Tuesday Night’s Questions And Call-Ins

There ‘s a lot happening at the council on Tuesday night. You can download the agenda from here, but here’s the public questions and the call-ins:

First of all , two questions from members of the public:

 

1 QUESTIONS BY THE PUBLIC

1.1 the following question has been received from Mr J E Cripps of 5 Durham Way,
Rayleigh, Essex of the Deputy Leader of the Council, Cllr K H Hudson:-
‘On the 21st September 2013 Cllr Hudson issued an open letter making
various personal pledges in respect of the Local Development Framework-
Rayleigh & Rawreth. My question relates to the following “quoted”
statement:-
“To facilitate this it will be necessary to relocate the Rayleigh Sports and
Social Club (a valued facility for our residents), they will receive new and
enhanced facilities in recognition of their contribution to Rayleigh life at no
cost to themselves – this is my pledge.”
Recently the Leader of the Council (Cllr Cutmore) has announced, via the
letters page of the Evening Echo, that there will not be any new and enhanced
facilities for RTSSC.
My question is, therefore, at what Council meeting was this discussed/agreed
and recorded.’

1.1 the following question has been received from Mr R Lambourne of 7 Whitehouse
Court, 158 Eastwood Road, Rayleigh, Essex of the Leader of the Council,
Cllr T G Cutmore:-
‘I note from the latest edition of Rochford District Matters that the Council has
employed a barrister to defend an action by a local resident concerning the
Core Strategy and Allocation Plan.
Can you confirm who authorised the defence of this action and in particular
the considerable extra expense that is presumably budgeted for and will be
paid for out of the council tax and why that authorisation hasn’t been
sanctioned by the Full Council?’


And here are the four call-ins to council by the opposition. If the Tories get their way, this will be the last time anything can be called in to council!  The first is an item regarding open spaces taht will be dealt with in private because it has been deemed confidential. The second and third are from UKIP. The fourth is a last-minute one regarding planning policies on density of housing developments, floorspaces etc.

 

REFERRAL OF DECISIONS TO COUNCIL

1 Draft Open Spaces Strategy
1.1 Pursuant to Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 15(b) a requisition has
been received in the names of Cllrs C I Black, M Hoy, J R F Mason and R A
Oatham requiring that the decision under Minute 74 (Draft Open Spaces
Strategy) of the meeting of the Executive held on 2 April 2014 be referred to
Full Council.
Note: The report in relation to this decision was exempt, so this referral will
need to be considered following exclusion of the public and press and is
picked up at Item 18 of the Council agenda.

2 Collections Support Officer
2.1  a requisition has been received in the names of Cllrs J Hayter, J C Burton and N J Hookway
requiring that the Portfolio Holder decision on the post of Collections Support
Officer be referred to Full Council.
2.2 A copy of the decision and associated report is set out at Appendix A.
2.3 The reasons given for referral are that the further work envisaged could be
carried out more economically and reasonably by the existing workforce, in
particular without putting at risk £11,650. Further, as there is £11,650
available in case of no additional income, surely this money could be made
available to support our sorely neglected front line services. These include
the proper care and management of our parks and open spaces, the locking
of our park gates to reduce crime, and the Rayleigh car parking fees issue.

3 Essex County Council Call for Waste Sites Submission
3.1  a requisition has been received in the names of Cllrs J Hayter, J C Burton and N J Hookway
requiring that the Portfolio Holder Decision on a waste sites submission be
referred to Full Council.
3.2 A copy of the Decision and associated report is set out at Appendix B
3.3 The reasons given for referral are that this will not be a fair and equitable
service for the people who live in the East of Rochford District, and may
encourage fly tipping. The Council should consider the following options:-
(1) Two sites, one at Michelins Farm and one at the Eastern end of the
Rochford District.
(2) Accept the Michelins Farm Site for the Rochford District but re-instate
the concession at Stock Road, Southend for Rochford District Eastern
Residents.
COUNCIL – 29 July 2014 Item 8
8.2
(3) Provide one centrally located waste site in the Rochford District
accessible to all Rochford District Residents.

Development Management Plan Examination – Proposed Schedule of
Modifications to Development Management Submission Document
a requisition has been received in the names of Cllrs C I Black, T E Mountain and R A Oatham
requiring that the Portfolio Holder Decision on approval of the Proposed
Schedule of Modifications to Development Management Submission
Document (April 2013).
1.2 A copy of the decision and associated report is set out in Appendix A.
1.3 The reason given for referral is to allow the Full Council to discuss, amongst
other items:-
Ref MM4 “The density across a site should be a minimum of 30 dwellings per
hectare, unless exceptional circumstances can be satisfactorily demonstrated”
Ref MM9 “New dwellings (both market and affordable housing) must adhere
to the minimum habitable floorspace standards set out in Table 3, unless it
can be clearly demonstrated to be unviable or undeliverable.”
Ref MM56 – “Regarding non-retail uses in primary shopping frontages.”

