To receive Notice of Motion submitted under Standing Order No.12
Having regard to the extent of approved building in Rushcliffe and evidence of non-compliance by developers, the Council will review its planning enforcement policy with a view to increasing efforts to enforce compliance with approved plans, conditions and Council planning documents in conjunction with the Growth Scrutiny Group and report any recommendations back to Cabinet.
Councillor R Jones
Questions from Councillors
To answer questions submitted by Councillors under Standing Order No.11(2)
Do any of the Council’s Contact Centres enable EU nationals and their family members to book an appointment to use the digital document verification service for European Settlement as part of their application for settled or pre-settled status thus enabling applicants to retain their passports/biometric residence cards instead of having to post them to the Home Office?
Councillor R Jones
In view of the research by Queen Mary University Hospital of London and others which established beyond doubt that exposure to levels of particulate 2.5 greater than 10 per cubic metre results in changes to the structure of the heart; would you ask the Local Development Framework to consider adopting the World Health Organisations guidelines of no more than 10 per cubic metre instead of the much higher level of 25 in current planning applications?
Councillor R Jones
In light of the fact that East Leake is bathed in sewage whenever there is heavy rainfall, are you able to explain how Rushcliffe ensures that Severn Trent Water meets its responsibility to increase the capacity of its sewerage systems to deal with the cumulative additional demands of new homes and other development?
Councillor C Thomas
By becoming a Councillor I have learnt that Trent Valley internal Drainage Board are experts at managing drainage dykes and ditches efficiently and effectively, and at a recent meeting they stated that they are open to considering adopting drainage channels on new developments. It seems preferable to have essential drainage dealt with by a statutory body, rather than leaving it to the vagaries of management companies. What are the advantages and disadvantages to RBC of asking Trent Valley Internal Drainage Board to adopt drainage-ways upstream, downstream or through new developments, possibly using money from CIL, Section 106 or developers?
Councillor P Gowland
The 21% of new homes built in the flood zone in Rushcliffe was the highest for anywhere in Nottinghamshire. The Environment Agency, The Labour Party and even Boris Johnson in his election campaign have all categorically stated that building on flood plains should be halted.
Will the Council pledge to call an immediate halt to all building on flood plains in the Borough?
Councillor M Gaunt
Minutes:
Notices of Motions
The following Notice of Motion was proposed by Councillor Jones and seconded by Councillor R Mallender.
“Having regard to the extent of approved building in Rushcliffe and evidence of non-compliance by developers, the Council will review its planning enforcement policy with a view to increasing efforts to enforce compliance with approved plans, conditions and Council planning documents in conjunction with the Growth Scrutiny Group and report any recommendations back to Cabinet.”
Councillor Jones highlighted that, since he had first submitted this motion in March 2020, a review of planning enforcement had been programmed for the Growth and Development Scrutiny Group. He explained that many residents wanted to stay in the Borough and that planning applications for home renovations continued to be submitted. He outlined his concerns regarding the Council’s use of its planning enforcement powers including investigations and prosecutions. Councillor Jones reminded the Council that there would be a 28% increase in house building across the Borough in the next few years but that, as far as he was aware, there had not been a commensurate increase in staff for enforcement. There were two planning enforcement officers and for a significant period of last year, this had fallen to one officer, which was an alarmingly fragile situation. Councillor Jones gave a number of examples from his own ward where he felt there had been insufficient planning enforcement to protect residents’ quality of life. He concluded that the Council focused on bringing forward development but needed to focus equally on compliance with planning conditions and enforcement when those were not adhered to.
Councillor R Mallender reminded Council that its role in terms of planning did not end with the approval of an application. Enforcement was essential to ensure that work was undertaken in accordance with the approved plans. He stated that it was necessary to have the resources, means to monitor, and follow-up on reported breaches to ensure that existing residents and amenities were not harmed by new developments.
