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.

 

(a)        To Chairmen/Vice-Chairmen of Committees

 

            There were no questions received for Chairmen/Vice-Chairmen of Committees.

 

(b)        To the Executive

 

            To receive answers in respect of questions from Members of the Council to a Member of the Executive asked in accordance with Rule 12 of the Council Procedure Rules.

 

            The questions 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 S F Bannister asked the Portfolio Holder for Environment, Waste and Planning, Councillor N S Kenton:

 

        “Given that Cllr Walker has asked questions in the past about matters concerning Lydden Racing Circuit plans and conditions and that Cllr Ovenden has striven hard over the same issues for some considerable time, what progress has been made by this council to be proactive with respect to planning, enforcing conditions and enforcing the Noise Abatement Notice?”

 

        In response the Portfolio Holder for Environment, Waste and Planning stated that the Planning Department advised the Circuit if its proposed race calendar would result in a breach of conditions and sought revisions as necessary. The Planning Enforcement team had investigated what occurred on race set-up days and had not found any activity that would count as a race day. Environmental Health carried out noise monitoring activities and had found that conditions were being complied with.

 

        In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12.5, Councillor S F Bannister exercised his right to ask one supplementary question.

 

(2)     Councillor J M Heron asked the Portfolio Holder for Property Management and Public Protection, Councillor T J Bartlett:

 

        "At the Planning meeting on 25th May there was a consensus between the committee, residents of the area and the DSK volunteers that the soup kitchen should only be based in Adrian Street on a very short-term basis and a new permanent home for the DSK should be found in an alternative car park, most likely Ladywell. What actions are this council taking to listen to that advice and find a new home before the six month planning permission expires?”

 

        In response the Portfolio Holder for Property Management and Public Protection stated that the Council recognised that the Adrian Street location was purely a short term solution. The Council was engaging with the team that organised the Dover Soup Kitchen and the wider Christian Community in Dover to find a more permanent solution. 

 

        In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12.5, Councillor J M Heron exercised his right to ask one supplementary question.

 

(3)     Councillor P M Brivio asked the Portfolio Holder for Environment, Waste and Planning, Councillor N S Kenton:

 

        “It is a long time since the Leader promised to look into a revised housing policy for DDC after a motion was withdrawn concerning percentages of “affordable housing”, and “high-end housing” so when will this begin to happen?”

 

        In response, the Portfolio Holder for Environment, Waste and Planning stated that this would be considered as part of the new District Local Plan. The first stages of work on the new Local Plan were underway and it would be followed by a consideration of issues and possible policy approaches in 2018.

 

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

 

(4)     Councillor D A Sargent asked the Portfolio Holder for Housing, Health and Wellbeing, Councillor P M Beresford:

 

        “Further to the response received from the former government housing minister's office with regards to this Council's motion on regulation of the private rental sector, does the Portfolio Holder for Housing, Health and Wellbeing agree with him that only a minority of landlords do not maintain their properties to acceptable standards?"

 

        In response, the Portfolio Holder for Housing, Health and Wellbeing stated that the data suggested that the majority of landlords maintained their properties to an acceptable standard. However, there was a significant minority who could do more.

 

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

 

(5)     Councillor N A G Richards asked the Portfolio Holder for Housing, Health and Wellbeing, Councillor P M Beresford:

 

        “With our thoughts focussed by the tragic fire at Grenfell tower and the failings of Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea council can the Portfolio Holder for Housing, Health and Wellbeing assure our tenants that our fire policies, procedures and risk assessments are robust, up to date and actioned on?”

 

        In response, the Portfolio Holder for Housing, Health and Wellbeing stated that the Council had notified the Government that it didn’t own any high rise residential accommodation above six storeys and that none of its properties had been externally clad using the type of system installed at Grenfell Tower. East Kent Housing managed the Council’s housing stock and regularly carried out inspections.

 

        In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12.5, Councillor N A G Richards exercised his right to ask one supplementary question.

 

(6)     Councillor P M Brivio asked the Portfolio Holder for Environment, Waste and Planning, Councillor N S Kenton:

 

        “Can the Portfolio holder for Environment, Waste and Planning advise when the relevant statutory powers will be used to take action against the shop owners of the near derelict shops in Biggin Street (eg. Vodaphone and Claire’s accessories premises) which are of such concern to local people and a blight on our High Street?”

 

        In response, the Portfolio Holder for Environment, Waste and Planning stated that Planning Enforcement were currently monitoring and investigating the appearance of properties in Biggin Street and would take action where it was justified.            

