Agenda item

The following question had been submitted by John McDermottroe for response by the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Housing (Cllr Nigel Cooke):-

“Is there a danger the £20M levelling up funding for Billingham Town Centre will be lost if part of it is to be used for housing that was not part of the plan?”

The Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Housing responded with:-

“Officers are in close liaison with civil servants in the Department for Levelling Up Homes and Communities (DLUHC) in regard to the detailed elements of the Levelling Up Fund award and expenditure items within that programme.  There is no suggestion that a residential led redevelopment in Billingham town centre would jeopardise or affect the award of funding throughout conversations and correspondence with DLUHC.”

John McDermottroe asked the following supplementary question:-

“Whenever I ask any questions about the consultation, I’m asked to refer to the consultation from 2020 and I quote from that ‘there is very little desire for housing’ in that consultation so why are you going against the wishes of the people of Billingham?”

The Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Housing responded with:-

“Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council has a strong track record for delivering regeneration schemes across the Borough and I’m delighted we are in a position where we can help and take control to lead the shape of Billingham’s future. In this ambitious plan the oversupply of retail space will be brought into line with demand and the continuation of changes that have been made over recent years to make the town centre the place that people want to visit, to live, to work and to do business. This is very much in-line with the masterplan that has been developed following that conversation a number of years ago.”

The following question had been submitted by Chris Lipthorpe for response by the Cabinet Member for Health, Leisure and Culture (Cllr Steve Nelson):-

“The Department for Health and Social Care have opened a consultation ending on 17th June proposing the mass fluoridation of 1.6 million North East people including the residents Stockton-on-Tees. There reasoning includes that the compulsory medication of our drinking water will reduce the gap in oral health between the most and least deprived regions.

Unlike other public health measures, such as vaccination, where individuals can opt-out, fluoridation allows no such choice. It affects everyone who relies on tap water for drinking, cooking, and daily hygiene. This one-size-fits-all approach disregards individual consent and medical history, where fluoride may not be advised for everyone.

Secondly, the potential health risks include dental fluorosis in children, bone problems, thyroid function, diabetes II. It is a neurotoxin and enzyme disruptor.

In light of these concerns, I urge the council to consider the precautionary principle. Let us not introduce a substance into our water supply when there is reasonable doubt about its safety and necessity.

Instead, let us invest in targeted dental health programs that educate and empower individuals to take charge of their dental health without compromising their right to choose what goes into their bodies.”

The Cabinet Member for Health, Leisure and Culture responded with:-

“Firstly, I’d like to clarify that the revised Health and Care Act (2022) transferred responsibility for water fluoridation from local authorities to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State now has responsibility for establishing any new water fluoridation schemes, or for varying or terminating existing water fluoridation schemes in England;

The revenue costs of any schemes would also transfer to the Secretary of State. This will allow central government to directly take responsibility for fluoridation schemes.

In response to your concerns regarding water fluoridation I would respond as follows:

Fluoride is a mineral that occurs naturally in water and some foods such as fish and is known to be important for tooth and bone health. The amount naturally found in water varies across the UK for geological reasons. The extraction of decayed teeth is the most common reason for hospital admission of under-18-year-olds in England and is particularly high in Yorkshire and Humber and the North East. Between 2018 and 2021 over 2000 children under 5 were admitted to hospital in the North East for dental caries. Community water fluoridation schemes involve adding fluoride to community drinking water to a level which is known to reduce tooth decay; the schemes also disproportionately benefit those who live in areas of greater deprivation.

Fluoride is already currently added to drinking water in 35 local authorities in the UK. Approximately 700,000 people in the North East have been drinking artificially adjusted water for over 50 years (in Gateshead, Newcastle, North Tyneside and Northumberland (Tyne Valley and Coast) and County Durham (Consett, Stanley, Crook and Lanchester). Naturally fluoridated water occurs in Hartlepool (since 1840) and the East Durham Coast (since 1890). Fluoride levels in drinking water are closely monitored by the Drinking Water Inspectorate. The World Health Organisation recommends a maximum level of 1.5mg/l and the proposed level of fluoridation through the new scheme would be below this at 1mg/l. 

Based on academic research, Public Health England estimates that water fluoridation would reduce tooth decay in 5-year-old children living in areas with naturally low fluoride levels by at least 17%. In the most deprived areas, the reduction would be greater with 28%. It is estimated that fluoridation would half hospital admissions for tooth extractions in children.

The water fluoridation health monitoring report (2022) confirmed the protective effect of fluoridated drinking water and that children and young people in the most deprived area benefitted the most.

The Chief Medical Officer states that due to weak and conflicting evidence, there is no significant association between water fluoridation and harm to health. The Public Health England water fluoridation health monitoring reports from 2014, 2018 and 2022 support this (The Office for Health Improvements and Disparity, on behalf of the Sec of State, has a legal duty to monitor the effects of water fluoridation schemes on health and report every 4 years), as well as international evidence. The OHID monitoring reports also keep the scientific literature around potential impacts on wider health under constant review.  Approximately one in 10 people in England currently have fluoride added to their drinking water supplies (OHID health monitoring report, 2022).  The 2022 report concluded:

‘This report supports earlier findings and wider evidence that water fluoridation, at levels recommended in the UK, is a safe and effective public health measure to reduce dental caries and inequalities in dental health.’

Locally we have a programme of oral health improvement which supports the population-wide benefits of the proposed community water fluoridation scheme. This includes oral health promotion and education, toothbrushing schemes in our local primary schools and system-wide activity to promote healthy diet with the benefits this brings to oral health.”

Chris Lipthorpe asked the following supplementary question:-

“Should people not be given fully informed consent what goes into their drinking water?”

The Cabinet Member for Health, Leisure and Culture responded with:-

“You would need to take that up with central government, I stressed in my original answer that this is the responsibility of central government and the Secretary of State. People are perfectly entitled to their own opinions. Consultation is on-going and I would encourage you to make your submissions to the consultation and include the Health and Wellbeing Board.”