Agenda item

The following question had submitted by Cllr Ted Strike for response by the Leader of the Council (Cllr Bob Cook):-

 

"At the November meeting I submitted a motion and a question which were both rejected after the deadline. My motion was submitted on the Friday morning, and I received an email saying it had been rejected on the Monday. My question was submitted on the Wednesday and rejected the Wednesday after the deadline a full week later.

 

During the many emails exchanged it became apparent that all questions and motions are not read until the day after the deadline, meaning any alterations to the questions or motions cannot be made if the Proper Officer finds them unacceptable.

 

I believe this is unacceptable and this practice should be changed, even if this means bringing forward the deadline to midnight on the Thursday.

 

Can this be put in place as the current practice leads to questions and motions being rejected without any opportunity to amend them?

 

I understand that another councillor also had a question refused."

 

The Leader of the Council responded with:-

 

Thank you, Councillor Strike, for raising this issue, whilst the council procedures are not something that are my responsibility as leader of the council, they are as you will be aware matter for all members, the question does provide an opportunity to highlight the support that is available from our officers.

 

In considering how best to respond, I have asked the monitoring officer for his advice on this matter. Firstly, though a reminder that it is for us all as members, to ensure that the motions or questions we submit are in order and can therefore be considered in public at one of our meetings.

 

The monitoring officer advises me that the deadline for submissions is not just administrative, but a requirement set out in our constitution to ensure legal compliance and procedural integrity. Motions and questions submitted formally to democratic services are assessed for compliance with our standing orders after the deadline so that they can be included on the council agenda. At this point, at most only minimal changes for example for grammatical accuracy can be made.

 

It is a matter for us all as members to decide whether or not we wish to take advice from officers before formally submitting a question or motion to democratic services. Clearly not all questions or motions will require advice to be given, but it is a matter for members to decide whether or not advice is needed. If in doubt I would suggest to members to take advice.

At any point before the deadline, if a member wants to submit a question or motion then they can ask for advice, but it is the responsibility of us all as members to ask for that advice when it is needed. Officers cannot be the judge as to whether or not a member does or does not want such advice on the wording of their question or motion. I would also suggest that this issue is considered at the Members Advisory Panel.”

 

The following question had been submitted by Cllr Ted Strike for response by the Leader of the Council (Cllr Bob Cook):-

 

"In view of the current financial situation what are the council's plans, in particular the already agreed borrowings of approximately £140m which as yet have not been drawn down?"

 

The Leader of the Council responded with:-

 

“All future costs associated with Council approved borrowing have been factored into the Councils Medium Term Financial Plan. The authority will only borrow when there is a cash requirement to do so and the timings and draw down of any future loans will be in line with the Councils approved Treasury Management Strategy.”

 

Cllr Ted Strike asked the following supplementary question:-

 

“You have answered the factored in but you won’t know what the factored in price is if you then go and borrow another £20 million for example. Any additional borrowing will end up with additional costs year on year. I would suggest and I would hope that the Council would not do anymore borrowing until we have got that in-year deficit resolved?”

 

The Leader of the Council responded with:-

“It is hard to say when you need to borrow money when you have live capital projects. As part of their Financial Resilience Index CIPFA has produced data comparing the proportion of financing costs to net revenue stream to the Councils statistical nearest neighbours and North-East 12 neighbours. Stockton’s comparisons were shown in the 2023/24 Capital Strategy report presented within the MTFP report back in February 2023. These show that Stockton has the lowest cost of borrowing of the sample authorities. We are careful when we need to borrow money and the reasons have to be valid.”

 

The following question had submitted by Cllr Lynn Hall for response by the Cabinet Member for Health, Leisure and Culture (Cllr Steve Nelson):-

 

"A robust Winter Plan is essential to benefit and safeguard our residents.

 Does the leader consider this year's plan executed to date was prepared in a timely way; facilitated members involvement and the dissemination of new information and initiatives were effectively shared?"

 

The Cabinet Member for Health, Leisure and Culture responded with:-

 

“The Adults Health and Wellbeing Winter Planning update is presented annually in various forums, in conjunction with statutory partners and has been to the relevant scrutiny committees and through due process in accordance with Council governance. The Adults Health and Wellbeing Winter planning update in its most current and up to date format was considered at Executive Scrutiny Committee in January 2024. The planning update also went to December 2023 Adults Social Care and Health Scrutiny Committee. In November 2023 ICB colleagues came to Health and Wellbeing Board to give a Tees Valley Winter Planning update. The Winter Conference launches and informs System Wide Winter planning and this took place in September 2023. These plans are undertaken and delivered with system partners including Adults Health and Wellbeing. This is an operational plan which goes to the various forums for input by the various committees.

