Agenda item

Members asked questions of Portfolio Holders in accordance with Procedure Rules 8.1 and 8.2 as follows:

·       Councillor Wicks asked Councillor Hoy how many military personnel are on the housing waiting list for the area?  Councillor Hoy responded that she would provide the number following the meeting.

·       Councillor Wicks asked Councillor Hoy that, given the Council is trying to reduce the number of long-term empty properties, what action is being taken to encourage housing associations to bring their unoccupied properties back into use? Councillor Hoy responded that sometimes housing associations and social landlords are treated more leniently as the Council relies on them when it needs to place people and it is difficult getting exact numbers as there are so many different types of social housing providers, but it needs to be looked into, which is perhaps something that the Overview and Scrutiny Panel can do also.

·       Councillor Sutton thanked the Leader for the Council for providing funding to the Fenland Road Safety Campaign for the forgotten corners bend which is now complete and asked if he would be prepared to support something similar in the future? Councillor Boden responded that he has great sympathy for the forgotten corners issue which affects a large number of individuals and there has been too many accidents, he recognises that there are others, such as Boots Bridge, but could give no firm assurances on support to others but where there is a need he would be sympathetic.  Councillor Sutton also thanked Councillors Connor and Mrs Davis who have been working together to deliver this scheme along with County Councillor Gowing.

·       Councillor Sutton asked Councillor Boden to give an update on the finances for Fenland Future Ltd as he seems to remember that there was already £50,000 spent in officer time and a projected £100,000 this year and how long it is going to be before members see some bricks and mortar in the ground? Councillor Boden responded that many of the questions asked by Councillor Sutton were answered in the open papers of the Investment Board, which met today, and he would encourage all councillors to look at these as they are quite important so far as the overall finances of the Council are concerned.  He stated that there does continue to be officer time which is utilised for Fenland Future Ltd and there will be many other areas, which are listed in a paper in today’s meeting, where recharges will take place and authorisation was given today for these recharges to take place over the next few weeks, with back charges for those costs associated with HR, ICT and all other areas where expenditure has been incurred, which is important for transparency and financially as effectively it is converting what will eventually be a capital receipt and appreciation into revenue. Councillor Boden referred to when bricks and mortar would be in the ground and stated that there are still fundamental decisions to be made about the means by which the two projects will be going ahead, but they will be going ahead in so far as outline planning permission is concerned in the very near future, but some of the additional costs need to be carefully appreciated such as inflationary costs on the building side to ascertain the best way of moving forward and he cannot give a definite date as so many things are up in the air.  He made the point that until you start selling the properties any new property company is always going to be a loss maker as it will have no or hardly any income and the Council is looking at approximately slightly less than £2 million costs in the first three years followed by £3.6 million of profit for the following two years, but you cannot just look at Fenland Future Ltd’s profit and loss account but the whole equation is to do with the interrelationship with Fenland District Council and the way that capital appreciation becomes either a revenue stream or a reduction in revenue cost.  He feels that at a guess in two years time there would be bricks and mortar in the ground in one or both of the two projects, but this position could change.

·       Councillor Sutton asked Councillor Boden, with the benefit of hindsight, would it have been better rather than selling off these individual plots to put bricks and mortar on them and take that bricks and mortar premium as lots of plots went for “peanuts” compared to today’s prices and his preferred option if he had been in the position would have been to start off with a two or three plots, build them out and then build up to something bigger. Councillor Boden responded that, with the benefit of hindsight, he believes the principle was entirely correct but he would not say in every case he would stick with the decision in practice but feels overwhelmingly the correct decision was made. He stated that the reason is that when you are talking about individual plots, some of which are very small and do not have the opportunity for any significant amount of development, the efficiency with which someone in the private sector can manage to develop these plots will be far greater than the Council with all its bureaucracy and there is an element of risk and reward, with there being greater reward if you do the building yourself but also greater risk and the Council is not set up to have these individual plots developed itself or under its control. Councillor Boden stated that when you are talking about a scheme which might have 90 or 100 dwellings it is a different form of control and there will be economies of scale if the numbers work out once the detailed work is undertaken over the next few months and it just does not make sense on the small plots for this Council or its trading subsidiary to do it itself and he thinks it would be developed more efficiently and effectively by the private sector recognising that the private sector is always going to be more ambitious and whenever it has been appropriate the Council has included claw back provision within the sale so if for example the land had outline planning permission for three properties but the purchaser of the site puts in planning application for five and is granted permission the Council would get a claw back on those additional properties. He feels the small plots have been handled correctly, in an open way and via auction so it has been very clear what is possible and the Council has been quite surprised in some cases about how much has been received, doing better generally than was expected.

·       Councillor Sutton referred to a motion that was submitted to Council in February 2021 on the Built Environment Conservation in Fenland and asked Councillor Mrs Laws what is the position with this? Councillor Mrs Laws responded that she will check but feels this work is incorporated within the Local Plan review.  Councillor Sutton stated that he is happy to receive a written answer but the minutes state that something was going to be brought back to Council as there was concern over costs as it was brought forward with no costs attached. He stated that he brought this issue forward as particularly with energy costs having gone up and predicted to go up again in October there are many residents across Fenland that are stuck with wooden windows which are losing heat and he feels it is important that these residents have the same options for efficiency and fuel usage as those that live in more modern houses.

·       Councillor Sutton referred to validation, where the Council was at 4-5 weeks, but is now down to around 3-3 weeks, but, in his view, this is still too long when people are paying for a service and it is not coming down fast enough. He stated that he has had developers and householders inform him that they are not happy with this service that they are paying for and not getting any answers in a respectful time, which used to be 5 days and the sooner the Council gets back to this the better. Councillor Mrs Laws responded that when the service operated at 5 days there was not the volumes of planning applications that there are now, which she does not think will decrease, the service has taken on two extra staff but they obviously need training and two retired members of staff are working on an ad-hoc basis to assist and she praised the staff in the Technical Team that validation is down to around 3½ weeks. She made the point that developers have been offered training for validation, of which some have taken up, and there is a validation checklist available online and from next week a tougher approach will be taken as there has been 18 months grace and if things are missing it will be immediately rejected.

·       Councillor Sutton stated that at the December meeting he asked for consideration to be taken into reverting Planning Committee meetings back to 4 weeks, which got dismissed, but was then implemented two weeks later.  He thanked the Portfolio Holder for listening and requested assurances that there are no plans for the meetings to go back to 5 weeks? Councillor Mrs Laws responded that she does listen to all members and for several reasons the meetings were moved, with there being no plans for it to be reversed.

·       Councillor Yeulett asked if there was a completion date for the March Town Centre re-development and what progress is being made in Acre Road, which has been outstanding for a long time? Councillor Boden, in the absence of the Portfolio Holder, responded that the work is not under Fenland District Council’s control it will be undertaken by Cambridgeshire County Council and their sub-contractors so this Council cannot say when it is going to be complete. He stated that Acre Road is completely out of the Council’s control over what is happening with this area.

·       Councillor Yeulett referred to reference within the report to Acre Road with it stating that local agents are to identify an alternative to deliver a scheme on with Barclays being currently the most viable option and asked if this is still the case? Councillor Boden responded to the best of his knowledge it is as far as the spend is concerned but there is a condition of the monies that they are meant to be spent by 2024, however, where there are extenuating circumstances, which may be the position with building and construction generally in the country, that deadline may be extended by Government.

·       Councillor Patrick referred to the criminalising of parking within Fenland and asked Councillor Mrs French what the position was as people seem to be parking all over the place including double yellow lines. Councillor Mrs French responded that it is ongoing, she has a six hour Highway and Transport meeting tomorrow which she hopes afterwards to be able to provide an update.  She stated the funding is available, the signage has been checked across Fenland with the 70-80% of it being incorrect and needing to be corrected and the original dates being looked at are for the application to go to DFT in October with a final decision in early Spring 2023 to bring it into force in September but unfortunately the County Council are creating problems. She stated that she would provide an update to all members following her meeting tomorrow.

