In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, a member of the public resident within the Borough may ask a maximum of two questions relating to the business of the Council providing notice has been received by 10.00am two working days before the relevant meeting.

Five Public Questions had been received.

Mrs Gearon-Simm submitted two questions as follows:

1.            Brentwood Borough Council invited The Local Authority Association to produce a Corporate Peer challenge.  This investigated the performance of the Council.

The Corporate Peer Challenge recommended that:

Brentwood Borough Council (BBC), develops a partnership plan to ensure existing partnership arrangement are appraised and compared – with performances and value for money strong considerations.

BBC were also advised to consider these in light of new opportunities with Rochford or others which all provided greater resilience over the longer terms.

Has BBC developed such a partnership plan?

How much has the outsourcing of Council services to other local authorities cost Brentwood Council tax payer?

Cllr Hossack responded as followed:

I can advise that as part of last year’s Peer Review the Council’s partnership arrangements were discussed and the requirements for these going forwards, hence the recommendation made. The Council does have a Partnership Policy and accompanying procedures and as part of the Peer Review Action Plan we intend to review both the existing arrangements and future ones. The Peer Review Action Plan will include updates on the partnership recommendation, and this will be reported regularly to the Council’s PRED Committee.

With regards to your question on outsourcing of Council services to other local authorities I can advise that we a contract with Braintree District Council to provide our payroll services and have a partnership arrangement with Basildon Borough Council for our Revenue and Benefits Service and a Service Level Agreement with Thurrock Council to assist our Planning, Environmental Health and Licensing Services. 

The costs for these services are contained within the Council’s existing budgets and are set out in the Council's Statement of Accounts.

2.    Clause 99 of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill strengthens the procedure for completion notices for planning permission.  It is clearly Government Policy to facilitate action to secure completion of development in accordance with approved plans.

Will you make representation for amending the Bill so that completion notices should also be introduced for Building Regulation application certifying that the works have been carried out according to the plans?

Cllr Hossack responded as followed:

Thank you for your question. I have sympathy with you on this, responsible developers and homeowners should ensure that the appropriate completion of development is confirmed in line with regulations. However, the Levelling Up Bill and Building Regulations are two quite separate legislative processes. I confirm that presently there is no requirement for homeowners to get a completion certificate issued within a certain timeframe. Once an application has commenced on site it remains open until complete. Often, this will mean that something is open until a homeowner comes to sell the property and searches confirm the work, at which point a new owner would likely request that certificates be issued. Regardless of this, it remains a private matter for homeowners to ensure compliance with building regulations. It’s not a perfect system, but I am not convinced it is a broken system. Therefore, I do not think representations regarding Levelling Up are the appropriate means for the council to raise this issue. Local residents are of course able to raise this type of issue with their MP, and I would encourage you to do so.

Mrs Kortlandt submitted two questions to all Group Leaders as follows:

1.         In the Council's Environment Strategy 2022-25 the KPI for Energy is a measure of the total electricity generated from renewable energy projects. Is this being monitored and, if so, can you tell me how much renewable energy is currently generated by all Council-owned properties? What plans are in place to increase this by 2023?

Cllr Hossack responded as followed:

The Environment strategy referred too is presently draft and out to consultation for six weeks.  Once the consultation is complete, any amendments made, and following final approval we will be in a position to start monitoring the PI’s within  the strategy.   Currently there are no renewable energy projects within the Borough we are aware of, and although there are no plans we are aware of being developed for 2023, the Council are open to applications and further will consider any possible options to create these projects that deliver renewable energy.

We are however working with LADS 2 programme a government scheme to identify projects that will enable retrofitting social housing and private dwellings that could create some type of renewable energy.  This is a continuous process and projects will be define over a period of time.

Cllr Cloke responded as followed:

Unfortunately I don’t have access to that level of detail. We definitely need to promote the Environment Strategy and make more progress on this on a regular basis, that is critical to us.  It is disappointing that there isn’t anything in place already planned for the upcoming year and if we were in charge of the Council we would definitely be pushing more strongly on that particular element.  I can’t add more details on this at this point in time as I don’t have access to those details. 

Cllr Barrett responded as followed:

The Labour Group, in line with our previous motions surrounding the climate crisis, would welcome a measure of the Council’s own clean energy generation, and aspirational goals in line with our climate ambition for 2025, 2030 and 2040.

The potential to use Council properties – offices, depots and housing stock as generation sites is something that should be urgently explored, to not only help take on the climate emergency but also to bring down the spiralling energy costs that are impacting our services and residents.

