Agenda item
Member Questions
Minutes:
1. |
Question from Councillor Tim Harman to the Cabinet Member Finance, Councillor John Rawson |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The area of the
Royal Well Bus station used for Coach departures operated by
National Express is in a deplorable state with most windows
missing , the waiting room closed due to anti social behaviour and
an abandoned bicycle with a wheel missing which has been in the
cycle area for some months. Can the Cabinet Member inform council of his plans to improve this facility and bring it up to the standard that should be expected of this important gateway into and out of our town?
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Response from Cabinet Member Finance |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Borough Council owns the bus station and is therefore responsible for maintaining it, a responsibility we take seriously.
Currently a number of different contracts are in place for cleaning and maintaining the site, including a specialist contractor to remove human waste.
Earlier this year, the Council closed the waiting room because it had become a regular place for vagrants to sleep and perform other functions and this was a cause of serious nuisance to bus passengers. The waiting room continues to be closed for this reason. The glass in the shelter adjacent to the waiting room was removed by the Council some considerable time ago for safety reasons as it was subject to constant vandalism.
An initial working group meeting has recently been held between some of the relevant partners (Property Services, Community Protection, Police, Cheltenham Development Taskforce) to discuss a strategy for the bus station. Subsequent to that, I have agreed the following courses of action with officers:
I understand action is now being taken to remove the bicycle Cllr Harman refers to.
In a supplementary question Councillor Harman asked whether any immediate measures could be taken to improve the facility, particular given the inclement weather and requested that the matter should be referred to the Asset Management Working Group (AMWG).
In response the Cabinet Member Finance undertook to talk to property services and to bring this matter to the attention of AMWG.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2. |
Question from Councillor Anne Regan to Cabinet Member Clean and Green Environment, Councillor Chris Coleman |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Ward Councillors
in Warden Hill are experiencing continual and increasing complaints
from members of the public about Dog Fouling.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Response from Cabinet Member Clean and Green Environment |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Yes - most of the recommendations of the Scrutiny Task Group have been actioned, including all of the immediate and short term actions identified in Appendix 2 to the Cabinet report of 15th April 2014. A brief summary of those follows:
Members receiving complaints from residents about dog fouling can report them through the normal channels.
In a supplementary
question Councillor Regan asked what the time frame was to roll out
the bin sticker scheme.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3. |
Question from Councillor Chris Nelson to the Leader, Councillor Steve Jordan |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government stated at a DCLG Briefing at the Conservative Party Conference last week that Green Belt should be protected from development and only allowed in the most exceptional circumstances; there was no pressure from Government to build on Green Belt. He has subsequently issued new guidance to protect the Green Belt: “once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances”. Specifically the new guidance makes clear that councils do not have to build on the Green Belt just to meet the locally set long term housing targets. It has been reported that: “Many council planning officers are telling their councillors that they have to remove Green Belt protection when drawing up their Local Plans, in order to meet housing demand. We are making clear that this isn’t the case, and they can take into account development restrictions – such as ongoing Green Belt protection – when drawing up their Local Plans and determining how many houses they want to plan for.” Why is it that the JCS Authorities seem determined to press forward with their plans for urban sprawl and building on Green Belt?
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Response from |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Obviously I can’t speak for the Conservative administrations in Gloucester and Tewkesbury and I’m not sure whether Cllr Nelson seriously expects me to consider Tory conference gossip as evidence. The second quotation he uses does not refer to official Government policy. It comes from a “Government source” quoted in the Daily Telegraph on the 4th of October. Little weight can be attached to it.
The Government has updated its national Planning Practice Guidance (nPPG) for local authorities and the development industry. It once again confirms the importance the Government attaches to preserving the openness of the Green Belt and the importance of the local plan making process as the place when decisions may be made to review Green Belt boundaries.
However, the Government’s starting point in the plan making process remains that councils should meet objectively assessed needs for housing unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework as a whole. This was confirmed by the Secretary of State in March this year to the head of the Planning Inspectorate, and has not changed in the updated guidance. The updated guidance on Green Belt land does not change the Government’s requirement that the JCS authorities must significantly boost the supply of housing and maintain five year plus housing land supplies. If the Government’s requirements are not met in these respects, the JCS will be found unsound.
