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 by close of business on Friday 9 October 2009.
Minutes:
The Mayor reported that Councillor Shirley Jones had submitted a question under Procedure Rule No. 11 (Public Speaking and Questions at Council Meetings) but this had been omitted in error. The question, together with the response, would be issued by e-mail to all Councillors.
Questions and responses were as follows:
Question 1
Councillor M Parsons: regarding the account taken by Cabinet of the results of call-in and public objections to its decision on car parking charges.
The Cabinet Member for Environmental Services responded to the effect that there had been a consultation period of five weeks and five public meetings had been held in addition to the discussions at Cabinet and Scrutiny Committee. The views of the public had been taken into account by Cabinet which had amended its decision for two of the five towns (Alsager and Holmes Chapel). The revised decision had been issued for further consultation and Cabinet would be holding a special meeting on 10th November 2009 to review the matter.
Question 2
Councillor C G Thorley: regarding the time taken to pay invoices and grants.
The Cabinet Member for Resources responded. Procedures for payment of invoices and grants had been established and these were monitored to ensure that standards were being met. Processing times for payment was averaging eight days which exceeded the service delivery standard. There were no certified invoices awaiting payment.
Councillor Thorley asked a supplementary question in respect of a grant to “Dial-a-Ride” and this was answered by the Cabinet Member.
Question 3
Councillor C G Thorley: regarding the procedure to deal with neglected derelict houses.
The Cabinet Member for Prosperity responded by outlining the process of dealing with all matters of enforcement, which was to carry out a risk assessment and determine the most appropriate course of action. The approach to enforcement was to build a working relationship with the property owner(s) and, in cases where an informal approach was ineffective, the Council had powers to act under the Housing Act 2004.
Councillor Thorley asked a supplementary question in respect of a property within his ward and the Cabinet Member responded.
Question 4
Councillor D Flude: regarding a petition from the Safer Pavements Action Team Crewe, calling for pavement repairs in Crewe.
The Cabinet Member for Environmental Services informed Council that the petition had been received and considered. However, it would not take precedence over the professional assessment of highways and the Council would continue to apply a consistent and fair policy across the whole of the borough, making repairs based on need and priority.
Members were informed of overall budget details and levels of investment in various aspects of highway maintenance.
Question 5
Councillor D Flude: regarding Sunday parking charges and its effect on shop-keepers in Crewe.
The Cabinet Member for Environmental Services responded. The Sunday parking charge (introduced by the former Crewe and Nantwich Borough Council) had contributed approximately £50,000 to the budget for the current financial year.
The Chairman of the Environment and Prosperity Scrutiny Committee had agreed that he would request a Task Group to consider the issue of car parking charges across the borough. Its findings would be reported to the Committee, which, in turn, would make recommendations to inform the budget-setting process for 2010-2011.
Question 6
Councillor Flude: regarding the Council’s intentions towards recording and filming its proceedings.
The Leader of the Council responded that as this was Local Democracy Week, it had brought to the fore the need to identify more creative ways of opening up meetings for residents.
Some of the former authorities in Cheshire had webcast its meetings, but it was understood that there had been limited public interest in viewing them. The cost of the technology was expensive and Officers had been asked to consider the potential costs and benefits of introducing such a system. A report would be submitted to the Corporate Scrutiny Committee in due course.