·       Councillor Wicks referred to the indication that a quarter of a million pounds of potential income is being lost due to incorrect recycling and while the Council keeps on pushing and advertising what to recycle he does not believe the Council is communicating to residents the amount of money which is going amiss. Councillor Murphy responded that officers did go round to properties looking in the bins and knocking on the door informing residents what the bins should contain and this is re-checked later to see if the residents have taken notice, but unfortunately due to Covid this action has not been undertaken for about 18 months but will hopefully begin to commence again. He stated that this is the only way that works at the moment, officers can tell people what to do and they do not take any notice, but they do take notice when officers visit the properties, show them what is wrong in their bin and a sticker is placed on it saying do not collect and the householder has to remove the wrong items and will also get a well done sticker when they get it right.  Councillor Wicks stated that his point was that it is not the amount but the actual income that is not coming into the revenue of this Council and residents should be enlightened of their implications as well as the one-on-one action already taking place. Councillor Murphy stated that he has explained what action is undertaken and that is how more revenue is achieved, together with receiving income for the goods making the point that recycling prices fluctuate and at the moment prices are high.

·       Councillor Booth referred to a recent Overview and Scrutiny Panel meeting where the issue was raised that there is not a loan agreement in place per se between the Council and Fenland Future Ltd and asked Councillor Boden what progress has been made on this since that meeting? Councillor Boden stated that it was undertaken this morning, although it is a loan facility rather than an agreement. Councillor Booth stated this is excellent news.

·       Councillor Sutton referred to a Zoom meeting he attended some time ago where there was a suggestion at that time that the pump out facility that money was spent on about 5 years ago was to be taken out, which he feels is wrong and asked Councillor Mrs French if anything has been done to reverse that proposal? Councillor Mrs French responded that it was changed months ago that the pump out facility was not going to be taken out, it is going to be moved from the High Street and treated as how it should have been in the first place as a Council asset.  Councillor Sutton stated this was great news and he is sure the boating fraternity and tourism will benefit from its continued use.

·       Councillor Booth referred to Page 18 regarding bringing homes back into use, which quite rightly says how many properties have been brought back into use but it would be good to get an overall picture of what the trend is, are we experiencing more homes going into use as opposed to what is coming out of use and made the point that Councillor Hoy did agree to look at getting this information into the report. Councillor Hoy responded that this would not be a problem.

·       Councillor Booth referred to issues he raised at an Overview and Scrutiny meeting about properties in Thorney Toll owned by a housing association are still ongoing and he has e-mailed the Director but is still yet to receive a report, which he feels is another example of what Councillor Hoy was raising about housing associations not bringing properties back into use. Councillor Hoy stated that they will monitor this issue but the Housing Team have had many priorities with the Rough Sleeper funding, Housing Enforcement Policy and changes within the team so it has been on the back burner but will now be moved forward.

·       Councillor Booth asked Councillor Murphy, where the report talks about recycling rates and the rate for 2021-22, which he believes on the previous year was just over 40% and Fenland was the worst performing in Cambridgeshire, how does this Council compare to the other authorities with its provisional rate as it does not seem to be much of an increase and the average for other authorities was getting towards 50%, and he feels it is quite a drop to where the Council was some years ago. Councillor Murphy assured Councillor Booth that the rate is a lot better than it was making the point that all authorities produce their figures in different ways with some not collecting garden waste or other items within the bins. He stated that the Council is doing exactly what it did before, it is doing well and is very comparable. Councillor Booth referred to the figures on DEFRA website which is the Government standard the Council has to report to and expressed the view that you can clearly see on here that this Council in 2021 was the worst performing authority and whilst it is being said that the Council has improved it was previously at 52% and now saying provisionally it is at a 41% recycling rate, which is an 11% drop in the last few years and he cannot see how this is an improvement. Councillor Murphy made the point that the DEFRA figures do include food waste and the Council does not collect food waste separately and it is all to do with how the figures are recorded.  Councillor Booth stated that he cannot see how food waste can account for the full 11%.  Councillor Murphy responded that members will have to wait and see.