Agenda and draft minutes

Venue: Meeting Space - Block 1, Floor 2 - County Hall. View directions

Contact: Nichola Turnbull 

Note: Guidance for Public Attendance at meetings * The meeting venue requires access to the normal workplace, so the public are asked to wear face coverings and ensure good hand hygiene. * Arrangements are in place to reserve the required number of seats for meeting participants. Members of the public must contact democraticservices@northumberland.gov.uk if they wish to attend a meeting in person and should specify which meeting. * Members of the public are only allowed entry on a first come basis where capacity allows. * Any member of the press or public may view the proceedings of this meeting live on our YouTube channel at https://www.youtube.com/NorthumberlandTV * Signage will be posted once the room capacity has been reached. * Standard Covid secure controls are in place to book in, ensure hand hygiene, ventilate the meeting space and ensure people comply with agreed meeting protocols. 

Items
No. Item

6.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Flux and Wearmouth.

7.

MINUTES pdf icon PDF 111 KB

Minutes of the meeting of the Petitions Committee, held on 28 October 2021, as circulated, to be confirmed as a true record and signed by the Chair.

Minutes:

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of the Petitions Committee held on Thursday, 28 October 2021, as circulated, be confirmed as a true record and signed by the Chair.

8.

Petition from Hexham Living Wage Group pdf icon PDF 104 KB

To inform the Committee of a petition received from the Hexham Living Wage Group.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Petitions Committee were requested to acknowledge the petition received from Hexham Living wage Group which asked that the Council increase their subsidy for care services so that care workers could be paid a Real Living Wage.  (A copy of the report is enclosed with the signed minutes).

 

Pat Devlin, the lead petitioner, addressed the Committee and made the following comments:

 

·        Hexham Living Wage Group had focused on the Real Living wage after the weekly clap for NHS and care staff and experiences shared by a member of the group regarding care workers potentially dangerous hours worked to make ends meet.

·        They welcomed the Cabinet report and proposals to offer an increased subsidy to care providers conditional on payment of the Real Living Wage as a minimum remuneration.

·        They recognised the national problem of retention and recruitment of care staff and that Northumberland was leading the way in its response, which:

-       Recognised the value of care work through increased remuneration for all over 18 years old base on cost of living calculations, particularly vital in the coming year.

-       Registering the evidence of accredited real Living Wage employers which demonstrated that payment of the Real Living Wage led to improved retention of staff, increased motivation and performance levels and reduction absences due to sickness.

·        The Council should ensure that its procurement policy reflect a preference that contractors pay as a minimum the Real Living Wage, even it not made essential criteria.

·        The petition demonstrated public support, and many were incredulous that care workers were not already paid more than the Real Living Wage.  Collection of signatures during the pandemic had been difficult and the 822 signatures had been collected during brief time slots in 5 towns and villages.  If circumstances had allowed a wider approach, the level of support would have been overwhelming.

·        They had demonstrated their ability to be a channel of communication with members of the public, care workers and care providers and sought an ongoing role in the proposed review of the process.

 

Neil Bradley, Service Director – Adult Care, confirmed that officers and the lead members for Adult Social Care had been considering the issue when the petition had been received as they had been experiencing problems with retention and recruitment, particularly in home care.   They were pleased that Cabinet had supported the proposals which he confirmed needed to be ratified by Full Council in February as part of the agreement of the Council’s budget.

 

He also commented that:

 

·        Despite the comments within the petition in relation to NCC fee levels being lower than other local authorities, officers had not seen strong evidence that higher fees in other areas had led to higher wages, which was why option C had been recommended in the report to Cabinet.

·        The petition had specifically referred to carers pay rates, and the affordability of applying the increase to a wider range of employees within care services was being reviewed as part of the implementation.

·        Officers would be happy to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

9.

Petition - Community Campaign to Amend the Use of Military Road B6318 Junction of A68 to Heddon on the Wall pdf icon PDF 178 KB

To acknowledge receipt of the petition received by Democratic Services regarding a community campaign to amend the use of the B6318 Military Road from its junction with the A68 at Stagshaw Roundabout to Heddon-on-the-Wall.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Petitions Committee were requested to acknowledge receipt of the petition received by Democratic Services regarding a community campaign to amend the use of the B6318 Military Road from its junction with the A68 at Stagshaw Roundabout to Heddon-on-the-Wall.  (A copy of the report is enclosed with the signed minutes).

 

Andrew Clayton, the lead petitioner, addressed the Committee and highlighted two main concerns:

 

·       Their primary concern was the safety of the community, the different road users and visitors who supported many businesses along the wall.

·       In 2019 approximately £1 billion had been generated by Northumberland tourism and many businesses were thriving due to this in tough economic times.  7,000 visitors had made the pilgrimage along Hadrian’s Wall with 30,000 having completed the central section along the Military Road.  The number of visitors was expected to double to during the Hadrian’s wall festival in 2022.

