QUESTIONS to be put to the Business Chair, a member of the Cabinet or the Chair of any Committee or Sub Committee, in accordance with the Constitution’s Rules of Procedure No.10.
Minutes:
Question 1 from Councillor Ezhilchelvan to Councillor Riddle
Sycamore trees are uniquely susceptible to attacks from tree Aphids or tree lice. When such an attack happens, the tree gives out a sticky sap or honeydew throughout the season which can fall on parts of properties as far as 7-9 meters away from the tree. This sticky stuff brings in dirt and covers roof-tops and walls; Expensive conservatories closer to affected trees can be seen in many parts of Cramlington to lose their appearances and being rendered less effective. Research also shows that aphids can stay on a single tree for years.
These are not a few isolated cases but many wards, such as Cramlington South East, have too many houses affected by these problems. NCC, from what I enquired, does not treat aphids nor respond by thinning affected trees with an urgent priority. Would the council formulate a policy that protects residents’ properties and also preserves the green environments? Given that sycamores are widely recognised as not suitable for being in residential areas, can the Woodlands Team officers be permitted to replace the aphids-affected ones with trees more suited to residential areas? Isn’t it time to consider formulating residents-friendly change of policies on this front and allot additional funds to carry through these policies?
Councillor Riddle advised that the Authority was aware of the problems associated with aphid infestations in trees, and officers did occasionally receive complaints.? Aphid infestations were variable and were present only in a few species of?tree. Consequences of an infestation would usually be mild, but on rare occasions could be significant.?
All requests for tree work were assessed in line with Northumberland County Council’s Trees and Woodland Strategy 2015-2020 (Growing Together) and all required tree work was?prioritised?and carried out according to the identified hazards and risks.?Any tree work identified as non-urgent?was?categorised?as either medium or low priority and works programmed accordingly.??Problems relating to aphid infestations were generally?either?categorised?as?not requiring any action,?or deemed?a low priority and, as such,?any?remedial works could only be undertaken when resources allowed.??In exceptional circumstances where infestations and their effects were severe and recurrent, remedial works would be considered. Sometimes it was possible to treat the aphids themselves rather than prune or remove the tree; removal of the tree would?only?be considered only as an action of last resort.?
It was acknowledged?that historical planting of street trees?in residential areas had on occasions resulted in species of trees being planted which would not now be considered appropriate.? It was policy?now to carefully consider the species, location and position of trees?to be planted and to take into consideration possible after?effects such as honeydew from aphids, as well as damage to footways and?impacts on adjoining?properties.??However,?the Council was not supportive of the proposal for a?large scale?programme?of removal for poorly?selected species of?urban trees, as this would require significant additional resources?and the?large scale?removal of established healthy trees would have a significant adverse environmental impact?on the local amenity, street scene and habitat within the affected communities.?
Councillor Ezhilchelvan commented that “as resources allow” meant things would never happen and additional priority needed to be given. Some residents were taking councils to court over damage to their properties and he felt the Authority needed to look at the priority allocated to this issue to make sure it was legally covered. Councillor Riddle replied that any recurring cases causing significant damage would be investigated.
?
Question 2 from Councillor Robinson to Councillor Horncastle
The last Administration had the ambition of ‘building’ 1000 new social housing units. How many were actually delivered and if possible, what were they, new builds, affordable homes, conversions etc?
Councillor Horncastle replied that the Council remained committed to the delivery of affordable homes and one of his priorities was to bring forward a plan for delivering, in partnership with all sectors, new, affordable homes across the County. The covid pandemic and the associated ongoing challenges within the construction industry and supply chain had impacted the ability to bring forward new homes at the rate he would have wished. At the current time, there was a pipeline of 629 units, with approval for the delivery of 194 units, made up of new build homes, the acquisition of S.106 units. A further 25 homes had been acquired or were planned to acquire by exercising the right of first refusal when people wished to sell their home they had bought through the right to buy scheme.
Officers were working on a number of schemes to deliver 145 units and a number of other sites had been identified which could deliver a further 290 affordable homes. £900k of grant funding had been secured from Homes England.
