(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 PUBLIC NO. 1
Under Procedure Rule No 10, Mr R Bilcliff will ask the Leader of the Council Councillor D Cook, the following question:-
“Can the Leader of the Council inform me what date outline planning permission will be granted for the Golf Course development”?
Councillor D Cook gave the following reply:
The honest answer is I have absolutely no idea when it will be granted. Your question requests I confirm when outline planning permission will be granted that is difficult for me to say for 2 reasons. A) I am not a member of the planning committee that will take the decision. B) For the Leader of this Council to pre-determine the outcome or to pressure the committee in any way I suspect, in fact I know, is illegal. The Council is aiming to take an application sometime around April/May and until we finalise all the infrastructure and environmental reports I cannot give a confirmed date.
Supplementary Question:-
“Could the Leader please inform me why in fact there are three Amington Ward Councillors for this on planning committee? Does this not disadvantage the Amington residents from any support with the Council and in particular planning issued”?
Councillor D Cook gave the following reply:
No I don’t know why and I do not think it disadvantages any member. They need to be careful what may be said about pre-determination around planning permission.
QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC NO. 2
Under Procedure Rule No 10, Mr R Bilcliff will ask the Leader of the Council Councillor D Cook, the following question:-
“Can the Leader of the Council inform me what is Tamworth Council’s reaction to the 4100 houses being proposed by North Warwickshire Council, which they are planning to build up to our boundary”?
Councillor D Cook gave the following reply:
Shock I think would cover it. When this Council began down a path of potentially building homes for the next generation on the old golf site on North Warwickshire’s border, Councillor S Claymore and I arranged a meeting with the leader and planning chairman of North Warwickshire Borough Council to discuss our plans.
The first I heard of these North Warwickshire District Council’s plans was when a consultation document was sent to Councillor S Doyle as a Stonydelph Councillor.
I have already had a brief chat with Councillor Ray Sweet, Mayor of North Warwickshire Borough Council as their Leader Mick Stanley is still recovering from being hit by a car before Christmas. We have agreed to arrange a meeting to discuss their plans over the next 2 weeks.
I have no issue with making the outcomes of these discussions public afterwards.
Supplementary Question:-
“North Warwickshire meaningful gap the assessment document clearly states that this policy would constitute additional presumption against developers but unfortunately under section 9.6 of that document they are recommending that areas 5 and 7 which are directly on the borders of Amington and Stoneydelph are excluded from the finding of being a designation therefore not being in sight of the meaningful gap. Should you withhold sale of any land until we know what North Warwickshire Borough Council’s intentions are”?
Councillor D Cook gave the following reply:
Yes I think the answer is the same as the previous question. I will be meeting with North Warwickshire Borough Council when we know exactly their intention I will be able to answer the questions better.
QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL NO. 1
Under Procedure Rule No 11, Councillor C Cooke will ask the Portfolio Holder for Economy and Education Councillor S Claymore, the following question:-
“The General Fund Capital Programme for the period 2015 to 2020 has a budgeted forecast spend of £100,000 for the Assembly Rooms development. We had otherwise been informed that the project would cost the Council an estimated £450,000. Now I read in the Tamworth Herald that Tamworth Council will have to find double that, £900,000 as a result of match funding for grants the Council has received. Can you tell me where this extra £450,000 or £800,000 depending which way you look at it, is going to be found within Tamworth’s Capital programme and which projects will lose that money?”
Councillor S Claymore gave the following reply:-
At the Joint Scrutiny Committee (Budget) a question was asked regarding the costs associated with Assembly Rooms development as the provisional capital programme at that stage only contained a scheme cost of £100,000 in 2015/16. As outlined within the Draft MTFS report and explained at the meeting, the scheme business case had not been revised to reflect the bids for funding from the single local growth fund (SLGF), Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF), Staffordshire County Council (SCC) etc. An update on the Cultural Quarter was due to be presented to Cabinet (subsequently considered by Cabinet on 19th February 2015) following notification of the results of the bids. As a substantial element of the 2014/15 budget will not be spent by March 2015 it will be forecast to under spend. The updated figures were being prepared for inclusion within the final MTFS report – on the agenda for discussion today.
As you will see, the capital scheme proposals now include a budget over 3 years of £4.4m for the Cultural Quarter works, including the planned improvements to the Assembly Rooms – funded through a combination of HLF, SCC, SLGF and donations/small grants resulting in a balance of £994k to be funded by the Council (£320k from the original £400k allocated for the scheme from capital funds and £674k from the anticipated capital receipt from the former Golf Course).