The JCS authorities have to assess the impact of new housing on the Green Belt in the same way as they have to consider impacts on the Cotswolds AONB, flood risk areas or areas of ecological significance. The JCS authorities have conducted substantial research to justify the spatial strategy adopted, including a careful review of the capacity of the built up areas of Cheltenham and Gloucester and other brownfield land to accommodate population growth. The JCS authorities have also conducted a detailed review and assessment of the Green Belt. It remains the case that the authorities will not be able to plan for their future housing needs within the existing built up areas or on brownfield land alone. These are the exceptional circumstances that justify a redrawing of the Green Belt boundaries.
NPPF paragraph 83 was quoted by the minister, it states: “once established, green belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan.”
The last phrase in this sentence is critical. It accepts that the appropriate time to review the Green Belt is during the plan making process. The effect of the change in guidance is to seek to prevent developers from chipping away at the greenbelt through the applications process when an authority lacks a five year supply, or seeking to change Green Belt boundaries on appeal. Changes to the Green Belt are reinforced as being plan led rather than appeal led.
Officers conclude that the update to the nPPG does not raise any new matters that would justify a rethink of the spatial strategy that underpins the JCS, it merely reiterates and reinforces the position taken throughout the JCS’ development.
In a supplementary question Councillor Nelson asked the Leader to comment on why policy guidance had been issued by the Secretary of State on 6 October if there was not a reason for doing so and sought further clarification.
In response the Leader explained that if there were not the proposed urban extensions then the JCS area would only meet 60 % of its assessed housing need. He said that it was likely to be unacceptable if the JCS missed the assessed housing need target by 40 %.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4. |
Question from Councillor Chris Nelson to Cabinet Member Clean and Green Environment, Councillor Chris Coleman |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In August, DCLG made available a new £5M recycling fund for Councils offering weekly bin collections. There is evidence to support that weekly collections increase recycling rates over fortnightly collections and are preferred by the public, reducing complaints about persistent rubbish smells and maggot infestations in the summer months, and rodent activity. This fund has been welcomed by GreenRedeem, which runs recycling incentive schemes, as a “step in the right direction” towards helping the UK meet its waste targets. Has the Council considered switching to weekly collections?
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Response from Cabinet Member Clean and Green Environment |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In 2012, the Government put forward a DCLG funding proposal – ‘Weekly Refuse Collections Incentive’ which was very prescriptive in nature and designed to aid Local Authorities in introducing separate food waste collections or returning to a weekly refuse service where they currently operated an alternate weekly collection.
Local Authorities which took up this funding were bound for 5 years and could not revert back to fortnightly refuse collections during that time. This represented a large risk to a Local Authority of being stuck with higher amounts of landfill waste for that time period due to the fact that if weekly refuse collections were reinstated, households would in effect be allotted twice the amount of capacity in their refuse bins.
This would in turn jeopardise the Council’s ability to hit recycling targets and would dramatically increase the risk of being financially penalised for the amount of rubbish the authority and County sends to landfill.
We understand that at that time, Cotswold District Council completed a modelling study on the implications of returning to a weekly refuse collection under the DCLG proposal which demonstrated that the costs would be substantially higher, income would decrease, landfilled waste would increase and the associated recycling performance would be negatively affected.
Cheltenham Borough Council's elected members agreed to the introduction of a revised waste collection service including fortnightly refuse collections in 2011, which has achieved positive results in increasing the amount of refuse being diverted from landfill and increasing the capture of recycling material.
The most recent DCLG funding is based on the same principles as in 2012, with the aspiration being to reinstate weekly refuse collections, so given the our current performance, the Council has decided not to pursue the DCLG funding application or return to weekly refuse collections.
In a supplementary question Councillor Nelson asked whether the Cabinet Member was happy with the Council’s performance on recycling or whether it could do better.
In response the Cabinet Member said that the national focus was on achieving zero waste and that was the council’s direction of travel. The council would do all it could to encourage residents in the town to recycle more. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5. |
Question from Councillor Matt Babbage to Cabinet Member Clean and Green Environment, Councillor Chris Coleman |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Please can you give an update on the trial of recycling of mixed plastics at recycling bring sites and to provide statistics on levels of recycling, and particularly plastics, over the last twelve months. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Response from Cabinet Member Clean and Green Environment |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The 3 month trial of mixed plastics at the 12 larger bring sites was successful and the scheme has proved to be essentially cost neutral with a modest net gain of £158 and therefore has no budgetary impact.
As a result the Cabinet made the decision in September 2014 to instate mixed plastics bring site recycling as a permanent service enhancement.
