Agenda item

The following Member Question had been submitted by Cllr Ted Strike for response by the Cabinet Member for Health, Leisure and Culture (Cllr Steve Nelson):-

 

“During the last two winters Stockton Council have supported the use of "Warm Spaces" with financial grants due to the high cost of fuel.

 

With Ofgen announcing an increase of 10% on gas and electric and the withdrawal of the Winter Fuel Allowance for the vast majority of pensioners "Will Stockton Borough Council be providing this facility again this winter?”

 

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

 

“The Warm Spaces scheme was introduced in October 2022 in response to the cost of living crisis and the huge increase in utility charges and I’d like to take this opportunity to thank the Fairer Stockton on Tees team for their crucial involvement in the scheme.

 

In 2023 Warm Spaces were rebranded as Community Spaces with an all year round offer for residents.  Social isolation is a silent killer and Community Spaces play a major role in the borough in bringing people together in a warm and welcoming environment.

 

The scheme has been a major success and an excellent example of partnership working.  A report on the scheme is going to the next Cabinet so I won’t go into further details here.

 

To answer your specific question yes public health funding was provided for the scheme for both 2023/24 and 2024/25. Considering the increasing financial pressures on local authorities and the Council’s Powering Our Future transformation programme, it is imperative that Community Spaces venues are empowered to achieve long-term sustainability by accessing wider funding and are supported with funding bid applications.”

 

Member Question submitted by Cllr Niall Innes for response by the Leader of the Council (Cllr Bob Cook):-

 

“Can the Leader of the Council inform me of the total amount this Council has spent on Interim staff from January 2023 to date?”

 

The Leader of the Council responded with:-

 

“Can I start by saying that spending on interim staff is a necessary cost. Interim staff can be crucial to keeping our services running effectively whether that’s filling roles during recruitment, covering absences, or bringing in specialist skills when needed.

 

In terms of spend on interim staff, this is ordinarily funded through existing staffing budgets, so there’s no additional cost to the council over and above what we would ordinarily pay.

 

More exceptionally, when specialist expertise or additional capacity is required, any extra costs are carefully looked at and fully funded. Any decision to bring in interim staff must be justified and managed within our financial controls.

 

We manage our budgets on an annual cycle aligned with the financial year, not from arbitrary points like January 2023. We don’t operate a separate budget for interim staff, as I have already said interim staff are ordinarily funded through existing staffing budgets. Our annual staffing budget is £120 million and if we include our Xentrall shared service £126 million, approximately half our total budget.

 

Interim staffing is a normal aspect of managing our workforce, allowing us to be flexible and responsive. While we aim to fill permanent roles whenever possible, interim staff ensure that critical roles are filled when needed, keeping our services running smoothly.”

 

Councillor Niall Innes asked the following supplementary question:-

 

“Does the Leader of the Council believe that it is right that £200k paid per week on interims in the Children and Young People department with consultants on the same amount, considering we find ourselves in a £3.6 million black hole under his leadership?

 

The Leader of the Council responded with:-

 

“I think you’ll find that within Children’s Services there is a statutory role for the Director of Children’s Services. We had to get someone in until we could recruited to the post. If we didn’t do that it would have been illegal not to have that statutory Director within the Council.”

 

 

Member Question submitted by Cllr Niall Innes for response by the Leader of the Council (Cllr Bob Cook):-

 

“Considering all Councillors receive a generous basic allowance plus special responsibility allowance where applicable, does the Leader of the Council believe it is right Councillors can claim additional expenses that are not in the interest of local residents?”

 

The Leader of the Council responded with:-

 

“Thank you for your question, Councillor Innes. The setting of allowances and the policy on expenses are decisions made collectively by this full Council, it is a decision involving all political groups. The basic allowance, set at £9,300, has been frozen for several years, despite recommendations from our independent remuneration panel suggesting otherwise. The decision on allowances and expenses that may be claimed has been agreed upon by all members, from all groups.