Councillor Upton stated that he did not have the enforcement statistics to hand, and offered to respond to Councillor Jones with this information within the week. He considered that it was important to achieve a balance in terms of resourcing enforcement and that two officers, given the amount of development within the Borough, was considered sufficient. He also remarked that Councillor Jones’ suggestion that all developers were not complying was disingenuous. Councillor Upton proposed an amendment to the motion:
“Having regard to the amount of approved building for Rushcliffe and evidence of non-compliance with planning conditions by some developers, this Council supports a review of its planning enforcement policy through the task on the current work programme for the Growth Scrutiny Group and any recommendations will be reported back to Cabinet.”
The amendment was seconded by Councillor Clarke, who reserved his right to speak.
Councillor Gray agreed that the amendment encapsulated the spirit of original motion and he noted that there was expected to be considerable growth in the Borough over next ten years, and that effective planning enforcement would be essential to supporting the Council’s corporate priorities. He called upon scrutiny to consider whether the Council’s resourcing levels for planning enforcement were correct. Councillor Gray reminded Council that natural assets were easily removed; however, they could take decades to be established if later replaced.
Councillor Thomas indicated her support for the amendment to the motion.
Councillor Clarke highlighted his support for the sentiment of the original motion but advised Council that it was a shame that it needed to be discussed at the meeting, as it had been included on the Growth and Development Scrutiny Group work programme for some time. Councillor Clarke reminded Councillor Jones that he was welcome to present his investigation at the scrutiny meeting.
Councillor Jones thanked Councillor Clarke for his invitation to speak at scrutiny regarding the impact of planning enforcement in his ward.
After being put to the vote, the amendment to the motion was carried.
The Mayor then read out the substantive motion.
“Having regard to the amount of approved building for Rushcliffe and evidence of non-compliance with planning conditions by some developers, this Council supports a review of its planning enforcement policy through the task on the current work programme for the Growth Scrutiny Group and any recommendations will be reported back to Cabinet.”
In debating the substantive motion, Councillor Thomas reminded the Council that prompt planning enforcement action was required on issues raised, to avoid creating a culture that gaining retrospective permission was easier than applying for permission prior to any changes being made. She considered that enforcement action was necessary to maintain public confidence in the planning system and she requested the scrutiny group to consider if staffing levels were commensurate with levels of development planned for the Borough.
There was no further debate on the substantive motion. On being put to the vote, the substantive motion was carried.
Questions from Councillors
a) Question from Councillor Jones to Councillor Mason
“Do any of the Council’s Contact Centres enable EU nationals and their family members to book an appointment to use the digital document verification service for European Settlement as part of their application for settled or pre-settled status thus enabling applicants to retain their passports/biometric residence cards instead of having to post them to the Home Office?”
Councillor Mason responded that Nottinghamshire County Council lead on the EU Settlement Scheme and those wishing to apply could seek information from the County Council’s website. She suggested that Councillor Jones should refer to the County Council for further details about the scheme.
Supplementary question
Councillor Jones asked if Councillor Mason knew if the County Council allowed applicants to use the digital document verification scheme?
Councillor Mason replied that Councillor Jones should make that enquiry of the County Council, as they were the lead for the EU Settlement Scheme.
b) Question from Councillor Jones to Councillor Upton
“In view of the research by Queen Mary University Hospital of London and others which established beyond doubt that exposure to levels of particulate 2.5 greater than 10 per cubic metre results in changes to the structure of the heart; would you ask the Local Development Framework to consider adopting the World Health Organisations guidelines of no more than 10 per cubic metre instead of the much higher level of 25 in current planning applications?”
Councillor Upton responded that the new Environment Bill was proposing to bring in a number of changes to current air quality legislation including new requirements to monitor and tackle particulate 2.5. When that becomes law, Council guidance, plans and policies would require amendment to reflect any new legislative requirements.
Supplementary question
Councillor Jones asked if the WHO guidelines could be recommended to the Council’s LDF group regardless of the content of the new Bill.