Detailed below are the collected tonnage amounts of plastic bottles (2013/14) compared to mixed plastics (June 2014 onwards);
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bring Sites |
Apr |
May |
Jun |
Jul |
Aug |
Sep |
Oct |
Nov |
Dec |
Jan |
Feb |
Mar |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2014/15 |
6.29 |
5.94 |
6.17 |
6.02 |
7.32 |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2013/14 |
5.96 |
5.36 |
5.98 |
7.33 |
6.88 |
4.95 |
6.63 |
5.74 |
5.97 |
6.65 |
4.82 |
5.3 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Difference |
0.33 |
0.58 |
0.19 |
-1.3 |
0.44 |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Swindon Rd |
Apr |
May |
Jun |
Jul |
Aug |
Sep |
Oct |
Nov |
Dec |
Jan |
Feb |
Mar |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2014/15 |
1.08 |
0.82 |
1.3 |
1.44 |
1.88 |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2013/14 |
0.8 |
0.72 |
0.9 |
1.06 |
1.06 |
1.06 |
1 |
0.86 |
1.06 |
0.96 |
0.66 |
0.98 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Difference |
0.28 |
0.1 |
0.4 |
0.38 |
0.82 |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Swindon Road recycling centre has seen the largest increase since the trial began. I hope that following the upcoming official launch of the permanent service, this improving performance will continue.
Finally, as detailed in the Cabinet report on this subject, it is worth noting that the indications are that the weight of plastic bottles collected as part of the kerbside collections has also increased which would suggest that the increase at recycling banks following the start of the trial isn’t a result of a transfer of material previously collected at the kerbside.
In a supplementary question Councillor Babbage asked why there had been a reduction in plastics recycling at bring sites over the last four months.
In response the Cabinet Member said that the trial of the mixed plastics collection had had a positive effect and this is why the decision had been taken to implement a permanent service enhancement in the form of mixed plastics bring site recycling which would commence in the coming weeks. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6. |
Question from Councillor Matt Babbage to Cabinet Member Clean and Green Environment, Councillor Chris Coleman |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Following the changes made at recycling bring sites, what consideration has been given to expanding the recycling of mixed plastics to kerbside collections. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Response from Cabinet Member Clean and Green Environment |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Council has previously explored the options available for collecting mixed plastics from the kerbside, with Ubico conducting a modelling exercise to assess the likely financial implications. At this point in time, any kerbside collection of mixed plastics is not financially viable within current budget constraints.
It does however remain our aspiration to see mixed plastics collected at the kerbside and I will keep the possibility under review.
Members will be aware of the mixed plastics service provided at the 12 larger bring sites across town (referred to above). It is encouraging to see residents making use of this and I hope that Councillors will also be keen to support the scheme.
In a supplementary question Councillor Babbage asked how recycling levels could be improved if there was no mixed kerbside recycling.
In response the Cabinet Member reported that recycling levels were improving as a result of the introduction of mixed plastics bring sites recycling. They were also working to make it easier for residents to recycle food waste and he would welcome ideas to drive the message forward. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7. |
Question from Councillor Matt Babbage to the Leader, Councillor Steve Jordan |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What steps have been taken following the critical report by York Aviation on the governance and financial performance of Gloucestershire Airport? |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Response from the Leader |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
An initial York Aviation report was written and paid for by Gloucester City Council which reviewed their future options as shareholders in the Gloucestershire Airport Company. This helped them come to the view, already held by Cheltenham, that the airport does provide economic value to Gloucestershire as well a potential long term income to the councils as shareholders. The second York Aviation report was jointly funded by both councils and looked at possible changes to improve the company. This highlighted the operational success of the airport but also pointed out potential improvements.
Since then both councils have agreed to fund York Aviation to support further work with the company to develop the business plan.
The proposed Shareholder Forum where the council leaders (as designated shareholders) and relevant officer meet with the company executives and board members has already has its first meeting.
Work is also progressing on plans to strengthen the board by appointing 2 non-executive directors with specific airport related knowledge.
In a supplementary question Councillor Babbage asked what the long term strategic goal was for the council’s ownership of the airport.
