment by Independent Residents’ Group NOT CARRIED by 43 votes to 3; amendment by Labour Group NOT CARRIED by 29 votes to 17; amendment by Conservative Group AGREED as substantive motion by 32 votes to 12.

C.   TERMS AND CONDITIONS REVIEW

Amendment by Conservative Group CARRIED by 39 votes to 4 and AGREED as substantive motion, without division.

D.   OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC GAMES PRECEPT

Amendment by Independent Residents’ Group NOT CARRIED by 41 votes to 8; motion by Joint Administration AGREED without division.

A procedural motion that motion 11A be dealt with on a vote only basis, that all other motions be dealt with under the intermediate debate procedure and that motions be heard in the order 11A, 11B, 11D and 11C was AGREED by 47 votes to 5 (see division 2).

A MAYOR OF LONDON

Motion on behalf of the Independent Residents’ Group

When the Greater London Authority (GLA) was set-up it had more limited powers. It is presided over by an Elected Mayor. In recent years the GLA has acquired more powers including over housing prompting concerns about the democratic status of the Elected Mayor and their powers to overrule local planning decisions. Indeed how is it possible for one person elected on about 20% of the registered vote to be held accountable on the many issues that matter in a city the size of London?

Thus this Council agrees the post of Elected Mayor (Leader) of London should be abolished and replaced with the Cabinet system, in which the Elected Assembly elects the Leader as we do in Havering and calls on the Council Leader to seek support for this change from other London councils.

The motion on behalf of the Independent Residents’ Group was NOT CARRIED by 28 votes to 15 (see division 3).