In accordance with Procedure Rules 11, opportunity is provided for Members of the Council to ask the Chairman, the appropriate Cabinet Member or the Chairman of a Committee any question about a matter which the Council, the Cabinet or the Committee has powers, duties or responsibilities.
Questions must be sent in writing to the Monitoring Officer at least 3 clear working days before the meeting.
Minutes:
The following questions had been submitted in accordance with Procedure Rule 11:
Question 1
Councillor D Brickhill had submitted the following question:
What was the cost of the eight collections of the green bins in Crewe and Nantwich and what was the income from Shotton for the clean white paper during financial year 2010/11?
Councillor R Menlove, Portfolio Holder for Environmental Services responded as follows:
The annual cost of the “green bin” paper collection in 2010-11 was about £260,000. The income from the sale of paper collected in this kerbside operation was in the same period about £190,000. So the net cost to the Council was about £70,000.
Councillor Brickhill asked the following supplementary question
What was the net cost of the green bins to Cheshire / Crewe and Nantwich and what will be the net receipt after collection and disposal?
Councillor R Menlove responded as follows:
The green bins were purchased by the former Crewe and Nantwich Council and we are uncertain about their actual cost. However, in considering ways to improve the recycling service for the new Borough, we established that to provide green bins to properties in the Macclesfield and Congleton areas would cost about £2m. This would be an additional cost to the service now being implemented. The collection and recycling of the green bins from the Crewe and Nantwich is a one-off cost of about £35,000. There was no commercial interest in purchasing these used bins.
Question 2
Councillor D Brickhill had submitted the following question:-
Given that this Council was made aware on July 27th 2010 that there was to be a sale by tender of the post office sorting office on Weston Lane, Crewe, why was it necessary to deprive the Council of debate on the purchase and use the emergency powers in November instead?
Councillor W Fitzgerald, Leader of the Council, responded as follows:
The Royal Mail site, Weston Road, Crewe was first marketed for disposal by the Royal Mail’s agents on 11th October 2010, not 27th July 2010. The Council was aware in July that the Royal Mail was due to vacate the site but at that point the Royal Mail had not declared their proposed route of disposal or their timetable.
Councillor Brickhill asked the following supplementary question
I believe that this was not taken to Council because there was no adequate financial plan to justify this, is that correct?
Councillor W Fitzgerald responded as follows:
The
timescale was very compressed – on 11th October, the vendor
instructed their agent to secure all offers by 12th
November with a timetable that requires exchange of contracts
by 31st December
2010, and completion of sale by
31st January 2011.
Question 3
Councillor D Brickhill had submitted the following question:
Given that the Council Tax has not fallen since Cheshire East took over from county and district, how does the Leader (then Leader of Macclesfield Council) square his promises for savings in the bid to CLG with this incredibly poor out turn?
Councillor W Fitzgerald, Leader of the Council, responded as follows:
You are correct that Council Tax has not fallen, it has remained almost static with a small increase of 1.7% in 2010/11 which resulted in additional investment in services to children and families.
This has been achieved during a time when central government support has been falling but inflation has been rising.
The Cabinet and Officers have worked hard to achieve this result through its business planning process which has acknowledged growth pressures and protected the front line while maximising savings from back office services.
Our record on Council Tax for 9/10 to 11/12 speaks for itself as we have the lowest cumulative increase of the 23 Councils in the north west and second lowest of our 15 near neighbour comparators, beaten only by Shropshire who receive much greater levels of Government funding per head. (£326 compared to £194 for 11/12 formula grant).
RPI over the same three year period has been over 12% in cumulative terms representing a significant real terms saving.
Looking at savings the entire budget has been subject to review and challenge and resulted in savings of over £30m in 2009/10 and over £12m in 2010/11.
These savings have been delivered but at the same time there have been significant additional cost pressures in terms of rising adult care costs and the Chancellor’s in year funding reductions.
Councillor Brickhill asked the following supplementary question
Like all Councils in England, Cheshire East Council has accepted the Government’s subsidy, so council taxpayers have a right to expect the council tax to have fallen?
Councillor W Fitzgerald responded as follows:
I have given the answer to this question – in real terms I believe that the people of Cheshire East are grateful that we have managed this situation very well.
Question 4
Councillor D Brickhill had submitted the following question:
What has been the total cost of redundancies in both Cheshire East and Cheshire West since the change of Councils and how does this compare with the total of no more than £40 million promised in the bid to CLG to wreck the county and district councils to assist the then Labour government?
Councillor P Mason, Portfolio Holder for Procurement, Assets and Shared Services responded as follows:
I am not able to answer on behalf of Cheshire West and Chester Council as that is a matter for them, however, in regards to Cheshire East Council, for the two year period ending 31st March 2011, approximately £26 million has been spent or committed on redundancies. These costs however relate only in part to implementing changes arising from Local Government Reorganisation (LGR), which is what I believe you are referring to in your question.
The balance of the savings relate to the Council’s ongoing drive to improve services and to achieve greater efficiency and value for money from all of its services.
It is estimated that circa £11.7 million relates to LGR with the balance of circa £14.3 relating to our ongoing efficiency drive.
Councillor Brickhill asked the following supplementary question:
With all these redundancies surely the Council Tax should have fallen but it has not. Is this because Cheshire East employs more a lot more staff earning over £100,000 a year?
Councillor P Mason responded as follows:
Redundancies invoke costs which have a payback time of approximately 12 months and the benefits come in subsequent years. One of the benefits is being able to hold the council tax levels.
Question 5
Councillor R Cartlidge had submitted the following question:
Can the Portfolio Holder tell the Council, when a request is received from Councillors who have outstanding maintenance work which needs repairs or remedial work to be carried out in the Wards they represent :-
1. What is the time required for them to be rectified?
2. What is the best and expedient means of reporting them?
3. Is there a protocol or instruction on how officers are to react or action taken to rectify these problems?
Councillor R Menlove, Portfolio Holder for Environmental Services responded as follows:
With reference to your question re maintenance work and associated repair times, we are assuming that you are referring to Highways Maintenance
1. This very much depends upon the nature of the
highway request. For example should officers receive a report of a
dangerous defect the request will be actioned almost immediately to safeguard the public
and will probably take the form of an interim repair e.g. filling a
pot hole.
Should the maintenance work be substantial or complex in nature
then it will be considered for inclusion in our future investment
plans.
In all instances officers will always endeavour to keep the
individual Members updated on the approach being taken.
2.The best means of reporting highway maintenance issues is via our
online web reporting form, or alternatively our central
tel no. 0300 123 5020.
However we do know Members do on some occasions deal directly with
local officers.
3. In the case of emergency works, we will seek to
rectify these within one hour during the working day and 1.5hrs
outside of the normal working day.
Where defects are non-emergency, but are classed as a category 1
defect, these will be repaired within 24hrs this does depend on
severity of the weather at the time and available
resources. Programme works depending on
their complexity usually take between 6 to 8 weeks to
complete.
Councillor R Cartlidge asked the following supplementary question:
Can you please tell me why repairs to an electrical junction box have taken three years to carry out?
Councillor R Menlove responded as follows:
Could you provide me with location and nature of this defect and I will provide a written response
Question 6
Councillor R Cartlidge had submitted the following question:
Queens ParkCrewe
The 7.77 million Heritage Lottery Fund Grant to regenerate QueensPark in Crewe.
In the agreement with the Council there is an assurance that the park will be kept to the standard that it is in when handed back to the Council from the contractors for 10 years.
Can this Council be assured that the there will be dedicated teams [gardener’s and park wardens] as is stated in the agreement with the Heritage Lottery Fund to ensure that the park is kept to the very high standard that is expected by the Lottery Fund.
Councillor A Knowles, Portfolio Holder for Health and Wellbing responded as follows:
As the question confirms, it is a requirement of Cheshire East Council that Queen’s Park is maintained to an agreed standard in line with a Management Plan specifically for the Park. This Plan, to be agreed with the Heritage Lottery Fund and signed off by the Chief Executive, is currently being finalised through detailed discussions with the Heritage Lottery Fund.
As Cllr Cartlidge is aware, as a ‘Friend of Queen’s Park’, a huge amount of progress has been made on this project since Cheshire East Council came into being. By the summer most of this work will be completed and the communities of Crewe will have an asset of which they can justifiably be proud.
There will always be dedicated streetscape staff responsible for maintaining the park although their profile will vary in order to maximise learning and development opportunities.
Councillor R Cartlidge asked the following supplementary question:
Local residents have seen an increase in vandalism and feel dedicated park wardens and staff who they know would help with this situation and are concerned that staff could be from elsewhere.
