Meeting documents
Cabinet
Wednesday, 2nd October, 2002
QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED OF EXECUTIVE COUNCILLORS AT THE COUNCIL EXECUTIVE MEETING 2ND OCTOBER, 2002
(Agenda item 6)
1. Question from Mr Alexander Johnston
The District Auditor Mr Richard Lott has recently confirmed to me in his letter dates 24th [September] 2002 that "..the consideration (£79 million) for the sale of the Council's housing stock to Somer Housing is contrary to law."
Can the Council Executive please confirm what they intend doing about this £79 million unlawful receipt into the Council's accounts?
Answer by Leader of the Council
The letter to which you refer is one which attached the District Auditor's conclusions on the objections that you made to the 1998/9 accounts concerning the disposal of the Council's housing stock. That disposal included within it a number of pieces of land that were undeveloped and the objection related to the procedure the Council has followed in respect of the transfer.
The letter included with it a "Statement of Reasons" which is currently being considered by the Council's legal advisers, Messrs Eversheds. We will consider what, if anything, needs to be done as a result of the District Auditor's Statement of Reasons once we have received the advice of our solicitors. In the meantime, no further comment can be made.
The Council recognised as long ago as May 2000 that there were deficiencies in the way that disposal of some land took place and at a meeting that month put in place procedures that addressed the issues raised.
2. Question from Councillor Gordon Wood (Transport Projects)
Decisions for funding allocation for transport projects in respect of the Urban Bus Challenge are due to be made in the Autumn. Did the transport directorate submit a bid for the Urban Bus Challenge, and if so what did it contain?
Answer by Executive Councillor Peter Metcalfe
A bid was submitted for Urban Bus Challenge and briefly was intended to provide a strategic public transport link between Odd Down Park & Ride site and the Royal United Hospital, Bath. It would also provide an innovative demand responsive public transport service through the deprived ward of Twerton to the Royal United Hospital (RUH). The project will utilise the latest technological advances in terms of vehicles and communication systems.
The objective would be (a) to provide new innovative travel choices for Hospital staff, patients and visitors. (b) to combat social exclusion particularly in the deprived Twerton ward (c) to enhance access to the hospital for people with disabilities and people with impaired mobility (d) to achieve sufficient passenger usage to enable the project to eventually become wholly or partly commercially viable
3. Question from Councillor Victor Pritchard (OPH relocation)
The policy of relocation for older peoples homes will not be changed because of the Government u-turn on care standards. Could the Executive Member give precise financial reasoning behind her decision not to alter policy because of the Disability Discrimination Act, as was stated at the last full Council meeting?
Answer by Executive Councillor Jane Tapper
The Council's Executive, in the light of a comprehensive report presented to it on July 12th 2002, made a decision to ask officers to consult widely on proposals to create a new model of care for older people in Bath and North East Somerset who need support services and who can no longer remain in their own homes.
Part of that consultation process also involved consulting with residents, their relatives and staff in the current EPH's about possible locations for new care homes. No decision has been made about the relocation of the current Elderly Peoples Homes or their residents and nor will it be until the consultation process is completed and the Executive has been fully informed concerning the outcome of that consultation.
I agree that the government, since that date, has made some changes to its earlier "environmental standards" under the Care standards Act 2000. However, as stated by me at full Council, other legislation such as the Disabled Discrimination Act remains a requirement on all local authorities. In the light of this I reminded people that the effect of this legislation could well mean that residents may have to be temporarily relocated even if the council decided to realign its thinking in relation to the changes in the Care Standards Act.
A full report on the alternatives available to the Council in relation to its supported care provision for older people is planned for a later Executive meeting. Part of that report will make clear the views of residents, their relatives, other important stakeholders and the staff of our current EPH's concerning the proposals upon which officers were asked to consult. The financial implications of those alternatives will be clearly set out for Members to consider prior to making final decisions about how to proceed.
4. Question from Councillor Francine Haeberling (use of the Euro)
Euros are now accepted at council attractions. The Executive Member for Culture and Leisure stated local businesses would also accept the currency. On 24th September, the Bath Chronicle reported a catalogue of difficulties when using the money. What steps are being taken to rectify the problems in the news report?
Answer by Executive Councillor Nicole O'Flaherty
The Resources Director has introduced a scheme to accept Euro at the Council's Heritage Services, and the TIC. As far as she is aware, there have been no problems in implementing this scheme at any of those sites. The exchange rate used is fixed by Customs and Excise, and checked for changes each Wednesday. It is currently 1.5611E to the £1.
There is no "rounding up" as stated by the Chronicle, and the till automatically converts to Euro using the proper exchange rate. Change is however given in Sterling, as only Euro notes can be accepted, and no Euro coin is held.
