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not disposed of at the end of this time shall be the subject of a written response, copied to all Members unless withdrawn by the questioner.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.

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

 

Three questions had been submitted as set out below:

 

Question One

 

From Councillor Pemberton to Councillor Talbot, Portfolio Holder for the Environment:

 

“Brook Farm Retail Park

 

Is there anything this Council can to encourage the retail shops to clean the car parks around this area as this is becoming a bit of a mess lately?

 

Is there any way these businesses could sponsor someone to do this?”  

 

Councillor Talbot replied as follows:-

 

“The stores within Brook Retail Park are all committed to being responsible partners within the community and as such the Council is currently working closely with Tesco to ensure that the land for which they are responsible for is maintained to a satisfactory level of cleanliness. Tesco have their own cleaning contractors and have also in the past undertaken community clean up events involving their staff and volunteers to litter pick around the vicinity of then retail park to promote their community values.

 

KFC also undertake litter picking in the immediate vicinity of the store and have also installed extra litter bins within the car park near to their store. Additionally they are also active partners in the county wide Cleaner Essex Group litter picking initiative which involved all the Councils in Essex; Keep Britain Tidy along with McDonald’s, KFC, Domino’s and other food-on-the-go outlets in promoting the responsible and other appropriate disposal of litter.

 

Litter accumulations within the car park areas of Brook Retail Park remains to be on the agenda of the retail outlets with the night time economy connected with this area responsible for litter in the car park areas.”

 

Councillor Pemberton then asked the following supplementary question:-

 

“I’m not sure if you are aware that this Council actually pays for four hours a week to litter pick so I was wondering if we could actually get a few more hours on there as currently you are only giving two hours on a Monday and two on a Friday?”

 

Councillor Talbot then replied as follows:-

 

“All I can say Councillor Pemberton is that the matter is under constant review. As you can see the Officer is in the midst of meetings on this sort of thing. The car park area you identify is a very bad area and does want some attention but the matter is being dealt with on a current basis. That’s all I can say at the moment.”

 

Question Two

 

From Councillor Griffiths to Councillor Skeels Snr., Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Tourism:

 

“The closure of the toilets in the High Street in Clacton Town Centre has been the subject of a number of enquiries. The facility was used by a number of older residents using shops in the High Street, and concerns have been raised, that some of our retired community no longer enjoy good health or mobility, and struggle to get to the toilets in Rosemary Road.  The High Street car park is often the first stop for those visiting the town and it would make sense to have a toilet in a car park that visitors can use.

 

Could the Portfolio Holder tell us what action he intends to take to address the concerns of some of our older residents, and if it is his intention to reinstate or reopen a much needed toilet at this location?”

 

Councillor Skeels replied as follows:-

 

“I would like to thank Councillor Griffiths for his question. I have to say that I am a little puzzled by his question as the decision was taken in June 2017 to close these toilets and this was clearly set out within the Cabinet report and within the plans for the management of our public conveniences.

 

The High Street toilets have been the target of anti-social behaviour for many years and given the strategy to refurbish the Rosemary Road toilets so as to provide a better offer the decision to close these toilets was long overdue. I am not sure how many older people would actually want to use the High Street toilets given the disgusting state that may users left the facilities in despite the best efforts of our dedicated cleaning staff.

 

As Councillor Griffiths will no doubt be aware a number of toilets will be closed as part of the Council’s strategy to free up budget from the more expensive ones to operate, due in part to vandalism and anti-social behaviour and use the savings to improve the remaining toilets.

 

As has often been commented on in Council, this Council still has over 30 publicly funded and operated public conveniences, a far higher total than many if not most of the other Councils in the UK.”

 

Councillor Griffiths then asked the following supplementary question:-

 

“Given that this Council is supposed to be encouraging tourism and community cohesion this does seem rather sad. Whilst I acknowledge that there are other toilets in the District there is only one actually in Clacton and would the Portfolio Holder not agree that to shut one of the two toilets and reduce toilet capacity by 50% in the main seaside town in Tendring is not only short-sighted but has scant regard for our older community?”

 

Councillor Skeels then replied as follows:-

 

“Councillor Griffiths you know that there are plenty more toilets along the seafront. Obviously we want to encourage tourism but we don’t want them to walk into a place where you would think that a lot of the users had never been trained to use a toilet. Absolutely disgusting some of them. We are out to improve what we have got.”

 

Question Three

 

From Councillor Talbot to Councillor Nicholls, Portfolio Holder for Corporate Enforcement:

           

“With reference to the question I asked you on the 15^th May to which you gave me a complete answer to the points I raised, I now wish to ask the following:

 

The Planning Enforcement Notices served on the freehold properties in Point Clear Bay refer to a breach of the planning permission granted to them in the late 1950’s, with the deaths suffered in the East Coast Floods of 1953, still very fresh in planners’ minds.

The occupation restriction prevented residence in properties for the period between 31^st of October and 1^st March in the following year, when flooding was thought most likely.

 

The current Enforcement Notices state, inter alia, that the service of these notices is to protect the owners from the risk of flooding during the above period of time.

