Basingstoke & Dean Borough Council Council Meeting

Apologies were received from Councillors Court, Frost, Gaskell, Golding (maternity leave), Grant, Howard-Sorrell, Lee and Tomblin.

Councillor Peter was absent.

There were no declarations of interest.

The minutes of the meeting held on 20 October 2022 were confirmed as an accurate record and signed by the Mayor.

Resolved: That

1)        Councillor David Leeks be invited to stand for election as Mayor at the next Annual Meeting for the 2023/24 Municipal Year.

2)        Councillor Stuart Frost be invited to stand for election as Deputy Mayor at the next Annual Meeting for the 2022/23 Municipal Year.

The Mayor announced that he had held his Civic Day at Whitchurch Silk Mill.  He praised the staff for improvements that had been made to accessibility, visitor experience and maintaining the Victorian looms which produce silk material of which one loom was producing material for the coronation of King Charles III.  He also highlighted that the Silk Mill had received three awards for excellence.

From   Mr Harrison – Basingstoke Croquet Club

To:      Cabinet Member for Partnerships

Background

The Basingstoke & Deane Playing Pitch Strategy 2015 – 2025 mentions croquet at pp 24 and 25.   It summarises the then (2015) situation as follows:

Facilities for croquet:    a dedicated lawn at Down Grange which is utilised throughout the season for inter club activities, U3A bookings and fixtures against other clubs.

Changing facilities are not in close proximity to the Lawn  (nor was there any shelter)

“What we should do”:   support the Croquet Club to identify a location and carry out a viability assessment for a second lawn

“How we should do it”:  in consultation with Club and Operations Team, identify site for second lawn and cost implications, with the intention to add as an additional multi use element to future external funding bids for Down Grange Sports Complex.

“What principle this supports”:  provide - the growth and expansion of niche sports clubs should be supported within the borough 

“What is the Council’s role?” :  (for croquet)  – collaborate – play an active role in delivery partnership.

Follow-up

Following that report Council officers met with the Croquet Club committee;  it became apparent that a second croquet court at Down Grange was not feasible so the suggestion was made that the Croquet Club should look at sharing one of the bowls greens at South Ham.  Meetings were facilitated by officers and as a result a partnership with the Thornycroft Bowls Club ensued.   That has resulted in the two clubs forming a single entity (Thornycroft Bowls and Basingstoke Croquet Club) with semi-independent bowls and croquet sections.  Needless to say this was at no cost to the Council and the move saved the need to maintain the croquet court at Down Grange.

This liaison has proved highly successful, to the extent that the croquet club has doubled in size since the move to South Ham in 2019 (we now have about 100 members, sharing the green with the bowlers).   The quality of the lawn and the clubhouse has made an enormous difference to the attractiveness of the sport (see https://protect-eu.mimecast.com/s/qodrCAN55SNy8Q5cG-xQC?domain=basingstokecroquet.co.uk).

However, we still face the same problem of having only one court (a bowls green is not big enough for two full size croquet courts).  Two courts are necessary to participate in regional croquet leagues (a croquet court measures 35 x 28 yards).

Current situation

A planning application for an additional croquet court in Russell Howard Park adjacent to the present site was made in July 2022 (22/01870/FUL).   No objections from the public were received but the application was refused by officers for the following reasons:

1      The proposed development would introduce new fencing and the include the removal of part of an existing hedge within an area of public open space at Russell Howard Park.  As such the development is considered to have adverse impacts on the open landscape character and visual amenity of this part of Russell Howard Park. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Sections 12 and 15 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021 and Policy EM1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan.

2      The proposed development would result in the loss of an area of Public Open Space in South Ham, a ward with a significant deficiency of Multi Functional Green Space (MFGS) provision. Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (July 2021), Policy EM5 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011- 2029, the Landscape, Biodiversity and Trees Supplementary Planning Document 2018 and the Green Infrastructure Strategy 2018.

