Agenda item
Member Questions
Minutes:
|
1. |
Question from Councillor Smith to the Leader, Councillor Steve Jordan |
|
|
Does the Leader of the Council agree that the decision of the Licensing Committee to permit the opening of a lap dancing club is yet another example of the failure of this council to listen to the views of the residents of Cheltenham?
|
|
|
Response from the Leader |
|
|
I have no wish to be drawn into a political argument about the Licensing Committee decision to which Councillor Smith refers, as it was a decision on which members made their own individual judgements and the voting on both sides was cross-party. In general I believe that the Council and its committees do consider the views of the public and try to act on them.
|
|
2. |
Question from Councillor Smith to the Leader, Councillor Steve Jordan |
|
|
Can the Leader explain how the the original bid for funding for the redevelopment of Cheltenham Spa that was submitted to GLTB by the Task Force states the plans for two new bay platforms were identified as the preferred option “following consultation with both Network Rail and train operating companies". Can he explain what consultation was actually undertaken? Who was contacted, what was asked and what responses were received? Doesn't the repudiation of this bid by Network Rail as reported in the Echo seriously undermine the credibility of the Task Force and call into question the role of the Board in approving such bids? |
|
|
Response from Cabinet Member |
|
|
The initial request for schemes was only on 4th Feb 2013 with the deadline of 1st March 2013 for bids to go to the GLTB meeting on 21st March. A subsequent GLTB meeting on 17th July 2013 then prioritised the bids. In developing the proposal for Cheltenham Spa, meetings were held with Network Rail and First Great Western, amongst many other interested parties. Letters were received from Katherine Campbell (NR Senior Strategic Planner Western) and Mike Hogg (FGW Head of Operations) with reference to the bay platforms as part of the wider ambition; these were submitted as part of the GLTB bid process. Having received support from key players the bid was pursued.
I would like to thank the Cheltenham Development Task Force for their work in developing a scheme that if it comes about, even in a revised form, will be a long overdue improvement at Cheltenham Spa station. The bid shows clear ambition for our town and is supported by rail user groups, rail operating companies and individuals alike. I believe their pragmatic approach to try and progress the scheme minus the bay platforms but in a manner that creates passive provision for them in the future is to be congratulated.
|
|
3. |
Question from Councillor Garnham to the Leader, Councillor Steve Jordan |
|
|
The accountability of Cabinet Members is an extremely important part of their role. For many years it was part of a Cabinet Members responsibility to play a full role in scrutinising the award of contracts and even being present when tenders were opened. Can the Leader explain why this process is no longer followed and how Cabinet Members fulfil their obligations when contracts are awarded by Cheltenham Borough Council?
|
|
|
Response from Cabinet Member |
|
|
The current position in the Council’s Constitution is that the Chief Executive, Deputy Chief Executive and Directors can accept tenders not exceeding £100K in value; tenders in excess of £100K have to be accepted by the lead cabinet member. The previous position (before March 2012)) was that senior officers could accept tenders and the Cabinet Member then briefed on the decision. Prior to September 2008 there was a requirement for a Member to witness the opening of tenders and, since that date, Members have had the opportunity to witness the opening of tenders. There has never, to my knowledge, been a requirement for Cabinet Members to witness the opening of tenders.
Clearly it is important that the lead Cabinet Member is involved in agreeing the proposed work programme that would lead to letting a contract and then for the officers to procure the works/services/goods in accordance with the cabinet/cabinet lead decision and in compliance with the contract and financial rules, keeping the lead member briefed as appropriate.
In a supplementary question, Councillor Garnham referred to the response given by the Cabinet Member Sustainability to Q4 saying he was “not directly involved”, and asked whether the Leader was happy with his Cabinet Member’s involvement.
The Leader advised that in his view there were two different issues. Firstly there was the process for taking key decisions on major projects which would involve the Cabinet Member or in some cases Council if there were budgetary implications. The minutiae of a contract was a very different issue and members were dependent on the technical advice from officers to determine the best contract.
|
|
|
|
|
4. |
Question from Councillor Garnham to Cabinet Member Sustainability, Councillor Roger Whyborn |
|
|
Can the Cabinet Member for Sustainability explain his role in the awarding of the contract to replace the burners and associated equipment at the Crematorium? Was he involved in the drawing up of the criteria in which to judge the tenders? Did he play any part in the awarding of the contract? At what point did the Cabinet Member realise that the whole refurbishment process was going wrong and what actions did he take?
|
|
|
Response from Cabinet Member |
|
|
I was not directly involved in the contract award for the cremators and ancillary equipment, as Cabinet Member, and this was not required under the Constitution.
