Agenda item

Subject to the required notice being given, Members of the Council can ask questions of the Chairman of the Council, the Leader of the Council, Portfolio Holders or Chairmen of Committees or Sub-Committees.

 

The time allocated for receiving and disposing of questions shall be a maximum of 45 minutes. Any question not disposed of at the end of this time shall be the subject of a written response, copied to all Members unless withdrawn by the questioner.

 

 

Three questions have been received, on notice, from Members and they are attached to the agenda.

Subject to the required notice being given, Members of the Council can ask questions of the Chairman of the Council, the Leader of the Council, Portfolio Holders or Chairmen of Committees or Sub-Committees.

 

There were three questions on this occasion as set out below:

 

Question One

 

From Councillor Richard Everett to Councillor Zoe Fairley, Investment and Growth Portfolio Holder:

           

“Is the portfolio holder aware that businesses in Great Clacton are losing customers and trade as a result of the unreasonable actions of private companies operating car parks in the area. The effect on residents, and customers from further afield, is that they are being ticketed for trumped up parking charges. Planning permission is required for ANPR cameras and associated signage on the site and should be in place before any tickets are issued.

 

Local businesses are suffering with trade decreasing as a result of less people choosing to shop in Great Clacton, blaming the parking charges and approach of the operating companies. What should be even more concerning to this Council is that many people are questioning what is being done by the Council to regulate the companies and their actions.

 

What does the portfolio holder propose is done by this Council to help protect the businesses locally from the actions of predatory parking companies putting people off from doing business in Great Clacton?”

 

Councillor Fairley replied as follows:

 

“Firstly, I would like to thank Councillor Everett for his question.

The council are aware of the issue raised and I would like to assure all Members that the economic sustainability of local businesses together with the rights of our residents and visitors are of the very highest priority when considering not just a correct course of action to address an issue but also additional actions we can take to support this or any other case causing negative impact within our District.  

 

Our approach is underpinned by our values and it is right and proper that the Council demonstrates strong and proactive community leadership within our response and I am pleased Officers have provided advice and appropriate practical assistance to Councillors giving help and support to their constituents in this case.

 

Cllr Everett acknowledges in his question that this is an operation which is on private land, operated by the land owner in conjunction with a private parking operator.  As such, the Council has no direct role in the matter and is unable to regulate directly against the related actions of the operator.  

As Cllr Everett is aware, the ANPR camera operating system supporting this parking operation is development for which planning permission is required and this is not in place.  The planning department have contacted the owner to advise a retrospective planning application should be made.  However, we cannot be sure this will be followed by the owner.  

It is noted the cameras are modest in scale and whether through retrospective planning application or enforcement process, based on material planning considerations, it would be likely they would not be considered harmful to the area on grounds of their siting or appearance; within the Pre-enforcement Risk/Harm Assessment they fall below the level for which formal enforcement would be taken.

However, this Council recognises the importance of the car and the motorist to the economic well-being of the District, as highlighted in the Council’s parking strategy and I am pleased to confirm that Officers will consider the wider social and economic impact the ANPR camera system is having, as for such a high number of parking charge notices to have been issued over the period between May to July this year, it is clear the car park operation is having an adverse impact on users and likely on businesses.  

 

This does imply there is a fundamental issue with the operation.

So, in terms of other actions we can take to support motorists using the car park, I can advise that Officers have written directly to the car park operator, Smart Parking.  This is to request they reconsider their previous decisions to refuse all appeals against the notices issued, on the grounds that their parking operation, and the terms and conditions under which it has operated, appears to be misleading and therefore unfair.

In addition, the Council has requested that the company provide details of the quantity of parking charge notices issued, together with requesting that all remaining notices are rescinded, with all previous payments to be refunded.

While waiting for a response from the company, Council Officers have also approached the British Parking Association.  The BPA operating the Approved Operator Scheme and the Code of Conduct under which private parks of this type must be managed.  This is to raise concerns and seek an independent assessment of the operation of this car park.

We will continue work to keep the lines of communication open with the owner and local businesses will also be contacted to assess any down turn in trade they are suffering due to the car park operating procedures.

In finishing, I would like to offer my congratulations to Cllr Everett as I understand that with his support, several parking charges have recently been dropped by the company.  I would like to reassure him, that I will continue to work with fellow Cabinet Members responsible for Planning and Corporate enforcement, to seek a positive outcome to this issue.”

 

Councillor Everett then responded to Councillor Fairley’s reply with a supplementary question:

 

“Thank you Councillor Fairley for your forthright and detailed positive response to the question.

 

Just so that you and members are aware, and hopefully the chairman will give me some leeway on this, I’ll give a little background before asking for your response to my supplementary question.

 

The motorists involved in this unfortunate situation are predominantly vulnerable and elderly. They come mainly from the Great Clacton area but I have clients in places ranging from Frinton and Kirby, to the north, St Osyth to the south and Weeley to the west. Many of them are telling me that they are extremely alarmed and distressed by the actions of these companies operating this practice.

 

The businesses affected by this rip-off are predominantly located around the Rasvensdale Car Park. They are telling me that the situation is threatening their very viability as businesses because customers are now choosing not to shop in Great Clacton any more as a result of this predatory action by rogue parking companies.

 

This is a safety issue too - people living locally are being effected, one person I know of blames a car accident she was involved in occurring because of people parking anywhere other than the car park now.

 

The situation is made apparently worse because these parking companies have flouted the law – not even bothering to get planning permission for the use of ANPR cameras – a situation that we in this council are meant to enforce.

 

I have dealt with approximately 65 appeals to POPLA the independent appeals service – so far I have not lost an appeal because the parking company involved does not even bother to defend them.

 

I have approximately 160 cases where elderly and vulnerable people are being harassed by a debt recovery company for alleged debts that they do not owe because the parking notices are unenforceable in law. The parking company and the debt recovery company have both been reported to the British Parking Association for the intimidation these unfortunate people are receiving but nothing is being done by them to resolve this.

 

Signage has been erected without permission on the footway at the entrance to the car park, Essex County Council claimed it is not erected on their land. Land registry documentation for the car park land owners title indicates it’s not on their land either. I’m still waiting for Essex County Council to confirm who owns the footway.

 

And finally even though the Police have been asked to help against the harassment that is taking place to local vulnerable and elderly people they, presumably because of inadequate funding, are unable to enforce the Protection from Harassment Act. These people report to me that they feel threatened, that the actions of the debt recovery are menacing, that they cannot sleep at night as a result and that they feel alarmed. Victims of this persecution do not feel reassured by this police inaction.

 

I am however pleased to be able to report that Ian Davidson our Chief Executive Officer, has offered to arrange a meeting at a senior level with the police to discuss this and other matters relating to the case.

 

This council should not be alone in this fight so my supplementary question to you Councillor Fairley is this – What can we additionally do to ensure that other agencies, the very agencies that are meant to protect us, actually put in their effort to help these poor unfortunate residents, motorists and businesses against predatory parking company actions and their debt collection practices?”

 

Councillor Fairley responded to Councillor Everett’s supplementary question as follows:

 

“Yes Councillor Everett, thank you for your further detail and it completely re-enforces my initial response in that it does appear to be a fundamental issue with the way in which this car park is operated.  I recognise and feel your concerns for residents, motorists and businesses affected by this issue and my aim here is to help.  If a meeting would be suitable between yourself and me I would be happy to do that. Clearly, you are giving residents much support.  

 

I already stated we are contacting local businesses and also we are already in contact with the BPA and when there is a more detailed response from them, I will ensure Officers keep you informed, together with their advice for any appropriate actions we can take ourselves or push forward on, collaboratively with others, to reach a positive conclusion.”

 

Question Two

 

From Councillor Jo Henderson to Councillor Neil Stock OBE, Leader of the Council:

 

“As the Leader may recall, I recently asked a Portfolio Holder a question at a meeting of Council in order to obtain the required information for the residents who are angry and disgusted by the lack of progress made by TDC on dog fouling.  I do not believe that the response received answered the specific question however, I am not permitted to submit the question again for 6 months in accordance with our Council Procedure Rules.

 

This being the case, will the Leader of the Council please instruct his Cabinet to answer the questions put to them as published in the agenda as, if they do not, it will prevent any elected member from using this legitimate vehicle for obtaining information and totally undermine the Leader’s stated intention to operate an open and transparent administration?”

 

Councillor Stock OBE replied as follows:

 

“Thank you Councillor Henderson for your question.

 

Cabinet members always answer questions from Members and I do not think anybody could ever accuse Councillor Talbot of not being forthcoming and fulsome in any response he makes on any topic actually.

 

I recall that he gave you a summary of the work of our two dog wardens, and he also explained that it was not possible to employ a warden solely for Harwich/Dovercourt and I appreciate that you may well have not liked the answer but you did get one.

 

I further understand that you have subsequently discussed this issue directly with Councillor Talbot and he has offered to hold a meeting with you to further explore the issues and Officers are now setting that up, so I hope that is constructive and gives you detailed responses you’re looking for.”

