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.

The Chairman reported that nine questions from Members had been received for the meeting this evening, and in view of the number received, each question would be limited to 3 minutes in total, including the response and any supplementary question.  He explained that this would ensure fairness to all members, given that the overall time limit for dealing with questions was 30 minutes.  He reminded Members that should the 3 minutes elapse before the relevant Portfolio Holder was able to respond to a supplementary question, a written response would be provided after the meeting.

 

Councillor J Legrys put the following question to Councillor A V Smith:

 

“Memorial Square Coalville

 

Most of the land surrounding the Clock Tower at Memorial Square Coalville is owned by the County Council as ‘Highway’.

 

Can the Lead Member please:

 

·         Tell me what powers NWLDC has to close the square to enable events to take place on County Council land?

 

·         The formal process of closing the square to traffic – including a list of Consultees?

 

·         Are event organisers required to keep a vehicular corridor free to enable Emergency Service vehicles to be driven through the square in the event of an emergency elsewhere?”

 

Councillor A V Smith gave the following response:

 

“The District Council does not own any land in Memorial Square, it is all owned by the County Council.

 

The District Council has powers under The Town Police Clauses Act 1847 (Section 21) (TPCA) to close roads i.e. highway land to enable certain events such as public processions, rejoicings and illuminations to take place. These powers have limited application for Memorial Square in that they can be used to close the square but they cannot be used to impose or suspend waiting restrictions or any other Traffic Regulation Order which is a function of the County Highway Authority. The District Council currently only uses the TPCA in Coalville for the annual Remembrance Day parade.

 

In the main, when the District Council receives any requests to temporarily close or restrict access to a highway (such as Memorial Square) or to amend an existing Traffic Regulation Order applicants are directed to the County Council (roadclosures@leics.gov.uk). 

 

As part of the County Council’s procedure the Emergency Services, Public Transport, District and Parish Councils and the respective County Council Member(s) are advised of the application on initial submission and again two weeks in advance of the event/restrictions taking place.

 

When the traffic movements around the clock tower were consolidated to one side of the Square, Leicestershire Fire & Rescue requested that provision be incorporated into the design allowing a fire engine to travel through the square in the event of the roads being congested. Therefore a route through the Square is required to be maintained when events are held and organisers are made aware of this requirement”.

 

Councillor J Legrys acknowledged the time spent by staff and stated that he was pleased to receive an answer.  As a supplementary question, he expressed concern that the land the memorial was standing on was not in the ownership of the District Council and asked whether this needed to be rectified.

 

Councillor A V Smith responded that this was more of a statement than a question and she felt sure that this could be looked into in due course.

 

Councillor R Woodward put the following question to Councillor T Gillard:

 

“There is a lot of confusion, and some rumours circulating about the charter of Coalville Market and some members have been contacted by the public about this. There is a strong belief by some, that this medieval charter belongs either to an individual, or is allocated to a non council owned property.

 

As Coalville, as a settlement, did not exist when market (and fairs) charters were being distributed could the lead member please clarify the situation”.

 

Councillor T Gillard gave the following response:

 

“To clarify the situation regarding the market charter:

 

·    Charters were gifts in the discretion of the crown awarded to individuals. As such the charters could be bought, sold or transferred by the individual.

 

·    A charter for a Tuesday market in Whitwick Manor was granted in 1290 and transferred to Sir Henry Hastings and Henry Cutler in 1612. Market rights at Whitwick appear to have been transferred in 1860 to the Whitwick Local Board and then in the 1890’s to a successor local board which at that time included Coalville. Such rights would have devolved to the Coalville Urban District Council and then to NWLDC as the successor to the Urban District Council.  The rights therefore currently rest with NWLDC”.

As a supplementary question, Councillor R Woodward asked the Portfolio Holder to describe what he meant when he said that the rights ‘appear’ to have been transferred, and to explain exactly what the Charter meant.

 

Councillor T Gillard stated that he could not answer at present and agreed to provide a response after the meeting.  He added that the Council had recently consulted on a rival market policy and these issues would be considered in due course.

 

Councillor R Woodward attempted to ask a further question.  In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11.8, the Chairman reminded Councillor R Woodward that his contribution should be confined to a supplementary question only.

