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.9.
Minutes:
Question 1 from Councillor Wallace to Councillor Ploszaj
Residents in and around the Cambois area constantly read and hear of the new job opportunities in their thousands coming on their doorstep and how this will be transformational in their lives. This part of my Ward is recognised as being low in car ownership. Where travel is necessary to shop, see a doctor, bank, get to school or work and many things most of us take for normal, to learn that the 4x daily bus service no 434, Monday to Friday (not on Saturday, Sunday or Bank Holidays), is to stop running from the 24th July is frankly, unbelievable and sickening for many. Residents and bus users wish, as do I, to know what steps has the administration taken to ensure this service is not lost forever?
Councillor Ploszaj replied that the Go North East 434 bus service was an NCC funded service, which operated 4 return trips per day providing the residents of Cambois with public transport links to local service centres at Bedlington Station and Ashington. In May 2022, Go North East served notice of their intention to withdraw the service with effect from the 24 July 2022, citing increasing operating costs and resourcing issues as the reasons for the withdrawal. Recognising the importance of this service not only to the residents of Cambois but other communities along the route, NCC had agreed a short-term extension to the service up to the 3 September 2022. This would allow sufficient time for officers to undertake a comprehensive re-tendering of the service. Whilst officers could not pre-empt the results of the tender process, the intention was to re-tender this service on a like for like basis. Local members would be kept updated on progress.
Councillor Wallace welcomed this and asked if buses would be available on 26 July for residents. Councillor Ploszaj advised that as far as he knew, they would.
Question 2 from Councillor Robinson to Councillor Horncastle
We have 48 million in the budget for new housing in the county. Will this be social housing at an appropriate cost to tenants?
Councillor Horncastle replied that the £48 million formed part of the Housing Revenue Account Medium Term Financial Plan and he confirmed that this money, with additional grant from Homes England, would be used to support the delivery of new homes that would be owned and managed by the Council, and that all rent levels would be set in accordance with current guidance to ensure they were affordable.
In order to maximise the delivery of affordable housing, it was the Council’s intention to work with partners to ensure that where possible, affordable housing was built by the most appropriate housing provider having regard to the location, or nature and type of housing.
Councillor Robinson commented that he was concerned about what “affordable” actually meant when the market was out of control and he did not feel that 85% would be enough. Councillor Horncastle replied that the Government definition was 50% below the market rate. If this did not make the houses affordable then it would be looked at.
Question 3 from Councillor Robinson to Councillor Horncastle
What is the impact on our budget of the explosive inflationary pressures currently seen by all residents in Northumberland and how are we managing them?
The Leader replied that the impact was a very serious one for everyone. The budget this year had been based on around 2.5% inflation and work was ongoing to assess the implications of the known inflationary increases being experienced by the Council. If it was felt that action needed to be taken before the budget consultation began, then members would be kept informed.
Question 4 from Councillor Hunter to the Leader
Since the start of covid Northumberland County Council have streamed all public meetings taking place in County Hall live via you tube which showed openness and transparency this allowed interested members of the public to watch the business and decision making of Northumberland County Council. However, in June this stopped without any advance notification to County Councillors.
Please can the Leader answer the following questions:
1. Where and when was this decision taken
2. What was the cost for the streaming of public meetings on Youtube.
3. Will the Cabinet look at options for the re-instatement of live streaming of public meetings taking place in County Hall at a reasonable cost or will members of the public be expected to incur travel costs to come to County Hall to watch public meetings, which will also, have an impact on the carbon footprint.
The Leader replied that during COVID the number of live-streamed meetings had increased from 9 to 170 when the public had to be excluded from attending council meetings to safeguard the wellbeing of Members, officers and the public.
From 13 June, there was no longer a requirement to wear masks in in council buildings, removing the last COVID restriction on the public attending council meetings. This would allow them to take a more active part in meetings, as demonstrated by moving the Local Area Council meetings back into the local community.
Some 4,000 hours of live video had been streamed during the period of Covid restrictions. It would cost the Council around £186,000 per annum to maintain the same level of live streaming with all committees in the Council Chamber which would be better spent on other areas of Council activity, especially as the number of people watching live at any time varied widely between one person to several hundreds.
No formal decision had been taken on this, but he proposed that key decision-making meetings i.e. Full Council, Cabinet and Strategic Planning would continue to be live streamed and other public council meetings held in the chamber at County Hall would be recorded and added to the Council’s YouTube channel afterwards. This would enable residents across the County to view the proceedings of those other committee meetings without having to travel to County Hall and would minimise the much higher costs of livestreaming.
In most cases these recordings would be uploaded within a couple of days of the meetings or even the same day. Local Area Council meetings would not be recorded as they had returned to localised settings and the venues do not have the Council’s recording equipment installed. An evaluation of all public council meetings would be carried out over the next three months.
Question 5 from Councillor Wilczek to Councillor Ploszaj
With the welcome news of the government approving a Transport and Works Act Order for the Northumberland Line, can the administration tell my residents how they will be affected when the work takes place? Also, once work is completed, can this council guarantee that residents living on the Bowyer Grange estate won't see rail users parking on the estate?