 

Councillor J Henderson then responded to Councillor Stock OBE’s reply with a supplementary question:

 

“I thank you for the response, but you clearly haven’t read the question that I asked the first time because it wasn’t for a dog warden for Harwich and Dovercourt, it was for a specific dog warden for the Tendring District. It was clearly a short question in the agenda, it wasn’t answered, I know how hard that they work in the jobs they do, but my supplementary question is:

 

I am now in talks with Councillor Talbot and will continue to voice residents’ concerns on this issue to try and get your administration to change their ways of working, Can I please have assurance from you the Leader that this Council will start to prosecute the law breakers. I believe this will have a detrimental effect on those who flout the law.”

 

Councillor Stock OBE responded to Councillor J Henderson’s supplementary question as follows:

 

“Yes, absolutely, every time. Give us evidence, give us the information and we will prosecute every time.

 

What’s really difficult is, especially dog fouling, and I completely agree with you Councillor Henderson, it’s a completely disgusting crime and it is a crime, its very difficult to find witnesses who are willing to come forward. Its very difficult to bring them forward for successful prosecution but every time we get the evidence we will do it.

 

We discussed at Cabinet, in some detail this very issue, where the Corporate Enforcement Strategy came forward and was agreed and it was dog fouling that actually was the big issue that everyone talked about, in a great amount of detail, Chairman, and I said that I wanted to move the situation and that Corporate Enforcement Strategy being adopted by Cabinet this morning, was a start of a new way of doing things. It’s not the end of the matter, we don’t just write a strategy and stick in on the shelf, that’s going to be the start of a different way of doing things where in an environment now as a Council with limited resources we have less money, that means less boots on the ground but when it comes to enforcement, I want to see enforcement being done collectively, collaboratively across every department of the Council, working together and with our partners such as the Environmental Agency, such as County Council, such as the Highways England, the Police, the Fire Service, whoever.

 

When it comes to the issue of dog wardens, we are looking at, we discussed this this morning, whether it’s possible to do it, to get all Officers or certainly for more Officers, the powers to take enforcement action when they see violations of dog fouling taking place.

 

It’s not acceptable, it’s got to stop and within the limited resources we have got, we have got to do everything we can and I would urge anyone, certainly Councillors but also members of the public, if they see someone and you have got a mobile phone on you, take a photograph, send it to your local Councillor, send it to the Council and we will do everything we can to bring about a prosecution, Thank you Chairman.”

 

Question Three

 

From Councillor Michael Talbot to Councillor Fred Nicholls, Corporate Enforcement Portfolio Holder:

 

“To the Portfolio Holder for Planning.

 

A recital of the problem:

 

Your Department has recently issued ‘Enforcement notices’ for breaching conditions in contravention of a 1958/9 planning permission, to my electors occupying 36 Chalet properties in the ward.

 

This notice requires them to vacate their home three months after receipt of the notice, which for many is by 5^th December or face likely court proceedings for not complying with the notice.

 

The Council will presumably offer those forced to leave their home, temporary accommodation until they can return to their home in March next year.

 

Their various home insurances maybe invalidated by leaving their homes empty.  The local police presumably will be asked by this Council to offer greater surveillance over these empty homes.

 

I believe it is possible that these residents may be protected under European human rights legislation.

 

If they are not found homes locally their children’s schooling will be interrupted and their family registration with a doctor may be lost.

 

The notices add as a reason for the action, that they are resident in “Flood Zone 3”. This is not the Environment Agency description of where their properties are situated as the Agency ‘hatch’ the actual plans of this area as being ‘Flood Zone 3’ an “Area benefiting from flood defences”, which means they have suitable protection and emergency arrangements to protect when flooding is predicted.

 

All this disruption now to satisfy a 58 year old planning condition, long before some residents were born!

 

As a Councillor for St Osyth I should like to ask the following questions:

Can the Portfolio Holder for Planning advise me:

 

(a)   Whether the above matters have been taken into consideration by your Department when issuing these Notices and what they propose to do on behalf of any Dispossessed Residents?

 

(b)   Does he agree with me that when serving these noticed on the 1st August for residents of brick built Chalet Bungalows, the Council agreed on the 4^th August, 3 days later, to grant all year round use of a caravan, neighbouring these chalets in the adjacent Orchards Holiday Park, which it was claimed had been used in excess of ten years, by the issue of a lawful use certificate.

 

There is an expression about ‘Rubbing peoples noses in it!’ -  dare I say Is this what Tendring is doing?”