 

Councillor R Johnson put the following question to Councillor N J Rushton:

 

“Recently Derbyshire County Council has set a policy that all councillors should declare that they are members of the Society of Freemasons. Would you agree that this Council should also have a similar policy, in declaring that all councillors declare if they belong to the Freemasons, so that residents of North West Leicestershire will have confidence in their representatives being honest, transparent and above board?”

 

Councillor N J Rushton gave the following response:

 

“In replying to the question from Cllr Johnson I have taken advice from the Council’s Monitoring Officer and I have been advised of the following:

 

The reference above is in relation to a decision taken by Derbyshire County Council to amend and extend the locally agreed Disclosable Non Pecuniary Interests in their members Code of Conduct. The full wording of that amendment being as follows:

 

“Any trade union of which you are a member and membership of pressure groups, the Freemasons or other influential bodies of which you are a member.”(With the amendments being in Italics).

 

I am advised by the Monitoring Officer that Member’s have been given advice during previous training sessions that the Freemasons is a body directed to charitable purposes and that  membership of the Freemasons (or other  similar organisations) is a registrable interest under the Code of Conduct under Section 11 of the Register. The Monitoring Officer or her Deputy are always available to give advice to individual Members should they have concerns about registering interests.

 

In preparing the new Code of Conduct as a result of the changes brought about by the Localism Act 2011 Members will recall a cross party working group was established to make recommendations to Council which were subsequently adopted. If Members feel that it would be appropriate to review and /or amend the locally agreed Disclosable Non Pecuniary Interests then Council can request that be done”.

 

Councillor R Johnson thanked Councillor N J Rushton for the comprehensive reply.  He stated however that he could not recall attending any training sessions that had referred to what action Members take if they were a member of the Freemasons.  He commented that clearly it was not felt that a policy was needed.  As a supplementary question, he asked what disciplinary action would be taken if a Member did not make a declaration as appropriate.

 

Councillor N J Rushton responded that under the Code of Conduct, Members were obliged to declare membership of such organisations and it was a matter for them if they decided not to do so.  He advised that he would ask the Monitoring Officer to respond in writing setting out the possible recourse; however he felt this would not be significant.

 

Councillor D De Lacy put the following question to Councillor A V Smith:

 

“The County Council have taken a decision to reduce or remove some recycling credits to District and Borough Councils with effect from April 2015. If this decision is implemented it will have a substantial detrimental impact on the finances of North West Leics District Council. I understand this could mean a loss in income of between £200,000 and £250,000.

Could the Portfolio Holder confirm this is the case and what is this Council doing to oppose the implementation of this measure?”

 

Councillor A V Smith gave the following response:

 

“The District Council is aware through the County Council’s budget report (19 February 2014) and through Leicestershire Waste Partnership meetings that the County Council are seeking efficiency savings through a revised payment mechanism on Recycling Credits. The savings are profiled as £1,480,000 in 2015/16, £1,665,000 in 2016/17 and £1,850,000 in 2017/18.

 

The District Council received £625,000 in recycling credits from the County Council in 2013/14 this comprised £269,000 from the collection of garden waste tonnage and £356,000 from the collection of (paper, card, plastics, glass and cans).

 

The District Council has not yet received any formal notification from the County Council on its proposals for achieving their targeted savings through a revised payment mechanism.

 

However, the District Council is working with other District and Borough Councils and is seeking legal advice in order to consider its position in advance of any formal notification of changes to current arrangements”.

 

Councillor D De Lacy thanked Councillor A V Smith for her reply, however he commented that he was not certain that this covered his estimated cost to the District Council of £200,000-£250,000 and he sought clarification on this point.  He welcomed the last paragraph which indicated that the Council was taking legal advice on the bad decision made by the County Council.  He stated that he perceived a problem in that the Corporate Portfolio Holder was also the Leader of Leicestershire County Council.  As a supplementary question, he sought assurances that there would be no input on this matter from the Members who held senior positions at Leicestershire County Council to ensure that there was no conflict of interests.  He also sought assurances that the matter would be referred back to full Council before the decision was implemented.

 

Councillor A V Smith responded that it was clear from the response that work was ongoing with others in respect of the legal advice.  She added that once the advice was received it would be acted upon and discussed with the Shadow Portfolio Holder before a decision was made on what steps would be taken.  She stated that she was unable to provide an answer until the requisite legal advice was forthcoming.

 

Councillor S Sheahan put the following question to Councillor A V Smith:

 

“Can the Portfolio Holder place on record a full report of meetings held with AB Produce to deal with the many complaints of offensive odours reported by Measham residents, identifying key actions and detailing the discussions involving the Environment Agency and Natural England.”

Councillor A V Smith gave the following response:

 

“The District Council has received a number of complaints from residents regarding odours from a variety of sources in Measham including AB Produce.

 

The District Council is investigating all complaints that are made but as this remains an open investigation detailed case information will not be released (as is standard practice) in order not to jeopardise any future action which may or may not be considered.

 

However, whilst investigations continue the District Council is seeking to improve outcomes for residents and has facilitated three meetings in 2014 (13 January, 8 May, 24 June) with AB Produce, Parish, District and County Council elected members, a campaign group and the Environment Agency to discuss the odour related issues.

 

The records of these meetings are confidential to the attendees (of which Cllr Sheahan is party to) in order to facilitate open discussion. The latest meeting held on 24 June identified a number of key actions that are either in progress or are being considered by AB Produce.

 

A provisional date (19 August) has been agreed for the next meeting where feedback and progress updates are expected from all partners including Natural England and the Environment Agency”.

 

Councillor S Sheahan commented that he hoped the Portfolio Holder shared his disappointment that such a limited answer could be given.  As a supplementary question, and given that there were calls for a public meeting on this matter, he urged her to reconsider that decision and to reflect on how she intended to persuade the public that the Council was acting in their best interests.

 

Councillor A V Smith responded that this matter was subject to an ongoing investigation as Councillor S Sheahan was aware, and as such this could not be discussed in an open meeting.  She added that she was happy to discuss this matter with him outside of the meeting.

 

Councillor N Smith put the following question to Councillor N J Rushton:

 

“Chairman, I accept that the Constitution allows meetings such as this to take place, however I would suggest that as one of the Council’s priorities is value for money, could the Chairman please explain to this Council how a meeting consisting primarily of questions and motions that could have waited until the next full Council meeting is value for money and could he please confirm the cost involved in holding tonight’s meeting.”

As a similar question had been received from Councillor M Specht, the Chairman invited him to put his question to enable Councillor N J Rushton to respond to both questions concurrently.

Councillor M Specht put the following question to Councillor N J Rushton:

“I would like to put forward a question for next week's meeting.
This relates to the cost of rescheduling this meeting which The Chairman had previously decided would not take place in July, due to there being no business to bring to Council”.

 

Councillor N J Rushton gave the following response:

 

“The purpose of Council is twofold:

 

a)     To consider and make decisions on reports presented by officers through the relevant port folio holders; and

b)     To consider other matters which arise through the democratic process such as deputations, questions and motions.

The Constitution sets out the basis on which a motion can be refused which is that it is illegal, scurrilous, improper or out of order. Whether or not a motion can or should wait until the next meeting is not relevant to determining whether the motion is accepted for inclusion on an agenda.

 

The cost of the Council meeting includes time spent on agenda preparation, printing and dispatch, administration of the meeting and all officer time including time spent on legal advice, meeting attendance and motions and questions received.  The estimated cost of tonight’s meeting is £2462.32”.

 

Councillor N Smith declined to ask a supplementary question.

 

Councillor M Specht sought to ask a supplementary question of the Chairman, and sought assurances that when the decision was taken to cancel the meeting, there was no essential business that could not wait until the next meeting of the Council.

 

The Chairman advised that the supplementary question should be addressed to the same member as the original question.

 

Councillor R Woodward sought to raise a point of order in that the question from Councillor M Specht referred to next week’s meeting and the Council had agreed a schedule of meetings.

 

Councillor N J Rushton responded that calling a meeting was at the Chairman’s discretion and it was not for Members to question his integrity.