Councillor A Knowles responded as follows:
I meant, for example, that if there was an apprentice it would give them the opportunity to gain experience working in the Park.
Question 7
Councillor D Flude has submitted the following question:-
How many Adult Safeguarding cases are at this time being investigated in Crewe?
Councillor R Domleo, Portfolio Holder for Adult Services responded as follows:
For Crewe figure is 138. Crewe has consistently the highest number of safeguarding referrals. The index of multiple depravation shows that Crewe has areas that are amongst the most deprived nationally. Safeguarding training take up shows that attendees from Crewe / Nantwich is the largest. Both of these factors will influence the levels of safeguarding referrals.
Councillor D Flude asked the following supplementary question:
Safeguarding is everyone’s responsibility – I believe we have 6 full time equivalent staff working in safeguarding so perhaps we need to review the staffing structure. Could I ask the Portfolio Holder to look again at staffing in Safeguard?
Councillor R Domleo responded as follows:
I will but I wish to remind Cllr Flude that the Council has put extra money into adult safeguarding this year - it is a very important area.
Question 8
Councillor T Beard had submitted the following question: -
There is much dissatisfaction among the stall holders in both the Crewe outdoor market and the indoor market regarding the 25% increase in their rents. Many stall holders are now find that there is very little profit to be made and their livelihoods are under threat, they are considering giving up trading at Crewe market, some have already have given up their stalls.
Considering that the Cheshire East Councils say’s that Crewe is the economic engine for the borough, has consideration been given to the viability of the market in Crewe for the resident population or is the interest in the income that can be gained from the car parking charges that could be made 6 days a week if the outside market was not there?
What was the total taken in rents from April 2010 to March 2011 at Crewe Market?
What is the total budget for the market’s in Crewe including staffing costs?
Councillor R Menlove, Portfolio Holder for Environmental Services responded as follows:
Cheshire East Council remains committed to providing sustainable and vibrant markets. To achieve this, part of our challenge is to ensure that Cheshire East council taxpayers, of whom there are more than 165,000, are not required to subsidise commercial operations. Markets therefore need to be individually sustainable in terms of operational expenditure and future investment needs. This is particularly critical at a time when we are discussing the transfer of markets to Town Councils.
Against this backdrop the promoted increase reflects a real and immediate need to put each market on a sustainable footing from a financial perspective. This perspective has been balanced with the commercial reality of market charges across the wider region. As a result it was decided to increase the charges for a full markets day trading by on average £6. Although rents will vary according to location, size, facilities and demand the current charges in Crewe are comparable to similar markets elsewhere with Stoke on Trent being one example.
The total amount received in rents was £269,100.95 between April 2010 and March 2011. The budget for this period was an expenditure of £256,900 including staffing costs. Clearly Officers will continue to review performance. To date we have received one notice.
Councillor Beard asked the following supplementary question:
We have already had one letter from a Market Trader. Would the Portfolio Holder be prepared to suspend the increase, carry out consultation with all the market traders in the Borough and refer the issue of an increase in market rents to a Scrutiny Committee?
Councillor R Menlove responded as follows:
As I said, we have to date only received one notice which I believe refers to general trade. The increase has not been implemented yet. I would like to remind Members that we do not received business rates from markets and that the council taxpayers should not be required to subsidise them.
Questions 9 to 13
Councillor J Narraway had submitted the following questions: -
In order to establish the effectiveness and Value for Money of the Cheshire East Voluntary Redundancy (VR) Scheme, please provide answers to the following questions:
What were the staff numbers and staff costs in each directorate of Cheshire East at the beginning of the municipal year 2009/10?
How many staff took VR and what has been the total financial cost of the VR program in the municipal year 2009/10?
What were the staff numbers and staff costs in each directorate of Cheshire East at the end of the municipal year 2009/10?
How many staff are projected to take VR and what is the projected total financial cost of the VR program in the municipal year 2010/11?
What are the projected staff numbers and staff costs in each Directorate of Cheshire East at the end of the municipal year 2010/2011?
Councillor P Mason, Portfolio Holder for Procurement, Assets and Shared Services responded as follows:
This is a very complex set of questions which require the extraction, collation and analysis of complex financial data from a number of sources, and which includes financial spend and commitments from as recently as last month. Regrettably it has not proven possible to collate the final data in time for the meeting today; however I can reassure Councillor Narraway that he will receive a written response shortly which will of course be copied to all Members of the Council at the same time.