The Council is not responsible for the practices being implemented by other traders in the City of Bath.
5. Question from Councillor Victor Pritchard (Police Community Support Officers)
Avon and Somerset police are taking on 12 community support officers. Have any indications been made to the Council of the number to be stationed in Bath and North East Somerset?
Answer by Executive Councillor Steve Hedges
Avon and Somerset Police were this week awarded funding for 12 CSO posts, of which two are likely to be deployed in Bath and North East Somerset. They will be directed by the Police and may be deployed to any part of the district, to deal with matters as identified by the Police. Detailed discussions are taking place on issues such as the powers they will have. The scheme is likely to commence early in 2003.
The scheme will be very different from and distinct from the existing Parish and Neighbourhood Warden schemes which currently operate around the Avon and Somerset Area.
6. Question from Councillor Gordon Wood (cost of community consultations)
At the September Council Executive meeting, the Executive Member for Social Services stated that the cost of the Snow Hill and Queens Road community consultations were £30,000, plus some additional costs. What is the precise nature and figures of these costs?
Answer by Executive Councillor Jane Tapper
"The cost of the Social Inclusion pilots in Snow Hill and Keynsham was £29,267 in 2001/2 from the sum of £30k allocated in the Financial Plan for that year. A further sum of £11,950 has been spent in 2002/3 to complete the conduct of the Keynsham South Survey, the analysis of data, the preparation of reports for Snow Hill and Keynsham and the arrangement of community meetings to feed back the results. The Council is now working with a range of partner organisations to draw up a "community action plan" for each area, which will be presented to local residents later in the autumn. It is estimated that a further £600 to £800 will be required to meet the costs of these meetings, and discussions are being held with one of the key partner organisations about funding of them. An evaluation of the pilot projects is being undertaken to ensure that learning from them feeds into future work of the Council and its partner organisations.
7. Question from Councillor Peter Jovcic-Sas (Clandown School)
On 18 July I had the honour of presenting a petition regarding Clandown School to the full Council. The meeting agreed to refer the petition to the Director of Education for consideration and report to Cllr Curran. When might the people of Clandown expect a response?
Answer by Executive Councillor Gerry Curran
The petition of 88 names presented by Councillor Jovcic-Sas was sent to me by the Education Director in August, together with a covering report. The covering report is available on request. I was advised in that report that I was likely to be asked in the autumn to determine whether to publish statutory proposals for the closure of Clandown School. I was further advised that I should be mindful of the petition if asked by officers to consider the future of Clandown School.
I accepted recommendations in that report which were to request officers to include the petition with any report to the School Organisation Committee in 2002 or 2003 that related to the matters covered by the petition.
As I have not yet been asked to take any decision about the future of Clandown School, it has not been appropriate for me to consider this petition which, in essence, objects to such a closure. The Council's forward plan for Executive Decisions shows the Radstock Area Review as a matter for decision by me in October 2002. I will take full account of the petition during my considerations.
8. Question from Councillor Peter Jovcic-Sas (Taxi issues)
Last month Cllr Hedges met representatives from the Bath Taxi Drivers' Association to discuss various issues including an increase in license fees. I have received reports that relatively large increases were suggested and that the justification for this was that there were so many complaints to deal with concerning the authority's taxi drivers. Could the Cabinet member confirm or deny the validity of my information and would he consider launching an independent investigation into the whole issue of issuing taxi licence plates which appears to be have been open to abuse for a number of years?
Answer by Executive Councillor Steve Hedges
In view of the inadequate time to answer this question, I will ensure that a written response is provided to Councillor Jovcic-Sas within the prescribed period.
9. Question from Councillor Peter Jovcic-Sas (Spa Care Line)
Could someone explain why the decision to close the Spa Care Line was implemented before the five day call-in period had expired, in breach of the Council's constitution?
Answer by Executive Councillor Steve Hedges
In view of the inadequate time to answer this question, I will ensure that a written response is provided to Councillor Jovcic-Sas within the prescribed period.
10. Question from Councillor Peter Jovcic-Sas (Spa Care Line)
Could we also have an explanation of why the Spa Care Line was considered to be performing well until the demise of the committee system of accountability in May of this year, but suddenly was deemed to be financially not viable?
Answer by Executive Councillor Steve Hedges
In view of the inadequate time to answer this question, I will ensure that a written response is provided to Councillor Jovcic-Sas within the prescribed period.
11. Question from Councillor Peter Jovcic-Sas (Licensing Committee)
Given that last week's Licensing Committee meeting has now been declared inquorate by the Council's solicitor, what steps will be taken to ensure that all applicants considered (and members of the public) will have the opportunity to participate in a properly constituted re-run of the meeting?
