Minutes:
a) Question from Councillor J Walker to Councillor Upton.
“Having visited some Metropolitan Housing in my ward this week I have witnessed first-hand how poor attempts at repair from our housing partners have led to leaks and drafts resulting in a young family living in damp and mouldy conditions.
Is it proper that Rushcliffe Borough Council continues to sit on money intended to go to Registered Housing Providers when families are having to spend time chasing up Registered Housing Providers just to get poor workmanship put right whilst living in poor housing conditions?”
Councillor Upton responded that this Council did not sit on any money that could be used to benefit residents’ lives and the Council approved the budget each March, a process which all Councillors were involved in. He went on to assume that Councillor Walker was referring to surplus s106 money and highlighted that this was not the Council’s money, the Council collected it and acted as banker until such a time that the money could be spent on predetermined, large scale infrastructure projects.
The Mayor asked if Councillor Walker had a supplementary question.
Councillor J Walker clarified that her question was not about the s106 money but the carry forward that should be going to the Registered Housing Providers.
Councillor Upton referenced previous confidential conversations that had outlined the housing projects that the carry forwards referred to. The budget was fully committed, and the Council therefore carried that forward over the end of an accounting year to ensure those important projects remained funded. It was not the Council’s responsibility to put capital funding into repairing properties owned by Registered Housing Providers. Councillor Upton informed Council that last week the Cabinet had adopted a new Housing Enforcement Policy in line with the 2023 Social Housing Regulation Act, which gave residents in social housing greater powers to get problems with their homes addressed.
b) Question from Councillor Mason to the Leader, Councillor Clarke
“Could the Leader inform this Council of any discussions he has had with our new MP and the Government, regarding the proposed changes to house building targets and planning laws?”
The Leader referred back to his announcements earlier in the evening and informed Council that he had written to Rushcliffe’s new MP, James Naish, and invited him to a meeting at the Council. The Leader had highlighted the pressing issue of Rushcliffe’s Local Plan renewal and the local passion for protecting the greenbelt, and he was hopeful that meeting would take place soon and that it would be the start of a productive working relationship. The Leader also mentioned that he was working with the LGA to better understand how the new Government intends to move planning issues forward.
The Mayor asked if Councillor Mason had a supplementary question.
Councillor Mason asked if the Leader agreed that, together with the number of local homes proposed in the Local Plan, Rushcliffe had more than met its fair share of new homes and that any further requirements should go to councils that had not been as responsive.
The Leader agreed and reflected that although the Labour manifesto had suggested a return of housing targets across the country he was hopeful that Rushcliffe’s past performance and new Local Plan would protect the Borough from excessive levels of future development. He cited the 9,100 homes the Council had accepted under the Duty to Cooperate from the City Council, and the 500,000 new homes across the country that already had planning permission but building work had not yet started, as examples of why he was hoping for a more appropriate level of demand in the Borough.
c) Question from Councillor Plant to Councillor Upton
“Due to spending pressures on the mandatory Disabled Facilities Grants, Cabinet on 12 July 2022, approved the amendment of the policy to temporarily suspend the use of the discretionary Disabled Facilities Grant allocation until the review of the national formula allocation is undertaken. That decision was taken two years ago so can the Cabinet member inform me if the discretionary Disabled Facilities Grants allocation is likely to be reinstated anytime soon?”
Councillor Upton responded that the Council simply did not have the funds at this time for the discretionary elements of the Disabled Facilities Grant.
The Mayor asked if Councillor Plant had a supplementary question.
Councillor Plant asked if Councillor Upton thought it right or appropriate that a temporary decision that affected the quality of life of the Borough’s residents taken by Cabinet two years ago was not minuted if it was to become a permanent decision.
Councillor Upton sympathised with the point Councillor Plant was drawing attention to and reminded Council that the mandatory elements of this grant were under extreme pressure, with demand rising year on year. That element of the grant was administered by the Country Council and authorities across Nottinghamshire were participating in discussions to develop a more equitable formula for allocation. Councillor Upton informed Council that it had provided half a million of its own money in the form of a discretionary grant to help meet demand but that this level of investment was not sustainable longer term.
d) Question from Councillor Gaunt to the Leader, Councillor Clarke
“How are the Council and officers preparing for the transition to a new Labour government and what levels of strategic planning have taken place for any changes in direction that may need to be brought about?”
The Leader felt that the question was perhaps a little premature given that the new Government had been in place for less than two weeks. However, he recognised that the Labour manifesto had suggested a probable direction of travel and that the King’s Speech at the State opening of Parliament this week had set out over 35 new bills. He reported that officers had been closely monitoring the situation and would continue to do so to ensure that the impact of new legislation on the Borough could be assessed as soon as it became clearer.
The Mayor asked if Councillor Gaunt had a supplementary question.
Councillor Gaunt referenced the recent peer review, which had suggested that the Council should be doing more to prepare for future changes and he asked if the Leader was prepared to be more proactive about that.
The Leader informed Council that given the recent nature of the election and the change of Government he felt that the Council was being proactive and open to change but that it was not yet clear what that might be. He cited a letter he had received two days ago from the office of the Deputy Prime Minister which recognised that local councils were under considerable financial strain following years of under investment and urging councils to willingly embrace devolution. Councillor Clarke shared his belief that this was a generic letter sent to all councils because Rushcliffe was not in a dire financial situation and had already embraced devolution in the form of the newly elected Mayor of the East Midlands Combined County Authority. He said that the new Government needed more time to work out what it was asking of councils before officers or Councillors could prepare for any changes that might be coming forward. He concluded by stating that he was hoping to engage with the Borough’s new Member of Parliament and remained open to potential developments in the future.