Councillor Ploszaj replied that it was inevitable that there would be some disruption during the construction period and accurate and regular communication with local communities would be essential during this time.
Communications during the construction phase would be provided via:
• a dedicated Northumberland Line website
• a bi-monthly scheme-wide newsletter.
• letters to directly impacted properties.
• press releases in local media.
• social media activity.
• hoardings / information boards at construction sites.
• a dedicated email address.
For those directly affected, bespoke communications would be provided in letter format. At a minimum, these would include:
• a non-technical description of the works to be undertaken.
• information about types of equipment to be used, including pictures or images that will aid the understanding of the nature of the works;
• the location, frequency and duration of works.
• details of who to contact in the event of queries or issues.
In terms of rail users parking on adjacent residential estates, car parks which have been included as part of each station development, would be free of charge for at least the first 12 months of operation, and designed to accommodate the predicted demand for those wishing to drive to the station. Therefore, the risk of people parking on residential streets was expected to be minimal.
Councillor Wilczek asked what plans were in place to ensure carbon emissions were curbed. Councillor Ploszaj replied that he would find out and respond in writing.
Question 7 from Councillor Waddell to Councillor Horncastle
Northumberland County Council has approved a 5% taxi fare rise. A taxi drivers' association in the county describes this as is "disrespectful to the trade" amid spiralling fuel costs. How does the County Council propose to support taxi drivers in the County without seeing costs passed on to customers?
Councillor Horncastle responded that the setting of the taxi tariff followed a period of consultation with the trade, at which time, not only were the statutory requirements met, but officers also sent out in excess of 800 emails to operators and drivers to alert them to the consultation and invite comment from them. Regrettably, only five responses were received prior to the end of the consultation and a further three after the closing date, but all were presented to the Licensing and Regulatory Committee when considering the matter.
The Council fully recognised the current pressures on businesses, including the taxi and private hire trade, who had previously been supported throughout the Covid pandemic using funds from Government specifically targeted to support licenced taxi drivers, as well as grants for home and mobile based businesses, which a number of taxi businesses were able to benefit from. Regrettably at this time, there were many businesses and residents alike who were being affected by the cost of living and fuel crisis, but the Council had no specific funding to assist either generally or to support a single business sector who may be experiencing problems.
Councillor Waddell asked if the Administration would support taxi drivers in strike action or in lobbying the Government for extra help. Councillor Horncastle replied that he would not. Only five responses had been made to the consultation when the trade had been given its opportunity to get involved.
Question 8 from Councillor Waddell to Councillor Renner-Thompson?
As part of ECHP provisions, Northumberland County Council pay 30p per mile to parents and carers to transport their children. The council pays 45p per mile to staff who use their own vehicles for work purposes, this is the HMRC approved rate and is designed to cover the cost of wear and tear to the vehicle as well as fuel. People with a disability often face additional costs. We are in a cost-of-living crisis and fuel prices have soared in the last few months. The HMRC rate of 45p per mile was approved before the fuel crisis. Can the portfolio holder please confirm to us on behalf of affected residents that the ECHP mileage allowance will be reviewed in mind of current fuel prices?
Councillor Renner Thompson replied that this had been raised with him about three weeks ago and around a week later the team had managed to get the rate changed to 45p per mile when it was realised that it wasn’t where it should be. The rate had also been backdated to 1 June.
Question 9 from Councillor Hill to the Leader
The Caller Report found that; the effectiveness of political leadership has deteriorated over several years and is currently at a very low level. As the political leader of the Council, what is your response to that ?
The Leader referred to the reference in the Caller report that “political and organisational leadership had deteriorated over several years and was currently at a very low level”. He agreed with the Caller report that leadership and political and managerial level had been distracted by a number of issues, and he detailed what some of those issues had been, including the top of the organisation being in a significant state of flux and adjustment, and not being reported to members. Many senior officers had left in unusual circumstances. There were issues around exit payments and there had been 4792 FOI requests in three years. There had been repeated leaks of highly sensitive reports and continued abuse of social media. He hoped members would be able to agree a zero tolerance approach to this going forward because abuse on social media badly affected the families of those it was aimed at. There was clear evidence that social media abuse could influence suicide related behaviour.
After he had become Leader he had asked for an independent review of governance because of these various issues. This had proved very difficult. However, he felt that there was now a much better atmosphere within the organisation and promised that he would build on this with staff. He would work with Group Leaders on the Caller report Action Plan to deliver it in full and on time. Finally, he would do all he could to make sure the Administration was not distracted again.
Question 10 from Councillor Hill to Councillor J. Watson
The Caller Report found that; almost 4 years on from the establishment of Advance Northumberland the arrangements for an effective governance framework by the council are not yet in place and that this weakness presents a significant risk. As the Chair of Advance what is your response to that?
As Councillor Watson was not present, Councillor Hill advised that she was happy to receive a written answer.