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.

 

Minutes:

The Chairman explained that 6 Questions on Notice had been received for the meeting and would be considered in the order they had been submitted.

 

It was explained that due to recent changes to Council meetings, Group Leaders had agreed that an extended period of up to 30 minutes would be allocated to the consideration of these questions and the answers provided and there were no supplementary questions.

 

Question submitted by Councillor P. M McDonald

 

"Does the Chairman not agree with me that he should allow supplementary questions to ensure there is no ambiguity in the response to questions." 

 

The Chairman responded that it was not appropriate for him to determine permitting supplementary questions at Council meetings and that the question should be referred to the Constitution Review Working Group.

 

Question submitted by Councillor R. Hunter

 

“It has now been three years since this Council agreed to reverse the long standing neglect of our bus shelters and provide the modern well maintained facilities that residents deserve. However very few improvements have been made and the budget allocation is sitting unspent. I understand there are now further delays due to a review at County Council, but please could you provide some reassurance of when you expect so see these much needed improvements actually installed?”

 

In the absence of the Portfolio Holder for Environmental Services and Community Safety, the response to this question was provided by the Portfolio Holder for Strategic Housing and Health and Well Being who stated that prior to installing new bus shelters, Officers had contacted Worcestershire County Council (WCC) to establish the continued future of the bus routes using that particular shelter to ensure that time and money was not wasted installing a shelter that would no longer be utilised. It was explained that WCC were undertaking a comprehensive review of bus route provisions within the County, with a ‘Bus Travel Task Force for Worcestershire’ being set up to review current bus provision and to ensure bus travel was able to meet residents’ needs across the County.

 

It was further clarified that once Bromsgrove District Council had been made aware of this action, a temporary hold was put on the upgrading programme for new shelters as existing routes were then at risk of being removed.

 

Members were informed that, prior to this announcement, the Council had installed new shelters in Littleton Avenue, Worcester Road, Whetty Lane and Callow Bridge Road. Further information was provided that there were also shelters being held at Bromsgrove depot and were ready to be installed once there was confirmation that particular bus routes would continue. It was stated that currently no information was available as to when this review would be completed, and the County Council web link did not provide a timescale for the review.

 

Question submitted by Councillor J. King (read by Councillor R. Hunter in the absence of Councillor J. King)

 

“Could you please explain why it costs £234 for a planning application for a dropped kerb?”

 

The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regulatory Services explained that Planning fees in England were set nationally by the Government and were detailed in the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) Regulations 2012 (as amended).

 

Question submitted by Councillor S. Robinson

 

“Are you concerned about the dark open spaces in our town centre that have developed as a result of this Council no longer maintaining lighting on void car parks such as School Drive, Stourbridge Road and Churchfields?”

 

The Leader provided a response to this question on behalf of the Portfolio Holder for Environmental Services and Community Safety and explained that Officers were aware of the problems with the lighting in these car parks. It was reported that Stourbridge Road and School Drive car parks had both been inspected and surveyed by the contractor to determine why the lighting had failed. In addition to this, orders had been placed with the lighting contactor in order to purchase the replacement parts and undertake the work.   Members were informed that the work had been started and completed on Stourbridge Road and that the works on School Drive car park would be completed within the following two weeks. In respect of Churchfields car park, it was explained that it had been closed due to the level of antisocial behaviour and the lighting was turned off to conserve electricity and that as this car park was closed to the public, Members were advised that as such it did not pose a health and safety risk.

 

It was confirmed that the Community Safety Team had not been made aware of any specific issues in these areas.  However, if Members had concerns about these locations, they could report any issues as follows:

 

·       To report serious incidents as they happened and, in an emergency, to always call 999. 

·       Other incidents and ASB concerns could be reported by calling 101 or online at Report Antisocial Behaviour, West Mercia Police.

·       General neighbourhood concerns could be reported to the Councillor’s Safer Neighbourhood Team.

 

Question submitted by Councillor S. Douglas

 

“It appears that less able people who use mobility scooters are being denied access to buses unless they have been assessed by the bus company as to their competence to drive a mobility scooter. This is degrading and humiliating and clearly an example of disability discrimination. This awful situation can result in unaware scooter users being left stranded at the roadside. Will the Leader join with me in condemning this practice and do all she can to ensure that all buses can be used by all appropriately sized mobility scooter users?”  

 

The Leader responded by explaining that there was currently no legal requirement for bus operators to carry mobility scooters, and that they were carried at each operator’s individual discretion. The Equality Act 2010 did not refer to mobility scooters in its provisions on public service vehicles or bus services.

 

It was further explained that some companies had signed up to the Confederation for Passenger Transport (CPT) Code for the use and acceptance of Mobility Scooters on low floor Buses’, which was developed by the CPT and the Department for Transport. The Code did have certain conditions which included:

 

·         Class 2 mobility scooters only, maintained in good working order

·         The scooter could not be wider than 600mm or longer than 1000mm

·         The scooter needed to have a turning radius of no more than 1200mm

·         The safe working limit for the weight of the scooter plus the occupant was 300kg

·     The scooter needed to be assessed by the operator, both in terms of the design of the scooter and the ability of the user to control and manoeuvre it safely

·     Mobility scooter users needed to receive on bus training from the operator before travelling on the bus for the first time, including how to use the ramp

·     Approval needed to be issued in the form of a ‘permit for travel’ with a fixed duration of no more than five years; this had to be obtained prior to their scooter being carried on any bus.

 

Members were informed that information as to whether an individual operator accepted mobility scooters would be available on their website. Operators who adhered to the code would make this publicly known, particularly to groups representing people with mobility difficulties. The Leader shared the concerns raised by Councillor Douglas and confirmed that she would raise this issue with the local MP at their next meeting.

 

Question submitted by Councillor C. Hotham

 

“Since the introduction of wheelie bins, residents have been instructed to place the handle side inwards away from the kerb and highway. This seems perverse as it awkward and adds extra work as the operators have to turn the bins round before emptying them. Some residents have taken matters into their own hands and do place the handles towards the highway. Is it now time for the council to review the advice on bin handle positioning?”

 

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Governance provided a response to this question on behalf of the Portfolio Holder for Environmental Services and Community Safety and in doing so informed Members that the Council did not currently have any guidance for residents requiring this, and that this may have been something released when wheelie bins were first introduced to Bromsgrove to help highlight the potential safety issue of stepping into the road whilst people got used to handling the wheelie bins.

 

The Portfolio Holder for Finance and Governance thanked Cllr Hotham for highlighting that this may have previously been advised.

 

Council was informed that waste procedures and information for residents would be updated over the next few months and this information would be included in the Council Tax Bill as usual the following year. Members were reassured that this point would be taken into consideration in order to avoid any potential confusion for residents.

Supporting documents: