To answer questions submitted by Opposition Group Leaders on items on the agenda.
Minutes:
Question from Councillor Birch to Councillor Upton. Councillor Birch was unable to attend the meeting, so his question was read out by the Leader, Councillor Clarke.
“Can you please confirm when Rushcliffe Borough Council moved away from adopting public spaces and instead began allowing management companies to assume these responsibilities, with the costs being passed on to the residents?”
Councillor Upton responded by stating that the Borough Council stopped adopting open spaces on new housing estates in 2011.
Councillor Birch had submitted a supplementary question to Councillor Upton, which was read out by the Leader.
“Considering that the Growth and Development Scrutiny Group had recommended further investigation into the practices of management companies and alternative, why does the Cabinet recommend maintaining the status quo, causing a significant number of residents to be double taxed, under a policy introduced under this Conservative-led administration?”
Councillor Upton advised that the issue of double taxation had just been answered by Councillor Virdi and the recommendations in the report would be discussed later in the meeting.
Question from Councillor J Walker to the Leader, Councillor Clarke.
“In light of the casework experienced by Councillors who represent the areas most affected by management companies due to the clear negative impact they are having on residents, does it not seem appropriate to keep up the scrutiny of Management Companies and keep it a Key Decision for this Council?”
The Leader thanked Councillor Walker and agreed that it would be appropriate to continue to scrutinise management companies; however, he stated that it was not a political decision to make this a Key Decision, and that it was the Monitoring Officer’s professional view, that this item did not meet the criteria set out within the Constitution to be a Key Decision. Significant staffing resources had already been dedicated to this subject, acknowledging its importance, and given the recommendations in the report, the Council would continue to champion, on behalf of residents, concerns over the actions of such management companies.
Councillor Walker asked a supplementary question to the Leader.
“Given that this was a long term, permanent issue for residents and should be made a Key Decision, could this be brought to Full Council?”
The Leader reiterated his previous comments that this was not a political decision; however, this was an issue that everyone was concerned about and was not a political party matter. He felt that everyone should be working together to get the issue resolved, and it was not relevant if it was a Key Decision or not, as the priority was to ensure that management companies were regulated
Question from Councillor Thomas to Councillor Upton
“In Agenda Item 8 there is a proposal for the Council to acquire 50ha of land and maintain it for carbon sequestration, at an estimated maintenance cost over 15 years, including initial planting and replacement but not land purchase, of around £1M.
In Agenda Item 7 the estimated cost for maintaining about twice as much open space in Fairham (110ha) over 15 years is £11M. Land on new estates could be acquired as a planning gain with the developer probably covering the cost of initial planting.
Why is one estimate so much more expensive than the other?
Councillor Upton thanked Councillor Thomas and advised that the Council was not comparing like for like. Agenda Item 7, which referenced Fairham included more infrastructure costs than Agenda Item 8, with the figures in both reports being calculated from national building and surveying guidance.
Councillor Thomas asked a supplementary question to Councillor Upton.
“Are you aware in a recent planning application approved in Gotham that the largest area of greenspace is for biodiversity gain with no public access, including residents of the estate, who will presumably be landed with the maintenance bill. How does the Portfolio Holder feel about this scenario?”
Councillor Upton stated that he understood what was being said; however, he was unaware of the specific application being referred to and would provide a written response.