In terms of my involvement following faults with the cremators post-installation, the chronology is that the supplier was supporting the cremator plant regularly until they went into liquidation in July. Maintenance continued to be available from third parties, but it became necessary for matters to be escalated on the corporate risk register in the late summer, at which point I took a personal and detailed interest in all issues. I intend to issue more detailed briefing to all members, but in summary I am satisfied that the most safety-critical matters have already been rectified, and a further programme of work is well in hand. As for the long-term ‘prognosis’ regarding the cremator plant – and in particular the viability of the abatement system, I have received and accepted officer advice, and thus I consider it premature to draw conclusions until a sustained period of several months operation has been achieved.
In a supplementary question, Councillor Garnham asked what the Cabinet Member did do to merit his £16,000 annual Special Responsibility Allowance.
The Cabinet Member
Sustainability responded that he would need a long time to answer
that question so he proposed to respond to Councillor Garnham outside the meeting. |
|
5. |
Question from Councillor Harman to Cabinet Member Built Environment, Councillor Andrew McKinlay |
|
|
Will the Cabinet Member inform the Council what steps are being taken to reduce/control the number of estate agents advertising Boards in the Town including in the Conservation Area?
|
|
|
Response from Cabinet Member |
|
|
Two months ago the Director of Built Environment wrote to all estate agents in Cheltenham explaining how regulations the Council enforce affected agents’ rights to display their boards. Common breaches of legislation included boards attached directly to listed buildings, multiple signs and boards being left up long after completion of a sale or the granting of a tenancy.
This letter was also followed up by visits to the offices of eight estate agents in town by officers from the Built Environment Enforcement team. The purpose of these officer visits was to ensure that the letter had been properly received and understood.
The need to comply with the regulations and the associated penalties for non-compliance were made clear. Contraventions may result in prosecution and / or the pasting of the board by the Council, stating that it is an illegal advertisement. It was also stated that it was the Council's intention to enforce the legislation without further notice and in doing so, to seek to reduce the incidence of bad practice, improve household security and improve the visual amenity of the town.
Eight boards have been removed in the past few weeks following direct requests by the Council and it has been noted that since the letter was sent, there has been a marked reduction in boards in certain areas. The legitimacy of all agents’ boards will continue to be monitored and action will be taken where appropriate.
|
|
6. |
Question from Councillor Driver to Cabinet Member Sustainability, Councillor Roger Whyborn |
|
|
Could the Cabinet Member responsible for recycling do something about the facilities taken away from the north place site which so many residents used and UBICO agreed with. In the planning application that was agreed at committee an amendment was put into place that these facilities should stay even after re-development, but as the developer has closed the car park they have also closed the recycling collection point. Please can this be put back into place for those people who live in flats and multi occupancy who do not have recycling bins or areas. This request comes from residents and was also asked by UBICO at an O&S meeting that I attended recently.
|
|
|
Response from Cabinet Member |
|
|
Under planning condition 39 which relates to recycling facilities on the site, the developer has provided details of proposals in order to discharge the condition.
The developer can not be made liable for CBC recycling skips so a decision was made for these to be removed completely and other nearest available sites flagged to users – these are principally at St James’s car park, but also High Street car park.
Subject to usage it was agreed that amendments may be necessary in terms of frequency of emptying at St James’s and High Street car parks to accommodate the additional material, so Ubico is monitoring the usage at both sites and will amend their emptying cycle accordingly. Indeed frequency of emptying is currently being studied at all sites with a view to optimising the service provided for all recycled products.
Although pleased with the answer, Councillor Driver asked the Cabinet Member if he could advertise these supplementary sites and notify the public that there were plans to bring back a facility to North Place.
The Cabinet Member replied that the council keeps a list of available sites and issues a media release when things change. |