Answer by Executive Councillor Steve Hedges
The Council Executive has no responsibility for or control over the operation of the Regulatory (Licensing) Committee.
12. Question from Councillor Peter Jovcic-Sas (Co-operatives)
In February 2002, senior B&NES officers agreed to my suggestion that an urgent "fact-finding" visit should be made to Bristol Community Sport in order for the Council's decision makers to discover how a "Leisure Co-operative" might benefit the residents and employees of Bath of North East Somerset. Why hasn't this been organised, despite my constant reminders?
Answer by Executive Councillor Nicole O'Flaherty
Nicole - The following is the explanation from Jean Hinks, the lead Officer.
"Early in the year I was asked to act as lead officer on a 'fact finding' mission to Bristol Community Sport. This was communicated to me via Democratic Services, but had been requested by Councillor Jovcic-Sas. Initially, I was confused as to the nature of the request, believing that the visit was to be arranged by Democratic Services, and that I was to accompany the visit, and did nothing therefore to organise the exchange. This confusion was clarified by early March, when I understood that I was expected to organise the visit as well. I immediately contacted Councillor Jovcic-Sas to ask for details of the purpose and objectives of the trip.
I heard nothing from Councillor Jovcic-Sas until the end of June, when he wrote to ask what was happening. I immediately responded to say that as I had not heard from him, I had assumed this was not a priority. Following some further discussion, I agreed to follow this up, and Bristol Community Sport were contacted to set something up. I was advised that they were however, in the middle of a difficult Best Value review, and that it would be preferable to leave any fact finding mission until this had been concluded. To my knowledge, this is only now drawing to a conclusion."
13. Question from Councillor Peter Jovcic-Sas (EPH provision)
When the Council considered the fate of our elderly person's homes last year, it became clear that a request for a full feasibility study on a co-operative option had not been carried out by our officers. Given the changes in circumstances relating to EPH's in the past few months, and the success of councils like Croydon in establishing such models, can Cllr Tapper now consider how a co-operative option might best serve our needs in the district?
Answer by Executive Councillor Jane Tapper
In view of the inadequate time to answer this question, I will ensure that a written response is provided to Councillor Jovcic-Sas within the prescribed period.
14. Question from Councillor Peter Jovcic-Sas (public transport)
On 26 August I wrote to Cllr Metcalfe with a series of suggestions concerning the improvement of public transport provision in B&NES. When might I expect a reply?
Answer by Executive Councillor Peter Metcalfe
In view of the inadequate time to answer this question, I will ensure that a written response is provided to Councillor Jovcic-Sas within the prescribed period.
15. Question from Councillor Peter Jovcic-Sas (Market & Coastal Towns Initiative)
The much-heralded Market & Coastal Towns Initiative for the Norton-Radstock area appears to be coming off the rails, much to the concern of the SWRDA and local parish councils. Could we have a simple, clear update as to what this Initiative has actually achieved in the last couple of years and what action will be taken to improve its ability to deliver locally identified needs?
Answer by Executive Councillor Roger Symonds
In view of the inadequate time to answer this question, I will ensure that a written response is provided to Councillor Jovcic-Sas within the prescribed period.
16. Question on behalf of Parish Councillor Anne Marie Jovcic-Sas (Quality Parish Partnership)
Norton-Radstock Town Council is working towards Quality Parish Council status. What partnership arrangements are you going to put in place to accommodate the new way of working that is bound to evolve from this process?
Answer by Leader of Council
The issue of Quality Parishes was discussed earlier this year with Parishes and at that time a response was awaited from the Avon Local Councils' Association (ALCA) which would have informed our joint discussions. It is my understanding that individual parishes are now left to consider their position on this. Clearly the Council will consider all of the impacts of this initiative as and when formal indications are given by individual parish councils that this is to be pursued.
17. Question on behalf of Parish Councillor Anne Marie Jovcic-Sas (Public Realm)
In March 2003, B&NES will be asked to adopt Supplementary Planning Guidance regarding the concepts outlined in the project known as Life in the Public Realm. A Public Arts Strategy is also to be considered. What are the Cabinet members doing to educate themselves on the issues involved so that they are able to contribute to the decision making process?
Answer by Executive Councillor Peter Metcalfe
In view of the inadequate time to answer this question, I will ensure that a written response is provided to Councillor Jovcic-Sas within the prescribed period.
18. Question from Councillor Peter Jovcic-Sas (St Mary's School)
Could someone explain, in clear, simple terms, why St Mary's (Writhlington) is deemed to be a rural school by B&NES LEA and Clandown School is deemed to be an urban school?
