Agenda item

The Leader responded to three questions in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 9.2 that had been submitted by Mr C MacMillan, Ms J Beecham and Mr M Rouse. 

 

a)        Question from Mr C MacMillan

 

Mr C MacMillan asked the following question:

 

“I am aware that the Council, led by the Labour Party and under his stewardship, has a Homeless Strategy. I know that this is an issue of great concern to all sides of this Council.

 

I would ask that the Leader explain why his strategy is not working and why we have people, often in great need, camping on the ring road? What precisely has he done so far to help these people and how he is going to invigorate his efforts going forward such that these, and other homeless people in the Borough, are helped?”

 

The Leader responded as follows:

 

“Firstly, can I begin by thanking Mr MacMillan for his question.

 

Members will be aware that as recently as September the National Audit Office released a report on homelessness, highlighting a rise in rough sleeping nationally of 134% between 2010 and 2016.

 

The report also criticised the government for what it described as a ‘light touch’ to an issue that costs the tax payer over £1bn a year and showed how welfare reform has put added pressure on people in housing difficulty.  So I would call into question the effectiveness of the national strategy around homelessness - local Councils are left tackling problems they never created in the first place.

 

Despite this, I would like to reassure Mr MacMillan and members that we have a strategic approach to homelessness in Redditch that is working well.  Corporately, the Council has adopted a series of Strategic Purposes which steer its work. One of these is ‘Help me to find somewhere to live in my locality’. The purpose has an action plan running alongside it, which outlines a number of things we will be doing to tackle homelessness in the Borough.

 

We also developed a Council housing growth programme early in 2017, which sets out how we will maintain a supply of housing stock for local residents in the future because we can’t address homelessness without a steady supply of homes to offer.

 

On the ground, the Council provides a dedicated homelessness and housing advice service in the town centre. The team focuses on preventing homelessness and finding alternative accommodation for people who become homeless. The team are currently preparing to implement the forthcoming Homelessness Reduction Act which comes into force from April 2018 onwards.  The same team lead our response helping people who are perceived to be homeless in Redditch, settling them into accommodation or safely back into existing accommodation.

 

Often we work with the public, the Police, the voluntary sector and faith groups around the borough for which we are grateful and we would like to extend our thanks to them.

 

Although I can’t talk in detail about specific cases, I can reassure everyone that the landowners of the area in question at the Redditch ring road have taken the steps required to recover possession of the land, so that particular matter should be resolved shortly.

 

I would conclude by mentioning that there is a report on the Council’s website outlining current provision, together with ideas about invigorating our efforts to tackle homelessness in Redditch in the future.  The homelessness report published in September 2017 is the product of a cross-party short sharp review undertaken by members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and it contains a series of recommendations which the Executive Committee will be invited to consider at the next Committee meeting on 31^st October.  I look forward to receiving that report in the near future, and would encourage everyone concerned with homelessness to read it because it’s a great example of just how seriously we take this issue in Redditch.”

 

Following this Mr MacMillan indicated that he would be keen to ask a supplementary question about the potential for the Council to investigate the use of void properties to alleviate homelessness.  However, it was noted that the five minutes allotted to the question was close to ending.  For this reason it was agreed that Mr MacMillan would submit a supplementary question in writing for the consideration of the Leader on this subject.

 

b)        Question from Ms J Beecham

 

Ms J Beecham asked the following question:

 

“Does Redditch Borough Council use the sanctions that are available to them in the form of fines for breaches of Planning development regulations such as those currently being suffered by Webheath residents by developers Taylor Wimpey?”

 

The Leader responded as follows:

 

“Thank you for your question Ms Beecham

 

The simple answer to the question is that Redditch Borough Council does use the sanctions that are available to it, as appropriate.

