Agenda item

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10, to consider motions on notice from Members.  The following motion(s) were received:

 

(a)  Councillor Bennett – Hygiene Ratings

 

(b)  Councillor Yates – Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO’s) – Community Impact and Evidence Gathering

 

(c)   Councillor Hiney-Saunders – Support National Gambling Reform

 

(d)  Councillor Peake – Change the Council Constitution to have one Scrutiny Committee

 

(e)  Councillor Watson – Definition of the role of Leader of the Opposition

 

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10, Councillors were able to submit Motions on Notice for consideration at meetings of Council.

 

a)       The following motion was submitted for consideration by Councillor Bennett:

 

“Bolsover District Council calls on the government to make the display of food hygiene ratings mandatory for establishments preparing and selling food in England, as it is in Wales and Northern Ireland, and will write to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs lobbying for the necessary legislative changes to be made. The ratings must be displayed prominently at all public entrances to the establishment and prominently on the entry to every online portal.

 

In England establishments with good ratings tend to display them, whilst many of those with lower ratings don’t do so. In England only 69% of business display their food hygiene ratings sticker. In addition, it was reported by the BBC in October last year that some businesses in England are displaying inaccurate food hygiene ratings. Without an enforcement function in relation to food hygiene display this is not being policed.

 

We agree with the Chartered Institute of Environment Health who have also called for the display of hygiene ratings to be mandatory. In England more than four in five businesses surveyed were happy to support mandatory display of hygiene ratings.*

 

Food Hygiene Rating Schemes provide consumers with information about the hygiene standards at food establishments, enabling them to make informed choices about where they eat and purchase food. We believe the public mandatory display of food hygiene ratings supports this, is beneficial to public health and will likely drive up the quality of food for the public.

 

The Food Standards Hygiene team at the Food Standards Agency (FSA) have said that food hygiene ratings are published and can be checked on the FSA’s website. However, that presupposes that the customer has access to the internet. Many senior citizens, who are likely to be most vulnerable from a health perspective, are least likely to have access to the internet and so wouldn’t even have the ability to check hygiene ratings. In any case very few people will check hygiene ratings prior to visiting the establishment, so the display of hygiene ratings at the entrance is crucial for informing customer behaviour.

 

This is an issue of both consumer information and public health.”

 

Moved by Councillor Bennett and seconded by Councillor Hiney-Saunders and on being put to the vote the motion was carried.

 

RESOLVED that the Council supported the motion and call on the

government to make the display of food hygiene ratings mandatory for establishments preparing and selling food in England, as it is in Wales and Northern Ireland, and will write to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs lobbying for the necessary legislative changes to be made. The ratings must be displayed prominently at all public entrances to the establishment and prominently on the entry to every online portal.

 

 

b)       The following motion was submitted for consideration by Councillor Yates:

 

“This Council notes:

 

·         The increasing number of Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) within the Bolsover District Council area.

 

·         That HMOs can play a positive role in providing affordable accommodation, but may also raise issues relating to parking, waste management, anti-social behaviour, property maintenance, and impacts on community cohesion.

 

·         That local residents and community groups have valuable first-hand experience of how HMOs affect their neighbourhoods.

 

This Council believes:

 

·         That decisions on HMO licensing, planning, and regulation should be informed by a clear understanding of their local impacts.

 

·         That residents’ experiences are essential in shaping effective local policy and ensuring balanced, sustainable communities.

 

This Council therefore resolves to:

 

1.       Invite evidence and experiences from residents, tenants, landlords, the police and community organisations regarding the impact of HMOs on local neighbourhoods, including both positive and negative experiences, by way of a consultation with the public.

 

2.       Request that officers prepare a report summarising the findings, identifying recurring themes or concerns, and outlining options for improving regulation, enforcement, and community engagement.

 

3.       Ask Executive to consider whether existing policies and resources are adequate to manage the growth and impact of HMOs, and to recommend any necessary changes (e.g. Article 4 Direction, enhanced licensing, or improved communication channels).

 

4.       Publish and promote information about how residents can report HMO-related concerns and participate in consultations on housing and planning policy.”

