The following two motions have been received in accordance with Procedure Rule 16:

15.1    The following motion has been received from Councillor Miles Kenny:

“Promotion of alternatives to the private motor car for short journeys:

So as to improve public health, tackle climate change and its consequences, reduce traffic congestion, lower the cost of travel, enhance air quality and lower highways maintenance expenditure this Council will promote alternatives to the private motor

car such as walking, cycling or using public transport for short journeys of under five miles from the present 2/5ths of short journeys to 4/5ths short journeys in Shropshire by 2020.

Nationally:

  Around 11 percent use a car for journeys under a mile

   29 percent use a car for journeys between one and two miles

  60 percent use a car for journeys two to five miles.

  (source - Sustrans)

In Shropshire:

 Around 20 percent use a car for journeys under a mile

 62 percent use a car for journeys between one and five miles

 85 percent use a car for journeys of two to five miles

(Source - national travel survey)

It is understood that a target of 4/5ths short journeys is easily achievable in urban areas but more of a challenge in rural areas as for example public transport is less available. There are safe and accessible walking and cycling routes in urban and rural areas which are being extended and promoted; further development can encourage more investment in the network.”

15.2    The following motion has been received from Councillor Alan Mosely.

“The recent Court of Appeal judgement to the effect that the Council had failed to consult service users and their carers about the closure of Hartleys Day Centre, and that this was unlawful, was extremely damaging to the Council and its Administration.

It is clear that:

·       The Council was in breach of its common law duty to users of its services and their carers;

·       There is enormous adverse reputational impact on the Council arising from the decision;

·       There will be very significant cost implications especially if the appellant’s costs have to be paid by the Council;

·       There has been great, and ongoing, distress caused to users and carers arising from the Administration’s actions in this case;

·       There were several occasions when the Administration could have reconsidered it’s approach and rectified its errors, e.g. by following proposals made at Council in July, at the private portfolio holder session 1 August and the meeting to discuss the call-in thereafter.

Hence this Council calls for the Administration to establish an all party investigation into this matter with a mandate to report on:

·       What lessons can be learned from this case and whether ther are other circumstances where a similar situation may arise;

·       Whether the Council’s policy on consultation and consideration of responses is fit for purpose, and if not how should it be changed;

·       Any other related matters which may arise.”

A background document will follow.

15.1    The following motion was proposed by Mr M Kennyand duly seconded by Mrs A Chebsey:

“Promotion of alternatives to the private motor car for short journeys:

So as to improve public health, tackle climate change and its consequences, reduce traffic congestion, lower the cost of travel, enhance air quality and lower highways maintenance expenditure this Council will promote alternatives to the private motor

car such as walking, cycling or using public transport for short journeys of under five miles from the present 2/5ths of short journeys to 4/5ths short journeys in Shropshire by 2020.

Nationally:

  Around 11 percent use a car for journeys under a mile

            29 percent use a car for journeys between one and two miles

  60 percent use a car for journeys two to five miles.

  (source - Sustrans)

In Shropshire:

 Around 20 percent use a car for journeys under a mile

 62 percent use a car for journeys between one and five miles

 85 percent use a car for journeys of two to five miles

(Source - national travel survey)

It is understood that a target of 4/5ths short journeys is easily achievable in urban areas but more of a challenge in rural areas as for example public transport is less available. There are safe and accessible walking and cycling routes in urban and rural areas which are being extended and promoted; further development can encourage more investment in the network.”

Mr K Barrow proposed an amendment which was seconded by Mrs C Wild, to amend the second paragraph to read as follows:

“So as to improve public health, tackle climate change and its consequences, reduce traffic congestion, lower the cost of travel, enhance air quality and lower highways maintenance expenditure this Council will continue to promote alternatives to the private motor car such as walking, cycling or using public transport for short journeys of under five miles.”

On being put to the vote the amendment was carried with a large majority of members voting in favour.

On being put to the vote, the original proposition as amended was carried with a large majority of Members voting in favour.

15.2    The following motion was proposed by Mr A Mosley and duly seconded by Mrs J McKenzie.

“The recent Court of Appeal judgement to the effect that the Council had failed to consult service users and their carers about the closure of Hartleys Day Centre, and that this was unlawful, was extremely damaging to the Council and its Administration.

It is clear that:

·       The Council was in breach of its common law duty to users of its services and their carers;

·       There is enormous adverse reputational impact on the Council arising from the decision;

·       There will be very significant cost implications especially if the appellant’s costs have to be paid by the Council;

·       There has been great, and ongoing, distress caused to users and carers arising from the Administration’s actions in this case;

·       There were several occasions when the Administration could have reconsidered it’s approach and rectified its errors, e.g. by following proposals made at Council in July, at the private portfolio holder session 1 August and the meeting to discuss the call-in thereafter.

Hence this Council calls for the Administration to establish an all party investigation into this matter with a mandate to report on:

·       What lessons can be learned from this case and whether there are other circumstances where a similar situation may arise;

·       Whether the Council’s policy on consultation and consideration of responses is fit for purpose, and if not how should it be changed;

·       Any other related matters which may arise.”

(A background document was also circulated).

After debate and on being put to the vote, the motion was lost with a large majority of members voting against.