3       The proposed development would be positioned in close proximity to a significant group of trees which are considered to be important features in the local landscape. In the absence of adequate information, the Local Planning Authority is unable to fully assess the impacts of the proposal on these trees, the loss of which would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (July 2021), criteria (b) and (e) of Policy EM1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011- 2029, and the Landscape, Biodiversity and Trees Supplementary Planning Document 2018.

Question

In view of the Council’s expressed support for croquet in 2015 and the fact that officers facilitated the move to South Ham will the Council look again at the planning application and work with the Croquet Club to find a way forward?

Answer

Thank you, Dr Harrison, for your question.  I am very pleased to hear that the Basingstoke Croquet Club has seen a growing interest in croquet following the move from Down Grange to the Thornycroft Bowling Club where the bowling lawns double up as a croquet court.  The aspiration to continue to encourage further growth of croquet players in the borough is very welcome.  For context the Howard Park and Thornycroft Bowling Clubs are adjacent to each other in the Russell Howard Park.  Unfortunately the Howard Park Bowling Club does not currently have the capacity to share their lawn to accommodate a croquet court.  It should also be noted that the council has supported both the Howard Park and Thornycroft Bowls Club with investment to improve clubhouse facilities and continues to heavily subsidise the maintenance of the bowling lawns.  This year the Basingstoke Croquet Club met with council officers on site to discuss a potential planning application to create a second croquet court adjacent to the current bowling lawns.  Following consultation with the council’s Natural Environment team, officers made the club aware than an application for planning permission on that site was unlikely to be successful and why.  Once a planning application has been refused it cannot be reconsidered other than through the formal appeal process however that should not be the end of the discussion about future facilities for croquet in the borough.  The Sports Infrastructure team are keen to meet again with Dr Harrison and the club to explore other options and I too would welcome an invitation to visit the club.  It is for example important to analyse the current usage and demand for croquet at Thornycroft to understand the drivers for another court and to explore in more detail the reality of the viability of having two courts.  An outcome may be that croquet would be better supported located elsewhere in the borough rather than in South Ham where there is a shortage of publicly accessible green space.

Supplementary Question

I am grateful to Councillor Vaux for her response.  Can I take it that she will be willing to meet with officers of the croquet club to discuss a possible way forward and that she will commit to such a meeting?

Answer

Yes of course, I commit to that.

Dame Maria Miller MP presented a petition requesting the council to reconsider its housing target to a more sustainable level in the upcoming Local Plan Update.

The Mayor stated the petition would be passed to the Head of Sustainability and Infrastructure for consideration.

Following a change in the political composition of the Council, a review of proportionality and seat allocation on committees was considered.

Resolved:  That the revised scheme of proportionality and allocation of seats as set out in paragraph 3 of the report be agreed.

Following Councils review of the allocation of committee seats the following changes to committees were agreed:

Appointments

1.     Councillor Taylor on the Community, Environment and Partnerships Committee.

2.     Councillor Robinson on the Economic, Planning and Housing Committee and Councillors Jeans and Edwards as reserve members.

3.     Councillor McIntyre as a reserve member on the Standards Committee.

4.     Councillor McIntyre as a reserve member on the Manydown Overview Committee.

5.     Councillor Taylor to replace Councillor Jeans as a reserve member on the Scrutiny Committee.

6.     Councillor Curruthers as a reserve member on the Development Control Committee.

7.     Councillor McCormick from a reserve member to a full member on the Development Control Committee

8.     Councillor McCormick from a reserve member to a full member on the Standards Committee.

9.     Councillor Howard-Sorrell to the Manydown Overview Committee.

Resignations

10.  Councillor Robinson from Audit and Accounts Committee as a reserve member.

11.  Councillors Taylor and Jeans as reserve members on the Human Resources Committee.

12.  Councillors McIntyre and Freeman from the Manydown Overview Committee.

13.  Councillor Peters from Licensing Committee.

14.  Councillor Howard-Sorrell from the Development Control Committee, Standards Committee and Crime and Disorder Joint Scrutiny Committee.

Council considered recommendations from the Audit and Accounts Committee to recruit a co-opted independent member to join the Audit and Accounts Committee. This was to ensure that the Council met its statutory responsibilities for governance and internal control arrangements, financial management, financial reporting and internal audit. It also followed best practice as set out in CIPFA’s position statement that each authority’s audit committee should include co-opted independent members to provide appropriate technical expertise.

Resolved: That

1.     Council approve that a co-opted Independent Member be recruited to the Audit and Accounts Committee for a period of two years with an option to extend for a further two years.

2.     Council approve that the recruitment of the Independent Member be led by a panel consisting of the Chair of the Audit and Accounts Committee and two opposition group members of the committee, and the Head of Financial Services and Commercialisation (Deputy Section 151 Officer) to be present as adviser to the panel.

3.     Following the recruitment process, a report to formally appoint the Independent Member be presented to a future Council meeting.

4.     Council delegate to the Head of Financial Services and Commercialisation (Deputy Section 151 Officer), in consultation with the Chair of the Audit and Accounts Committee, authority to finalise the role description, skills, competencies and person specification attached as in Appendix 1 of the report.

Council Tax statute and regulations provide for Council to decide on the discretionary aspects of Council Tax and to approve a Local Council Tax Support Scheme prior to setting the Council Tax base for each financial year by 31 January.  The report considered by Council proposed no changes to the existing scheme for 2023/24 other than the uprating of premiums, applicable amounts, disregards and non-dependant deductions. It also proposed that eligibility to means tested benefits was adjusted accordingly for any addition or amendment to any social security benefits or compensation schemes, intended to be disregarded (such as Windrush Compensation Scheme, London Bombings Charitable Relief Fund)

The following amendment was moved by Councillor G James and seconded by Councillor A Bowes.

That the wording in paragraph 5.10.5 of the report be amended to:

The recommendation is for the current discounts to remain in place except where the resident also pays council tax for a further property in the borough and the property is uninhabitable and under repair is their main residence where 100% discount will then be given in the first 12 months.  This is to enable properties in repair due to fire, floods or dilapidations to be brought into use while having a reduced council tax charge.

Following debate, the amendment was carried.

Resolved: Council approve

1.     The Council Tax Support Scheme which is unchanged for 2023/2024.

2.     The care leavers council tax discount which is unchanged for 2023/2024.

3.     That council tax discretionary discounts are maintained at the 2022/23 levels for 2023/2024with the introduction of 100% discretionary discount in the first 12 months for a resident’s main home that is uninhabitable and where council tax is being paid elsewhere by the resident in the Borough.

4.     That the long-term empty property premiums are maintained at the 2022/23 levels for 2023/2024.

In accordance with the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements)(Meetings and Access to Information (England) Regulations 2012 (the Regulations”) and the Council’s constitution, Council received an information report which detailed a decision taken by the Cabinet under the special urgency provisions.  The decision related to the decision to approve the Manydown Development Vehicle LLP budget for 2022/23.

Resolved: To note the report.

Council considered a request to grant a dispensation to Councillor Stephanie Grant for non-attendance at council meetings for a period of six consecutive months.

Resolved: That

1.     In accordance with section 85 Local Government Act 1972 a dispensation for Councillor Grant from attending meetings of the Council on the grounds of ill health from 16 August 2022 for a further period of 6 months be approved.

2.     It be noted that further absences which could exceed a six month period after 16 February 2023 will require further approval by council and be the subject of a future report.

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

The following motion was proposed by Councillor Freeman and seconded by Councillor Konieczko:

This Council believes that:

The current proposals contained in the Basingstoke Leisure Park Draft Master Plan lack the necessary scope, ambition and vision to make the future Leisure Park worthy of our residents in a growing Borough.

This council notes that:

Key attractions that would make the park a regional destination and generate economic advantage for the borough – such as a multi-use stadium and event centre, a 50-metre pool, or a snow dome - have not been included in the current masterplan

·           Basingstoke Town Football Club do not have a permanent home and a multi-use stadium would give an opportunity to provide one.

·           Adequate proposals for sustainable transport and access to and from the Leisure Park, as well as linkages with the town centre, have been missed.

·           A commitment to building a carbon neutral park in line with our climate emergency targets or using the assets to become a net energy exporter has not been considered.

This council resolves to request that Cabinet asks officers to review the Leisure Park redevelopment plans and engage further with EPH Committee with regard to updated plans with a commitment to:

·           Explore the options around including several main draws for the park to provide a great asset for residents and a place that attracts others from the adjacent areas.

·           Identify sustainable travel options for visitors to the park.

·           Include a clear plan for maximising carbon neutrality in the buildings and potential revenue streams through green energy solutions

The motion was fully debated.

The Portfolio holder for Finance and Property with responsibility for the redevelopment of the Leisure Park stated that feedback from residents following a consultation had been considered.  He referred to the council’s investment to build a new aquadrome and ambition to reimagine the Leisure Park to be a regional attraction to attract visitors, create new jobs and benefit the town centre.  He clarified that no decision had been made on the facilities that would be provided at the Leisure Park, the Masterplan was a framework to open up opportunities to the leisure market for attractions for all ages and which were financially viable.  Attractions such as a snowdome had not generated any interest and a 50 metre pool had been considered but was costly to run and limited other swimming activities but a competition standard pool was being considered.  He added that any viable business case for a football stadium would be considered.  He further added there was a commitment to making the Leisure Park carbon neutral and for improvement to transport links and pedestrian and cycle access.  He concluded that he would continue to listen to the views of EPH committee.

During debate comments were made in support of the motion that the masterplan was uninspiring and wasn’t ambitious enough to be a regional draw to attract visitors to Basingstoke. 

A number of councillors supported the motion to review the plans and felt that to take the opportunity to make the Leisure Park a leisure destination, key attractions should be considered for inclusion in the masterplan e.g. a snowdome, 50 metre swimming pool.  A number of councillors supported the inclusion of space for a multi-use stadium which would provide the opportunity for outdoor events, theatre performances, sporting events and a venue for Basingstoke Town Football Club which would attract visitors to Basingstoke and boost the economy.  A community sports hub with surrounding activities linked to a multi-use artificial grass pitch was also highlighted as an opportunity to attract people. 

Comment was also made regarding a holistic approach to the ambitions for Basingstoke to connect the Leisure Park to the town centre and Basing View rather than separate strategies.  Green energy and how the Leisure Park could be powered was also highlighted as a key area for discussion.  It was commented there should be a balance between marketplace provision and the council’s ambition for the Leisure Park and how that could be achieved.

There was general consensus regarding the importance of the Leisure Park to local residents, as a destination to attract visitors from surrounding regions and to benefit the economy.

The motion was unanimously supported.

Resolved: The motion be carried.

The following motion was proposed by Councillor McIntyre and seconded by Councillor K Tuck:

This Council notes that:

Every river in England is now polluted beyond legal limits and in 2019 the Environment Agency rated just 14% of rivers as ‘Good’. The government's own statistics show that continuous discharge of treated sewage is the largest source of water pollution from water companies and that these water companies have damaged 36% of English rivers, releasing untreated human waste into our waterways over 400,000 times to a total of 3 million hours in 2020 alone. In that same year just 3.6% of pollution complaints made to the Environment Agency resulted in penalties.

Government funding to the Environment Agency to monitor river quality and regulate farms and water companies, has dropped 75% since 2010/11. Consequently farms are now rarely inspected, water quality is rarely tested, and water companies can pump raw sewage into rivers with virtual impunity.

Therefore, to protect our Rivers Itchen, Loddon, and Test – and their tributaries this Council resolves to request the Environment and Climate Action Portfolio Holder write to:

·           The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs calling for the Government to urgently address these issues through the Environment Act 2021.

