Agenda item - Questions on Notice

Agenda item

Questions on Notice

To deal with any questions on notice from Members of the Council, in the order in which they have been received.

 

A period of up to 30 minutes is allocated for the asking and answering of questions at this meeting.  This may be extended at the discretion of the Chairman with the agreement of the majority of those present.

 

The Questions will be published in a supplementary pack.

 

Minutes:

The Chairman explained that nine Questions on Notice had been received in advance of the meeting.  Due to recent changes to Council meeting arrangements, group leaders and the Chairman had agreed that the time dedicated to consideration of Questions on Notice at this meeting should be extended from the usual time of 15 minutes to 30 minutes.

 

Question submitted by Councillor H. Rone-Clarke

 

“Many residents will already be aware that our MP holds an annual jobs fair in Bromsgrove. However, there are many young people seeking part-time employment in our town, in order to support themselves and their families. For these young people, it can be difficult to find part time roles that suit their school or college timetable. 

 

In order to overcome this difficulty, will the leader support either a jobs fair tailored more towards younger people, or perhaps consider devoting a section of BDC's website/social media to advertising part time jobs that are better suited to this section of the population?”

 

The Leader responded by commenting thatthe Jobs Fair held by the local MP was always welcomed and important for those seeking employment opportunities. The last successful jobs fair took place in April 2022, and if the next was to be held in 2023, the Council would fully support the event, alongside the many businesses and agencies who could showcase and provide the opportunity and offer for people in the community, including young people, who were seeking both full time and part time employment.

 

Having been in contact with the MP’s office, the Leader explained that they had confirmed they always welcomed suggestions for the job fair and were aware of this matter being raised as a question at the Council meeting.

 

With regards to the use of the Council’s website and social media, whilst the authority advertised Council jobs, through West Midlands Employers, it would be unable to act as a ‘jobs hub’ as it would be difficult to both source ‘suitable jobs’ and thereafter promote links to individual employers or agencies in equitable terms without due regard to their suitability.

 

However, the Council’s website and social media would be used to fully promote the jobs fair in future, in line with practice in previous years.

 

Question submitted by Councillor R. Hunter

 

“Have all eligible households in Bromsgrove now received their April council tax rebate?

 

The Leader explained that the Government’s Council Tax Energy Rebate scheme provided a £150 payment to households that, on 1st April 2022, occupied properties in Council Tax valuation bands A to D or valuation band E if the Council taxpayer was eligible for the Council Tax reduction for disabilities.  If a home was unoccupied, classed as a second home, or the owner was liable for Council Tax but was not the occupier – for example houses in multiple occupation – then the property was not eligible for the payment.

 

The Council had identified 27,458 eligible households and had written to, emailed, or sent SMS messages to the households advising how to claim the payment.  In total, 25,409 households had received a direct payment into their nominated bank account, a further 2,049 households did not submit a claim for the rebate and the payment was credited to their Council Tax account.  This Council Tax account credit would reduce future instalments of Council Tax.   The Leader concluded the response to this question by confirming that the Council had paid the £150 to everyone identified.

 

Question submitted by Councillor J. King

 

“Could you confirm when the Churchfields car park will be reopening please and what measures you will be putting in place to keep users and the wider community safe from criminal and antisocial behaviour?”

 

The Leader informed Members that Officers were reviewing the operation and safety of the Churchfields car park. Following the completion of the 2040 report, which would include a strategic view of parking in general within the town, a subsequent report would be produced for Cabinet on the future of the multistorey car park as soon as possible.

 

Question submitted by Councillor S. Robinson

 

“Could you explain the cause of the recent disruption to household bin collection services please and what measures you have put in place to address this?”

 

The Portfolio Holder for Environmental Services and Community Safety responded by commenting that the Waste Collection Service relied on a fleet of vehicles to function, and although these received regular maintenance, they did experience damage and breakdowns that impacted on the available fleet as a routine part of operating the service, and there were appropriate resources available to support this most of the time.

 

Unfortunately, the Council had recently experienced a series of mechanical issues in close succession that resulted in the authority not having enough functioning vehicles to carry out the service as efficiently as normal.  These were:

 

1)      The vehicle being serviced and submitted for an MOT.

2)      Suspension components being worn and replaced with new parts.

3)     The vehicle having an accident on a narrow rural road and slipping into a ditch resulting in recovery and repairs.

4)     Replacement Brake Discs and Pads – There was a delay on receiving replacement parts.

5)     Damage to the lifting mechanism due to an accident whilst reversing. Replacement parts were required from Germany.

6)     Damage to the wing mirror and passenger side door due to an accident on a rural lane with a tree branch.

7)     Hydraulic ram failure in a narrow access vehicle, resulting in staff being unable to eject the load and requiring manual extraction prior to repair. 

8)     A split in the waste hopper requiring welding.

9)     ABS brake system faults, which needed to be diagnosed and repaired.

10)   An investigation into noises from the steering system.

11)   Wrong replacement parts being supplied during the engine service, resulting in delays.

12)   A fault with the health and safety camera system.

 

The service required 15 refuse vehicles every day, and during the disrupted period, there had been several days where the authority was between two and three vehicles short. Each vehicle serviced between 900 and 1,300 properties depending on how many rural and urban properties were in an area.

