Agenda item

To consider any questions submitted by Members of the Council, in accordance with Standing Order 4.8.11 (b).

In accordance with Standing Order 4.8.11 five questions had been submitted by the required deadline set out in the Constitution.

 

(A)  Removal of Public Bins

 

Councillor Matt Barnes to Councillor Amy Allen (Executive Member for Recycling and Waste Management).

 

(B)  Royston Leaner Pool

 

Councillor Tim Johnson to Councillor Mick Debenham (Executive Member for Environment, Leisure and Green Spaces).

 

(C) Churchgate Regeneration

 

Councillor Ralph Muncer to Councillor Daniel Allen (Leader of the Council).

 

(D) Single Person Council Tax Discount

 

Councillor Ralph Muncer to CouncillorIan Albert (Executive Member for Finance and IT).

 

(E) Civil Enforcement Officer Roles

 

Councillor Ralph Muncer to Councillor Daniel Allen (Interim Executive Member for Planning and Transport).

 

Audio recording – 2 hours 31 minutes 49 seconds

 

In accordance with Standing Order 4.8.11, five questions had been submitted by the required deadline set out in the Constitution.

 

(A)  Removal of Public Bins

 

Councillor Matt Barnes to Councillor Amy Allen (Executive Member for Recycling and Waste Management).

 

"At Full Council in January, when discussing the planned removal of public litter bins arising from the new waste contract, the Executive Member for Recycling and Waste Management said:

 

"Once the proposed criteria is ready I will be able to share it with ward Councillors. Based on these criteria the potential for removal list will be shared with Members; the proviso being that if Members collectively want to keep a bin, then another will have to go. We will be asking Members to consider the need for the bin. We are also happy to engage with Parish Councillors who will no doubt have the knowledge of need in their Parish."

 

The Administration now appears set to go ahead with these plans without doing any of this. 

 

Last month it wrote to Parish Councils where 30% or more will be removed, but did not supply the proposed criteria or the potential removal list - making it difficult for them to provide any meaningful feedback. Parishes below this threshold, like Knebworth or Great Ashby, as well as unparished areas like Baldock, Letchworth and Hitchin, received no proactive communication, and nor were ward Councillors provided with any details about the impact in our areas - despite these very clear promises being made.

 

Could the Executive Member therefore explain to Council what has changed, and why the Administration now feels it is acceptable to go ahead with these plans without telling anyone which bins they intend to remove?”

 

Councillor Amy Allen gave a response as follows:

 

“The Waste Client Team are currently managing a program of projects in order to ensure the successful implementation of a new Waste Recycling and Street Cleansing Contract in May.

 

Like all new projects that are reviewed as they are implemented, a Member’s workshop was held on 12 September 2024 an opportunity for Councillors to consider and comment on the criteria used in assessing the need for littler bins.

 

Following this the team communicated updates on the project via the Members Information Service, that is the MIS which everyone gets every week. This provided updates on two occasions and is circulated to both Ward and Parish Councillors. The second update also included the letter to be sent out to those impacted by 30% or more bins being removed. Parishes and Ward Councillors are welcome to contact the team if they have any concerns about their area or the project as a whole.

 

Since the publication of the MIS note the team have responded to approximately 40 inquiries about the project, including those not in the 30% bracket such as Knebworth and Great Ashby and have shared criteria for each area where requested, as an example Knebworth Parish were proactive in engaging with the team on bins in their area and were able to identify bin locations which were felt to be of value over others area. A new list has therefore been mutually agreed affecting the same number of bins.

 

The Waste Client Team are continuing to liaise with other areas who have contacted them including arranging site meetings where necessary. However, to remind Members that the principles of the project have already been agreed and these will not change. Should Members have any non ward specific concerns about the role out of the project, please get in touch with myself.”

 

Councillor Barnes asked a supplementary question, as follows:

 

“Comparing notes with colleagues there are some clear discrepancies in the data, in some cases bins which are on the list either do not exist or removed long ago, in other cases bins which do exist are not on the list at all meaning their future is unclear. Given these finds are you confident that the decisions being made are robust and fair and, if you are, will you now agree to make the entire list available to members so that the plans can be properly scrutinised?”

