Agenda item

Councillor Chris Darcel posed the following question, under Council Procedure Rule No. 9 to the meeting: -

 

1)      Question to Councillor Jeff Summers, Leader of the Council, from Councillor Chris Darcel

 

Leader,

 

“The Fiskerton Draft Neighbourhood Plan 2018.

 

First, I would like to congratulate the District Council for its excellent record in supporting neighbourhood plans.

 

Fiskerton residents have studied a number of these plans and it seems they have followed formula laid down in the Neighbourhood Plan Documentation to the letter.

 

Ie. Residents can :

1)           choose where within their parish boundaries development can go,

2)           specify the number of future houses to come to the     community

3)           choose where necessary future infrastructure should be located,

4)           define the character of the new development and

5)           must ensure the community is more “sustainable” after development than it was before.

 

Unfortunately, in Fiskerton this has not happened.

 

The Fiskerton plan is not a “Neighbourhood Plan” the residents have been ignored. and the plan grossly exceeds the sustainable growth level of between 10 to 15% for small to medium villages. The 50% growth suggested has no demonstrable local support.

 

Sometime in 2014, several group members asked officers what size a sustainable village should be? A population of 2000 was suggested!

 

Consequently, the NPG’s first plan in October 2014, was overwhelmingly rejected.

 

An alternative, smaller plan, locating the fewer houses north of the village hall, was supported by residents in December 2014. The Chairman thanked residents for their support and the plan was forwarded to WLDC as first draft. It progressed no further and now the village has changed.

 

The May 2016 plan was jointly drawn by the Church Commissioners and two members of the NPG, It was for 224 homes north of Ferry Rd. It was overwhelmingly rejected by of show of hands at the May meeting.

 

In June/July 2016 an alternative plan building to the west of the village was suggested by a resident and has considerable support.

 

Yet it was the unwanted May plan that was re submitted to WLDC in December 2016. It was later taken down from the Council website for technical reasons.

 

It is this same unwanted May plan that is again being proposed for the village.

 

With other development in the village, the approximately 200 new homes north of Ferry Rd could easily bring 250+ properties to the village. With the 10 HA site proposed, at 24 h/p ha, the total could easily exceed 300.

 

Residents have never been asked the questions and grossly incorrect information has been repeatedly given out by the Group. Residents surveys and petitions have been ignored.

 

The 2018 Plan document is not a true reflection of events past nor an unbiased analysis of responses collected in 2016. The results have been gerrymandered and residents do not wish to see this happen again.

 

The situation is so bad that a large banner has been sited at the east of the village  saying “No to 250 houses: vote no to the Neighbourhood plan.”

 

The 10 residents who asked me to raise this question wish to ensure that proper consultation and dialogue is conducted and that any documentation and statements made by the Neighbourhood Plan Group are factually correct and analysed openly without bias.

 

Leader, residents need the assurance that the plan will conform to the criteria laid down in NP legislation and is a result of proper two way consultation with residents, and results will be analysed fairly and openly and checked with residents, before the District Council publishes the information or forwards the plan to the Inspector.

 

Thank you”

 

Note:  The question, as detailed above, is as summarised to the meeting. The written version that was submitted and accepted was substantially longer and is available on line.

 

The Leader of the Council responded as follows: -

 

“Firstly I feel that I need to clarify the situation; the group are responsible for their communications, they are not compiled or controlled by WLDC.  If any person does raise errors with the Council they will always be referred to the relevant group to respond to.  Officers have always advised you of this. The Council has no role in controlling or monitoring the communications between any of the 35+ groups currently operating across the district and their local communities. 

 

Likewise, matters such as the volume and location of growth are for neighbourhood plan groups to identify and can be taken forward or rejected as their plans evolve. Inevitably this will lead to differing views amongst the community because development affects people in different ways. This is not failure. In fact, this principle is accepted and is why neighbourhood plans do not require unanimous support but a simple majority.  Such occurrences should not create the serious cause for alarm you imply in your question to Council.  It is expected in any democratic process, and that process must be followed.

 

In terms of the assurances that have been requested; The correct procedure for adopting a neighbourhood plan is always followed. A consultation is not flawed simply because it has not led to every individual’s view being taken forward.  Residents have been consulted at the relevant statutory stages and now the scope of those consultations - plus any further comments that are made at the Reg 16 submission stage - will be matters for an Independent Examiner (not WLDC) to consider in due course.

 

Contrary to your view there is no requirement for the group to repeat consultations, nor to consult on other options identified by individuals outside of the neighbourhood plan group simply because they don’t agree with the approach the group has taken.  Likewise, there is no requirement for a group to repeat stages or keep revisiting alternative options simply out of fear that some may not agree. 

 

There is a formal process all neighbourhood plans in the Country will, and have, followed. WLDC will ensure the same applies in Fiskerton as you have been frequently and comprehensively advised throughout the last 4 years.”