Councillor Upton replied that it would be prudent to wait for the new Bill to be published to avoid wasted or duplicated effort and he advised that it was likely that the Bill would be published soon.
c) Question from Councillor Thomas to Councillor Upton
“In light of the fact that East Leake is bathed in sewage whenever there is heavy rainfall, are you able to explain how Rushcliffe ensures that Severn Trent Water meets its responsibility to increase the capacity of its sewerage systems to deal with the cumulative additional demands of new homes and other development?”
Councillor Upton responded that the Council consulted Severn Trent on applications for major developments. The Water Industry Act 1991 imposed a continuing duty on all sewerage undertakers to provide, maintain and improve its systems for collecting and treating foul and wastewater drainage to effectually drain its areas and effectually deal with the contents of its sewers. The developer had the absolute right to connect to the public sewerage system under section 106 of the Water Industry Act. Any improvements considered necessary to improve existing capacity at the pumping station or Sewage Treatment works, would be undertaken by Severn Trent, under their separate legal obligations.
Councillor Upton advised that the Council, through the East Leake Growth Board, had engaged Severn Trent on those issues and there was an ongoing dialogue to ensure, a solution was found to the localised flooding in East Leake. Seven Trent had recently completed a sewer flow monitoring exercise for East Leake, which would be feed back into the East Leake Growth Board.
Supplementary question
Councillor Thomas asked when those improvements might be made given the amount of development in the village and the extent of the problem with sewage and flooding.
Councillor Upton replied that he was not aware of the timescales but that as Councillor Thomas was a member of the East Leake Growth Board then, perhaps, that would be the place to raise her question.
d) Question from Councillor Gowland to Councillor Upton
“By becoming a Councillor I have learnt that Trent Valley internal Drainage Board are experts at managing drainage dykes and ditches efficiently and effectively, and at a recent meeting they stated that they are open to considering adopting drainage channels on new developments. It seems preferable to have essential drainage dealt with by a statutory body, rather than leaving it to the vagaries of management companies. What are the advantages and disadvantages to RBC of asking Trent Valley Internal Drainage Board to adopt drainage-ways upstream, downstream or through new developments, possibly using money from CIL, Section 106 or developers?”
Councillor Upton responded that it was important to emphasise that the Trent Valley Internal Drainage Board was not responsible for the maintenance of all water courses/drainage ditches in the Rushcliffe area. However, it was consulted on major planning applications and it also identified certain applications themselves through publicity exercises. That was the opportunity for them to raise their interest in future management and maintenance of any watercourses. Drainage was a very complicated issue and the Council had very limited responsibilities.
Supplementary question
No supplementary question was asked.
e) Question from Councillor Gaunt to Councillor Upton
“The 21% of new homes built in the flood zone in Rushcliffe was the highest for anywhere in Nottinghamshire. The Environment Agency, The Labour Party and even Boris Johnson in his election campaign have all categorically stated that building on flood plains should be halted. Will the Council pledge to call an immediate halt to all building on flood plains in the Borough?”
Councillor Upton responded that Rushcliffe was building more homes than most councils were and there were several flood zones in the Borough. All sites allocated in the Local Plan were scrutinised and the Planning Inspectorate had made no adverse comments. As far as the Council was aware, none of the Borough’s new housing sites built in the last five years had suffered significant flooding.
All planning applications in any flood zone were subject to a flood risk assessment and those for new dwellings in flood zone 2 and 3 were consulted on with the Environment Agency. Major schemes were also subject to consultation with the County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority. Councillor Upton considered that there were sufficient procedures in place to deal with this issue.
Supplementary question
Councillor Gaunt asked whether an up-to-date assessment could be produced in light of recent flooding in the Borough and increasing concerns over climate change.
Councillor Upton replied that this would not be the responsibility of the Council but the Environment Agency and Nottinghamshire County Council as the Lead Flood agency. He reiterated that to his knowledge there had been no flooding on new housing estates in the Borough.