Meeting documents

Written questions may be asked of the leader or any Cabinet Member if submitted to the Head of Democratic, Legal and Policy Services no later than   12 noon on Thursday 18 February 2016. Questions will be submitted in the order in which they were received.

 

A questioner will have a maximum of 1 minute to ask a question and the answer shall not exceed 3 minutes. Any questioner may put one supplementary question without notice within a maximum time of 1 minute and the answer may not exceed 2 minutes.

(a) Question from Dr L Derrrick to the Cabinet Member for Planning

"Last July my 3 year old granddaughter had an accident on a slide in a playground on Red Kite Way in Disraeli.  The playground was provided by Miller Homes under a S.106 agreement with WDC.

 

Under the agreement, WDC should have inspected the playground before it was opened to ensure it was safe.  WDC didn’t.

 

Moreover, Miller Homes was allowed to undertake road building alongside the playground and store hazardous material by the playground. When the accident took place the playground was formally classified as an active construction site. 

 

An independent inspection found the slide had a moderate risk of causing serious injury to children. 

 

Why did WDC not inspect the playground?

 

Why did WDC allow Miller Homes to undertake construction work by the playground? 

 

Why did WDC allow Miller Homes to put children at risk?"

 

Response from Councillor D Johncock (Cabinet Member for Planning)

 

"Thank you Doctor Derrick for your question, actually three questions. I will do my best to answer them all in the time I’m allowed.

 

IN RESPONSE TO THE FIRST QUESTION ‘WHY DID THE COUNCIL NOT INSPECT THE PLAYGROUND?’

 

I have reviewed the Planning enforcement file and it is clear that the Officers had spent many hours responding to complaints, Freedom of Information requests and attending public meetings outside of office hours to answer questions in relation to the Play Area on the new estate on Garratts Way.

 

This Play Area first came to the attention of the Planning Enforcement Team last Summer after they received a report that it had not been constructed in accordance with the approved plans and was not safe.  This followed an accident involving your Grand-daughter who had been playing on the slide. It is my understanding that, thankfully, she only received bruising as a result of this incident and that, since then, there had been no further injury accidents.

 

Anyway, following that report, Officers promptly visited the site and established that the play area and equipment within it had been laid out in accordance with the approved plans.

However, a safety report relating to the play equipment had not been provided to the Council as required by the Section 106 Agreement. Following a request by Officers, the developer commissioned a safety report which confirmed that the play equipment was safe and met the required standards. The report did however make some minor recommendation as to how some of the equipment could be improved to overcome some small risks that had been identified. These works have now been carried out and a new safety report has been provided confirming the moderate risk previously identified had been overcome.

The Council did not inspect the playground before this because there was nothing to indicate that the development was a high risk in relation to not complying with the permission. The Council has to ensure that its resources are targeted effectively.

Moving onto the next question:

‘WHY DID WDC ALLOW MILLER HOMES TO UNDERTAKE CONSTRUCTION WORK BY THE PLAYGROUND?’

 

My understanding is that the properties within the estate have been completed and occupied for a couple of years with the playground also being available for residents to use since they moved in. Due to some contractual issues between the house builder and the construction contractor, the road and pavements were left unfinished until autumn of last year.

 

As the road and pavements were unfinished, the whole estate officially remained classified as a construction site under HSE guidance. However, in reality it was not a construction site in the conventional sense but a place where people were living and going about their daily lives. The playground was also completed and was used by children living on the estate and from neighbouring roads.

 

The works needed to be carried out to the pavements and roads were in order for the development to be finally completed. These were no different than a Highway Authority relaying a pavement or resurfacing a road. Officers from the Health and Safety Executive visited the estate in the summer whilst these works were being undertaken and did not observe practices that warranted them to intervene and stop the works.

 

Finally:

 

‘WHY DID WDC ALLOW MILLER HOMES TO PUT CHILDREN AT RISK?’

 

Two safety inspections have been carried out by suitably qualified independent professionals who have confirmed that the playground and equipment meets the required national standards and is safe to be used. The Health and Safety Executive investigated the construction of the road and pavement following a complaint and were happy for works to proceed. There is no evidence to suggest that children were put at risk by Miller Homes or anyone else."

 

 

 

Supplementary Question

 

"This playground was poorly designed, and poorly specified in the Section 106 agreement. It was not inspected nor certified as required. As a result the playground put children at serious risk and still puts children at risk. It is also uninspiring and unadventurous.

 

I have been trying to discuss these issues with officials for some months, through Councillor Ahmed, the local Councillor. However, officials have declined to meet him. I think this undemocratic.

 

I then asked for a meeting directly with the Head of Planning . She has referred my request to Stage 2 of the complaints procedure and will be carrying out a full investigation into – well I don’t know what. I have asked if WDC could tell me what complaint I have made.

 

Councillor Johncock, will you invite me to a meeting, and quickly, to learn lessons and discuss what can be done to prevent children being at risk at this playground."

 

Supplementary Response

 

"Dr Derrick, I have explained the position, and as you have continued to write to the Head of Planning on this topic since you submitted your original question, it had been decided to deal with the matter under the Council’s Complaint Procedure. That being so, it would be inappropriate for me to meet with you or to comment any further at this time."

 

(b) Question from Mr T Snaith to the Cabinet Member for Housing.

 

"Could the Cabinet member advise the number of local people on WDC Social housing register and how many are securing properties in High Wycombe?

 

How does Wycombe District Council police the Home Choice Programme to ensure local people are housed in properties in High Wycombe?"

 

Response from Councillor Mrs Langley (Cabinet Member for Housing).

 

"Following the Localism Bill Act 2011 Local Authorities were able to frame their own Allocations Policy.  The Bucks Home Choice policy was adopted in May 2014, and has introduced a local connection criteria for applicants wishing to apply via Bucks Home Choice.  Bucks Home Choice is for rented accommodation only. An applicant is deemed to have a local connection with a district if the applicant:

 

a)    Is living and has lived in a district continuously for at least 2 years immediately preceding the date of the application and/or

 

b)    Is working and has been in continuous employment in a district for at least two years immediately preceding the date of the application and has worked for a minimum of 24 hours per week throughout that period. Employment is described as having a permanent contract, or working under contract as temporary member of staff. The applicants’ normal place of work must be based in the Council’s area; the existence of a company office based in the Council’s area will not by itself meet the criteria.

 

If an applicant does not meet criteria above, then the applicant will not be a qualifying person for Bucks Home Choice and not able to register for social housing. The only exceptions are set out in the criteria.

 

The numbers on the Bucks Home Choice are 1525 live applications of which 1407 reside in High Wycombe and have the 2 year local connection criteria.

 

117 applicants are not resident of which:-

·         17 household work in the Wycombe District and meet the local connection

·         19 households are forces or ex forces

·         9 Care Leavers currently displaced out of district

·         5 homeless applicants

·         66 seeking over 65 accommodation

·         1 right to move

 

Since 1^st April 2014 557 properties have been advertised and let through Bucks Home Choice. There were 44 properties let to applicants who did not fulfil the residency qualification for Bucks Home Choice. These were:

·         30 aged persons accommodation

·         14 general needs accommodation of which 12 were accepted homeless cases and 2 qualified under the working qualification."

 

Supplementary Question

 

"It has come to my attention that, in a particular area within the district, there is a family living in a Housing Association property from outside of the area. How has this happened and how is the programme policed."

 

Supplementary Response

 

"As we all know, there is not enough housing to go round, the Council does not have a housing stock and we know that locally and nationally there is a housing shortage. Homelessness is increasing, and placements do sometimes come from London Boroughs. The Bucks Home Choice does have criteria to police the programme."