·       Tourists who had supported the petition had made comments about not repeating the walk due to the trucks and comparing it to a racetrack.

·       Traffic should be encouraged to use the alternative route which would only take one minute longer.  Use of A routes would promote visitors and enable communities to live happier, healthier lifestyles.

·       They were grateful that road surveys were being organised at Two Hoots/Robin Hood/Heddon road surveys, particularly as 2 Harlow Hill residents incurred life threatening injuries in June 2021.  That accident was not shown in the accident summary within the report, and they therefore had concerns regarding the accuracy of the accident data shared.

·       They referred to video footage of HGV’s crossing double white lines at Harlow Hill and an email from the Council which referred to area being dangerous.  He suggested that as the village now had more than 20 residences, the road should have a 30mph limit in accordance with a Department of Transport circular.

·       Residents were awaiting the results of the road survey carried out at Halton Shields in December 2021.  They were concerned that the figures would not be a true reflection of use over the year given the freezing conditions.

·       The second issue they wished to highlight was HGV use of the road which saved 1 minute compared to using the safer A68 and A69 roads.  That route was more fuel efficient and less disturbing to local communities.

·       He queried whether Members understood the volume of HGV traffic using the B road and made reference to the planning permission at Barrasford Quarry for 300 trucks per day, 290 days of the year which equated to 174,000 HGV trips to and from the quarry.  It operated 24 hours per day and equalled one HGV every 2.4 minutes.

·       It was difficult for residents to sleep with HGVs driving less than 3 metres away and noise levels above the maximum limits advised by the Health and Safety Executive.

·       They appreciated the intention to educate hauliers, however this had already been attempted.

·       Councillor Sanderson had raised the issue in 2019/20.

·       Despite Tarmac agreeing not to use the road at night on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

10.

Petition Against Inappropriate Development in Beadnell pdf icon PDF 218 KB

To acknowledge the issues raised in the petition received from residents of Beadnell in respect of inappropriate development and to agree the Council’s response.

Minutes:

The Petitions Committee were requested to acknowledge the issues raised in the petition received from residents of Beadnell in respect of inappropriate development and to agree the Council’s response.  (A copy of the report is enclosed with the signed minutes).

 

Joan Brown, the lead petitioner, addressed the Committee and commented:

 

·        Beadnell was a close-knit community of 300 permanent residents.

·        The petition had been started in response to residents’ concerns regarding planning approvals which were having a detrimental effect on people’s lives and the character of the village.

·        They welcomed comments in the report that the matters raised would be taken seriously to identify where improvements could be made in the planning decision making process.

·        The Council needed to commit to the production of a Northumberland Design Guide and set a target date for its production.

·        They did not think that in practice planning decisions in Beadnell followed the method outlined in the report.  Specifically, that policies in Neighbourhood Plans should be afforded significant and relevant weight in the determination of planning applications and discussed within the officers report.  The planning report for 4 The Haven made no reference to the Neighbourhood Plan.  It was wrong that it should be given no consideration as Neighbourhood Plans were statutory documents and part of planning law.  The Conservation Officer had also not been consulted despite the development being in a Conservation Area.

·        In the examples identified within the petition, AONB and Parish Council input had been ignored.  The purpose of consultation was queried if it carried no weight.

·        Not enough emphasis was placed on local knowledge.  If weight was not given to the comments of the Parish Council and the AONB, the planning officers should be assigned specific geographic areas so they could become familiar with them, their history and development pressures.

·        They requested that:

-       The Neighbourhood Plan be included in all planning decisions for Beadnell.

-       The appropriate consultees are always consulted.

-       More weight be given to comments from the AONB and Parish Council who had local knowledge.

-       A target date be set for the production and implementation of the Northumberland Design Guide.

·        Residents be given an opportunity to bring their comments about the report to the attention of the Interim Executive Director of Planning and Local Services and arrangements be made to do this.

 

Rob Murfin, Interim Executive Director of Planning and Local Services, responded by setting out a few guiding principles for the determination of planning applications.

 

·        The planning system had to balance individual rights, against community, public and third-party rights.

·        There was sometimes a presumption by residents that applications were approved as fait accompli despite comments.  It should be recognised that as a binary decision making system, applicants also often complained that too much emphasis was placed on parish council, neighbour and consultee comments.

·        He would be happy to meet residents to discuss individual cases.

·        Views of residents or parish councils were never ignored; however, officers might not agree with them.

·        Communities changed over time.  There  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

11.

NEXT MEETING

The next meeting will take place on Thursday, 28 April 2022 at 2.00 p.m.

Minutes:

The next meeting would be held on Thursday 28 April 2022 at 2.00 p.m.