Agenda item

To consider any questions submitted by Members of the Council, in accordance with Standing Order 4.8.11 (b). Any questions received prior to the deadline will be published as supplements.

In accordance with Standing Order 4.8.11 three questions had been submitted by the required deadline set out in the Constitution.

 

There was also one urgent question submitted in accordance with Standing Order 4.8.11(d)(ii).

 

(A)  Council Response to London Luton Airport Application

 

Councillor Ralph Muncer to Councillor Elizabeth Dennis (Leader of the Council)

 

(B)  Levelling Up Funds

 

Councillor Terry Hone to Councillor Ian Albert (Executive Member for Finance and IT)

 

(C)  Council Office Reception

 

Councillor David Levett to Councillor Elizabeth Dennis (Leader of the Council)

 

(D)  Housing for Asylum Seekers

 

This question was accepted as urgent in accordance with 8.4.11(d)(ii) of the Constitution by the Member to which the question was addressed. The reason provided for the matter being urgent was that the issue had potential to cause community tensions and to bring the Council into disrepute.

 

Councillor Dominic Griffiths to Councillor Sean Prendergast (Executive Member for Housing and Environmental Health)

Audio recording – 7 minutes 11 seconds

 

In accordance with Standing Order 4.8.11, three questions had been submitted by the required deadline set out in the Constitution.

 

(A)  Council Response to London Luton Airport Application

 

Councillor Ralph Muncer to Councillor Elizabeth Dennis (Leader of the Council).

 

“We note decision by Cabinet to object to the application, in conjunction with other local authorities, from Luton Rising for a Development Consent Order to increase the capacity of London Luton Airport from 18 million passengers per annum to 32 million passengers per annum.

 

As Luton Airport is owned by Luton Borough Council which is under the control of her Labour colleagues. Will the Leader commit to lobbying her colleagues both at Luton Council and in Westminster to oppose the unnecessary expansion of Luton Airport?”

 

Councillor Elizabeth Dennis gave a response as follows:

 

“I am of course in regular, honest and frank conversations with the Leader of Luton Borough Council, around multiple issues which affect both of our districts, our district and their borough, given the boundary that we share and the transience of our populations across that particular boundary.

 

Clearly Luton does rely on income from the airport to support its funding for its very complex communities and in order to meet its housing needs, and against the backdrop of uncertain funding of local government by central government. It is, of course, key to ensure the success of the borough and everybody’s opportunity to thrive in those particular spaces. The airport is, of course, also a major regional employer, providing jobs to North Herts, notwithstanding that this Council has quite clearly declared a Climate Emergency and takes those responsibilities incredibly seriously. And we have, as Councillor Muncer will note, objected to parts of the expansion in principle. I do have quite detailed commentary on this from Officers and, if it will save Council time this evening, I’m more than happy to provide that as a written response to Councillor Muncer, rather than reading it out as part of my response to this part of the question, or any supplementary.

 

However, I think it’s also worth drawing Councillor Muncer’s attention to the fact that Luton Rising, which was the body set up to manage not just the airport, but the benefits that fall out of it and the wider community aspects, they have set up an Environmental Impact Assessment and created a green controlled growth body. This green controlled growth aspect is new, environmentally focussed framework for managing long-term sustainable growth at London Luton Airport and it will produce binding limits. Not just binding in our terms, colleagues, but legally binding limits for the airports noise, carbon emissions, air quality and service access impacts.

 

The controls that are proposed, and that will be enforced, as I said are legally binding. The plans for growth would be approved by a new independent body, which would, amongst others, include representatives from both this Council and Luton Council, and clearly link through to Dacorum and other key stakeholders in local government in this region, with approval only to be provided where it is shown that growth can be contained within acceptable limits.

 

So, this is something that is independent, it is not in the interest of shareholders. It is very much in the interest of the communities, and it is legally focussed on the environmental impacts and will be subject to regular public reporting. If monitoring would suggest at any point that any of the limits were in danger of being breached, then there must be plans to set out how that breach would be avoided and, again, these plans would require agreement by this new, independent body.

 

If any environmental limits were ultimately breached, further growth would be stopped and mitigation would be required. GCG limits will include a robust system of governance, and independent oversight, to ensure that performance against environmental limits is properly monitored and managed. So, again, this isn’t something that is part of delivering a massive new airport, which is going to be potentially environmentally damaging, there is very clear focus being given to independent assessment of the environmental risks, mitigations must be taken and, if it is indicated at any point that what is proposed in respect of this airport could have irreparable, irreversible environmental damage it will be stopped.

 

I’m most happy to provide Councillor Muncer, again, with the full written notes I’ve been provided by Luton Council.”

 

Councillor Muncer asked a supplementary question, as follows:

 

“I thank Councillor Dennis for providing that response and I would be very interested in reading the response that Council has submitted to the public enquiry that is about to begin.

 

But I must say I do think residents will be disappointed somewhat with that response, because it does sound almost it’s been taken from the Luton Council.

 

The Leader mentioned about funding, how Luton relies very heavily on funding, so could I put this question to her: does she believe it is right taxpayers had to bail out Luton Council in 2021 to the tune of £35billion, due to their poor financial management, specifically failing to diversify financially instead of relying on the income, of which was gained from London Luton Airport?”

 

Councillor Dennis responded:

 

“I wish I could answer Councillor Muncer’s question, unfortunately I think that it’s actually a question that is better posed to a different local authority, which has all the access to the relevant information required. But if Councillor Muncer wishes to continue to discuss the environmental aspects of Luton Rising, our relationship with our neighbours, either Luton or our other neighbours nearby we need to work with productively, I’m more than happy to continue that relationship. But I would respectfully refer my colleague to the relevant authority to answer that sort of technical question.”

 

N.B. Councillor Lisa Nash entered the Chamber at 19.40.

 

(B)  Levelling Up Funds

 

Councillor Terry Hone to Councillor Ian Albert (Executive Member for Finance and IT).

 

“What applications have been made or are in preparation by this Council for grants from Governments £4.8billion Levelling Up Fund?”

 

Councillor Ian Albert gave a response as follows:

 

“The Council to date has not submitted grant applications to the governments levelling up fund, although we actively considered a bit in partnership with Network Rail and Herts County Council for the Hitchin station easter access project under round two of the levelling up fund in September 2022. This would have been to fund the subway, or possibly a bridge, under the railway line, a bridge over the railway line, access from the eastern side of the station.

 

Neither Network Rail or Herts County Council had any funding to offer for the scheme and with the timescales that we were being set. And obviously the uncertainty from Network Rail, of whether there was actually a deliverable scheme, we chose not to make a bid at that time. But Members have expressed their desire to proceed still with the project in the interim. As part of the budget setting for 23-24, the joint administration proposed that the Members agreed match funding with Hertfordshire County Council, to consider a wider project scope, which including exploring additional options, other than the subway, including improving access for people walking or cycling to Hitchin station from the east of the town and, indeed, generally across the town.

 

The government has not announced the details and timing for round three yet, they are still evaluating the first two rounds. A further £1bn is still left to spend. Michael Gove said, I believe, at the LGA Conference that he has listened to issues around bidding for funding and that the levelling up fund will change for the next round, but we don’t know when that timetable is yet. Our working aim though, is to have the outline business case in time, hopefully to be able to submit a bid in round three, but it is too early to say yet whether this will be possible, since we don’t know when the levelling up fund round three would be launching.”

 

Councillor Hone asked a supplementary question, as follows:

 

“Thank you, Councillor Albert, that was very detailed, we appreciate your commentary around what is happening at Hitchin station. We were also disappointed that we had not made any progress on that. It does beg the question, do we have contingency, if that’s not successful? Do we have other plans to go for the governments levies to see if we can get funding for other projects, that may be on the agenda?”

 

Councillor Albert responded:

 

“Yes, we will always look at other alternative and we continue to look at whether there are other schemes and indeed obviously in relation to this particular project, other funding available. We’ve had recent meetings with Hertfordshire County Council looking at the projects and we would certainly hope to be able to deliver a scheme in time for whatever funding might become available.

 

But I think it would be clear that it is worth say here that obviously looking into the question, I think I was struck by a quote from the Conservative mayor of the West Midlands, Andy Street, who has criticised the bidding process, the centralised system of allocating funding, arguing that the process should be devolved for local decision makes to decide what’s best for their areas. That’s what we would really like as an administration to see, to not be part of an auction bidding process, but to actually have the funds to make those decisions within this Council, by residents and their elected representatives.

 

But of course, more than happy Councillor Hone to discuss any thoughts and ideas you have on this outside of the meeting. We are keen to work cross party on this, both with Hertfordshire County Council and our local MPs on any projects people come to us with ideas. We are very happy to sit down and have those conversations with you, or other colleagues.”

 

(C)  Council Office Reception

 

Councillor David Levett to Councillor Elizabeth Dennis (Leader of the Council).

 

“When will the reception at the Council Offices re-open full time for personal callers?”

 

Councillor Elizabeth Dennis gave as response as follows:

 

“It’s a relatively simple answer. As Councillor Levett knows the Customer Service Centre is open for drop in visitors all day Mondays and half day Wednesday. But more than that we are open full time, we have Customer Service staff in the office 9 to 5 Monday to Friday and they are available for any customer or visitor who arrives with or without an appointment. That means that, if someone were to present themselves at our office doors as homeless for example, or needing some other urgent assistance, they are always going to be assisted. That might involve a face-to-face meeting or a referral onto another agency. I’ve got quite a lot of other, further information, Councillor Levett, about the background to this, the journey that we’ve been on and where we would like to that this further in terms of the Customer Service Strategy, that I’m more than happy to share with you offline.”

 

Councillor Levett asked as supplementary question, as follows:

 

“A number of people, many people, aren’t aware they are still able to make personal calls when reception is physically closed, does the Council have any plans to make that a lot clearer to people, because online isn’t always seen by people?”

 

Councillor Dennis responded:

 

“I absolutely take the point about digital exclusion and that is something that we do try to work on when we can, to send engagement to all communities. As I said though, if anybody does turn up outside the Council offices, whether or not it’s during one of the advertised and semi-official slots on the Mondays and Wednesdays, there is always somebody in this building who is able to assist and will come down to provide the help and support that people need.

 

Of course, communications can always be better, we can always communicate more, we can always communicate across new, diverse, as well as existing channels effectively. And I take the point on challenge about making sure that none of our residents are left behind or forgotten when it comes down to communications.”

 

The Chair advised that there was also one urgent question submitted in accordance with Standing Order 4.8.11(d)(ii), which had been accepted by the Member to which the question was addressed. The reason provided for the matter being urgent was that the issue had potential to cause community tensions and to bring the Council into disrepute.

 

(D)  Housing for Asylum Seekers

 

Councillor Dominic Griffiths to Councillor Sean Prendergast (Executive Member for Housing and Environmental Health).

 

"Would the Executive Member for Housing and Environmental Health please outline any communications between the home office and the council regarding the use of Needham House, located in the village of Little Wymondley, to house asylum seekers?”

 

Councillor Sean Prendergast gave a response as follows:

 

“Thank you, Councillor Griffiths, for your question. The Council was first contacted by the Home Office in early April raising the possibility of using Needham House to house asylum seekers. There was limited detail at that stage. In May, the Home Office informed the Council of its intention to use the hotel and advised that despite our concerns people would be moving in shortly. The Home Office then effectively postponed this decision and there has been no further meaningful communication from the Home Office, despite concerns from Members in this Council to engage in dialogue with them.

 

Last week the Council was made aware that the hotel would be re-opening for asylum seeker families less than one day before people moved in. There was no formal notification provided by the Home Office. All in all, the communication from the Home Office on this subject has been very challenging to say the least, often with no response to important questions. Frankly, their unwillingness, or ability, to enter into meaningful dialogue with local authorities is completely unacceptable.

 

It is clear that use of hotels in this way cannot be appropriate for vulnerable asylum seekers. Even before taking into account the individual factors associated with each site, including isolated locations such as this. In addition, the impact on already stretched local services has already featured heavily in feedback to the Home Office. However, despite concerns being raised the Home Office conducts its own assessment and unilaterally decides if it proceeds, as well as the timing of the initial occupation.

 

The Council has, and continues, to make it clear to the Home Office that this location is unsuitable. The village where it is located has few facilities nearby, for example it has no shop, and transport links are limited. A media statement to this effect was made previously and these concerns remain.

 

The joint administration at North Herts Council would like to stress the fact that North Herts is a welcoming, friendly place and we strongly reject the governments hostile language and policies towards migrants. They have been wrongly portrayed as responsible for the failures of this government to deal with the housing crisis, low wages and the lack of social cohesion in many communities. The Council believes that migrants and seekers of asylum should be treated with dignity and respect. We as Members should feel empowered to expose the flawed arguments of people seeking to exploit concerns that people have about immigration.”

 

Councillor Griffiths asked a supplementary question, as follows:

 

“Thank you very much for the response as well. Will the Executive Member commit to keeping local residents informed about any such facility, proposed or current as well?”

 

Councillor Prendergast responded:

 

“I absolutely understand the concerns that local people may have around this, and I think it’s vitally important to keep residents up to date. The Home Office leads on identifying and procuring facilities and placing the asylum seekers there. However, if and when the Home Office tells us they are using accommodation in North Herts in this way, we will of course alert local ward Councillors, so they can share this information.”