The Authority had also facilitated the delivery of community led housing and had provided just over £300k of capital funding to support community organisations to develop their own housing with plans to help further.
Councillor Robinson asked whether there was a commitment from the Administration to do the same again. Councillor Horncastle replied that he would like to fulfil the 1050 commitment from the previous Administration and exceed that but he could not give a definitive number. The Leader advised that a ringfenced fund for affordable housing would be created this financial year.
Question 3 from Councillor Robinson to the Leader
We have seen a veritable plethora of investigations started over the last few years, the last one I was personally questioned about. We seem to offer up righteous indignation at the time and insist they are independent and autonomous and they will do this and that but we never seem to hear the outcomes? I was interviewed about the probe into the recent leaks of confidential information, so have we at least got an update on what’s happened and if the source has been identified?
The Leader agreed that there had been a lot of concern about the leaks which had taken place and it had been bad for morale, reputation and teamworking. Those in leadership had been very disappointed at the breaches which had been designed to cause damage. A full investigation had taken place and the Police were involved so he couldn’t say anything further at the moment, but he urged all members to think about the wider implications of leaking documents for political gain, which also had a detrimental effect on staff and reputation.
Councillor Robinson asked for the Leader’s commitment to make public the findings of the internal investigation and/or the Police investigation. The Leader could not give that commitment at this time but acknowledged it was a reasonable request. If he could do that in future, he would.
Question 4 from Councillor Hill to Councillor Riddle
Despite the good efforts of individuals within the Local Services team, there is still a huge gulf between public expectation and the reality of the tidiness and maintenance of our streets, green spaces, estates, cemeteries and public toilets in the Berwick area and elsewhere in Northumberland. Do you agree that this points to fundamental issues with resourcing and service delivery models ?
Councillor Riddle advised that the Council’s public?open spaces were maintained by a dedicated team who ensured that?the?local environmental quality in Berwick and Northumberland was?kept to?a?good?standard.?The core resource for delivering these services was sufficient to maintain a good standard of local environmental quality, the service delivery model was effective and consisted of area-based multi skilled teams?supported by an integrated management model?structured around Local Area Council boundaries, with?all staff having?clear responsibilities and accountabilities for the standards of service?being achieved in their area.?
There had been a?significant?increase in demand on a range of?Neighbourhood?Services during the last 18 months?as a result of the Covid pandemic,?with more people staying?at home?and accessing their?local open spaces more,?and?a significant increase in visitors and tourists?in the county?due to ‘staycation’ holidays.?However, the Council had?proactively?responded to these challenges and deployed additional resources?to meet?increased?demand, such as?significantly increasing?the frequency?for daily cleansing of?public conveniences (now being undertaken three times per day) and?increasing the frequency of?litter picking/emptying of litter bins particularly at busy locations such as town?centres, parks/country parks and along the Northumberland coast.??
In addition to normal supervisory spot checks, the environmental?standards?being?achieved by the teams was?regularly?monitored through?well established?and documented?performance management arrangements?with supervisory staff undertaking inspections and recording their findings?via?‘Local Environmental Quality’?(LEQ)?surveys. These?surveys?are?undertaken across the County?following?nationally?recognised?Keep Britain Tidy?standards and?measured the presence of factors?such as?detritus,?litter?and?dog fouling.?? Since?January?2021,?510?surveys?had been?undertaken?countywide.?96%?of?these?sites?were predominantly?free of?detritus,?98% were predominantly free of litter and?100% were?predominantly free of?dog fouling.? These were all on or better than the performance targets?set in the service plan, (92% target for detritus, 95% for litter and 99%?for dog fouling),?indicating that?the service was?meeting its?LEQ?targets and?delivering a good standard?of service.??
90?of those inspections were in Berwick and surrounding areas,?96%?of these?sites were predominantly free of detritus, 100% were predominantly free of litter and 100% were?predominantly free of dog fouling.?? Since January 2021 the Council’s?customer relationship management system ‘Lagan’?had?also?recorded?396 customer enquiries?/ complaints,?which had included the following?topics:-?weeds, litter,?detritus, rubbish, waste, mess, bins, sweep, dog mess and glass.?Only?6 of the enquiries?had been from?residents in the?Berwick?area.?