 

Having heard the response, Councillor Darcel requested and was permitted the opportunity to pose a supplementary question, as follows: -

 

“Thank you Leader. 

What can be done then if the documentation put out by the Neighbourhood Plan Group is neither factual, accurate or unbiased.  Thank you”

 

The Leader responded and advised he was of the belief the Inspection would deal with such matters however he would request the Neighbourhood Planning Officer to respond to the additional point in writing to Councillor Darcel, within 14 days.

 

Councillor Ian Fleetwood had submitted the following question, under Council Procedure Rule No. 9 to the meeting: -

 

2)      Question to Cllr Jeff Summers, Leader of the Council, from Councillor Ian Fleetwood 

 

“Litter and dog mess continue to be challenging issues across the District. Gainsborough is fortunate to have a mechanical sweeper to aid the removal of debris that some people can’t be bothered to dispose of correctly, but the rest of the District can only rely on the occasional kerb-side sweep by a larger machine that can’t combat the pathways and other areas. Litter is particularly bad on the Lincoln fringe area where takeaway containers and tins are ejected from vehicles as they leave the city, but also within villages such as Bardney and Cherry Willingham where some individuals have used the recent dark evenings to cloak their activity.  Dog mess is bad enough, but it seems some owners insist on collecting the mess and then hanging the bags in the hedgerows or throwing it into nearby fields.

 

I have been made aware by a resident of a campaign in Australia called “Don’t be a Tosser” which aims to deter people from tossing their rubbish from their vehicles.  It seems that a similar scheme could be adopted in the UK, and it would combat both litter and dog mess.

 

There is a real need to get the message across to all people within the District that the District Council will prosecute and fine if evidence is brought forward. Furthermore I would welcome an increase in resources from all organisations to combat these on-going activities, so that we can all make the area a more desirable place to be.

 

I would therefore ask the Leader if he agrees with my view on this matter?

 

Thank you”

 

The Leader of the Council responded as follows: -

 

“Yes, I do agree with your comments.

 

Street Cleansing in West Lindsey is challenging with varying demands including clearing fly-tipping. Recently, at 3-30 pm I came across 20 tonne lorry load of office equipment / packaging, tipped and blocking one carriageway on a road in West Lindsey. After reporting the incident to our waste officers, the load was removed by 6-00 pm. One example of how we react to such disgraceful behaviour.

 

Servicing 600 dog bins and over 900 litter bins, as well as dealing with litter and dog fouling on roads, paths and verges is a normal day for us. Currently 15.6 full time equivalents undertake this work and cover almost 1,500 kms of highway.

 

The service performs well when benchmarked against others and the Team Manager involves the team and volunteers in local and national campaigns such as Clean for the Queen. 

 

Main roads are particularly challenging for the team, especially dual carriageways and the A15 and A46. Localised litter picking does take place. Sadly a couple of headline national  incidents where operatives have been seriously injured by fast moving vehicles on main roads, means that work previously undertaken by single man crews would now require additional resource to be put in place.

 

I can reassure Members that enforcement action is taken where evidence is available in relation to littering and fly tipping. Enforcement of littering from vehicles on main vehicle routes is not something that we have a specific resource or programme of work for, however on occasions where officers do see this type of incident it is followed up formally.

 

We now have a resource of portable cameras which can be deployed where a need is identified. These cameras could be used to catch fly tippers, litter louts and dog fouling.

 

Some communities, mine included, have adopted a local spring parish litter pick with volunteers which in our case, 2 to 3 hours for half a dozen people. The difference is noticeable.

 

I have tasked the Street Cleansing Manager with identifying and quantifying the resource required to undertake a thorough cleanse of main roads in the District.

 

I am also asking for a paper to be taken to committee for a debate on this subject as all of the offences I mention have a detrimental impact on the Council’s finances and seriously impact upon the attractiveness of our district.

 

Thank you.”

 

Having heard the response, Councillor Fleetwood requested and was permitted the opportunity to pose a supplementary question, as follows: -

 

“Thank you I am pleased to hear the Leader is looking into the resourcing and how efficiently teams work.  I am also pleased to hear how they function on the A Roads of West Lindsey.  However, the area I am trying to talk about is on a C Class Road, specifically the Bardney Road, coming through Fiskerton, through the bottom end of Cherry Willingham onto Lincoln, for example, where there is an abundance, including fly tipped material, objects thrown out of windows.  Within the Leader’s response he is talking A Classed roads, this is a C Classed road, this does not cover this area, I would like to see the situation expanded so it does, can he assure me of that please?”

 

The Leader responded as follows: -

 

“Thank you at this point I can assure Councillor Fleetwood, that any flytipping on any road, if it is on highway property and not on private land, then we are obliged to remove that.  Any other type of work that may be required can I ask that Councillor Fleetwood either forwards that to myself direct or to our officer Ady Selby who will address it appropriately.”