 

Councillors particularly those in leading roles attend conferences, training sessions, and award ceremonies like the MJ Awards not for personal interest but to fulfil their roles, often as a requirement of their responsibilities, and to celebrate the achievements of local government. These events are essential for recognising the hard work of our teams, gaining valuable insights, and bringing back knowledge that directly benefits our residents.

 

If we cast doubt on expenses that are legitimately claimed in accordance with the policies that we have all agreed upon only serves to undermine us all. If any member believes an expense has been claimed wrongly, the proper action is to refer it to the Monitoring Officer for investigation.

 

We have this evening approved the appointment of an independent remuneration panel, which will review our allowances and expenses. If changes are needed, should properly  be addressed through these processes.”

 

Councillor Niall Innes asked the following supplementary question:-

 

“We have already had a motion tonight regarding Labour government removing £300 per year from some of the most vulnerable. We have seen that the Labour Councillors are claiming from the tax payer over £40 for steak and chips and a portion of mussels, £7.29 on a salad box, £7.50 on a cray fish sandwich and a bottle of diet coke. How can the Leader justify his own Councillors lavishly feeding themselves at the tax-payers expense given the discussion here this evening and the continued financial blackhole this Council finds itself in?”

 

The Leader of the Council responded with:-

 

“I’m not sure where you got that information from. Obviously they are expenses and Councillors are allowed to claim. There is a lot that we don’t claim. I travel up and down the country and don’t claim what I’m allowed.”

 

Member Question submitted by Cllr Tony Riordan for response by the Leader of the Council (Cllr Bob Cook):-

 

“A recent press article following a briefing to a journalist, that you were present at, regarding the vision and regeneration for Stockton Town Centre and the Teesdale area, disclosed to members and the council taxpayers in the Borough, that this Council had purchased the previous Debenhams department store on Stockton High Street.

 

As the Leader of Stockton Borough Council do you think it is appropriate that members should discover about such a significant purchase via the press, and that the decision to do so was not recorded on the Council's register, which is open to the public?”

 

The Leader of the Council responded with:-

 

I’d like to provide some background to the Council’s decision to acquire the former Debenhams site. Members will recall that the Council already owned part of the Debenhams building through our purchase of Wellington Square. The rear section of the building, which faces Wellington Square, was an extension to the original Debenhams store and was part of our existing property. However, the front part of the traditional Debenhams building facing the High Street was on a separate property title.

 

This division was not an issue when Debenhams was operating as a single store, but when Debenhams went into administration, the building effectively became split in two with no internal wall separating the units.

 

Members will recall shopping in Debenhams but may not have realised that the services supporting the rear extension, such as utilities and infrastructure, were all contained in the older part of the building. Separating these two parts into distinct units would have involved considerable cost and disruption.

 

Bringing both parts of the building back into single ownership was critical to ensuring the site could be brought back into productive use a key objective for the regeneration of our town centre. When we learned that the front part of the building, owned by a property company, was due to go to public auction, this presented a significant risk. Losing control of the front section, while owning the rear, would have created a barrier to revitalising the entire site and potentially led to blight.

 

Through direct discussions with the owners’ agents, we had the opportunity to remove the building from auction and secure it through a private sale. This required swift action, as the auction date was approaching. We secured an independent valuation to ensure the price was fair, and a delegated decision was made by officers, which was properly recorded but not published at the time due to its exempt status.

 

Exempt information is used to protect sensitive details that could, if disclosed prematurely, compromise the Council’s negotiating position or financial interests. In this case, keeping the information confidential was crucial to avoiding competition that could have driven up the purchase price. Both members and officers have a duty to respect these confidentiality boundaries under our codes of conduct.

 

Exempt information is vital in many scenarios commercial deals, staff matters, and safeguarding vulnerable individuals. Both members and officers must respect these confidentiality boundaries. We will work on making the process more systematic when exempt information no longer needs to be confidential, and I’ve asked the officers to look into this, particularly as we continue using and expanding the new ModGov system.