 

15 Comments

  1. Christine Paine

    I find Q2 interesting, mainly because, once again, there is no sign of Rochford District Matters round here, and it isn’t on line either. As RDC regard this as their main information dissemination point this lack of delivery really isn’t very good at all. Makes you wonder why so many people don’t seem to get it.

    Reply
  2. A.Matthews

    Have not had last two copies of Rochford Matters .Was receiving it by post for a couple of issues . I hope others in Rawreth are getting it ,but perhaps we are ignored for a reason .Like the idea of a referendum .What is the procedure to activate it ?

    Reply
  3. admin (Post author)

    Looking at the Fylde website, it seems you need 5% of the electorate to sign a specifically worded petition. after that the council has to call a referendum:

    Find the seminar report on their website for more info: http://www.fylde.biz/

    Reply
  4. Jim Cripps

    Chris a Facebook appeal is the way get you 5% ( of what ?) – whole of RDC area or say Your Rawreth Ward ……worth doing.

    Reply
  5. admin (Post author)

    Oh yes. In the days of facebook, it’s an easy target. But then you have to campaign in the referendum.

    The District Coucnil actually show the figure on their website… http://www.rochford.gov.uk/council_and_democracy/elections/mayoral_petitions

    It’s 3289.

    Let’s see what happens on Tuesday and then decide what to do…

    Reply
  6. Jim Cripps

    It is possible Chris – the RAG effort last summer got over 5000 in just 3 weeks.

    Reply
  7. Christine Paine

    I think the 5% is a very easy target, the hard bit is getting people interested in turning out for the referendum. However sufficient publicity about the cabinet system and the abolition of call in and what this actually means would, hopefully, get enough people annoyed. You would however be up against the Tory machine working with all guns blazing.

    Reply
  8. Jim Cripps

    Christine – I understand your point , we have discussed voter apathy before but Linda and the RAG efforts did generate a large petition , a 3000 word objection tabled to the Inspector several public meetings with 600 / 1000 and 500 ( on a sunny Sunday packed with major sporting events ) at the Mill Hall – all in a matter of weeks.
    And that was just a Rawreth/ Rayleigh issue, this would be a District wide appeal ,as
    It is every voters democracy that is being eroded, so fair chance of success I think.

    Reply
  9. D

    Some interesting questions, will make for some interesting replies.

    Christine, the latest copy was on the website last time i checked.

    Reply
  10. Christine Paine

    With the petition yes, I have no doubt of that. But getting people out to vote in the actual referendum may be the sticking point, although actually having a say in how the council is run may just be novel enough to appeal.

    Reply
  11. Christine Paine

    Thank you D. I’ll look again. Not the easiest web site to negotiate. However, it being on line doesn’t deal with the issue of people who don’t actually have a computer. I doubt they are going to go to the Library just to look at Rochford Matters, and despite what the council think, not everyone has or even wants on line access.

    Reply
  12. Jim Cripps

    Attended tonight’s meeting to ask my question of Cllr K Hudson but he was a no show,
    Wonder why ? – just look at my question above.

    Reply
  13. Christine Paine

    Should be ashamed of himself. If a question has been tabled though shouldn’t he have to answer it anyway, although I suppose if he does it in writing he avoids any follow up. They’ll do just about anything to avoid actually engaging with any member of the public won’t they.

    Reply
  14. Jim Cripps

    Christine – yes I did give enough advanced warning ( more than the 7 days req’d ) and
    last night I did offer to wait for a written response, but the Chairman gave the Council Leader the option to respond. He did , but did’nt answer the question ( who/how & when the committment was shelved ) , my query then counted as my 2nd allowed question – so I could’nt then ask my 2nd allowed question which was who/how & when the New Primary School was axed from the infrastructure list.
    I did however make the point , up front , that my over- riding issue was failure to provide promised infrastructure elements , the public gallery seemed to get the point.

    His formal answer by the way was once they decided not to move RTSSC then the reward for 40 years of valuable service to Rayleigh was not warranted – it was the Inspector’s suggestion to extend the site 30metres Westward to create the road and obviate moving RTSSC ……….draw your own conclusions – JIM.

    Reply
  15. Jim Cripps

    CHRIS – can you start a fresh thread called Infrastructure Components , so we can track all the promises ( Mill Hall display in March listed them ) as each one is broken,
    give me a thread heading and I will add the listing ( I photographed it at the time ) to
    start it off……..thanks – JIM.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


7 + one =

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

You can add images to your comment by clicking here.