The Council has a duty to investigate complaints about development that may have been carried out without permission or consent, or in the case of Webheath, to investigate complaints about breach of conditions attached to a planning permission.  Where planning control is breached, the planning team will investigate the matter.  It is important, however, to realise that enforcement action is taken at the discretion of the Council and just because a case is investigated it does not necessarily follow that that formal enforcement action will be commenced.

Planning enforcement is a very complex area.  It should be noted that the legal processes involved are often lengthy and complicated and an ‘instant response’ or resolution cannot be guaranteed.  Ultimately even if the council “wins” at appeal and at the magistrates court, it does not necessarily change anything on the ground for residents. The maximum penalty on conviction at the magistrate’s court relating to contravening a breach of condition notice is a fine not exceeding "level 3" on the standard scale which is currently £1,000.

 

Indeed Central Government advises that “Addressing breaches of planning control without formal enforcement action can often be the quickest and most cost effective way of achieving a satisfactory and lasting remedy.”

In terms of Webheath, the Council received complaints from local residents in relation to matters arising from working hours, lorry routeing, dust suppression, construction noise, lorry parking and mud on the roads.

 

The Council responded to these complaints by liaising with the local residents and the relevant developers in order to understand the issues being raised and provide a mediating role between the parties.  Site visits were, and continue to be, undertaken including visits outside of normal office hours.  Advice was obtained from relevant bodies, such as Worcestershire Regulatory Services, in order to establish the harm arising from the matters and whether other legislation was a more effective tool than the planning tools available.  This included the consideration of statutory nuisance powers under Environmental Protection legislation. 

 

Based on the views obtained from other stakeholders, the matters reported by local residents were not deemed to be demonstrably harmful.  On this basis the Council exercised its discretionary powers and did not find it expedient to pursue matters formally under planning legislation. However, the Council has continued to respond to further complaints and investigate these accordingly.  The Council retains the right to take formal action if required using the appropriate planning enforcement tools available.”

 

Ms Beecham subsequently asked a supplementary question seeking clarification about the proportion of the 153 complaints she was aware of that had resulted in enforcement action that had led to a fine. 

 

The Leader responded by explaining that he did not believe any of these complaints had led to enforcement action that resulted in a fine.  However, the Leader undertook to check this with relevant Officers.

 

c)         Question from Mr M Rouse

 

The Mayor explained that Mr Rouse had, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 9.6, nominated Mr C Warhurst to read out his question on his behalf.

 

Mr Warhurst asked the following question:

 

“How does the Council support elderly and disabled people to keep as active as possible?”

 

The Leader responded as follows:

 

“Thank you for your question.

 

The Council’s Leisure and Cultural Services Department provides a range of both targeted support and mainstream provision of services to elderly and disabled people.  The service is underpinned by a number of strategies, including the Worcestershire Health and Wellbeing Strategy.

 

A number of activities and programmes are also delivered by Leisure and Cultural Services.  This includes:

 

•           2,108 hours of volunteering

•           91 people referred into Strength and Balance Classes

•           134 people referred into activity referral programmes

•           100 (on average) disabled people a month access disability sessions

•           1,550 (on average) people attend Arrow Valley Lake Parkrun per month

•           3,774 people have attended Couch 2 5k

•           393 people (on average) attend 50+ community exercise classes

•           1,395 disability swims last year at the Abbey Stadium

•           15,709 over 60s swims last year at the Abbey Stadium.”

 

The Leader also highlighted a number of activities that were delivered within localities across the Borough to elderly and disabled people.  This included; seated mobility, strength and balance, Tai Chi, swimming, mobility classes, yoga, pilates, Ladies 50+ sessions, mixed fitness, Zumba for all, classes for people with MS and sessions for Stroke survivors. 

 

At the agreement of the Mayor, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 9.9, Mr Warhurst was invited to ask a supplementary question though the five minutes allocated to this question had elapsed.  Mr Warhurst subsequently questioned whether the proposed changes to swimming charges for people aged over 60 indicated that disabled people were being deliberately targeted.

 

The Leader responded by indicating that this was not the case.