In response the Leader explained that the airport was of great benefit to the local economy as a whole. The council derived income from property at the airport and a small dividend but the overall aim was to improve the return on investment on behalf of the taxpayers of Cheltenham. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8. |
Question from Councillor Matt Babbage to Cabinet Member Housing, Councillor Peter Jeffries |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What steps have been taken within CBC and Cheltenham Borough Homes to avoid a repeat of the scenes in Cleevemount Rd where protests against CBH work to replace roof tiles have led to an alleged assault on a 79 year old man.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Response from Cabinet Member Housing |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
CBH have been implementing a roof replacement contract on existing CBC domestic properties across the town as part of their planned investment and maintenance program. Currently 379 roofs are being replaced under the present contract, there have been no other issues raised regarding the types of tiles that have been used in any of the other areas where CBH have been working. In this particular road one property is owned by CBC and the roof has been replaced, the remainder are privately owned.
I am confident that CBH have carried out the works correctly in line with the relevant guidelines and policy, the tenant supported by some of his neighbours are happy but two complaints were received from residents within the road. CBH and I were invited to attend a meeting within the community where approximately 10 households were represented, we listened to their concerns, provided information and answered questions.
Following the issues arising from these discussions CBC and CBH have agreed that in future, where possible, practical and economically feasible to do so CBH will undertake a wider community consultation and provide a unique solution in replacing one-off roofs.
In a supplementary question Councillor Babbage asked whether an apology had been issued to the gentleman who had been hospitalised as a result of the aforementioned incident.
In response the Cabinet Member Housing said that this was not his responsibility as the issue did not fall into his portfolio as Cabinet Member responsible for housing and the issue should be taken up directly with the Cheltenham Liberal Democrat Office. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
9. |
Question from Councillor Matt Babbage to Cabinet Member Corporate Services, Councillor Jon Walklett |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What measures are being taken to resolve ongoing ICT issues generally, and particularly public facing websites including the PublicAccess planning portal, which is frequently the source of complaints from residents of Cheltenham |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Response from Cabinet Member Corporate Services |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The underlying issue with the councils ICT is the lack of investment over very many years in ICT infrastructure. As members will be aware this is being addressed by the £1.3m investment programme we agreed in council on February 2013 but this is a major programme and there is not a quick fix.
The issues we are currently facing with public facing ICT is a result of both issues with external provider’s links to the council plus the inadequacy of the council’s internal network connecting our partners.
ICT are working with the provider of the Public Access portal to upgrade the infrastructure as well as upgrade the Public Access system to the latest release. ICT are also investigating the monitoring of public websites so that we can better resolve any issues being experienced.
The ICT shared service has been working with Cotswold and West Oxford District councils and have redesigned the network which will increase capacity linking sites tenfold, remove the reliance of individual sites such as the Municipal Offices and provide a more stable platform for the council and partner organisation’s business systems. As you will already be aware from the communication from the ICT shared service, via the communications team on 2nd October, this work is in progress and relies on third parties but we currently anticipate it being completed in December 2014.
In a supplementary question Councillor Babbage asked what steps were being taken to accommodate time pressures involved in terms of the planning process and the planning portal.
In response the Cabinet Member said he was aware that the Planning Portal was not functioning as it should. He informed Members that SOCITM monitored the council’s ICT. Officers were looking at ways to improve the facilities and a redesign was in progress. He highlighted that whilst there had been some degree of “firefighting” since the introduction of the shared service with the Forest of Dean in April 2013, much progress had been made over the last 18 months. He emphasised that an issue with a public facing service such as ICT would always receive priority. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10. |
Question from Councillor Nelson to Cabinet Member Development and Safety, Councillor Andrew McKinlay |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Our Planning Committee has recently raised the issue of a shortage of Council Enforcement Officers to police planning conditions/restrictions. Councillor case work from residents also suggests that we have insufficient personnel to ensure developers and builders follow correct procedures. What is the average time taken for Enforcement Officers to resolve complaints and has their workload increased over the last 2 years? Is the number of outstanding cases increasing and how long will it be before all existing outstanding cases are actioned? Is it not time to review this whole issue and consider increased resources to this important area of Council responsibility.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Response from Cabinet Member Development and Safety |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1) The Council has a target of resolving 80 percent of enforcement cases within 13 weeks. Latest statistics indicate the current performance rate against this target is 84 percent.
2) The overall workload of the Planning enforcement Team has remained relatively constant over the past four years. What has increased however is the number of cases where formal action was required:-
2011:- 10 Statuary Planning Notices served. 2013:- 27 Statuary Planning Notices served. 2014:- 28 Statuary Planning Notices served to date plus 2 Prosecutions & 4 Formal Cautions.
