This meeting was scheduled to receive reports about a proposed new Chief Executive and two local planning policy consultations: a Neighbourhood Plan in Tollerton, and a petition to establish a new parish council for the Fairham development in Barton in Fabis. It was also scheduled for discussions about four proposed new council policies.

Appointment of a new Chief Executive

A report was prepared for discussion that proposes the appointment of Adam Hill, the current Chief Executive at Mansfield District Council, as the new Chief Executive of Rushcliffe Borough Council. The Monitoring Officer recommended that the Council approve the appointment of Mr Hill. It was reported that Mr Hill had been selected from a field of 16 candidates. The report also proposes that the current Deputy Chief Executives take on the role of Acting Chief Executive jointly until Mr Hill begins work.

Tollerton Neighbourhood Plan

A report was prepared for discussion about a proposed new Neighbourhood Plan¹ for Tollerton. The Tollerton Neighbourhood Plan was examined by an independent examiner, David Kaiserman, earlier in the year. Mr Kaiserman recommended a number of modifications to the plan, and concluded that, subject to these modifications, the plan should proceed to a referendum of residents. Rushcliffe Borough Council agreed to accept all but three of Mr Kaiserman's proposed modifications. A consultation was held on the decision not to accept these three modifications, which received five responses. The report recommended that the Council confirm its decision not to accept these modifications, approve the holding of a referendum on the plan, and, subject to a positive result of that referendum, formally adopt the plan.

Barton in Fabis Community Governance Review

A petition containing 87 signatures from local electors was submitted to the Council, requesting a review of the governance of Barton in Fabis parish. The petition requests that the new Fairham development be removed from the existing parish and a new parish established to represent the new Fairham residents. A report was prepared for discussion about the petition, recommending that the Council carry out a Community Governance Review, in accordance with the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. The report also proposes that the Council establish a cross-party task and finish group to consider the issues raised in the petition.

Gambling Act 2005: Draft Statement of Licensing Principles 2025-2028

A report was prepared for discussion about a new proposed ‘Statement of Licensing Principles’ that sets out how the council will approach its statutory responsibilities relating to gambling under the Gambling Act 2005. The report sets out the three licensing objectives that the council must have regard to when making its decisions:

• Preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder or being used to support crime. • Ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way; and • Protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling.

The Gambling Act 2005 requires the council to consult the Chief Officer of Police, representatives of gambling businesses and representatives of people who will be affected by the exercise of the Act when determining this policy. The report says that the council did this, receiving responses from the police, Councillor James Naish MP, the Labour Party and others. The Labour Party’s response commented on three aspects of the proposed policy:

• The policy should be amended to reflect broader sharing of data.
• The policy should be amended to provide a more rounded statement about its commitment to promoting equal opportunities and diversity.
• The policy should be amended to protect children from targeted advertising.

The report includes the Labour Party’s suggested amendments to the policy. The proposed new policy also takes into account new requirements under the Gambling Commission's Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice (LCCP) that come into force in 2024 and require licensees to undertake risk assessments that:

• a) take account of significant changes in local circumstances, including those identified in a licensing authority’s statement of licensing policy. • b) [account for] significant changes at a licensee’s premises that may affect their mitigation of local risks.

The report also recommends that the council formally adopt the new policy.

Street Trading Policy 2025-2030

A report was prepared for discussion about a proposed new ‘Street Trading Policy’. The policy sets out how the council will approach its statutory responsibilities for licensing street trading under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. The council has the power to designate all of the streets in the borough as either ‘consent streets’, where trading will be prohibited without the consent of the council, or ‘prohibited streets’, where no trading may take place at all. The report sets out the exemptions from the need to obtain a street trading consent. The policy lists a number of situations in which it is unlikely that trading will be permitted. These include locations:

• in close proximity to a place of worship.
• in close proximity to a place of education.
• in close proximity to a place of healthcare.
• in close proximity to a place of cultural or historical local / national significance.
• in close proximity to primarily residential properties.
• in close proximity to a business offering the same goods / services.
• likely to undermine the safety and / or convenience of the general public and / or road users.

The report says that the council consulted on the proposed new policy, receiving two responses. It also sets out the procedure that will be followed for applying for a Street Trading Consent, and recommends that the council adopt the new policy.

Notices of Motion

Four notices of motion were submitted to the meeting by individual Councillors, on the following topics:

Improvement of SEND provision

A motion was submitted by Councillor Birch that expresses dissatisfaction with the quality of Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND)² provision across the county. The motion originally asked the council to write to Nottinghamshire County Council to express its dissatisfaction and demand improvements. An amendment was submitted by Councillor J Wheeler that replaced this with a request that the council write to the County Council to request that it measure the quality of its SEND provision. Councillor Birch accepted Councillor Wheeler's amendment. The substantive motion calls on the County Council to continue to gather the views of parents and SEND children, to continue to provide accredited SEND training to teachers, to encourage Rushcliffe Borough Councillors to complete an online Autism Awareness Course provided by the County Council and to welcome the news that Rushcliffe Borough Council staff have recently completed neurodiversity training. The motion was carried.

Winter Fuel Payments

A motion was submitted by the Leader of the Council, Councillor Clarke MBE, urging the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the decision to means test the Winter Fuel Payment³. The motion requests that the Chancellor ensure that compensatory payments are included in the October budget to protect vulnerable pensioners from fuel poverty. The motion was carried.

Housing targets

A motion was submitted by Councillor Upton that requests that the Housing Secretary does not increase Rushcliffe's housing target. The motion also requests that any increase in housing numbers is instead allocated to Nottingham City Council. The motion was carried.

Support for the farming community

A motion was submitted by Councillor Birch that declares support for Rushcliffe's farming community. It notes that farmers provide essential services in food production, land stewardship and conservation, and that they contribute significantly to the local economy. It calls on the council to declare its gratitude to Rushcliffe's farming community and ensure, where possible, that food and drink at council organised events is sourced from local farms. It also calls for a feasibility study on agroforestry partnerships with local farmers. The motion was carried.

Questions from Councillors

Three questions were submitted to the meeting by individual councillors.

Environmental inequality

A question was submitted by Councillor Grocock to Councillor Upton about a report by the Environment Agency called 'Adaptive Investment for Growth', which analyses levels of environmental quality across the country. The question asked whether any analysis had been undertaken on the factors behind Rushcliffe's low score for the 'Plants and Wildlife' theme in the report, for which it is ranked the worst in Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire. Councillor Inglis responded, saying that the council was aware of the findings, and had discussed them with the Environment Agency. He said that they were based on historical data, and that Rushcliffe comprises largely of good quality agricultural land which is intensively farmed. This has resulted in ecologically poor land with lower levels of biodiversity. Councillor Inglis said that the council has a strong track record of encouraging biodiversity. He was asked whether the council could commit to developing a strategy to improve its score on this theme, to which he responded that it could.

Impact of play park survey on 'open space' management fees

A question was submitted by Councillor Way to Councillor J Wheeler about a survey that was being undertaken by the council about the quality and quantity of play parks in the borough. The question asked what reassurances could be given to residents of estates with open spaces that the survey will not result in increases in their management fees. Councillor Wheeler responded, saying that the survey relates to future play parks, not current ones. He was asked what barriers are preventing the Borough or Parish Councils from adopting these play areas. Councillor Wheeler responded, saying that the Leader of the Council has raised the issue with Government Ministers, and that, aside from the parks that it is responsible for, the council has no legal ability to take responsibility for others.

Pedestrianisation of Central Avenue, West Bridgford

A question was submitted by Councillor Plant to the Leader of the Council, Councillor Clarke MBE, about a report from the Corporate Overview Group to the council about its budget for the current financial year. The question asked whether a decision had been made to pedestrianise Central Avenue, West Bridgford. Councillor Clarke MBE responded, saying that this is a complex issue, which will involve many partners and stakeholders, as well as a public consultation. He said that, although pedestrianisation is not directly within the borough's gift, the overarching desire is to ensure the economic prosperity of West Bridgford town centre, and that the consultation will determine whether this is a widely held desire. Councillor Plant asked whether residents, businesses and local councillors will be consulted. Councillor Clarke responded that anyone will be able to comment on the consultation.