Agenda item

Question 1

 

A public question had been submitted. However, the questioner was not present at the meeting therefore it was advised that a written reply would be sent.

 

Question 2

 

A public question had been submitted by Samuel Bradford. However, the questioner was not present at the meeting therefore it was advised that a written reply would be sent to him.

 

Question 3

 

A public question had been submitted by Samuel Bradford. However, the questioner was not present at the meeting therefore it was advised that a written reply would be sent to him.

 

Question 4

 

The following question was submitted by Karlee Atkinson:

 

“Both myself, my councillor and others have reported on numerous occasions over the last 12 months about the illegal, dangerous and inconsiderate parking around Billingham South School. Particularly around Belasis Avenue and Bedale Avenue. Please can you tell me how many times that this area has been visited by enforcement and how many PCNs have been issued to vehicles in this area at school run times in that time?”

 

The Cabinet Member for Access, Communities and Community Safety (Cllr Norma Stephenson) responded with:

 

“Thank you for bringing this issue to the Council’s attention. I share your concern regarding illegal and dangerous parking, especially around schools in our borough.

 

Civil Enforcement Officers have been carrying out targeted patrols in this area. Where officers observe vehicles parked in contravention of restrictions, enforcement action is taken in accordance with legislation. Unfortunately, there are significant demands on the time of our Civic Enforcement Officers who cannot be at every school, at the same time. It is therefore important that parents and carers also play their own part in keeping young children and pedestrians safe by parking in a safe and legal manner.

 

In the current financial year, 21 Penalty Charge Notices have been issued in this area, compared with 8 issued in the previous financial year which demonstrates an increase in enforcement activity although issues associated with school parking cannot be dealt with through enforcement activity alone.

A patrol tasking in this area remains in place, and recent visits have shown improved compliance. I recognise the concern that enforcement activity may not always be visible. Enforcement is intelligence led and balanced against demand across the borough, but officers are instructed to take action whenever contraventions are witnessed. Alongside enforcement, the Council continues to focus on education and visibility to encourage better driver behaviour and improve compliance over time.

 

The Council will continue to monitor this area closely and adjust enforcement activity where necessary. The safety of pedestrians, particularly around schools, remains a priority and we will continue to use both enforcement and engagement to reduce the risk of serious incidents.”

 

Karlee Atkinson asked the following supplementary question:

 

“Three weeks ago, during school run time, an enforcement van was observed driving at a snail’s pace passed cars parked illegally. Enforcement Officers were seen walking in areas where there are parking bays but ignored the problem area. What is the Council going to do about this?”

 

The Cabinet Member for Access, Communities and Community Safety (Cllr Norma Stephenson) responded with:

 

“Parking is not within the Council’s remit, but we do our best to address the problem. Thank you for raising this issue. I will investigate.”

 

Question 5

 

The following question was submitted by Christopher Lipthorpe:

 

“Will the council ban all contracts with Palantir?

 

I am concerned about Palantir's technology being used for social credit scoring and crime prediction in Teesside. This is a dystopian system which can lead to self-censorship and a loss of individual autonomy.

 

Palantir is also developing AI-powered weapons systems for use in Israel's conflict with Palestinians in Gaza. This violates international humanitarian law, human rights and our basic privacy and freedoms.”

 

The Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Resources and Transport (Cllr Paul Rowling) responded with:

 

“Thank you, Mr Lipthorpe, for your question.

 

I completely understand why residents raise concerns about the ethics of new technologies and about the behaviour of some of the very large companies operating in that space. Those are legitimate issues, and it is right that people scrutinise them.

 

But it is also important to be clear about the role of a local authority. Councils cannot pick and choose which companies to exclude from procurement based on political views or international matters. We are required to follow national procurement law and to run fair, open and transparent processes that show value for money and comply fully with UK legislation.

 

What we can do, and what this administration is very clear about, is make sure that any technology used by this council meets the highest standards of data protection, transparency and accountability. And where digital or AI systems are involved, they must comply with UK law and sit within proper governance and oversight.

 

And just to remove any doubt: there are no proposals before this council to introduce any kind of social credit scoring in our borough.

 

I am pleased to assure Mr Lipthorpe that our focus will remain exactly where it should be on protecting residents’ rights, using technology responsibly, and ensuring that all decisions are taken openly and comply with the law. That is the standard we have set, and it is the standard we will continue to apply.”

 

Christopher Lipthorpe asked the following supplementary question:

 

“What personal and anonymised data is shared with Palantir or other similar agencies?”

 

The Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Resources and Transport (Cllr Paul Rowling) responded with:

 

“To my knowledge none but I will check and give a comprehensive answer to the questioner and share with all Councillors.”

 

Question 6

 

The following question was submitted by John McDermottroe:

 

“In regard to the MTFP Of the £6.7 million savings required in 2026/27, how much is currently supported by fully costed and approved proposals rather than assumptions within Phase 2 of transformation?”

 

The Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Resources and Transport (Cllr Paul Rowling) responded with:

 

“To close the budget gap, we’re continuing to take a planned and well managed approach to transformation and change through our Powering Our Future framework. Our programme management processes are now well embedded, and we’ve already seen the benefits — including the overachievement of savings delivered in Phase 1 of the Transformation Programme.

 

Phase 2 is now underway. This stage is focused on improving day to day efficiency, carrying out detailed service reviews and looking at opportunities across the whole council. As part of this, we’re also developing our project management approach so it remains fit for purpose and able to support us through the significant financial pressures ahead, while still ensuring we deliver high quality services for our communities.

 

Good progress has already been made. All reviews are now being taken through a clear and robust governance process, and many are now in the design stage. This includes detailed baselining work, identifying the outcomes we want to achieve, and starting to map out how savings and other benefits will be delivered. We’re also exploring invest to save options and new opportunities to generate income.

 

At this stage, part of the £6.7 million savings needed for 2026/27 is supported by fully costed proposals. The remaining amount is based on assumptions linked to the ongoing Phase 2 Transformation work, which is moving through the gateway process. We expect fully developed, costed options to be ready for approval ahead of the next formal update of the MTFP as business cases are completed.”

 

John McDermottroe asked the following supplementary question:

 

“If a significant number of proposals are at design stage, what contingency measures have been identified to avoid using reserves?”

 

The Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Resources and Transport (Cllr Paul Rowling) responded with:

 

“We decided last month that reserves are too low and agreed a process to replenish these. There is nothing to indicate that we won’t meet our targets and do not envisage using reserves.”

 

Question 7

 

The following question was submitted by John McDermottoe:

 

“Children’s Social Care is projected to require an additional £5 million next year, rising to £13 million by 2028/29. What structural changes are being implemented to reduce reliance on high-cost external placements?”

 

The Cabinet Member for Children and Young People (Cllr Clare Besford) responded with:

 

“Like many Authorities across the country, Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council is experiencing sustained pressure on the Children’s Services budget, particularly in relation to the cost of external care arrangements. In response, we are implementing a range of structural changes designed to reduce our use of high-cost external care whilst ensuring that children continue to receive safe, stable and consistent support.

 

A central aspect of this work is the expansion of our own in house children's home provision. We are developing new residential children's homes specifically designed to support children with complex social and emotional needs, including those who have experienced significant trauma. These homes will provide a therapeutic environment with skilled staff and specialist multi-disciplinary support so that more children can receive the care they need locally rather than in high cost, external and sometimes out of area settings.

 

We are strengthening our fostering service. We have redesigned our fostering offer as we seek to recruit, train and retain more foster carers, including carers with the skills and confidence to support children with more complex needs. Increasing the number of local fostering families helps to ensure that children can remain in family-based care arrangements wherever possible, reducing the need to use external provision.

 

We also work closely with ethical and high-quality providers as part of our sufficiency and commissioning strategy. Our focus is on shaping the local care market so that the homes available reflect the needs of our children. We seek to work with partners who share our values and who are committed to delivering stable, child-centred care, whilst offering better value for the Council.

