(i) To answer questions from members of the public pursuant to Procedure Rule No. 10.
(ii) To answer questions from members of the Council pursuant to Procedure Rule No. 11
Minutes:
QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL NO.1
Under Procedure Rule No 11, Councillor M Couchman asked the Leader of the Council, Councillor D Cook, the following question:-
"I understand that you have stated that there will be no provision for Social Housing as part of your proposed sale of the golf course. Is this correct?"
Councillor D Cook gave the following reply:
Yes.
Supplementary question:
On this side we remain committed to no additional housing development on the Golf Course, but if as it seems, you are determined to push ahead with housing, are you trying too late to appease some Amington residents?
Councillor D Cook gave the following reply:
No I’m not trying to appease anyone. There is a need for Social Housing and these will be built on old garage sites. We have to be realistic and there will be affordable housing on the site as we have to move with the market. We are committed to using assets so the people of Tamworth get the best we can give them.
QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL NO.2
Under Procedure Rule No 11, Councillor M Couchman asked the Deputy Leader of the Council, Councillor R Pritchard, the following question:-
"Last year the Local Council Tax Reduction Scheme had to make a saving of £700,000. Can you tell us if the scheme has made a surplus or deficit and by how much?"
Councillor R Pritchard gave the following reply:
I can confirm that £5.38 million was the net amount paid out in 2012/13 for Council Tax Benefit. For 2013/14 under the new scheme it was £4.48 million which indicated a £200,000 surplus as the accounts were not closed.
Supplementary question:
Will you now look again at removing child maintenance payments from the scheme which last year affected 152 householders making them at least £250 worse off and only saved the Council £10,000 thereby no longer being the Tamworth Tories taxing toddlers?
Councillor R Pritchard gave the following reply:
The policy is reviewed every year and until we know the output for the year we won’t know how much surplus there is, if any.
QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL NO.3
Under Procedure Rule No 11, Councillor S Peaple will ask the Leader of the Council, Councillor D Cook, the following question:-
"In the light of the recent Peer Review when will the controlling Conservative group agree to a scrutiny committee being chaired by a member of the opposition as is done elsewhere?"
Councillor D Cook gave the following reply:
Thank you Mr Mayor,
I am pleased Councillor Peaple has raised last year’s Peer Review in this Chamber. I wonder if he also noted the section that praised the Political leadership of this Council as being very strong.
If I understand the question correctly, Councillor Peaple would like me to give the Labour group something that is quite simply not mine to give. I am entirely sure that nominating Scrutiny chairman is not within my gift as Leader of this authority. I am sure it is down to the 9 Members of the Committee. I would also refer Councillor Peaple to his deputy, Councillor Faulkner, who requested of me in mid-2012 in one of the chambers that as Leader of the Council I stay away from interfering with the election of Scrutiny Chairmen or Scrutiny business. I shall indeed do so here.
However, again just referring to the Peer Review findings, I believe it recommended, not enforced, just recommended the idea of the Scrutiny Chairman and the Vice-Chairman being of opposing political parties. It did not recommend that the opposition should chair Scrutiny committees.
Supplementary question:
I am quite aware of what the Peer Review said. Rugby have a Chair from the opposition and they are a Conservative Council. I wondered how you would deal with the question from a new Leader. I refer to something that Councillor Faulkner has said in the past and ask you again to consider having a Chair from the opposition. This would give quality scrutiny and be a positive way forward and I think all Councils should do it.
Councillor D Cook gave the following reply:
I rest on my first answer.
QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL NO.4
Under Procedure Rule No 11, Councillor S Peaple asked the Leader of the Council, Councillor D Cook, the following question:-
"With a number of major brown field sites still potentially available for development / subject to bids, why is the Leader of the Council so insistent upon selling off valuable green space in Amington?"
Councillor D Cook gave the following reply:
Thank you Mr Mayor.
I thank Councillor Peaple for the opportunity AGAIN to demonstrate the “all talk no action” approach of his group. I really do hope he will fix that during his year of leadership.
Councillor Peaple may recall about 15 months ago the Labour group asked for the members working group on the development of the Local Plan to be politically balanced, 3 Conservatives and 3 Labour Councillors. I agreed as this issue was too big for political football. The number of new houses needed in the Borough has never been a matter of disagreement between the Conservatives and Labour. We agree the figure; hence Councillor Faulkner has twice seconded the Local Plan developments through this Council in this period.