 

Since taking control of the whole building, we have been able to have more productive discussions with potential tenants. I am pleased to report that we have strong interest and we are discussing terms with a potential tenant.  While further work is needed to reach a final agreement, this progress would not have been possible without securing overall control of the site.

 

In summary, the decision was properly recorded, appropriately confidential, and in the public interest. I would ask all members to respect the need for confidentiality in such matters.”

 

Councillor Tony Riordan asked the following supplementary question:-

 

“I note the Leaders point about confidential information but that public interest has now lapsed and the decision has been made. Will there be an agreement that following the decision to purchase the Debenhams store in October 2023 £500k plus stamp duty for land tax and associated fees together with a failure to commission a detailed survey to identify any potential issues with the building structure or systems. A failure to identify repairs and maintenance and a failure to identify a tenant for the on-going revenue costs of £370k per year has created a significant risk to the Council taxpayers of this Borough and can he outline any other decisions that have not been recorded on the public register?”

 

The Leader of the Council responded with:-

 

“As far as I know it is now on the public register as it is not confidential anymore. We have got an independent valuation on the building and it would have been complicated if we hadn’t bought the site as we own part of it. Detailed talks are on-going with someone to potentially move onto the site.”

 

Member Question submitted by Cllr Tony Riordan for response by the Leader of the

Council (Cllr Bob Cook):-

 

“Despite this council agreeing on the 24th of January 2024 to request Stockton Hotels  Company Ltd to publish their Profit and Loss Accounts and Directors Statements, and further questions raised by myself in this chamber on the 29th of May and the 24th of July regarding the publication, these have still not been published on the Council

Website (7th September).

 

Will the Leader agree with me, despite the Council’s wishes and the reassurances he has given to these questions, particularly on the 29th of May, when he said “This work has now been completed, and the additional documentation is available on the council’s website” (which was clearly incorrect) the lack of publication is indefensible and raises questions as to why there appears to be a reluctance to publish the documents?”

 

The Leader of the Council responded with:-

 

“Thank you, Councillor Riordan, for asking this question, as it gives me the opportunity

to celebrate a homegrown success. Stockton Hotels Company Ltd is an excellent example of our commitment to regenerating our town.

 

This hotel stands on the former derelict Kwik Fit site, which once offered nothing to our community. Now, it’s a thriving, award-winning business with a 79.2% occupancy rate  at the end of August, delivering hundreds of thousands of pounds back to the council, creating 30 directly employed jobs, and supporting many more in our local economy.

 

This project was always about more than profit; it was about breathing new life into a neglected site and creating opportunities for Stockton.

 

The success of this hotel is something we should all be proud of proof of what we can achieve when we invest in our community. Would we rather see the site left to decay or celebrate its transformation into a thriving business that benefits Stockton. The answer is clear.

 

On the publication of documents, let me be clear: we have nothing to hide. The latest Profit and Loss Accounts and Directors’ Statements are already on the council’s website, and we are working on making earlier shareholder documents accessible, as required under the Equality Act. This process takes time as it involves adapting documents that weren’t originally designed for web use into formats accessible to

everyone.

 

Much of this information is also available on Companies House, and members have always been able to view the documents upon request. This isn’t about hiding anything; it’s about ensuring accessibility and sharing our achievements properly.

 

Thank you for asking this question and allowing me the opportunity to celebrate this homegrown success. This isn’t just a council success; it’s a success for Stockton. We can be proud of what’s been achieved.”

 

Councillor Tony Riordan asked the following supplementary question:-

 

“Will the Leader agree with me that the unpublished Profit and Loss Statements, the Directors Statements, together with the Annual Accounts, which he and I have read, show that the Hotel Company has not paid out one single penny in dividend to the shareholders (the Council Taxpayers of this Borough) despite this Council writing off its ongoing losses and providing a cash injection totalling £465k, together with the ongoing Business Rates Relief scheme set up by the last Government, totalling over £300k for the Hotel, thereby suggesting his previous public statements regarding an annual profit generated by the hotel of £250k going back into the local coffers are incorrect?”

