Agenda item

To receive any questions and or statements relating to any items of the Council powers/ duties or which otherwise affects the District and items on the agenda from members of the public.

Goff Welchman

Question 1: Has a final decision been reached regarding the use for St George’s Court?

Cabinet Member for Housing, Property and Assets:

Yes. St George’s Court had been sold to the Council’s Housing Service, Housing Revenue Account (HRA) for specific use as social housing within the Council housing stock. Please refer to minute 43 of the August 2023 Cabinet meeting https://democracy.middevon.gov.uk/mgAi.aspx?ID=18034

Question 2: What further work on that site is being or will be carried out?

Cabinet Member for Housing, Property and Assets:

External works to complete the final drainage connections, highways access, garden/other landscaping and additional works to ensure St George’s Court was ready to let. Some internal works were to be completed to bathrooms within the blocks of flats and riverside fencing to meet Housing Revenue Account (HRA) adaptability/safety requirements and the local lettings plan for the development.

Question 3: What was the cost of that further work, and how would it be funded?

Cabinet Member for Housing, Property and Assets:

As some works were still ongoing a final cost for all the further work was not currently available. All works to complete the site and achieve a lettable standard were being met by the Council’s general fund as a requirement of the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) acquisition of the site. The internal adaption works and fencing costs were being met the Housing Revenue Account (HRA).

Nick Quinn

Question 1: Had the Leisure VAT refund from HMRC, referred to in Council Motion 593, and been received yet?

Question 2: If so:

a) When was this received?

b) How much was received?

Cabinet Member for Service Delivery and Continuous Improvement gave a single answer to all his questions:

The Council had received the payments, the total of £3,149,619.03 paid in three instalments and included interest and the final payment was made in 31/08/2023.

Barry Warren

At Cabinet on 15 October 2024 the Medium Term Financial Plan in paragraph 2.6 were the words “Two further lines had possibly lowered in terms of deliverability – lines 25 and 31. Both relate to securing contribution from the Town or Parish Councils. To date, no proposals had been received but discussions were ongoing.”  In the table which follows the combined figures amount to £110 thousand pounds.

Question 1: What discussions were ongoing and with whom? 

Statement:

There was a stated intention of this administration for a closer relationship with the Town and Parish Councils and the public.  £6,000.00 had been allocated each year to appoint a Cabinet Member with a portfolio to achieve this.

There was a Town and Parish Charter which sets out apparent agreements.  My own Parish Council raised issues with it which in the main were ignored or rejected. A meeting between Councillor DuChesne, myself and the Parish Clerk again raised issues some of which were turned down by the Monitoring Officer.  Another issue over a planning application was raised and the response back from a Planning Officer was dismissive to say the least. There were other issues raised and in spite of the Cabinet Member and her supporting Officer taking them away no response had been received to all of them.  These included incorrect invoices for services, including a red final demand. This had been repeated yet again this month. Incorrect information in a consultation document to name but a few. There was little or no enforcement been evidenced within the Parish.

Since the change of administration attendance by Ward Councillors at Parish Council Meetings was sparse, if at all, one of the Councillors was also a Parish Councillor but had a poor attendance record.  We were not alone in this experience as we had heard from another Council this week who had not seen a Ward Councillor since the changes.

We had charges for play equipment inspections increased. Now we had been advised that some areas would be split into sections and the full charges made for each area rather than the whole field area. We had taken on responsibility for 6 of the Council play/recreational areas which were being refurbished in spite of only having 25 year leases.  If the Council were trying to reduce their commitments they could transfer these areas over to the Parish totally.

Question 2: Was there a genuine commitment by this administration to engage?

A written response would be provided within 10 working days.

Paul Elstone

Question 1: Are Council Members aware that ZED PODs had never constructed or installed a modular development they had always subcontracted, which may go some way in explaining the grossly excessive cost being paid by this Council?

Question 2: Are members aware that it had so far cost the Council over £444,000 solely for the design and planning work for just one of the ZED POD’s projects? 

Question 3: Was the Council aware that the company who previously fabricated modules for ZED PODs entered administration last year, and with multi million pound debt. That the Administrator was attempting to recover substantial funds from the ZED POD shareholders?

Question  4 : Can it be fully explained why this Council had allowed the ZED POD to build the Shapland Place development in non-compliance with more than one of its own planning conditions?

Question 5: Given that Mr Elstone had the opportunity to examine drawings also take physical measurements of completed modules.  Can it be fully explained how this Council had allowed the ZED POD to build modular home developments, which fail to fully comply with the Government Nationally Described Space Standards?

If the Cabinet Member for Housing, Asset and Property wishes to challenge on this, Mr Elstone would be happy to visit, with him and Officers, to Shapland Place and St Andrews in order to validate my statement. 

Question 6: Much had been made about the ZED POD modular build durability and Build offsite Property Assurance Scheme (BOPAS) Accreditation. A new company was now building modules for ZED PODs, in exactly the same location as the previous fabricator. Is this Council aware that there was evidence available to suggest that this company, who built the Shapland Place modules, was not BOPAS approved at the time? 

Question 7: This Council had stated that the ZED POD’s modules can be as good as or even better than conventional builds and have a lifespan of up to 120 years. However, the ZED POD BOPAS durability certificate is only for 60 years. It should be noted that probably one of the most important components of the build, the cladding, only had a warranty of 15 years.

Will the statement that the ZED POD’s Modules can have a life of 120 years also that they can be better and more cost effective than equally energy efficient conventional build homes be fully validated? 

Question 8: Given the serious nature of the questions in respect of this Council’s partnership arrangement with ZED POD’s, I believe there are compelling reasons for the Audit and/or Scrutiny Committee to undertake a root and branch investigation – Will they do just that?

Tim Bridger

Statement

The Leisure Centre pricing, the substantial price rises would be implemented from January as yet leisure centre members had not been informed how much, but going up significantly. Last year vulnerable members of the community who use the facilities were hit with a 13% increase in charges whereas other members were given a 6% increase. As a country in the grip of an obesity crisis where diseases are affecting normal people disproportionately, these are also impacting people from lower income and deprived groups. This Council had an opportunity to lower prices to make sure that many people as possible can use the facilities but instead raising the prices and in doing so families would be unable to afford the leisure centres because it would cost too much. Other services in the area were significantly less in membership fees and this Council is meant to be providing a public service.

Question 1: Why is this Council not providing this public service and working collaboratively with NHS in particular for those people who need the facilities and access them.

In relation to the drop in centre in the market place, community groups had tried to make progress for what it was designed as a space for community groups.

Question 2: Has any progress been made on this and would the Council retain it as a community asset.

Question 3: This Council are the land owners of where the area for the Boxing Day hunt event uses and would the Council be taking necessary measures of health and safety of those who would be attending? And would this Council be ensuring this event does not go ahead and comply with the Council standards?

The Chair advised that the questions would be answered in writing within 10 working days.