 

In Councillor Nicholls’ absence, Councillor Stock OBE replied on his behalf as follows:

 

“Cllr Talbot, thank you for raising the Council’s action to resolve breaches of planning controls over the occupancy of caravans and chalets in our District. 

 

As you know Planning Enforcement is a non-executive function of the Council with powers delegated to the Planning Committee, and as you will also know this means that decision making powers for planning enforcement do not rest with the Cabinet, or with individual Portfolio Holders or even with me as Leader of the Council, but nevertheless I am happy to attempt to answer your queries on this issue.

 

Members of the Council will recall that the Cabinet and the Planning Committee have considered a number of reports about this topic over the past four years (13^th December 2013, 13^th June 2014, 9^th December 2014 and 2^nd February 2016). 

 

The reports to Cabinet and the Planning Committee have included an outline of the occupancy restrictions that apply on sites across the District, the flood risk issues impacting on this accommodation and the policy context for the occupancy restrictions.  In addition, reports have considered the Human Rights and potential housing implications of taking action.

 

During this period officers have:

·        Identified the occupancy restrictions on holiday accommodation in the District:

·        Worked with the Environment Agency to identify acceptable accommodation on a site by site basis taking into account flood risk;

·        Worked with chalet and caravan site to improve their emergency planning procedures, including evacuation plans;

·        Undertaken further analysis of relevant planning decision, case law and national policies to support policy development here;

·        Carried our further monitoring of sites and compliance with occupancy restrictions.

 

On 02 February 2016 the Planning Committee resolved to support the principle of seeking voluntary compliance with planning controls relating to holiday caravan and chalet occupancy, and where this is not successful to serve Planning Enforcement Notices, giving priority to breaches at Point Clear Bay, Clear Springs and Bel Air.

 

Since that decision, work to achieve compliance has progressed, including the service of Planning Enforcement Notices at Clear Springs and most recently at Point Clear Bay.  Appeals have been lodged and considered in relation to some properties at Clear Springs, decision are awaited.  Appeals have also been received in relation to some properties at point Clear Bay.

 

As you point out, a planning permission dating from 1959 is relevant to Point Clear Bay properties.  However, its age make the danger of flood risk no less real and in any case, more recent appeals have reviewed the permissions and in many cases re-imposed similar limitations on occupation.

 

Cllr Talbot, you asked me two specific questions:

 

(a)   Whether the above matters [whether the Council will offer residents temporary accommodation, protection under human rights legislation, the views of the Environment Agency and the age of the original planning permission] had been considered when issuing Planning Enforcement Notices and what will be done on behalf of any dispossessed residents?

 

As I have already described, yes, these issues have been considered by both officers and the Planning Committee in coming to the decision to take action.  The Council will consider what assistance is appropriate for residents who find themselves without a home as a result of complying with the occupancy limitations.  This will depend on the personal circumstances on individuals.  The Council’s Housing Options team is aware of this possibility and ready to provide advice and support.

 

Turning to your second specific question:

 

(b)   Do I agree that 3 days after serving the Planning Enforcement Notices on 1^st August, the Council agreed to all year round use of a caravan, neighbouring these chalets in the adjacent Orchards Holiday Park?

 

I understand that the permission you refer to was not the grant of planning permission, nor does it relate to all year round use of a caravan.  The Council issued a certificate of lawful use for the siting of static caravans on an area currently used for the siting of touring caravans.  It is a legal determination, based on consideration of evidence that such a development is lawful and does not require the grant of planning permission.  This decision in no way contradicts the Council’s action to achieve compliance with existing planning controls.

 

Having said all that Cllr Talbot there can be no denying that this is a very complex and problematical case with in the one hand the very real risk of people drowning in their own homes as happened in 1953 and on the other hand people being potentially made homeless due to planning regulations.

 

I don’t pretend that I have a magic wand solution but I do take this issue very seriously and I would like to propose setting up a meeting, as soon as practicable, with affected residents, the ward members and senior officers from the Council.  I would be very happy to chair the meeting to see if we can come up with solutions, or at the very least provide meaningful answers to peoples’ questions.”

 

Councillor Talbot then responded to Councillor Stock OBE’s reply with a supplementary question:

 

“I think any supplementary I might of asked Chairman has been totally overtaken by the last sentence of what the Leader has just said in answer to my question, that is, that he is prepared and I really appreciate this, he is prepared to meet the residents and other people concerned along with senior officers of department to put their difficulties to the officers and see if there some resolution of the problem. I don’t know wat the meeting outcome will be but an offer of a meeting, is quite magnanimous and I greatly appreciate it. Thank you very much.”