·           All three of the Borough’s Members of Parliament, asking for their support in this matter.

·           The Chief Executives of Southern Water and Thames Water, calling for urgent action to address the impact of waste-water discharges on our local rivers.

·           The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Environment Agency and the Regional Director of the National Farmers’ Union requesting clarification on the action being taken locally by farmers to prevent nutrient run-off.

·           The charities River Action and The Rivers Trust expressing this Council’s support for their campaign to restore the health of Britain’s rivers.

And recognising the special status that the River Loddon presents, a rare type of habitat with only 210 chalk streams found worldwide, that this Council resolves to request the Environment and Climate Action Portfolio Holder write to:

·           The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency requesting reversal of the triennial reporting system and implementation of a more robust annual assessment under the Water Framework Directive.

Additionally, that officers report any instances or complaints of pollution in Basingstoke & Deane's waterways and rivers to the Portfolio Holder for the Environment and Climate Action and that CEP be asked to review such reports, including requesting the appropriate agencies account for their actions.

The motion was debated.  Comments made expressed the importance of protecting the borough’s waterways, biodiversity and habitat of the chalk streams and rivers.  Concerns were raised regarding phosphates, nitrates and sewerage overflow in the rivers and the pressure of new development on infrastructure.  The reduction in the frequency of monitoring water quality was also raised as a concern.

The Portfolio Holder for Environment and Climate Action supported the motion and agreed to write the letters as requested.  She confirmed the letters would support those previously sent earlier in the year by the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Infrastructure to relevant government ministers which raised issues regarding water quality in the borough and urged the government to improve monitoring regulation and enforcement and infrastructure investment.

It was requested that the letters sent by the Portfolio Holder’s be shared with members.

The motion was unanimously supported.

Resolved: The motion be carried.

Councillor Slimin proposed and Councillor Cubitt seconded the following motion:

This Council believes that our Borough faces a housing crisis and we need to deliver more, genuinely affordable homes to meet local needs.

We also share a frustration about the limited influence that the planning system gives us in relation to private developers and housebuilders.  This has far-reaching implications and leads to problems such as lack of housing affordability, long waits for local people on our housing register, insufficient infrastructure delivery, low quality design and build, poor environmental standards and an inadequate housing land supply position, to name just a few of the serious issues facing our Borough.

This Council recognises that building our own affordable homes – in effect, council housing – offers a potential solution to these problems especially giving us more control of what is being provided and where. Moreover, these homes should be offered to local people in the first instance so that our residents benefit most from the Council's investment. 

This Council resolves to request that Cabinet undertake the research required to enable us to urgently bring forward proposals on how the Council can become a housebuilder. This can be either by becoming a Housing Authority or adopting one of many delivery solutions already deployed by many other local authorities across England.   Any report on the findings to be brought to the EPH committee for their initial consideration within six months.

The motion was fully debated and comments were made which included:

·         The council currently has no control over the type of homes being built, when they are built and where. 

·         There are over 4,000 people on the housing waiting list, the cost of living, rises in mortgages rates and high rates for private rented properties will increase further demand on the waiting list for affordable properties.

·         There is a lack of accessible bungalows being built for those looking to retire and downsize.

·         Winchester City Council was given as an example of the management of council owned housing stock and the building of high quality, well-designed, energy efficient, low carbon homes to meet resident’s needs.

·         Developers control the market; the council should take back control to provide housing that is wanted by residents and which will provide a better financial return than other current investments.

·         The importance and support that social housing provides to those that need it should be acknowledged.

·         Net migration was an issue for consideration, the council has a duty to look after all residents and protect its finances.

·         The council needs to build houses where there is the opportunity.

·         Houses need to be delivered on Manydown.

·         Schemes such as Help to Buy, shared ownership and the council’s own home loan were opportunities for residents wishing to buy their own home.