 

The Leader of the Council responded with:-

 

“I will need to look into that and I will speak to officers. As far as I’m concerned the accounts that are on the website should show the accounts that companies house would have.”

 

Member Question submitted by Cllr Sufi Mubeen for response by the Cabinet Member for Access, Communities and Community Safety (Councillor Norma Stephenson):-

 

“Can the Cabinet Member for Access, Communities and Community Safety outline in detail, what action has to been taken to address the sex workers plying their trade on the streets of the Ropner and Town Centre wards?”

 

The Cabinet Member for Access, Communities and Community Safety responded with:-

 

“We are aware of the challenges associated with sex workers in the Ropner ward and over the past year we have been working in close partnership with our community, all our partner agencies and local Councillors to come up with a longer-term solution to what is a very complex matter. Members will recall that twelve months ago, we successfully bid for Safer Streets 5 funding for Ropner ward.

 

This fund provided much needed funding to support the inception of Operation Nightfall. While at that point in time, issues associated with sex work were under reported to both the Council and Cleveland Police, attendance at Ropner Ward surgeries and the subsequent conversations with both Councillors and residents revealed the true extent of the long-standing problem in the area.

 

As a result of listening to community concerns, Cleveland Police began dedicated patrols in the area and have successfully intervened in situations where women have been in danger.

 

Alongside this our CCTV operators have also alerted police to potential offenders and a significant amount of intelligence has been gathered. As part of this initiative we also funded the charity A Way Out to support sex workers and attached an officer from our community safety team to work alongside them in problem solving interventions with women at risk of exploitation in this area.

 

This work continues and CCTV operations have been key to identifying a potential suspect in the recent sexual assaults within this ward resulting in a charge and remand of the alleged suspect.

 

Following further problem-solving work around this issue, six months ago we were successful in applying for funding from CURV (OPCC) to conduct research with residents, sex workers and local businesses to understand the impact of sex work in Ropner.

 

It is important to consider that sex workers are often victims of much wider exploitation and are also members of our community which we owe an equal duty of care. From this research it is clear that addiction is an issue, and that many are involved in sex work to fund addiction and are living in hunger and poverty. Some are homeless or living out of inadequate housing. The full report has been shared with police and partners including local Councillors via the Clear Hold Build pilot, Project Harmoney. An action plan has been created and a new Problem Solving and Partnership Officer post established through joint partnership funding, which will be leading on the continued work to tackle issues important to the community.

 

There is no quick solution to this, but we do now have a sound evidence base from the multi-agency intelligence gathering which has taken place  and the research conducted, whereas before, the issues were under reported and police had very little information on sex work in Ropner. We will continue our regular engagement and updates to Ward Councillors alongside our continued engagement with the community through both ward surgeries and the established monthly ‘drop in’ sessions at the Family Hub.”

 

Councillor Sufi Mubeen asked the following supplementary question:-

 

“Would you agree with me that despite everything that you have outlined the horrendous situation that these wards have to suffer on a daily basis, whether that is being propositioned by sex workers, used condoms on the pavements, having to explain to children what a sex worker is, food and drinks are given to the sex workers outside of peoples homes, sex predators are coming into the area. The situation has not improved and is getting worse. We now need a change of strategy to provide a safe community for residents?”

 

The Cabinet Member for Access, Communities and Community Safety responded with:-

 

“I agree this is a problem but I also agreed with you when this first started that this is a pen not a magic wand. We can’t change this overnight and I can understand how residents feel and what has happened over the last week or so has upset a lot of people. We need to work with the sex workers and provide them with an exit strategy.”

 

As 30 minutes had passed for Members Question Time and in-line with the Council constitution paragraph 3.39 the Worshipful the Mayor closed this item. The remaining Member Questions would be put forward for consideration at the next meeting of Council.