To answer questions submitted by Opposition Group Leaders on items on the agenda.
Minutes:
Question from Councillor J Walker to Councillor Virdi.
“An expected benefit of Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) and the creation of a new unitary authority is that there will no longer be a situation where one tier of Local Government has responsibility for collecting Council Tax on behalf of all tiers of Local Government in that area. Thus, eliminating the confusion, of different administrations from different councils serving the same area, making their own budgetary claims in isolation, which is currently the case on page 8, paragraph 4.2 a) of this Cabinet agenda, which states: “Rushcliffe faces a 2.46% reduction in its core spending power.”
Can the Portfolio Holder for Finance confirm that this statement does not take into account the shared uplift that residents of Rushcliffe could benefit from through the 30% increase to the County Council tax budget this year?”
Councillor Virdi advised that the premise of this question was fundamentally flawed, as LGR had not happened, with no legislation passed, and no decision taken on when or how Council Tax might be harmonised, which could take years, and Rushcliffe remained a separate, legal authority, with its own statutory responsibilities. The figures quoted in the report were published by the Labour Government, and Councillor Virdi advised that it was categorically wrong to conflate Rushcliffe’s financial position with Nottinghamshire County Council. He stated that what the County Council had received was irrelevant to Rushcliffe in respect of its core spending power, in the same way as for the City Council, as they each had different responsibilities. Councillor Virdi stated that the suggestion that Rushcliffe’s residents benefitted from a County Council uplift when assessing this Council’s financial settlement was incorrect and misunderstood how Local Government finance worked. Any sleight of hand was in attempting to mask a poor settlement for district councils by pointing to uplifts elsewhere in the system. Councillor Virdi referred to the budget briefings, when the Council’s Section 151 was clear that funding was being redistributed based on demand and deprivation, and as a result, upper tier authorities had fared better than district councils, including Rushcliffe. Councillor Virdi advised that even the County Council’s position was not simple, as any additional funding came alongside significant financial pressures, and to suggest that this Council was better off, as a result of this settlement was misleading. Conflating County Council finances with Borough Council finances was confusing for residents and he stated that you could not spend County Council money in a Borough Council budget.
Councillor Walker asked a supplementary question.
“Radcliffe on Trent has three members of that ward who sit on this Cabinet, and it will be getting a £1m Masterplan, while villages like Ruddington, East Leake and West Bridgford are left fighting for the scraps. Can the Portfolio Holder for Finance please explain the logic behind this increased spending on Radcliffe on Trent and would he commit similar spending amounts to larger communities in Rushcliffe, such as Ruddington, East Leake and West Bridgford?
The Deputy Monitoring Officer advised that there was no time to answer the question as the five minutes allocated had been used.
Question from Councillor Phillips to Councillor Upton.
“It may be that the analysis work undertaken so far across the wider Borough does not yet warrant a Borough-wide Article 4 Direction. As it is the current Government’s aim to remove all asylum seekers from hotels they will all need to be housed somewhere. We all recognise the ease on how HMOs under permitted development can be obtained, and the need to look at an Article 4 Direction to take control of inappropriate HMO locations. In September 2025, at Full Council a motion was submitted to look into an Article 4 Direction and we all unanimously voted in favour of this; however, we did not have chance to debate because we ran out of time and went straight to the vote.
Do you not agree that an Article 4 Direction just within the heavily populated West Bridgford areas would give the Council better control over inappropriate development and HMO locations?”
Councillor Upton advised that the legislation set out that the implementation of an Article 4 Directive must be evidence led, and the review had shown that there was no evidence to support the making of a Direction. Cabinet was also clear that the motion was not about asylum seekers but the occurrence of a concentration of HMOs having an adverse effect on the amenity of an area, as per the legislation. Councillor Upton stated that HMOs accommodated a variety of people, often providing an affordable place to live as part of the whole housing system. Unintended consequences must also be considered, including limiting the supply of HMO housing for low income people or young professionals and HMOs moving to neighbouring areas where permitted development was still available. He recognised that this was an important matter to consider and keep under review, which was why Communities Scrutiny Group would be asked to scrutinise the matter.
Councillor Phillips asked a supplementary question.
“In my ward, if we had an Article 4 Direction in place, it would have prevented a four bed property being converted into a six-bed HMO, used to house single, male asylum seekers on a quiet cul-de-sac of eight other family properties, and just meters away from a children’s play area. If we had the Article 4 in place, it would have ensured the full planning application would have been carried out and would you not agree that there is evidence there to support an Article 4 Direction?”
Councillor Upton stated that he understood those comments and that with an Article 4 in place it would have required a planning application. That application would have been treated using the normal process, and unless there was any adverse material planning consideration, then you could not assume that it would not have become an HMO.