 

Councillor D Everitt put the following question to Councillor R Blunt:

 

 “NWLDC website provides emergency phone numbers to be used when the council offices are closed, for emergency repairs and when public safety is at risk. How often has this service been used in the last twelve months and how often have calls resulted in action being taken?”

 

Councillor R Blunt gave the following response:

 

 “The emergency phone number receives a variety of calls, including emergency repairs, lifeline/pullcord alarms, reporting stray animals, reporting dangerous buildings and day to day calls from officers and contractors.  Calls to the service are voice recorded and are logged as an ‘incident’ on the Piper Network Communication (PNC) system. 

 

As the service is operational 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, the out of hours calls are not logged separately to those received during working hours.  However, I can confirm that a total of 2290 incidents were logged in 2013/14.  982 of these incidents resulted in immediate action being taken.

 

Examples of actions taken by the operative includes:

 

·        Notifying Councils in-house repairs operatives to attend and make safe

·        Contacting the relevant contractors to attend and address the issue

·        Notifying the relevant on call duty officer of issues

·        Contacting key holders to make them aware of the issues

·        Contacting emergency services

 

Scenarios that do not require immediate action include;

 

·        Calls for action that are not classed as an emergency and do not require an immediate response (e.g. non urgent repairs, pest control etc.)

Residents that call to leave messages for services that do not have a dedicated out of hours service (e.g. planning advice)”.

 

Councillor D Everitt thanked Councillor R Blunt for his reply and stated however that his experience was somewhat different.  He reported that on 17 May he was contacted by a member of the public to inform him that two bags of asbestos waste had been left outside on the Woodside estate.  He stated that he had called the number on the Council’s website to contact the housing maintenance team and received a recorded message to say that someone should get back to him.  That evening he had visited the estate to satisfy himself that it was still safe.  On the Sunday he had found the out of hours number on the website, however he reported that the response he had received was even more disheartening, in that the operator seemed intent on persuading him that a response on Monday would be sufficient.  He stated that therefore he had decided to deal with the matter himself.

 

The Chairman reminded Councillor D Everitt to confine his contribution to a supplementary question only.

 

As a supplementary question, Councillor D Everitt asked if Councillor R Blunt was aware that this does happen to people.  He advised that he had resolved the issue himself by finding the firm responsible and receiving a response from them which he should have received from the Council, and the waste had subsequently been removed within two hours.  He stated vehemently that the response was not an accurate reflection of the situation and to date he had received no reply from the Council.  He commented that if such poor service was being received by Councillors, what were the public experiencing?

 

Councillor R Blunt made reference to the number of people who contacted the Council and highlighted the ICE programme which sought to create a system that dealt with every contact made in the best possible way.  He acknowledged that things would occasionally go wrong but he believed that the service was moving in the right direction.  He agreed to provide a detailed response in writing after the meeting.

 

Councillor N Clarke put the following question to Councillor A V Smith:

 

“Meadow Lane crossroads in Coalville has been identified by this Council as a "Hotspot" for parking offences, and Officers have attempted to improve the appalling situation for residents and businesses in and around that location.

 

However, there appears to be no reduction in the amount of parking offences committed and the situation seems to be going from bad to worse.

 

Can the Portfolio Holder please advise me what this Council intend to do to help address this matter? ”

 

Councillor A V Smith gave the following response:

 

“The District Council receives regular requests to increase on-street enforcement patrols in various areas of the District and this has included the Meadow Lane crossroads in Coalville.

 

As members will be aware the District Council is contracted by the County Council to undertake on-street enforcement services on its behalf.

 

All requests by residents and members for increased enforcement are therefore forwarded to the County Council for their consideration. TheCounty Council do not offer an "on demand" service but all requests are considered to assess the appropriateness of any enforcement.

 

As such this request, with the District Councils support, will be forwarded to the County Council for their consideration and response”.

 

As a supplementary question, Councillor N Clarke asked the Leader of Leicestershire County Council to use his influence to ensure a response was received as a matter of urgency.

 

Councillor A V Smith responded that the question was addressed to her, not Councillor N J Rushton.  She reiterated that the request had been forwarded to the County Council and would be chased up if a response was not forthcoming.  She added that this was all she was prepared to say on the matter at present.