2.    I note that you propose to outsource the leases of Community Halls. Will there be a requirement in the leases to reduce their carbon footprint? If not, why not?

Cllr Hossack responded as followed:

The lease discussions on the halls are presently ongoing and some of the elements referred to in the question will be included within the leases.  However there are constraints on some of the halls as they are listed buildings, we are therefore working with the Council's Heritage Officer to look at ways to retrofit equipment that can reduce CO2 usage.  

All new tenants and users of our halls are requested to conserve energy and reduce CO2 emissions where possible including the switching off of the lights and any heaters as part of any terms of use of the facilities.  Further I can report that the Council's Asset Team are working through a programme of switching over lights to more energy efficient LCD’S. 

Officers are also working with Unify Group to determine where changes to some of our Council buildings (not HRA) can be made in order to retrofit or introduce technology to reduce the CO2 emissions.  In particular we are looking at ways we can reduce the Brentwood Centre’s CO2 emissions through a government funded report. This should identify potential projects that we can then apply or further funding in order to deliver.

Cllr Cloke responded as followed:

As Cllr Hossack alluded to, some of the halls are protected, some of them are in a very bad state of repair as have been neglected over the years and not a robust planned maintenance plan for those halls unfortunately.  We would certainly call for a full strategic plan in order to make those changes that are needed to the halls to make sure the components of the halls such as windows, lighting that Cllr Hossack mentioned and for those buildings that are listed buildings there should be alternative and options in place and explored and we would hope that those  fees paid for the use of the buildings are directed accordingly to make those more suitable for future use.  Of course, as Cllr Hossack mentioned, encourage users to use the buildings more reliably and responsibly.  And to also think about the people who are going to take the leases on those buildings, making sure those community groups have environmental credentials.

Cllr Barrett responded as followed:

The Labour Group thinks this is an excellent question, which offers a potential route to make sure that any outsourcing maintains the level of ambition that Brentwood has set itself for achieving a net zero authority. We must make sure that any locally owned asset is always used in the most effective way to benefit our community in the round – economically, environmentally, socially and culturally.

Mrs Kay submitted one question to all Group Leaders as follows:

1.     With regard to the site R16 - Land off the Doddinghurst Road Brentwood - that has been adopted as part of the Brentwood Local Development plan.

Some residents have received letters from the landowner, stating that he will be clearing the site after 31 May 2022.

In light of the Environmental Act 2021 and potential health risks due to the pollution from the A12 to residents if this is cleared. Please can the council arrange for the planning department to make a pre-planning site visit so that the site can be assessed as it is currently. Particularly in regard to ‘Biodiversity Net Gain’ to ensure that due diligence is taken out before planning is applied for.

Cllr Hossack responded as followed:

Thank you for your question. The planning department is aware of the letters that have been received locally and has made contact with the landowner / promoter to understand what the timescales are for pre-application discussion and the submission of a planning application. In the meantime, an assessment of the site as is has been undertaken. Any planning application for the site will need to be policy complaint with the council’s new local plan, which allocates the land for residential-led development according to certain criteria, and along with other relevant policies in the plan. This includes the need for a suitable response to landscape and ecology, as well as the consideration of noise for both the new development and relationship with nearby existing homes.

Cllr Cloke responded as followed:

In relation to the R16 site, there is a definite moral obligation to maintain the landscaping to fulfil the policies.  If you look at the Local Development Plan, there are a number of policies in there that support the site being developed or not developed actually and we feel very strongly that it is almost impossible to develop that site whilst still remaining coherent with those policies.  The policy of particular interest relate to:

·         The air quality – obviously removing those shielding trees can have  a detrimental effect on the air quality

·         Removing existing woodland is contrary to the strategic policies in the NE01, 02 and 03.

·         There are badgers nesting there and disturbing them is a criminal offence.

So our position at this moment in time as we have said all along is that site should never have been in the local plan and development of that site will be incredibly challenging to do so in line with the policy set out of our local development plan.

Cllr Barrett responded as followed:

As all of the Labour Group are members or substitutes for the Planning & Licensing Committee, it would be inappropriate for us to give a view ahead of any application. We would expect that a Planning Officer, and the wider committee, consider all relevant legislation and guidance regarding environmental impacts, including upcoming legislation on the net gain requirements for biodiversity, when considering an application, where I can assure you that Labour members will have due regard for this.