 

Although some of this work was added to the workload of the vehicles that were functioning, and staffing was secured to support this, there were limits on how much extra work could be accommodated without causing further issues. Where this happened, work was planned in alongside other scheduled work for the following day as much as possible to minimise the delay. 

 

To offset this, the team arranged for some staff to work overtime to minimise the volume of work being missed on scheduled days, and in combination with the workshop returning vehicles to operation, the disruption was largely limited to a single week. Details of these issues were publicised on social media and the Council’s website to inform residents of the problems.

 

The workshop would continue to carry out maintenance as efficiently as possible to ensure the fleet was available to service the needs of residents, and the Waste Collection team would work to ensure that resources continued to be managed to minimise disruption to services, as they had done previously throughout the last few years whilst battling the impact of Covid on staffing levels.

 

Question submitted by Councillor S. Baxter

 

“Please could the cabinet member for planning give an estimate of the likely additional costs associated with the 11th hour U-turn to abandon the current strategic plan review until after the next set of district council elections?”

 

The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regulatory Services advised that the plan had not been abandoned.  Work was still progressing on further establishing key infrastructure provision. There were no costs in delaying the plan.  All the work that had been done to date was still relevant to the ongoing review work.

 

Question submitted by Councillor S. Douglas

 

“BDC was awarded £14.5 levelling up funding in November 2021. According to ONS statistics since November 2021 construction cost inflation is between 11.6% and 17% to the end of June 2022. This represents minimal additional costs of £1.7m, the higher end being £2.47m of cost pressure. Please could the Cabinet member for finance assure Council that sufficient contingency has been built into the bid budget to cover this?”

 

The Leader responded by commenting that the scheme had a total cost of £16.1 million (£14.5 million of which was grant funded and £1.6 million Council funded). For the two levelling up schemes, there was 10% contingency (a combined £1.58 million) and 4.5% inflation (a combined £725,000) to give an overall total of £2.31 million, which was to the higher end of the range suggested in the question.

 

Given the economic conditions, the Council would continue to review the situation, but it was felt that there were adequate contingency plans included in the project.

 

Question submitted by Councillor S. Colella

 

“This Council asks for reassurance that the transport assessment work which has been lacking to date will be completed to the satisfaction of BDC for the Issues and Options consultation along with a stated time plan that can be adhered to?”

 

The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regulatory Services responded by explaining that additional transport assessment work was being progressed with Worcestershire County Council.  This work would support the preferred option of the District Plan Review. In due course, a new timetable for the plan production would be published which would fully take into account the time it would take to complete the additional transport assessment work.

 

Question submitted by Councillor C. Hotham

 

“It appears that BDC raised £150920 form parking fines in the 2021/22 year. Out of this total some £10791 was raised in Hagley/Client, £3431 from Barnt Green and £1771 from Aston Fields. Does the cabinet member for Finance agree with me that it would only be fair and just if this money was directly reinvested in the communities where it is generated?”

 

The Leader commented in response that the Council did not have an investment policy for parking fines but did have a policy for capital receipts where they were used for the benefit of overall Council priorities. In the absence of a policy, parking fines needed to be treated like capital receipts and pooled for the prioritised benefit of the Council overall.  Parking and parking surpluses needed to be linked to prioritised parking and transportation schemes across the Council.

 

Question submitted by Councillor A. English

 

Councillor Colella asked the following question on behalf of Councillor English:

 

“Please could the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regulatory Services explain how it is acceptable for Officers to instigate a review of the procedures and effectiveness of the working of the District Planning Committee without reference to said committee and whether a similar review of the whole of the Planning Department has been arranged?”

The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regulatory Services responded by advising Members that part of the role of officers was to always look at how things could be improved and to take advantage of any external support to achieve this. One of the examples of external support was the Planning Advisory Service (PAS), which offered to undertake an independent review of the procedures and the effectiveness of Bromsgrove District Council’s Planning Committee. PAS was part of the Local Government Association (LGA) and provided high quality help, advice, support and training on planning and service delivery to Councils, primarily in England.  Its work followed a ‘sector led' improvement approach, whereby local authorities helped each other to continuously improve.  The benefit of testing this assertion through independent scrutiny was invaluable.

All Members of Bromsgrove Planning Committee were emailed on 19th August 2022 setting out the purpose of the review.  The review was focused on the operation of the Planning Committee.  It was not a review of the operation of the Council’s Planning Department.  The review would include an assessment of the effectiveness of the whole Committee process and recommendations for improvement based upon best practice from around the country.  The review would also include an element of observing Planning Committee meetings to understand the appropriate size of the Planning Committee, the public speaking process, and the recording of decisions.  The review would take into account the content of reports, the length of the agenda and how Officers presented and managed during Committee meetings. 

The PAS representative interviewed a selection of Committee Members and Officers involved in the Planning Committee process on 6th September 2022, together with observing the subsequent Planning Committee meeting held on that date.  Other stakeholders who regularly attended the Committee (planning agents and Parish Council representatives) had also been contacted (or would be contacted) and interviewed.  A further Planning Committee meeting would be observed by the PAS representative.

 

Any findings and/or recommendations arising from the review would be shared with the District Council prior to being included in a report. The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regulatory Services commented that he fully supported this approach.

 

 

Supporting documents: