Agenda item

Members asked questions of Portfolio Holders in accordance with Procedure Rules 8.1 and 8.2 as follows:

·       Councillor Hay stated that she noted in the Portfolio Holder report that it mentions the Local Plan consultation and it states that the Local Plan will be considered by Full Council during 2023/2024, however, she has also read that Peterborough City Council will be withdrawing their support for planning and she asked whether that will affect the timetable for the completion of the Local Plan? Councillor Mrs Laws responded that Peterborough City Council have been undergoing an assessment of its own Planning Department, which started in July 2022 and they have advised that they are considering withdrawing certain services from the Council. She stated that discussions are currently taking place with regards to the situation as it will also affect other areas of the shared service but at the current time she has no firm answers that she is able to provide.

·       Councillor Sutton asked whether Councillor Murphy was able to provide an update with regards to whether the brown bin charge was going to be removed in place of Waste Vertical Integration (WVI)? Councillor Murphy responded that there is no intention to remove the brown bin charge and there is an increase in the amount of people who subscribe to the service with 2,800 customers paying for the service by direct debit. He explained that with regards to WVI, there is no further update from Central Government from that which was provide in 2022.

·       Councillor Sutton referred to the Horizons windfall funding which had been discussed previously at Full Council, with East Cambridgeshire District Council setting up a Community Fund to make use of their share of the funding and asked the Leader whether he had given any consideration to a capital fund being raised and in particular for the rural areas who receive very little, in his opinion, but who represent 28% of the Fenland population. He added that consideration could be given for a small amount of money of £10,000 to £15,000 which would make a difference to some of the projects that the small villages would like to progress. Councillor Sutton asked Councillor Boden whether he would consider a scheme where villages can request some funding? Councillor Boden made the point that he objects to the use of the word windfall to describe the monies received from Cambridgeshire Horizons and explained that the Council was one of the original shareholders for Cambridgeshire Horizons Ltd which was a company that was set up around twenty years ago in order to promote economic growth in Cambridgeshire as a whole and in particular housing growth. He added that the company had some very specific legal objectives set out in its memorandum and articles at the time. Councillor Boden explained that the company reached a certain stage in managing to utilize the large amounts of capital funding, which was received by Central Government, but they only reached a certain point, and did spend a large amount of public money. He stated that in 2012 that operation all but ceased and the only interaction which took place following 2012 was just residual changes which took place with the small amounts of money that were still left which was small in comparison to the original amount, but still substantial in anyone else’s view. Councillor Boden explained that since there has been no significant movement or any prospect of any movement from the company, he had put forward a proposal which was accepted, that the company should repatriate almost all of the excess money that it still had available to its shareholders, with the only legal way to achieve this was to repatriate it for the same purposes that Cambridgeshire Horizons was set up for and, therefore, there are limitations as to how the money may be spent. He stated that the Council received £3.89 million pounds from Cambridgeshire Horizons and of that £1.05 million was to be utilized towards the expenditure on the A14 and the remaining £2.84 million has been earmarked for economic growth projects. Councillor Boden made the point that the only amount which is currently being used is £149,000 which operates on an annual basis and as of the 31 March every year the Section 151 Officer has to write to the Company Secretary of Cambridgeshire Horizons Limited to say what use has been made of the funding in the previous 12 months and what the justification is for using it, based on the legal criteria under which Cambridgeshire Horizons Ltd was formed. He stated that the current projects for 22/23 see another £330,000 of expenditure designated by the Section 151 Officer to go towards economic growth in Fenland and will leave £2.3 million which will be available for future years and when it was set up, the proposal that he put forward which was accepted, was that the money needs to be spent within 6 years and, therefore, there will be the need for the £2.3million to be spent over the course of the next four financial years. Councillor Boden stressed that there are legal restraints on how it could and should be used and it is his opinion that economic growth in the area is of the utmost importance. He added that there is more expenditure on economic growth than ever before by the Council and it is the one area of expenditure that has really grown in real terms over the last two or three years and, in his view, it is something that he would advocate that the Council needs to do more of because it effects people’s jobs, livelihoods and their businesses. Councillor Boden expressed the view that the prioritisation of economic growth is very important and made the point that the money has not been squandered over the last two years as the overwhelming majority of the £2.8 million of the £3.9 million is still available and it will be for the new Council to decide how they spend it. Councillor Sutton stated that the fact the East Cambridgeshire Council have set up a Community Fund shows that it is legal and can be done. Councillor Boden stated that he is unsure what projects that Councillor Sutton is referring to, but the projects need to be brought forward in order to be considered. He added that there are other sources of funding which can be considered and used for good projects, and he would have liked to have known what the projects were and whether they have been brought forward for consideration by the Council.

