Agenda item

Written questions have been received from Councillor Colin Clark to the following Cabinet Members:

Councillor Cliff Hughes, Cabinet Member (Strategic Planning, Housing and Economic Growth) attached.

Councillor Susan Snape, Cabinet Member (Finance) attached.

(a)       Questions to the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member (Environment and Community Safety)

Councillor David Howarth requested information on the life expectancy of a recycling bin and whether there was a rolling programme in place for the replacement of stock across the Borough. The Cabinet Member agreed to investigate and report back.

Councillor Keith Martin asked when the Council would be collecting in all the brown bins that residents no longer required as they were not paying for their garden waste to be collected. The Cabinet Member explained that this had been a conscious decision to allow a period of adjustment for the uptake of the new service.

(b)       Questions to the Cabinet Member (Strategic Planning, Housing and Economic Growth)

Councillor Colin Clark had submitted the following written question:

On 22 March 2018 a planning application was submitted to the Council for the erection of 2 no. agricultural stores (steel shipping containers) to accommodate the storage of equipment and to house sheep/feed and the formation of silo for grass. The site was wholly in the Green Belt. Initially it was intended that the application be dealt with under the delegated authority to Planning Officers procedures and to grant planning permission in this case. However, the Ward Councillors requested that the application be referred to the Planning Committee for consideration because, in their opinion, it did not satisfy the requirements of the Green Belt Policy G1.

The Committee report contained and Officer recommendation that approval be granted subject to certain conditions but the Committee decided to defer the matter and requested further information be provided.

Subsequently, the application was referred again to the Planning Committee on 18 July 2018, but this time, the Officer recommendation was to refuse the application, as the additional information obtained, which should have been available in the first instance, demonstrated that the application did not meet the requirements of the Green Belt Policy G1. Accordingly the Planning Committee refused the application.

Does the Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning, Housing and Economic Growth agree:

1.    That the procedures on delegated authority to Officers needs to be reviewed in relation to planning applications?

2.    That all future planning applications for development within the Green Belt should be referred to the Planning Committee to ensure that the Green Belt Policy G1is safeguarded at all times.

The Cabinet Member provided the following response:

The constitution in relation to delegated powers to officers has recently been reviewed in 2017 and some minor amendments were made at that time. The levels of delegation appear to be working well and provide an appropriate balance between officer and Committee decisions.

In the review in 2017 we were asked to consider this by the then Planning Committee chair. This was not progressed further due to a number of factors. Those factors remain today.

Around two thirds of South Ribble is designated as Green Belt therefore each year a significant number of planning applications and determinations occur within the designated Green Belt. In the past year there have been 121 such applications. If those applications were referred to Planning Committee this would average at around 10 to 12 additional agenda items every planning committee.

Such an approach would be impractical and cause significant resource issues and significantly lengthen committee meetings some of which already stretch to their fully allotted time.

Knock on implications would be on the performance of the Planning team. Across the country planning teams are asked to determine applications within 8 or 13 weeks depending on the scale of the application. One way of ensuring such targets are met is to have the majority of decisions placed with officers as delegated. If an authority does not meet the targets specified by Government they can be put in special measures and the decision making on planning applications would be removed from them. It is therefore important that the high performance the team currently has is maintained. There may well be other associated knock on effects such as increased numbers of appeals.

It is important to highlight that Councillors are able to request a planning application to be brought to Planning Committee where there is just reason by asking the Director of Planning and Property to do so. Generally such requests are agreed to unless delaying a decision for a planning committee would have a serious consequence.

Councillor Keith Martin asked if the Council’s response to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government consultation on permitted development for shale gas could be circulated to all Members. The Cabinet Member agreed to this request.

A member of the public sought assurances that South Ribble had the necessary infrastructure in place (such as the demand for school places) to support the increased housing development planned across the Borough. The Cabinet Member shared his concerns, however, he was confident that the Authority’s portion of allocated school places was not currently at risk.

Councillor Matthew Tomlinson commented that although it was a difficult every effort was made at County Hall to allocate school places to meet the school preferences of parents.

(c)       Questions to the Cabinet Member (Public Health, Leisure and Wellbeing)

Councillor Keith Martin asked what the environmental impact of the council’s buildings and vehicles was in relation to air quality emissions and questioned whether the Council should set an example. The Cabinet Member agreed to investigate and report back.

Councillor Matthew Tomlinson asked if the Council charged the Blood Transfusion Service for use of the Banqueting Suite. The Cabinet Member said that she was not aware of any charges but would clarify the position and report back.

(d)       Questions to the Cabinet Member (Finance)

Councillor Colin Clark had submitted the following question:

On 30 March 2016 a report was presented to the Council by the then Cabinet Member (Finance and Resources), Councillor Warren Bennett, with a recommendation to approve the acquisition of industrial units at the Momentum Business Centre in Bamber Bridge. In the report it stated that the anticipated rental income to the Council would be £47,000 per annum, representing a gross yield of 8.1%, and a net return of 6.5%, and that the expected repayment period was forecasted as 13 years and 4 months.

1.    What has been the gross and net returns on this investment in 2016/17, 2017/18, and the current year to date?

2.    Will the expected repayment period be achieved? If not, what is the anticipated repayment period?

The Cabinet Member provided the following response:

Forecast repayment period is in line with expected repayment period. (13.43 compared with 13.28 in report) This is based on actual capital cost divided by the net of the gross rental (full occupancy) less investment interest income forgone.

The notional investment income forgone of £4426 is based on the capital cost of£587k x the average rate interest on the Council’s investments of 0.75%.

With regards to the purchase price, the Cabinet report of 30 March reported that whilst considered to be at the top end of the market, Cushman Wakefield fully supported the acquisition at this level taking into account the levels achieved on the remainder of the site and the demand for the final units and their opinion of value being in line with the agreed purchase price.

Councillor Paul Foster asked about the fit out costs at the Momentum Business Centre that had been undertaken for prospective tenant that did not enter into a formal contract and asked if these had been taken into consideration upon calculation of the income figure. The Cabinet Member agreed to look into this further and report back.

Councillor Paul Foster also asked for a review of the Appointments process to be undertaken in relation to compliance with the Financial procedure rules, Council’s pay policy and authorisation of expenditure. This was in light of the following payments that had been authorised at officer level:

The Cabinet Member agreed to work with the Section 151 Officer and report back.