Agenda item

(1)       To receive any questions by Members submitted in pursuance of Standing Order 8 (3).

 

Public Questions

 

(2)       To answer any questions from the public submitted under Standing Order 9 in accordance with the Procedure Note.

(1)  Standing Order 8 – Questions

 

The Mayor reported that no urgent questions had been submitted under Standing Order 8 (3).

 

(2)  Public Questions

 

Further to the new scheme for public questions at full Council meetings, the questions that had been accepted had been circulated to Members in advance. Each question was received as set out below, and the Mayor invited a response to each in turn:

 

1. Resident of Fernhill Ward - Council Tax Waiver – Unoccupied Homes - “Will the council consider extending the waiver for council tax on an unoccupied house from 2 months to one year, to give owners a reasonable time to sell, considering it is impossible to conclude the sale of a house in only 2 months. The government allows a waiver for up to one year if the property is on the market. Imposing the full council tax is an unreasonable financial burden on the seller.”

 

Cllr Gaynor Austin, Finance & Resources Portfolio Holder, advised that, historically, properties that were unoccupied and unfurnished were eligible for a 100% Council Tax exemption for up to six months. This exemption was abolished on 31 March 2013, after which local authorities were given discretion to determine whether to apply a discount and, if so, the amount and the duration.

 

From 1 April 2013, Rushmoor Borough Council introduced a 100% discount for a period of three months. This was subsequently reduced to two months from 1 April 2018.

 

The primary policy objective was to discourage properties from remaining empty for extended periods. Limiting the discount encouraged owners to re-let, occupy, or sell their properties more quickly, thereby helping to reduce the number of long-term empty homes, which could adversely affect local housing supply.

 

At the same time, the two-month discount provided a reasonable period for landlords to manage short voids between tenancies without creating a significant financial burden, while still incentivising timely reoccupation.

 

Council Tax was a vital source of funding for local services. Extending the discount period would reduce income and could necessitate increased charges elsewhere or reductions in service provision.

 

Whilst it was recognised that property sales could take longer than two months to complete, maintaining a shorter discount period helped to encourage timely progression of sales.

 

2. Zack Culshaw – Resident of Rowhill Ward – Future of Rushmoor - “Why do the local Labour branch & councillors support the destruction of Rushmoor as a seat of local governance and our identity?”

 

The Leader of the Council, Cllr Gareth Williams, advised that the Council had submitted a proposal to the Government for the reorganisation of Local Government in the wider Hampshire & Solent region, which the Government had accepted. The proposals were a well-argued solution to the current issues that beset local government, of multiple levels of administration, distant decision making on the most important issues that faced residents and duplication of resources that wasted taxpayers’ money.

 

The arguments were set out in full in the proposal available on the Council's website. The administration did not subscribe to the idea that nothing must ever change. Rather it focussed on practical solutions that recognised the complex and dynamic world we lived in and its ever-changing nature. The Leader was confident that the proposals for Local Government Reorganisation were in the best interests of Rushmoor residents and that they would enable our towns to thrive and to maintain their unique character.

 

3. Resident of Empress Ward - Changing Room Policy and Practice - “Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers that “man”, “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological sex, what legal advice or statutory duties did the Council consider when deciding to await EHRC guidance before changing policy or practice, and what interim steps were taken to ensure services and facilities, including Aldershot Pools and Lido, remained compliant with equality law?”

 

Cllr Gareth Williams, Leader of the Council, advised that the Council did not release or discuss legal advice received, which was subject to privilege. In making decisions on operational policy, the Council took due regard of its statutory duties, including those under the Equality Act 2010. The Council was entirely confident it had been fully compliant with the relevant laws.

 

The Leader clarified that the Council did not permit, or allow its contractors to permit, any biological male to access facilities designated as single-sex female. People were expected to use single sex facilities on the basis of biological sex. Current practice was that, should a concern be raised about someone not using the correct facility, staff were expected to ask the individual to confirm they were indeed using the correct facility. If the answer was ‘yes’, staff were not required to challenge further.

 

The Leader assured the questioner that, since the judgement had been published, no members of the public using any of the Council’s facilities or services had raised any concerns relating to other users of the facilities regarding any issue relating to this judgement.

 

Now that the draft EHRC guidance had been published, the Council intended to create an operational policy to confirm how the guidance would be implemented.

 

4. Peter Crerar – Resident of Manor Park Ward - Untidiness of the Borough - “Since the current administration took control, our borough has become increasingly untidy with badly maintained public landscapes, more litter (particularly rotting food) and increased graffiti tagging on public and private property. What is the council going to do to address this decline?”

 

Cllr Christine Guinness, Pride in Place and Neighbourhood Services Portfolio Holder, advised that, in the past two years, reports of offensive graffiti had fallen, while non-offensive graffiti had remained broadly stable. Following significant grounds maintenance budget reductions as part of the Council’s outcomes-based budgeting exercise over three years ago, the Council had continued to manage those reductions through less frequent grass cutting in some areas and had increased perennial planting, both of which had additional environmental benefits. At the same time, litter reports had fallen, community volunteering had grown and street cleanliness continued to exceed our contract targets.

 

5. Member of Rushmoor People First – Community Recovery Fund - “The £600K Community Recovery Fund - It is documented as to what has been spent so far and on what, but what evidence is there that this has actually had any impact on rebuilding social trust and promoting cohesion between communities? Has any of this actually made a difference as it does not appear to have done so. The community seems more divided than before.”

 

The response to the question is currently subject to an investigation by the Council’s Monitoring Officer.