·       Councillor Sutton expressed the view that the UK Shared Prosperity Fund had appeared to focus and be very town centric for bids and asked whether the villages had been considered? Councillor Boden stated that it was a very difficult set of projects to move forwards and explained that the Council had not been given autonomy with regards to making applications towards the fund, with the Government deciding that in those areas which have Combined Authorities it should be the Combined Authority who submit the bid and then in turn money would be filtered down to the District Councils. He stated that some of the monies ended up being centrally organized by the CPCA and the Council had to agree with what was put forward and other items were a matter for the Council to decipher how the criteria published by Government could be matched with opportunities that the Council had. Councillor Boden explained that the Council did not distinguish between villages and towns or indeed between the towns although Wisbech did receive more as it qualified under the specified criteria more favourably than other areas. He added that the Council made the decision to go with the best schemes that were available with the funds that were potentially available using the criteria which had been laid out by Government. Councillor Boden made the point that there are instances where Government states that there will be a rurality premium where rural areas will take preference, but this was not the case with this particular scheme and in this instance the schemes were selected which were available and in order to benefit the whole of Fenland. Councillor Sutton asked Councillor Boden that if he has some schemes in his own ward which are looking for a small amount of funding, can he bring those forward directly to him? Councillor Boden stated that if any member wishes to bring forward schemes they can be added to a list, however, whether they will be chosen is another matter.

·       Councillor Sutton stated that the LATCO set up fee appears to be displayed incorrectly on the website and, in his opinion, some of the fees displayed are not set up fees and they need to be reviewed.

·       Councillor Sutton made reference to purdah and expressed the opinion that he is very disappointed to have been told that a Golden Age Fair cannot take place during the Purdah period but he has received notification that the March St Georges Fair is taking place on April 28 which is also during the Purdah period, and asked Councillor Boden to explain the justification in allowing that to go ahead, when the Golden Age event cannot. Councillor Boden stated that he does have sympathy with the comments that Councillor Sutton has raised but there is a clear distinction between what happens with what has been called St Georges Fair in the past and is known as St Georges Festival this year and what happens with Golden Age Fairs. He explained that Golden Age Fairs are Council events and are promoted as such whereas the St Georges annual event is jointly organised by the Council and the March Events Committee in conjunction with various other partners including March Library, March Community Centre, 2020 Productions and CPP Market Place. Councillor Boden stated that although the Council design the promotional materials, they are not Fenland District Council branded events whereas the Golden Age events are. He made the point that it is his understanding that the reason that the Golden Age Fair is not taking place during the Purdah period is that in order to organise the celebration event of the 20^th anniversary of the Golden Age fairs in June, it was decided that a fair would not take place prior to that event. Councillor Boden agreed with Councillor Sutton that the rules surrounding purdah are over bureaucratic, but they are in place to protect the interests of those who are not in power, and the reason purdah exists is that sometimes those that are in administration can manage to manipulate publicity, consultations and events just before an election to try and benefit themselves politically.

·       Councillor Sutton asked Councillor Mrs Laws if she could explain what she understands her role and responsibilities are as the member responsible for the Internal Drainage Board delivery and what are the outcomes from being in that role? Councillor Mrs Laws responded that the answer is complex, and she will provide a response to all members in due course.

·       Councillor Sutton addressed Councillor Mrs Laws and asked whether she could ensure that the Local Plan information can be accessed easier on the Council’s website as it is currently difficult to navigate and find. Councillor Mrs Laws agreed that she would deal with this matter.

·       Councillor Sutton asked Councillor Mrs Laws if she could explain what effect it will have on the Local Plan moving forward as Central Government are no longer dictating numbers. He added that there is a requirement to have a housing needs assessment for evidence to go to inspection and he asked whether that process has commenced. Councillor Mrs Laws explained that the information has to and will be considered and then moving forward the reports will be reviewed including the housing assessment need in order to move forward with the Local Plan, however, due to the changes it does mean that the process will be delayed yet again.

