Agenda item

To receive members’ questions under procedure rule no.11.  The procedure rule provides that any member may ask the Chairman of a board or group any question on any matter in relation to which the Council has powers or duties which affect the District, provided that three clear days’ notice in writing has been given to the Head of Legal and Support Services.

There were two questions asked which were circulated in the additional papers and are set out below with the responses.  Each Member who asked a question was invited by the Chairman to ask one supplementary question which is also set out together with the response.

Question from Councillor J Legrys

‘I asked for regular updates on the continued closure of a Right of Way between London Road and Stephenson Way Coalville at Full Council on the 20 June 2023 & 5 September 2023. Councillor Saffell responded that the case was complex, but he would keep me regularly updated on progress.

I am disappointed that I need to raise the issue again as no updating on progress has been forthcoming since September 2023.

When will the above Right of Way be re-opened to pedestrians and cyclists?’

Response from Councillor A Saffell

‘As previously advised, this is a matter that is being dealt with by Leicestershire County Council and our officers have continued to liaise with colleagues at the Environment and Transport team at the County Council.

I am advised that there is still one wall that needs repairing at the northern end of the footpath and once this has been done, the heras fencing along this section of the footpath can be removed. I understand that the occupier of this property has engaged with a builder and it is anticipated the works will be carried out in the next four weeks.

Unfortunately, there are still properties on the southern section of the footpath between the children’s play area and London Road who have not carried out repairs to their walls. The County Council will continue to try and engage with occupiers who have not yet responded to the contact so far. As such, the County Council are still assessing their options for removing the danger so that the right of way can be reopened.

While I am still unable to give a specific date when the footpath will be totally reopened, progress is being made. I have asked officers to continue to liaise with the County Council and to keep you updated at your monthly Shadow Portfolio Holder briefings.’

Supplementary question and response

Councillor J Legrys was disappointed that he was having to ask for information rather than receiving regular updates as promised.  He asked for a guarantee that he would receive a monthly update to enable him to keep his constituents informed.   Councillor A Saffell explained that it was a difficult situation as it was a Leicestershire County Council matter, however he would continue to ask officers to keep Councillor J Legrys updated.

Question from Councillor D Bigby

‘At the last council budget meeting, the Conservative/Lib Dem Alliance removed the maintenance of Closed Churchyards from Special Expenses, spreading the cost across all Council Tax payers in the district, including the residents of my ward in Ashby.

This has resulted in my ward residents being subject to double taxation - paying towards the upkeep of closed churchyards across the district plus the full cost of Ashby Town Council maintaining the closed churchyards in Ashby.

Since the budget meeting, Ashby’s Town Clerk and Council Leader have approached the Council requesting that maintenance of Ashby’s closed churchyards is also added to the General Fund. That request has been denied.  I would like to request a list of the other parished areas in the District similarly subject to double taxation.

Can the Portfolio Holder justify this position andindicate what action, such as a Concurrent Grant Scheme, they propose to correct the inequitable treatment of many residents?’

Response from Councillor N Rushton

‘Firstly, in responding to the point in respect of Ashby’s Town Clerk approaching the Council requesting that closed churchyards is added to the General Fund – the Council responded stating when dealing with the maintenance of closed churchyards, the parochial church council may serve a request on a parish or town council to take over the maintenance of it, serving three months' notice. If the parish/town council resolves to do so, then during that three-month period it can serve written notice on the district council to maintain it rather than the parish/town council. With regards to the two closed churchyards in Ashby, it would appear that no notice was served on NWLDC during that three-month period. Consequently, the district council will not consider taking on the maintenance of them.  As Blackfordby Churchyard is still active, then, again, the district council would not take on the maintenance of this. 

By way of background:

·         The Council is responsible for some closed churchyards in North West Leicestershire due to the operation of the legislation referred to in the Local Government Act 1972, these being:

-      Whitwick

-      Hugglecote

-      Coleorton

-      Snibston

-      Measham

-      Lockington and Hemington

-      Stretton

-      Appleby Magna

·         This means it is responsible for the maintenance of the assets.

·         The costs to maintain the asset have been considered through necessary surveys revealing boundary wall, fencing and tree works.

·         These surveys identified that they required significant works to make/keep them safe and meet our legal obligations.

·         The Council was not able to recover the costs of the works needed on specific churchyards needed through the special expenses precept as it would have resulted in a substantial increase in the precept which is not allowed under the Council Tax Referendum Principles.

·         For example, the planned and preventative maintenance costs for Stretton churchyard would have needed a £718.94 increase in the Council Tax Band D amount for its 19 residents.

·         Transferring the costs to the general fund and thereby spreading the cost across the district results is an annual increase of 37 pence for a Band D property.

·         The Council was unable to increase special expenses without a corresponding decrease in the North West Leicestershire District Council Tax level in line with the Council Tax Referendum Principles.

In summary, the consolidation of churchyard maintenance expenses into the general fund is a measure taken to mitigate financial risks, ensure compliance with maintenance obligations, and maintain fiscal stability across the affected areas.

If a principal authority, such as North West Leicestershire, moves special expenses to the general fund, it does lead to a form of double taxation. This is because the principal authority would still be collecting Council Tax for those special expenses, but the parish would also need to raise funds (likely through an increase in its precept, which is also funded by Council Tax) to cover those same expenses.  There are further examples of this within the District such as Kegworth and Castle Donnington. The decision to transfer special expenses to the general fund is a strategic approach to financial management. The impact of double taxation was considered, as well as the principles of referendums. Balancing these factors with the legal obligations to maintain churchyards, the chosen method is sensible financial planning. This ensures that funds are allocated efficiently while upholding the Council’s responsibilities.

In terms of a Concurrent Grant Scheme, the Local Government Act 1972, particularly Section 136, indeed provides a framework for principal authorities to support local councils, such as parish or town councils, financially, especially concerning concurrent functions.  Concurrent functions are services provided in some parts of the district by the district or county council and in other areas by a parish council.

Such a scheme would support parish and town council net revenue expenditure on a range of agreed concurrent functions.  Those local authorities who have implemented such schemes have tended to provide grant funding at an agreed percentage of the net revenue expenditure e.g. 25% of the concurrent function.  The parish and town council are then required to submit a claim to the principal council each financial year. 

The financial landscape for local governments has shifted significantly in recent years. The rescinding or reduction of these grant arrangements by some authorities, is prevalent in the local government sector, and can be attributed to the broader context of austerity measures and budgetary constraints faced by the local government sector. Should the Council decide to implement this program, it would necessitate the identification of a sustainable funding source, effectively introducing an additional strain on the Council's financial resources.

Considering the Council's goal to bridge its funding shortfall in the coming years, alongside the combined impact of service demands and inflation, and the rationale behind transferring special expenses into the general fund, it seems impractical to implement a grant scheme at this time.

Acknowledging the budgetary constraints, highlighted above, I will ask the Council's Section 151 Officer to meet with Ashby Town Council in the coming months to discuss the issues highlighted by the question.’

Supplementary question and response

Councillor D Bigby asked if it could be confirmed that the concurrent grant scheme was not being used in this instance as the Council could not afford the cost even though it was covering the cost for the Coalville Special Expense area.  Councillor N Rushton acknowledged the difficult issue and referred to the detailed response already provided.  It was noted that the S151 Officer would be meeting with the parish clerks of the areas affected and would be looking into the matter further.