 

In the late 1980’s Tendring District Council were prepared, on payment of a planning fee by the applicant, to vary the occupation conditions to allow occupation during the restricted period from midday on Friday to midday on the following Monday and in addition legal occupation for a continuous period of ten days to include Christmas Day and New Year’s Day in any year.
This to me seems inconsistent with the original restriction and prompts the questions:-

 

Ø   Are you satisfied with the continued service of enforcement notices to selected homes in the Bay area knowing that:-

 

 *One home can have the original 50 year old condition forbidding occupation from 31^st October to the following 1^st March.

 

 *Their neighbour next door in identical property can have totally unrestricted occupation granted by means of a legal determination endorsed by this Council.

 

 *Next door whilst they may still have restrictions, they have in addition to the original condition, permission to occupy their property at specific times during the winter season (as set out above)

 

 *Their next door Chalet may have a ‘Personal Permission’ granted to the owner by an Inspector, to occupy without restriction 365 days per year, but this personal permission ceases when the owner leaves the property as it does not alter the extant planning permission?

 

I think this situation is grossly unfair to those with restricted occupation where they suffer the same ‘Flood Risk’ as those next door who have not been served with Enforcement Notices. There are rumours that the Planning Inspectorate is to call for a Public Inquiry and so therefore:

 

Ø   Can the Portfolio Holder inform us of any date set for this Inquiry and will individual residents be advised by the Inspectorate in due course?”

 

Councillor Nicholls replied as follows:

 

“Thank you for your question Councillor Talbot. This is a complex issue and as you rightly highlight there is a long planning history.  My response therefore is quite lengthy but I wish to provide you with as full a response as possible.

 

Planning enforcement action as to breaches of conditions at Point Clear to prevent the permanent residential occupation of chalets all year round was taken as far back as 1963 by the then Tendring Rural District Council.

 

There has been a consistent pattern of enforcement re these conditions since 1963. Members of the Planning Committee endorsed further enforcement action against those breaching winter occupancy planning conditions on 2  February 2016 and following service of enforcement notices the question of whether conditions are upheld or modified is now for the Planning Inspectorate to decide via the appeals process.

 

Planning applications seeking to permanently remove the conditions preventing all year round occupation of chalets were made by some residents of the chalets to this Council in the period 1986 -1989 but these applications were refused.

 

As a consequence many residents appealed those decisions and a series of planning and enforcement notice appeals were heard at a Public Inquiry in 1990. On 3 July 1990 the Inspector released his decision letter.

 

The conditions preventing all year round occupation were generally supported but the Inspector allowed many of the chalets appealing to extend their period of use to include winter weekends and also a 10 day holiday starting on Christmas Day.

 

In other limited cases he allowed personal planning permissions so that named residents could stay in their chalet all year round on the grounds of personal hardship but in some cases these residents had to revert to a pattern of leaving the chalet during the winter period once a given period of 1-2 years was up. Where a resident granted a planning permission on terms of personal hardship died or moved away the Inspector required the chalet to revert to having restrictions on winter occupation.

 

Another group of residents making appeals were able to prove to the Inspector’s satisfaction that all year round occupation had taken place for more than 10 years in breach of the winter occupation restrictions. As a result the Inspector considered that the condition preventing winter occupation could no longer be enforced and removed it whilst quashing enforcement notices.

 

The appeal was heard before current national and local planning policies were adopted and subsequent recent appeal decisions in the estate have refused to lift or modify the restrictions on winter occupation.

 

In 2018 many of the chalets are still subject to their original restrictions as they were not involved in the appeals in 1990.  A second group still have winter occupation restrictions but are allowed to use the chalet during winter weekends or for a 10 day holiday starting at Christmas as a result of the 1990 decision. These two groups are in the majority.

 

Those granted personal planning permission on the grounds of hardship have mostly died or moved away and only 2 residents remain with a personal planning permission. They are not facing enforcement action.

 

Where the Council is taking enforcement action this is against residents who are either in breach of the original restrictions preventing winter occupation or else the modified restrictions imposed at appeal in 1990. Residents will not be subject to enforcement action if there are no restrictions on their chalet or if they are complying with the conditions preventing winter occupation.

 

As a result of the service of around 78 enforcement notices there are now at least 51 appeals being dealt with by the Planning Inspectorate. It is intended to hear these jointly at a combined Public Inquiry. All the appeals are likely to be heard in Autumn 2018 but as yet no date has been set by the Planning Inspectorate.

             

The Council will write to interested parties once the appeals formally start and will also erect site notices giving details of the Inquiry and its date closer to the Inquiry opening. It is likely to last several days.  A notice of the Inquiry will also appear in a local newspaper.

 

I would like to finish by reiterating that the Council wishes to move to a position of certainty for all residents involved. Following the Planning Appeal the Council will review its position. Should any future action be required then this would be taken within a reasonable timescale and the Council is committed to supporting residents through any change.

 

I fully recognise that this is sensitive and challenging matter for residents but trust that you recognise that the Council is seeking to achieve a resolution which will provide certainty for the future.”