 

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

 

(7)     Councillor M R Eddy asked the Portfolio Holder for Access and Licensing, Councillor N J Collor:

 

        “Can the Portfolio Holder for Access and Licensing give an update on any proposals to install electric charging points in local car parks?”

 

        In response the Portfolio Holder for Access and Licensing stated that the provision of charging facilities for Electric and Low Emission Vehicles was regularly reviewed in light of advances in technology and increased vehicle availability. There were no immediate plans to install charging points in any Council car park but new developments were being encouraged to install charging points. This had resulted in 3 at the St James development and 4 on the Dover Leisure Centre site.

 

        In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12.5, Councillor M R Eddy exercised his right to ask one supplementary question.

 

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

 

        “Can the Portfolio Holder for Access and Licensing advise if the council has made a formal response to the Stagecoach consultation, which is going to have such a dramatic effect on bus services in the district, particularly rural areas?”

 

        In response the Portfolio Holder for Access and Licensing stated that he shared the concerns and that the Council had raised its concerns through two formal responses to the consultation.

 

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

 

(9)     Councillor B Gardner asked the Portfolio Holder for Access and Licensing, Councillor N J Collor:

 

        “With the Cabinet exploring the closure of the Council helpdesk in Deal Library so that the residents of the Deal area will have to travel over to Whitfield to see Council staff, and bearing in mind that the Council is considering building the District Leisure Centre on land at Whitfield, does the portfolio holder share my concerns at the announcement that Stagecoach is considering cutting back on the number 12 bus service that links Deal and Walmer to Whitfield?

 

        In response the Portfolio Holder for Access and Licensing stated that the decision on the future of the Deal Area Office had been deferred to a later Cabinet meeting and that the new Dover District Leisure Centre was not scheduled to open until early 2019. Stagecoach had advised that although there had been slight changes to the number 12 bus service between Deal and Whitfield it would be enhanced through the introduction of a new number 90 service.

 

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

 

(10)   Councillor B Gardner asked the Portfolio Holder for Environment, Waste and Planning, Councillor N S Kenton:

 

        “Would the Portfolio Holder for Environment, Waste and Planning be kind enough to explain why the viability report for the Hamill Brickworks site which came into this building last September was kept hidden from councillors until only seven days before the application came to Committee in May?”

 

        In response, the Portfolio Holder for Environment, Waste and Planning stated that the review of the Council’s local requirements for validating planning applications had not yet been completed. As a consequence, until the review was completed there was no requirement for financial viability reports to be made publicly available in full and the interim position was to only make such reports available where the applicant agreed to do so.

 

        In the instance referred to in the question the applicant had not agreed to the disclosure until shortly before the application was heard by the Planning Committee.

 

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

 

(11)   Councillor P J Hawkins asked the Portfolio Holder for Property Management and Public Protection, Councillor T J Bartlett:

 

        “Can the portfolio holder for Property Management and Public Protection give an update on finding a partner to bring the Regent Cinema back into use?”

 

        In response the Portfolio Holder for Property Management and Public Protection stated that the Council was not the owner of the Regent Cinema and had no directly ability and little leverage to force it to be brought back into use.

 

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

 

(12)   Councillor P M Wallace asked the Portfolio Holder for Corporate Resources and Performance, Councillor M D Conolly:

 

        “At the Extraordinary Council meeting on 22 March 2017 Councillor Mike Connolly said there was "no alternative and there will be no Plan B" if the proposed merger of the 'super council' did not go ahead. Will there now be a Plan B?”

 

        In response, the Portfolio Holder for Corporate Resources and Performance stated that he had no recollection of making such a comment and that it wasn’t in the Minutes. The Council would continue to explore opportunities for joint working and increasing its income streams.

 

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

 

(13)   Councillor B Gardner will ask the Portfolio Holder for Property Management and Public Protection, Councillor T J Bartlett:

 

        “Last month a letter was sent to residents who own a memorial bench advising them of council policy, which many found upsetting and poorly worded. What will the Portfolio Holder for Property Management and Public Protection do to assess and improve the process for writing and approving such letters so we can ensure this does not happen again?”

 

        In response the Portfolio Holder for Property Management and Public Protection stated that the Head of Assets and Building Control had reviewed procedures relating to communications and introduced a requirement that letters and e-mails that would be received by more than one person had to be checked by the relevant team leader prior to despatch.

 

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