The Adults Health and Wellbeing planning update is to ensure appropriate health and care responses are maintained at times of pressure. To date this winter any pressures being seen in our health and care system are being managed well. In addition to the Winter Planning update there are also NHS escalation processes which the Council Adult Social Care team and Public Health team support with as needed. We continue to work with our Health partners to ensure winter planning is undertaken as early as possible and implemented in a timely way.  This Winter Planning evolves, and changes as needed.

 

The references in the report to gritting and flooding were for information only. CFYA has a separate Winter Service Operational Plan that covers operational issues such as gritting.  This Service Plan is supplemented by a Council Snow Plan.  There is also a council operational flood plan.”

 

Cllr Lynn Hall asked the following supplementary question:-

“I did specifically ask for this question to go to the Leader of the Council as the over-arching Winter Plan covers all directorates. We need to provide the best possible service for our residents. With my first formal opportunity to discuss this year’s Plan was in January 2024, can I have assurances that the updated Winter Plan for this year will involve all Members at an early stage. The involvement will hopefully widen the focus and improve health outcomes and work with partnerships across all directorates. Road matters and flood concerns are also important for our residents. The Winter Maintenance Plan is part of the overall Plan. It will also help us along the transformation journey. We are currently replacing potholes. All Councillors need to be involved. Can I ask if you are going to allow input at an earlier stage?” 

 

The Cabinet Member for Health, Leisure and Culture responded with:-

“I think Cllr Hall maybe getting confused with the different plans. I’m involved with the Adults Health and Wellbeing Plan which is around Health and Wellbeing issues. The Plan went to various committees including the Health and Wellbeing Board where you were at when the presentation was given.  The Director of Public Health was trying to be helpful by including gritting and flooding, those elements can be found in other plans and updates. This Plan starts in February and is worked at with partners and other committees. There is no decision associated with this Plan. To avoid confusion the Plan will be renamed next year the Adults, Health and Wellbeing Winter Planning Update.”

The following question was submitted by Cllr Tony Riordan for response by the Leader of the Council (Cllr Bob Cook):-

 

"Can the Leader please inform me how many Corporate Credit Cards, and Procurement Cards, are available to officers and staff on Stockton Borough Council, what is the maximum authorised spending limit on these cards, and can he offer the taxpayers of Stockton Borough reassurance that strong governance is in place to monitor and review the use of these cards?"

 

The Leader of the Council responded with:-

 

“There are currently 105 corporate credit cards in operation used by officers for one off purchases.

 

The maximum authorisation spending limit differs from card to card and is based on the type of purchases the officer will be authorised to make via the card. The standard limit ranges from between £500 - £2000 per month. Any cardholder requiring a higher limit is by exception and specific justification. 

 

At the point of requesting a card the officer needs to complete an application pack which contains a Corporate Credit Cardholder Manual which provides a detailed overview of how the cards should be used and reminding them that improper use could lead to suspension of the card and / or disciplinary action. The Internal Audit team carry out random checks of card activity to ensure proper usage. 

 

Users are required to sign an Employee Agreement which outlines the terms and conditions they will be required to comply with regarding card usage. This includes a requirement to only use the card for business purposes, to keep appropriate records and ensure that VAT invoices and receipts are uploaded into the bank’s card system in a timely manner, to report lost or stolen cards etc. The card holder’s Line Manager is required to confirm and approve all expenditure.”

 

 

The following question was submitted by Cllr Ted Strike for response by the Cabinet Member for Regeneration & Housing (Cllr Nigel Cooke):-

 

"Residents of new houses on The Rings are now having to pay an annual fee to a management company.

 

The management company for Permission on the Rings is Gateway.

 

Since being elected on the new North Ward I have received a large number of complaints, these include the poor service from Gateway, late payment fees if the maintenance fee is not paid on time, but the main complaint is that when they received their bill almost 90% of the bill is down to "Admin expenses ".

 

After 3 years residents can elect their own directors, but must employ a management company.

 

I believe that SBC could provide this service a lot cheaper than residents are paying now.

