To answer questions submitted by Opposition Group Leaders on items on the agenda.
Minutes:
Question from Councillor Gray to Councillor Robinson.
“Given that some outside this meeting may not be inclined to read cabinet papers, but may read other papers with headlines such as "Nuclear Option for Nottingham" how will the council communicate and explain the risks and benefits of Rushcliffe potentially becoming home to an experimental nuclear fusion reactor?”
Councillor Robinson responded by thanking Councillor Gray for his question and advised that should the expression of interest be submitted by the landowner for the Ratcliffe-on-Soar site, then there would be a comprehensive programme of community engagement with residents, stakeholders and parish and town councils in that area. The landowner, Nottinghamshire County Council and Rushcliffe Borough Council would work together to engage and consult, and the UK Atomic Energy Authority would be very much involved. The complexity and sensitivity of the issue was noted, this was cutting edge technology that was still to be developed, and appropriate consultation and communication would be undertaken if the scheme went forward.
Councillor Gray asked a supplementary question to Councillor Robinson.
“What external sources would we communicate with, given that some people who had been mentioned might have other interests for this going ahead. Would we speak to universities and other groups?”
Councillor Robinson responded by confirming that the UK Atomic Energy Authority would be primarily involved, and it would be important to involve the local universities. The Leader advised that the County Council would be coordinating the expression of interest and the Borough Council would be working with them and look to involve other external agencies that had the appropriate knowledge and expertise to assist with this complex topic.
Question from Councillor Way, on behalf of the Independent Group to Councillor Upton.
“We are pleased to see that there is a recommendation for the inclusion of guidance within a Supplementary Planning Document to provide consistency to future Open Space schemes. This will prove useful in future for residents of new developments to have a greater degree of certainty about what they will need to pay and what will be provided for that fee. Hopefully this will also give them some help and support if the companies do not comply with the agreements, as seems often to be the case. It would be helpful if transparency is encouraged in terms of who has access to the open spaces. This is causing problems between residents and non-residents as to what constitutes public and private land and tends to result in divided communities.
We also welcome the recommendation to write to Secretary of State regarding this matter. One of the issues of concern is that the management companies are expanding these charges to cover so much more than open spaces and using this as an opportunity to increase their income stream. For example, one local resident moved to a house where there is an open space management company. This company charged his seller £250 for a seller's pack and the buyer £450 to change the owner’s name on their records. It would appear that this is not unusual although charges vary. We have also seen examples of lists of charges where the residents, despite being freeholders, have to ask permission from the management companies to sell their homes. Inevitably there is a fee for this. Another resident was asked to pay a fee to change his mortgage, within the same mortgage company, when his Help to Buy agreement came to an end.
These imposed management agreements allow for additional charges to be made to residents for items such as dealing with fly-tipping and most do not have a cap on how much they can increase. Paragraph 3.1 of the officer report states that there should be parity across estates within the Borough. Hopefully there will be parity within the estates themselves. In estates with mixed tenure housing it is possible that some residents will carry a larger burden than others. This will only become clear with detailed examination. For residents living in affordable housing, be it social rent, affordable rent or shared ownership, these additional charges can impose an unsustainable financial burden on householders. In order to try to halt the continuation of unnecessary additional charges on households under the guise of open space management the letter to the Secretary of State should include all the above issues.
Will the Supplementary Planning Document and
the draft letter to the Secretary for State come back to the
Scrutiny group for comment?”
Councillor Upton responded by thanking Councillor Way for her very comprehensive question and advised that the points that had been raised would be considered for inclusion in his letter to be submitted to the Secretary of State (SoS) and in the proposed Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). Councillor Upton advised that the matter would not be referred back to the Scrutiny Group for consideration, the SPD would be considered by the Local Development Forum (LDF) before being referred to Cabinet for adoption and a copy of the letter to the SoS would be circulated to the LDF.
Councillor Way asked a supplementary question to Councillor Upton.
“Would you be willing to discuss with me the information that I have found during my research into this topic before finalising the letter to the SoS?”
Councillor Upton responded by confirming that he would be happy to discuss the matter further with Councillor Way.