Agenda item

Questions by Members of the Council

Three valid questions on notice have been received for a response at this meeting.

 

Minutes:

1.    Question to the Elected Mayor by Councillor S Brockbank

 

Given the flooding on Bromley Avenue in my ward in mid-June, does the Elected Mayor share the concerns of residents about the increased pressure on infrastructure of the proposed development in the Local Plan?

 

Councillor C B Pickard responded on behalf of the Elected Mayor as follows:

 

Thank you, I’ll deal with the issues raised by the question.

 

First of all, flooding is taken very seriously by the Council and in addition to the two major flood alleviation schemes just completed at Fairfield Green and Briarville, Officers have sound contingency plans in place to deal with these issues.

 

The Local Plan is underpinned by a comprehensive strategic flood risk assessment. Specifically, flooding on the Murton Gap site was considered in our Local Plan and the inspector stated ‘flood risk is a significant local concern following the storm event of Thunder Thursday. The frequency and intensity of such climate related incidents are projected to increase but I’m satisfied that the various strategic flood risk work takes this into account. The absence of objections from the Environment Agency, Northumbrian Water and other authorities provides additional confidence that surface and foul water can be appropriately drained from this site’.

 

Additionally, as I’m sure Councillor Brockbank is aware, planning applications are required to provide a detailed flood risk assessment that is reviewed by the Environment Agency, Northumbrian Water and the Council before any planning permission is granted for development.

 

I fully understand the residents’ concerns and I am confident this Council has put in place through the Local Plan policy framework the right polices to ensure their concerns will be addressed, that developer proposals are progressed and the developers are required through the planning process to provide full flood mitigation measures on their site.

 

If we now look to address the Local Plan because Councillor Brockbank has consistently tried to make political capital by statements that he is against the Local Plan. I had at first put this down to naivety; however he has had this situation explained a number of times yet he continues with his misleading simplified slogans of opposition to the Local Plan but as yet failed to answer how he would resolve the disastrous consequences of following his policy.

 

Let me reiterate what those consequences are. First of all the Local Plan is a requirement of his Conservative Government and if we don’t have a plan we will be subject to government intervention. No plan means developers can submit planning applications at will and in the past a number of proposals which were not supported by the Council were allowed on appeal. Do you honestly believe that developers would not welcome this situation and pile in with unrestricted development plans for Murton Gap possibly increasing from 3000 to what developers originally wanted - 5000 houses - on that particular site?

 

Your policy replacing the Local Plan and your published statement to oppose all building on Murton Gap site will require you to find sites for an additional 6592 houses above the present number. I explained this at a past Council meeting how that was arrived at. If you preserved the green belt then there are two alternative strategies, either to build on brownfield sites or on the greenfield sites.

 

Does he propose that the extra 6592 houses will be built on brownfield sites? If he does then he could not have read the plan he proposes to get rid of because the Government Inspector stated ‘the Council has undertaken a through exercise which has considered a vast array of brownfield sites including those suggested in representations. Where suitable and achievable for housing they are already accounted for in the Plan. There is no compelling evidence that a significant brownfield site has been overlooked. The finite capacity of brownfield sites in North Tyneside would not meet all the housing, employment and service needs over the period to 2032. Consequently, this would not be a reasonable alternative spatial strategy, therefore green land is required’.

 

So if you rule out brownfield sites and still take out Murton Gap, where will the greenfield sites be for the additional 6592 houses? Once again he won’t provide any alternatives and he won’t tell us or the residents of the borough where he proposes to build these houses.

 

Once again the government inspector states ‘the spatial strategy of the Plan seeks to secure sustainable development to meet the identified development needs while simultaneously protecting the green belt and significant areas of identified green infrastructure. Given the character and relatively small size of the Borough, balancing these factors is not without challenges but it also means that there are few, if any, reasonable alternatives to the spatial strategy’.

 

So if there are fewer alternative ways to protect the green belt, and Councillor Brockbank has failed to identify a single alternative site for his additional 6592 houses, then he must be considering building on the green belt.

 

The consequences of this would be in the words of the government inspector, ‘I am not persuaded that any alternative sizable green belt options are available that would not harmfully result in unrestricted urban sprawl, coalescence of settlements or encroachment into the countryside’.