·         The council’s target for new affordable homes had been exceeded every year since 2018/19 with 399 social homes delivered in 2021/22.  Nomination rights enabled local residents to be put first.

·         It was commented that there should be caution regarding the approach to council house building as it would not work as a model, was not financially viable or practically deliverable, would not serve residents of the borough or reduce the housing register nor deliver more affordable homes than the current planning system and the council could not secure the land to deliver new homes or compete with land promoters or large scale builders.  There would also be significant staffing resources and technical expertise required for the council to build homes.

·         It was acknowledged that affordable rent was still expensive.

·         It was highlighted that the council’s commercial property advisers had previously advised that investment in residential opportunities was predicted to be the biggest investment sector over the next 20 to 30 years and residential investment provided regeneration and long-term income and had attributes to produce capital.

·         The primary focus of private house builders is making a profit, not helping to solve the housing challenges such as long waiting lists on the housing register, inadequate housing land supply, insufficient infrastructure and low quality design and build.  Supporting the motion was a step to taking action to solve the issues.

·         The council has a strong record to deliver socially affordable housing, housing to buy and intermediate products as demonstrated by previous regeneration schemes for Oakridge and Bishops Green by working with partners and residents.

There was general agreement that there should be more provision of affordable homes.

The motion was unanimously agreed.

Resolved: That the motion be carried.

Question 1

From:  Councillor D McIntyre

To:       Cabinet Member for Homes and Regeneration

Following the tragic case of Awaab Ishak, the toddler in Rochdale who died as a result of prolonged exposure to damp and mould in a housing association property, could the Cabinet Member for Homes and Regeneration update Members on the actions this Council is taking to ensure that the same tragedy does not take place in our borough?

Answer

This administration believes that residents have a right to be safe in their homes.  This deeply saddening case should prompt all councils to evaluate their approach to housing standards.  I want to reassure members that we take damp and mould concerns incredibly seriously and that this council is committed to helping residents with housing disrepair issues regardless of tenure.  A specific meeting regarding the management of damp and mould has been held between my senior officers and the boroughs housing associations.  This council has emphasized the importance of swift action by registered providers and landlords to resolve damp and mould issues where they are raised.  I’ve made clear to my officer team that monitoring how housing associations and landlords manage disrepair issues including damp and mould is the top priority.  Where registered providers do not deliver for our residents, the council will investigate and where necessary take enforcement action.  In cases where a resident reports hazards to their health or which a landlord has failed to address, officers undertake specialist inspections.  Where hazards might result in a significant risk to health the team has a range of enforcement powers available to them and recently the Secretary of State advised that the thresholds for triggering enforcement actions should be lowered.  My officers also carried out a review of capacity within the housing standards team, rather conscious that this would be a more challenging winter with rising energy bills, we have increased specialist staff on hand to support residents.  I have asked my officers to prepare further information and guidance on how ward members can support residents with concerns regarding damp and mould and this will complement advice that we have circulated to key community groups and which housing associations have themselves sent to residents.

Question 2

From:  Councillor Slimin

To:      Cabinet Member for Finance and Property

Cost of Living Assistance Fund 

Since its launch in August and my concern raised with you as to how residents will be made aware if its existence, I am pleased to report that information on the CoLAF is now more prominent on the council website which is welcome.

Could you now update us as follows: 

How many claims have been received to date? 

Are they from all areas of the Borough?  

How many have been paid and how many declined and is so why? 

How much is left in the fund? 

Answer

The COLAF scheme was initiated by this council in July this year. We  allocated £1 million to help during this very difficult time those residents and their families on incomes of up to £25,000 per annum.  Payment was by application and significant efforts have been made to ensure that the scheme has been well advertised with additional support given where necessary to assist in the completion of individual applications. 

