Council – 24 February 2025 – Questions Under Standing Order 22
From Cllr Barry Dunning to the Portfolio Holder for Environment and Sustainability, Cllr Geoffrey Blunden
Can the PH for Environment and Sustainability please update members on any impacts of the January 2025 storms to Hurst Spit and of any plans for NFDC to undertake any necessary maintenance works.
Reply:
Our coastline was affected by two named storms towards the end of January. The 27th January storm was slow moving and sustained Hurst Spit and other coastal areas to a prolonged period of damaging waves.
Once conditions allowed, post-storm inspections and surveys were undertaken by our coastal team who I would thank for their immense efforts over the last month.
Initial inspections show that a length of approximately 400m of Hurst Spit was damaged, with a general reduction in crest width from around 12m, down to 1m in the most affected sections. This means that there is no longer vehicle access for operational purposes for those managing Hurst Castle.
With regard to undertaking any works to repair the Spit I can confirm that NFDC has no plans to currently undertake any works to restore Hurst Spit to its condition prior to the storm impacts.
NFDC has no land ownership responsibility for Hurst Spit, or any operational responsibility. Land ownership for the main body of the spit is shared across a number of organisations and private individuals.
The current position on not undertaking maintenance and repair work is due to the funding constraints of there being no external funding to support any works. Due to the limited property flood risk there is no available funding through the flood and coastal erosion risk management route of grant in aid. Along with this, those organisations and stakeholders that own or have an operational interest in Hurst Spit have declined to provide any supporting funding to enable works to take place.
It should also be noted that even if funding became available that assent would be required from Natural England to enable any works progression. And I would add that there is no legal duty on NFDC to undertake flood and coastal erosion risk management activities at Hurst Spit or for any other areas of the New Forest coastline. The powers to act are purely permissive.
There has been no change to NFDC’s policy on managing Hurst Spit and undertaking associated maintenance works. We will continue to do so if the following applies:
· Funding is available either through central government grant or contributions to support required works; and
· Works are required to protect against flood and erosion risk. Note - NFDC will not undertake works to enable vehicle or pedestrian access along the Spit; and
· Appropriate assents and licences are in place to enable works to progress, including Natural England assent (to work within a site of special scientific interest, (SSSI).
Should the member wish to further understand the past management of Hurst Spit I would suggest a review of the recent PH decision paper.
Note – in response to a supplementary question on a lack of funding, the Portfolio Holder agreed to attend a meeting of a campaign group called 'Save Lymington and Keyhaven’ to understand ongoing concerns. In the meantime, the Portfolio Holder would be writing to the Secretary of State to express his concerns over the lack of funding.
Question 2
From Cllr Hilary Brand to the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Economy, Cllr Derek Tipp
During the Planning Committee in January, it became apparent that building regulations visits and enforcement are not being carried out as effectively as they should. Please can you let us know how many Enforcement Officers and Building Reg Inspectors did we have six months ago, how many do we have now and is this enough for NFDC to be effective?
Reply:
The Planning Enforcement team consists of three enforcement officers and one team leader. The Building Control team consists of six inspectors, three trainees and a team leader. There have been no changes in personnel over the last six months and both teams are fully staffed. Both services are subject to significant regulation and the Building Control service is currently the subject of a planned audit by the Building Safety Regulator.
I do believe that we give a good, effective service with existing staffing levels. It is important to realise that not every construction site in the New Forest uses our Building Control service, with their being a significant private sector presence for many sites. With privately employed inspectors providing a competing service.
There have been recent occasions where development sites have initially used privately employed inspectors who, have then ceased trading whilst the development is being constructed. On such occasions, the application reverts back to the local authority’s building control service, who will take swift action to assess the works on site and ensure that subsequent construction meets the relevant regulations and standards required, including consultation with other bodies where required.
Note – in response to a supplementary question on what influence the Council has on third party building control, the Portfolio Holder stated that ultimately, private businesses should uphold the required standards and the Council could only intervene when concerns were discovered. He offered to arrange a meeting with Cllr Brand and a senior officer to discuss the matter further.
Question 3
From Cllr Jack Davies to the Leader of the Council, Cllr Cleary
I hope the Leader was as shocked as I was when it was revealed that, despite being on the verge of bankruptcy, Hampshire County Council still pays for the King’s official representative in Hampshire – the Lord Lieutenant – to the tune of £130,000 a year. Does the Leader agree with me that the King should pay for his own Lord-Lieutenant, not the hard-up taxpayers of Hampshire?
Reply:
I believe that the value of the Lord-Lieutenant is well recognised as part of our historic civic arrangements across the county. I understand that every aspect of the county council budget has been looked at rigorously through the budget-setting process and as such it is not for me to comment on the future funding for this role.
Note – in response to a supplementary question which invited the Leader to write to HM the King on this matter, she declined to do so, highlighting that this was for Hampshire County Council to consider.
Question 4
From Cllr David Millar to the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Economy, Cllr Derek Tipp
With unitary authorities due to be established in the next couple of years, and with them the end of New Forest District Council as a legal entity, what reassurance can we give our residents that the funds this council has received under the Community Infrastructure Levy – totalling many millions of pounds – will be spent in the New Forest, for the benefit of New Forest residents, once the spending decision passes to another authority?
Reply:
As you have already heard tonight, the Leader of this Council has already reiterated our commitment to ensure that the interests of our communities are placed at the heart of discussions about future local government reorganisation. Until we hear otherwise, this Council will continue to lead our communities in delivering high quality services across its areas of responsibilities, including the collection and expenditure of the Community Infrastructure Levy. The framework for allocating the expenditure of these funds is well established through an Expenditure Framework which was last revised in October 2024 by this Council. As outlined in the Leader’s speech tonight, the proposed capital programme budget for 2025/26 - 2027/28 includes Developer Contributions (S106) and CIL funded projects of over £11 million. Further work will be undertaken next year to ensure the Council continues to facilitate the delivery of projects using the funding it collects for this purpose.
Note – in response to a supplementary question on the timing for passing on funding through local government reorganisation, the Portfolio Holder highlighted that it was too early to foresee any potential timing of reorganisation and therefore it would be unfair to speculate on this issue.
Question 5
From Cllr Mark Clark to the Leader of the Council, Cllr Cleary
The Leader of this Council has been an outspoken advocate for Freeports, championing their widely touted economic benefits. However, at the recent Waterside Vision event, the CEO of the Freeports acknowledged that any tangible gains may not materialize for another 25 years—another case of economic transformation forever on the horizon, yet to be realized.
Meanwhile, the gravitational pull of the Freeports threatens to accelerate the fragmentation of the New Forest’s existing structure, drawing the Waterside ever closer to Southampton’s economic and political sphere. Given that devolutionary shifts may see these assets siphoned away, can she outline the concrete mechanisms she has secured to ensure that any future prosperity remains within the New Forest?
Reply:
I have to say, I am disappointed that the tone of the contributions from the opposition is sinking so low, and I really hope you reflect on the impact some may feel from your wording.
I was pleased that Cllr Clark and a number of other councillors present here today were able to attend the recent Waterside Vision event. An event where a number of landowners, key businesses and voluntary and community representatives came together to receive updates on the progress being made on work across the Waterside and to discuss how we can continue to work collaboratively to maximise the potential of the Waterside in the best interests of our communities.
Clearly, Cllr Clark and I have a very different recollection of the event and indeed what the purpose of our work on the Waterside, and the designation of the Freeport is trying to achieve. To state that the CEO of the Freeport company warned, that any tangible gains might not arise on the waterside within the next 25 years is plainly false. Indeed, we know that there are key projects already being delivered at Solent Gateway in Marchwood and through the FAST project at Exxon Mobil.
That's not to belie the challenges ahead as we seek to bring forward the wider opportunities across the Waterside and the associated economic, social and environmental benefits that it can bring. Members will recall that the key priorities of this Council were agreed in April of last year across a series of themes ranging from transport/wider infrastructure, Employment and Skills, Prosperous Communities and Environmental Sustainability and the development of a Local Delivery Plan. Work is now underway to develop these themes into a clear proposition within the New Forest Freeport Delivery Plan which will be subject to Member scrutiny and consideration in due course.
Note – in response to a supplementary question on the concerns over securing the future benefits in the New Forest area, the Leader stated that she did not agree with the councillor’s view on this issue.
Question 6
From Cllr Alex Wade to the Portfolio Holder for Environment and Sustainability, Cllr Geoffrey Blunden
In the past couple of months I have had more queries on bin bag deliveries that almost any other issue. Can the Portfolio Holder reassure Residents living in Totton and the Waterside, who are in Phase 3 of the change over to Wheelie Bins, and therefore will be using bin bags for 12 months, that any remaining deliveries of black and recycling bags are delivered on time, any delays are communicated much clearer, and resilience plans are in place to reduce impact on our residents?
Reply:
I am pleased to say that sack deliveries are currently running according to schedule.
In the last quarter of 2024, higher than usual staff sickness led to the service making a choice between delivering sacks and running core waste collections. Of course we prioritised the collection of waste and recycling from our residents, and this led to some delays in getting sacks out to residents in some areas. As soon as available, additional resources were deployed to clear the backlog of deliveries, and this situation has now been recovered, with deliveries being back on schedule.
This information was available to residents on our website, specifically on the sack deliveries webpage, and the Customer Service Team were provided with a brief to manage queries from our residents. The resource and cost associated with the delivery of sacks is one of the reasons why this Council is modernising its services in 2025 and 2026 via the rollout of wheeled bins and a new food waste recycling service, which will also significantly improve our recycling performance.
Note – in response to a supplementary question on the information made available to the customer service team, the Portfolio Holder felt that the team handled these issues well and provided accurate information to residents.
Question 7
From Cllr Colm McCarthy to the Leader of the Council, Cllr Jill Cleary
As this lame duck administration limps rapidly towards its own demise, by what criteria will assets be handed over to Town and Parish Councils for their continued management and what is the time scale?
Reply:
Firstly Cllr McCarthy, we are not a lame duck, and we are not going to limp anywhere. We have always been a strong council, and we will continue to be a strong council until the last day of existence in our current form.
In terms of your question, officers are currently in the process of drafting an asset strategy, which will reflect the Local Government Reorganisation context. That document, which I am expecting to see finalised later in the Spring, will set out a policy position to include the appropriate process that we will follow to determine which assets may suit transferring and / or may suit alternative management going forwards. That formalised process will consider the appropriate assessment criteria and will set out a likely timescale for this as a significant project. We will also need to take steps to set up the appropriate channels for dialogue with our Town and Parish Councils and potentially the broader community sector. This all needs setting out in a structured way, and resourcing effectively to ensure we achieve the best outcome for our residents. Our commitment of £1.4 m in the budget to support this process is a clear sign that we intend to deliver on this as a priority action whilst we still exist as New Forest District Council.
Note – in response to a supplementary question on the approach to Town and Parish Councils on these matters, the Leader confirmed it would be a consultative process.
Question 8
From Cllr Stephanie Osborne to the Leader of the Council, Cllr Jill Cleary
It’s no secret the New Forest has one of the largest elderly populations of anywhere in the country. This puts us in a weak position during local government reorganisation because nobody wants to fund the cost of providing social care in the New Forest.
The truth of the matter is that social care shouldn’t be a postcode lottery. Instead of being funded through council tax, it should be funded by central taxation. Does the Leader agree? If so, will she write to Government calling for social care to be funded through central government taxation, not through local council tax?
Reply:
The Government states that local government reorganisation is designed to create simpler more sustainable councils. Within this the demographics of the New Forest is only one aspect for consideration. We believe our communities, our businesses and our council will be a strong contributor to any future unitary council.
With the Commission on Adult Social Care reform chaired by Dame Louise Casey just launched I do not think it is sensible to jump to a conclusion as to the correct solution, and I will therefore not be writing to the government on this matter, which is outside our current remit.
Note – in response to a supplementary question on securing good social care in the New Forest through local government reorganisation, the Leader felt that this was a matter for new unitary authorities to consider.
Question 9
From Cllr Caroline Rackham to the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Economy, Cllr Derek Tipp
Some years ago in Totton we were given the assurance that there would be a structured plan of the development in North Totton, across the entire site. Those plans seem to have dissipated as development has taken place in a piecemeal way so I wonder what assurances there may be that plans for future developments will be enforced?