Supplementary Question:-
“In the General Fund Capital Programme I notice a borrowing requirement of £1 million which might just as easily be regarded as financing the assembly rooms project. I also notice the amount of Golf Club subsidy was roughly the same as this additional amount of Assembly Rooms investment. Can you tell me why putting money into the Golf Course should be called a “subsidy” whilst putting money into the Assembly Rooms we must instead regard as an “investment”?
Councillor S Claymore gave the following reply:-
I would honestly say that over many years we have seen a lot of money ploughed into the Golf Course. That money used over many years and over a period of time and dragging up all of the old questions as to why we are selling the Golf Course. We all know the answers to that and why we can’t continue to run it is that it’s just something we can’t offer to do with austerity measures and it’s questionable whether we still we want to do that and whether it will be right even if it hadn’t gone to these measures we have had to go through. Not only that it is a very limited amount of people that the golf course affects when you are talking about putting money into the assembly rooms. That money will affect everyone and it will secure the Assembly Rooms for the future and not just for a few people that line by the golf course.
QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL NO. 2
Under Procedure Rule No 11, Councillor C Cooke will ask the Chair of the Aspire and Prosper Scrutiny Committee Councillor T Clements, the following question:-
“At the last Full Council I put a motion, which was passed, for the subject of Tamworth’s projected housing needs requirement to be scrutinised in committee. This was tagged in with Local Plan Scrutiny set for 20th January with the words “Including Tamworth’s Housing Needs Figures” attached to the title, although there was nothing regarding Tamworth’s Housing Needs in the scoping document for that item nor any report from officers. You refused to allow me to speak at that meeting. If I had spoken I would have drawn the committee’s attention to Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners Past Trends figures that show a dramatic population loss of 2262 between 2012 and 2013. That is clearly nonsense. So much so that officers agreed not to take account of these past trend figures tables because they produced such nonsense. This despite the fact that the National Planning Policy Framework expressly requires such past trends to be taken into account. Would you please comment on this situation”?
Councillor T Clements gave the following reply:
At the start of the municipal year you declared yourself in a political group with UKIP, as an independent group. You are the group leader I believe. As a group you are allocated places on committee’s and your group has a position / seat on Aspire and Prosper Scrutiny. I was sure a member of your group could cover the reasons your group raised this issue as I am aware both yourself and Cllr Madge share your stance on housing numbers. I have yet to see Cllr Danny Cook or Cllr Simon Peaple swapping themselves between committees, they use the members they allocated, trusting in their colleagues.
You were refused the chance to speak as your motion didn’t ask for it. You as a member voted for the minutes as a true record never once did you ask for it to be changed to allow you to speak. All committee members had access to the Nathaniel Lichfield and Partner’s document way before the committee was held. At that meeting everyone on the committee had a chance to speak and ask questions some more than others and the decision was made by a majority vote of 7-1 that we as a committee were happy with how the figures were reached and that the officers had worked above and beyond on this subject providing members with a lot more documents so that all information could be scrutinised and having meetings with individual members before the meetings.
As to myself commenting on housing figures as the chairman, I am comfortable, as were Labour members and all of my Conservative Colleagues on the committee that the correct formula as expected by the National Planning Inspector was used to arrive at 6,250 over the life of the local plan.
If you require more technical information, I suggest an appointment with Matt Bowers or Rob Mitchell is made.
Supplementary Question:-
“Those Trends figures were clear computer garbage-out nonsense. Pity we were not allowed to see what garbage was put in. Also very suspect were the household occupation figures which were projected, and manipulated down, across the whole of Tamworth, which artificially jacked up 20% the Local Plan’s Housing Needs figures. And then there were other irregularities. As you know, I was at your scrutiny meeting. Cllr’s Danny Cook and Steven Claymore were somehow allowed to speak to your committee. Don’t you think, under the circumstances, that it would have been simple courtesy too both myself and your committee, instead of finding excuses as to why you would not let me speak, that you instead should have asked your committee if they would allow me, as an obviously interested and informed member of this Council, that simple opportunity to address them on this narrow issue of Housing Needs”?
Councillor T Clements gave the following reply:
Councillor D Cook was there as the Leader of the Council when taking the local plan through with the Chief Executive. Councillor S Claymore is the cabinet member for on the agenda and was therefore invited to. I invited him.