 

·       During discussion it was highlighted that care should be taken not to stigmatise people who lived in HMO’s as it was not always the case that anti-social behaviour originated from this type of accommodation.  There was also a need for affordable accommodation for people who could not afford to rent properties by themselves and the only option was to rent in an HMO which in previous years were similar to bedsits or lodging rooms.

 

·       It was confirmed that the purpose of the motion was not to stigmatise any groups but to establish the facts and to create an evidence base.

 

Moved by Councillor Yates and seconded by Councillor Smith and on being put to the vote the motion was carried.

 

RESOLVED (1) to invite evidence and experiences from residents, tenants,

landlords, the police and community organisations regarding the impact of HMOs on local neighbourhoods, including both positive and negative experiences, by way of a consultation with the public;

 

(2) that officers prepare a report summarising the findings, identifying recurring themes or concerns, and outlining options for improving regulation, enforcement, and community engagement;

 

(3) to ask the Executive to consider whether existing policies and resources were adequate to manage the growth and impact of HMOs, and to recommend any necessary changes (eg Article 4 Direction, enhanced licensing, or improved communication channels); and

 

(4) to publish and promote information about how residents can report HMO-related concerns and participate in consultations on housing and planning policy.

 

 

c)       The following motion was submitted for consideration by Councillor Hiney-Saunders:

 

“This Council notes:

 

•     Gambling addiction is an escalating national issue with serious social and economic implications. According to Public Health England, the estimated annual cost to society now exceeds £1 billion.

 

•     Gambling harms extend far beyond the individual, affecting families, public services, and communities – particularly in areas experiencing socio-economic deprivation.

 

•     Many local authorities are now witnessing a concerning proliferation of betting shops, adult gaming centres and casinos – often in areas with higher vulnerability – and are effectively powerless to stop it due to outdated legislation.

 

•     Section 153 of the Gambling Act 2005 enshrines the ‘Aim to Permit’ principle, which requires councils to approve gambling licenses where minimum criteria are met, regardless of local community opposition or concerns over public health, crime, or social impact.

 

•     The surge in online gambling and the widespread nature of gambling advertisements across the sporting world has only deepened these harms and normalised gambling in everyday life.

 

•     The recent intervention by Gordon Brown, calling for a “Child Fairness Guarantee” funded in part by the introduction of a unified online gambling tax, bringing Britain’s unusually low tax rate in line with the international average.

 

•     When last surveyed, almost three quarters of the British public (73%) suggested that they would not want a betting shop on their ideal high-street.

 

This Council believes:

 

•     For too long, the gambling industry had been extracting ever more profit from our high streets, while entrenching financial addiction among their players.

 

•     Bolsover already has more than enough betting shops and bookmakers on our High Streets.

 

•     That gambling for some may be fun, but for others it’s a serious addiction which can lead to financial ruin for individuals and families.

 

This Council resolves to:

 

•     Join a growing coalition of over 40 (now over 50) other local authorities, that have now written to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport calling for urgent reforms to tackle the harms caused by gambling and to restore decision-making powers to local authorities. Specifically calling on Government to:

 

o   Reform the ‘Aim to Permit’ policy to allow councils to refuse gambling premises that pose risks to local welfare and safety.

 

o   Place all gambling premises (including adult gaming centres and bingo halls) in a single planning category to prevent loopholes.

 

o   Give councils the power to consider local social and health factors, such as debt and proximity to schools, when reviewing planning applications.

 

o   Direct the proceeds from the new statutory levy on gambling operators, to independent public bodies and local health authorities for harm prevention and treatment.

 

o   Introduce greater restrictions on gambling advertising, sponsorships, and promotions – especially those reaching children and vulnerable groups.

 

o   Halt any proposals that further liberalise adult gaming centres, including spin speeds and staking levels on B3 machines.

 

·       Write to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and relevant government departments expressing our full support for these proposals and urging immediate legislative reform to protect our communities.

 

·         Join and promote the Coalition to End Gambling Ads (CEGA) and any similar national or local campaigns aimed at reducing gambling harm and reforming the law.

 

·         Work with local health and voluntary sector partners to signpost residents to gambling addiction support and education initiatives.”