I am pleased to tell council that the scheme criteria has been updated and is now being implemented to enable more residents to be able to benefit from the scheme. The main changes will mean that in future in assessing the claimants' income, it will not include any disability benefits received on behalf of a child. It will also not include income from certain benefits, including disability living allowance, personal independence payments, Armed Forces Independence Payments, attendance allowance child benefit and child maintenance. This will enable more residents to benefit under the scheme. Further, a review of claimants, successful or not, will be undertaken to ensure that all previous applicants have been assessed against this new criteria.

Further, £55,000 of the COLAF allocation of £1million has been allocated to support the running of the two citizens advice bureau organisations in the borough, recognising the significant amount of support being given in relation to the cost of living crisis.

·         To 12 December 2022 there had been 2148 applications.

·         Applications have been received from all wards.

·         783 applications have been paid, at a cost of £459,350

Due to exceeding the time limit to respond to the question, the Mayor suggested that that the remainder of the response be circulated in writing.

Question 3 

From:  Councillor Slimin

To:      Cabinet Member for Residents Services

Leaf clearing schedule

Following concerns raised in Tadley about the lack of leaf clearance so far this winter, in conjunction with Tadley Town Council  I have looked at the schedule for this: https://www.basingstoke.gov.uk/leafclearance.   

Can you indicate what the rationale/science is behind the drawing up of the schedule? 

The schedule is a mixture of Borough Wards and Parishes.  Many parishes, including Pamber which is also part of my ward, do not get any leaf sweeping whereas in some cases the ward and some parishes within it are listed  separately as in Evingar ward for example. 

The unparished areas and the town centre get 2 visits because they are ‘high leaf fall areas.  This doesn’t stack up as when you look at the areas via Google maps these areas have far less trees compared to the more rural parishes. 

It is noted that the schedule is for mechanical sweeping only. Can you say if there is a schedule for non mechanical sweeping too?

Tadley is again  not due for any leaf sweeping until the end of December and we do have a lot of trees. We feel that the level of leaf sweeping in Tadley has deteriorated significantly over at least the last 4 years.  The reduction in this service means a large volume of leaves are left on the roads and these subsequently block the drains and then cause local flooding.  Some of the pavements have so many leaves on them meaning that when they are wet, they pose a significant slip hazard to residents, in particular the elderly and less able.  Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council used to send the small pavement sweepers out to Tadley to tackle the pavements but these don’t seem to be used any more in Tadley. 

Will the Portfolio Holder take a look at the schedule and see what changes can be made to better serve the residents of the Borough?  As it stands Tadley just gets one week of leaf sweeping.  This is nowhere near enough given the volume of ancient trees that we have in the parish, as always, we feel Tadley along with some of our parishes are the poor relation! 

Answer

Thank you for your question.

Mechanical leaf clearance is undertaken between 2 and 4 times a year out of leaf fall season (February to October) and a further 2 times in leaf fall season (November to January).  The number of times an area is swept depends on footfall, amount of leaf litter collected based using historical data, and whether the roads are curbed.  We collate this data and review and adjust our annual schedule as required to ensure we carry out the clearance as quickly and efficiently as possible. 

The exact timings of the sweeping will vary depending on factors such as weather conditions and operational factors.  This year’s leaf clearance schedule is currently delayed by approximately 2 weeks due to the extreme cold weather currently being experienced, which makes it impractical for the sweepers to operate.

Tadley is scheduled to receive 4 mechanical sweeps a year out of leaf fall season and a further 2 mechanical sweeps within leaf fall season.  Tadley was last swept early November and was due a further sweep starting 19 December.  However, this has been delayed due to the cold weather and is now scheduled for January. 

The work is undertaken by blowing leaf litter and other debris from the pavements into the roads and then following on with a large sweeper lorry. 

With regard to non-mechanical sweeping, there is no schedule for this across the borough as it is part of the routine work of the operatives based in the area.  However, Tadley Town Council is one of a number of parish/town council areas who receive a Parish Litter Grant from the borough council to undertake and make their own arrangements for litter clearance within the town.  Following on from the concerns raised we will contact the town council to discuss our partnership arrangements.  

There were no questions.