 

Councillor Amy Allen responded:

 

“I will speak to my Service Director and my Contract Manager about sharing details but, if there are bins that do not exist, that could be for many reasons including that someone had nicked it, with a couple in Royston, or set fire to, so if those could actually be reported to us , then that would be very, very helpful.

 

I’ll get back to you on all the other bits and pieces when I have spoken to Sarah.”

 

(B)  Royston Leaner Pool

 

Councillor Tim Johnson to Councillor Mick Debenham (Executive Member for Environment).

 

"Earlier this year, Cabinet resolved to explore further funding options for the Royston Learner Pool. Please could the Executive Member update Council on the current status of this project?”

 

Councillor Debenham gave a response as follows:

 

“Members will be aware that the current business case for building a learner pool at Royston is not affordable and therefore Cabinet agreed not to proceed with the build at this time. However, Officers have been investigating other potential sources of funding which could help bridge the funding gap.

 

Today the Council’s Grant Officer has investigated opportunities for external grants but, unfortunately, we have not found any suitable funds to apply to. Service Director – Place has also written to Royston Town Council to explore whether there could be any opportunities for them to provide funding. As of this moment we have yet to receive a formal response.

 

Separately, Officers are exploring Section 106 contributions from future developments. Sports England have calculated a potential £180,000 contribution towards pool space which could be allocated against any future project. The wider project to decarbonise Royston Leisure Centre and to build the gym extension is now entering into the detailed design stage so it is highly unlikely that the building of a leaner pool can be accommodated within this project therefore, any new business case would have to be considered post 2025/26. In the meantime, Officers will continue to investigate opportunities including alternative build designs which may lower the overall capital costs.”

 

Councillor Johnson asked a supplementary question, as follows:

 

“I think that there is an opportunity, and I would just like you to guarantee please that the scheme will not be cancelled permanently?”

 

Councillor Debenham responded:

 

“I think everybody here wants there to be a leaner pool in Royston. The problems we are facing with getting grants, between 2019 and 2023, 85 pools have closed, public pools so most of the grant funding is towards keeping existing pools open, rather than extending ones that are there but, it is £2.5M pounds that was put into the Capital Allocation for this in the 2024/25 budget, and it will be down to the next budget, where I cannot comment on whether it will still be there but, it has not been removed as of yet.”

 

(C)  Churchgate Regeneration

 

Councillor Ralph Muncer to Councillor Daniel Allen, Leader of the Council.

 

“To ask the Leader of the Council (a) how much the Churchgate Regeneration Project will cost and (b) how the Council intends to fund the Churchgate Regeneration Project?”

 

Councillor Daniel Allen gave a response as follows:

 

“You know I cannot answer your question Ralph, the Council is still working through the options having listened to the public in our first round of consultations, until we have a preferred scheme and know how this will be delivered, we are unable to answer.”

 

Councillor Muncer asked a supplementary question, as follows:

 

“I have a copy of the North Herts Labour Party Manifesto for the local elections of this year and on page 14, and I am more that happy to provide colleagues opposite with this, it says deliver the Churchgate project and it says with a rubber stamp, a graphic saying that it is fully costed. Now evidently, we have heard from the Leader of the Council that it is not in fact fully costed because we do not know what the costs are at all. So does the Leader of the Council know something that evidently Officers and Members do not or was the Labour party at the local elections at best being disingenuous to the residents of North Hertfordshire?”

 

Councillor Daniel Allen responded:

 

“Simply put Councillor Muncer, we listen to the public, we make sure that we make sure that we fund everything correctly, so yes, we will make sure that we put it through with a rubber stamp. We will make sure it happens unlike the previous promises that have been made before this and we will make sure that when it does happen it is fully costed and you will be able to see that we get a lot more.”

 

N.B. Councillor Sadie Billing left the Chamber at 22:12 and returned at 22:29.

 

(D)  Single Person Council Tax Discount

Councillor Ralph Muncer to Councillor Ian Albert, Executive Member for Finance and IT.

 

“To ask the Executive Member for Finance and IT how many households and/or residents in North Hertfordshire benefit from the Single Person Discount on Council Tax?”

 

Councillor Albert gave a response as follows:

 

“Simply put on current numbers there are 18,831 people claiming the single person’s discount, which is approximately 33% of all the household in North Herts.”

 

Councillor Muncer asked a supplementary question, as follows:

 

“During the summer the idea of the Labour Government scrapping the Single Person Council Tax Discount and thus depriving over well nearly 19,000 residents in North Hertfordshire of this crucial lifeline. Can the Executive Member for Finance and IT commit to maintaining the Councils, Single Person Council Tax Discount until 2028 the lifespan of this Council?”

 

Councillor Albert responded:

 

“It begs belief that when I was getting the question like this as a supplementary, I mean I was hoping that Councillor Muncer would be asking well actually have all the people needing single person discount are claiming it, because that would be a really good question and a sensible question to ask because that is how important that the single person discount.

 

I would like to think that Councillor Muncer will be asking about what is and has been claimed by a number of local community organisations for our Council Tax Reduction Scheme with its new banding system that actually has benefitted thousands of our residents. I would like to think you would be asking about how we are going to improve that even more but that clearly was not the question but, as Councillor Muncer knows the single person discount is not in the gift of any Local Authority is in the gift of government.

 

The Chancellor clearly decided, rightly decided that the single person discount will continue and that I welcomed and I hope that Councillor Muncer will welcome that as well but, what I am going to say is what we can do as a Council and single person discount is not something that we can influence but, I certainly will be more than happy that if the next time I see the Chancellor I will be more than happy to say thank you Rachel Reeves for continuing with the single person discount, that was absolutely the correct decision.”

 

E) Civil Enforcement Officer Roles

 

Councillor Ralph Muncer to Councillor Daniel Allen, Interim Executive Member for Planning and Transport:

 

“To ask the Interim Executive Member for Planning and Transport (a) how many Civil Enforcement Officers are currently employed by the Council and (b) how many Civil Enforcement Officer posts are currently vacant?”

 

Councillor Daniel Allen gave a response as follows:

 

“We have the equivalent of 11 full time Officers with some post being part time, we currently have 9 posts filled with 2 further posts recruited to, with anticipated start dates in January 2025. We have 1 part time post vacant. We also have a Parking Enforcement Manager and a Parking Services Team Leader, so if all staff are present now, we usually have 4 Officer operating due to rest days however this number will drop if an Officer is on annual leave or sick.”

 

Councillor Muncer asked a supplementary question, as follows:

 

“Parking on Codicote High Street is an issue that people are rightly concerned about particularly with the over 400 homes of which are proposed to be built in the village, now obviously as awful lot of the Civil enforcement Officers are based and focused on our Town Centres and the car park of which are situated there but, can I ask the Leader of the Council what steps are going to be taken to ensure that rural communities like Codicote and Kimpton get their fair share and that parking restrictions are enforced in those rural communities to alleviate the pressures of drivers?”

 

Councillor Daniel Allen responded:

 

“Driver parking restrictions in Codicote are minimal, the High Street in Codicote does not have parking restrictions, there are only double yellow corner protectors at the junction of the High Street, and Dollimore Close, Newtown, Bury Lane and Heath Lane. Therefore, we have it as part of our mobile patrol, which means we drive through the High Street and we can make sure if there is anyone parked illegally during the shift when the resources allow. Our Officers do not walk patrol Codicote as it is unnecessary. They will drive patrol and if a vehicle is observed to be parked in contravention, then the Officer will park and walk to the vehicle.

 

Since the start of the financial year we have issued 21 penalty charge notices, which is quite significant considering the minimal parking restrictions, it would tend to suggest that people struggle to park legally. It is worth noting that blue badge holders can park on a double yellow line for up to 3 hours and that loading and unloading can take place on a double yellow line if it is constant, for up to 30 minutes. Drivers could be parked on double yellow line corners because of a convenience shop, it would be very difficult to catch these drivers due to Codicote not having its own dedicated Patrol, we acknowledge that we cannot enforce vehicles parked on pavements if there is no parking restrictions.

 

So, all in all, we are making sure that we support those local areas and it is very very disingenuous to suggest that we do not.”