Agenda item

To consider any questions submitted by Members of the Council, in accordance with Standing Order 4.8.11 (b). Questions received will be published as a supplementary document following the deadline for the submission of questions.

In accordance with Standing Order 4.8.11, four questions were submitted by the required deadline set out in the Constitution.

(A)        Local Government Reorganisation Options

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

(B)        Penalty Charge Notices – Free After 3

Councillor Matt Barnes to Councillor Donna Wright (Executive Member for Place).

(C)        Events on Council Land

Councillor Chris Lucas to Councillor Mick Debenham (Executive Member for Regulatory).

(D)        Hitchin Lido Closure

Councillor Louise Peace to Councillor Amy Allen (Executive Member for Environment).

Audio recording – 2 hours 47 minutes 4 seconds

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

(A)      Local Government Reorganisation Options

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

‘To ask the Leader of the Council to outline the Administration’s preferred option for Local Government Reorganisation in Hertfordshire?’

Councillor Daniel Allen provided the following response:

‘At this point, the Administration did not have a preferred option for Local Government Reorganisation in Hertfordshire although I am sure a lot of individual councillors do. The Administration are waiting to receive all available evidence, information and proposals that will allow for a full assessment of the potential impacts. As with any significant decision, it is important that the councillors are able to consider the facts carefully, and there is a full debate at Full Council before any position is taken. Until then, it would be premature for the Administration to express a preference.’

Councillor Ralph Muncer asked a supplementary question, as follows:

‘Will the Leader of the Council guarantee his Members a free vote on the matter of Local Government Reorganisation at the meeting on the 13 November of this year?’

Councillor Daniel Allen responded:

‘It is an internal Labour matter that is not for discussion at Full Council.’

(B)      Penalty Charge Notices – Free After 3

Councillor Matt Barnes to Councillor Donna Wright, Executive Member for Place:

‘What advice has the Council received about issuing penalty charge notices for non-registration during the Free After 3 parking period in Royston?’

Councillor Donna Wright provided the following response:

‘The Parking Team has reviewed the Council’s Parking Contravention Codes with the British Parking Association and with other Local Authorities to identify which of the national codes might be mostly appropriately used, and a proposed approach for Royston is currently being reviewed by the Council’s Legal Team.’

Councillor Matt Barnes asked a supplementary question, as follows:

‘Have you considered removing the requirement altogether and simply counting cars with a clipboard and pen instead?’

Councillor Donna Wright responded:

‘I just want to state for clarification that the Council is not issuing fines after 3:00pm in Royston. People are being reminded to register for their session by way of a notice on their windscreens. We have been relying on voluntary registrations but this could not reliably tell us what proportion of parking sessions after 3:00pm this is capturing. The difficulty was that they needed to collect reliable and comprehensive data as this was part of the original agreement with Royston Town Council and Royston First BID. As Council will know, these two bodies have offered a total maximum subsidy of £35,000 for the Free After 3pm tariff to continue in 25/26 but it was agreed that the usage data had to be monitored to ensure that the Council doesn’t end up having to cover more of the costs. It wouldn’t be fair for Council Taxpayers in other parts of the district to subsidise Royston car parks, so we do need to strike a careful balance between fairly implementing the scheme in Royston but not incurring any extra costs for the Council. Unfortunately, the most accurate form of data was people registering for their free parking session. In the past, we have relied on manual survey data which is too ad-hoc and does not provide a consistent baseline. It does not capture the frequency of turnover within parking period and can only be taken at various points in time. So, recording the usage of data at machines was the most reliable and independent method. From experience elsewhere, we do know that during charging hours and where penalty charges are being issued, the vast majority of parking sessions are appropriately registered and recorded. But obviously, the final operational decision for Royston will have to be dependent on the outcome of the legal advice. It may be that we may just have to be clear to residents that if they don’t register for their after 3pm parking, the subsidy may not be viable in the long-term. Whatever approach is agreed, there will be clear communications and signage in all of the car parks.’

(C)      Events on Council Land

Councillor Chris Lucas to Councillor Mick Debenham, Executive Member for Regulatory:

‘Could the Executive Member for Regulatory advise what would the Council’s liability position would be if an event took place on North Hertfordshire District Council land without a licence and an injury occurred to a participant or member of the public?’

Councillor Mick Debenham provided the following response:

‘The event organiser was responsible for any public liability arising from an event that they run as well as any other liability such as employers’ liability. The event organiser should therefore ensure that they have appropriate insurance in place and that this insurance remains valid if they do not have a land license or any other appropriate permissions. North Herts District Council insurance would remain valid if an event took place on our land even if the event took place without a land license. That insurance would however, only cover our liability as property owners but it not there to cover any liability that the event organiser should be responsible for.’

Councillor Chris Lucas asked a supplementary question, following which, on the advice of Officers, the Chair ruled out a response from the Executive Member on the grounds of confidentiality.

(D)      Hitchin Lido Closure

Councillor Louise Peace to Councillor Amy Allen, Executive Member for Environment:

‘When the Leisure Centre Decarbonisation Project was discussed at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee in May, Councillor Mick Debenham left the Committee in no doubt that this was a challenging project. The Committee carefully examined the submitted paper. The proposed extended opening of the Hitchin Lido until the end of October was, to me, a crucial part of maintaining goodwill with centre users while the work was carried out. This proposal was agreed by Cabinet on May 20.

A decision has now been made to close the Hitchin Lido at the end of September. The press release regarding this decision does not refer to a named Officer or yourself as portfolio holder. What was the process for reversing the decision made at Cabinet?’

Councillor Amy Allen provided the following response:

‘It is a huge undertaking and challenging project and thank you for pointing that out. It was the decision by the Project Board of which on it had two Cabinet Members. The decision was based on the fact that the original decision to extend the season was to counteract the fact that the indoor pool was going to be shut for the Decarbonisation Project, as we all know. Unfortunately, we had a few things pop up which meant that the work on the area of the indoor pool for the Decarbonisation Project has been delayed. With that in mind, we felt that having both the lido and the indoor pool open at the same time was somewhat counterproductive, especially considering the cost it takes to be running the pool in October, £16,000 by the way. We felt that it was quite reasonable to not extend the already extended season for the lido because the indoor pool was open.’

Councillor Louise Peace asked a supplementary question, as follows:

‘At the Overview and Scrutiny meeting in May that was mentioned earlier, we were informed that the current estimated one-off loss of revenue for the closures across all three sites is approximately £900,000. This was a cost that the Council will have to bare as per the requirements of the Leisure and Active Communities Contract. Given that the Hitchin Lido would now not be heated in October and no staffing would be required, will the £16,000 loss of revenue be reviewed and can we have that money back?’

Councillor Amy Allen responded:

‘I will have to talk to Sarah Kingsley and others about it and then I can get back to you with a properly substantive answer.’