I am accepting where they go is now the matter of debate. If the Labour group feel the allocation should be away from the Golf Course, then maybe they should suggest where. Oh hang on…… At the Local Plan Sub-Group meeting held on 6th February 2014, a finalised list of proposed allocations to meet employment and housing needs was discussed with the Working Group. And the Labour Councillors displayed outrage that the Golf Course was a potential site, never mind the fact I had informed their leader and Councillor Chris Cooke as a meeting a month before. I love communication.
Noting their opposition, Councillor Claymore invited the Labour Group (Councillor Couchman and McDermid were present) to suggest any new sites that could be assessed instead of the golf course. Basically, can the Labour party suggest an alternative to our legal need? The full list of sites that were not coming forward as allocations was also presented. Yet here we are 4 months later and still no alternative has been offered. This has partly stalled the working group. Again, they are happy to make public sound bites, very little meat on the bones. I eagerly await their suggestions.
However, it is worth noting. The draft Local Plan proposes to allocate 19 brownfield sites for housing development, across the plan period these sites will bring forward approximately 399 new houses. There are 19 brownfield sites rejected through the process for many reasons, but most notably the owners of the land have absolutely no interest in housing going on this land. Last I understood we did not live in Stalinist Russia, it’s difficult to make land owners do what they do not want to do.
The 19 sites not to be placed as potential sites in the Local plan would have a equated to another 369 new houses, I think we can agree this is a more than a little short of the 1,100 we require to meet the Local Plan.
Actually, Tamworth has a very high level of housing completions on brownfield sites. As of 31 March 2014 there have been 1,284 completions on brownfield sites. That represents 93% of all new housing since 2006– this is incredibly high. In 2013 – 2014 100% of new housing development was on brownfield sites. It is inevitable that in such a small borough as Tamworth which has seen exceptional levels of brownfield development over the past 8 years that the supply of brownfield sites will diminish and future development will need to look to more Greenfield sites.
It is also worth noting that the golf course is not green belt, in fact it was originally a colliery that was remediated. It is not that far off legally defined Brownfield. However, I fully accept locals to the site see this differently and do not begrudge them that.
If Councillor Peaple, as his question suggests, has other sites, not reviewed, that could come forward to meet our housing needs at the levels both parties have agreed, then I welcome their suggestions, even if 4 months later than offered. I suspect the Gungate site will be mentioned in the supplementary and I agree thus we are constantly reviewing, but the land is not owned by this Council and it would not even touch the required 1,100 required to balance the evidence base set out in the Local Plan.
Supplementary question:
I’m not sure why this year’s leadership has surprised you and why you thought that Councillor M Couchman was odds on favourite to be Leader. You do not get to vote on the Labour Leader. Councillor Cook has demonstrated he is not fulfilling the leadership he claims. Why has Councillor Cook gone onto the Amington residents’ website and refused to deal with them?
Councillor D Cook gave the following reply:
I have sat in 35 living rooms, met five different groups in the Gate Inn, I’ll sit and talk to anyone. This displays the leadership needed. I am not impressed with the group being set up with help. I have not said that we will not consult with residents I have just said that we need to look at how we do it.
QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL NO.5
Under Procedure Rule No 11, Councillor T Madge will ask the Leader of the Council, Councillor D Cook, the following question:-
"Do the council employ people on zero hour contracts and if they do, are they re considering this position in light of recent figures from the British chambers of commerce who have upgrading its GDP growth forecast from 2.8% to 3.1% for 2014 – the highest rate of growth since 2007.
By virtue of not guaranteeing a set number of hours of work for individuals, zero-hours contracts can create tremendous uncertainty for workers, particularly those with children who are more reliant on a stable income. Fluctuating earnings make even basic household budgeting difficult and can make planning for things like child care impossible"
Councillor D Cook gave the following reply:
Currently we have 2 staff members on zero hour’s contracts. However, I have absolutely no intention of discussing individual staff members and their employment rights in a public forum, EVER.
Supplementary question:
I am not asking you to discuss individual members of staff. This is a matter of principle. A Select Committee looked at zero hour contracts and found them to show abusive, exploitative, sloppy and incompetent management. I worry that Tamworth Borough Council are using staff in this manner.
Councillor D Cook gave the following reply:
I hope you’re not accusing staff of sloppy management? The two staff may be agency workers for all I know. I suggest you take this up with the MP as it is a legislation issue. I have no alternative solution at this time. It is something that needs reviewing at National Level.
QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL NO.6
Under Procedure Rule No 11, Councillor C Cooke will ask the Leader of the Council, Councillor D Cook, the following question:-
"With the ever increasing complexity of benefits law I have recently noticed that benefit claims to the Council seem to be taking longer to deal with and claimants’ paperwork is being held onto longer. I am concerned on the effect that this has on claimant’s Council Tax and Housing Benefits arrears and the stress this causes to claimants. Will the Leader assure me that whilst such claims are being processed penalty fees, charges and eviction notices will not be issued until the benefits claim has been dealt with and then, if part or all of the claim is finally refused a claimant will be given reasonable time to either pay any arrears or to make an arrangement with the Council to do so?"
Councillor D Cook gave the following reply:
Thank you Mr Mayor,
Councillor Cooke, we have analysed the Covalent performance system, it reveals Benefits’ average performance figure, month by month, over the last two years. You have suggested that there is a downward trend in processing times, which the statistics prove to be completely incorrect. I have the figures here if you wish to see them.
In regards to Council Tax benefit, whilst a customer will submit a claim in respect of Local Council Tax Reduction, we always ask that they pay as per their Council Tax bill where possible pending the outcome of their claim. Council Tax law clearly states that the submission of a claim does not mean a person should withhold payment. In many cases receiving no or little discount will mean they are accumulating arrears. Therefore we do not advise that they adopt that approach.
However in certain circumstances if it is clear that the customer will be entitled to full Local Council Tax Reduction we ensure that the case is put on hold for a short period to allow the Benefits Team to process it.
In regards to Council tenants’ rents, no repossession proceedings will be taken against a council tenant where all the information required to assess the housing benefit claim has been supplied. If a tenant continually fails to provide information requested possession proceeding will only then commence. If the case is cancelled or the information is not forthcoming court action will be taken and a suspended possession is likely to be sought if there is no guarantee that housing benefit will be paid.
Tenants can often put a claim in for housing benefit days before a court hearing. The judges will not agree to an eviction warrant if there is evidence suggests that there is a valid claim in and the tenant is doing all they can to provide the necessary information. The judges will adjourn the case to allow for the claim to be processed. If the tenant fails to engage with the housing benefit team then at the adjourned hearing the judge is likely to agree to the eviction warrant. The judge will decide if the tenant has to pay the court costs.
I believe this organisation, corporately, works hard and fairly for those in our society who need us.
Supplementary question:
My concerns about resident’s stress levels also applies to Tamworth Council’s own staff. Can the portfolio holder tell me how stress to our staff is monitored and what policies are in place to reduce workplace stress particularly within the benefits section where officers must often deal with residents who themselves are very limited in their grasp of the benefits law and often very anxious and upset when things appear to be going wrong?
Chief Executive gave the following reply:
We have Human Resources processes to support staff, not just in housing benefits. All staff are involved in regular performance and progress meetings with managers. Staff are encouraged to express their views and impacts on their ability to perform. There are a number of support mechanisms available including Counselling or they can be referred to an independent occupational health therapist. If I was to criticise the process it would be that we rely on individuals coming forward. We are looking at new mechanisms.
The Chief Executive agreed to forward details of support offered/ provided to front line staff.
QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL NO.7
Under Procedure Rule No 11, Councillor C Cooke asked the Leader of the Opposition, Councillor S Peaple, the following question:-
"Given the change in leadership in the local Labour group can the Labour leader advise me if his local party’s policy towards Tamworth Golf Course will change?"
Councillor S Peaple gave the following reply:
I can advise that there is no change in policy.
Supplementary question:
Will the Leader of the Main Opposition group join with our Independence group to gain the minimum five signatures necessary to debate the issue on a Full Council agenda? Or would he prefer to get those signatures from amongst his own group membership?
Councillor S Peaple gave the following reply:
I am amused that Councillor Cooke sees fit for me to join him as Leader of the main opposition group. There is only one leader of the opposition and that is I.
I don’t see the need to dance to Councillor Cooke’s tune. We had a debate and the controlling group voted for the budget and the opposition group did not. I will not decide my approach based on Councillor Cooke’s agenda nor will I change my campaign. We would not support development on the golf course. I’ve only ever stood for the Labour Party and not any other party and in answer to your question I have spoken to and stood with people and with enormous honour made a pledge, along with Councillor Tom Peaple, that we are opposed to development.
Following Thomas Peaple being voted in as Councillor I could not be prouder. I want to thank the NHS as 24 years ago he would of died if not for the skill of the surgeons. Thank you to all at Rawlett School who have helped make me very proud.
The people of Amington should be under no illusion, we won’t change our position.