 

So I’ll finish by saying the alternative is clear, support our Local Plan to give us the tools to control development and protect the green belt or go with the political posturing of the Conservatives and end up with uncontrolled development and unrestricted urban sprawl.

 

Councillor Brockbank asked the following supplementary question

I would invite you to look at comments by residents in Bromley Avenue who have been affected by this. Could I invite the Cabinet member to depart from the scripted speech for a change and respond to those residents who have been on to me in droves, to give 100% guarantee the next time there is a downpour in Bromley Avenue that they will not be subject to flooding. A simple question yes or no?

 

Councillor Pickard responded as follows:

 

Once again there are two different issues because I thought you would have done your homework and found out from the officers what the problems are in Bromley Avenue.

 

I have already stated that the significant action that would be taken on the site would not have an effect on Bromley Avenue because all the off flow from that site would be contained within the development needed. At the moment the reason it is flooding is because the water is coming straight off the site. But even when it gets there, there would still be an issue in the surrounding area because of historical development in that particular area.

 

And I could perhaps invite you to meet with the officer responsible and try and find out the facts of the case before you start winding people up and giving false hope.

 

 

2. Question to the Elected Mayor by Councillor L Miller

 

Will the Elected Mayor join me in welcoming the opening of a brand new, state of the art Ambulatory Care Centre at the Northumbria Specialist Emergency Care Hospital, thus enhancing the first class NHS provision our residents already receive?

 

Councillor M Hall responded on behalf of the Elected Mayor as follows:

 

Of course we are delighted to welcome the opening of the new purpose built, state of the art Ambulatory Care Centre at the Northumbria Specialist Emergency Care Hospital.

 

The Ambulatory Care Centre will allow North Tyneside residents to have timely access to urgent care services, which will hopefully alleviate the demand placed on the emergency department. Just in case anyone is not familiar with the name ambulatory care it just means you’re able to get there to the centre by your own resources.

 

However, many of our residents do not feel that they receive first class NHS provision and still have lots of concerns, which are shared with the Cabinet and myself. There is no A & E provision in North Tyneside and our residents have to go to either A & E in Newcastle at the Royal Victoria Infirmary (RVI) or Cramlington at the Northumbria Specialist Emergency Care Hospital.

What we do not welcome are the long waits some residents have to see a GP. Often the reason why people resort to attend A & E and urgent care departments is because they cannot get access to their GPs.

 

It is hoped however, that the new centre will enable 150 patients each day to be assessed, treated and discharged home on the same day basis, avoiding unnecessary admission to hospital. Their care will be delivered in a purpose built building that has been designed to be a relaxed and comfortable environment for patients.

 

Whilst struggling with waiting lists to keep to an 18 week standard, delays in ambulance handovers and over 4 hour waits in A&E, Northumbria Healthcare got an outstanding CQC rating. The staff in the hospital are rated against the best in the country. All the staff are dedicated to giving the best service.

 

I end this answer by hoping that no one here has to use its wonderful facilities especially this summer.

 

3. Question to the Elected Mayor by Councillor J Wallace

 

Can the Elected Mayor assure me that when a school is oversubscribed, the address of every applicant is properly verified before any places are granted?

 

Councillor P Earley responded on behalf of the Elected Mayor as follows:

 

Yes I can confirm that in 2014, during our administration, a system was introduced to verify the addresses of applicants for schools that are oversubscribed against Council Tax records. If there are any discrepancies with the records the Local Authority writes out to parents to request that they provide supplementary documentation to prove that they are residing at the address on their application form.

 

Such supplementary documentation can include household bills, driving licence and payslips.

 

Of course if Councillor Wallace or indeed any other Councillor has concerns about instances of fraudulent misuse of the admissions system they should report that to the admissions team.

 

Councillor Wallace asked the following supplementary question:

 

As many children in my ward within the catchment area of Whitley Lodge First School didn’t get places at their first, second or third choice school, and I understand that this has happened in other wards in previous years, does that verification extend to all the neighbouring schools which parents may have selected so that all those choices are verified or all those applicants are verified and how many cases of fraudulent applications have been detected this summer?

 

Councillor Earley responded as follows:

 

It extends to those schools that are oversubscribed and in terms of the number of cases where there were allegations raised that is less than 5.

Supporting documents: