To answer questions submitted by Opposition Group Leaders on items on the agenda.
Minutes:
Question from Councillor Jen Walker to Councillor Upton.
“What ideas does Cabinet have for the £0.763m carry forward support for Registered Housing Providers?”
Councillor Upton thanked Councillor Walker for her question and stated that the affordable housing capital budget was predominantly made of Section 106 payments, paid in lieu of on-site provision. Discussions were ongoing with Registered Housing Providers (RPs),developers and Homes England to explore opportunities to commit this money, which would hopefully deliver a mix of general needs affordable housing. Should those options progress, it was likely that they would absorb a significant amount of the remaining capital budget. The £0.763m had been carried forward to future years (2025/26) in addition to the £2.5m already allocated in the 2024/25 Capital Programme. There was an existing commitment to give a contribution of £24k to deliver three affordable units on garage sites (phase 2) and £36k for one additional affordable unit.
Councillor Upton advised that a number of options continued to be looked at by the Housing Team including grant funding of RPs, funding affordable development in partnership with public sector landowners, such as extra care for the elderly population, acquiring land for affordable housing and developing bespoke units, including in the past the Metropolitan Garage Development Programme. As those come to fruition they would be reported upon and the Medium Term Financial Statement (MTFS) updated as the money was spent. The bulk of the outstanding amount needed to be spent by April 2032, and the timeline in itself demonstrated that this was not a quick fix.
Councillor Walker asked a supplementary question to Councillor Upton.
“Why was this money not spent, as it was unclear why it had been carried forward?”
Councillor Upton stated that as with many capital projects, timelines were put in place and inevitably slippages occurred for various reasons as had happened with this sum and a more detailed written response would be provided.
Question from Councillor Thomas to Councillor Virdi. Councillor Thomas was unable to attend the meeting, so her question was read out by the Leader, Councillor Clarke.
“As the Business Rates relief offered to businesses on the Freeport will be subsidised by tax payers (through central government) what democratic involvement has there been in drawing up the policy to encourage particular types of businesses, for example companies with green and ethical track records, evidence of creation of jobs and exemplary employment practice, or in terms of the Ratcliffe LDO site, alignment with the principles of the Local Development Order?”
Councillor Virdi thanked Councillor Thomas for her question and referred to the Cabinet report considered in February 2022, which all Members were sighted on, that had stated in the environmental implications that “the transformation of Ratcliffe on Soar Power Station from the production of coal-fired energy to other more sustainable forms of energy including Research and Development into clean energy will help the region’s plans to become carbon neutral and then net zero”. The same report had also stated “the development of Ratcliffe on Soar Power Station through the Freeport could attract a significant number of new businesses and a maximum of 20,000 jobs (depending on what sites and development comes forward).”
Councillor Virdi advised that any new Freeport occupier to potentially receive Business Rates Relief had to be approved via the six Council Board Members that were democratically elected, of which there were three billing authorities. It was the three districts who were responsible for the development and application of the Business Rates Relief Policy and for Rushcliffe Borough Council, the Board Member was the Leader of the Council. There was a ‘gateway review process’ involving the Tax Site Operator, Freeport Executive Delivery Team, s151 Officers and Public Sector Directors from the various authorities. This process would be extensive and involve demonstrating compliance with a ’fit and proper’ test regarding ongoing conduct, compliance with laws and regulations as well as looking at social value benefits, for example apprenticeships, skills and contributions to net zero. Furthermore, investment had to be additional in relation to the country and not a displacement of investment from elsewhere within the country. The ultimate decision would be that of the respective billing authorities on whether Business Rates Relief was awarded.
Councillor Virdi stated that the adopted Local Development Order (LDO) included specific uses for development at the Ratcliffe site, which was reviewed by the Council’s Local Development Framework Group several times before being debated and approved at Full Council. Under the LDO, applicants were required to follow a prescribed process, including submitting a Certificate of Compliance application setting out the proposed development and how it met the LDO criteria. Officers would review the application against the Order and undertake appropriate consultation, which included with Councillors as set out in the Constitution.
Councillor Thomas had submitted a supplementary question to Councillor Virdi, which was read out by the Leader.
“Will companies coming onto the LDO site via a planning application, rather than through the certificate of compliance process, also be eligible for the relief?”
Councillor Virdi stated that yes if a business met the criteria for the relief it was immaterial by which route planning permission was secured and a normal planning permission would only need submitting if the proposal did not comply with the LDO. It was noted that to do so would be more expensive than securing consent under the LDO, as a fee had already been paid for the LDO process by Uniper as the ‘applicant’.