Councillor Cooke you have been a Councillor on this Council for over twelve years. You should know the procedures better than anyone else. You have been offered the opportunity to sit with councillors and cabinet members which you haven’t done. You have been offered the opportunity to go to Manchester and see the system in putted and the data received. One again you haven’t done this. I hope before you stand down in May that you take the opportunity to speak to the officers who will give you the technical answers you require.
QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL NO. 3
Under Procedure Rule No 11, Councillor M Couchman will ask the Deputy Leader of the Council Councillor R Pritchard, the following question:-
“Will the Deputy Leader ensure that the consultation on the Council Tax Reduction Scheme, with specific regard to the exclusion of Maintenance Payments for single parents be commenced so that it can be removed in 2016”?
Councillor R Pritchard gave the following reply:
Yes
Supplementary Question:-
“Can I ask when you will be able to update that this has happened”?
Councillor R Pritchard gave the following reply:
A report will be taken to Cabinet in June as per the usual procedure.
QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL NO. 4
Under Procedure Rule No 11, Councillor T Madge will ask the Leader of the Council Councillor D Cook, the following question:-
“Would you not agree that in the best effort to show transparency it would be a better policy to advertise land that the Council consider selling that could be used for development, at present only open land is advertised?
By adopting this method the public will be made aware of any potential land sales in their area rather than find out when a developer has bought it”
Councillor D Cook gave the following reply:
As Councillor Madge may be aware, when an asset is identified to be surplus to requirements it will be generally be disposed of in accordance with our disposals policy (which covers most planned disposals).
The need to advertise the disposal of some assets is implicit in legislation; Public Open Space has to be advertised, whereas land held for investment purposes does not. Generally when surplus land is being disposed of, suitable outline planning permission will be obtained prior to sale, which of course is subject to resident’s feedback as part of the planning process. Large disposals are considered by Cabinet in every case.
When a planned disposal such as above is undertaken, it is usual to use either a formal or informal “tender” process, which will always include an element of advertising proportionate to the value and desirability of the asset to be disposed of. This may not always be in a local paper, and quite often may be in specialist trade press (such as the Estates Gazette) to ensure the right market is informed of the disposal. For example may be we didn’t advertise the old cinema in a local paper, that was advertised in specialist property papers to ensure good coverage. This ensures good competition between prospective purchasers, and enables us to demonstrate best consideration for the asset.
On occasion a spontaneous offer will be received, and this will be assessed against independent valuation to ensure best consideration, and any decision to dispose will be taken by the Executive who will balance the financial value, contribution to Council objectives, certainty of transaction, against the long term need to retain the asset for other purposes.
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:-
“With the recent pre election news that Tamworth is now booming with low unemployment and higher wages can you explain to the chamber why we at TBC still employ people on temporary contracts despite being employed here for some time? Surely this is not suitable or desirable as trying to get a mortgage etc is nigh on impossible when you have little job security beyond a six month contract”?
Councillor D Cook gave the following reply:
Thank you Cllr Madge for your question. However, as before with your question to me on Zero Hours contracts, I have no intention of discussing individual staff member’s rights or contract details in a public forum. The staff have rights under law and I will not undermine this in any way.
Please keep in mind for the future that as a Council body, i.e. the 30 of us elected members, we only employ one member of staff, the CEO. The CEO is then employed to hire / fire / manage the staff. Appoints and Staffing do have a role in monitoring structures and department staffing budgets, but the CEO is the one employed to handle the staff of this authority.
If you are uncomfortable with a staffing issue, I suggest your avenue of question is away from this chamber.
Supplementary Question:-
“We have 8 directors where other councils of similar size have 5 by removing three posts we would save over £200,000 in wages and that’s before you start talking about national insurance cost etc etc, Surely we can also look at the multi layer management systems we have to save costs rather than taking out people on the front line who are providing necessary visible services to the residents of Tamworth.
Why is it we pick on the little person when it comes to employment, when we have some big wage earners, are they too hard to tackle or do you not have the heart for that task”?
Councillor D Cook gave the following reply:
Councillor Madge is aware of the sum of £200,000 because of the policy written into the budget documents. I will say no more about what exactly this means at this time.
There are many who make comments, especially on facebook, about what exactly our senior officers do. If you spend quality time with them you realise exactly what they deliver, in a very dedicated way. Rather than making comments, it is surely easier to actually understand the outcomes delivered by our officers. Low unemployment, wages raising in Tamworth and so much more.
I fail to see in this budget where any front line staff are leaving this Council, we continue to protect front line services.