Agenda item

The Leader, Councillor Simon Tagg presented the statement that had been circulated about the activities and decisions made by Cabinet to allow questions and comments.

 

Questions were raised and responses were provided as follows.

 

On paragraph 2 – Walleys Quarry Odour Issues

 

Councillor Adcock asked the Leader if he agreed that it was concerning that there was still no timetable for a public inquiry which was one of the key recommendations coming from the Inquiry held here at Newcastle last year but were still awaiting a response.   Did the Leader also agree that it was regrettable that there had been no clear response from the Government.

 

The Leader agreed, stating that since publication of the agenda, a response had been received from the new Secretary of State but unfortunately she did not wish to consent to a public inquiry.  A copy of the letter would be sent to Members. 

 

There had been a significant reduction in complaints regarding odours from the site through the effective works and management of the contractors brought in by the Environment Agency (EA) and the Council continued to press for the permanent capping and restoration of the site and opposed any reopening of the site.  The government, EA and local MP would continue to be pressed for a public  inquiry.

 

On paragraph 3 – Medium Term Financial Strategy 2026-27 to 2030-31

 

Councillor Berrisford welcomed the Council’s commitment to prudent financial planning and the focus on maintaining a balanced budget.  The Portfolio Holder for Finance, Town Centres and Growth was asked what contingency plans were in place within the MTFS to mitigate potential funding shortfalls, given the uncertainty around future government financial settlements.

 

The Portfolio Holder stated that the MTFS had been developed with a strong emphasis on resilience and adaptability, recognising the ongoing uncertainty around future government financial settlements.  To mitigate financial shortfalls, the Council had embedded a number of contingency measures including maintaining a prudent level of reserves, regularly reviewing service efficiencies and scenario planning to model different funding outcomes.  Opportunities were also being explored to diversify income streams via the commercial strategy.

 

The Council continues to lobby central government for fair and sustainable funding. 

 

On paragraph 4 – Kidsgrove Town Deal Update and Contract Awards

 

Councillor Holland was pleased with the progress made on the Town Deal.  The Leader or Portfolio Holder for Finance, Town Centres and Growth  were asked how Many job opportunities were forecast with the development at Chatterley Valley West.

 

The Portfolio Holder stated that he went to the site recently and the progress on the development was substantial.  In previous discussions of the development, the portfolio holder had mentioned the creation of 1800 jobs.  However, information was now being received from the County Council that it could be more than 1800.

 

On paragraph 5 – Newcastle -under-Lyme Borough Local Plan 2020-40

 

Councillor John Williams asked, when the Inspector talked about parking within the town centre, did she take into account the sale of car parks by the Council.  There was a problem to the East of the town centre, particularly Hassell Street where the under provision of car parking was causing great concerns to residents and local businesses.   Would the sale of car parks make the situation worse, especially with the development of the former Zanzibar site and the former Jolly Potters pub.

 

The Leader stated that the Council was aware of the issues in Hassell Street and some proposals had already been amended relating to Hassell Street car park to enable more spaces for businesses and residents.   There had been a long running issue with parking spaces within the town centre.   The sites being brought forward, which were in the Cabinet report, were ones that were rarely, if ever used for parking.

 

Councillor Turnock asked the Portfolio Holder for Strategic Planning for confirmation that the new local plan guaranteed a five year housing land supply so that further speculative development could be resisted.

 

The Portfolio Holder stated that, if an authority did not have a five year housing supply, there would be very little protection and at the current time, Newcastle did not have a five year housing land supply, however, this would hopefully change once the local plan had finished its examination period.  Newcastle’s timely movement with the plan meant that it would be examined under an older system and therefore fewer houses were required. If a land supply can be demonstrated then site outside of the allocated areas could be resisted.  However, the government could change the goalposts in the future and that was outside of the Council’s control.

 

Councillor Crisp stated that getting the local plan in place was the best short term protection for green spaces as it enabled sustainable housing developments. However, it was now known that the government wanted to impose an additional two thousand homes on the Borough.  The Portfolio Holder for Strategic Planning was asked to outline how the neighbourhood plan would protect green spaces from the government’s stated policy of build, build, build.

 

Councillor Northcott joined the meeting at 19:55

 

The Portfolio Holder stated that, if it was adopted it would become part of the Council’s Strategic Development Plan which would carry weight along with the local plan and minerals plan.  Paragraph 30 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) stated that “neighbourhood plans should not provide less development than set out in strategic policies for the area or undermine those strategic policies” – the strategic policies were set out in the local plan.  Note 17 of paragraph 30 stated that “neighbourhood plans must be in general conformity with the strategic policies contained within any development plan which covered their area”.  The neighbourhood plan was therefore a supplement to the local plan but for issues such as defending green spaces, it was the local plan that had to be referred to. 

 

On paragraph 6 – Forced Local Government Reorganisation (FLGR) Update

 

Councillor Dave Jones asked the Leader if he could provide details of any conversations or agreements that had been discussed with other authorities.

 

The Leader stated that he had met with the Leaders Board and had individual meetings with a number of leaders and also outside of Staffordshire including Shropshire, Telford and through the Local Government Association (LGA).  Some council’s proposals were still awaited, particularly in the south.  The Leader had spoken with the leader of Staffordshire County Council regarding their proposals for creation of West and East Staffordshire Authorities, the West being one of the proposals that Newcastle was investigating. 

 

Councillor Adcock asked the Portfolio Holder for Finance Town Centres and Growth what immediate financial implications this process had had on the Council so far, including diversion of time of officer resources that could otherwise be focussed on delivering services.

 

The Portfolio Holder stated that the FLGR would not save money, nor would it be more democratic or improve services.   The Council had £200k in this year’s budget to pay for consultants and senior officer’ time.   A further £400k had been allocated in next year’s budget to pay for other costs that would arise.  The Portfolio Holder stated that the £600k would be better spend in the Borough for the people of Newcastle.  

 

Councillor John Williams stated that he would like to see the Council look at the opportunities on behalf of its residents.  He would like to see the Borough being independent.  All opportunities should be looked at.  The Leader was asked if he wanted a North Staffordshire Authority or an East and West Authority.

 

The Leader stated that this Council had made its view known agreeing that the preferred proposal was for a Newcastle Unitary and had put forward other ideas for investigation. There would be a Special Council meeting on 19 November when this Council’s final proposals would be brought forward.  The proposal would protect the Borough’s history, protect the finances of the Borough and protect front line services.

 

The Leader stated that 8,700 people had signed the petition to ‘Save Our Borough’. Newcastle MP’s need to listen and stand up for the Borough.

 

Councillor Wilkes asked, if Newcastle did get taken over, would the local plan still stand.

 

The Leader stated that once the local plan was in place it would take the Council through to any new authority.  However, a new local plan would then have to be prepared.

 

On paragraph 7 – Finance and Performance Review Report – First Quarter 2025-26

 

Councillor Beeston commended the Council’s commitment to public health and safety, particularly food hygiene.  The latest performance report stated that 0.41% of premises in the Borough were rated 0 or 1 out of 5.  The Portfolio Holder for Sustainable Environment was asked what percentage of premises were rated 4 or 5 stars.

 

The Portfolio Holder stated that 980 premises were inspected across the Borough.  Of those, 892 premises were rated 5 (very good) and 59 premises were rated 4 (good).  Therefore 951 premises, or 97% had a 4 or 5 rating. 

                   

Councillor Whieldon stated that it was important to recognise outstanding performance of the Council’s recycling and waste team.  The percentage of successful collections stood at 99.97%.

The Portfolio Holder was asked to pass on Councillor Whieldon’s congratulations to the team for their continued professionalism and dedication.  The Portfolio Holder was also asked how current performance compared to previous quarters and if there were any further plans to build upon the Council’s recycling services.

 

Councillor Dave Jones left the meeting at 20:17

 

The Portfolio Holder stated that he would pass Councillor Whieldon’s comments to the team.  The 99.97% collection success rate meant that for every 10,000 collections only three were missed.  In the previous financial year, the figures finished on 99.95% successful collections.  Newcastle was still the only council in the county that separately collected food waste from households and had now started collecting it from flats ahead of the 2026 deadline.  In addition, more plastics were now being collected.

 

Councillor Parker echoed Councillor Whieldon’s comments and also wished to thank officers, the Leader and the Cabinet for maintaining the strong performance of council services.  Given that the County Council’s new Reform Leadership had recently approved £140,000 for political assistant posts to advise their group, did the Leader share Councillor Parker’s  concerns that this displayed a lack of experience or capability within their new Cabinet to effectively run the County Council.

 

The Leader stated that he had been astounded to see that the County Council were looking to employ two political assistants, one of which would be for the Conservative group.  However, the Conservative group would not be taking up the offer.  The decision had been called-in for debate at the County and the Leader, as a County Councillor would be supporting the call-in to reverse that decision.

 

Resolved:    That the statement of the Leader of the Council be received and

noted.

 

Watch the debate here