The?service?performance information and customer feedback being received?would therefore?suggest that there was?not a?significant gulf between public expectations?over the quality of their local environment and the?maintenance?standards being achieved by the Council.???However, the importance of maintaining a?high quality?local environment across the whole County for both residents and visitors alike was recognised and the Council remained committed to?working with?local communities and other key stakeholder?organisations?to?seek?continuous improvements in?the physical appearance and quality of life.?A?good example of this was the?Neighbourhood?Services Partnerships with Town & Parish Councils, including Berwick Town Council who worked with the Council to enhance environmental quality in the town.??
Councillor Hill queried whether he accepted that members were contacted every day or saw comments on social media about the state of the cemeteries, toilets, green spaces etc. She acknowledged that the team were very responsive to reports but the service wasn’t good enough. She suggested it would be more effective for there to be discrete areas of responsibility.
Councillor Riddle agreed that the staff did a first class job. When he had visited Berwick recently looking at cemeteries he had also looked at the public toilets and he had not seen anything that caused him concern. He pointed out that only 6 enquiries had come from Berwick.
Question 5 from Councillor Hill to Councillor Horncastle
A number of Local Authorities, across the Country, have committed to taking refugees from Afghanistan. Has NCC discussed, agreed or communicated any position on this?
Councillor Horncastle
responded that Northumberland had a long
history of supporting those in need from other countries and had to
date helped forty-four families settle in Northumberland from
Syria. Prior to the current
situation in Afghanistan, in response to a request from Government
to support resettlement of locally employed staff (LES) through
the Afghanistan Relocations and Assistance Policy
(ARAP), the Council had agreed to support six
families. The first three families had already been received
and a further three families would follow shortly. At this time,
the Council had not been formally asked to increase or accelerate
this offer.
The Council was currently awaiting further information from Government about the new resettlement scheme recently announced, known as the Afghan Citizen's Resettlement Scheme. In its first year the scheme would welcome 5,000 Afghans with up to 20,000 over a five-year period. Priority would be given to women and girls, and religious and other minorities who were most at risk of human rights abuses. This scheme was in addition to the current scheme launched in April. There would therefore be two schemes in operation and the response within the region was being coordinated by the North East Migration Partnership.
In recognition of the current crisis, and that many Afghan citizens had already been transported to this country, discussions had been held with internal and external partners, and in advance of a formal request, an “offer” of support was being developed which would be discussed with the North East Migration Partnership.
Councillor Hill commented that the Authority struggled with social housing in certain areas, including in Berwick and particularly larger houses, and asked whether Councillor Horncastle agreed this was another reason that this needed to be addressed. Councillor Horncastle agreed that there was a shortage of affordable housing in the County but as much accommodation would be provided as possible for the Afghan refugees. He referred to a third scheme which had been mentioned that morning but the Authority did have time to find suitable accommodation whilst necessary checks and quarantine was undertaken on those arriving in to the country. Not every part of the County was suitable but the Authority would not turn its back.
Question 6 from Councillor Taylor to the Leader
Work seems to have stopped on Bedlington's Town Centre redevelopment are there any problems or issues holding this up?
The Leader replied that the works were progressing as planned on the Aldi store development and associated seller works including Advance Northumberland?car park, footpath and highway works. There was a delay with the demolition due to resolving a party wall matter and suspected contamination in the floor slab. A revised programme was being developed, and it was expected that the demolition works would continue into October. The new build was on target to start later this year.
Councillor Taylor asked for a copy of the plans so that these could be displayed in the community centre and the Leader agreed this could be done.
Question 7 from Councillor Grimshaw to the Leader
Does the Leader think the Scrutiny meeting of Corporate Scrutiny on the 9th of August was a good way for this Council to conduct its business, and has he reviewed the footage following members' complaints?
The Leader replied that he believed Scrutiny could work well at times. He had not managed to look at all of the footage from the meeting though he understood there were some serious issues there which were being dealt with.
