Agenda item

Subject to the required notice being given, members of the public can ask questions of the Leader of the Council, Portfolio Holders or Chairmen of Committees.

The Chairman shall determine the number of questions to be tabled at a particular meeting in order to limit the time for questions and answers to 21 minutes.

There are three such Questions on this occasion.

Subject to the required notice being given, members of the public could ask questions of the Leader of the Council, Portfolio Holders or Chairmen of Committees.

The following questions had been received, on notice, from members of the public:

Question One

From Mr Steve Kelly to Councillor Stock OBE, Leader of the Council:

“Given that the scientific research suggests that tipping points are making the climate crisis irretrievably apocalyptic; how can the Council best prepare for the extreme food insecurity and mass migration both to and from our District due to Climate Crisis emergencies?” 

Councillor Stock replied to the question as follows:

“Thank you for your question Mr Kelly. The issues of the environment generally and climate change in particular are matters that this Council take very seriously, Indeed, we were one of the first local authorities to declare a climate emergency and following that decision I set up a cross-party, Member-led, climate change working group. Through that group we have commissioned the Association of Public Service Excellence to work with us to establish our own carbon footprint and to prepare an action plan setting out how we can become carbon neutral by 2030.

Through the data that we collect and the Action Plan that will be developed, we will have a clear indication of the work that we need to undertake to become carbon neutral and the measures we need to take to encourage our residents and businesses to take action alongside us to tackle these important issues as well as any other issues arising such as those you refer to.”

Question Two

From Mr Chris Southall to Councillor Stock OBE, Leader of the Council:

“Can the Climate Emergency working group justify the huge amount of money committed to an outside agency (assessing the carbon footprint) when that same money would go a long way to providing the much-needed insulation and renewable energy generation investment on council properties?”

Councillor Stock replied to the question as follows:

“Thank you for your question, Mr Southall.

The Council declared a Climate Emergency in August last year and on the back of that I set up a cross-party, Member-led working party tasked with preparing an action plan setting out how we will become carbon neutral by 2030.

Before the Council commits to a programme of energy-efficiency improvements or other measures aimed at reducing our carbon footprint we must ensure that we are committing to do the right things. If we are not sure, then we could be wasting taxpayers’ money and not making any meaningful difference.

To provide us with expert advice and to make sure we are making the best use of our resources we have commissioned the Association of Public Service Excellence (APSE). Their team brings to us significant expertise and experience in this field that we simply do not have available in-house. I ca assure you that even though they have only recently started working with us it is clear that this money (£35,000) is being very well spent and actually is not a huge amount of money considering the sums we may need to invest in reducing our carbon emissions and achieving our target of becoming carbon neutral by 2030.”

Question Three

From Mr Richard Everett to Councillor Stock OBE, Leader of the Council:

“Last year the Council took a number of cases to a planning public enquiry with the expressed intention of eliciting guidance from the Planning Inspectorate to gain consistency over the occupancy of chalets in Point Clear.

Just before Christmas a Planning Inspector issued her decisions in relation to approximately 60 enforcement cases before her. She decided that fifteen (some 25%) of those cases were immune from enforcement because a time-bar of ten years had been exceeded and that the Council were, therefore, legally unable to bring proceedings against those cases. A Freedom of Information Act request by a Point Clear resident has uncovered that approximately £178,000 of council tax payers’ money was spent on representation by the council in this enquiry against people who could not afford expensive legal representation themselves. In fact the people of Point Clear were represented legally by two volunteers with no formal legal expertise and at no cost. This accentuates the point that an expensive legal team, led by a top London QC and paid for by the council tax payer, lost 25% of the cases it took to the enquiry. Local people in Point Clear are alleging that they have been harassed by the Council for 10 years, or more.

I trust that the Leader of the Council would agree with me that it is time for the harassment of these people by planning enforcement to stop. So my question is as follows:

Please will the Leader give an assurance to the people of Point Clear that no action will be taken to raise additional enforcement notices, or start criminal proceedings, in relation to the matters decided by the Inspector at the enquiry?

Finally, I feel sure that an internal enquiry might be appropriate to ascertain whether spending £178,000 of council tax payers’ money was a good use of council tax funds and whether the intention of gaining consistency of approach has been met.”

Councillor Stock replied to the question as follows:

“I thank Mr Everett for his question.

Members will be aware of planning enforcement action that was taken by the Council in 2017 and 2018 following a decision by the Planning Committee.

The Council served enforcement notices on 78 properties in the area after it became clear that homes were being occupied all year, despite planning conditions banning permanent residence during the winter months. The action was taken due to concern about the heightened flood risk during the winter months with the properties not suitable and presenting a significant risk of loss of life in the event of a major flood.

Many residents exercised their rights to appeal against the enforcement notices and a Planning Inspector held an inquiry into the issue over the summer last year.

At the inquiry the Council was supported by the Environment Agency, who presented evidence about the risk of flooding, its likely severity and the consequences to the area. Occupants and owners of the properties were also able to put forward their case.

The inspector issued her decisions on 18 December 2019 and of the 48 notices appealed, 30 were dismissed 17 were allowed; one appeal had lapsed before being heard.  However, even with the minority that were allowed, the Inspector refused to grant planning permission due to the location and type of properties.

I am sure the complexity of the ongoing issues in relation to Point Clear Bay is well-recognised. The situation is far from ideal and I have every sympathy for those individuals who are affected, but a ‘do nothing’ approach was not an option; if there is another significant flood event it is our duty to minimise the risk as much as we can, not only for the residents who are living there but also for the emergency services who may be called into action.

This is summed up by the Inspector’s response in one appeal where she states, and I quote:

“I can clearly understand how unfair it may appear to require some occupiers to leave during the winter months when many others can lawfully remain all year round.  However, the potential risk from a flood event is a consideration of substantial weight.  Paragraph 40 of the NPPG says: “Proposals that are likely to increase the number of people living or working in areas of flood risk require careful consideration.”  Thus, the government’s policy is not to increase the burden for emergency and other services by increasing the number of people living in areas of flood risk. In my view the inconsistency between one property to another is a matter that can be afforded little weight in the determination of this appeal.  The reality is that the evidence demonstrates that allowing permanent rather than seasonal occupation increases risk as there is an increased probability of flooding occurring during the winter months”. End of quote.

The risk of flooding in this area is not merely hypothetical or theoretical; it is very real; it has happened before. 1953 may well be a long time ago but there are many members of our community – indeed members of this council - who remember vividly the terrible loss of life that occurred on January 31^st that year.

Obviously, the cost of defending 48 appeals has been significant; however, not only is the cost per case lower than a standard appeal, but the difficult question, that has no easy answer, is what price do we put on people’s lives?

A report detailing the outcome of the inquiry and recommending next steps will be presented to the Planning Committee once the Inspector’s decisions have been fully assessed by officers.

Only after the Planning Committee has considered this report will the Council be in a positon to confirm next steps. What I will reiterate however, is that this Council will work with, and support, all those living in affected properties as far as is possible to achieve any future action required.”