·       Councillor Sutton stated that he has raised previously the issue of Level 2 Flood Risk Assessments which are in place in Wisbech so that development can take place in Flood Zone 3 but there are other areas in the district which are in the same flood zone, such as Benwick, but development cannot take place. He added that in the documentation he has read in conjunction with the emerging Local Plan concerning site selection and the reasoning behind why some sites are not being picked due to their flood zone and made the point that nothing will change and the issue concerning where people can and cannot build due to flood zones will be the same as it currently is. Councillor Sutton explained that all the sites that Benwick have put forward have been rejected because of flood risk but there is no other land in Benwick and expressed the view that it must be reviewed. Councillor Mrs Laws stated that there was a first and second call for sites due to the fact that a public consultation exercise could not take place due to the pandemic and all of the sites have been assessed correctly and there has been consistency applied, however, she agreed that she would re-examine them again. Councillor Sutton stated that he would like confirmation and commitment that a Level 2 Flood Risk Assessment will be in place across the board. Councillor Mrs Laws stated that her commitment will be to review the reports and review the officers’ assessments.

·       Councillor Booth stated that when considering the flood zones, in his opinion, officers appear to be discounting sites in Floods Zones 2 and 3 that Parish Councils and residents are putting forward. He expressed the view that the point that Councillor Sutton is making is that with mitigation measures in place, development should be able to take place and what is needed within the new Local Plan is a policy where the sites can be there but there needs to be flood mitigation measures included so that development can take place and if such a policy was in place it would assist with the sustainability of the rural areas as there would be more housing in these areas which in turn will support the local services. Councillor Mrs Laws stated that she does not disagree with the points made by Councillor Booth and due to the changes made by Government there will be further work undertaken to take those changes into consideration.

·       Councillor Booth made reference to the page 46 of the report where it details that only 62% of minor applications are being dealt with during the target set by Government, the Leader has given assurances previously that the performance is improving but he asked how the Council can ensure that the figures provided can be improved as it is a common complaint that he is receiving from residents and developers as they are not receiving responses during to the Planning Department facing staffing issues. Councillor Mrs Laws responded that planning is an important department, and the team has experienced some significant staffing changes recently, with over a ten year period there not being the desire for officers to study for town and planning qualifications and degrees and it has now reached a point where some officers have retired, taken early retirement or gone to work in the private sector and the team now find themselves with a number of Junior Planners but without the Senior Officers and that is where the gap has arisen. She explained that there has been efforts made to fill those gaps by using agency staff which has not always proved to be successful, however, another recruitment company is now being used and it is hoped that the staff provided will enable the planning team to stabilise and improve. Councillor Mrs Laws explained that there will be a recruitment exercise to fill a post for a full-time Tree Officer and also a Conservation Officer. She added that any member queries concerning planning can be directed to both herself and Councillor Connor who will do their best to answer and field any questions in order to support the planning staff.

·       Councillor Booth asked whether he would be able to receive a written response in answer to his question concerning page 29 of the report where it refers to Capital Projects for street lighting, making the point that there were updates contained in the report previously with regards to the Parish Council schemes, however, that information now appears to have been removed from the report. He added that a request was submitted over two years for the street lighting in Parson Drove to be replaced, however, there has been no update provided and, in his opinion, there appears to be something not working correctly with the supplier and cable testing and getting the information sent to the Parish Councils. Councillor Boden responded that in the absence of Councillor Mrs French he will arrange for the information to be provided as soon as possible.

·       Councillor Booth made reference to the report where it details bringing empty households back into use, with Councillor Hoy repeatedly assuring over the last year that she would provide information concerning that status of the net position, however, that information is still not detailed in the report, and asked what the current position is of bringing empty homes back into use. Councillor Hoy stated that she recalls a conversation with regards to empty properties and social housing and there is data available, making the point that every empty home brought back into use is a positive step and more homes are brought back into use year on year. She explained that if Councillor Booth requires an overall figure of the current situation plus what the percentage of empty homes are brought back into use she will look to address this and ensure it is added to the report going forward.

(Councillor Topgood left the meeting at 4.57pm following this item and the remainder of the agenda items)