Agenda item

Three questions were received:

Question from Councillor Gorton to the Portfolio Holder for Environment and Recycling:

“I have been told that it is not the policy of the Borough Council to provide new bins for dog waste. Is this correct?”

Councillor Johnson advised that the Council replaced damaged, broken and missing dog waste bins from their current locations.  There was no capacity to add new bins as it required additional resources to service them.

Councillor Gorton asked that, given that the number of dogs kept as household pets had increased there would be a greater demand for these bins.  In light of this, did the Portfolio Holder think that it was time to review the current Policy. 

Councillor Johnson advised that locations could be reviewed by Ward Councillors talking to Street Scene.

Question from Councillor Whieldon to the Leader of the Council:

“As the Leader of the Council is aware, concerns were expressed at the Walley's Quarry Liaison Committee in November 2022 about the Thistleberry Residents Association (TRA) and their continued membership of the Liaison Committee. At the subsequent meeting on 16 March 2023, Walleys Quarry Ltd said they had carried out due diligence, which they refused to share, and said they were satisfied with the TRA and its membership of the Liaison Committee.

Since being elected to the Council last May for the Thistleberry Ward, local Borough Councillors have tried to make contact with the TRA but without success. The TRA have stated they will not provide the names and contact details of the Executive, to us or anyone else, and the TRA will not provide information on meetings and or their contact with residents.

Does the Leader agree with me that there is no evidence the TRA actually represents the residents of Thistleberry and that the Thistleberry Residents Association is being run by somebody who does not live in Thistleberry?”

The Leader verified what Councillor Whieldon had said.  The TRA was being run by someone now living in Betley.  For the last six to eight years it had not been a functioning Residents Association as far as the Leader was aware and that needed to be addressed. 

Councillor Joan Whieldon asked, despite the due diligence conducted by RED Industries, the Council could not be confident that an Executive for the TRA existed or if any members lived in the Thistleberry Ward.  What action was the Leader taking to satisfy himself that the due diligence was carried out by RED in a satisfactory manner and complied with the Section 106 agreement.  In addition, could the Leader assure that if RED were not compliant with the Section 106 agreement, that action was or would be taken by the appropriate authorities.

The Leader stated that he had challenged them at the committee and had also spoken to the County Council regarding the requirement for community representation; and that the operator carry that out respectively and fully.  It was believed that this had been actioned and that Walleys Quarry Limited had been contacted.

It was expected that evidence of the due diligence would be asked for.  It could not be found by anyone who had tried to locate it.

Question from Councillor Brockie to the Leader of the Council:

“Many residents feel that the Sky building has suffered enough and wants putting out of its misery. The people of Newcastle are watching its daily deterioration with dismay, and many feel that it should be brought back into Council ownership. What options, including compulsory purchase, have been considered in order to make the best use of what's left of it?'

The Leader stated that, although it was a scar on the town, it was a private development that the Council could not interfere with, other than checking that the site was safe.  It was believed that there was a battle to take control of the site and once that took place, officers had been assured that the development would be completed. During the past week there had been activity on the site and it was hoped that it would be completed as per its planning permission.

Compulsory purchase would be problematic for the Council as it was not seen as a dead site and would also divert money away from the regeneration projects and risk the delivery of those projects.  The new owner of the site would be held to account and hope that they would continue with the development.

Councillor Brockie sought reassurance that the prospect of diverting money away from the regeneration projects did not put the Administration off looking at the feasibility of having some input into what happens to the building.  Could assurance be given that any checks on stakeholders could be looked into as thoroughly as possible.

The Leader confirmed that the Council would do what it could.

Watch the debate here