Minutes:
a) Question from Councillor Gowland to Councillor Inglis.
“Can the Council explain how residents are made aware of reports of land contamination and related warnings from RBC Environmental Health? For instance, are the reports available in a way that will be found on land searches or public searches? Does the Planning Committee advise developers or utilities of any reports on land they are likely to work on?”
Councillor Inglis advised that similar to all district and borough councils, this Council had a public register of land that has been determined as contaminated under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which provided a risk based approach to the identification of land were contamination posed an unacceptable risk to health, and could be easily accessed via the Council’s website. The Council also held a range of information on its GIS system covering historical land usage, which was used to respond to public enquiries, particularly in relation to land searches when purchasing a property. In addition to the standard land search information, some purchasers decided to undertake a Con29 enquiry, which contained a standard list of questions and some optional queries that related to land contamination, which the Council would provide a response to, based upon the information that it held. It was not the role of the Planning Committee to advise developers or utility companies of any contamination, and when determining a planning application, Environmental Health was a statutory consultee and would raise any appropriate known matters in relation to a site.
The Mayor asked Councillor Gowland if she had a supplementary question.
In talking about levels of acceptable risk, if a report referred to the change of use of land, in particular excavations, which required further investigation works, would that then be picked up by any of these reports?”
Councillor Inglis confirmed that Environmental Health, as the statutory nominee would pick that up on the planning application, and the stringent conditions in place would not be discharged until they were passed.
b) Question from Councillor Plant to Councillor Brennan.
“Please can the Cabinet Member responsible for economic development clarify if they are aware of any factors that may change the planned uses of the site at Ratcliffe on Soar Power Station site?
Councillor Brennan stated that she was not aware of any factors and confirmed that the Council worked closely with all partners, meeting recently to discuss plans and progress on the site. It was her understanding that all partners remained committed to bringing the site forward for green energy, innovative businesses and to address the motorway junction capacity.
The Mayor asked Councillor Plant if she had a supplementary question.
The power station was the largest commercial development site in Rushcliffe, and of great importance, particularly as part of the only inland Freeport. It was nearly two years since the Local Development Order was put in place and the issue had been discussed by the Growth and Development Scrutiny Group last night, and she asked when and how Councillors would be updated?
Councillor Brennan confirmed that the scrutiny group would continue to review this and she expected Cabinet to be considering an update and would confirm that date in writing.
c) Question form Councillor G Wheeler to the Leader, Councillor Clarke MBE
“Can the Leader tell me what engagement the Government undertook with this Council before starting its new dispersal model to house asylum seekers?”
The Leader advised that the Government’s Full Asylum Dispersal Model was first imposed in April 2023, with a number of revisions taking place since then, which had seen Contingency Hotel Accommodation close and the Government’s contractor SERCO increase its search for accommodation in the private rented sector. This was particularly concerning given the existing pressure in this sector in Rushcliffe, with it being such a popular place to live. The latest revision to the Policy had seen SERCO switch to a property specific approval process; however, it only allowed five days for the Council to respond with three options; to accept, limit with conditions or decline. When deciding which option to take, the Council had to have regard to the Home Office Dispersal Accommodation Adjudication Process. Whilst the document referred to risks to both asylum seekers and a community risk, the latter was very difficult for the Council to provide evidence for, since it was impossible to know who would be placed in the accommodation. This put the Council in a very difficult position to try and limit or decline such requests, which were being received in high numbers.
The Mayor asked Councillor Wheeler if he had a supplementary question.
Whilst it was right that the Council supported genuine asylum seekers, would the Leader agree that SERCO and the Government should ensure that proper housing was sourced in consultation with the community and that local councils were fully consulted and funded?
The Leader felt that it would be preferable to amend the Home Office document to give better consideration to the demographics of a local area, to enable a ‘good fit’ and agreed that there should be better consultation and information to ensure that local councillors were aware of the circumstances of the Policy.
d) Question form Councillor Chewings to Councillor Upton
“In recent months, I have become increasingly concerned by a pattern of delayed responses, missed determination deadlines, and a lack of timely communication from the planning department, both to applicants and to Councillors seeking updates on behalf of residents. Can the Portfolio Holder confirm what steps are being taken to improve service standards within the Planning department, ensure that statutory and internal response times are met, and restore public and member confidence in the service?”
Councillor Upton advised that Planning Service was experiencing difficulties due to an unusually high number of applications and staff resources, which was recently communicated by email to Councillors, applicants and agents. It was due to proposed changes to the planning system, including a fees increase in April, which had resulted in a significant increase in pre-application and applications since December. Recently four team members had left, with another on extended leave, and there had also been several major, complex applications, which required significant staff resources. The Planning Manager had responded to the situation by filling vacant posts, and whilst Councillor Upton appreciated that delays were frustrating, he felt that the team had responded to the challenges and was working hard under pressure to maintain the service. If the number of applications returned to normal, as appeared to be happening, and the team became fully staffed, Councillor Upton was confident that performance would continue to improve.
The Mayor asked Councillor Chewings if he had a supplementary question.
Given the persistent and continual issues, would Councillor Upton commit to initiating a full review of Planning Services’ processes and performance, with the aim of ensuring that lessons were learned, service standards improved and that residents and elected members finally received a timely and meaningful response?
Councillor Upton felt that this would not be necessary as he believed that Planning Services had turned the corner, expressing confidence in the team that with the arrival of new staff, the issues would be resolved.