3) The Built Environment Local Enforcement Plan (planning) lays out time scales for responding to complaints:- Priority One :- 10 Days Priority Two :- 20 Days Priority Three:- 30 Days
Final resolution will however depend on the individual circumstances of each case.
4) The issues surrounding the effectiveness of both Planning and Licensing enforcement are currently being reviewed as part of the REST project.
In a supplementary question Councillor Nelson said that bearing in mind the proposed increase in development in the framework of the Joint Core Strategy the overall workload of the planning enforcement team would increase further. He asked whether formal actions had increased due to further disregard of planning regulations or whether it was due to a more proactive approach to enforcement.
In response the Cabinet Member Development and Safety indicated that council officers dealt with about 500 cases per year and of those about 200 were addressed through some informal action. What mattered most was that people understand that the council would take action either formally or informally when conditions attached to planning permission were breached. This issue would be examined as part of the REST project. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
11. |
Question from Councillor Chris Nelson to the Leader, Councillor Steve Jordan |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
What is the Cabinet doing to ensure Gloucestershire County Council repair potholes and broken pavements in Cheltenham? How do we monitor County Council performance and check that Cheltenham receives the priority it needs and deserves? We all know that money is tight but what evidence do we have that Cheltenham’s potholes and pavement repairs receive a fair allocation of resources from the County?
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Response from the Leader |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As implied in the question, road and pavement repairs are the responsibility of Gloucestershire County Council and the responsibility for monitoring their performance rests with Environment & Communities Scrutiny Committee. While Cheltenham Borough Council doesn’t have enough staff to duplicate the GCC role, our staff have worked closely with the county on key projects such as the Promenade repaving works.
However, I would welcome a review of relative performance on pothole and pavement repairs across the county particularly given the project delays resulting from the transfer of the highways contract to Amey.
In a supplementary question Councillor Nelson asked how the performance would be monitored.
In response the Leader said that in the first instance this would be undertaken by the relevant county scrutiny committee. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
12. |
Question from Councillor Chris Nelson to the Leader, Councillor Steve Jordan |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The latest report by York Aviation consultants on Staverton Airport make dismal reading and highlights problems that should have been tackled years ago, within the Airport management and with Council oversight and the setting of long term objectives. When will this airport give the Council a good return on our investment or is it time to look for radical solutions, such as being fully privatized or using the location as a strategic site for house building within the JCS?
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Response from the Leader |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
If Cllr Nelson wishes to build all over the airport he would first need to abandon any policy of protecting the Green Belt. The airport forms part of the area of Green Belt that prevents Cheltenham & Gloucester sprawling in to each other.
A key objective of reforming the company governance is to ensure that the long term increase in return to shareholders envisaged in the original Runway Safety Project is realised. For details of how this is being progressed see question 7. If any offers to purchase the company were received they would be considered by the shareholders.
In a supplementary question Councillor Nelson asked when a good return on the council’s investment could be expected bearing in mind that there appeared to be a lack of a long term objective for the airport.
In response the Leader said that things were expected to improve and the Runway Safety Project was predicted to lead to a gradual increase in dividend. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
13. |
Question from Councillor Chris Nelson to Cabinet Member Corporate Services, Councillor Jon Walklett |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Anyone making submissions on planning applications knows what a nightmare the Council website is – on top of the usual access problems, it is not user friendly and it is very easy to lose comments typed in ‘live’ rather than attached as a separate word document. When will the Council website be updated and brought into the 21st Century?
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Response from Cabinet Member Corporate Services |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
An upgrade is being planned for Public Access for early in the new year. The newer version has been made to look and feel more customer friendly and should resolve some of the issues currently being experienced.
In terms of the council corporate website, the current website went live in 2007 following a major upgrade to improve usability and subsequently has continued to score well in the Society of Information Technology Management (SOCITM) annual benchmarking tests. We are aware that it may well start to slip down the ranks as we do not have a “responsive design” embedded that enables people to use the site easily via mobile phones and tablets and are considering how we might mitigate against this happening.
In a supplementary question Councillor Nelson welcomed the proposed improvements to the website but asked whether the Cabinet Member was confident that they could be achieved in the necessary timeframe.
In response the Cabinet Member confirmed that the issues should be resolved between now and the end of December. He would look into the details further and provide feedback for Members. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||