Agenda item

Up to 60 minutes is allowed for this part of the meeting unless extended by the Chairman of Council on a motion moved, duly seconded and approved by the Council.  Members may ask one supplementary question in addition to their original question.

Members may ask one supplementary question in addition to their original question.

The questions received are set out in the agenda papers.

In accordance with Rule 12(1) of the Council Procedure Rules, Members of the Cabinet responded to the following questions:

(1)  Councillor P Walker asked the Leader of the Council, Councillor K E Morris:

“Can the Leader update the Council on what actions have been taken in relation to the future Betteshanger Country Park and what discussions he has had with the various partners involved to secure both its future, particularly the developing Mining Museum and green energy elements, and the future of the proposed business park?”

In response the Leader of the Council stated that he had been to a number of meetings with representatives of Homes England, Hadlow College/ Betteshanger Sustainable Parks, KCC and others on this matter.

In addition, the Chief Executive and Head of Inward Investment had also met representatives from the Real Estate Advisory Services who had been appointed to progress arrangements for the future of Betteshanger Country Park and Betteshanger Business Park and who had advised on the process to be followed. 

This had resulted in a tendered call for Expressions of Interest.  It was understood that proposals from preferred bidders were being assessed and that negotiations were continuing. Homes England, as previous owners (the Homes and Communities Agency as was), also needed to be engaged on any final proposition. It remained the Leader’s wish that the outstanding work at the Country Park should be completed via any selected bid and that both the Country Park and Business Park should then contribute to the economic and tourism sectors in due course as previously envisaged in the Corporate Plan.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12.5, Councillor P Walker exercised his right to ask one supplementary question.

(2)  Councillor P Walker asked the Portfolio Holder for Community and Tourism, Councillor M J Holloway:

“Could the Portfolio Holder for Community and Tourism give an update of developments with regard to Tourism within the District, having regard to the financial input and facilities such as Museum rearrangements?”

In response the Portfolio Holder for Community and Tourism stated emphasised the relationship between tourism and economic development and advised that the Head of Inward Investment led on both aspects for the Council. Preparation was well underway for the Open Golf in 2020 and the Council was looking at ways to deliver visitor services, including with partners. The Council was also working with Kent County Council on improvements to the Discovery Centre and reviewing the scope and design of the museum.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12.5, Councillor P Walker exercised his right to ask one supplementary question.

(3)  Councillor E A Biggs asked the Portfolio Holder for Housing and Health, Councillor S S Chandler:

“Can the Portfolio Holder for Housing and Health, tell us the number of applications registered on HOMECHOICE and number of households accepted as homeless with a duty to assist and how these statistics have changed in the last year?”

In response the Portfolio Holder for Housing and Health stated that there were currently 1,549 households registered on Kent Homechoice. This was made up of 1,141 homeseekers (people who didn’t currently live in social housing) and 408 transfers (social housing tenants who wanted to move to alternative social housing).

Between April and June 2019 (Quarter 1) the Council accepted a full housing duty to 25 households. During the same quarter of 2018/19 the number was 16 households. However, this was at the start of the new Homelessness Reduction Act, with a much lengthier process before having to make a decision regarding whether a full housing duty was owed. In Quarter 2 the figure had increased to 24 and in Quarters 3 and 4 the numbers were 33 and 36 respectively.

The Council worked with all households who approached it to try and prevent their homelessness. However, as the private rented sector was often too costly for people in receipt of housing benefit or on a low income, this ultimately impacted on the numbers that the Council subsequently accepted a full housing duty to assist.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12.5, Councillor E A Biggs exercised his right to ask one supplementary question.

(4)  Councillor H M Williams asked the Portfolio Holder for Transport and Licensing, Councillor N J Collor:

“Can the Portfolio holder for Licensing and Transport which includes the role of KCC Liaison Officer advise if KCC has conducted a survey of schools to identify the risk of asbestos, if so are the results available?”