 

Regionally, we are contributing to the development of Regional Care Cooperatives (RCCs). RCCs seek to support councils to work together to plan, commission and develop residential and fostering provision. By working at scale, we expect to have greater influence over the market, improve sufficiency and reduce the cost pressures associated with spot purchasing external care arrangements.

 

We are also strengthening our borough level sufficiency planning, using better forecasting and data to ensure we have the right mix of homes and care arrangements to meet current and future need. This includes a stronger focus on kinship care, helping more children to remain safely within their wider family network where appropriate.

 

Alongside this, we are committed to providing earlier help and edge of care support for families. By providing targeted interventions, intensive family support and specialist services at an earlier stage, we aim to reduce the number of children who need to come into care in the first place. This improves outcomes for families and reduces long term demand for high-cost care arrangements.

 

Finally, we are continuing to stabilise our workforce. Reducing reliance on agency staff supports more consistent planning for children, reduces the risk of care arrangements breaking down and helps us to make timely, well-informed decisions about the most appropriate support for each child.

 

Together, these measures form a long-term strategy to reduce our use of high-cost external care arrangements, strengthen local capacity and ensure that children receive the right support at the right time.”

 

John McDermottroe asked the following supplementary question:

 

“How many placements are external and what is the cost? What is the target to reduce these over the next two years?”

 

The Cabinet Member for Children and Young People (Cllr Clare Besford) responded with:

 

“We cannot share the number of placements publicly but will provide average costs as a written response.”

 

Question 8

 

A public question had been submitted by Geoffrey Mawson. However, the questioner was not present at the meeting therefore it was advised that a written reply would be sent to him.

 

Question 9

 

The following question was submitted by Jess Hobson:

 

“Thirteen, the non-profit social housing provider, have increased rents by 1% over inflation year-on-year for 5 years whilst increasing capital reserves to over £800 million. At the same time, social housing tenants face high levels of poverty and deprivation across Teesside which will be further embedded by increased rent. Given this, will the council write to Thirteen and urge them to implement a rent freeze?”

 

The Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Housing (Cllr Richard Eglington) responded with:

 

“In making its annual rent determination, Thirteen has taken a number of factors into account. In summary, these include:

 

·         The need to invest in improving existing homes, ensuring they are energy-efficient and meet required standards.

·         The importance of providing appropriate, high-quality housing and tenancy services that meet their tenants’ needs.

·         Working with tenants to build stronger communities.

 

Thirteen has advised its tenants how it plans to spend money in 2026/27. They anticipate spending £320 million, which includes:

 

·         Modernising homes: £68.4m

·         Supporting people and communities: £9m

·         Repairs and maintenance: £64.3m

·         Service charges (the costs of running and maintaining shared buildings and spaces): £17.9m

·         Building new homes: £78.6m (funded by grants and loans)

·         Managing homes: £33.7m

·         Interest payments: £21.9m

 

It is also important to acknowledge that the rules for setting rents are determined by the Regulator of Social Housing. These rules ensure rents are fair and affordable. The regulator allows housing associations such as Thirteen to increase rents by:

 

·         The Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation rate from the previous September

·         Plus 1%

 

In September, CPI was 3.8%, resulting in a total permitted increase of 4.8% from April 2026.

 

While the Council recognises the pressures on household incomes, we also acknowledge the rising costs that Thirteen faces—for example, increased prices for building materials and essential services required to keep homes safe and in good condition. Taking all of these factors into consideration, the Council does not feel it is appropriate on this occasion to write to Thirteen to ask them not to implement a rent increase.”

 

Jess Hobson asked the following supplementary question:

 

“Do you advocate increasing funding from Central Government?”

 

The Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Housing (Cllr Richard Eglington) responded with:

 

“Organisations have to resolve their funding issues themselves. However, we do work with all social housing providers to keep rent down as much as possible.”