Councillor Grimshaw understood that her Group Leader had raised the matter with the Leader and was disappointed if the Leader had not seen all of the footage. She thanked the Leader for his response and did believe that he was addressing the behaviour of his members towards officers. However, some Conservative members did not seem to feel that their Leader’s instructions applied to them, whilst at the same time holding senior positions within the Group. She asked if the Leader agreed that such councillors should be held to account and what action he would be taking as Leader to ensure that such behaviour ceased, as it was continuing.
The Leader advised that the members’ Code of Conduct should be observed by members. It placed a duty on members to treat all officers with respect and dignity and vice versa. His Group had been requested to observe the Code by himself, the Business Chair and the Deputy Leader.
Question 8 from Councillor Nisbet to the Leader
Can the Leader confirm the cost of the Call-In Meeting at the Holiday Inn, inclusive of officer time at the event and preparation, room booking, members and officer travel, and IT equipment?
The Leader advised that the cost of the call-in meeting held at the Holiday Inn on 18 August was as follows:
Room Hire for meeting : £500 - another meeting was held after the call-in meeting to take advantage of the booking.
Hire of room for set up on previous day: £200
Audio visual costs £750
Officer time was difficult to estimate as officers would have been working anyway and travel costs have not yet been determined as claims may not have been submitted as yet. The Holiday Inn had been booked as there was no suitable room at County Hall large enough to accommodate the numbers socially distanced. A room was now available within County Hall for larger meetings.
Question 9 from Councillor Dickinson to the Leader
Does the Leader anticipate any further challenges from his own members on any items he has recently made a decision on, and could any such internal disputes be dealt with internally to avoid the great cost and stop the diminishing value of the call-in procedures?
The Leader advised that he did anticipate and welcome challenge on his decisions. It was important for Scrutiny to be able to challenge the leadership, and if that was from the same party, that should not stop that happening.
Councillor Dickinson asked if the Leader could clarify that there was no imminent leadership change within the Conservative Group. The Leader advised he wasn’t aware of any.
Question 10 from Councillor Dale to the Leader
Work will be commencing on the County Council's budget proposals for 2022/23. Please could you inform this new Council of the programme for the development of these proposals over the coming months.
The Leader detailed some of the key dates and advised that he could provide Councillor Dale with the full response. He referred to the online public consultation which had been undertaken the previous year and which had received a good response. That would be followed again this coming year. Councillor Dale commented that many new members would not have an idea what was involved in budget setting and suggested that a briefing be set up for that. The Leader agreed to take this on board.
Question 11 from Councillor Dale to Councillor Wearmouth
Please could you give this Council an update on the County Hall refurbishment programme and when will the work be completed.
Councillor Wearmouth advised that the following elements had been completed:
· External fabric refurbishment of Blocks 1, 2, 3 and 4.
· Internal refurbishment of Blocks 2, 3 and 4.
· Formation of a new coroner’s court
Works were continuing on Phase 1 of the Front-of-House (kitchen, restaurant, council chamber), Phase 2 (reception area) and Block 1 with anticipated completion dates as follows:
· Phase 1 (kitchen, restaurant, council chamber): end September 21
· Block 1 Top Floor : end September 21
· Block 1 First Floor : end September 21
· Block 1 Ground Floor (conference suite): end October 21
· Phase 2 (reception area):end November 21
The external fabric works to Blocks 5 and 6, and the basement refurbishment of Block 3 (changing rooms and shower area) would follow on from January 22 and all works were expected to be complete by September 22. Consideration was still being giving to the internal refurbishment of blocks 5 and 6.
Councillor Dale commented that the overall costs were of concern. The original plan to move to Ashington would have had social and economic impact on local residents and would have contributed to the levelling up the Government was promoting. She asked what social and economic impact the refurbishment of County Hall would have on the residents and businesses of Morpeth and whether Councillor Wearmouth thought this would be good value for money.
Councillor Wearmouth replied that the forecast outturn for the project was around £14m which was significantly less than any figure placed on the alternative project for Ashington. He did not have the information asked for on the socio economic benefits to Morpeth but he would try to get it. Regarding Ashington, the Administration had a really exciting agenda for the town with much added value in evidence.