 

It was suggested that advertising of gambling should be banned whether on TV and on phones etc due to the level of the misery and harm caused by gambling addiction.

 

Moved by Councillor Hiney-Saunders and seconded by Councillor Hales and on being put to the vote the motion was carried.

 

RESOLVED that Council joins a growing coalition of over 50 other local

authorities, that have now written to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport calling for urgent reforms to tackle the harms caused by gambling and to restore decision-making powers to local authorities. Specifically calling on Government to:

 

(1)    reform the ‘Aim to Permit’ policy to allow councils to refuse gambling premises that pose risks to local welfare and safety;

 

(2)    place all gambling premises (including adult gaming centres and bingo halls) in a single planning category to prevent loopholes;

 

(3)    give councils the power to consider local social and health factors, such as debt and proximity to schools, when reviewing planning applications;

 

(4)    direct the proceeds from the new statutory levy on gambling operators, to independent public bodies and local health authorities for harm prevention and treatment;

 

(5)    introduce greater restrictions on gambling advertising, sponsorships, and promotions – especially those reaching children and vulnerable groups;

 

(6)    halt any proposals that further liberalise adult gaming centres, including spin speeds and staking levels on B3 machines;

 

(7)    write to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and relevant government departments expressing our full support for these proposals and urging immediate legislative reform to protect our communities;

 

(8)    join and promote the Coalition to End Gambling Ads (CEGA) and any similar national or local campaigns aimed at reducing gambling harm and reforming the law; and

 

(9)    work with local health and voluntary sector partners to signpost residents to gambling addiction support and education initiatives.

 

 

d)       The following motion was submitted for consideration by Councillor Peake:

 

  This Council notes:

 

“Along with its statutory duty to scrutinise council decisions, one of the fundamental roles of scrutiny is to consider any matter which affects the district and its constituents.

 

As the local and national political scenes are now dramatically changing, I feel that one single scrutiny committee would be better able to fulfil these duties and would enable scrutiny members to have full oversight of and to participate in all scrutiny matters.

 

Furthermore, this would allow members with a particular interest in certain topics to work within task and finish groups.  So, for this reason I propose that Council agrees to change the constitution to facilitate the creation of one single scrutiny committee.

 

This Council resolves:

 

To change the constitution to facilitate the creation of one single scrutiny committee.”

 

During discussion Council was advised that a review of the scrutiny structure was taking place and it was queried why Scrutiny Members were not being involved.  One option was to establish two Scrutiny Committees rather than one.  The Leader confirmed that the options would be shared once available.

 

The Monitoring Officer clarified that any proposed structural changes to the Scrutiny Committees would have to be considered by the Standards Committee and then submitted to Council.

 

Moved  by Councillor Peake and seconded by Councillor Fritchley and on being put to the vote the motion was lost.

 

 

e)       The following motion was submitted for consideration by Councillor Watson:

 

This Council notes

 

“In recent months there have been significant changes in the composition of the membership of this Council, meaning that for the first time in several years there is now an organised large group of opposition Councillors. 

 

It is disappointing that this has triggered a problematic situation within the Council and resulted in a clear and unworkable schism between the controlling group - Labour - and the largest opposition group - the Independents. 

 

The definition of the role of Leader of the Opposition within this Council's Constitution does not acknowledge the need for the Leader of the Opposition to formulate alternative policies and more pertinently, to be assisted in this role by Council officers. Many other local authorities do in fact acknowledge (within their constitution), this element as part the role of the opposition and thereby facilitate a more meaningful and constructive opposition, indeed many encourage and include the role of Shadow Cabinets. 

 

In order to improve the quality of constructive opposition within this authority and thereby create a healthier and better functioning environment within this Council, I believe the description and understanding of the role of the Leader of the Opposition, and indeed opposition members, should be revised within this Council's constitution.

 

This can only encourage more meaningful debate within the Council, which ultimately will benefit the residents of Bolsover during this Council's final years. 

 

This Council resolves:

 

to require the Standards Committee to review the defined role of Leader of the Opposition within the Council's Constitution.”

 

Motion moved by Councillor Watson and seconded by Councillor Peake and on being put to the vote the motion was lost.