To receive any questions by Members to Cabinet Members submitted in accordance with the Procedure Note.
Minutes:
(1)
Cllr Leola Card had submitted a question for
response by the Pride in Place and Neighbourhood Services Portfolio Holder,
(Cllr Christine Guinness) on the maintenance of the green space to the
demolished Leisure Centre in Farnborough.
Cllr Guinness advised that £12,000 had been spent on maintenance
in this area in 2025/26. Works had included improvements to the skate park,
tree maintenance, grass cutting, clearing of the shrub beds and removal of
graffiti. It was noted that the Council also responds to fly-tips and reports
of trolleys found in the pond.
(2)
Cllr Steve Harden had submitted a question for
response by the Pride in Place and Neighbourhood Services Portfolio Holder,
(Cllr Christine Guinness) on play parks in Fernhill Ward.
Cllr Guinness advised that there was no budget in place for
play parks. However, the Council were in the process of bidding for funding
from a £18 million Government grant aimed at addressing significant
inequalities in children’s access to play, particularly in deprived areas.
It was noted that there were three play parks in Fernhill:
If the bidding process is successful and funding secured,
further discussions would be had on where the money could be invested.
(3)
Cllr Sarah Spall had submitted a question for
response by the Housing and Planning Portfolio Holder, (Cllr Keith Dibble) on
the My North Town project.
Cllr Dibble advised that, he was very pleased to report that
the final phase of the project was very near to completion with the last
fourteen new shared ownership homes soon to be ready for occupation. It was
noted that for many years, North Town had an underserved reputation, due to the
perception of the run-down Denmark Square and Pegasus Avenue estate. The
original estate, which was built in the 1950’s, had been a magnet for mould and
damp, three-bedroom flats on the top floor without gardens, long dark
corridors, and a lack of security.
Therefore, in 2009, First Wessex, with the support of the
Council and ward councillors, agreed a programme to demolish the existing
estate and replace it with quality homes with gardens and open spaces. The then
North Town councillors, Sue Dibble, Frank Rust, and Cllr Keith Dibble, had only
given their support to the housing association if they put “people before
bricks and mortar”, and he was pleased to confirm they had delivered on this
pledge.
The new development, which has changed the landscape of
North Town, now offered 406 homes to rent, 83 for outright ownership, 182 in
shared ownership, and a new fit for purpose North Town Community Base.
(4)
Cllr Jules Crossley had submitted a question for
response by the Housing and Planning Portfolio Holder, (Cllr Keith Dibble) on
conditions in the Local Plan relating to air traffic movements.
Cllr Dibble advised that, any conflict between the local
plan and the content of an application is for the Development Management
Committee to determine as part of their ordinary business, not Council. It was
not unusual for applications to be received which, on the face of them, may
appear to be contrary to a local plan. Rushmoor’s constitution reserves
decisions in which such a conflict arises to the Development Management
Committee to ensure that the decision is made by elected representatives.
The law makes clear that decisions on planning applications
would be in line with the local plan, save where there are planning reasons or
where material considerations so indicate. This was also reflected in the
Members’ Planning Code of Good Practice which states that, Members should
comply with section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and
make decisions in accordance with the Development Plan unless material
considerations indicate otherwise.
As to whether Council would be involved post any decision of
the Development Management Committee, the answer is no. That would be a matter
for the Planning Inspectorate or the Judiciary, depending on the nature of a
challenge to any decision.
(5)
Cllr Rhain Jones had submitted a question for
response by the Housing and Planning Portfolio Holder, (Cllr Keith Dibble) on a
recent meeting with Vivid Housing.
Cllr Dibble advised that, a theme of the Labour
Administration delivery programme was Homes for All: Quality Living, affordable
housing, with a priority to improve social housing performance through more
active engagement with providers.
Working with the Leader and Senior Officers a programme of
meetings to meet face to face with the leading registered providers in
Aldershot and Farnborough has been agreed. Recently, a meeting was held with
the largest social landlord in the Borough, Vivid Homes, at which topics
discussed included the near completion of the North Town development, Awaab’s
Law, dealing with mould and dampness, the Wellesley development in Aldershot,
Farnborough Civic Quarter, a strategy for adopting roads on new developments, a
potential downsizing scheme and performance monitoring.
To deliver the Council’s priorities, it was considered
important to have a strong partnership with the borough’s largest housing
provider and this was the first of a schedule of regular meetings, at senior
level, with Vivid Homes. The Council were also committed to working closely
with all social housing providers to support them to achieve high quality homes
and services for residents.
Therefore, it was especially important for elected members
to feed into the Housing Team and the Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s Housing
Oversight Group, any concerns, feedback, and any escalations, so these can be
presented at future meetings.
(6)
Cllr Gareth Lyon had submitted a question for
response by the Finance and Resources Portfolio Holder, (Cllr Gaynor Austin) on
the impacts of business rates on local businesses.
Cllr Austin advised that all small to medium sized
businesses impacted by the revaluation were being identified, and letters were
being sent out advising of the support available if needed. The Council were
also looking at the effects on Council owned buildings to determine the impacts
and letters were also being sent out to those tenants to advise on any
implications.
Cllr Lyon asked a supplementary question regarding being
kept updated on the situation with hospitality, pubs and bed and breakfast
establishments, Cllr Austin agreed to keep Members updated.
(7)
Cllr Martin Tennant had submitted a question for
response by the Economy, Skills and Growth Portfolio Holder, (Cllr Julie Hall)
on best value for the disposal of Union Yard sites.
Cllr Hall advised that achieving best values was a priority
for the Council in relation to the disposal of assets. External agents were
involved in the pricing and negotiation stages, and all options were set out
and considered by the Cabinet. Statutory Officers from governance, legal and
finance also had an input into any reports considered by the Cabinet. Members
were also reminded of the Overview and Scrutiny call-in process.
It was noted that the Cabinet report on disposals at Union
Yard would be issued the following day and the Cabinet would carry out its due
diligence on 15th December, 2025. Prior to the Cabinet meeting, The Audit and
Governance Committee would be holding a special meeting on 11th December, 2025,
to review the governance arrangements relating to the disposal of Blocks C and
D.
(8)
Cllr Gareth Lyon had submitted a question for
response by the Deputy Leader of the Council, (Cllr Sophie Porter) on the costs
for KPMG in relation to Local Government Reorganisation.
Cllr Porter advised that £34,000 had been contributed to
KPMG and a further £2,000 towards a shared data hub. It could not be confirmed
how much other councils had contributed. It was noted that further costs may be
incurred to an estimated value of £25,000, however this was dependent on the
Governments decision on the way forward.
Cllr Lyon asked a supplementary question regarding the value for money of the costs to KPMG, Cllr Porter advised that the costs had included some upskilling for staff and would ask the Leader to provide a written response on the value for money.