Reply:
Cllr Rackham is correct that in allocating land for development at North Totton (Policy SS1 of the adopted Local Plan) there was a recognised objective for the different landowners to come together and prepare a comprehensive development framework for the entire allocation. This was identified in order to ensure delivery of an integrated, whole site, approach to the provision of routes across it, the mix of uses and facilities and spread of green space. However, since the adoption of the Local Plan it has not been possible to bring the landowners together to secure such a development framework for the comprehensive development of the entire site.
The absence of such a framework cannot preclude the duty that the Council, in its role as Local Planning Authority (LPA), has to determine planning applications made to it based on the overall merits of the proposal.
Note – this question was dealt with in writing as it fell outside the 30 minute time limit at the meeting.
Question 10
From Cllr Patrick Mballa to the Leader of the Council, Cllr Jill Cleary
Does the Leader agree with me that restrictions on disabled bus passes introduced by her fellow Conservatives on Hampshire County Council will have a disproportionate impact on people in the New Forest because of our rural nature?
Reply:
Whilst I would prefer County Councillors not to have to make any decision that has a negative impact to any resident of the New Forest, I do understand that the financial challenges faced by Hampshire county council have led to some very difficult decisions having to be taken.
In terms of this particular decision, I have to trust that the County Council have carried out an appropriate equality impact assessment, and I’m sure will not have taken the decision lightly. I would encourage any resident who has been adversely impacted to contact their county councillor, who can make the appropriate representation at the County Council.
Note – this question was dealt with in writing as it fell outside the 30 minute time limit at the meeting.
Question 11
From Cllr Janet Richards to the Portfolio Holder for Environment and Sustainability, Cllr Geoffrey Blunden
In response to a motion originally put to this Council on 13th May last year, regarding measurement of the Council’s carbon emissions, the Council agreed to establish a Task and Finish Group to consider this.
The Climate Change and Nature Emergency Annual Update report approved by Cabinet on 2nd October clarified that a Climate Change and Nature Emergency Strategy was currently being drafted and would be informed by the Task and Finish Group which would explore the issues over a 12-month period, starting in Autumn 2024.
Since the Task and Finish Group is yet to be set up, please could you tell me the reason for the delay and clarify the latest timescale for the commencement of the Task and Finish Group and for the completion of the Climate Change and Nature Emergency Strategy?
Reply:
Given the breadth of scope and complex nature of the subject matter, careful consideration has been given to the format and content of both the Task and Finish Group sessions and the background information, to ensure that Members are well informed and able to maximise the value of the group discussions.
Consultation on key issues and opportunities has been undertaken at an officer level, and a draft climate change adaptation report has been created to provide a clear understanding of the expected impacts and key hazards for the New Forest District, helping to inform future priorities. This report will be discussed at the next Place and Sustainability Overview and Scrutiny Panel on 13th March.
These extensive preparations have taken more time than initially envisaged; however I feel that the sessions will be better as a result. Can I ask that colleagues with an interest in sitting on this Task and Finish Group make themselves aware to Democratic Services when volunteers are shortly invited, so that we can commence as soon as possible after the Overview and Scrutiny Panel meeting.
Note – this question was dealt with in writing as it fell outside the 30 minute time limit at the meeting.
Question 12
From Cllr Sean Cullen to the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Economy, Cllr Derek Tipp
Retrospective permission has been given to use the important Fawley site for storage and not for housing for approximately a year. Can NFDC guarantee that this is only a temporary measure and that the site will return to housing use as previously stated?
Reply:
As Cllr Cullen will be aware, there are currently three temporary planning consents for a variety of commercial activities within the Fawley Waterside site. Whether applications are made to extend these temporary planning consents beyond their current time limits is ultimately for the landowners to decide and this Council will consider any such applications on their merits.
Whilst the site is allocated in the current Local Plan for a residential led-development, it has never been used for housing and the viability challenges of delivering housing on this site are well known. The landowners of the site are beginning to undertake work to identify a new, longer term future for the site, alongside the preparation of our Local Plan Review. My officers will continue to proactively engage with landowners in this work, engaging with local communities as appropriate.
Note – this question was dealt with in writing as it fell outside of the 30 minute time limit at the meeting.