The Council received eight questions from Members to Committee Chairs/Portfolio Holders. The responses to the eight questions had been published in the supplementary agenda for the meeting.
(A) Question from Councillor Robin Parker CC (asked by Councillor Stephen Booth in Councillor Parker’s absence re: planning applications for telecommunications masts
Supplementary question: What new procedures had been introduced to ensure the delays would not happen again and do we have to lobby Central Government as to whether more modern forms of communication other than 1st class post could be used.
The Portfolio Holder for Environment and Performance agreed that the postal system had failed and had lead to a change in what the Planning and Development Committee had agreed. Further discussions would be held with the officers on this issue.
(B) Question from Councillor Bret Facey re: fly-tipping
Supplementary question – recent published DEFRA figures for 2021/22 showed no penalty notices being issued by SBC. Why did SBC fail to hold fly tippers to account.
The Executive Portfolio Holder for Environment & Performance acknowledged the issue of fly-tipping and welcomed a conversation with Cllr Facey and the relevant officers to take the issue forward.
(C) Question from Councillor Adam Mitchell re: the Community Centre and shops at the Bragbury End Development
Supplementary question: can the Portfolio Holder guarantee that a community centre will be built in Bragbury End and that a better way to communicate that with local residents can be found?
The Executive Portfolio Holder for Co-operative Council and Neighbourhood Communities advised that there would be a bookable, community use building with a café but would meet with Councillor Mitchell along with the Assistant Director Housing Development as soon as practicable.
(D) Question from Councillor Alex Farquharson re: safeguarding measures at the 108 Oaks Cross development.
Supplementary question: following multiple disturbances at the development, would SBC commit to double its efforts to ensure the residents did not form a safeguarding concern and would they ensure that residents’ concerns were addressed without local Councillor intervention.
In the absence of the Executive Portfolio Holder for Housing and Housing Development, the leader of the Council advised that one of the rooms had now been converted to a staff room. The development was built to try and meet the needs of some of the Council’s homeless population. Further details would be provided regarding the safeguarding issues to Councillor Farquharson in a written response.
(E) Question from Councillor Andy McGuinness re: the impact of the Prime Minister’s recent announcement to delay the UK’s net zero commitments on the Council’s operations.
Supplementary question: Was the Portfolio Holder aware of the Leader of the Labour Party, Sir Keir Starmer’s views on the announcements.
The Executive Portfolio Holder for Environment & Performance replied that in his opinion, the announcement from the Prime Minister had been made for short term political gain at the expense of our children and grandchildren and that he was of the opinion that an incoming Labour Government would definitely honour its pledges on climate change.
(F) Question from Councillor Tom Wren re: tenancy fraud and the sub-letting of Council properties
Supplementary question: a long term case of tenancy fraud had been reported to the Council a number of times without resolution. Does the Council think that if additional funding was put into identifying these fraud cases more homes could be delivered to those that needed them.
In the absence of the Executive Portfolio Holder for Housing and Housing Development, the Leader of the Council advised that he would ask officers to look into the specific case. In terms of the figures, the SAFS was detecting an increasing number of fraud cases but this would not necessarily equate to an increase in the number of houses built.
(G) Question from Councillor Stephen Booth re: the progress on recent motions passed at Council meetings during the past year.
Supplementary question: why has the vaping motion not been passed to another Committee for consideration and what response did we get back from the Minister on this issue.
The Leader of the Council advised that no response had yet been received from the Government Minister. The issue of vaping would also be considered by the General Purposes Committee in November.
(H) Question from Councillor Graham Snell re: Swingate/Lytton Way traffic flow
Supplementary question: are the temporary changes to become permanent and when will this along with the Station Gateway Development take place?
The Executive Portfolio Holder for Economy and Transport advised that HCC was the Lead Authority on the traffic management in this area. A final decision would not be forthcoming this side of Christmas but he would still continue to press the issue with them. In relation to the Gateway this was currently out for consultation, the results of which would be reported to members at the appropriate time.