 

I do not believe this would cost council taxpayers a penny and SBC could make a profit whilst reducing the price these residents are currently paying.

 

Would SBC look into the possibility of providing this service. There are of course  numerous new build estates across the Borough in the same situation. This is not a problem unique to Ingleby Barwick?"

 

The Cabinet Member for Regeneration & Housing responded with:-

 

“I understand how this issue impacts on residents across the Borough. On construction of a new development, the developer has a choice whether to offer the land for adoption by the Council or to keep the land private and employ a management company to maintain the land.  The Management Company can charge the residents a fee for this, which would be written into their deeds, when purchasing their property. Unfortunately, the Council cannot influence the developer’s decision.  Should a developer wish to offer their land for adoption, then this would be considered by the Council, subject to the land being transferred to the Council, all works being up to an adoptable standard and the payment of a commuted lump sum for future maintenance.”

 

Cllr Ted Strike asked the following supplementary question:-

 

“Since being elected myself and the other ward councillors met with the officers who explained all this we then gate-crashed a meeting with Gateway where we were told that we were not welcome. The residents can after 3 years form their own directorship and they are entitled to employ their own management company. The question is could Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council look into being a management company?”

 

The Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Housing responded with:-

 

“Whilst I understand the sentiment behand the question and the high feelings there are a lot of barriers between what he is suggesting. If Cllr Strike would like greater clarification on the procedures and protocols I happy for officers to provide that. It is essentially private land, the only way forward would be for the developer of that land to actually approach the Council for adoption. Clearly the Council would have to be happy that the land is up to the standard where we would want to adopt the land. There would need to be a commuted sum for maintenance.”

 

 

The following question was submitted by Cllr Niall Innes for response by the Leader of the Council (Cllr Bob Cook):-

 

"Can the Leader of the Council inform me what the internal process the council uses to price repair/maintenance/project work?"

 

The Leader of the Council responded with:-

 

The potential range of assets implied by the question is very wide, including highways infrastructure, schools, urgent safety works etc.

 

In an attempt to answer this question we have focused on the small scale works that are typically requested at Ward level and may be funded through the Members Ward budgets. Officers have indicated that they are happy to discuss the technical process and context for larger schemes directly with Cllr Innes if required.

 

In relation to the small-scale work, including play areas, bins, benches and other street furniture, estimates for maintenance are produced on a case-by-case basis, but informed by costs for comparable assets we already maintain. We calculate future anticipated costs using a comprehensive schedule of rates for repair or replacement, these schedules encompass a range of factors including labour, materials, plant, traffic management and supervision.

 

However, it should be noted that small items integrated into a setting which is already subject to an inspection and maintenance regime, will in practice be incorporated into a programme for that site. For any anticipated material, equipment or specialist contractor input, we follow Council procurement procedures.”

 

Councillor Niall Innes asked the following supplementary question:-

 

“Can the Leader tell me why there seems to be an inflating of the prices that we are quoted for having works done that come out of our budget?”

 

The Leader of the Council responded with:-

 

“One of the issues that the Council faces is that as a Council we need to make sure that any works that are done are up to standard and that nobody is injured and therefore it is difficult as everything we put in has to be maintained.”

 

 

The following question was submitted by Cllr Stefan Houghton for response by the Cabinet Member for Regeneration & Housing (Cllr Nigel Cooke):-

 

"In addition to the successful Stockton South Levelling Up bid, finance was obtained by re-purposing section 106 funds to improve the popular play area at Preston Park. These improvements have been delayed, most recently by the larger capital programme.

 

As the years have passed since these funds were obtained to improve the play area, I would welcome an update for my benefit and all members whose residents will eventually have the opportunity to enjoy this completed project?"

 

 

The Cabinet Member for Regeneration & Housing responded with:-

 

“The section 106 funding to which Cllr Houghton refers is approximately £90,000. The cost for renewing the play area in Preston Park, removing equipment that is now close to the end of its safe life and replacing it with features of a similar scale and type, has been estimated to be £350,000.

Officers have been working to try to identify the additional resource required to redevelop the play area but have not yet been able to secure the funds required. Officers are now planning to phase the work, undertaking initial work that utilises the 106 resource to coincide with the work being funded by the LUF grant for south Stockton.

 

It is not the case that the current capital programme has delayed efforts to complete works on the play area.”