In response the Portfolio holder for Licensing and Transport stated that his role was to be the lead in bringing Kent County Council (KCC) issues to the attention of Cabinet colleagues so that they can act on issues within their portfolios. Therefore, this type of request should be better directed to KCC using the Freedom of Information route or a public question at a KCC full Council Meeting.

However, in this instance he had raised the point with KCC and been advised that Kent County Council did undertake asbestos surveys at schools for which it was responsible. KCC had a comprehensive Asbestos Management Policy and schools were visited approximately every 3 years and any asbestos resultant works were dealt with in accordance to the designated risk category and status. A copy of the asbestos register was kept at the school concerned.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12.5, Councillor H M Williams exercised her right to ask one supplementary question.

(5)  Councillor H M Williams asked the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regulatory Services, Councillor N S Kenton:

“Does DDC collect information on air pollution in areas containing schools at peak times?”

In response the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regulatory Services stated the Council had carried out diffusion tube monitoring historically for nitrogen dioxide at schools in Dover, Deal and Sandwich. The most recent being at Aycliffe primary school following concerns that queuing HGVs on the A20 could result in elevated levels of pollution for which results showed that levels were below Government air pollution objectives. Monitoring and modelling work carried out by the Council on roads within Dover indicated that only areas close to the main trunk roads into Dover had elevated levels of nitrogen dioxide and Air Quality Management Areas had been declared in those areas. All air pollution monitoring was carried out in accordance with Defra Local Air Quality Guidance.

Incentives to prevent idling by vehicles dropping children off at schools was being rolled out by some Kent authorities and the Council would be looking at proactive work to educate children in schools within the district on air pollution matters as part of the Council’s Air Quality Action Plan measures in the future.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12.5, Councillor H M Williams exercised her right to ask one supplementary question.

(6)  Councillor E A Biggs asked the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regulatory Services, Councillor N S Kenton:

“How does the Council ensure that robust and impartial decisions are made on planning decisions in relation to financial viability of developers? While understanding that financial viability is not within the remit of planning, it clearly has a strong bearing on the outcome. I cite a recent case in Mongeham, where a development was approved on a flood plain and it was suggested that unless this was approved the developer was going to go bankrupt. Also the outline for the Buckland hospital development was given in spite of the developer having a net worth of -9k.”

In response the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regulatory Services stated that the financial position of applicants was not a material planning consideration. Viability was a material planning consideration, but it was about the scheme not the developer.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12.5, Councillor E A Biggs exercised his right to ask one supplementary question.

(7)  Councillor L A Keen asked the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regulatory Services, Councillor N S Kenton:

“What is DDC doing to ensure that Persimmon completes, to a suitable scheduled timetable, all the outstanding fire remedial works on the new houses in Aylesham, which were found recently to be deficient in meeting statutory fire protection requirements, and that these works meet the full required regulatory standards?”

In response the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regulatory Services stated that in conjunction with the Chief Executive he had met with Persimmon’s senior regional team and they had provided details of the inspection and remedial works that would need to be undertaken should a property fail the inspection. They had agreed to provide regular updates and this would be monitored to ensure the programme was completed. He had also asked the Growth and Business Development Manager who oversaw the Aylesham Development on behalf of the Council to explore options within the Council’s development agreement should Persimmon fail to meet their commitments on this matter.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12.5, Councillor L A Keen exercised her right to ask one supplementary question.

(8)  Councillor P M Brivio asked the Portfolio Holder for Transport and Licensing, Councillor N J Collor:

“Can the Portfolio Holder for Licensing and Transport update members on the progress of Electric charging points in the DDC area?”

In response the Portfolio Holder for Transport and Licensing stated that electric charging points were now available across the District at five sites including: Discovery Park, Sholden Fields, St. James, Lidl and the Dover District Leisure Centre. The Council recognised the need to encourage greater use of electrically powered vehicles and was working with colleagues at KCC and the other Kent Districts to seek funding to install electric vehicle charging facilities at a further 8 sites, mostly within Council car parks.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12.5, Councillor P M Brivio exercised her right to ask one supplementary question.