Answer by Executive Councillor Gerry Curran
There is no statutory definition of a "rural" school. The LEA first produced a list of rural schools in its Infant Class Size Plan in 1999. This list has been repeated in the School Organisation Plan which is approved annually by the School Organisation Committee, a committee independent of the LEA.
The list produced for the Infant Class Size Plan attempted to define those schools which served areas where it was not reasonable for the LEA to assume that an alternative school was easily available to the rural community. Thus, it took account of factors such as distance and possible routes to the next nearest schools. As there is no hard and fast definition of a rural school the proposed list was subject to consultation as part of the production of that plan. It has subsequently been the subject of further consultation when it has appeared in School Organisation Plans. As far as can now be ascertained neither Clandown School or St Mary's School, Writhlington have ever objected to their classification during the various consultations.
If any school or member of the public believes that this classification is incorrect they can express this view as part of the consultation process on the next School Organisation Plan which will be produced for approval in 2003.
19. Question from Councillor Peter Jovcic-Sas (Labour LEA nominations)
Why have Labour nominations to fill LEA school governor vacancies (provided at the end of July 2002), been delayed in their bona fide appointment to various local schools?
Answer by Executive Councillor Gerry Curran
The appointment of LEA school governors is, under the Council's constitution, delegated to the Education Director. He must exercise this authority in consultation with a governor appointment panel of elected members. It is the elected members on this panel who nominate to vacancies for LEA governors.
A Labour Party member has written to an officer within the Education Service nominating a number of individuals for school governor vacancies. The Education Director is unable to act on these as the nominations have not come from the relevant elected member on the appointments panel.
It should also be noted that the previous governor appointment panel ceased to exist when the new Council decision making arrangements were introduced. The Executive Member for Education has agreed that it should be reconstituted and the 3 main group leaders have been asked to nominate their group representative on the panel. Until this happens the Education Director is unable to assume that nominations to governor vacancies notified by an individual party member are valid.
QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED OF EXECUTIVE COUNCILLORS AT THE COUNCIL EXECUTIVE MEETING 2ND OCTOBER, 2002
(Other Agenda items)
20. Question from Councillor Victor Pritchard (Agenda item 9 - Norton Radstock Regeneration Company)
Is it known whether this grant is going to be the last one requested by the Norton Radstock Regeneration Company, and whether the company have a short-term business plan regarding how this £25,000 will be used?
Answer by Executive Councillor Roger Symonds
The Norton Radstock Regeneration Company (NRR) produced a five-year business plan in March 2002. This indicated the need for £750,000 over two to three years (depending on how quickly a development partner/s is/are secured) and NRR sought this amount from the South West of England Regional Development Agency (SWERDA).
£500,000 of this was to cover project development, that is, master planning, community participation, planning applications and associated legal agreements, financial delivery plan and securing a development partner(s).
£250,000 was to operate NRR. This covered staffing, audit, insurance, office, accounting, communications and public relations etc.
In September the SWERDA announced a contribution of £500,000 but indicated that this was specifically for the project element of the work and SWERDA requested that NRR seek resources from Bath and North East Somerset Council to cover Company running costs (or in kind contributions such as staff and office) of around £250,000 over a two - three year period.
The request to the Executive is an initial request to cover the Company's running costs until a more detailed proposal can be put to, and considered by full Council in November.
The costs that the Company will seek to meet with the £25,000, referred to in the report, together with their existing balances are within the 5 year business plan and include tree survey, community newsletter, ecology report, community liaison, legal fees, accounting costs, day to day site management and administration.
21. Question from Councillor Peter Jovcic-Sas
Norton Radstock Regeneration Company has 12 Directors, very few of whom have been recruited by open and transparent methods. Why has this Company been established as a secret organisation, without real democratic accountability, when it is dealing with public money and resources?
Answer by Executive Councillor Roger Symonds
In view of the late submission of this question, I will ensure that a written response is provided to Councillor Jovcic-Sas within the prescribed period.
22. Question from Councillor Francine Haeberling (Agenda item 10 - Strategic Youth Issues Project Group)
What has been the total cost of the Strategic Youth Issues Project Group including officer resources and all other expenses?
Answer by Executive Councillor Gerry Curran
Rough calculations are approx. 74 hours of various officer time, plus 11 hours administration support. This does not include costing for stationery, photocopying, telephone calls, electricity, percentage of central recharges, mileage etc. It also does not include Chief Officer time spent on it at Directors Group.
S:\Democratic Services\Worddocs\Exec\GEN\QUESTIONS\021002.doc
