Questions are invited from members of the public about the work of the Cabinet.
Notice of any question must be given to Democratic Services by midday on Monday, 1 December 2025. Approximately 30 minutes will be set aside for Public Question Time, if required.
Minutes:
The following question was submitted in advance of the meeting by a member of the public, Alexander Abbey:
Why is the wording for the HMO SPD so weak on the consultation point 7.1; "will not normally be granted."? Why can the word "normally" not be removed? What exceptions are expected here?
Responding, Councillor Eamonn O’Brien reported that assuming that the SPD is formally adopted, all planning applications received for HMO’s will need to be considered against the SPD and all other material planning considerations, as required by Planning law. The caveat in the SPD reflects this legislation, as there can be unforeseen circumstances that may warrant an exceptional approach to the determination of a planning application. It is not possible to list all exceptions as each application will be considered on their merits, but an example may be where all standards are met in full, but 1 bedroom fails to meet space standards by 1 cm. In such a situation, on balance, it may be that this could be considered to be within an acceptable limit and would not warrant an otherwise compliant application to be refused.
A further supplementary question was submitted:
Assuming the new HMO SPD passes tonight with previous support, how long before the planning committee votes on implementation of article 4 direction to include 6 bed and smaller HMOs, which don't currently require planning at all? Without this article 4 direction, this work is almost pointless as developers will just turn to these smaller developments, especially on streets of 3 beds houses, and all issues will still remain. Will that Article 4 be voted on regardless of how the consultation comes back?
Councillor O’Brien reported that the intention is to present a report to the next Planning Control Committee, which was scheduled for 16 December. This would not be affected by any ongoing consultations. This was also a public meeting and Mr Abbey was welcome to attend and observe.
The following question was asked by a member of the public, Rebecca Partridge:
At the last Cabinet meeting we came to, you described a one-to-one deal as something small, like a strip of garden for a homeowner, where open marketing isn’t required. But FOI disclosures now show around 60 such one-to-one disposals since 2015 including multi million pound transfers to developers. Given that evidence, can you confirm that the Council’s internal categorisation of a one-to-one disposal is not openly marketed? And, if not, can you explain what distinguishes these 60 unmarketed developer transactions from the definition you gave publicly?
Councillor O’Brien replied that this was a very complex question, if details on all 60 were being requested. He confirmed that one-to-one sales could range from bigger sales to very small ones, with the vast majority being smaller strips of land. The test for all these sites was whether it followed the legal framework, whether it provided best value to residents and the borough, and whether it met strategic objectives. With bigger sites, there were other thresholds and criteria on top of this. Without knowing all 60 sales referred to, the Leader declined to comment on which were openly marketed, and advised that any definition of a one-to-one sale wouldn’t necessarily refer to marketing.
Rob Summerfield, Director of Regeneration and Project Delivery, added that each site was different and the intention of the disposal was different. The Council has the capacity to undertake direct disposals, but this was governed by a strict set of rules. There is no formal definition for a direct disposal as each site will be judged on its own merits; this was a very complicated process and could not be simplified in the way being requested.
The Leader clarified that the Council has had the Accelerated Land Disposal Programme (ALDP) which has been advertised as a whole, as well as being approached by residents about certain strips of land. He advised Mr Jacobs and Ms Partridge that the Council could review the list of 60 and provided details as to which were marketed.
The following question was asked by a member of the public, Daniel Jacobs:
Are you going to be releasing the Part B reports to the deals sold to developers as I have requested from the list of one-to-one deals? These requests have been rejected for, what I believe to be over-generous commercial sensitivity, but they were deals done years ago. You could reassure the public somewhat that you were acting in their best interests.
Councillor O’Brien replied that there are a variety of ways that members of the public and interested parties can request information, and it’s up to the judgement of the Council’s legal team to determine where information remained commercially sensitive. Crucially, elected Members do get the opportunity to scrutinise Part B reports, including Opposition Members, so decisions are not made without objective scrutiny and are done with a reasonable level of transparency. That is how the Council can assure the public that these are decisions still made by public representatives and in full view of non-executive and opposition Members.
If judgements have been made about what can be released or not, this is not to be second guessed by Members today. The Leader confirmed he was satisfied that when decisions are made in Part B, they are done for the right reasons and that information is handled correctly. We can go away and look at what you’ve asked, but there has been lots in the public domain and we have endeavoured to give the information when we can and explained why we can’t when this is the case. The Leader confirmed he was satisfied that the decision Mr Jacobs was interested in has been made for the right reasons in the right way. He agreed with the point being made about the importance of transparency, and advised that ultimately this was for the public, as well as independent external organisations, to decide if the Council was not handling information correctly.